Nope. Revoking of A50 can only be done in accordance with our constitutional requirements. As long as there is extant statute compelling us to leave on 29/3/2019 the ECJ would be bound to use their veto as the conditions wouldn't be met.
The statue only compels us to leave if we haven't revoked Article 50...
I don't think that's actually true. Unless there's a "providing the notification, blah, blah, has not been withdrawn" clause that I missed?
Section 1 of that Act certainly has no such qualification: "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
Next you will be telling us that jezza doesn’t even know the login credentials to his own twitter account...
If only Donald Trump didn't. Think how much safer we would all be.
I seem to recall reading that he actually dictates his tweets. Pity the person whose job it is type out that guff.
Though given his 3am, just been taking a nightime piss, tweets, perhaps he really does write them.
Someone analysed his tweets and concluded Trump used Siri to dictate tweets.
It would explain a lot of his phonetic typos.
Siri, another crap Apple product....
Am not keen on Siri.
It struggles with my working class Yorkshire accent.
To be fair, all the voice assistants are shit. Just some are shitter than others. Kinda of like current political situation.
Google is reasonably decent at some voice controls to be used handsfree while driving. Eg changing destination on the satnav or changing music. Or setting an alarm or reminder.
Don't really use a voice assistant for anything else.
Google have the best tech, but all of them are limited to specific settings and wants commands in particular format. I just find it way easier to click buttons.
Clicking buttons while driving isn't really recommended.
Well I use Waze for directions / traffic, which automatically handles re-routing etc. And I can click buttons on steering wheel and console for handling calls / music.
So can I but I got a call a few days ago that meant I needed to change destination. Handsfree allows me to change destination without pulling over in order to enter the new destination which is illegal via clicking while driving.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
The irony is that they have lost this battle but, unless Parliament passes some different legislation, there will be a No Deal Brexit, which is what the ERG want (though they were utterly dishonest during the referendum campaign in not saying so).
It is all very well all these MPs saying that they don’t want a No Deal Brexit but what did they think they were voting for when they voted in favour of the EU Withdrawal Act?
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
Retroactive legislation - legislative time travel - is part of the UK constitution. I wouldn't risk passing the retroactive legislation after 29/3 because the treaties would have lapsed. *But* if the executive revoked A50 in say February using prerogative then passed retroactive primary legislation before 29/3/19 to make it bomb proof that would be fine.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
AIUI, the key phrase is that things are done "... in line with [our own] constitutional requirements ... "
How many Tory MPs on the government payroll? If we assume they all voted for May (I know, I know), what was the split for the rest of the MPs?
I think 102 MP ministers and whips, from a quick scan of https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers There may be some duplicates in there though, and I think there’s a few dozen junior bag carriers who don’t get a salary.
PPSs are deemed to be part of the payroll vote, even though they don't get paid any extra, and would stand to lose that "job" if they defy the whip. IIRC there's one PPS per minister (not sure whether whips have them too).
They don't. There are one or two quirks but basically it's exactly as you say.
Further to my earlier (slightly rash) thoughts - I wonder, actually, if the DUP could elect to work with Labour to intentionally bring down the Government, if Theresa May hesitates to bring the Meaningful Vote forward until mid or late January? Assuming that the deal still contains the backstop, they could veto it and then kick her out on principle - after which there would be no majority for any alternate Government, and the FTPA would force a dissolution.
Whilst there's no Parliament to legislate for the repeal of the EU Withdrawal Act and other Brexit legislation we can't put off Brexit - and, as has been pointed out to me, once you get far enough into January there's probably not enough time left in the timetable set out by the FTPA to dissolve Parliament, call a fresh election, have the election result verified, have Parliament meet and be sworn in, assemble a Government, conduct the state opening, and then finally to guillotine through the necessary repeals and revoke A50 before the clock runs out.
One could argue about the exact date when all of this becomes impossible, but I suggested that if May were to leave the meaningful vote until January 21st then a General Election couldn't be held any earlier than March 14th, which probably wouldn't leave enough time for all the other necessary steps to be completed before Brexit day.
