National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal
He is a buffoon
No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove
He is a third rate, dishonest, incompetent, lazy, promiscuous and narcissistic buffoon who would split the party wide open.
Let's run with this and say you'd get some red Tories willing to vote for a Corbyn government to stop Brexit. It would be a very ramshackle government, facing almost certain defeat in an ensuing election.
You think the likes of Milne, Macdonnell, Long-Bailey, Pidcock and Russell-Moyle would give up power once they got it? Merely for suffering a small thing like electoral defeat?
I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are. The Civil Contingencies Act might come into play...I can easily see how they might plead how section 1, paragraphs 1a and 1b might apply.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.
And those with sense to stop no deal
"No Deal" can't be stopped in that sense as it's a default end point of A50.
You can stop Brexit by revoking A50, having another referendum and so on and then you stop No Deal but otherwise...
Basically all these MP's now throwing their toys out of the pram voted for No Deal when they voted to invoke A50.
All they've achieved with vote is is to make life for the government even harder if it is No Deal and make the country look even more foolish as it seems we've got a majority of MP's that are so stupid they didn't know what the end result of A50 could be when they chose to invoke it.
Thated off.
I do wonder if the point of wrecking tactics like Yvette Cooper's is not so much to force revocation, or even a second referendum - either of which
Thwarting Brexit outright requires the majority in Parliament to break across political lines and, if Theresa May won't capitulate, to throw her out and replace her with an emergency Government in order to give notice of revocation to the European Council, and to repeal the Withdrawal Act and all the rest of the Brexit legislation. That self-same majority would then have to submit itself to a General Election, at which it could be held liable for defying the majority of the electorate.
Perhaps they've simply decided to allow Brexit to happen, but do everything in their power to guarantee that it is a catastrophe? Then they can try to pin all of the blame on the Brexiteers, punish the voters for not doing what they wanted, and try to get enough people to repent of their sin in order to attempt to join the EU again (minus all the opt-outs) in a few years' time?
I certainly hope that is not the case. I have seen the theory, even the hope, that no deal is indeed a disaster that will hasten a rejoining movement, but to actively contribute to making ti a disaster rather than even attempt mitigation seems very untoward behaviour.
I think there a lot of people who hate Brexit, but take the view that the worst is best (and vice versa).
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal
He is a buffoon
No he is not, as his London Mayoral and EU referendum wins prove
He is a buffoon who would split the party wide open
He leads both this month's Tory members polls, including the non ConHome scientific won from Tim Bale. Corbyn was hardly a unity figure either after he won the membership vote in Labour
He wont have a party to lead
He will as most Tory voters and Tory members will back him, as most Labour members and Labour voters backed Corbyn even as most Labour MPs voted against Corbyn
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
So, if they genuinely wish to avoid Hard Brexit *AND* they either can't get the WIthdrawal Agreement through or don't want to vote for it in the first place, then we're back to the question of what on Earth they think they're going to do instead?
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
Which piece of primary legislation do you think needs to be revoked if we revoke Article 50? The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 would not need to be repealed (indeed, repealing it would be pointless as the power under Section 1 has already been exercised by the PM). So which other piece of primary legislation needs to be revoked?
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
Revocation is insufficient in and of itself. The Withdrawal Act and all of the other Brexit legislation already passed would need to be repealed before it has the chance to come into effect.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.
At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.
Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.
There is no other deal on the table. The EU are certainly not going to be receptive to further negotiations in advance of our leaving.
Without Corbyn's support, it is hard to see Revoke as an option. And it is harder still to see that support forthcoming without another referendum, which we don't have time for.
That means either the deal goes through, or we leave without one.
All this vote does is mean the consequences of the latter are still more damaging.
The irony is those who want a Norway model, or even rejoin, should be pushing for this deal as it does give time for us to arrange those outcomes.
Final paragraph, not really, as once we are into the transition period we are technically out.
I agree it means we can't revoke. However, I think the EU would almost certainly accept an accelerated rejoin under A49, bearing in mind we would have full alignment in every respect during transition. That's why I said 'rejoin.'
If we pass into April and we have left, rejoining will take a generation, or more likely never ever take place even if Brexit is a disaster. Any (unlikely) rejoining would be on vastly inferior terms, we would be expected to go full federalist and anyway any damage (none will occur anyway according to Davis and Johnson) would have been done and would be irreversible.
If either Mrs May or Mr Johnson get their brands of Brexit the game is up.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
Expect it is less than 100. With over 500 mps lined up against no deal it will be stopped. The easiest way of course is to pass TM WDA
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
Revocation is insufficient in and of itself. The Withdrawal Act and all of the other Brexit legislation already passed would need to be repealed before it has the chance to come into effect.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
The important provisions of the Withdrawal Act only only come into force on exit day. The Act defines exit day as 11pm on 29th March 2019 but allows that definition to be amended by regulations made by a Minister, so no need to repeal it to stop it coming into effect.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal
He is a buffoon
Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.
Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).
There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.
He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won
That is damning him with faint praise! And I don't think he's 'as much a leader' as either of them...
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
Revocation is insufficient in and of itself. The Withdrawal Act and all of the other Brexit legislation already passed would need to be repealed before it has the chance to come into effect.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
I believe the Withdrawal Act could be amended by government using the powers within it so that it doesn’t come into effect.
