Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?Could the EU rewrite Article 50...
Minkowski space
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
To string or not to string
Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?
Is this a crack on the carbon frame?
tikz: show 0 at the axis origin
How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?
Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
In Japanese, what’s the difference between “Tonari ni” (となりに) and “Tsugi” (つぎ)? When would you use one over the other?
How to find program name(s) of an installed package?
Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing
Fencing style for blades that can attack from a distance
"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?
Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?
What do you call a Matrix-like slowdown and camera movement effect?
How to write a macro that is braces sensitive?
How could an uplifted falcon's brain work?
Arthur Somervell: 1000 Exercises - Meaning of this notation
TGV timetables / schedules?
How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?
Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?
Could the EU rewrite Article 50 in an attempt to make it more difficult for the UK to Brexit?Have any prominent Brexiteers argued for the UK to become a duty-free country (like Singapore)?What would be the subject of a second Brexit Referendum?What's the point in holding a second Brexit referendum?What are the main reasons for why negotiating a proper Brexit deal has been so hard?No-deal Brexit: What would be the basis for a WTO complaint if goods entering Ireland are checked at Dunkirk?Why would the UK government be reluctant to rule out a no-deal Brexit?What reason(s) have UK politicians given for not wanting another referendum on whether the UK should exit the EU or not?EU directives during the transition period in May's Brexit dealIf the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?
I have been following Brexit on the BBC website, for example, this article. They have consistently said it's unlikely that Brexit will be cancelled (at times I think they said "very unlikely"), but given the failure to get the required legislation passed, isn't it the logical outcome, unless there is significant political movement?
Personally, I see little chance of the House of Commons agreeing to an exit deal or to a no-deal exit.
So why does the BBC say it is unlikely? What arguments, if any, have they provided for saying that? Since the first vote on the PM's deal was defeated, I have seen it as the most likely outcome, while admitting I could turn out to be wrong.
Edit:
On checking the latest BBC guide to Brexit ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399 ), it no longer says revoking article 50 is unlikely. Instead it now says:
"The European Court of Justice has ruled that it would be legal for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50 to cancel Brexit (without the need for agreement from the other 27 EU countries).
With the government still committed to Brexit, it's very likely that a major event such as a further referendum or change of government would have to happen before such a move.
However, any further delay to Brexit would certainly lead to questions about whether the ultimate destination was going to be a reversal of the 2016 referendum.
It's not totally clear what the process would be. But an act of Parliament calling for Article 50 to be revoked would probably be sufficient."
So there seems to have been a change of tune there.
united-kingdom brexit
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I have been following Brexit on the BBC website, for example, this article. They have consistently said it's unlikely that Brexit will be cancelled (at times I think they said "very unlikely"), but given the failure to get the required legislation passed, isn't it the logical outcome, unless there is significant political movement?
Personally, I see little chance of the House of Commons agreeing to an exit deal or to a no-deal exit.
So why does the BBC say it is unlikely? What arguments, if any, have they provided for saying that? Since the first vote on the PM's deal was defeated, I have seen it as the most likely outcome, while admitting I could turn out to be wrong.
Edit:
On checking the latest BBC guide to Brexit ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399 ), it no longer says revoking article 50 is unlikely. Instead it now says:
"The European Court of Justice has ruled that it would be legal for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50 to cancel Brexit (without the need for agreement from the other 27 EU countries).
With the government still committed to Brexit, it's very likely that a major event such as a further referendum or change of government would have to happen before such a move.
However, any further delay to Brexit would certainly lead to questions about whether the ultimate destination was going to be a reversal of the 2016 referendum.
It's not totally clear what the process would be. But an act of Parliament calling for Article 50 to be revoked would probably be sufficient."
So there seems to have been a change of tune there.
united-kingdom brexit
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
You don't seem to understand: Brexit is the legal default. A cancellation requires either a decision of HMG or parliament: Both are unlikely.
– Martin Schröder
3 hours ago
@MartinSchröder The BBC site states: "The European Court of Justice has said the UK could cancel Brexit altogether without the agreement of other nations." So there is no legal obstacle, as I understand it. I do expect further prevarication, but ultimately cancellation seems the logical and likely outcome to me.
– George Barwood
3 hours ago
1
@GeorgeBarwood "The UK" can cancel the deal, sure. But who is "the UK"? its either the government or the parliament who can represent "the UK" in this matter. Thus we are back to square one, "the UK" needs to change its own laws, specifically the Withdrawal Act, which currently states the UK withdraws. Unless there is a majority found for any other solution, that law stays.
– Polygnome
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I have been following Brexit on the BBC website, for example, this article. They have consistently said it's unlikely that Brexit will be cancelled (at times I think they said "very unlikely"), but given the failure to get the required legislation passed, isn't it the logical outcome, unless there is significant political movement?
Personally, I see little chance of the House of Commons agreeing to an exit deal or to a no-deal exit.
So why does the BBC say it is unlikely? What arguments, if any, have they provided for saying that? Since the first vote on the PM's deal was defeated, I have seen it as the most likely outcome, while admitting I could turn out to be wrong.
