Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Would it need to take that long?
I would have thought:
Mid Jan - New document produced Late Jan - EU Summit sign-off Early Feb - House of Commons
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
A No Deal Brexit requires no actions, only the avoidance of actions.
It requires a Prime Minister willing not to request an extension while real world impacts start kicking in around them. The path of least resistance is not No Deal.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
Could some learned posters here clarify what I think I read that Bercow might allow amendments to the "deal" bill after the substantive motion is lost ? Is that possible ? Or, did I misunderstand it .
No, it's not possible.
He could - and probably will - allow relevant amendments to the motion to be tabled. These will be voted on before the motion itself (whether amended or as originally tabled). Only if that passes will there be a subsequent Bill. Obviously, if there is such a Bill, then MPs are free to table amendments as normal.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal. However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
Actually, I think it's an even shorter timeframe than that. I think the 30 minutes after the vote goes down will be the most critical in British political history since at least Howe's speech in 1990; possibly for many decades before that. How May and Corbyn respond will likely determine what happens in the VoNC the following day - and hence how events cascade from there. She gets one shot at that - 'nothing has changed' will not cut it.
I'll probably return to this in greater detail on Saturday.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal. However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
Isn’t the solution the addition to the political disagreement that the UKcan exit the backstop at any time by exiting on a WTO basis?
That’s a statement of fact - all it would involving the EU giving up is the potential moral suasion that the UK doesn’t like abrogation.
It’s a marginal give on their side but would possibly set minds at rest in the U.K.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
Wrong on almost every point.
1.The Speaker cannot allow a binding amendment to a non binding motion.
2. There are minimum times set down by the Electoral Commission for the various stages of referendum planning. Do you really want to have the EC saying that your Referendum Rerun does not meet basic electoral standards and should not be considered safe?
You can be pretty sure if there is any meaningful cut into the time for developing the balanced question (12 weeks) or for picking the sides and allowing them to prepare for the referendum (10 weeks) then the EC will be making some pretty loud noises about rigging the vote.
3. Even if you get to the vote you then have to deal with the legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Which will be all the more powerful if they can point to the referendum being rushed.
1) Point taken. Make it a binding motion then. 2) The EC are statutory and Parliament makes and changes statutes at will. 3) The Supreme Court can't strike down a statute.
(Wasn't British parliamentary sovereignty supposed to be what Leave was about?)
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
I don't believe the Labour leadership are at all behind a second referendum - McDonnell knows well enough that it would expose Labour's splits almost as much as the Tories'.
What I do think he's calculated is that it benefits Labour to *appear* to be behind a referendum, providing it's not actually delivered; and hence he's also concluded that it won't be delivered. I think he'd be right on both points.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC. r.
Wrong on almost every point.
1.The Speaker cannot allow a binding amendment to a non binding motion.
2. There are minimum times set down by the Electoral Commission for the various stages of referendum planning. Do you really want to have the EC saying that your Referendum Rerun does not meet basic electoral standards and should not be considered safe?
You can be pretty sure if there is any meaningful cut into the time for developing the balanced question (12 weeks) or for picking the sides and allowing them to prepare for the referendum (10 weeks) then the EC will be making some pretty loud noises about rigging the vote.
3. Even if you get to the vote you then have to deal with the legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Which will be all the more powerful if they can point to the referendum being rushed.
1) Point taken. Make it a binding motion then. 2) The EC are statutory and Parliament makes and changes statutes at will. 3) The Supreme Court can't strike down a statute.
Parliament can rush through emergency legislation to repeal the PPRA. abolish the EC, and require local authorities to conduct a referendum. But, that implies a degree of consensus in Parliament that doesn't exist.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal. However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
Isn’t the solution the addition to the political disagreement that the UKcan exit the backstop at any time by exiting on a WTO basis?...
I've made the point before. It would, in effect, not be wildly different from a no deal Brexit.