And the vote was only one development today. We've had another junior minister say on the record that they'll resign in the event of no deal and another cabinet minister come as close to saying that as cabinet ministers can. It's abundently clear after today, if it wasn't already, that there is no majority in the Commons for no deal and the government in it's current form will break up if it pursues one. The sooner we accept that May's vassalage deal is now the bare minimum the commons will have to accept the sooner we can decide what will need to be added to it to secure a majority for it. Let's call it the Deal + . What does the Deal + look like ?
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal
He is a buffoon
Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.
Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).
There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.
He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won
I don’t think that’s true. Boris lacks the audacity and resolve of either of them.
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
Revocation is insufficient in and of itself. The Withdrawal Act and all of the other Brexit legislation already passed would need to be repealed before it has the chance to come into effect.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
I believe the Withdrawal Act could be amended by government using the powers within it so that it doesn’t come into effect.
I believe that to be so, however the politics of applying that amendment would be dangerously unacceptable to Mssrs. Goddard, Yaxley-Lennon and their band of hi-viz wearing chums.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal
He is a buffoon
Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.
Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).
There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.
He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won
I don’t think that’s true. Boris lacks the audacity and resolve of either of them.
I am sure Mr HYUFD will be able to provide polling evidence to contradict that!
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
Revocation is insufficient in and of itself. The Withdrawal Act and all of the other Brexit legislation already passed would need to be repealed before it has the chance to come into effect.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
I think that's where you are wrong. If the A50 notification is revoked the treaties continue to apply. There is no exit day and none of the legislation you refer to comes into force. Indeed the main piece needs to be brought into force via secondary legislation anyway. It's become a PB Brexiter trope that this us all legally done and dusted and we *have* to leave. It's completely untrue.
A key legal argument in the Miller case was Brexit removed citizens existing legal rights and thus needed primary legislation and couldn't be done via prerogative power. Revocation of A50 wouldn't remove any citizen rights. It would just keep the status quo. In addition the notification Act didn't invoke A50. It didn't even say it should be invoked. It just gave the PM the power to invoke if she wanted to and she did.
So there is a legal argument to be made both that Miller doesn't apply to revocation as no rights are removed by it and that no primary legislation is overruled by revocation. Parliament has never legislated to invoke A50.
But from a political point of view any revocation of A50 via prerogative would surely and reasonably end up in the Supreme Court and given the stakes the government woukd surely want to bullet proof it with legislation anyway. Though in the UK parliament can legislate retroactively.
That is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons given for requiring Primary Legislation, once it has been passed it cannot be revoked by the Executive without Parliamentary approval. Miller is yesterdays news as far as the law now stands. To revoke a piece of Primary Legislation you need a vote in Parliament.
That's the legal argument. Which primary legislation would revoking the A50 notification contradict ?
Revocation is insufficient in and of itself. The Withdrawal Act and all of the other Brexit legislation already passed would need to be repealed before it has the chance to come into effect.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
I think that's where you are wrong. If the A50 notification is revoked the treaties continue to apply. There is no exit day and none of the legislation you refer to comes into force. Indeed the main piece needs to be brought into force via secondary legislation anyway. It's become a PB Brexiter trope that this us all legally done and dusted and we *have* to leave. It's completely untrue.
The PB brexiteer trope is that if parliament does nothing then we will leave. It is not clear if the government will want to revoke A50, and hard to see how parliament does its without the government since it is the executive which conducts treaty negotiations.
I've been wondering: in the event of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, who will be the first high-profile Leaver to issue a public and heartfelt apology? My bet is Gove. I doubt he'll disown Brexit as such, but I can imagining him doing a 'On behalf of all politicians, and I include those of us who campaigned for and put so much faith in Brexit, I acknowledge that we have fallen short of the standards expected, and for that I most sincerely apologize.'
I've been wondering: in the event of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, who will be the first high-profile Leaver to issue a public and heartfelt apology? My bet is Gove. I doubt he'll disown Brexit as such, but I can imagining him doing a 'On behalf of all politicians, and I include those of us who campaigned for and put so much faith in Brexit, I acknowledge that we have fallen short of the standards expected, and for that I most sincerely apologize.'
Doubt it. Who ever apologises for their screw ups? Has anyone ever apologised for Iraq? Or the Lisbon Treaty?
Politicians are more likely want to look forwards than back. Maybe criticise the mistakes but argue about where to go from here.
And the vote was only one development today. We've had another junior minister say on the record that they'll resign in the event of no deal and another cabinet minister come as close to saying that as cabinet ministers can. It's abundently clear after today, if it wasn't already, that there is no majority in the Commons for no deal and the government in it's current form will break up if it pursues one. The sooner we accept that May's vassalage deal is now the bare minimum the commons will have to accept the sooner we can decide what will need to be added to it to secure a majority for it. Let's call it the Deal + . What does the Deal + look like ?
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
But, they have to be willing to put Corbyn into office, in order to prevent it.
Not all 50 need to be willing to do that.
Enough of them have to.
It's May or Corbyn. The Conservatives aren't going to install Dominic Grieve if they lose a VONC.