Edit:
On checking the latest BBC guide to Brexit ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399 ), it no longer says revoking article 50 is unlikely. Instead it now says:
"The European Court of Justice has ruled that it would be legal for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50 to cancel Brexit (without the need for agreement from the other 27 EU countries).
With the government still committed to Brexit, it's very likely that a major event such as a further referendum or change of government would have to happen before such a move.
However, any further delay to Brexit would certainly lead to questions about whether the ultimate destination was going to be a reversal of the 2016 referendum.
It's not totally clear what the process would be. But an act of Parliament calling for Article 50 to be revoked would probably be sufficient."
So there seems to have been a change of tune there.
united-kingdom brexit
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have been following Brexit on the BBC website, for example, this article. They have consistently said it's unlikely that Brexit will be cancelled (at times I think they said "very unlikely"), but given the failure to get the required legislation passed, isn't it the logical outcome, unless there is significant political movement?
Personally, I see little chance of the House of Commons agreeing to an exit deal or to a no-deal exit.
So why does the BBC say it is unlikely? What arguments, if any, have they provided for saying that? Since the first vote on the PM's deal was defeated, I have seen it as the most likely outcome, while admitting I could turn out to be wrong.
Edit:
On checking the latest BBC guide to Brexit ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399 ), it no longer says revoking article 50 is unlikely. Instead it now says:
"The European Court of Justice has ruled that it would be legal for the UK to unilaterally revoke Article 50 to cancel Brexit (without the need for agreement from the other 27 EU countries).
With the government still committed to Brexit, it's very likely that a major event such as a further referendum or change of government would have to happen before such a move.
However, any further delay to Brexit would certainly lead to questions about whether the ultimate destination was going to be a reversal of the 2016 referendum.
It's not totally clear what the process would be. But an act of Parliament calling for Article 50 to be revoked would probably be sufficient."
So there seems to have been a change of tune there.
united-kingdom brexit
united-kingdom brexit
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 47 mins ago
George Barwood
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
asked 3 hours ago
George BarwoodGeorge Barwood
1064
1064
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
George Barwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
You don't seem to understand: Brexit is the legal default. A cancellation requires either a decision of HMG or parliament: Both are unlikely.
– Martin Schröder
3 hours ago
@MartinSchröder The BBC site states: "The European Court of Justice has said the UK could cancel Brexit altogether without the agreement of other nations." So there is no legal obstacle, as I understand it. I do expect further prevarication, but ultimately cancellation seems the logical and likely outcome to me.
– George Barwood
3 hours ago
1
@GeorgeBarwood "The UK" can cancel the deal, sure. But who is "the UK"? its either the government or the parliament who can represent "the UK" in this matter. Thus we are back to square one, "the UK" needs to change its own laws, specifically the Withdrawal Act, which currently states the UK withdraws. Unless there is a majority found for any other solution, that law stays.
– Polygnome
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4
You don't seem to understand: Brexit is the legal default. A cancellation requires either a decision of HMG or parliament: Both are unlikely.
– Martin Schröder
3 hours ago
@MartinSchröder The BBC site states: "The European Court of Justice has said the UK could cancel Brexit altogether without the agreement of other nations." So there is no legal obstacle, as I understand it. I do expect further prevarication, but ultimately cancellation seems the logical and likely outcome to me.
– George Barwood
3 hours ago
1
@GeorgeBarwood "The UK" can cancel the deal, sure. But who is "the UK"? its either the government or the parliament who can represent "the UK" in this matter. Thus we are back to square one, "the UK" needs to change its own laws, specifically the Withdrawal Act, which currently states the UK withdraws. Unless there is a majority found for any other solution, that law stays.
– Polygnome
2 hours ago
4
4
You don't seem to understand: Brexit is the legal default. A cancellation requires either a decision of HMG or parliament: Both are unlikely.
– Martin Schröder
3 hours ago
You don't seem to understand: Brexit is the legal default. A cancellation requires either a decision of HMG or parliament: Both are unlikely.
– Martin Schröder
3 hours ago
@MartinSchröder The BBC site states: "The European Court of Justice has said the UK could cancel Brexit altogether without the agreement of other nations." So there is no legal obstacle, as I understand it. I do expect further prevarication, but ultimately cancellation seems the logical and likely outcome to me.
– George Barwood
3 hours ago
@MartinSchröder The BBC site states: "The European Court of Justice has said the UK could cancel Brexit altogether without the agreement of other nations." So there is no legal obstacle, as I understand it. I do expect further prevarication, but ultimately cancellation seems the logical and likely outcome to me.
– George Barwood
3 hours ago
1
1
@GeorgeBarwood "The UK" can cancel the deal, sure. But who is "the UK"? its either the government or the parliament who can represent "the UK" in this matter. Thus we are back to square one, "the UK" needs to change its own laws, specifically the Withdrawal Act, which currently states the UK withdraws. Unless there is a majority found for any other solution, that law stays.
