One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
Backstop? What backstop? Revoking Article 50 could just as easily become the backstop; indeed, it might do so this week thanks to some fancy footwork from the blue team.
Revoking A50 is remaining. That has no HOC majority
It will be taken out of her hands next week when Parliament likely votes to extend A50 if no Deal agreed by mid February, thus enabling the conditions for EUref2 with a Remain option if needed.
May is no longer in control of the Brexit process, Bercow and Grieve and Cooper are
Is this a statement of fact?
It is a genuine question by the way because i'm reading conflicting opinions on the realities of what Grieve is attempting to do.
If you are correct, and he succeeds, then Brexit is finished.
And I find it hard to believe that a backbench nobody could single-handedly overturn a vote involving 30m+ people.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
The Deal is a tour de force of technical detail, of meticulous drafting and consistency with people's red lines.
In hindsight a big show of bravado and politics might have been better. We'd have a less workable deal, but we'd have one.
It is May all over though. Here we have a very excellent deal. It gives us pretty good access to the single market. It allows for no border in Ireland. It gets us out from under the Commission, the Council and the Courts. It allows for arbitration. And it binds the EU to acting in good faith without giving them the say in what constitutes 'good faith' (which is just as well given the past behaviour of these august bodies). All for a piddling £39 billion most of which is pensions payable to our own civil servants. Yet somehow people have been convinced that it leads to perpetual vassalage, or economic Armageddon, or plagues of frogs or something and refuse to ratify it.
We saw the same with the 'dementia tax.' There, May proposed an end to the ridiculous practice of forcing people to sell their homes to pay for care, driving them into expensive and restrictive residential care instead. She proposed to increase the amount of money the government would leave the estate and collect it at a more appropriate moment. Yet the Greens and Labour - whose own proposals were far more arbitrary and onerous and would probably have massively increased costs all round - sneakily labelled it the 'dementia tax' and because she couldn't get the message across it cost her a majority.
Whatever her considerable strengths, she simply can't relate to people in the way Blair and Cameron could and therefore while she often has much better ideas (bearing in mind Blair in 2003 actually had the support of a small majority of the country over his Iraq fiasco) she simply can't implement them.
And the double irony of course is that Brexit is not even her fault but was forced on her by the voters.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Starmer was very impressive on Marr. For the first time, I really understand the Labour approach on Brexit and support it. There are no grounds in what Starmer said for him to resign or be relieved of his post. I think it is consistent with what Corbyn has said though the emphasis is different.
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or 2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
EDIT: I think Benn agrees with this too.
Starmer is ignoring the fact there are very many labour mps implacably opposed to a second referendum as made public by Flint and Nandy yesterday so it does not have a HOC majority. David Lammy in full panic mode this morning saying it will split the labour party
Except they will not be opposed to EUref2 if the alternative is No Deal, barely a handful of Labour MPs ie Hoey, Field, Mann and Skinner back Brexit even up to No Deal
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
I really do feel great frustration that both of us, and some more on here, keep repeating this truth but it does not seem to cut through. The risk of no deal is rising daily as is the public's approval for it
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Leave got 52%, it cannot win with 38%.
The same Comres poll had it 54% Remain 46% Leave overall, so Leave loses 8% of its committed vote with No Deal. Leave got over 50% with voters backing a Deal as well as No Dealers combined.
Overall voters want to extend Article 50 by 40% to 30% which has the most support.
Voting 40% to 30% to extend Article 50 is voting to kick the can down the road and equivalent to Don't Know. Any poll which doesn't force out a decision is a non poll.
It would be kicking the can to a Remain v Deal EUref2
It will be taken out of her hands next week when Parliament likely votes to extend A50 if no Deal agreed by mid February, thus enabling the conditions for EUref2 with a Remain option if needed.
May is no longer in control of the Brexit process, Bercow and Grieve and Cooper are
Is this a statement of fact?
It is a genuine question by the way because i'm reading conflicting opinions on the realities of what Grieve is attempting to do.
If you are correct, and he succeeds, then Brexit is finished.
And I find it hard to believe that a backbench nobody could single-handedly overturn a vote involving 30m+ people.