The significant difference is that it would require a government to deliberately opt for it, rather than, as now, happen automatically should no action be taken to avoid it.
If she loses on Dec.11 [ still the most likely outcome ], I cannot see any other practical alternative to a 2nd vote. I cannot believe apart from the ERG [ some of them ], any MP will accept "No deal"
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislation
A referendum requires that
True. But can a government then defy the will of Parliament ?
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislation
A referendum requires that
True. But can a government then defy the will of Parliament ?
It's more the case that local authorities are under no obligation to do something which is not legally required of them.
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Mr. T, new members are required to sign up to Schengen and the single currency. The UK has treaty opt-outs on those two items (not for the rebate, so we'd likely lose that if we remained). Rejoining is a different kettle of monkeys to remaining.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
We can't rejoin 'at once'. Once we're out, we'd need an Accession Treaty, which would have to be ratified by all 27 other members.
In theory, that could be sorted pretty quickly given that the UK would already be fully aligned with the EU acquis and if both sides were willing to accept the status quo ante then the treaty positions would already be embedded in existing EU law. Question is: would they be so willing?
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.
Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of the chess world championship in London. Maybe the sponsorship and media rights arrangements need looking at.
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.
Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of the chess world championship in London. Maybe the sponsorship and media rights arrangements need looking at.
The number of viewers on twitch / youtube are huge, where they aren't even showing the video of the match as it is PPV.
Two guys talking about the match as it goes on (without you being able to see anything) is the regularly the most viewed channel on twitch.
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.
Not if she's not PM anymore.
Any PM would be subject to the same pressures, and there is no party with a majority which makes it almost impossible for a minority group to impose a nutter.
This is the most astounding section of that article:
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
We can't rejoin 'at once'. Once we're out, we'd need an Accession Treaty, which would have to be ratified by all 27 other members.
In theory, that could be sorted pretty quickly given that the UK would already be fully aligned with the EU acquis and if both sides were willing to accept the status quo ante then the treaty positions would already be embedded in existing EU law. Question is: would they be so willing?
Yes, they would be more than willing. Most of them wish Brexit didn't exist and wasn't happening. The British changing their minds would be seen as a huge boost to a project in some peril. An injection of good news.
Also, we'd be somewhat humiliated, and the French in particular might find that to their taste.
We'd be even more humiliated if they turned us down. Not as though there isn't precedent for that....
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Seems an eminently plausible series of events. If they happen we will end up with Deal, as Labour and other opposition parties will back it above No Deal. However, what happens Dec 12 is key. Almost anything could. Would be very surprised if there were not 48 letters. May might resign. The grey suits may call time. The govt may lose a VONC. The EU or May or both may not re open negotiations. Then all subsequent actions proceed along a very different decision tree.
Actually, I think it's an even shorter timeframe than that. I think the 30 minutes after the vote goes down will be the most critical in British political history since at least Howe's speech in 1990; possibly for many decades before that. How May and Corbyn respond will likely determine what happens in the VoNC the following day - and hence how events cascade from there. She gets one shot at that - 'nothing has changed' will not cut it.
I'll probably return to this in greater detail on Saturday.
Whatever her reason, I think she has worked this out in her head before. She has run the clock down deliberately. I still cannot see why the EU27 could not have agreed the draft in their October summit. There was hardly any momentous change since then.
She has worked out that in the end Parliament will not agree to a No Deal. Therefore, May's Deal will stand at the 2nd, 3rd .... vote.
From Corbyn's point of view [ not necessarily the membership or most MPs ], is a permanent backstop any different to staying in a customs union ? May's Deal is not a million miles from the official Labour policy at the moment.
McDonnell's statement probably also confirms his reading that the clock has been run down sufficiently.
This is the most astounding section of that article:
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.
I think the court doesn't deal with hypothetical situations, so it's just a way to get the case dismissed. At some level the ambiguity may help - if it's decided the UK can't revoke unilaterally (which I think is likely), the UK is even more beholden to the EU.