They have to be willing to trigger an election at least, but even then what's the point of that? They will lose their whip, almost certainly thus lose their seat and after the election either they get PM Corbyn or a Tory PM whose new MPs exclude the Remainers who triggered the election and thus is an even more Leave-dominated party than before.
It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.
At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.
Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.
I don't think that is right - there may be a majority against No Deal, but that doesn't mean there's a majority in favour of anything else (which has been the problem all along). That is especially the case because of the fact that the official Labour position is utter, risible nonsense, involving a ludicrous renegotiation which cannot possibly be achieved.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
I think that's where you are wrong. If the A50 notification is revoked the treaties continue to apply. There is no exit day and none of the legislation you refer to comes into force. Indeed the main piece needs to be brought into force via secondary legislation anyway. It's become a PB Brexiter trope that this us all legally done and dusted and we *have* to leave. It's completely untrue.
I've been scrabbling around for the relevant clarification and yes, it appears that I've overlooked the power of ministers to amend the exit date if necessary - so a Remain-inclined Government could, of course, change it to 1 January 4000 and then formally repeal the Withdrawal Act at its leisure.
Of course, in practice this requires exactly the same thing as revocation itself - a friendly Government - so unless Theresa May does a complete 180-degree U-turn and decides either to attempt to legislate for a referendum, or simply to revoke A50 under her own authority, then this doesn't make any difference to how events could play out.
We, of course do not have to leave at any point before it actually happens, but to positively avert Brexit there needs to be a sympathetic Government, and that we still do not have.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
I've been wondering: in the event of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, who will be the first high-profile Leaver to issue a public and heartfelt apology? My bet is Gove. I doubt he'll disown Brexit as such, but I can imagining him doing a 'On behalf of all politicians, and I include those of us who campaigned for and put so much faith in Brexit, I acknowledge that we have fallen short of the standards expected, and for that I most sincerely apologize.'
What about in the event a No Deal Brexit where nothing very much happens and everyone wonders what all the fuss was about?
This amendment is quite significant - for MPs against No Deal to vote to make it even more chaotic means they are quite confident that they will be able to stop no deal from happening. I think this means going as far as VONCing the government if May picks no deal over a second vote etc. You wouldn't rebel in this manner if you weren't sure.
If they are confident they can stop no deal, there will be less incentive for remainers or labour to vote for May's deal in a last minute panic.
I'm starting to wonder if May will accept a second vote on her deal vs remain with an extension sought for A50 (which would be granted for a ref that idnt include no deal as an option). It's about the only option left that could keep her in office.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.
And those with sense to stop no deal
"No Deal" can't be stopped in that sense as it's a default end point of A50.
You can stop Brexit by revoking A50, having another referendum and so on and then you stop No Deal but otherwise...
Basically all these MP's now throwing their toys out of the pram about No Deal voted for No Deal when they voted to invoke A50.
All they've achieved with this vote is is to make life for the government even harder if it is No Deal and make the country look even more foolish as it seems we've got a majority of MP's that are so stupid they didn't know what the end result of A50 could be when they chose to invoke it.
For crying out loud, MPs is a plural initialism and does not require a possessive apostrophe. Two occurrences in as many hours. PB should know better!
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
There's a big difference between wanting to go toe-to-toe with the EU in a game of chicken, and actually wanting to go through with no deal at the end of March when it turns out the consequences are not all scaremongering.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assum risk a political meltdown in the Tory party if shee tries to persisted in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
I agree. May has embarked on a high stakes game of chicken, a game dependent on the credibility of NoDeal. That credibility is evaporating rapidly and May will risk a political meltdown if she tries to persist. These circumstances could help are as she can present to the ERG the possible hard reality of NoBrexit if they do not fall into line.
This amendment is quite significant - for MPs against No Deal to vote to make it even more chaotic means they are quite confident that they will be able to stop no deal from happening. I think this means going as far as VONCing the government if May picks no deal over a second vote etc. You wouldn't rebel in this manner if you weren't sure.
If they are confident they can stop no deal, there will be less incentive for remainers or labour to vote for May's deal in a last minute panic.
I'm starting to wonder if May will accept a second vote on her deal vs remain with an extension sought for A50 (which would be granted for a ref that idnt include no deal as an option). It's about the only option left that could keep her in office.
Feels like No Deal took a big hit tonight.
Yes. This is also my reading. May has directly told us this won’t happen, but of course she has to say this until the moment she suddenly doesn’t need to.
In any case, she will “blame” Parliament and she won’t actually be wrong.
I am curious though as to whether she would actively campaign for her Deal. I don’t think she actually believes her Deal is better than Remain, although she may justify it to herself on the grounds that her Deal would ultimately be a less divisive outcome for the country.
It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.
At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.
Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.
I don't think that is right - there may be a majority against No Deal, but that doesn't mean there's a majority in favour of anything else (which has been the problem all along). That is especially the case because of the fact that the official Labour position is utter, risible nonsense, involving a ludicrous renegotiation which cannot possibly be achieved.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
That they think they want. Many will rapidly get cold feet when the consequences become real in the early spring. All push and no piss I’m afraid.
I've been wondering: in the event of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, who will be the first high-profile Leaver to issue a public and heartfelt apology? My bet is Gove. I doubt he'll disown Brexit as such, but I can imagining him doing a 'On behalf of all politicians, and I include those of us who campaigned for and put so much faith in Brexit, I acknowledge that we have fallen short of the standards expected, and for that I most sincerely apologize.'
