"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
On a technical level I suppose you can admire the Change Britain campaign's woeful 'report' on the benefits of Brexit. They've noticed that the referendum campaign's lies are coming back to bite them, so have decided to fight back by pumping out a batch of new lies to try to redress the balance.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
A better parallel is corporate mergers and acquisitions - hugely complex, no boilerplate contract wordings to work on, but they happen, and happen within a year or two of agreement in principle to the deal. I don't say it is cheap in terms of professional fees, but it is doable.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
This leads to my interpretation of Her Maj's reported comments: why isn't leaving simple? The people never consented to being so deeply entwined in a federalising organisation that leaving would be non-trivial.
And as Sandpit noted, however difficult leaving now is, leaving later would only be more so.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
"For those waiting with bated breath for that catchphrase 'Brexit means Brexit', I have only this to say: You Brexit if you want to. The lady's Brexed it up."
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
"For those waiting with bated breath for that catchphrase 'Brexit means Brexit', I have only this to say: You Brexit if you want to. The lady's Brexed it up."
It struck me listening to the interview on Radio 4 with Mervyn King that his motivation seemed more to do with discrediting his successor than any views he might have on Brexit. Odd too that someone with his extremely patchy record should want to do other than retire quietly.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
I don't disagree and didn't previously. I merely pointed out that we were probably at the point of no return or very close to anyway which was not how this was promoted at the start by Mr Heath.
I have also said before , during and after the referendum had we voted remain then Schengen and euro was an option and probable to the point If we are in the EU then let's do it 100%. There again I can accept a democratic decision even if I don't like it however, many Remainers cannot and still will not.
The problem is of course with the EU is even if we had voted in we would never be viewed as an equal partner and we never were. We are better off out and viewing the impending collapse from the outside.
It struck me listening to the interview on Radio 4 with Mervyn King that his motivation seemed more to do with discrediting his successor than any views he might have on Brexit. Odd too that someone with his extremely patchy record should want to do other than retire quietly.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
Yep. I'm assuming it will be once the Supreme Court case rules on the A50 process.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
Yep. I'm assuming it will be once the Supreme Court case rules on the A50 process.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
Yep. I'm assuming it will be once the Supreme Court case rules on the A50 process.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
I don't disagree and didn't previously. I merely pointed out that we were probably at the point of no return or very close to anyway which was not how this was promoted at the start by Mr Heath.
I have also said before , during and after the referendum had we voted remain then Schengen and euro was an option and probable to the point If we are in the EU then let's do it 100%. There again I can accept a democratic decision even if I don't like it however, many Remainers cannot and still will not.
The problem is of course with the EU is even if we had voted in we would never be viewed as an equal partner and we never were. We are better off out and viewing the impending collapse from the outside.
Yes we are and were the awkward squad. But it didn't do us too much harm after e.g. Maggie's rebate negotiations.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
Yep. I'm assuming it will be once the Supreme Court case rules on the A50 process.
They say that 'leaving the EU will “open our eyes” to the economic opportunities that lie outside Europe'. Perhaps we should pay heed to the optimistic report from Change Britain (chaired by Gisela Stuart) which says we should seek to negotiate new trade deals with countries like South Korea and Canada, oblivious to the fact that the EU already has FTAs in place... Clearly if anyone needs their eyes opening to the rest of the world it's the myopic fools who campaigned for Leave and continue to pollute our politics with their lies.
What an interesting header by OGH, “The winners should rigidly adhere ...”
Of course, the LibDems need to be reminded that they themselves are not lily-white.
Here is a little reported item from the Cambrian News regarding the maximum fine applied by the Electoral Commission to Mark Williams, LibDem victor in Ceredigion
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
Depends on your point of view of course on what he actually meant but most people were reassured by the original comments which turned out to be far from a " common market" and what people expected.
EDIT ....I see someone has already posted the statement.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
Depends on your point of view of course on what he actually meant but most people were reassured by the original comments which turned out to be far from a " common market" and what people expected.
I edited my original comment to respond to this point too:
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
That's possible but why would he want to share those views with the country and it was so full of disclaimers if it was a proselytizing exercise it was pretty unconvincing
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
Buying a house is a fairly straightforward process. Millions of examples. Have you ever once looked at the contract you have "exchanged"? Plenty complex, takes an immense amount of time, even when it's supposed to be standard, and is frought with disagreement over the detail.
And we will need to draw up these from scratch in thousands upon thousands of instances.
Better get on with it then...
Isn't May due to give a big speech on it sometime early in the new year?
Yep. I'm assuming it will be once the Supreme Court case rules on the A50 process.
They say that 'leaving the EU will “open our eyes” to the economic opportunities that lie outside Europe'. Perhaps we should pay heed to the optimistic report from Change Britain (chaired by Gisela Stuart) which says we should seek to negotiate new trade deals with countries like South Korea and Canada, oblivious to the fact that the EU already has FTAs in place... Clearly if anyone needs their eyes opening to the rest of the world it's the myopic fools who campaigned for Leave and continue to pollute our politics with their lies.
Fools, Lies, whatever. There was a referendum, and the majority (myself included) voted that we leave the EU.
The current government were elected eighteen months ago on the promise of having a referendum and implementing the result, and on that they will be judged at the next election. Mrs May is well aware that if she doesn't deliver Brexit she will have dozens of UKIP MPs to deal with in the next Parliament - most likely as her only coalition option!
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
I can't find it after assiduous googling, and it seems entirely at odds with anything else he said.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
No you oddly forgot to mention the zillions of EU laws that govern our lives from end to end even to the style of number plates we have. You will never be convinced though as you are a constant cheerleader.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
I can't find it after assiduous googling, and it seems entirely at odds with anything else he said.