– Polygnome
2 hours ago
@GeorgeBarwood "The UK" can cancel the deal, sure. But who is "the UK"? its either the government or the parliament who can represent "the UK" in this matter. Thus we are back to square one, "the UK" needs to change its own laws, specifically the Withdrawal Act, which currently states the UK withdraws. Unless there is a majority found for any other solution, that law stays.
– Polygnome
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Absent action from the House of Commons, the UK will leave the EU at 23:00 BST on 12 April, regardless of whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified. That, as per both Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and the EU Withdrawal Act (2018), are the legal default positions as of this writing.
The House has voted on numerous occasions that it doesn't want a "No-Deal Brexit", but it hasn't voted on anything that would stop that from being the default legal position. They would need to, for example, pass a bill to authorize a second referendum, or to repeal the EU Withdrawal Act (2018). It does not seem that there is a majority in the House to do either of these things.
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
2
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
George Barwood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40310%2fhas-the-bbc-provided-arguments-for-saying-brexit-being-cancelled-is-unlikely%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Absent action from the House of Commons, the UK will leave the EU at 23:00 BST on 12 April, regardless of whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified. That, as per both Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and the EU Withdrawal Act (2018), are the legal default positions as of this writing.
The House has voted on numerous occasions that it doesn't want a "No-Deal Brexit", but it hasn't voted on anything that would stop that from being the default legal position. They would need to, for example, pass a bill to authorize a second referendum, or to repeal the EU Withdrawal Act (2018). It does not seem that there is a majority in the House to do either of these things.
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
2
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Absent action from the House of Commons, the UK will leave the EU at 23:00 BST on 12 April, regardless of whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified. That, as per both Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and the EU Withdrawal Act (2018), are the legal default positions as of this writing.
The House has voted on numerous occasions that it doesn't want a "No-Deal Brexit", but it hasn't voted on anything that would stop that from being the default legal position. They would need to, for example, pass a bill to authorize a second referendum, or to repeal the EU Withdrawal Act (2018). It does not seem that there is a majority in the House to do either of these things.
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
2
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Absent action from the House of Commons, the UK will leave the EU at 23:00 BST on 12 April, regardless of whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified. That, as per both Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and the EU Withdrawal Act (2018), are the legal default positions as of this writing.
The House has voted on numerous occasions that it doesn't want a "No-Deal Brexit", but it hasn't voted on anything that would stop that from being the default legal position. They would need to, for example, pass a bill to authorize a second referendum, or to repeal the EU Withdrawal Act (2018). It does not seem that there is a majority in the House to do either of these things.
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
Absent action from the House of Commons, the UK will leave the EU at 23:00 BST on 12 April, regardless of whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement has been ratified. That, as per both Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and the EU Withdrawal Act (2018), are the legal default positions as of this writing.
The House has voted on numerous occasions that it doesn't want a "No-Deal Brexit", but it hasn't voted on anything that would stop that from being the default legal position. They would need to, for example, pass a bill to authorize a second referendum, or to repeal the EU Withdrawal Act (2018). It does not seem that there is a majority in the House to do either of these things.
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
answered 2 hours ago
Joe CJoe C
2,786426
2,786426
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
2
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
add a comment |
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
2
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
My understanding is the PM has the power to revoke article 50, as leaving with no deal is not government policy ( nor does it have parliamentary support ) that would happen if a delay was not granted by the EU, but in the short term it seems much more likely there will be further delays.
– George Barwood
1 hour ago
2
2
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
I don't believe that to be the case. The EU Withdrawal Act would, at minimum, need to be repealed (I'm not certain whether an Article 50 revocation can happen beforehand, but I doubt it). Further, as Parliament was required to give consent to the triggering of Article 50 in the first place (see the Gina Miller case), it can be assumed that the same consent must be given for a revocation.
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
(Caveat: I am not an expert in constitutional law, and am happy to be corrected by anyone who is.)
– Joe C
1 hour ago
add a comment |
George Barwood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
George Barwood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
George Barwood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
George Barwood is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40310%2fhas-the-bbc-provided-arguments-for-saying-brexit-being-cancelled-is-unlikely%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
You don't seem to understand: Brexit is the legal default. A cancellation requires either a decision of HMG or parliament: Both are unlikely.
– Martin Schröder
3 hours ago
@MartinSchröder The BBC site states: "The European Court of Justice has said the UK could cancel Brexit altogether without the agreement of other nations." So there is no legal obstacle, as I understand it. I do expect further prevarication, but ultimately cancellation seems the logical and likely outcome to me.
– George Barwood
3 hours ago
1
@GeorgeBarwood "The UK" can cancel the deal, sure. But who is "the UK"? its either the government or the parliament who can represent "the UK" in this matter. Thus we are back to square one, "the UK" needs to change its own laws, specifically the Withdrawal Act, which currently states the UK withdraws. Unless there is a majority found for any other solution, that law stays.
– Polygnome
2 hours ago