If May doesn't get her deal through and A50 is extended I hope she offers free votes on a handful of options with an agreement that the most 'popular' is carried through.
It will force MP's to publicly make a decision that they will have to justify to their constituencies at the next GE.
Easy for MP's in remain majority areas but something of a headache for the rest.
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Not really true. If Parliament votes to delay A50 and then votes for EUref2 with a Remain option, if it votes for the former it is also highly likely to vote for the latter, then the EU will almost certainly extend A50 to allow for the possibility of Brexit being cancelled altogether and the UK voting to Remain in the EU after all and revoking A50.
I really, really doubt if they will give us the six to twelve months required. There are too many complexities involved. Bear in mind, they were in a hurry for Article 50 to be invoked for that very reason.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. he could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Too many see no deal as no change, sadly. There was an article in the Guardian comparing it to selling a car. If you don't get the right deal you walk away. And keep your car. This is many people's idea of a negotiation. It is an idea being encouraged by several news outlets and politicians.
That is the majority of people's experience of negotiating , house , car , TV, etc. If you don't like deal you walk away and stay as you were with existing item. PS: plus Gove , Boris etc told them they could walk away here and have billions a week to spend on what they want. Is it surprising lots think it is a good idea.
It's a good analogy. The No Dealers I know, who are admittedly few, seem to have not the faintest idea what it would involve. Perhaps the analogy can be extended by pointing out that it would be like refusing the car deal on the basis that the your existing car is taken from you, and you have to get the bike out of the garage. (You are however free to negotiate an upgrade - to a moped say.)
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
It is tiring to have to keep repeating this. It really is like Canute's advisors thinking he can tell the tide to stop coming in.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
What took him so long? The EU has been saying this for months and months and months.
Anyway, it’s irrelevant what he thinks or says. Corbyn will let No Deal happen while saying the opposite. Tories get the blame if it all goes tits up. And when he becomes PM, he has a free hand.
BTW anyone thinking we won’t pay £39 billion and, very likely, more if there is No Deal needs their head examining. Every mini-deal we will need to do will involve the payment of money. And our bargaining position will be weaker than now.
A lot of people may be missing the big story from this weekend: Labour is either making a significant and important concession or it will be looking for a new shadow Brexit secretary very shortly.
You understand the Labour party better than me. But is it really the shadow Brexit secretary who determines Labour policy on this?
That is precisely my point. He does not. So if he is not talking about an agreed change of policy his position is not tenable.
Backstop? What backstop? Revoking Article 50 could just as easily become the backstop; indeed, it might do so this week thanks to some fancy footwork from the blue team.
Revoking A50 is remaining. That has no HOC majority
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
It is tiring to have to keep repeating this. It really is like Canute's advisors thinking he can tell the tide to stop coming in.
Yes but in the event it came down to the 11th hour, would she really allow the country to crash out with No Deal, or would she scribble a note revoking A50? I think she'd scribble the note, rather than go down in history as the most irresponsible PM since Lord North.
We are so screwed. Parliament has asked the government to compromise. Instead of compromising itself, the government has interpreted that request as demanding others (the EU) compromise. The governments deaf ear and leaden feet are stil there. In short despite the biggest defeat ever, nothing has changed.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that. She cannot concede anything further to the EU as parliament won't approve that either. What exactly is she supposed to do? She told them before she could offer no more and she wasn't bluffing.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Too many see no deal as no change, sadly. There was an article in the Guardian comparing it to selling a car. If you don't get the right deal you walk away. And keep your car. This is many people's idea of a negotiation. It is an idea being encouraged by several news outlets and politicians.
That is the majority of people's experience of negotiating , house , car , TV, etc. If you don't like deal you walk away and stay as you were with existing item. PS: plus Gove , Boris etc told them they could walk away here and have billions a week to spend on what they want. Is it surprising lots think it is a good idea.
Walking away from a deal you don't like and "staying as you were with the existing item" is revoking A50 and staying in the EU.
If you negotiate for a house or a car and say "if we can't agree a deal I'll blow my head off and splatter you in blood" it just might work. Never seen it done though.