I've previously thought that the DUP would keep the Tories in power for as long as May couldn't get her deal through, both to try to ensure they get the Brexit they want and to stop Corbyn from getting into power. But maybe waiting until a strategic moment like late January and then asking for a VoNC themselves would help to guarantee key aims for them? Once Parliament is dissolved then time runs out for desperate pro-Remain MPs on both sides of the House to attempt a realignment, even if they want to, and it becomes impossible for Brexit to be avoided. The DUP get a clean Brexit, and the threat of regulatory divergence for Northern Ireland is permanently removed.
Now, is there anything else I'm missing, or could this mean that the Remainers are almost out of time? There's only around a month until this potential point of no return, and that includes the Christmas recess.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
AIUI, the key phrase is that things are done "... in line with [our own] constitutional requirements ... "
Indeed. I don't understand how revoking A50 with the EU Withdrawal Act still on the statute book would meet the ECJ's requirements.
One cannot ask to stay in the EU, yet still have a piece of national law in force that states explicitly that the European treaties will cease to apply on such and such a date. We can't both revoke and leave at the same time. It's a logical impossibility.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
Except Norway is not on offer from either the Govt or the EU.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
AIUI, the key phrase is that things are done "... in line with [our own] constitutional requirements ... "
Indeed. I don't understand how revoking A50 with the EU Withdrawal Act still on the statute book would meet the ECJ's requirements.
One cannot ask to stay in the EU, yet still have a piece of national law in force that states explicitly that the European treaties will cease to apply on such and such a date. We can't both revoke and leave at the same time. It's a logical impossibility.
I think it means that we can revoke A50 as long as we do so in such a manner as to meet our own legal standards. So I guess that means we repeal the Withdrawal Bill using whatever process we usually use to repeal things.
Repealing should be quick. It is not you have to go through legistaltion line by line to stop it from working
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
Except Norway is not on offer from either the Govt or the EU.
The EU doesn’t get to ‘offer’ Norway. But would jump at facilitating our movement to a negotiated EEA. It would be their preferred option, with customs. Though I don’t support customs union membership. You are righ the gvt are set on their WA. But if WA is not going to pass parliament and all but the head Bangors want ‘no deal’, what’s left?
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
Except Norway is not on offer from either the Govt or the EU.
When did that stop them?
Nick Timothy’s only “devastating intervention” was the GE17 campaign.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
If you think maintaining FOM “honours the referendum result” you’ve been reading different polls to the ones I have....
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
AIUI, the key phrase is that things are done "... in line with [our own] constitutional requirements ... "
Indeed. I don't understand how revoking A50 with the EU Withdrawal Act still on the statute book would meet the ECJ's requirements.
One cannot ask to stay in the EU, yet still have a piece of national law in force that states explicitly that the European treaties will cease to apply on such and such a date. We can't both revoke and leave at the same time. It's a logical impossibility.
I think it means that we can revoke A50 as long as we do so in such a manner as to meet our own legal standards. So I guess that means we repeal the Withdrawal Bill using whatever process we usually use to repeal things.
Repealing should be quick. It is not you have to go through legistaltion line by line to stop it from working
Yes, that's fair. I was just seeking to underline the point that it does not appear that A50 can be revoked immediately and unilaterally by the Prime Minister. It can only happen once the Leave legislation is repealed in Parliament.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
This scenario raises the horrible spectre of the Civil Contingencies Act.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
If you think maintaining FOM “honours the referendum result” you’ve been reading different polls to the ones I have....
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
No longer being a member of the European Union 100% copper bottom, belt and braces honours the result in every single possible way. Everything else is conjecture.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
may can revoke a50?
This has been the subject of some discussion on the site this evening.
My contention and that of others is that A50 cannot be revoked by the Prime Minister on her own authority, because the EU Withdrawal Act is on the statute book and explicitly states that we are leaving. A situation in which a Prime Minister tried to revoke, yet legislation remained on the statute book which was intended to remove the UK from the European treaties at a fixed point in time, would be a logical absurdity. What if the A50 revocation was accepted as valid by the European Council, but Parliament then failed to repeal the legislation, either in good time or perhaps not at all? We would end up with what another poster called a Schrodinger's Brexit - both in and out simultaneously. It's hard to see how this meets the ECJ test of compliance with our constitutional requirements!
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
This scenario raises the horrible spectre of the Civil Contingencies Act.
I'm pleased we've got to the Civil Contingencies Act.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
This scenario raises the horrible spectre of the Civil Contingencies Act.