Mr. S, entirely possible she may want to, however, she may be defenestrated before that happens.
Very true Mr. Dancer - and on that point I really haven't got a clue on the Tory next leader market - it's as clear as mud. All I know is to lay the favourite(s).
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
The easiest route out is to vote in favour of the WA.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Project fear round 2 seems to be more effective than the first one.
Stalemate broken in World Chess Championship as Magnus Carlsen wins first match in the overtime rapid matches.
I'm surprised there has not been more coverage of the chess world championship in London. Maybe the sponsorship and media rights arrangements need looking at.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
Didn't the EU say they would extend A50 for a referendum?
The European Council has never taken a view on it. Some Eurocrats have said that it would - and they may be right - but there's no guarantee when every government has a veto, may demand a price, and may change between now and the request.
I think practically it would be difficult to go beyond the EP elections (which Britain would then be entitled to take part in), and even that would be pushing it to fit the necessary steps in.
The Daily Mail’s parliamentary sketchwriter and theatre critic, Quentin Letts, has left the newspaper as it continues its transformation under its remain-supporting editor, Geordie Greig.
The Mail’s editorial line has shifted significantly following this summer’s departure of former editor Paul Dacre, a staunch proponent of a hard Brexit, leading some of the newspaper’s leading voices to look for work elsewhere.
Letts confirmed he was leaving the Mail in the coming months and would be writing for a number of other publications. “I have had 18 busy and exciting years writing for the Mail and its fine readers but I have now agreed a future economic partnership – as Guardian readers might put it - with the Times, Sunday Times and the Sun.”
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
We need a treaty letting us back in.
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Still doesn't explain how (or, indeed, when). Suppose:
11 Dec - Deal voted down 12 Dec - Govt wins VoNC; May tells HoC she will go back to Brussels to renegotiate 13-14 Dec - EU summit; EU declines to reopen the principles of the text but issues Barnier with a mandate to 'clarify' the agreement. Jan - intensive meetings fail to shift the main points of contention (consistent with Barnier's mandate). Early Feb - New document produced. Doesn't deal with NI differential or ECJ issues but provides a mechanism for backstop exit, albeit one loaded down with subjective decisions. mid-Feb - EU summit signs off 'clarification'. late-Feb - Deal put back to HoC.
Now, at that point, we're four weeks from Brexit. There's neither time for a GE nor a referendum. Even if an extension of A50 through to the EP elections is requested and granted (and the govt makes it clear it doesn't want to), there may not be time to pass legislation, register groups and hold a campaign. The choice at that point is Deal or No Deal, and it's one that parliament, not the people, would have to take.
The Speaker could allow an amendment to be tabled that requires a referendum. A month is ample time. If officials say "Britain needs 10 times longer to do something than Greece because that's how we do things here", they can resign to general guffawing and look for jobs in restaurants. (The time-wasting jobsworth sods would be well advised not to apply anywhere that serves moussaka though.) Bercow could also let a referendum motion be tabled on 11 December.
The “meaningful vote” is not primary legislation
A referendum requires that
True. But can a government then defy the will of Parliament ?
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Project fear round 2 seems to be more effective than the first one.
Perhaps with some plastic surgery, a new name and a moustache we can pass ourselves off as Iceland.
But - will the EU track us down via an FBI agent gone bad and force us to buy their £300Bn of goods ?
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
A second referendum of Remain vs Mays Deal = hanging vs strangulation ?
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Project fear round 2 seems to be more effective than the first one.
Only because there's no counter argument being put. Once the referendum campaign is actually underway both sides have to be given equal airtime and scrutiny again.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
Foreign policy, taxation, defence, health, education, criminal justice, immigration, public spending would all be determined by Westminster and/or Stormont. It's a huge exaggeration to say that the Backstop breaks up the UK.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
The voters were warned that Leave might put the union/peace process at risk, will of the people and all that jazz.
