Rees-Mogg Has A Cunning Plan

[SunnyInHades]

Summary
Just keep voting down any 'soft' proposed deal .. UK then legally must leave with no deal on March 29 2019

Detail
Rees-Mogg:
"The law setting out our departure from the EU is in place.
So the Article 50 Act was passed before the General Election and the Withdrawal Act came into force about two weeks ago.
That means that with nothing else happening we would leave the EU on March 29 next year without a deal.
Any deal that a Prime Minister gets has to be voted through Parliament and voted into law.
If it is this bad deal from Chequers that keeps us in effectively the EU rulebook which is subject to the
European court of justice would remain, effectively, the Supreme Court in goods and agri-goods.
That will not get through Parliament, people like me would vote it down.”

Will voting numbers hold up ?

Rees-Mogg:
"That depends what the opposition does. If the Labour Party decides to support the
Government and have a German-style grand coalition then the Government could get it through.
For a Government to get its business through on the back of opposition votes would be
really unstable territory because the opposition may vote for you one day but
it won’t vote for you the next.”

"If the Government plans to get the Chequers deal through on the back of Labour Party votes, that would be the most divisive
thing you could do. And it would be a split coming from the top, not from the members
of the Conservative Party across the country."

[Old Greg]

Summary
Just keep voting down any 'soft' proposed deal .. UK then legally must leave with no deal on March 29 2019

Detail
Rees-Mogg:
"The law setting out our departure from the EU is in place.
So the Article 50 Act was passed before the General Election and the Withdrawal Act came into force about two weeks ago.
That means that with nothing else happening we would leave the EU on March 29 next year without a deal.
Any deal that a Prime Minister gets has to be voted through Parliament and voted into law.
If it is this bad deal from Chequers that keeps us in effectively the EU rulebook which is subject to the
European court of justice would remain, effectively, the Supreme Court in goods and agri-goods.
That will not get through Parliament, people like me would vote it down.”

Will voting numbers hold up ?

Rees-Mogg:
"That depends what the opposition does. If the Labour Party decides to support the
Government and have a German-style grand coalition then the Government could get it through.
For a Government to get its business through on the back of opposition votes would be
really unstable territory because the opposition may vote for you one day but
it won’t vote for you the next.”

"If the Government plans to get the Chequers deal through on the back of Labour Party votes, that would be the most divisive
thing you could do. And it would be a split coming from the top, not from the members
of the Conservative Party across the country."

Parliament can repeal any law it chooses to, so 29 March is not set in stone.

[scooterscot]

Summary
"If the Government plans to get the Chequers deal through on the back of Labour Party votes, that would be the most divisive
thing you could do. And it would be a split coming from the top, not from the members
of the Conservative Party across the country."

So it's party first, country 2nd. Tosser.

[BlasterBates]

Jacob Rees-Mogg's little group, and it is little, doesn't have enough votes to vote down any deal. May has basically snookered the Brexiteers and Michael Gove has jumped ship.

[scooterscot]

The UK negotiation position from day one was, to have all the same rights of trade as EU member states, not to have to obey any of the rules, not to be subject to customs checks, not to be subject to EU standards on products or services they exported to EU members, to be able to impose passport checks and visas on anyone coming into the UK while not being subject to any on UK passport holders going into the EU, to be able to expel any and all EU residents in the UK while UK citizens were still free to live and work in the EU. Also of course pay no contribution to the EU budget.

Further to this the UK did not see why EU agencies sited in London should move to new sites actually within the EU before or even after the UK had left the EU. The UK government also thought it should continue to get the EU scientific research funding and manufacturing contracts for EU engineering products.

The only word that describes the UK demands is , Delusional.

[meridian]

Parliament can repeal any law it chooses to, so 29 March is not set in stone.

I don’t think this is quite correct.

A50 was triggered through the sending of the notification to the EU. Although 29 March is not set in stone, AFAIK it would require the government to request either a revocation or a stay. Both options would require the unanimous agreement of the EU27. There’s nothing there for parliament to repeal.

Parliament can direct the government to request this, but the government isn’t required to follow parliament (though it would trigger a constitutional crisis if it didn’t).

Noises from the EU27 are that they would probably accept a revocation, but wouldn’t accept a request to move the date if it was just because the U.K. didn’t have it’s act together; if it was to finalise and approve an agreement then it might be able to be moved.

At least, that’s how I understand it anyway. Parliament rejecting any deal in a “meaningful vote” means that we are still leaving, just without any deal.