The question in 1975 was "Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" That gloss "the Common Market" should not have been there if we were in reality voting on something over and above that.
you oddly forgot to mention the zillions of EU laws that govern our lives from end to end even to the style of number plates we have. You will never be convinced though as you are a constant cheerleader.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think the essence of sovereignty is to be found in the style of number plates on the nation's cars.
What an interesting header by OGH, “The winners should rigidly adhere ...”
Of course, the LibDems need to be reminded that they themselves are not lily-white.
Here is a little reported item from the Cambrian News regarding the maximum fine applied by the Electoral Commission to Mark Williams, LibDem victor in Ceredigion
That's possible but why would he want to share those views with the country and it was so full of disclaimers if it was a proselytizing exercise it was pretty unconvincing
Why does anyone want to share their views with the country?
you oddly forgot to mention the zillions of EU laws that govern our lives from end to end even to the style of number plates we have. You will never be convinced though as you are a constant cheerleader.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think the essence of sovereignty is to be found in the style of number plates on the nation's cars.
If it has to have a flag marked clearly on the plate, a flag you don't recognise or even agree with then I would suggest it most certainly does. As with everything in the EU changes are done by stealth and by tiny steps under the pretence of no change.
Then there is the zillion other rules and regs that dwarf this. Like I said you are a cheerleader which is fair enough just don't expect everyone else to follow which by democratic decision was the majority in this case.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
I can't find it after assiduous googling, and it seems entirely at odds with anything else he said.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
I can't find it after assiduous googling, and it seems entirely at odds with anything else he said.
One needs to bear in mind that 1975 was a completely different world where communications are concerned. The scope for saying one thing in one venue and another somewhere else (without being noticed) was vastly greater, and the MSM so much more limited in scope.
Also there was a greater degree of trust around. The default position was to believe what someone said. Nowadays, one is instinctively agnostic about anything one reads or hears; that change came about through experience.
"Ministers lack the political courage to admit how complex and time-consuming this will be.
"When anyone pops their head above the parapet - former permanent secretaries, ex-cabinet secretaries, the Institute for Government - and says this is going to take a long time and it's complex, they are immediately shot down and accused of betraying the will of the people."
But..but...but .....Ted Heath described this as a simple little thing, nothing more than a common market .....so nothing to worry our pretty little "peasant heads" about.
Someone either then or along the way has been telling some huge porkies
You're doing it right now. Ted Heath said very clearly that it was about 'moving beyond the nation state'.
When and where? The interweb seems not to know about this. He did however say
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
In a televised debate before the 1975 referendum. He may have said the same thing on other occasions.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
I can't find it after assiduous googling, and it seems entirely at odds with anything else he said.
One needs to bear in mind that 1975 was a completely different world where communications are concerned. The scope for saying one thing in one venue and another somewhere else (without being noticed) was vastly greater, and the MSM so much more limited in scope.
As he said this on national television a few days before a referendum on the subject you can hardly accuse him of seeking to conceal it.
I think Mr YBarddCwsc must be a desk-bound narrow-minded book-accountant by profession. Most normal people do their best to stick to the rules to the best of their ability. And sometimes get it wrong.
To the best of my understanding, the Ceredigion Lib Dems did things right and made the proper attribution between national and constituency campaigns. Unfortunately, some of the National apportionment was not picked up by the central organisation and missed from the national returns. This is a book-keeping error, and the Lib Dems have been heavily punished for it. Not corruption, Mr YBarddCwsc - just errors in the book-keeping.
To equate this with the gross overspending in individual constituencies on the part of the Conservative Party is a totally different kettle of fish. I have been an agent in elections for different levels of government held on the same day, and the book-keeping is a nightmare.
It would seem that the rule-makers (the Conservative Party) are setting things up to be so complicated that everybody falls foul of the rules - except themselves, of course - and they can afford to pay their way out of any problems.
The only winners are the book-keeping accountants and the Toriees. Congratulations, Mr YBarddCwsc! You have a job for life!
It struck me listening to the interview on Radio 4 with Mervyn King that his motivation seemed more to do with discrediting his successor than any views he might have on Brexit. Odd too that someone with his extremely patchy record should want to do other than retire quietly.
Fair enough, he does say it (around 1:26 if anyone wants to check). And that "I am prepared to make a contribution of sovereignty to this enterprise" (1.21) But that is saying one thing to the Oxford Union and another to the general public (see my 1973 quote below).
Fair enough, he does say it (around 1:26 if anyone wants to check). And that "I am prepared to make a contribution of sovereignty to this enterprise" (1.21) But that is saying one thing to the Oxford Union and another to the general public (see my 1973 quote below).
That was televised live and watched by 9 million people. It probably reached more people than any single European debate in the entire course of our membership.
Bit of trivia: You can see a young Philip Hammond in the audience at one point.
Fair enough, he does say it (around 1:26 if anyone wants to check). And that "I am prepared to make a contribution of sovereignty to this enterprise" (1.21) But that is saying one thing to the Oxford Union and another to the general public (see my 1973 quote below).
That was televised live and watched by 9 million people. It probably reached more people than any single European debate in the entire course of our membership.
Bit of trivia: You can see a young Philip Hammond in the audience at one point.
I think the Clegg-Farage debates got about 2 million. Does that speak more about the EU, or about Clegg/Farage?
I think Mr YBarddCwsc must be a desk-bound narrow-minded book-accountant by profession. Most normal people do their best to stick to the rules to the best of their ability. And sometimes get it wrong.