Mr. Eagles, another serious flaw, although it's possible Busted took the view, which some people do, that within a few decades human life can be extended to limits currently considered impossible through medical and technological advances.
grabcocque said: Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Richard Nabavi said: Some guy in fancy dress drags David Lidington into the dungeon, I believe,
There must be some downside to this. Can he not vote for the deal whilst in a dungeon?
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
We need a treaty letting us back in.
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Good luck on selling that on the doorstep.
The UK changing its mind and Brexit being reversed (even after March 29) would be a huge moral and political victory for Brussels (plus they'd get all that money AND the UK back in the Single Market and CU in perpetuity). The EU would be insane not to make this as inviting a prospect as possible for UK voters.
Making it punitive would be incomprehensibly dumb. Nonetheless, incomprehensibly dumb things have attended this whole process so, sure, it is possible Brussels might act like that, in a spasm of sadistic stupidity.
They would, of course, have us over a barrel again - and they have not exactly demonstrated a desperate unwillingness to take advantage of that up until now.
And justify it by reference to deeply seated principle.
grabcocque said: Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Richard Nabavi said: Some guy in fancy dress drags David Lidington into the dungeon, I believe,
There must be some downside to this. Can he not vote for the deal whilst in a dungeon?
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before. I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
Foreign policy, taxation, defence, health, education, criminal justice, immigration, public spending would all be determined by Westminster and/or Stormont. It's a huge exaggeration to say that the Backstop breaks up the UK.
It doesn't immediately break up the UK, but it creates an ever-widening wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
And we will only be allowed out of this if we, iconically, give up access to our fishing waters (and much else, no doubt). And we have no say during all this, the EU can pass any law it likes (without British input) and we have to accept it. This is a terrible deal.
And who gets to decide when we can be finally free? The EU. Literally.
The EU cannot pass any law it likes in the fields which I listed, and which are the most important areas of policy. But, in any case, the Backstop is uncomfortable for the EU. It gives us (in their eyes) privileged access to their markets, without our making financial contributions or accepting freedom of movement. That is why it will be in their interest to negotiate with us.
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before. I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.
Labour will do what they have done effectively up till now, ride two horses.
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before. I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.
Labour are waaaay more divided than the Tories on Brexit. At least at the top.
Year 0 of Brexit is a good place to implement what Corbyn and McDonnell REALLY want.
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.
No, she can't. The PM isn't authorised to request an A50 extension unless there's either (1) a deal already agreed by parliament, or (2) an amendment to the Withdrawal Bill. The Withdrawal Bill specifies when Britain will leave the EU. She would be in breach of that if she either asked for an extension, or revoked notification (which she also probably doesn't have the power to do because the Notification Act only granted her the power to notify of withdrawal, not notification to remain).
To go down any of those roads requires a vote in parliament. Most require amendment to legislation.
It doesn't immediately break up the UK, but it creates an ever-widening wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
And we will only be allowed out of this if we, iconically, give up access to our fishing waters (and much else, no doubt). And we have no say during all this, the EU can pass any law it likes (without British input) and we have to accept it. This is a terrible deal.
And who gets to decide when we can be finally free? The EU. Literally.
That's not the problem with the Northern Ireland backstop.
If the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to end the backstop and join wholeheartedly with the UK, then irrespective of what was in the treaties, the EU would have to accept it.
The problem is that the backstop puts Northern Ireland in an incredibly privileged position. They are effectively part of two different customs areas. They are inside the EU, but not bound by EU's labour market or environmental or tax provisions. They will, undoubtedly, end up at the end of subsidies from both the UK and the EU.
Once Northern Ireland is in that position - no matter what the treaties say - it will be politically impossible to leave it. The Nationalist community will be 100% opposed to exit, and there will be many in the Unionist community who benefit financially, and also therefore oppose an exit.
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
I don't believe the Labour leadership are at all behind a second referendum - McDonnell knows well enough that it would expose Labour's splits almost as much as the Tories'.