What about in the event a No Deal Brexit where nothing very much happens and everyone wonders what all the fuss was about?
We did in fact watch La La Land the other night. Very good film. I recommend it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
But this brings us back to two other problems: firstly, the Deal is unacceptable to the DUP and they're liable to offer to back Labour in a VoNC under such circumstances. This then most likely leads to a General Election, because Corbyn would have a hard time justifying not helping himself to this opportunity. Besides anything else, a GE is both the primary objective of the Brexit policy voted through at the last Labour conference, and what he wants.
Secondly, let us imagine that, perhaps, some sufficiently desperate pro-EU Tories are prepared to resign the whip or join Opposition parties, in order to prop up a Corbyn Government to get the referendum through. The cumulative effect of having such a ramshackle arrangement ramming through such a deeply controversial measure as a rerun of the EU referendum (minus a Hard Brexit option,) is not only liable to be deeply corrosive of whatever trust remains in politicians, it's also very likely to lead to the collapse of the Government and a General Election immediately thereafter. This would be fought under very volatile conditions - quite possibly as a de facto third referendum - and who knows what the results of that would be?
I really don't see how you get to a referendum without creating substantial political chaos that would lead to a General Election, either immediately or in fairly short order. Why would May attempt to take this course of action? If she really believes in her deal then she'd be better off reacting to defeat by running down the clock and increasing the pressure on MPs to cave and accept it.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 does not nullify any rights that have been granted by primary legislation. So the Gina Miller judgement does not apply.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Boris is hugely charismatic and very intelligent and a big personality, the kind of PM Britain would need if we leave with No Deal
He is a buffoon
Indeed. But he is a hugely charismatic, very intelligent buffoon with a big personality.
Personally, I think he'd be a disastrous leader of the party, and his time as mayor was not stellar (witness his part in the Garden Bridge debacle).
There is much I like about him. He's an entertainer. But he's not a leader.
He is as much a leader as Trump or Berlusconi and they both won
I don’t think that’s true. Boris lacks the audacity and resolve of either of them.
This amendment is quite significant - for MPs against No Deal to vote to make it even more chaotic means they are quite confident that they will be able to stop no deal from happening. I think this means going as far as VONCing the government if May picks no deal over a second vote etc. You wouldn't rebel in this manner if you weren't sure.
If they are confident they can stop no deal, there will be less incentive for remainers or labour to vote for May's deal in a last minute panic.
I'm starting to wonder if May will accept a second vote on her deal vs remain with an extension sought for A50 (which would be granted for a ref that idnt include no deal as an option). It's about the only option left that could keep her in office.
Feels like No Deal took a big hit tonight.
Yes. This is also my reading. May has directly told us this won’t happen, but of course she has to say this until the moment she suddenly doesn’t need to.
In any case, she will “blame” Parliament and she won’t actually be wrong.
I am curious though as to whether she would actively campaign for her Deal. I don’t think she actually believes her Deal is better than Remain, although she may justify it to herself on the grounds that her Deal would ultimately be a less divisive outcome for the country.
I'm sure that she does think that her deal is better than Remain, firstly because she is so against FoM, and secondly because she believes that the Ref result must be respected. If I were a betting man ;-) I'd still have to risk my fiver on May's WA. That outcome seems a tad more likely than a general election.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.
And those with sense to stop no deal
"No Deal" can't be stopped in that sense as it's a default end point of A50.
You can stop Brexit by revoking A50, having another referendum and so on and then you stop No Deal but otherwise...
Basically all these MP's now throwing their toys out of the pram about No Deal voted for No Deal when they voted to invoke A50.
All they've achieved with this vote is is to make life for the government even harder if it is No Deal and make the country look even more foolish as it seems we've got a majority of MP's that are so stupid they didn't know what the end result of A50 could be when they chose to invoke it.
For crying out loud, MPs is a plural initialism and does not require a possessive apostrophe. Two occurrences in as many hours. PB should know better!
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Snip
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Did anyone ever ascertain the difference between a Brexit Means Brexit (May), a Workers’ Brexit (Corbyn) and a Full English Brexit (Leadsom) ?
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
But this brings us back to two other problems: firstly, the Deal is unacceptable to the DUP and they're liable to offer to back Labour in a VoNC under such circumstances. This then most likely leads to a General Election, because Corbyn would have a hard time justifying not helping himself to this opportunity. Besides anything else, a GE is both the primary objective of the Brexit policy voted through at the last Labour conference, and what he wants.
Secondly, let us imagine that, perhaps, some sufficiently desperate pro-EU Tories are prepared to resign the whip or join Opposition parties, in order to prop up a Corbyn Government to get the referendum through. The cumulative effect of having such a ramshackle arrangement ramming through such a deeply controversial measure as a rerun of the EU referendum (minus a Hard Brexit option,) is not only liable to be deeply corrosive of whatever trust remains in politicians, it's also very likely to lead to the collapse of the Government and a General Election immediately thereafter. This would be fought under very volatile conditions - quite possibly as a de facto third referendum - and who knows what the results of that would be?
