Vote to ratify Brexit deal 'very likely', says Downing Street

[webfact]

Commons vote to ratify Brexit deal likely, says No 10

 

LONDON: -- Downing Street has said it is "very likely" MPs will be able to vote on the final Brexit agreement reached between the UK and the European Union.

 

Number 10 confirmed the comment by a government lawyer in the High Court represented the "government's view".

 

The vote would take place after negotiations have taken place and with Brexit already triggered using Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Campaigners have been calling for a vote before Article 50 is triggered.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37691270

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2016-10-19

[Laughing Gravy]

The man who is leading Brexit for the UK says it is not. More wishful thinking (brainwashing) from the biased BBC.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/722615/Boris-Johnson-dimisses-demands-Parliament-veto-Brexit-conditions

Edited October 19, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The man who is leading Brexit for the UK says it is not. More wishful thinking (brainwashing) from the biased BBC.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/722615/Boris-Johnson-dimisses-demands-Parliament-veto-Brexit-conditions

It was included in the government defense at the High Court yesterday that parliament would have to ratify the agreement, when asked what happens if parliament did not ratify , the response government was of opinion this unlikely.

 

Personally,  if parliament declined to ratify then I would think government would have little choice but to use the exceptional circumstance clause to enforce the agreement.

[dunroaming]

6 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The man who is leading Brexit for the UK says it is not. More wishful thinking (brainwashing) from the biased BBC.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/722615/Boris-Johnson-dimisses-demands-Parliament-veto-Brexit-conditions

 

How can reporting a statement be seen as brainwashing?

 

This is from the Independent:

 

Downing Street agreed it is “very likely” that MPs and peers will be given a vote once the withdrawal negotiations are finished, after the issue arose in the High Court.

The statement – after the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to give ground on demands for Parliament to have a say on Brexit – immediately triggered furious debate about the possible consequences.

 

You might not agree with the sentiment but this has come from Downing Street directly.

Edited October 19, 2016 by dunroaming

[Enoon]

7 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The man who is leading Brexit for the UK says it is not. More wishful thinking (brainwashing) from the biased BBC.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/722615/Boris-Johnson-dimisses-demands-Parliament-veto-Brexit-conditions

 

You're not British are you.

 

You can't be.

 

If you were you would not dream of making such a complete fool of yourself by admitting to believing that the words of the most untrustworthy man in British politics, as quoted in the most untrustworthy newspaper in Great Britain, have the slightest vestige of truth in them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Enoon]

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

It was included in the government defense at the High Court yesterday that parliament would have to ratify the agreement, when asked what happens if parliament did not ratify , the response government was of opinion this unlikely.

 

Personally,  if parliament declined to ratify then I would think government would have little choice but to use the exceptional circumstance clause to enforce the agreement.

 

But that is a long way off (and all bluster).

 

There is the Supreme Court ahead and, of course, the European Court after that.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Enoon

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

But that is a long way off (and all bluster).

 

There is the Supreme Court and, of course, the European Court after that.

Doesn't the European Court's remit expire 2 years after article 50 is invoked?

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Doesn't the European Court's remit expire 2 years after article 50 is invoked?

 

I believe that could be true but we really are in uncharted waters as no country has been here before.  No doubt we will be re-writing the rule book as we go along.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

 

But that is a long way off (and all bluster).

 

There is the Supreme Court ahead and, of course, the European Court after that.

The Supreme Court is the final ruling,  The Supreme Court is compelled to request a preliminary ruling from ECJ if the case is EU related 

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court-and-europe.html

 

 

 

[Xircal]

I don't see the point of it personally. If Article 50 has already been triggered then it hardly matters whether the Commons ratifies it or not. If it isn't ratified then it just means that Britain will exit the EU without an agreement in place. In that respect, a bad agreement would be better than no agreement at all I would have thought.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Xircal

[ilostmypassword]

41 minutes ago, Xircal said:

I don't see the point of it personally. If Article 50 has already been triggered then it hardly matters whether the Commons ratifies it or not. If it isn't ratified then it just means that Britain will exit the EU without an agreement in place. In that respect, a bad agreement would be better than no agreement at all I would have thought.