What I do think he's calculated is that it benefits Labour to *appear* to be behind a referendum, providing it's not actually delivered; and hence he's also concluded that it won't be delivered. I think he'd be right on both points.
I think you're mistaken here. As I posted on the last thread, at yesterday's meeting McDonnell went even further: he made it clear that Labour would be likely to support a referendum if May's deal was defeated and an election wasn't possible, AND suggested that if Labour did gain power then it might be appropriate to have a referendum on whatever renegotiation was subsequently achieved.
Incidentally, he also said repeatedly that he personally was a Remainer. People project onto the Labour leadership an image of secretly fanatical Brexiteers, but it's actually low down on their priority list either way - they reckon we'll either remain or stay closely aligned, and regard the Tory obsession with it with some amazement. Winning an election and governing successfully comes a zillion miles ahead for them.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
Google “abrogation”
And then remember it can be done unilaterally with minimal consequences
This wasn't Labour's line, so either McDonnell's gone off-grid or this is part of the slow realignment of Labour behind a 2nd ref.
Or a tactical ploy to engineer a no deal Brexit (which is a more likely result of voting the deal down) and blame it on the Tories ?
It's impossible to engineer a no deal Brexit without putting in place a Prime Minister who's actually willing to go through with it.
On occasion, you can be remarkably naive.
I don't think that's naive. Explain in practical terms how no deal actually happens.
No agreement is reached on any particular solution; no action is taken, and it happens.
I think it's deceptive to think it happens because of "no action". In reality, for a PM to set on that course and stick to it even as society erupts requires a hell of a lot of "action".
But doesn't require passing a vote in the House. All other options do.
Which is precisely why it's less likely. The PM acting alone can prevent No Deal.
No, she can't. The PM isn't authorised to request an A50 extension unless there's either (1) a deal already agreed by parliament, or (2) an amendment to the Withdrawal Bill. The Withdrawal Bill specifies when Britain will leave the EU. She would be in breach of that if she either asked for an extension, or revoked notification (which she also probably doesn't have the power to do because the Notification Act only granted her the power to notify of withdrawal, not notification to remain).
To go down any of those roads requires a vote in parliament. Most require amendment to legislation.
She can change the date using Henry VIII powers. If she requests an extension from the Council they're not going to say, "I'm sorry but you'll need a vote in parliament first."
Not sure I've ever seen the line that a politician's words don't mean what he thinks spun out before. I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.
I'm fairly sure that Trump's spokesman has said it too.
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
The ERG are just impatient.
Hmm. During the years after 1922 Ireland became significantly poorer.... for a long, long time. And it only took them 30 years to finally gain freedom, and 70 years to catch up, economically?
Forgive me if I am not reassured.
I've tried to like TMay's deal, I really have, but I am afraid it does look like quasi-colonial to me, and also a menace to the UK.
Practically, I cannot see how it passes, anyway. Then what?
Granted, it's not a perfect analogy (can't really compare 2020 UK to 1922 Ireland in terms of the economics), but it holds generally for me.
But what's to stop parliament passing an act in, say, June 2019, for a referendum to Rejoin the EU at once, and nullifying all previous Brexity legislation. We'd need agreement from the EU, I am pretty sure they'd give it.
Amusing that all these options are being bandied about without the consideration for the Conservative voters.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
I think this is now going way beyond party politics. This is about the survival of the UK and so on and so forth.
"Survival of the Uk" = leaving a trading club.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
Perhaps you haven't noticed this thing called the Northern Irish backstop which literally hives off a chunk of the UK and puts it, in various ways, in a different jurisdiction, ruled in part by the EU and ECJ (without any representation) and evermore divergent over time, a situation which would probably lead to a border poll and a united Ireland. This process could then be repeated for Scotland.
Yes, this is about the survival of the UK.
Google “abrogation”
And then remember it can be done unilaterally with minimal consequences
Example One: President Donald J Trump and all of the US's existing Treaty obligations.
