To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
Ha.. have *just* been looking on Google for a map showing exactly that
Perhaps he's angling for promotion to Shadow Home Secretary?
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
Shame to let facts get in the way of a decent joke, but he could have chosen another analogy no doubt.
On topic, I agree with Mike that now would be a stupid time to dump May for many reasons.
However, Westminster has its own rhythms and just because May is relatively popular in the country doesn't mean she'll survive. MPs need to weigh up not just what would happen were May to lose the vote but what would happen if she won it.
To my mind, by far the best option is for her to step down next summer (and if she won't go voluntarily, to be pushed then). There is insufficient impetus on domestic policy and what instincts for action she has are often bad ones. She certainly cannot be allowed to fight another general election.
However, if a vote comes before then, it's almost certain that if she wins, she will either do so by a narrow enough margin that her authority is shot, or by a big enough margin to see her through future threats. The former should lead to her resignation anyway, the latter would see her through to 2022. But if she cannot be allowed to go through to 2022, then MPs who would otherwise back her will still need to vote against that outcome and hope that they can rally around a sensible option to succeed her. For that reason if a vote is called, I reckon it's likely that she'd lose (I'd make it about a 4/7 shot at the moment), whatever the other risks and consequences.
I have said before, that as soon as a vote gets called, that is the starting pistol for her replacement. Enough would vote against her to ensure that a new leader was in place before the election. After the 2017 Election and Brexit fiascos, no-one is going to allow her the opportunity for a hat-trick.
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
Ha.. have *just* been looking on Google for a map showing exactly that
Perhaps he's angling for promotion to Shadow Home Secretary?
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
I think it was intended a rhetorical point rather than an interesting factoid.
I see no reason both of those things cannot be true. Not everyone believes A50 can be withdrawn (even if parliament wanted it to), and it is almost certainly the case that it is not practical for parliament to alter a deal that the EU has agreed to, even if it is possible. But of course the government would have an interest in parliament being involved as little as possible, which of course is why they tried not to have MPs involved in declaring A50. Why they did that I don't know, since having MPs authorise it is I would think a useful reminder to make to many MPs.
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
I think it was intended a rhetorical point rather than an interesting factoid.
That's why it isn't embarrassing, its just amusing.
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
Ha.. have *just* been looking on Google for a map showing exactly that
Perhaps he's angling for promotion to Shadow Home Secretary?
I'm not sure that's quite the killer rebuttal you hope it is.
Questioning the accuracy of that dubious figure only serves to highlight the fact that the ship did actually sink. I'm sure there's an analogy in there somewhere.
On that subject, I was reading about the last Chinese imperial eunuch who died in 1998.
He was made a eunuch when a boy when his father (sensitive readers may want to look away) sliced off his penis and testicles with a carving knife. The father was engaged in a long-running boundary dispute, and hoped that having a son as imperial eunuch would help get judgement in his favour.
Makes sense to me - Parliament can demand anything it likes, but as has been made repeatedly clear the EU will do what it will do.
How can anyone think that it would be possible to debate the deal that TM has negotiated forensically with a view to going back to the EU with loads of changes?? Anyone suggesting this is not in touch with reality.
On that subject, I was reading about the last Chinese imperial eunuch who died in 1998.
He was made a eunuch when a boy when his father (sensitive readers may want to look away) sliced off his penis and testicles with a carving knife. The father was engaged in a long-running boundary dispute, and hoped that having a son as imperial eunuch would help get judgement in his favour.
Makes sense to me - Parliament can demand anything it likes, but as has been made repeatedly clear the EU will do what it will do.
How can anyone think that it would be possible to debate the deal that TM has negotiated forensically with a view to going back to the EU with loads of changes?? Anyone suggesting this is not in touch with reality.
So long as someone acknowledged the difficulties in doing so, and the risk of no deal as a result, then I don't have an issue with someone pushing it. But to merely trash the deal, which let's face it will be pretty crappy if agreed at all, and insist they don't want no deal, then add in a bunch of additional conditions which may not be possible to deliver? That would, I think, be unreasonable, and be little different than those that claimed it would all be very easy, knowing it would not be.