Oh goodness. I didn't know about that one. Tonight has been an education.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
Retroactive legislation - legislative time travel - is part of the UK constitution. I wouldn't risk passing the retroactive legislation after 29/3 because the treaties would have lapsed. *But* if the executive revoked A50 in say February using prerogative then passed retroactive primary legislation before 29/3/19 to make it bomb proof that would be fine.
Interesting that the US specifically outlawed retroactive legislation in its Constitution, isn’t it? The legal hoops needed to legitimize the legislation of the Convention Parliaments is quite interesting too.
Just seen a Sky Cinema advert advertising their Christmas movies. Home Alone 2 and Die Hard are great perennial Christmas Movies aren't they?
You had to mention Die Hard didn't you? You know how worked up TSE gets about that....
I take part in a puzzles competiton for grown-ups (ish) www.hadtoplayon.com if anyone cares They are running a Christmas - themed competition and the today's is about Christmas movies; the answer is Die Hard. couldn't help thinking that TSE and a few others her would have appreciated that.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
This scenario raises the horrible spectre of the Civil Contingencies Act.
Oh goodness. I didn't know about that one. Tonight has been an education.
I mean, they wouldn't dare - would they?!
They may have to, if the relevant legislation to implement withdrawal hasn't been passed and Parliament is dissolved for an election when the clock runs out.
On which lovely note I'm off to bed. Hope you don't have nightmares!
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
Yup. The ERG have lost today’s battle but could well win the war.
Thanks to Miller the invocation and exit date are set by primary legislation. It will take primarily legislation thanks to the Miller case to revoke.
Had Miller lost then we could revoke without legislation. Irony hey?
We can revoke without legislation.
We will probably need to undo some other legislation, as above.
That amounts to the same thing in practice, even if technically the revocation part of the procedure is not using legislation, if you still need to repeal some legislation for it to count.
While that s true, if A50 were revoked by the executive prior to March 29, and the enabling legislation passed after that date, would the revocation still be effective (i’m the eyes of the EU) ?
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
Retroactive legislation - legislative time travel - is part of the UK constitution. I wouldn't risk passing the retroactive legislation after 29/3 because the treaties would have lapsed. *But* if the executive revoked A50 in say February using prerogative then passed retroactive primary legislation before 29/3/19 to make it bomb proof that would be fine.
Interesting that the US specifically outlawed retroactive legislation in its Constitution, isn’t it? The legal hoops needed to legitimize the legislation of the Convention Parliaments is quite interesting too.
One of the greatest crimes of the Lib Dems in Coalition imho was letting the Tories use retroactive legislation to over turn a High Court defeat on welfare reform. They didn't even exaust the legal process by appealing to the Supreme Court. IDS might discover that what's sauce for the claimant's Goose is sauce for the Brexiters' Gander.
In practice the executive can't do that without being in contempt of Parliament. It is not possible for the executive to unilaterally revoke A50 without first repealing the Miller legislation.
Everything else is just rubbish.
The Miller case explicitly excluded revocation. And round we go again.
It doesn't matter that it excluded it. What it did was force the Executive to pass primary legislation to invoke A50. If you wish to revoke you would have to repeal that primary legislation.
As someone who supported the Miller case I do find it amusing that Remainers who were screaming about the will of Parliament before A50 was invoked are now arguing that Parliament should be ignored in revoking that same A50. Bunch of hypocrites.
That primary legislation merely gave May the power to invoke it. The legislation which is relevant to revocation is the EU Withdrawal Act itself.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
may can revoke a50?
This has been the subject of some discussion on the site this evening.
My contention and that of others is that A50 cannot be revoked by the Prime Minister on her own authority, because the EU Withdrawal Act is on the statute book and explicitly states that we are leaving. A situation in which a Prime Minister tried to revoke, yet legislation remained on the statute book which was intended to remove the UK from the European treaties at a fixed point in time, would be a logical absurdity. What if the A50 revocation was accepted as valid by the European Council, but Parliament then failed to repeal the legislation, either in good time or perhaps not at all? We would end up with what another poster called a Schrodinger's Brexit - both in and out simultaneously. It's hard to see how this meets the ECJ test of compliance with our constitutional requirements!