Doesn't read to me like he's confirming fears, seems to be confirming we need chemicals while simultaneously confirming we will have those chemicals and that the water "will be" safe. Seems like a big hoo haa over nothing.
Year 3000 by Busted (a brilliant song by a much under-rated band) is also notable as being the only hit single of the modern era to use the phrase "flux capacitor" in its lyrics.
I always admired "plebeian" in the original "Cry Me A River".
I take it you support TMay's deal? Serious question.
Presuming it is voted down, what is your preferred alternative? No Deal?
I do support the deal, not because it's great, but because I prefer it to Remain or No Deal.
I'm not sure about the alternative.
That's genuinely interesting. Your total lack of an alternative is less than comforting, however.
I don't want to Remain, and I think that No Deal would be extremely disruptive. I think that the consequences have been exaggerated, but they would be bad.
Why are we importing this stuff in the first place?
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?
This is a brilliant illustration of why people who think you can have a single market without politics are fooling themselves. A single market is inherently political.
Is this the same mis-reporting as last time when the BoE took extreme assumptions to 'stress test' the banks but which weren't in fact predictions about what might happen, just 'very much worst case' scenarios?
Comments
I would have thought:
Mid Jan - New document produced
Late Jan - EU Summit sign-off
Early Feb - House of Commons
I'll probably return to this in greater detail on Saturday.
That’s a statement of fact - all it would involving the EU giving up is the potential moral suasion that the UK doesn’t like abrogation.
It’s a marginal give on their side but would possibly set minds at rest in the U.K.
2) The EC are statutory and Parliament makes and changes statutes at will.
3) The Supreme Court can't strike down a statute.
(Wasn't British parliamentary sovereignty supposed to be what Leave was about?)
What I do think he's calculated is that it benefits Labour to *appear* to be behind a referendum, providing it's not actually delivered; and hence he's also concluded that it won't be delivered. I think he'd be right on both points.
The EU stupidly refuse to give new Con leader any flexibility.
Voila.
It would, in effect, not be wildly different from a no deal Brexit.
The significant difference is that it would require a government to deliberately opt for it, rather than, as now, happen automatically should no action be taken to avoid it.
Maintaining an impasse is probably the easiest thing to arrange out of all the possibilities, given the ideologues and fools on both sides.
I take this will be known by Dec.11.
May won't be allowed to drive the party into a ditch - all these fanciful options of 2nd referendums, crap deals etc do just that.
In theory, that could be sorted pretty quickly given that the UK would already be fully aligned with the EU acquis and if both sides were willing to accept the status quo ante then the treaty positions would already be embedded in existing EU law. Question is: would they be so willing?
Defeat in the HoC will almost mean than May will turn to the country once again now that Labour is onside.
Two guys talking about the match as it goes on (without you being able to see anything) is the regularly the most viewed channel on twitch.
"Richard Keen the lawyer for the British government, said the ECJ should refuse to consider the issue at all, saying it was hypothetical as the UK had no plans to reverse Brexit."
It's the equivalent to saying don't bother with that medical insurance quote as I'm not planning on getting ill thanks.
Not as though there isn't precedent for that....
She has worked out that in the end Parliament will not agree to a No Deal. Therefore, May's Deal will stand at the 2nd, 3rd .... vote.
From Corbyn's point of view [ not necessarily the membership or most MPs ], is a permanent backstop any different to staying in a customs union ? May's Deal is not a million miles from the official Labour policy at the moment.
McDonnell's statement probably also confirms his reading that the clock has been run down sufficiently.
Does the Uk need to go into witness protection in Idaho ?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2018/nov/28/magnus-carlsen-v-fabiano-caruana-world-chess-championship-tie-breakers-live
I think practically it would be difficult to go beyond the EP elections (which Britain would then be entitled to take part in), and even that would be pushing it to fit the necessary steps in.