To the best of my understanding, the Ceredigion Lib Dems did things right and made the proper attribution between national and constituency campaigns. Unfortunately, some of the National apportionment was not picked up by the central organisation and missed from the national returns. This is a book-keeping error, and the Lib Dems have been heavily punished for it. Not corruption, Mr YBarddCwsc - just errors in the book-keeping.
To equate this with the gross overspending in individual constituencies on the part of the Conservative Party is a totally different kettle of fish. I have been an agent in elections for different levels of government held on the same day, and the book-keeping is a nightmare.
It would seem that the rule-makers (the Conservative Party) are setting things up to be so complicated that everybody falls foul of the rules - except themselves, of course - and they can afford to pay their way out of any problems.
The only winners are the book-keeping accountants and the Toriees. Congratulations, Mr YBarddCwsc! You have a job for life!
"Not corruption, just errors in the book-keeping."
I can just imagine Al Capone wiping a tear from his eye and pleading the same to the court judge.
I think Mr YBarddCwsc must be a desk-bound narrow-minded book-accountant by profession. Most normal people do their best to stick to the rules to the best of their ability. And sometimes get it wrong.
To the best of my understanding, the Ceredigion Lib Dems did things right and made the proper attribution between national and constituency campaigns. Unfortunately, some of the National apportionment was not picked up by the central organisation and missed from the national returns. This is a book-keeping error, and the Lib Dems have been heavily punished for it. Not corruption, Mr YBarddCwsc - just errors in the book-keeping.
To equate this with the gross overspending in individual constituencies on the part of the Conservative Party is a totally different kettle of fish. I have been an agent in elections for different levels of government held on the same day, and the book-keeping is a nightmare.
It would seem that the rule-makers (the Conservative Party) are setting things up to be so complicated that everybody falls foul of the rules - except themselves, of course - and they can afford to pay their way out of any problems.
The only winners are the book-keeping accountants and the Toriees. Congratulations, Mr YBarddCwsc! You have a job for life!
"Not corruption, just errors in the book-keeping."
I can just imagine Al Capone wiping a tear from his eye and pleading the same to the court judge.
It's one of those irregular verbs* our little error in bookkeeping, your overspend, their corruption
*actually a noun phrase here but obviously I'm quoting Yes (Prime) Minister
Double-entry book-keeping at two different levels, and in very many cases triple-entry, where there were also local government elections.... And 630 constituencies... I would find that to be a case of human error,Mr Lilburne.
And the total figure from all over the county that was included at one level, the local one, but not the national level, was I think 18,000. In any case there were no electoral rules broken. Only book-keeping. Which is to be regretted, of course.
Please don`t downplay this. The practices of the Conservative Party were a matter of flagrant rule-breaking (still under police investigation). They are your Al Capone. And they are still pleading innocence. And as is the usual practice of the Conservative and Labour Parties, when they are caught red-handed, they try to diffuse the problem by claiming that everybody is at it.
Bonkers. Cameron was unable, at that point, to form a government. Was Brown supposed to leave the country without a government?
Yeah there was no other option but for Brown to stay on for 4 months was there?
"Gordon Brown is constitutionally entitled to stay in Downing St, he has managed the situation perfectly properly" Yeah right
So he should have left the country ungoverned? What would have happened if the Lib Dems had not come to terms with the Consevatives and France had invaded?
The fact is, events are already dictating the workload of the Civil Service. It's hardly a state secret.
Brexit will take longer, and less of the rest of government will happen, because that is the natural fudge. Let me correct that: the rest of government is happening. You get a clear impression on the ground. This is particularly clear in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office - two frameworks until now supplementing the overall work of government. For now, they are supplementing most of it with a view to achieving Brexit, with other work left to government departments.
Most of the people I talk to are in the lower ranks, and have the same complaints as the rest of us: of too much work and not enough hours in the day. But I wouldn't describe it as anything like resentment. Mostly they see Brexit as something they can work on and will do.
Actually, the 2015 election in Ceredigion was very dirty, with the LibDem Mark Williams in the thick of the muck. The LibDems accused the Plaid Cymru candidate (Mike Parker) of being a Nazi, and the Labour candidate (Huw Thomas) of throwing Tippex over cars with English registration plates !!!
The LibDems have been fined the maximum possible by the Electoral Commission because they committed a serious offence. That is why their agent has been referred to the police.
As it happens, I agree with Mike Smithson that it is right that limits should be adhered to, & if the Tories -- or Lib Dems or anyone else -- have breached them, they should be punished.
It is just that the LibDems are not as alabaster white as they pretend.
I'm not sure being government-less worked very well for Belgium, aggravating its regional - and most importantly - socio-economic splits. If the refugees keep coming, I fully expect a wave of discontent. Those eating brioche are simply too numerous and too obvious. I wonder if the Belgian police will manage.
Double-entry book-keeping at two different levels, and in very many cases triple-entry, where there were also local government elections.... And 630 constituencies... I would find that to be a case of human error,Mr Lilburne.
And the total figure from all over the county that was included at one level, the local one, but not the national level, was I think 18,000. In any case there were no electoral rules broken. Only book-keeping. Which is to be regretted, of course.
Please don`t downplay this. The practices of the Conservative Party were a matter of flagrant rule-breaking (still under police investigation). They are your Al Capone. And they are still pleading innocence. And as is the usual practice of the Conservative and Labour Parties, when they are caught red-handed, they try to diffuse the problem by claiming that everybody is at it.
