The Queen legally can intervene, but won’t. There is a Convention of non-involvement on the part of the sovereign which is (theoretically) what keeps Britain a parliamentary democracy and not an absolute monarchy.
There is, at the outside, an unthinkably minuscule chance that she might directly step in at the last second to thwart a no-deal crash Brexit, but even that is unimaginably unlikely. It would be historically unprecedented and would pose a serious threat to the continued existence of the Crown in its current form.
The slowest train-wreck in history is now even slower. (Please can we stay in the EU, you xenophobic incompetents?) 
Why can’t we just tell the Brexit parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to fuck off, while we stay in the EU with Scotland?
But what could she actually do? An Act of Parliament says we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 (or on a later day agreed by the UK and all other EU governments). She can’t repeal or amend that on her own.
Exactly. Brenda can’t intervene, so here is what’s going to happen.
Mrs May’s deal will come back for its third vote on Monday. If it passes, then May will go to the EU summit on Tuesday and propose a short extension to allow the legal stuff to be done. This will certainly be granted, even with slightly gritted teeth, because there isn’t time left to get it all done otherwise. Europe wants an organised exit, not a crash out.
The government will then bring in a bill to rescind the act which takes the UK out on the 29th March, and follw up with the necessary legislation to complete the exit to the transition period.
If May’s deal fails on Monday she will go to the EU summit on Tuesday and propose a long extension, probably until the end of 2020. There will be a lot of aggro about stuff like the EU Parliament elections, but there are several legal avenues which could resolve all of that sort of thing, and the job will get done, because it is still better than a chaotic exit on 29th March.
May is hoping the threat of this long extension will frighten the Hard Brexiteers into accepting her deal now, as being a better result than the chance of losing Brexit altogether as described below.
Anyway, Mrs May will come back, bring in a bill to rescind the Article 50 act and begin a long extension, and who knows what happens next? Maybe a fourth vote for the May Deal? Maybe a general election?
The fairest choice would be a general election, to hopefully elect a parliament capable of making a decision. The new parliament might hold a second referendum on whatever deal is eventually agreed.
At any rate, the longer the extension, the bigger the chance that the growing Remain majority in the country as a whole will make its presence felt, and this is what May is threatening the Hard Brexiteers with now.
I don’t think the deal is the point any more. They had wanted to tear up human rights, employment rights, pension rights, and have the common person exactly where they wanted them. Now, the biggest lans are to get an extra week to loot, to waste a billion pounds so their consultancy company can make a few million to undo the mess, to make enough to live on for the rest of their lives. Because no-one else is going to employ them.
I don’t see why the EU should grant the UK any extension. May & Co. had had plenty of time, and a bit more isn’t going to do any good. I rather hope they don’t, and we can end this farce.
We could also end the farce by revoking Article 50 next week, holding another referendum at leisure, and returning in the future to a Brexit Path which avoids all the errors made this time.
In other words, we should find out what the people and Parliament actually want from Brexit, and negotiate the withdrawal deal before activating Article 50 and without a spider web of arbitary red lines to trip us up.
Are you quite certain about that? I’ll admit I can’t find a source explicitly stating that the Crown can repeal an Act, but given that it requires Royal Assent to pass one in the first place, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that Assent can be retroactively withdrawn.
It’s boiling my fucking piss that a new referendum would be ‘unfair’, but she can go best out of five with her stupid fucking deal.
Monarchs up to and including James VII & II claimed the power to suspend or disapply laws as they saw fit: the Glorious Revolution put a stop to that.
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:
- That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
- That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
— Bill of Rights, 1689.
[T]he said Estates [of the Kingdom of Scotland] now being assembled, in a full and free representative of this nation, taking to their most serious considerations, the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid do in the first place, as their ancestors in the like cases have usually done for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
- That all proclamations asserting an absolute power to cass, annul, and disable laws … are contrary to law;
— Claim of Right, 1689.
Fair enough then!
*The More You Know*
Send Phil round in a Landrover?
This issue was what Gina Miller’s lawsuit against the government was to deal with. Her claim was that activating Article 50 required an act of parliament because it reverses the effect of the previous act of parliament which took the UK into the EU.
This was upheld by the UK Supreme Court (or enemies of the people, as they are sometimes known.)
Hence the act to activate Article 50. However, the withdrawal date in the act apparently can be changed by a statutory instrument, so it won’t actually need another act to postpone the withdrawal date.
Of course, the withdrawal date is also in EU law, and I don’t know what happens about that.
As I understood it, it wasn’t just that it would effectively reverse an Act of Parliament. The Government’s case was that the original Act implicitly applied only while the UK was a member of the EU, and such membership (and the termination of it), as a matter of foreign diplomacy, fell squarely within the scope of the royal prerogative.
The sticking point was that withdrawing from the EU would deprive British citizens of specific rights and liberties (e.g. the right to vote in European elections), and established precedent says you can’t use the royal prerogative to remove such rights: you need legislation. That was the position the Supreme Court took.
Yes, the clincher is about the citizen rights. The Supreme Court stood up for citizens’ rights against government diktat.
That is why the Enemies of the People headline was so outrageous.
In a surprise move, John Bercow has ruled out another vote on the May Deal until it has substantial non-unilateral changes.
That certainly pushes it back until after the EU summit this week.
Wow! Squeaky bum time indeed…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