 

 

That's what I think now, too. And this article supports that belief.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mps-brexit-vote-article-50-too-late-2016-10

Edited October 19, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

That's what I think now, too. And this article supports that belief.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mps-brexit-vote-article-50-too-late-2016-10

 

If they want to argue that the proposed agreement be ratified before triggering Article 50 then that's understandable, but there's no point in even discussing it after that event takes place.

[dunroaming]

3 hours ago, Xircal said:

I don't see the point of it personally. If Article 50 has already been triggered then it hardly matters whether the Commons ratifies it or not. If it isn't ratified then it just means that Britain will exit the EU without an agreement in place. In that respect, a bad agreement would be better than no agreement at all I would have thought.

 

 

 

Article 50 hasn't been triggered and won't be until next year.  No trade deals or any other deals can be agreed until after the UK have left the EU according to the rules.  It still looks as if the brexit team haven't got a plan for the exit at all

[Xircal]

10 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

Article 50 hasn't been triggered and won't be until next year.  No trade deals or any other deals can be agreed until after the UK have left the EU according to the rules.  It still looks as if the brexit team haven't got a plan for the exit at all

 

I said if Article 50 has been triggered already, not that it has been.

 

But I think the Leave campaign was just a protest vote and were as shocked as anyone that it had actually been approved by a voting majority. That being the case it's not surprising they didn't have a strategy in place to sever ties with the EU. Now they're faced with having to create one which will seek to get the best deal possible without giving too much away. I don't envy the negotiating team in that role and I'll be surprised if they achieve anything even remotely near what they want.

[Anthony5]

27 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

Article 50 hasn't been triggered and won't be until next year.  No trade deals or any other deals can be agreed until after the UK have left the EU according to the rules.  It still looks as if the brexit team haven't got a plan for the exit at all

 

 

There is no plan and there will be no plan, that became clear when May went to talk with Richard Branson, who is a devoted remainer.

[dunroaming]

4 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I said if Article 50 has been triggered already, not that it has been.

 

But I think the Leave campaign was just a protest vote and were as shocked as anyone that it had actually been approved by a voting majority. That being the case it's not surprising they didn't have a strategy in place to sever ties with the EU. Now they're faced with having to create one which will seek to get the best deal possible without giving too much away. I don't envy the negotiating team in that role and I'll be surprised if they achieve anything even remotely near what they want.

 

Agreed!  And that is why I think May gave the brexit job to who she did.  Very much a case you got us into this mess so....

[dunroaming]

Doesn't matter how you dress it up Brexit is going to be very difficult and immensely costly to all of us.

[Laughing Gravy]

15 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

You're not British are you.

 

You can't be.

 

If you were you would not dream of making such a complete fool of yourself by admitting to believing that the words of the most untrustworthy man in British politics, as quoted in the most untrustworthy newspaper in Great Britain, have the slightest vestige of truth in them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I am British and very proud. the most untrustworthy paper is the Sun. Ask any scouser and he will tell you that. It is actually in other papers but you have to subscribe. Fool am I. Grow up.

[Laughing Gravy]

17 hours ago, dunroaming said:

 

How can reporting a statement be seen as brainwashing?

 

This is from the Independent:

 

Downing Street agreed it is “very likely” that MPs and peers will be given a vote once the withdrawal negotiations are finished, after the issue arose in the High Court.

The statement – after the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to give ground on demands for Parliament to have a say on Brexit – immediately triggered furious debate about the possible consequences.

 

You might not agree with the sentiment but this has come from Downing Street directly.

Very Likely is not definite yet. very likely was the term many, many here used that the remain campaign would win in the referendum. Either way those who still can't accept the will of the people are going on and on and on. The mess, the horror the destruction. Life goes on and will continue to so. If the MP's do have a vote on what happens then so be it. What is clear is brexit is happening, so to those who are constantly 'harping on' about the democratic decision of the people should shut up and deal with it.

[Laughing Gravy]

9 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I said if Article 50 has been triggered already, not that it has been.

 

But I think the Leave campaign was just a protest vote and were as shocked as anyone that it had actually been approved by a voting majority. That being the case it's not surprising they didn't have a strategy in place to sever ties with the EU. Now they're faced with having to create one which will seek to get the best deal possible without giving too much away. I don't envy the negotiating team in that role and I'll be surprised if they achieve anything even remotely near what they want.