The section that says we are leaving (or more specifically repealing the 1972 Act) is section 1. But if you look at section 25, section 1 isn't in force, and requires the Government to table secondary legislation bringing it into force.
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
Horray. Norway style option was always going to be the most practical compromise to honouring the referendum result to leave the EU while recognising the result was very close.
If you think maintaining FOM “honours the referendum result” you’ve been reading different polls to the ones I have....
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
No longer being a member of the European Union 100% copper bottom, belt and braces honours the result in every single possible way. Everything else is conjecture.
Indeed. The question now is what to do about Labour? To get the WA through, May has to persuade Corbyn or some of his soldiers to join the cause. Labour's position is pure politics; can they be persuaded to see sense? The endlessly repeated guff about a Labour renegotiation is irrelevant - they aren't in power and aren't going to be. Voting the WA down is reckless behaviour.
And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
When is the exact date on which, if the DUP do pull the plug, and decide to keep it pulled for 14 days, they could wreck the chances of avoiding No Deal? I'm not sure there is one. If a GE is mandated because 14 days have elapsed since a VONC without a VOC, then under s2(7) "the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister". Whatever day is set for the GE, Parliament is dissolved on the 17th working day before it. What law stops the GE being called for 4 months ahead if the PM considers it necessary given a national emergency?
Back from casualty - thanks for the comments below
To be clear I meant they said we could wait 5 hours for ambulance or we could make own way there - not that I had been waiting for one that long - he was literally frozen up doubled over and shaking from the pain and feeling like he was going to faint.
He was seen within 20 minutes of arrival which is good.
Casualty busy, but calm and actually good natured (patients, staff really not).
Someone there had waited 3 hours for hospital transport home - they got away just after 12 - the person waiting with the old lady was apparently a nurse and she was scathing about the delay and lack of support- She hadn't had a drink in hours but wouldn't accept my offer of a tea from the machine.
Should I laugh or cry that the young nurse who did initial assessment said the nhs is shit....... his words not mine
Dr Fox, seems like morale is as bad as you said it was.
Turns out he (nurse) had a similar issue to son, but went back to Italy for his operation. What a vote of confidence eh.......
Like my son he had difficulty getting a correct diagnosis too.
When we saw doc hours later it was literally dose up with morphine and send us home to ring his consultant in morning.
At present his next appointment with consultant is for February..........
Devastating intervention from Nick Timothy in the Telegraph. He argues today means it's Norway or a second Referendum.
See Harrison tweets.
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Except that there is very little time indeed for any alternative to No Deal by default to be agreed upon and rushed onto the statute book, and there are huge obstacles - most notably the DUP. And if we get far enough into the New Year then (unless Labour agree not to no confidence the Government immediately) the DUP can pull the plug on Theresa May and therefore wipe out all the remaining legislative time before March 29th, whilst we hold a General Election that would be forced under the FTPA.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
may can revoke a50?
This has been the subject of some discussion on the site this evening.
My contention and that of others is that A50 cannot be revoked by the Prime Minister on her own authority, because the EU Withdrawal Act is on the statute book and explicitly states that we are leaving. A situation in which a Prime Minister tried to revoke, yet legislation remained on the statute book which was intended to remove the UK from the European treaties at a fixed point in time, would be a logical absurdity. What if the A50 revocation was accepted as valid by the European Council, but Parliament then failed to repeal the legislation, either in good time or perhaps not at all? We would end up with what another poster called a Schrodinger's Brexit - both in and out simultaneously. It's hard to see how this meets the ECJ test of compliance with our constitutional requirements!
If the situation were to persist, what you say is of course true. But what about a situation where the PM revoked A50 very shortly before March 29, and a newly elected Parliament repealed the legislation shortly after March 29 ?
How would our SC rule - as the ECJ test is ‘in line with UK constitutional requirements’ - since no doubt it would be litigated ?
And would PM May be prepared to revoke A50 in any event ?
The irony is that there is, in the right circumstance, quite possibly a majority in the Commons prepared to revoke A50 anyway - but no way of having a PM in place before March 29th who would do so.
The continued preoccupation of Corbyn with electoral politics ahead of helping resolve the Brexit dilemma is arguably as toxic as the Tory obsessions and splits, when it comes to this issue.
Remember, when prognosticating, we are talking about likelihoods not probabilities.