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
I reckon Peter Dowd was (largely) right.
95% of the journey the Titanic actually made was completed successfully. You could make a case that the other 5% of the journey made was in the z plane rather than the x/y (lon/lat) planes and wasn't very successful.
Only 65% of the Titanic's planned journey was completed successfully, sure. But he didn't say "planned journey".
It's all a bit teetering on the edge - extension of transition period comes at the end of the transition period. How's that for certainty for business and the like?
On that subject, I was reading about the last Chinese imperial eunuch who died in 1998.
He was made a eunuch when a boy when his father (sensitive readers may want to look away) sliced off his penis and testicles with a carving knife. The father was engaged in a long-running boundary dispute, and hoped that having a son as imperial eunuch would help get judgement in his favour.
It's all a bit teetering on the edge - extension of transition period comes at the end of the transition period. How's that for certainty for business and the like?
It's all a bit teetering on the edge - extension of transition period comes at the end of the transition period. How's that for certainty for business and the like?
It might not be needed.
The transition is, amongst other things, to not have to worry about the NI border. Nothing is likely to have changed by then to have made the issue any more soluble.
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
In terms of total elapsed time, it'll be closer to 95% (though still less), given that Titanic stopped off in (IIRC) Cherbourg and Cobh after leaving Southampton.
To be pedantic, the Titanic only completed approximately 64-65% of its planned route - evidently accuracy with facts and figures is not required for Labour shadow Chief Secretaries!
I reckon Peter Dowd was (largely) right.
95% of the journey the Titanic actually made was completed successfully. You could make a case that the other 5% of the journey made was in the z plane rather than the x/y (lon/lat) planes and wasn't very successful.
Only 65% of the Titanic's planned journey was completed successfully, sure. But he didn't say "planned journey".
On that subject, I was reading about the last Chinese imperial eunuch who died in 1998.
He was made a eunuch when a boy when his father (sensitive readers may want to look away) sliced off his penis and testicles with a carving knife. The father was engaged in a long-running boundary dispute, and hoped that having a son as imperial eunuch would help get judgement in his favour.
Did the legal ruse work?
No. The Ching dynasty lost power shortly afterwards.
I don't quite see what the two issues have to do with one another. A second referendum won't be able to propose meaningful amendments either. If the people can approve or reject a deal unamended, so can parliament, the people are not required to become involved.
Personally I back a second vote as I don't think parliament is capable at present to approve anything otherwise, leave remain or deal, but I think she is rather looking for an excuse there. If she wants to remain, or another GE, or no deal, or anything else, you don't need a second vote for that, parliament can just do it, so lack of ability to amend the proposal doesn't add to the need for a second vote at all, it's irrelevant.
Nor does it answer the point that it is not absurd to note that whatever parliament amends it to does not necessarily have any bearing on the EU.
I see no reason both of those things cannot be true. Not everyone believes A50 can be withdrawn (even if parliament wanted it to), and it is almost certainly the case that it is not practical for parliament to alter a deal that the EU has agreed to, even if it is possible. But of course the government would have an interest in parliament being involved as little as possible, which of course is why they tried not to have MPs involved in declaring A50. Why they did that I don't know, since having MPs authorise it is I would think a useful reminder to make to many MPs.
One side-effect of MPs having had to endorse the invocation of A50 by primary legislation is that it now almost certainly means that the government doesn't have the power to revoke A50 without further primary legislation (even if it's allowed to do it under EU law, which is itself as yet unknown), for the same reason that it wasn't allowed to make the original notification.
It's all a bit teetering on the edge - extension of transition period comes at the end of the transition period. How's that for certainty for business and the like?
One side-effect of MPs having had to endorse the invocation of A50 by primary legislation is that it now almost certainly means that the government doesn't have the power to revoke A50 without further primary legislation (even if it's allowed to do it under EU law, which is itself as yet unknown), for the same reason that it wasn't allowed to make the original notification.