Whoever they are where rules are broken and many consider bookkeeping as part of the rules ( like Plod) then they should be held too account.
I would be very surprised if there were not other examples amongst all parties with similar " book keeping errors" . To cry foul though when the Lib Dems have been already caught bang to rights does seem along the lines yeah we did it but you should see what the other guy did.
Bonkers. Cameron was unable, at that point, to form a government. Was Brown supposed to leave the country without a government?
Yeah there was no other option but for Brown to stay on for 4 months was there?
"Gordon Brown is constitutionally entitled to stay in Downing St, he has managed the situation perfectly properly" Yeah right
So he should have left the country ungoverned? What would have happened if the Lib Dems had not come to terms with the Consevatives and France had invaded?
If Brown had resigned early on, then Cameron would have been invited to form a government. That, however, would have put the Queen in an awkward position, which is one reason that Brown didn't resign - though the main one is that he thought that first he, and then Labour, might be able to cling on.
Cameron would then presumably have tried to reach a deal with the Lib Dems, though their hand would at that point have been considerably weakened by not being able to play the Tories off against Labour and their only card being to not back either, which wouldn't really have been credible.
YBarddCwsc Posts: 704 3:18PM PClipp, I am not a Tory or an accountant.
Mr YBarddCwsc, I apologise deeply on both accounts. If I were neither - and I am not - I would also be much offended. In passing, may I say that some of my best friends are accountants, and some are Conservatives (though they are not much impressed by the present government) - so we remain friends.
It seems that we are in agreement, and with OGH, that the rules should be adhered to. In the case of the Lib Dems, my understanding is that the rules of expenditure limits were indeed adhered to. The difficulties that you mention were strictly bureaucratic.
Finally, I hope, may is say that I do my best to be "alabaster white" - within the limits of political correctness - but the devil sets so many snares for us (via his agents in the Conservative Party and the Boundary Commission), this is not always easy.
Bonkers. Cameron was unable, at that point, to form a government. Was Brown supposed to leave the country without a government?
Yeah there was no other option but for Brown to stay on for 4 months was there?
"Gordon Brown is constitutionally entitled to stay in Downing St, he has managed the situation perfectly properly" Yeah right
So he should have left the country ungoverned? What would have happened if the Lib Dems had not come to terms with the Consevatives and France had invaded?
It was obvious that Cameron had to be the next PM one way or the other. How often do you see a news anchor (whose wife is a massive Blairite) almost coming to blows with a party's spin doctor over the sheer madness of what he was suggesting?
If there had been no resolution between the parties and the Queen could not call anyone who could form a Govt, the only outcome AFAICS is another General Election
If there had been no resolution between the parties and the Queen could not call anyone who could form a Govt, the only outcome AFAICS is another General Election
Yes. Either party could have successfully wooed the Lib Dems. It seems that Gordo didn't want to accommodate them, perhaps believing that he had some sort of divine right to govern, while Dave addressed each of the five Lib Dem manifesto priorities one by one thereby giving them no reason not to reach an agreement.
Needless to say it is expected that all parties will be on their best behaviour during the forthcoming by-election which is expected to commence in about a month in my own constituency. (The by election has not formally been called yet, of course, as the sitting MP for Copeland has not formally resigned, only stated that he intends to do so at the end of January before starting a job at Sellafield in February.) It is already looking likely to be an exceptionally interesting campaign though, sadly, regardless of who ends up standing as as candidates I expect to be too busy to give PB much of what the PM might call a "running commentary." I will promise an after-action report. Thanks to John O, Sandpit, and TSE for name check comments on the previous thread, and no, I did not post here on the subject just before Christmas. I am not making any prediction as to the result other than that it may be very close
Needless to say it is expected that all parties will be on their best behaviour during the forthcoming by-election which is expected to commence in about a month in my own constituency. (The by election has not formally been called yet, of course, as the sitting MP for Copeland has not formally resigned, only stated that he intends to do so at the end of January before starting a job at Sellafield in February.) It is already looking likely to be an exceptionally interesting campaign though, sadly, regardless of who ends up standing as as candidates I expect to be too busy to give PB much of what the PM might call a "running commentary." I will promise an after-action report. Thanks to John O, Sandpit, and TSE for name check comments on the previous thread, and no, I did not post here on the subject just before Christmas. I am not making any prediction as to the result other than that it may be very close
Here’s a snippet from a trenchant piece on the elitism of the left: The vote for Brexit and Trump also symbolises the rejection of the cultural hegemony, which the Left have imposed on us for far too long. The Left's mantra of racism, diversity and multiculturalism, both here and across the pond, has been firmly jilted by the struggling masses. Their narcissist and divisive games of identity politics meant that the Left ignored the majority. They made the mistake of whittling down our sense of self to nihilistic and unrelatable minority identities. http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/karen-harradine-2016-exposed-elitism-left/
If there had been no resolution between the parties and the Queen could not call anyone who could form a Govt, the only outcome AFAICS is another General Election
Yes. Brown would have had to have either resigned, or put his policy manifesto in a Queen's Speech to be voted on in Parliament.
If that motion were voted down, the government would have had to resign and, if no other government could be formed at the time, then a second election would have taken place.
The convention is that the PM himself doesn't go and see HM until he can name his successor, so if the LotO couldn't muster a Parliamentary majority for a Queen's Speech then Parliament would be dissolved for the second election to take place.
There's an interesting train of thought about how the same process now works under the FTPA passed in 2010, with regard to how Mrs May might engineer an early election. It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign.