So what's likely to happen.
May gets some movement from the EU but everyone knows its balls. We get a repeat of the pre-MV one woman election campaign over Xmas/NY. God help us. MV is lost for reasons of spite if nothing else. May threatens deal/remain referendum. MV scrapes home on the second attempt.
Remember, when prognosticating, we are talking about likelihoods not probabilities....
more or less the same thing, surely ? After all, you can have a very small likelihood.
And it’s not entirely futile to work out what might technically be possible ahead of events.
I’d agree that some version of the May deal passing is marginally more probable than any other single outcome. But there are still several other not improbable outcomes.
Back from casualty - thanks for the comments below
To be clear I meant they said we could wait 5 hours for ambulance or we could make own way there - not that I had been waiting for one that long - he was literally frozen up doubled over and shaking from the pain and feeling like he was going to faint.
He was seen within 20 minutes of arrival which is good.
Casualty busy, but calm and actually good natured (patients, staff really not).
Someone there had waited 3 hours for hospital transport home - they got away just after 12 - the person waiting with the old lady was apparently a nurse and she was scathing about the delay and lack of support- She hadn't had a drink in hours but wouldn't accept my offer of a tea from the machine.
Should I laugh or cry that the young nurse who did initial assessment said the nhs is shit....... his words not mine
Dr Fox, seems like morale is as bad as you said it was.
Turns out he (nurse) had a similar issue to son, but went back to Italy for his operation. What a vote of confidence eh.......
Like my son he had difficulty getting a correct diagnosis too.
When we saw doc hours later it was literally dose up with morphine and send us home to ring his consultant in morning.
At present his next appointment with consultant is for February..........
Doesn't sound very good. The fundamental problem with Emergency Departments is the backdoor rather than the front. Patients cannot be admitted because there are no beds, clogging up the Emergency Department. The ambulances cannot unload so get stuck.
Remember, when prognosticating, we are talking about likelihoods not probabilities.
So what's likely to happen.
May gets some movement from the EU but everyone knows its balls. We get a repeat of the pre-MV one woman election campaign over Xmas/NY. God help us. MV is lost for reasons of spite if nothing else. May threatens deal/remain referendum. MV scrapes home on the second attempt.
So I assume, seen as the threat is 2nd ref, you think the eurosceptics in the Tories will mostly come into line and the Tories pass it with help from a few Labour and some independents?
Edit: I had them down as pretty stubborn, I didn't think enough would give into to what they might see as blackmail..
Comments
They are facing a very bleak winter.
Section 1 of that Act certainly has no such qualification: "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
So -I am somehow going to have to get him up there even though he is doubled over
Or would it depend upon what the UK SC decided ?
It is all very well all these MPs saying that they don’t want a No Deal Brexit but what did they think they were voting for when they voted in favour of the EU Withdrawal Act?
Have I missed something? Warren has drifted to 20 as Dem candidate.
Whilst there's no Parliament to legislate for the repeal of the EU Withdrawal Act and other Brexit legislation we can't put off Brexit - and, as has been pointed out to me, once you get far enough into January there's probably not enough time left in the timetable set out by the FTPA to dissolve Parliament, call a fresh election, have the election result verified, have Parliament meet and be sworn in, assemble a Government, conduct the state opening, and then finally to guillotine through the necessary repeals and revoke A50 before the clock runs out.
One could argue about the exact date when all of this becomes impossible, but I suggested that if May were to leave the meaningful vote until January 21st then a General Election couldn't be held any earlier than March 14th, which probably wouldn't leave enough time for all the other necessary steps to be completed before Brexit day.
I've previously thought that the DUP would keep the Tories in power for as long as May couldn't get her deal through, both to try to ensure they get the Brexit they want and to stop Corbyn from getting into power. But maybe waiting until a strategic moment like late January and then asking for a VoNC themselves would help to guarantee key aims for them? Once Parliament is dissolved then time runs out for desperate pro-Remain MPs on both sides of the House to attempt a realignment, even if they want to, and it becomes impossible for Brexit to be avoided. The DUP get a clean Brexit, and the threat of regulatory divergence for Northern Ireland is permanently removed.
Now, is there anything else I'm missing, or could this mean that the Remainers are almost out of time? There's only around a month until this potential point of no return, and that includes the Christmas recess.
