The Blue Pill.

[BIAD]

Here's something that's only three hours old from posting it on Rogue Nation.
It's written by the BBC and on their website and yet for the last year, they've discussed within their
circles about having a second referendum and leaving the European Union might be doubtful.

But now with 29th March creeping closer -the official date of the UK leaving, the BBC have to get
their act right with the public and hope that they forget about their anti-Brexit narrative.

But it hurts to concede, so if they can word-smith a chance to promote the dying Project Fear
plan, they will.
Remember, any title with a question mark in it is usually bullshit and why set the title in the form
of an opposing point to the result of the referendum?

No-deal Brexit: Can Parliament stop it?

'There's a big problem facing members of Parliament who want to avoid a no-deal Brexit.
They can't just show there is a majority in the House of Commons against no deal -they need to prove
there is a majority in favour of an alternative outcome.

That's because leaving the EU -with or without a deal -is currently the default.

If the agreement the prime minister has negotiated with the EU fails to pass the House of Commons,
the UK will leave with no deal at all unless something changes, because leaving the EU is written into
UK law.

The EU Withdrawal Act sets 29 March as the date of departure.

The wording of the act does allow a minister to change the definition of "exit day" relatively quickly using a
statutory instrument - a piece of secondary legislation -rather than an entirely new act of Parliament that
would need to be debated. A minister would have to propose the change and MPs would have to approve it.

Article 50
But there is a second and more significant reason why no deal would become the default position: that's what
EU law says.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is the formal route for any country leaving the EU and it allows for a two-year process
of negotiation. At the end of that period "the treaties shall cease to apply to the state in question" unless Article 50
is extended or revoked.
The most obvious way therefore to stop a no-deal Brexit, or any form of Brexit, is to revoke Article 50...'

Why would the BBC suggest this last sentence?!!

'...The European Court of Justice has now ruled the UK can do that on its own, without asking the other 27 countries,
and stay a member of the EU on its current terms -including opting-out of key policies, and keeping the budget rebate.

But it seems highly unlikely that the House of Commons would vote to revoke Article 50 unless there had been another
referendum, or maybe an election, in which the public backed the UK remaining in the EU...'

See...? Even after the BBC states the UK is leaving -deal or no deal, they have to position their article as reluctant
discussion on how to ignore the public's choice. 

'...The government rejects the idea of holding another referendum anyway -and the time to do so before the end of
March has run out...'

So this would show the reader that this entire article is pointless in regards of halting the divorce from the EU.
But it hurts them... oh it hurts them.

'Extending Article 50
So, the other way to avoid a no-deal Brexit in the short term is to play for time and extend the Article 50 period.
The government would need to propose that and MPs would have to approve it.
But, crucially, unlike in the case of revoking Article 50, to extend it the UK would also need the agreement of all
27 other EU countries...'

On and on with their wriggling in hope. The BBC looking for unicorn-rainbows that will save their bubble from being
burst.

'...It would probably need to persuade them that something important had changed in UK politics to warrant an extension
-perhaps a looming election, or another referendum, rather than more of the same argument.

One of the constraints for the rest of the EU is that European elections will take place at the end of May and the new
European Parliament (without UK MEPs if Brexit has taken place) is due to meet for the first time in July.

The only other circumstance in which a brief extension to Article 50 would probably be approved by the EU is if there
had been a vote in favour of Theresa May's deal but a little more time was needed to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.
But if Article 50 was extended without a deal passing the House of Commons, no deal would still remain the default
outcome at the end of the extended negotiating period...'

Drat... and double-drat! 

'...So what else can MPs do for now?
In a word, amendments.
An amendment to the Finance Bill, limiting spending on no-deal preparations unless authorised by Parliament, was
backed by MPs by 303 to 296 votes on Tuesday night. This amendment, likely to be the first of many, will make it
"harder for the government to drift into no deal without Parliament being able to direct it", according to Labour MP
Yvette Cooper...'

Yes, a member of Parliament -elected by her constituents, is saying "fuck democracy, we want what we want"
Maybe it'll pay the BBC to list other ways of ignoring the ethical manner of social management.

'...What we're likely to see over the next couple of months is what some are calling "guerrilla warfare by amendment"
in the House of Commons. The trade bill is likely to be another target -it would be needed in the event of no deal, to
try to keep the UK trading on the same terms as it has now with the rest of the world.

The chair of the Brexit Committee, Hillary Benn, has also tabled an amendment to the government's motion on the EU
withdrawal agreement (Theresa May's deal) itself. His amendment rejects no deal altogether.
The idea behind all this parliamentary manoeuvring is to demonstrate that there is a clear majority in the House of
Commons against no deal.

But none of it, taken in isolation, will prevent the Article 50 clock ticking away until it stops at the end of March...

Bastard reality, huh BBC? It keeps creeping in.

'Indicative votes'
That's why a growing number of MPs support the idea of holding a series of "indicative votes" on different potential
outcomes, to try to find an alternative to no deal that would enjoy broad (or even sufficient) support.

Senior MPs argue that the government would be unable to ignore the political pressure if the will of the House of
Commons was clearly expressed on numerous occasions. But political pressure is not the same as legal reality.

Three ministers have said publicly they would resign if the government pursued a no-deal strategy, while others are
thought to hold the same position in private. A handful of backbench MPs have said they would quit the party.

The Work and Pensions Secretary, Amber Rudd, is understood to have told cabinet on Tuesday that history would take
a dim view of the government if it accepted no deal and it would leave the UK a less safe country.
But if the prime minister did decide to press on regardless, it may well be that the only way MPs could stop a no-deal
Brexit at the last moment would be to vote down the government itself...'

BBC:

It's a diificult one, the BBC cannot be seen to support the Labour Party (which is basically a type of Antifa and a
group called 'Momentum') because they're incapable of being elected into power and at the same time, they need to
currently cow-tow to the current Government.

There's always the idea of reporting neutral news... nah.