Needless to say it is expected that all parties will be on their best behaviour during the forthcoming by-election which is expected to commence in about a month in my own constituency. (The by election has not formally been called yet, of course, as the sitting MP for Copeland has not formally resigned, only stated that he intends to do so at the end of January before starting a job at Sellafield in February.) It is already looking likely to be an exceptionally interesting campaign though, sadly, regardless of who ends up standing as as candidates I expect to be too busy to give PB much of what the PM might call a "running commentary." I will promise an after-action report. Thanks to John O, Sandpit, and TSE for name check comments on the previous thread, and no, I did not post here on the subject just before Christmas. I am not making any prediction as to the result other than that it may be very close
If there had been no resolution between the parties and the Queen could not call anyone who could form a Govt, the only outcome AFAICS is another General Election
Yes. Brown would have had to have either resigned, or put his policy manifesto in a Queen's Speech to be voted on in Parliament.
If that motion were voted down, the government would have had to resign and, if no other government could be formed at the time, then a second election would have taken place.
The convention is that the PM himself doesn't go and see HM until he can name his successor, so if the LotO couldn't muster a Parliamentary majority for a Queen's Speech then Parliament would be dissolved for the second election to take place.
There's an interesting train of thought about how the same process now works under the FTPA passed in 2010, with regard to how Mrs May might engineer an early election. It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign.
It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign.
Can I remind posters abort the ban on using derogatory terms to describe those who took a different view to themselves on BREXIT.
Arguments are fine. Cheap insults are not what PB is about
I couldn't agree more. I haven't posted much over Christmas but on occasions have dipped into the forum only to find the same tired and polarised debates on Brexit together with unnecessary insults from both sides.
It would be nice if everyone could resolve to make their cases fiercely and with good arguments but respect other views.
Watching Sky News these last few days has been one long story of misery with of course the premature deaths of celebrities featuring the same tapes on the hour every hour and in some cases for days and then playing their constant distressing charity appeals during breaks. To add to the depressing state of Sky then then repeat their feature of the migrants drowning in the Med.
They are right to feature the stories but they do need to realise there are lots of news stories they ignore and also people need uplifting as well.
At one point my wife and I had listened to enough Sky misery when we switched programmes and the carols from Kings was on and it so lifted our mood.
Double-entry book-keeping at two different levels, and in very many cases triple-entry, where there were also local government elections.... And 630 constituencies... I would find that to be a case of human error,Mr Lilburne.
And the total figure from all over the county that was included at one level, the local one, but not the national level, was I think 18,000. In any case there were no electoral rules broken. Only book-keeping. Which is to be regretted, of course.
Please don`t downplay this. The practices of the Conservative Party were a matter of flagrant rule-breaking (still under police investigation). They are your Al Capone. And they are still pleading innocence. And as is the usual practice of the Conservative and Labour Parties, when they are caught red-handed, they try to diffuse the problem by claiming that everybody is at it.
Whoever they are where rules are broken and many consider bookkeeping as part of the rules ( like Plod) then they should be held too account.
I would be very surprised if there were not other examples amongst all parties with similar " book keeping errors" . To cry foul though when the Lib Dems have been already caught bang to rights does seem along the lines yeah we did it but you should see what the other guy did.
Many otherwise intelligent people are amazingly dense when it comes to record-keeping as part of the rules/law. One of my senior colleagues used to make me tremble with his approach to the Guidance issued to help us stay on the safe side.
He reckoned, It's guidance, that means you don't have to do what it says.
And on that score he just went his own way, blithely and recklessly ignoring the Guidance.
If there had been no resolution between the parties and the Queen could not call anyone who could form a Govt, the only outcome AFAICS is another General Election
Yes. Brown would have had to have either resigned, or put his policy manifesto in a Queen's Speech to be voted on in Parliament.
If that motion were voted down, the government would have had to resign and, if no other government could be formed at the time, then a second election would have taken place.
The convention is that the PM himself doesn't go and see HM until he can name his successor, so if the LotO couldn't muster a Parliamentary majority for a Queen's Speech then Parliament would be dissolved for the second election to take place.
There's an interesting train of thought about how the same process now works under the FTPA passed in 2010, with regard to how Mrs May might engineer an early election. It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign.
It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign. Would there be a country left afterwards?
Possibly not. The FTPA says that a supermajority of 2/3 of the Commons is required for an election, the only other way of getting one is if there's a vote of no confidence in the govt which forces it to resign, in which case there is a period of fourteen days in which others can attempt to form a government. Only if no vote of confidence is passed in those fourteen days does Parliament get dissolved.
The question is open as to how the Conservatives could engineer an election during which Mrs May remains as PM having lost a vote of confidence, but without allowing anyone else to attempt to form a government.
The FTPA is basically a mess, designed by Nick Clegg to stop David Cameron calling an early election between 2010 and 2015, it's completely unfit for purpose given the scenario of a government with almost no majority wanting to call an election. To repeal it would require primary legislation, which means going through the Lords, and even then there is controversy as to whether prerogative powers can be restored to the Crown (meaning the PM in practice) by repeal of existing legislation, those powers having been specifically removed from the Crown previously by Parliament.
Possibly not. The FTPA says that a supermajority of 2/3 of the Commons is required for an election, the only other way of getting one is if there's a vote of no confidence in the govt which forces it to resign, in which case there is a period of fourteen days in which others can attempt to form a government. Only if no vote of confidence is passed in those fourteen days does Parliament get dissolved.
The question is open as to how the Conservatives could engineer an election during which Mrs May remains as PM having lost a vote of confidence, but without allowing anyone else to attempt to form a government.