One cannot ask to stay in the EU, yet still have a piece of national law in force that states explicitly that the European treaties will cease to apply on such and such a date. We can't both revoke and leave at the same time. It's a logical impossibility.
https://twitter.com/rbrharrison/status/1072964047505686536
The ultra unicorn hunters have sunk their cause once and for all.
Nice work Jacob.
Repealing should be quick. It is not you have to go through legistaltion line by line to stop it from working
Nick Timothy’s only “devastating intervention” was the GE17 campaign.
There might only be about four or five weeks left before it becomes impossible to avoid Hard Brexit.
No longer being a member of the European Union 100% copper bottom, belt and braces honours the result in every single possible way. Everything else is conjecture.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/12/12/beto-orourke-2020-straw-poll/2287956002/
My contention and that of others is that A50 cannot be revoked by the Prime Minister on her own authority, because the EU Withdrawal Act is on the statute book and explicitly states that we are leaving. A situation in which a Prime Minister tried to revoke, yet legislation remained on the statute book which was intended to remove the UK from the European treaties at a fixed point in time, would be a logical absurdity. What if the A50 revocation was accepted as valid by the European Council, but Parliament then failed to repeal the legislation, either in good time or perhaps not at all? We would end up with what another poster called a Schrodinger's Brexit - both in and out simultaneously. It's hard to see how this meets the ECJ test of compliance with our constitutional requirements!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6489477/Sajid-Javid-favourite-replace-Theresa-Hunt-Raab-Boris-lagging-behind.html
I mean, they wouldn't dare - would they?!
"They wanted to assassinate Mrs May. Instead the silly fools have blown themselves up."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6489623/PETER-OBORNE-wanted-assassinate-Mrs-Instead-silly-fools-blown-up.html
They are running a Christmas - themed competition and the today's is about Christmas movies; the answer is Die Hard. couldn't help thinking that TSE and a few others her would have appreciated that.
On which lovely note I'm off to bed. Hope you don't have nightmares!
My popcorn is depleted...
To be clear I meant they said we could wait 5 hours for ambulance or we could make own way there - not that I had been waiting for one that long - he was literally frozen up doubled over and shaking from the pain and feeling like he was going to faint.
He was seen within 20 minutes of arrival which is good.
Casualty busy, but calm and actually good natured (patients, staff really not).
Someone there had waited 3 hours for hospital transport home - they got away just after 12 - the person waiting with the old lady was apparently a nurse and she was scathing about the delay and lack of support- She hadn't had a drink in hours but wouldn't accept my offer of a tea from the machine.
Should I laugh or cry that the young nurse who did initial assessment said the nhs is shit....... his words not mine
Dr Fox, seems like morale is as bad as you said it was.
Turns out he (nurse) had a similar issue to son, but went back to Italy for his operation. What a vote of confidence eh.......
Like my son he had difficulty getting a correct diagnosis too.
When we saw doc hours later it was literally dose up with morphine and send us home to ring his consultant in morning.
At present his next appointment with consultant is for February..........
But what about a situation where the PM revoked A50 very shortly before March 29, and a newly elected Parliament repealed the legislation shortly after March 29 ?
How would our SC rule - as the ECJ test is ‘in line with UK constitutional requirements’ - since no doubt it would be litigated ?
The irony is that there is, in the right circumstance, quite possibly a majority in the Commons prepared to revoke A50 anyway - but no way of having a PM in place before March 29th who would do so.
The continued preoccupation of Corbyn with electoral politics ahead of helping resolve the Brexit dilemma is arguably as toxic as the Tory obsessions and splits, when it comes to this issue.
So what's likely to happen.
May gets some movement from the EU but everyone knows its balls.
We get a repeat of the pre-MV one woman election campaign over Xmas/NY. God help us.
MV is lost for reasons of spite if nothing else.
May threatens deal/remain referendum.
MV scrapes home on the second attempt.
After all, you can have a very small likelihood.
And it’s not entirely futile to work out what might technically be possible ahead of events.
I’d agree that some version of the May deal passing is marginally more probable than any other single outcome. But there are still several other not improbable outcomes.
There is simply not enough capacity.
Edit: I had them down as pretty stubborn, I didn't think enough would give into to what they might see as blackmail..