Seems very probable. And someone would certainly launch a challenge if the government tried to withdraw without parliamentary approval. As per last night
Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
Sounds like a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on, but since legislative approval was required to issue A50, I would imagine whether the government now has the power to rescind it (or request rescinding or pausing it at least) would depend on what power the Act conferred upon the government. Since the text was so short and was explicitly about being able to notify the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw, I would not be entirely surprised if a strict interpretation would be that no other power was given, including a power to rescind said intention was given. It did say the PM 'may notify' of the intention in the Act, so I guess maybe you could interpret it since whether to do so was still in the discretion of the PM then suspending or withdrawing the intention would be too, but as a lay person that looks convoluted.
Edit: And of course the legal case which determined parliament had to confer the power to notify the EU via A50 to the government had both parties accept that A50 was irrevocable. Now, I believe even in that case it was noted that other opinions exist - it may well be revocable - but I wonder if that fact of its irrevocability was a factor in the decision that Parliament needed to grant the government the power in the first place, and therefore the same would need to happen in reverse unless explicitly stated. In matters of such import, would the courts be inclined to take broad interpretations of implied rules like that? Mr Meeks would be a better judge on that I am sure.
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
For those of us not watching - what is it (not pineapple & pizza, surely?)
(And for El_Capitano)
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
Mr. Herdson, did said invocation only occur following Gina Miller's court case? Or would it have happened anyway?
The Miller case determined that parliament had to invoke it, hence the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Section 1(1) says
The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
There is no other clause, beside technical ones. While it is possible to read into that an implied power that if A50 implies a power to revoke then the Act implies a similar power, I don't buy it. I think the words say what they say and no more and that an amending Act would be necessary to grant an equivalent power to notify revocation.
Great-Uncle Vince actually asks a useful question for once (about the Government "war-gaming" a second referendum) and gets a classic non-denial from May...
Mr. Herdson, did said invocation only occur following Gina Miller's court case? Or would it have happened anyway?
The Miller case determined that parliament had to invoke it, hence the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Section 1(1) says
The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
There is no other clause, beside technical ones. While it is possible to read into that an implied power that if A50 implies a power to revoke then the Act implies a similar power, I don't buy it. I think the words say what they say and no more and that an amending Act would be necessary to grant an equivalent power to notify revocation.
The legal basis for the UKSC decision was that A50 changed the rights of UK citizens and it is this that requires primary legislation. There is a risk that the SC would rule that withdrawing A50 would not change citizens rights because we have not actually left.
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
For those of us not watching - what is it (not pineapple & pizza, surely?)
(And for El_Capitano)
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
You won’t see anything of the sort. The Courts do not interfere in Parliamentary procedure.
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
For those of us not watching - what is it (not pineapple & pizza, surely?)
(And for El_Capitano)
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
You won’t see anything of the sort. The Courts do not interfere in Parliamentary procedure.
May is clearly the PM the voters want now to negotiate the Deal with the EU rather than Corbyn or an ERG backed candidate. If she did face a No confidence vote I expect she would win it with over 60% of Tory MPs backing her. At the end of the day less than a third of Tory MPs are affiliated to the ERG
May dropped another big hint that she's preparing for a second referendum there by ruling it out "at this stage of the negotiations".
Looks like if No Deal May could indeed consider EUref2 but she is clearly doing her upmost to ensure no hard border in Ireland and secure the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
For those of us not watching - what is it (not pineapple & pizza, surely?)
(And for El_Capitano)
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
You won’t see anything of the sort. The Courts do not interfere in Parliamentary procedure.
Gina Miller?
Was that quite the same thing? That case did not proscribe how parliament went about authorising the notification of A50, the procedure of it (though IIRC did provide an example of how it could) only that parliament needed to do that authorising. Whereas this would be to rule on a matter of procedure and not a question of if the government has the power to take specific actions?
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
For those of us not watching - what is it (not pineapple & pizza, surely?)