The FTPA is basically a mess, designed by Nick Clegg to stop the Tories calling an early election between 2010 and 2015, it's completely unfit for purpose given the scenario of a government with almost no majority wanting to call an election. To repeal it would require primary legislation, which means going through the Lords., and even then there is controversy as to whether prerogative powers can be restored to the Crown (meaning the PM in practice) by repeal of existing legislation, those powers having been specifically removed from the Crown previously.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Possibly not. The FTPA says that a supermajority of 2/3 of the Commons is required for an election, the only other way of getting one is if there's a vote of no confidence in the govt which forces it to resign, in which case there is a period of fourteen days in which others can attempt to form a government. Only if no vote of confidence is passed in those fourteen days does Parliament get dissolved.
The question is open as to how the Conservatives could engineer an election during which Mrs May remains as PM having lost a vote of confidence, but without allowing anyone else to attempt to form a government.
The FTPA is basically a mess, designed by Nick Clegg to stop the Tories calling an early election between 2010 and 2015, it's completely unfit for purpose given the scenario of a government with almost no majority wanting to call an election. To repeal it would require primary legislation, which means going through the Lords., and even then there is controversy as to whether prerogative powers can be restored to the Crown (meaning the PM in practice) by repeal of existing legislation, those powers having been specifically removed from the Crown previously.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
Possibly not. The FTPA says that a supermajority of 2/3 of the Commons is required for an election, the only other way of getting one is if there's a vote of no confidence in the govt which forces it to resign, in which case there is a period of fourteen days in which others can attempt to form a government. Only if no vote of confidence is passed in those fourteen days does Parliament get dissolved.
The question is open as to how the Conservatives could engineer an election during which Mrs May remains as PM having lost a vote of confidence, but without allowing anyone else to attempt to form a government.
The FTPA is basically a mess, designed by Nick Clegg to stop the Tories calling an early election between 2010 and 2015, it's completely unfit for purpose given the scenario of a government with almost no majority wanting to call an election. To repeal it would require primary legislation, which means going through the Lords., and even then there is controversy as to whether prerogative powers can be restored to the Crown (meaning the PM in practice) by repeal of existing legislation, those powers having been specifically removed from the Crown previously.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
The Guardian leading with Corbyn's claim that May is "acting like Henry VIII" in not giving parliament a say.
Hmm, not a bad line. But it already adds to the mess of Labour's position. May would, on some level, like the court case to fail. Then take it to the Commons and dare Corbyn to vote it down.
The current manoeuvrings make allowing it through as politically dangerous as voting it down.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
Pretty much the only thing that stops the government unilaterally calling an election is the Lords - a government with a majority in the Commons can pass a Bill to amend s1(2) of the FTPA. So if the Parliament Act were amended to extend the same rules as apply to money bills to bills to amend FTPA, a government would then in nearly all cases be able to call a general election with at most a delay of a month.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
Pretty much the only thing that stops the government unilaterally calling an election is the Lords - a government with a majority in the Commons can pass a Bill to amend s1(2) of the FTPA. So if the Parliament Act were amended to extend the same rules as apply to money bills to bills to amend FTPA, a government would then in nearly all cases be able to call a general election with at most a delay of a month.
Agree completely, but the government doesn't have a majority in the Lords, and amending the Parliament Act would be almost impossible.
In practice, I can see either the Lords stuffed to enable repeal of the FTPA, or a motion put before the Commons that Parliament be dissolved - with the Opposition dared to vote against an election!
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
I don't think repealing an act restores acts repealed by said act. If this act were repealed, there would be no limits on the length of a parliament, for instance!
Wouldn't Charles I make more sense than Henry VIII? Henry was fairly tyrannical, but as far as I recall he (or the people working for him) liked to use parliament as an instrument of his tyranny.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
Pretty much the only thing that stops the government unilaterally calling an election is the Lords - a government with a majority in the Commons can pass a Bill to amend s1(2) of the FTPA. So if the Parliament Act were amended to extend the same rules as apply to money bills to bills to amend FTPA, a government would then in nearly all cases be able to call a general election with at most a delay of a month.
Agree completely, but the government doesn't have a majority in the Lords.
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
I don't think repealing an act restores acts repealed by said act. If this act were repealed, there would be no limits on the length of a parliament, for instance!
Ah, yes, you're right. So definitely primary legislation required to effectively repeal the FTPA, and no return to the prerogative. Thanks Nick Clegg for that right mess!
FTPA has something of a sunset clause. Parliament has to convene a committee to discuss that Act in 2020, and review possibly amending it, or repealing it entirely.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
Yes, after the scheduled next election in 2020, meanwhile plenty of constitutional scholars (and Lib Dem Lords) will argue that it's impossible to return to the status quo ante with regard to the PM of the day being able to ask for a dissolution of Parliament at will.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I think you can, but it would be on a legislative basis, I don't think the prerogative can be restored.
Possibly, but that would require primary legislation rather than simply a one-line repeal of the 2010 FTPA.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
I don't think repealing an act restores acts repealed by said act. If this act were repealed, there would be no limits on the length of a parliament, for instance!
Ah, yes, you're right. So definitely primary legislation required to effectively repeal the FTPA, and no return to the prerogative. Thanks Nick Clegg for that right mess!
Yes, there would have to be an Act re-stating the maximum length of a Parliament and stating that an election can only be called early by proclamation.
PCClipp said " In the case of the Lib Dems, my understanding is that the rules of expenditure limits were indeed adhered to. The difficulties that you mention were strictly bureaucratic."
