Nigel Farage's Dad is a member of one of London's finest and oldest military clubs. And he was today at that club chatting about the bloody mess his son has made of this country.
Can things get any weirder ?
Yes. They probably can.
In unrelated news I have been sent an invitation by the Jewish Labour Movement (I am neither Jewish nor a Labour Party member) to hear Jess Phillips MP speak next week at one of their events which takes place at a location near me. I am quite tempted. I rather like Ms Phillips and there might be quite a lot for her to say.
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 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 Law must be repealed by law.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A50 isn't a law that has to be 'repealed'.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That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.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?
That the Act does not confer that power is surely incontestable, since it only has 1 or2 paragraphs and doesn't say that. The question must be whether the gov already has the power without need of an Act I'd have thought. We've heard very certain opinions on both sides here. I can buy that perhaps it is not needed, but politically I don't see how it matters a great deal since surely no government of any stripe is going to proceed with revocation without parliamentary approval?
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That act doesn't have to be repealed to revoke our A50 notice.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.
It didn’t even *force* her to invoke A50. It gave her permission to do so. And that’s it. I see nothing in there which binds anyone after the day she delivered the letter:
1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
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.
I imagine it was like those meetings at the end of Deutschland 86 where it's quite obvious it's all going to shit but they're coming up with mad ideas like changing the weather forecast to improve citizens' moral.
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.
My main problem is I don't think he can see the big picture or has any genuine vision. I think he'd latch on to anything that in the moment seems like it will be popular and advance himself.
Now, I'm not one to say it's all about having ideologically driven principles and sticking to them, on the contrary a lack of flexibility and an insistence upon purity I regard as a serious problem in a politician who aspires to be a leader, and of course all aspiring leaders will be driven, to some probably quite large degree, by what they think will be popular and naturally justify internally that what is good for them is also good for the country. But with Boris I think he is particularly obvious about it.
1. Only primary legislation can revoke primary legislation, 2. You need a change of government to revoke A 50.
1. You 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?
That the Act does not confer that power is surely incontestable, since it only has 1 or2 paragraphs and doesn't say that. The question must be whether the gov already has the power without need of an Act I'd have thought. We've heard very certain opinions on both sides here. I can buy that perhaps it is not needed, but politically I don't see how it matters a great deal since surely no government of any stripe is going to proceed with revocation without parliamentary approval?
That's fair in general but two points...
1. What constitutes parlaimentary approval? It could be an amendment to another motion (e.g. the MV) calling on the government to revoke A50.
2. In extremis, if we are approaching March 29th with no deal and No Deal looks sufficiently bad, the PM of the day could revoke and seek parliamentary approval later.
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.
It didn’t even *force* her to invoke A50. It gave her permission to do so. And that’s it. I see nothing in there which binds anyone after the day she delivered the letter:
1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
Yes, sure, but it's not really very relevant, everyone who voted for the Act was aware the intention was that she would indeed notify. They are free to do as they please thereafter, but they cannot credibly claim not to have known and through parliamentary action gave authority to the notification which started the ticking clock and prepared the way for no deal, if things went badly. And yet they act like it is unreasonable that no deal exists as an option at all. That is the part that is just plain ridiculous given their positions.
1. What constitutes parliamentary approval? It could be an amendment to another motion (e.g. the MV) calling on the government to revoke A50.
2. In extremis, if we are approaching March 29th with no deal and No Deal looks sufficiently bad, the PM of the day could revoke and seek parliamentary approval later.
What a mess that would be (which probably means it will happen). What would the status be if the PM revokes subject to parliamentary approval later, then they did not? Would it be valid or not?
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.
I was referring to the 'satisfying the UK Supreme Court' part. I have already explained that the act does not need to be repealed, since it empowers but does not force the PM to invoke A50.
I imagine it was like those meetings at the end of Deutschland 86 where it's quite obvious it's all going to shit but they're coming up with mad ideas like changing the weather forecast to improve citizens' moral.
Comments
Nigel Farage's Dad is a member of one of London's finest and oldest military clubs. And he was today at that club chatting about the bloody mess his son has made of this country.
Can things get any weirder ?
Yes. They probably can.
In unrelated news I have been sent an invitation by the Jewish Labour Movement (I am neither Jewish nor a Labour Party member) to hear Jess Phillips MP speak next week at one of their events which takes place at a location near me. I am quite tempted. I rather like Ms Phillips and there might be quite a lot for her to say.
Apparently even Jezza was forced to applaud.
https://twitter.com/DanKennett/status/1082733375214010369
1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
Now, I'm not one to say it's all about having ideologically driven principles and sticking to them, on the contrary a lack of flexibility and an insistence upon purity I regard as a serious problem in a politician who aspires to be a leader, and of course all aspiring leaders will be driven, to some probably quite large degree, by what they think will be popular and naturally justify internally that what is good for them is also good for the country. But with Boris I think he is particularly obvious about it.
1. What constitutes parlaimentary approval? It could be an amendment to another motion (e.g. the MV) calling on the government to revoke A50.
2. In extremis, if we are approaching March 29th with no deal and No Deal looks sufficiently bad, the PM of the day could revoke and seek parliamentary approval later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kALGhbTxdg