Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?
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 41 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