Comments
And as Sandpit noted, however difficult leaving now is, leaving later would only be more so.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/26/mervyn-king-britain-should-be-more-upbeat-about-brexit
I have also said before , during and after the referendum had we voted remain then Schengen and euro was an option and probable to the point If we are in the EU then let's do it 100%. There again I can accept a democratic decision even if I don't like it however, many Remainers cannot and still will not.
The problem is of course with the EU is even if we had voted in we would never be viewed as an equal partner and we never were. We are better off out and viewing the impending collapse from the outside.
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
I guess the outline will be along the lines on the Telegraph leader yesterday, which might as well have been written by Dan Hannan: let's be positive about Brexit, there's a huge opportunity here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/12/26/voting-leave-eu-act-national-self-confidence-politicians-should/
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
Of course, the LibDems need to be reminded that they themselves are not lily-white.
Here is a little reported item from the Cambrian News regarding the maximum fine applied by the Electoral Commission to Mark Williams, LibDem victor in Ceredigion
http://tinyurl.com/jlkmt2m
The case against the party’s top campaign official in Ceredigion has been referred to the police.
But, of course, re-reading OGH’s header, it is only "the winners" who should rigidly adhere to the rules. So that’s alright then.
Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973
Depends on your point of view of course on what he actually meant but most people were reassured by the original comments which turned out to be far from a " common market" and what people expected.
EDIT ....I see someone has already posted the statement.
As for the quote you picked out, he's right. Did being in the EU stop us invading Iraq against the will of France and Germany? Did it prevent us doing QE by the billion? Did it prevent us defending the Falklands from Argentina?
"Or, perhaps, they are his views? "
That's possible but why would he want to share those views with the country and it was so full of disclaimers if it was a proselytizing exercise it was pretty unconvincing
The current government were elected eighteen months ago on the promise of having a referendum and implementing the result, and on that they will be judged at the next election. Mrs May is well aware that if she doesn't deliver Brexit she will have dozens of UKIP MPs to deal with in the next Parliament - most likely as her only coalition option!
you oddly forgot to mention the zillions of EU laws that govern our lives from end to end even to the style of number plates we have. You will never be convinced though as you are a constant cheerleader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jUYryRYII&t=4429s
The three days or so in 2010 when Gordon Brown was refusing to concede he had lost the GE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8
Then there is the zillion other rules and regs that dwarf this. Like I said you are a cheerleader which is fair enough just don't expect everyone else to follow which by democratic decision was the majority in this case.
"Gordon Brown is constitutionally entitled to stay in Downing St, he has managed the situation perfectly properly" Yeah right
Also there was a greater degree of trust around. The default position was to believe what someone said. Nowadays, one is instinctively agnostic about anything one reads or hears; that change came about through experience.
The debate was shown in prime time on a Saturday and had 9 million viewers - http://mei.qmul.ac.uk/news-and-opinion/blog/items/157058.html
If you say so.
Yes I'd say so
And they'll look just as stupid in 6 years time as Campbell and Brown do now.
To the best of my understanding, the Ceredigion Lib Dems did things right and made the proper attribution between national and constituency campaigns. Unfortunately, some of the National apportionment was not picked up by the central organisation and missed from the national returns. This is a book-keeping error, and the Lib Dems have been heavily punished for it. Not corruption, Mr YBarddCwsc - just errors in the book-keeping.
To equate this with the gross overspending in individual constituencies on the part of the Conservative Party is a totally different kettle of fish. I have been an agent in elections for different levels of government held on the same day, and the book-keeping is a nightmare.
It would seem that the rule-makers (the Conservative Party) are setting things up to be so complicated that everybody falls foul of the rules - except themselves, of course - and they can afford to pay their way out of any problems.
The only winners are the book-keeping accountants and the Toriees. Congratulations, Mr YBarddCwsc! You have a job for life!
Fair enough, he does say it (around 1:26 if anyone wants to check). And that "I am prepared to make a contribution of sovereignty to this enterprise" (1.21) But that is saying one thing to the Oxford Union and another to the general public (see my 1973 quote below).
Bit of trivia: You can see a young Philip Hammond in the audience at one point.
I can just imagine Al Capone wiping a tear from his eye and pleading the same to the court judge.
*actually a noun phrase here but obviously I'm quoting Yes (Prime) Minister
And the total figure from all over the county that was included at one level, the local one, but not the national level, was I think 18,000. In any case there were no electoral rules broken. Only book-keeping. Which is to be regretted, of course.
Please don`t downplay this. The practices of the Conservative Party were a matter of flagrant rule-breaking (still under police investigation). They are your Al Capone. And they are still pleading innocence. And as is the usual practice of the Conservative and Labour Parties, when they are caught red-handed, they try to diffuse the problem by claiming that everybody is at it.
Brexit will take longer, and less of the rest of government will happen, because that is the natural fudge. Let me correct that: the rest of government is happening. You get a clear impression on the ground. This is particularly clear in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office - two frameworks until now supplementing the overall work of government. For now, they are supplementing most of it with a view to achieving Brexit, with other work left to government departments.
Most of the people I talk to are in the lower ranks, and have the same complaints as the rest of us: of too much work and not enough hours in the day. But I wouldn't describe it as anything like resentment. Mostly they see Brexit as something they can work on and will do.
Actually, the 2015 election in Ceredigion was very dirty, with the LibDem Mark Williams in the thick of the muck. The LibDems accused the Plaid Cymru candidate (Mike Parker) of being a Nazi, and the Labour candidate (Huw Thomas) of throwing Tippex over cars with English registration plates !!!