(And for El_Capitano)
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
You won’t see anything of the sort. The Courts do not interfere in Parliamentary procedure.
They were willing to set parameters in R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
Understandable if the Aussie media didn't cover the story.
1. Margin of error stuff. But 2. The way negotiations have gone isn't, I wouldn't think, convincing wavering leavers that this is a big group of friendly nations that we really ought to be part of.
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
For those of us not watching - what is it (not pineapple & pizza, surely?)
(And for El_Capitano)
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
You won’t see anything of the sort. The Courts do not interfere in Parliamentary procedure.
They were willing to set parameters in R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
Understandable if the Aussie media didn't cover the story.
I am in the UK, thanks.
The Miller case was not about Parliamentary procedure, it was a matter of the powers of the executive as against Parliament. There is a timless Convention that Courts do not interfere (and in fact have no rights to interfere) in Parliamentary procedure. The meaningful vote issues relate entirely to this and will not be subject to Court challenge.
Comments
Yvette Cooper has absolutely condemned the abuse and demanded the mp/mps are identified and held to account by the HOC and party
Perhaps he's angling for promotion to Shadow Home Secretary?
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/07/article-2126457-128078B5000005DC-189_634x265.jpg
And it looks like that vote could now get called.
Edit - And yes, Leaver examples are available.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1054395080470155264
https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/1054396520294989824
He was made a eunuch when a boy when his father (sensitive readers may want to look away) sliced off his penis and testicles with a carving knife. The father was engaged in a long-running boundary dispute, and hoped that having a son as imperial eunuch would help get judgement in his favour.
95% of the journey the Titanic actually made was completed successfully. You could make a case that the other 5% of the journey made was in the z plane rather than the x/y (lon/lat) planes and wasn't very successful.
Only 65% of the Titanic's planned journey was completed successfully, sure. But he didn't say "planned journey".
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1054396468692508673
He is just reading his response
Personally I back a second vote as I don't think parliament is capable at present to approve anything otherwise, leave remain or deal, but I think she is rather looking for an excuse there. If she wants to remain, or another GE, or no deal, or anything else, you don't need a second vote for that, parliament can just do it, so lack of ability to amend the proposal doesn't add to the need for a second vote at all, it's irrelevant.
Nor does it answer the point that it is not absurd to note that whatever parliament amends it to does not necessarily have any bearing on the EU.
Mr. Eagles, that's an astoundingly self-absorbed perspective (that you've cited).
It was hopeless then, it's hopeless now.
Mr. Herdson, did said invocation only occur following Gina Miller's court case? Or would it have happened anyway?
We're going to get a court case that will have even more impact than R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
I suspect we shall see a court case to determine whether if Raab's definition of a meaningful vote is correct, ie the vote will be to accept May's deal or No Deal.
Assuming if Parliament doesn't override him and offer other options, which is what Frank Field suggested.
We are getting into even more messy constitutional grounds.
Section 1(1) says
The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
There is no other clause, beside technical ones. While it is possible to read into that an implied power that if A50 implies a power to revoke then the Act implies a similar power, I don't buy it. I think the words say what they say and no more and that an amending Act would be necessary to grant an equivalent power to notify revocation.
A complete own goal by ERG
Great-Uncle Vince actually asks a useful question for once (about the Government "war-gaming" a second referendum) and gets a classic non-denial from May...
You won’t see anything of the sort. The Courts do not interfere in Parliamentary procedure.
We might have to revise our opinion and put Steve Baker atop that list.
Understandable if the Aussie media didn't cover the story.
2. The way negotiations have gone isn't, I wouldn't think, convincing wavering leavers that this is a big group of friendly nations that we really ought to be part of.
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/1054280691654053888
The Miller case was not about Parliamentary procedure, it was a matter of the powers of the executive as against Parliament. There is a timless Convention that Courts do not interfere (and in fact have no rights to interfere) in Parliamentary procedure. The meaningful vote issues relate entirely to this and will not be subject to Court challenge.