I really don't see how you get to a referendum without creating substantial political chaos that would lead to a General Election, either immediately or in fairly short order. Why would May attempt to take this course of action? If she really believes in her deal then she'd be better off reacting to defeat by running down the clock and increasing the pressure on MPs to cave and accept it.
The DUP won’t VONC the government unless May’s deal has already passed. But it won’t, so this is just theoretical bluff.
I can’t see any route to a GE, unless Corbyn’s polling utterly collapses. There doesn’t seem to be any chance of that.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Snip
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Did anyone ever ascertain the difference between a Brexit Means Brexit (May), a Workers’ Brexit (Corbyn) and a Full English Brexit (Leadsom) ?
There is a difference? You mean that not all Brexits are equal?
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 does not nullify any rights that have been granted by primary legislation. So the Gina Miller judgement does not apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
The DUP won’t VONC the government unless May’s deal has already passed. But it won’t, so this is just theoretical bluff.
Except that, if you table legislation for a Remain vs Deal referendum, then you're inviting the country to (potentially) pass the Deal. The DUP (a) are an explicitly Brexit-supporting party, which would then be faced with a plebiscite in which their own preferred option would be specifically excluded, and (b) oppose the Deal under all circumstances. If the Government attempts to ram a second referendum bill through Parliament (which would put the Deal at risk of becoming law, and strip the DUP of all practical influence over whether it does or not,) then they would have nothing left to lose (and potentially everything to gain) by collapsing the Government.
It strikes me that while the vote doesn’t really change anything legally for reasons cited by others - the vote *does* represent a nail in the coffin of No Deal.
At least 20 Tories are prepared to defy the whip to prevent a No Deal. It’s over for No Dealers.
Let the argument now continue between May’s Deal, another Deal (Norway plus) and Remain.
I don't think that is right - there may be a majority against No Deal, but that doesn't mean there's a majority in favour of anything else (which has been the problem all along). That is especially the case because of the fact that the official Labour position is utter, risible nonsense, involving a ludicrous renegotiation which cannot possibly be achieved.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
That they think they want. Many will rapidly get cold feet when the consequences become real in the early spring. All push and no piss I’m afraid.
No, they really won't. You're probably unacquainted with them.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
The DUP won’t VONC the government unless May’s deal has already passed. But it won’t, so this is just theoretical bluff.
Except that, if you table legislation for a Remain vs Deal referendum, then you're inviting the country to (potentially) pass the Deal. The DUP (a) are an explicitly Brexit-supporting party, which would then be faced with a plebiscite in which their own preferred option would be specifically excluded, and (b) oppose the Deal under all circumstances. If the Government attempts to ram a second referendum bill through Parliament (which would put the Deal at risk of becoming law, and strip the DUP of all practical influence over whether it does or not,) then they would have nothing left to lose (and potentially everything to gain) by collapsing the Government.
Except that DUP would be happy with Remain. They could go back to extracting cash from the government instead of advocating a policy supported by distinctly shrinking minority in Northern Ireland.
The DUP don’t want an election. They simply want to maximise their leverage with May against her Deal.
The DUP won’t VONC the government unless May’s deal has already passed. But it won’t, so this is just theoretical bluff.
Except that, if you table legislation for a Remain vs Deal referendum, then you're inviting the country to (potentially) pass the Deal. The DUP (a) are an explicitly Brexit-supporting party, which would then be faced with a plebiscite in which their own preferred option would be specifically excluded, and (b) oppose the Deal under all circumstances. If the Government attempts to ram a second referendum bill through Parliament (which would put the Deal at risk of becoming law, and strip the DUP of all practical influence over whether it does or not,) then they would have nothing left to lose (and potentially everything to gain) by collapsing the Government.
If a referendum was to be put before the HOC the vast majority of mps would support it and the government would not collapse. But I think that is highly unlikely
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Snip
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Did anyone ever ascertain the difference between a Brexit Means Brexit (May), a Workers’ Brexit (Corbyn) and a Full English Brexit (Leadsom) ?
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Snip
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Did anyone ever ascertain the difference between a Brexit Means Brexit (May), a Workers’ Brexit (Corbyn) and a Full English Brexit (Leadsom) ?
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 does not nullify any rights that have been granted by primary legislation. So the Gina Miller judgement does not apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
I don't see how its irresponsible when Parliament rejects her deal.
And it would be less irresponsible than the EU refusing to negotiate a deal acceptable to our Parliament?
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
Have you never seen a time travel story? Prevent that and somehow we'd have ensured he would have become PM in 2010 or something, and no one wants that!
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Snip
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Did anyone ever ascertain the difference between a Brexit Means Brexit (May), a Workers’ Brexit (Corbyn) and a Full English Brexit (Leadsom) ?
I've often wondered whether 'Brexit Means Brexit' was a very rare example of a single slogan shifting an election result.
......and bizarrely for the side that didn't use the slogan.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 does not nullify any rights that have been granted by primary legislation. So the Gina Miller judgement does not apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
Have you never seen a time travel story? Prevent that and somehow we'd have ensured he would have become PM in 2010 or something, and no one wants that!
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As such it will require Parliament to vote to allow revocation.
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 does not nullify any rights that have been granted by primary legislation. So the Gina Miller judgement does not apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
That 9/2 is down from the 7/1 I got back on December 4th....