The LibDems have been fined the maximum possible by the Electoral Commission because they committed a serious offence. That is why their agent has been referred to the police.
As it happens, I agree with Mike Smithson that it is right that limits should be adhered to, & if the Tories -- or Lib Dems or anyone else -- have breached them, they should be punished.
It is just that the LibDems are not as alabaster white as they pretend.
Just ruled by Brussels.
I would be very surprised if there were not other examples amongst all parties with similar " book keeping errors" . To cry foul though when the Lib Dems have been already caught bang to rights does seem along the lines yeah we did it but you should see what the other guy did.
Cameron would then presumably have tried to reach a deal with the Lib Dems, though their hand would at that point have been considerably weakened by not being able to play the Tories off against Labour and their only card being to not back either, which wouldn't really have been credible.
Mr YBarddCwsc, I apologise deeply on both accounts. If I were neither - and I am not - I would also be much offended. In passing, may I say that some of my best friends are accountants, and some are Conservatives (though they are not much impressed by the present government) - so we remain friends.
It seems that we are in agreement, and with OGH, that the rules should be adhered to. In the case of the Lib Dems, my understanding is that the rules of expenditure limits were indeed adhered to. The difficulties that you mention were strictly bureaucratic.
Finally, I hope, may is say that I do my best to be "alabaster white" - within the limits of political correctness - but the devil sets so many snares for us (via his agents in the Conservative Party and the Boundary Commission), this is not always easy.
Arguments are fine. Cheap insults are not what PB is about
The vote for Brexit and Trump also symbolises the rejection of the cultural hegemony, which the Left have imposed on us for far too long. The Left's mantra of racism, diversity and multiculturalism, both here and across the pond, has been firmly jilted by the struggling masses. Their narcissist and divisive games of identity politics meant that the Left ignored the majority. They made the mistake of whittling down our sense of self to nihilistic and unrelatable minority identities.
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/karen-harradine-2016-exposed-elitism-left/
*innocent face*
If that motion were voted down, the government would have had to resign and, if no other government could be formed at the time, then a second election would have taken place.
The convention is that the PM himself doesn't go and see HM until he can name his successor, so if the LotO couldn't muster a Parliamentary majority for a Queen's Speech then Parliament would be dissolved for the second election to take place.
There's an interesting train of thought about how the same process now works under the FTPA passed in 2010, with regard to how Mrs May might engineer an early election. It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign.
It's possible that it might involve Mr Corbyn becoming PM for the duration of the campaign.
Would there be a country left afterwards?
It would be nice if everyone could resolve to make their cases fiercely and with good arguments but respect other views.
Watching Sky News these last few days has been one long story of misery with of course the premature deaths of celebrities featuring the same tapes on the hour every hour and in some cases for days and then playing their constant distressing charity appeals during breaks. To add to the depressing state of Sky then then repeat their feature of the migrants drowning in the Med.
They are right to feature the stories but they do need to realise there are lots of news stories they ignore and also people need uplifting as well.
At one point my wife and I had listened to enough Sky misery when we switched programmes and the carols from Kings was on and it so lifted our mood.
We need happy stories Sky - get more balance
He reckoned, It's guidance, that means you don't have to do what it says.
And on that score he just went his own way, blithely and recklessly ignoring the Guidance.
The question is open as to how the Conservatives could engineer an election during which Mrs May remains as PM having lost a vote of confidence, but without allowing anyone else to attempt to form a government.
The FTPA is basically a mess, designed by Nick Clegg to stop David Cameron calling an early election between 2010 and 2015, it's completely unfit for purpose given the scenario of a government with almost no majority wanting to call an election. To repeal it would require primary legislation, which means going through the Lords, and even then there is controversy as to whether prerogative powers can be restored to the Crown (meaning the PM in practice) by repeal of existing legislation, those powers having been specifically removed from the Crown previously by Parliament.
(4)The Prime Minister must make arrangements—
(a)for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and
(b)for the publication of the committee’s findings and recommendations (if any).
(5)A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.
(6)Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.
It's a big mess, will be absolutely fascinating to see what happens if the govt lose their Parliamentary majority in the next couple of years, yet remain a dozen points ahead in the polls.
I mean what fun is there left?!
Hmm, not a bad line. But it already adds to the mess of Labour's position. May would, on some level, like the court case to fail. Then take it to the Commons and dare Corbyn to vote it down.
The current manoeuvrings make allowing it through as politically dangerous as voting it down.
"I don't think the prerogative can be restored."
In St Petersburg, Stalin tore down the churches.
Now the have been rebuilt; brick for brick. To the exact design specification, as the church stood one the eve of its destruction.
They talk as if it never went away.
But of course it did.
I recall when this Act was passed, there was an amendment proposed that it should only apply for a single Parliament, and that a compromise was passed as you outlined above, whereby there would be a review in 2020 (but failing to mention that the restoration of the Perogative would be impossible at that time).
It threatens to be a right pain in the arse for Mrs May if any of the Brexit legislation is remotely contentious among her own backbenchers in the next couple of years - which is almost guaranteed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/debbie-reynolds-carrie-fishers-mother-legendary-actress-rushed/
Carrie Fisher's mother, actress Debbie Reynolds, 84, rushed to hospital with a suspected stroke.
Doesn't it have to be read in two sessions?
In practice, I can see either the Lords stuffed to enable repeal of the FTPA, or a motion put before the Commons that Parliament be dissolved - with the Opposition dared to vote against an election!
You cant be talking about this then
http://order-order.com/2016/12/07/libdems-given-maximum-expenses-fine-broke-electoral-law-referred-police/