A protest vote, you are having a laugh are you not. Protesting what? That is the funniest thing I have read in ages.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Laughing Gravy]

For those who are saying that brexit was a protest vote (still laughing at that one) or people would change their views given another chance, well guess what. More people now support the government than before the referendum suggesting more people are for Brexit.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-poll-lead-widens-as-labour-and-ukip-support-slumps-0bffsg8v8

 

Just for those who can't bring themselves to read the Daily Express.

[Laughing Gravy]

This explains the statistics/demographics of the referendum vote. Interesting which ever side of the fence you are on.

 

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Edited October 20, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Baerboxer]

On 10/19/2016 at 10:42 PM, dunroaming said:

 

Article 50 hasn't been triggered and won't be until next year.  No trade deals or any other deals can be agreed until after the UK have left the EU according to the rules.  It still looks as if the brexit team haven't got a plan for the exit at all

 

I don't doubt you're right in that assumption. No strategy, tactics or plan.

 

All this is about May trying to avoid a parliamentary debate  and a vote which may be the opposite of Brexit and in turn bring down the government, split the Tories with deep rifts and cause a chaotic general election. 

[Baerboxer]

15 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

For those who are saying that brexit was a protest vote (still laughing at that one) or people would change their views given another chance, well guess what. More people now support the government than before the referendum suggesting more people are for Brexit.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-poll-lead-widens-as-labour-and-ukip-support-slumps-0bffsg8v8

 

Just for those who can't bring themselves to read the Daily Express.

 

Notice the results for the voters with higher education?

 

Not so easily led and lied to.

 

The Express wasn't even good for wrapping fish and chips 555 !

[Laughing Gravy]

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Notice the results for the voters with higher education?

 

Not so easily led and lied to.

 

The Express wasn't even good for wrapping fish and chips 555 !

BB like most if not all UK papers they lead towards one side of the political spectrum. I put the times version on although you have to be  paid member to see all of the articles. The express whilst obviously favours the Brexit argument and supported the leave campaign it also reports articles like the Times, although it is free online. Reading a certain paper does not equate to intelligence and with the price of fish and chips, especially as we have to buy our own fish back, wrapping them in the express would be a wise move.

[Loeilad]

If a anyone is in any doubt about how binding or rather "not" binding the referendum is, maybe they should read this......

 

 

[William C F Pierce]

The reasons behind all this is not understood by all those who do not live in the UK. A lot of white English  people voted on the basis of stopping black and Asian migrants, whilst blacks and Asians voted to stop East Europeans moving to the UK. Unfortunately the economic argument was a secondary issue. The politicians that claimed Europe interfered with the UK too much, did not recognised the lies that were continuously spread over time the foreign owned newspapers in the UK. Particularly the kangaroo hopping American owner of the Sun newspaper. Most European laws were about maintaining a unified food standard and standards of common interest on electrical goods etc. Yet lies were continuously peddled just to sell newspapers. Apart from the Daily Express which is still trying to live in the days of the British Empire. If a vote was held in the UK on this again a lot of people honestly recognise they now voted wrongly about it. Any UK pensioner living in Thailand will see a continuous drop in their income because of this. As far article 50 goes it should be remembered that Parliament sanctioned the first referendum in 1975 and it remains to be seen whether Theresa May has the right to legally over-rule Parliament. After all she is the biggest capitulator since Chamberlin in 1939 giving in to the Brexit Tory MPs and giving up the UKs 6 months chair of Europe.

[billd766]

On 19/10/2016 at 11:11 PM, Anthony5 said:

 

 

There is no plan and there will be no plan, that became clear when May went to talk with Richard Branson, who is a devoted remainer.

 

Can I take it that you are a member of the UK Cabinet or have unprecedented access to insider information.

[dick dasterdly]

I'm confused as I thought that the court verdict meant that MPs had to vote on whether or not to invoke Article 50?

 

This article says that MPs will vote on the final agreement, thereby implying that a parliamentary vote on invoking Article 50 is not required?