As much as I think May has created many of her own problems and think she should have been replaced at the latest before the last quarter of last year, I am beginning to loathe some of those opposing her. Parliament set the ticking clock and knew what the default option was. Could May do and have done a better job both preparing for no brexit and finding something that would avoid it? Sure. But the affront to talk about 'imploring' May to take it off the table irritates me, when MPs collectively put it on the table in the first place.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
Her voters don't want the deal, and she's been pushing that hard.
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 does not nullify any rights that have been granted by primary legislation. So the Gina Miller judgement does not apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
A50 isn't a law that has to be 'repealed'.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (c. 9) is the Act that empowered the Prime Minister to give to the Council of the European Union the formal notice of our withdrawal, as required by Article 50.
That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.
As much as I think May has created many of her own problems and think she should have been replaced at the latest before the last quarter of last year, I am beginning to loathe some of those opposing her. Parliament set the ticking clock and knew what the default option was. Could May do and have done a better job both preparing for no brexit and finding something that would avoid it? Sure. But the affront to talk about 'imploring' May to take it off the table irritates me, when MPs collectively put it on the table in the first place.
Not technically true. They voted to give May the power to use article 50, but the decision was hers alone.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
Her voters don't want the deal, and she's been pushing that hard.
More Conservative voters support it than oppose it.
As much as I think May has created many of her own problems and think she should have been replaced at the latest before the last quarter of last year, I am beginning to loathe some of those opposing her. Parliament set the ticking clock and knew what the default option was. Could May do and have done a better job both preparing for no brexit and finding something that would avoid it? Sure. But the affront to talk about 'imploring' May to take it off the table irritates me, when MPs collectively put it on the table in the first place.
Not technically true. They voted to give May the power to use article 50, but the decision was hers alone.
A wonderfully pedantic point. True, but if anyone who voted for that Act claims they did not expect the PM to actually then use that power would be an out and out liar. They might well have thought the risk was very low, but it was there, yet they act like but for May it would not be an issue.
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 doesnot apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
A50 isn't a law that has to be 'repealed'.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (c. 9) is the Act that empowered the Prime Minister to give to the Council of the European Union the formal notice of our withdrawal, as required by Article 50.
That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.
It does, if you want to satisfy the UK Supreme Court. The Act contains no power of revocation.
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
.......and he only went into the studio to see if Angus had left his address book
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
There won't be a vote. The government has the authority to do it unilaterally.
No - The ruling stated it has to be done with Parliamentary approval
If you're referring to the Gina Miller case, it doesn't apply to revocation as citizens lose no rights.
No - it was the ECJ ruling
The ECJ didn't say revocation needed parliamentary approval.
It needs constitutional approval. ie - a vote in the HOC
No, it needs to be as per our constitutional requirements. It's within the power of the PM to do that without a vote of Parliament therefore it is not required.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
Her voters don't want the deal, and she's been pushing that hard.
More Conservative voters support it than oppose it.
I've been wondering: in the event of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, who will be the first high-profile Leaver to issue a public and heartfelt apology? My bet is Gove. I doubt he'll disown Brexit as such, but I can imagining him doing a 'On behalf of all politicians, and I include those of us who campaigned for and put so much faith in Brexit, I acknowledge that we have fallen short of the standards expected, and for that I most sincerely apologize.'
A politician apologising for ineptitude, rather than being simply caught with their trousers down, would be a remarkeable political novelty.
I've been wondering: in the event of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, who will be the first high-profile Leaver to issue a public and heartfelt apology? My bet is Gove. I doubt he'll disown Brexit as such, but I can imagining him doing a 'On behalf of all politicians, and I include those of us who campaigned for and put so much faith in Brexit, I acknowledge that we have fallen short of the standards expected, and for that I most sincerely apologize.'
A politician apologising for ineptitude, rather than being simply caught with their trousers down, would be a remarkeable political novelty.
Well it would be a welcome change of pace at least. Honestly, the way this government and governing party have gone about things they deserve to find themselves in opposition to PM Corbyn and still in the EU.
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
The stupid thing is what everyone liked about him on HIGNFY was his complete bumbling incompetence, which sort of suggests a significant section of the British people have some strange desires for their politicians.
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
Have you never seen a time travel story? Prevent that and somehow we'd have ensured he would have become PM in 2010 or something, and no one wants that!
Biff in Back to the Future 2?
We know for sure that Biff is the current POTUS, so a different timeline
When we talk about the effect of revocation being to overturn domestic legislation, are we talking about the Withdrawal Act? And given that TMay revoking without a referendum is already pitchforks territory, wouldn’t she also tell the Brexit Sec to change the date in the Act to Dec 31st 2319 (which the Act allows for) rather than voting to repeal?
Politically about as likely as Ken Clarke becoming PM by next Thursday, but it probably dodges some of the purely legal obstacles.
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 doesnot apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
A50 isn't a law that has to be 'repealed'.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (c. 9) is the Act that empowered the Prime Minister to give to the Council of the European Union the formal notice of our withdrawal, as required by Article 50.
That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.
It does, if you want to satisfy the UK Supreme Court. The Act contains no power of revocation.
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
The stupid thing is what everyone liked about him on HIGNFY was his complete bumbling incompetence, which sort of suggests a significant section of the British people have some strange desires for their politicians.