One of two possibilities here: 1. Starmer is going freelance and so will soon either resign or be relieved of his responsibilities. 2. This is a major Labour concession that deserves to be taken very seriously by the government. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1086937831073873921
Starmer was very impressive on Marr. For the first time, I really understand the Labour approach on Brexit and support it. There are no grounds in what Starmer said for him to resign or be relieved of his post. I think it is consistent with what Corbyn has said though the emphasis is different.
Basically Starmer is saying there only two options left that could get majority support in parliament. No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
The two options are:
1. A deal which delivers (a very soft) Brexit with a customs union and close regulatory alignment that satisfies the backstop or 2. A people's vote.
He favours the first but feels it will come to the second because May is blocking the first with her red lines.
EDIT: I think Benn agrees with this too.
I agree Starmer was impressive on Marr. He has been very good these past two years regarding Brexit, and how Labour deals with it.
He has, particularly given the fence sitting nature of it.
The Deal is a tour de force of technical detail, of meticulous drafting and consistency with people's red lines.
In hindsight a big show of bravado and politics might have been better. We'd have a less workable deal, but we'd have one.
It is May all over though. Here we have a very excellent deal. It gives us pretty good access to the single market. It allows for no border in Ireland. It gets us out from under the Commission, the Council and the Courts. It allows for arbitration. And it binds the EU to acting in good faith without giving them the say in what constitutes 'good faith' (which is just as well given the past behaviour of these august bodies). All for a piddling £39 billion most of which is pensions payable to our own civil servants. Yet somehow people have been convinced that it leads to perpetual vassalage, or economic Armageddon, or plagues of frogs or something and refuse to ratify it.
We saw the same with the 'dementia tax.' There, May proposed an end to the ridiculous practice of forcing people to sell their homes to pay for care, driving them into expensive and restrictive residential care instead. She proposed to increase the amount of money the government would leave the estate and collect it at a more appropriate moment. Yet the Greens and Labour - whose own proposals were far more arbitrary and onerous and would probably have massively increased costs all round - sneakily labelled it the 'dementia tax' and because she couldn't get the message across it cost her a majority.
Whatever her considerable strengths, she simply can't relate to people in the way Blair and Cameron could and therefore while she often has much better ideas (bearing in mind Blair in 2003 actually had the support of a small majority of the country over his Iraq fiasco) she simply can't implement them.
And the double irony of course is that Brexit is not even her fault but was forced on her by the voters.
She is the right person to negotiate the deal. Entirely the wrong one to sell it. Unfortunately, she appears to be blissfully unaware of this rather important point.
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
No.
It may have the authority to instruct the PM to petition the Council for an extension.
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
It is tiring to have to keep repeating this. It really is like Canute's advisors thinking he can tell the tide to stop coming in.
Yes but in the event it came down to the 11th hour, would she really allow the country to crash out with No Deal, or would she scribble a note revoking A50? I think she'd scribble the note, rather than go down in history as the most irresponsible PM since Lord North.
No I do not think she will revoke. She knows how bad the consequences of that would be for the country. And yes I genuinely believe the consequences of revoking would be worse than a No Deal in the long run.
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
It is tiring to have to keep repeating this. It really is like Canute's advisors thinking he can tell the tide to stop coming in.
Yes but in the event it came down to the 11th hour, would she really allow the country to crash out with No Deal, or would she scribble a note revoking A50? I think she'd scribble the note, rather than go down in history as the most irresponsible PM since Lord North.
She has to have constitutional approval. She cannot just revoke by sending in a not on her own accord
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Article 50 can't be extended unless the EU agrees by unanimity. The EU has given strong hints it would agree. If the EU doesn't extend, the UK can revoke A50 any time before 29th March. It seems a reasonable course of action in the absence of alternatives, assuming people actually want to avoid No Deal, as they definitely should.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Yes, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
It will be taken out of her hands next week when Parliament likely votes to extend A50 if no Deal agreed by mid February, thus enabling the conditions for EUref2 with a Remain option if needed.
May is no longer in control of the Brexit process, Bercow and Grieve and Cooper are
Is this a statement of fact?