The Mail’s editorial line has shifted significantly following this summer’s departure of former editor Paul Dacre, a staunch proponent of a hard Brexit, leading some of the newspaper’s leading voices to look for work elsewhere.
Letts confirmed he was leaving the Mail in the coming months and would be writing for a number of other publications. “I have had 18 busy and exciting years writing for the Mail and its fine readers but I have now agreed a future economic partnership – as Guardian readers might put it - with the Times, Sunday Times and the Sun.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/28/quentin-letts-to-leave-daily-mail-the-times-brexit
They'd probably stick in a few requirements that we wouldn't make them go through this again, something like The UK agrees not to trigger Article 50 until the year 3000 at the earliest, also the UK agrees to join the Euro, and cede Gibraltar to Spain for perpetuity.
Good luck on selling that on the doorstep.
But - will the EU track us down via an FBI agent gone bad and force us to buy their £300Bn of goods ?
Mr. Eagles, ha. The year 3000 reminds me of Busted's logically challenging lyric:
Not much had changed
But we lived underwater
grabcocque said:
Bercow has invited Kier Starmer to write him a letter so he can rule whether the government is in Contempt of Parliament for ignoring the terms of the Humble Address?
Any experts on Parliamentary diddling can tell us what happens if the government is held in contempt of parliament by the Speaker?
Richard Nabavi said:
Some guy in fancy dress drags David Lidington into the dungeon, I believe,
There must be some downside to this. Can he not vote for the deal whilst in a dungeon?
And justify it by reference to deeply seated principle.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1067818322929041410
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/1067809867199590400
I mean its obviously normally true, but opponents tend to point it out.
Professor Fisher is never wrong.
To go down any of those roads requires a vote in parliament. Most require amendment to legislation.
If the people of Northern Ireland voted in a referendum to end the backstop and join wholeheartedly with the UK, then irrespective of what was in the treaties, the EU would have to accept it.
The problem is that the backstop puts Northern Ireland in an incredibly privileged position. They are effectively part of two different customs areas. They are inside the EU, but not bound by EU's labour market or environmental or tax provisions. They will, undoubtedly, end up at the end of subsidies from both the UK and the EU.
Once Northern Ireland is in that position - no matter what the treaties say - it will be politically impossible to leave it. The Nationalist community will be 100% opposed to exit, and there will be many in the Unionist community who benefit financially, and also therefore oppose an exit.
In 1922 Ireland signed off (or M Collins and the foreunners of Fine Gael did, whilst De Valera and the fore runners of Fianna Fail violently continued to disgaree for another year or so) on a "deal" that gave 26 counties Dominion status. I am not aware there was a "way out" of that, per se. It was permanent so to speak. All Ireland remained a de jure monarchy.
27 years later and a lot of "events dear boy events" as MacMillan used to say and a 26 county Republic was declared, and it was little more that a footnote, not a huge constitutional deal as it would've been.
I strongly suspect the same sort of processes would apply to the Backstop. Can't be sure of the timing but we would be out, and go from there.
Sit on the side of the riverbank long enough and the bodies of your enemies float by.
The ERG are just impatient.
Incidentally, he also said repeatedly that he personally was a Remainer. People project onto the Labour leadership an image of secretly fanatical Brexiteers, but it's actually low down on their priority list either way - they reckon we'll either remain or stay closely aligned, and regard the Tory obsession with it with some amazement. Winning an election and governing successfully comes a zillion miles ahead for them.
And then remember it can be done unilaterally with minimal consequences
I'm not sure about the alternative.
So I began the presentation with 'Well if I was the other side this is how I would proceed' then winged it from there.
It worked.
Thank the heavens for the abundance of intellectual self confidence I possess.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1067823595005591552
Cake: delayed a bit.
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1067823258416771072
Are British companies incapable are creating the chemicals that can purify the water we drink?
Like I said on Sunday what the **** have British governments actually been doing for the past 40 years?