He has some charm and charisma, and while I cannot speak personally to his time as mayor, he seemed if not competent then suitable for that level of role. It's also very hard for us to really judge whether someone will make a good minister or PM. LOTO is as much preparation as some get but it is hardly equivalent, yet you might have no ministerial experience at all and still turn out great. Or have oodles of experience of government and do crap. Someone might be good in one ministry but crap at another. So Boris's capabilities, or not, are not certainly known, though I don't see much in him which is encouraging there.
As much as I think May has created many of her own problems and think she should have been replaced at the latest before the last quarter of last year, I am beginning to loathe some of those opposing her. Parliament set the ticking clock and knew what the default option was. Could May do and have done a better job both preparing for no brexit and finding something that would avoid it? Sure. But the affront to talk about 'imploring' May to take it off the table irritates me, when MPs collectively put it on the table in the first place.
Well indeed. MPs have a very simple way of "taking it off the table", they can ratify her deal.
Anyone who opposes both May's deal and views no deal as unacceptable and voted to invoke article 50 is a complete and utter buffoon.
This was by no means the full extent of Conservative MPs willing to rebel to oppose a no deal Brexit. I make the total something like 50.
At least. I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
The deal is not the least loathed option, that's remain. It's just a matter of justifying it to get it over the line. Probably via a referendum, but somehow.
Maybe. I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Snip
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
It's easier for a Tory leader to accept No Deal, than to fight against it, because that is plainly what so many Tory voters and members want.
I simply don’t believe Theresa May would go for it, and I don’t believe her own Party in Parliament would go for it.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy. But I don’t think I am.
It would be incredibly irresponsible, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Still the same conversation as earlier.... oh well!
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Did anyone ever ascertain the difference between a Brexit Means Brexit (May), a Workers’ Brexit (Corbyn) and a Full English Brexit (Leadsom) ?
No it isn't. The Executive cannot set aside a piece of primary legislation passed by Parliament.
Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court Ruling in the Miller case stated that a simple motion in Parliament was not sufficient and it required primary legislation before Article 50 could be enacted. As
Sorry. I've been away. The Supreme Court's decision was that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. It judged that Invoking A50 nullified such rights (eg citizenship of the EU). Revoking A50 doesnot apply.
I think you're still stuck with two problems:-
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You need primary legislation to overturn primary legislation that grants domestic rights. A50 doesn't. 2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
Rights make no difference. Law must be repealed by law.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
A50 isn't a law that has to be 'repealed'.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (c. 9) is the Act that empowered the Prime Minister to give to the Council of the European Union the formal notice of our withdrawal, as required by Article 50.
That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.
It does, if you want to satisfy the UK Supreme Court. The Act contains no power of revocation.
How can you possibly know that?
It’s a very short act, it doesn’t take long to read.
As much as I think May has created many of her own problems and think she should have been replaced at the latest before the last quarter of last year, I am beginning to loathe some of those opposing her. Parliament set the ticking clock and knew what the default option was. Could May do and have done a better job both preparing for no brexit and finding something that would avoid it? Sure. But the affront to talk about 'imploring' May to take it off the table irritates me, when MPs collectively put it on the table in the first place.
Well indeed. MPs have a very simple way of "taking it off the table", they can ratify her deal.
Anyone who opposes both May's deal and views no deal as unacceptable and voted to invoke article 50 is a complete and utter buffoon.
Or more likely, wants to remain but as yet is not coming out for that directly. Which would add a level of falsity to their tearful pleading to take no deal off the table. I don't even think arguing for remain is unreasonable, but I don't see what else you can be demanding if you oppose both deal and no deal, since I do not believe as many MPs believe in unicorns as pretend to, so just say what you want.
Look has anyone considered a time machine? If we went back in time and told Angus Deayton to lay off the drugs/hookers a bit, Boris would not have got his break on HIGNFY and none of this would ever have happened.
The stupid thing is what everyone liked about him on HIGNFY was his complete bumbling incompetence, which sort of suggests a significant section of the British people have some strange desires for their politicians.
He has some charm and charisma, and while I cannot speak personally to his time as mayor, he seemed if not competent then suitable for that level of role. It's also very hard for us to really judge whether someone will make a good minister or PM. LOTO is as much preparation as some get but it is hardly equivalent, yet you might have no ministerial experience at all and still turn out great. Or have oodles of experience of government and do crap. Someone might be good in one ministry but crap at another. So Boris's capabilities, or not, are not certainly known, though I don't see much in him which is encouraging there.
I do. He showed what is needed in the referendum.
The two key things a succesful PM needs is the vision of what you want to achieve and the ability to communicate it to the voters and others.
Boris ticks both boxes. Ministerial legwork is primarily done by those it is delegated to, the PM needs to see the big picture. May fails in that regard same as Brown did, both are/were awful communicators. May fails in the big picture sense too.
Boris may be grandiose at times but he can both communicate and see the big picture. Whether you like his big picture or what he's communicating is another matter.
Comments
I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are. The Civil Contingencies Act might come into play...I can easily see how they might plead how section 1, paragraphs 1a and 1b might apply.
And on that cheering thought, goodnight.
I suspect that if May actually started advocating No Deal she would be ousted immediately by her own Cabinet.
Only 100, maybe 150 MPs would be willing to countenance it.
I think Brexit is now likely to be resolved via Parliament voting until it gets its *least loathed* option. This is why May’s deal still stands a chance.
Otherwise we risk ending up being both in and out of the EU at the same time, which is somewhat problematic.
If either Mrs May or Mr Johnson get their brands of Brexit the game is up.
Politicians are more likely want to look forwards than back. Maybe criticise the mistakes but argue about where to go from here.
It's May or Corbyn. The Conservatives aren't going to install Dominic Grieve if they lose a VONC.
So it looks like he would not be leading a government of national unity.
I’d love it to be so, but not quite yet willing to believe it.
Mind you, it does look like in less than two weeks, May will have lost her vote but won a VONC. Corbyn’s surprisingly well-whipped Labour Party will then commit to a Referendum.
So for her Deal to win, May will need the ERGers. I agree that she will never carry some of them, meaning the maximum she can muster is probably somewhere around 275.
She will therefore have to choose between conceding a Remain/Deal referendum to get her deal through (which I think is a Lib Dem amendment), or extending further for a Deal which might be won. But it’s not clear there is any other Deal able to conmand a majority, except one that May might find totally unpalatable (Norway+).
So maybe you are right. In two weeks time, May declares to the country that the Deal has been passed, but that Parliament has insisted it be put to the country for final approval.
I have assumed in the above that May would not - or would not be able to - opt for a No Deal or an election.
Of course, in practice this requires exactly the same thing as revocation itself - a friendly Government - so unless Theresa May does a complete 180-degree U-turn and decides either to attempt to legislate for a referendum, or simply to revoke A50 under her own authority, then this doesn't make any difference to how events could play out.
We, of course do not have to leave at any point before it actually happens, but to positively avert Brexit there needs to be a sympathetic Government, and that we still do not have.
If I’m wrong, May will go down in infamy.
But I don’t think I am.
If they are confident they can stop no deal, there will be less incentive for remainers or labour to vote for May's deal in a last minute panic.
I'm starting to wonder if May will accept a second vote on her deal vs remain with an extension sought for A50 (which would be granted for a ref that idnt include no deal as an option). It's about the only option left that could keep her in office.
Feels like No Deal took a big hit tonight.
May has directly told us this won’t happen, but of course she has to say this until the moment she suddenly doesn’t need to.
In any case, she will “blame” Parliament and she won’t actually be wrong.
I am curious though as to whether she would actively campaign for her Deal. I don’t think she actually believes her Deal is better than Remain, although she may justify it to herself on the grounds that her Deal would ultimately be a less divisive outcome for the country.
Secondly, let us imagine that, perhaps, some sufficiently desperate pro-EU Tories are prepared to resign the whip or join Opposition parties, in order to prop up a Corbyn Government to get the referendum through. The cumulative effect of having such a ramshackle arrangement ramming through such a deeply controversial measure as a rerun of the EU referendum (minus a Hard Brexit option,) is not only liable to be deeply corrosive of whatever trust remains in politicians, it's also very likely to lead to the collapse of the Government and a General Election immediately thereafter. This would be fought under very volatile conditions - quite possibly as a de facto third referendum - and who knows what the results of that would be?
I really don't see how you get to a referendum without creating substantial political chaos that would lead to a General Election, either immediately or in fairly short order. Why would May attempt to take this course of action? If she really believes in her deal then she'd be better off reacting to defeat by running down the clock and increasing the pressure on MPs to cave and accept it.
As far as Mrs May walking us off the Brexit cliff - I could see her doing it and claiming that she has to follow the biggest ever mandate in the UK's history. Recall her social skills and empathetic abilities and then ask yourself what is the likely outcome?
Brexit means Brexit!
Typical PB pedant's
I can’t see any route to a GE, unless Corbyn’s polling utterly collapses. There doesn’t seem to be any chance of that.
I'm shocked
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation,
2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
I'll be quiet.
The DUP don’t want an election. They simply want to maximise their leverage with May against her Deal.
2. You don't need a change of government to revoke A50. This government COULD do it. Paddy Power thinks the probability of revoking A50 is greater than 10% as they are offering odds of 1/10 that the government won't revoke (and 9/2 that they will).
And it would be less irresponsible than the EU refusing to negotiate a deal acceptable to our Parliament?
......and bizarrely for the side that didn't use the slogan.
This government won't repeal A50, because May is not Sir Robert Peel. She won't go to war against her own voters.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (c. 9) is the Act that empowered the Prime Minister to give to the Council of the European Union the formal notice of our withdrawal, as required by Article 50.
That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.
Repealing Brexit? Not so much.
Politically about as likely as Ken Clarke becoming PM by next Thursday, but it probably dodges some of the purely legal obstacles.
Anyone who opposes both May's deal and views no deal as unacceptable and voted to invoke article 50 is a complete and utter buffoon.
The two key things a succesful PM needs is the vision of what you want to achieve and the ability to communicate it to the voters and others.
Boris ticks both boxes. Ministerial legwork is primarily done by those it is delegated to, the PM needs to see the big picture. May fails in that regard same as Brown did, both are/were awful communicators. May fails in the big picture sense too.
Boris may be grandiose at times but he can both communicate and see the big picture. Whether you like his big picture or what he's communicating is another matter.