It is a genuine question by the way because i'm reading conflicting opinions on the realities of what Grieve is attempting to do.
If you are correct, and he succeeds, then Brexit is finished.
And I find it hard to believe that a backbench nobody could single-handedly overturn a vote involving 30m+ people.
In collusion with Bercow
In collusion with Bercow and some Cabinet ministers, and probably Shadow Cabinet as well.
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Not really true. If Parliament votes to delay A50 and then votes for EUref2 with a Remain option, if it votes for the former it is also highly likely to vote for the latter, then the EU will almost certainly extend A50 to allow for the possibility of Brexit being cancelled altogether and the UK voting to Remain in the EU after all and revoking A50.
I really, really doubt if they will give us the six to twelve months required. There are too many complexities involved. Bear in mind, they were in a hurry for Article 50 to be invoked for that very reason.
Provided it is a Remain v Deal referendum they will give us what we need, it is win win for the EU, either Brexit is reversed or the Deal Barnier agreed is approved anyway
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Article 50 can't be extended unless the EU agrees by unanimity. The EU has given strong hints it would agree. If the EU doesn't extend the UK, can revoke A50 any time before 29th March. It seems a reasonable course of action in the absence of alternatives, assuming people actually want to avoid No Deal, as they definitely should.
No they have said very clearly they would only accept an extension for circumstances where there was prospect of a change of position by the UK. I see nothing at the moment that would indicate such a change.
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that.
Mr. JIM, an extension requires approval from all 27 other EU member states.
Revocation can be done unilaterally.
A few years ago, I visited Jerusalem. On a tour, my guide told me this story.
A journalist went to interview a rabbi who had prayed at the Western Wall every day come wind, shine, rain, snow or suicide bombings every day since 1967. The first question he asked was, 'what do you pray for?'
'World peace, an end to hunger, understanding between Jews and Gentiles and an end to poverty,' replied this sweet old rabbi.
The journalist was staggered. 'But how does it feel then when you open the paper and see all the headlines about war, famine, intifadas and the economic system?'
'Well, how do you think it feels?' returned the sweet old rabbi. 'It feels like I'm praying to a fecking wall.'
Having reiterated this simple point over and over to both Leavers and my fellow Remainers, without them even beginning to grasp it, I begin to understand how he felt.
It's not as illogical as it sounds. Parliament has told May that it will not pass the deal, so she is telling the EU that.
This is why she has to bend on a referendum, because the EU won't reopen things, but parliament won't pass anything unless they are reopened.
She doesn't have to bend on anything. A referendum (of God-knows-what formulation) does not deliver Brexit by 29th March. The May Deal and No Deal both do.
She is the Prime Minister - and will take the consequences of which ever of these two outcomes we arrive at. No deal is not her preferred choice; but it delivers. She's losing her job soon anyway.
It's what happens when you give the biggest deal your company has ever landed to the board director working their notice. For incompetence.
I was really surprised in the ComRes poll today the opposition to a referendum and remaining in the EU and how 38% support no deal with only 36% opposed
I think the idea we keep the £39 billion and walk away chimes with many and they either could not care less about the consequences or more likely have no idea of the consequences
For this reason no deal will just lie there waiting for the paralysis to see it happen by default, sadly
Too many see no deal as no change, sadly. There was an article in the Guardian comparing it to selling a car. If you don't get the right deal you walk away. And keep your car. This is many people's idea of a negotiation. It is an idea being encouraged by several news outlets and politicians.
That is the majority of people's experience of negotiating , house , car , TV, etc. If you don't like deal you walk away and stay as you were with existing item. PS: plus Gove , Boris etc told them they could walk away here and have billions a week to spend on what they want. Is it surprising lots think it is a good idea.
Walking away from a deal you don't like and "staying as you were with the existing item" is revoking A50 and staying in the EU.
If you negotiate for a house or a car and say "if we can't agree a deal I'll blow my head off and splatter you in blood" it just might work. Never seen it done though.
That is logical but that is not where we are.
The improving popularity of no deal is due to the voters being promised a saving of £39 billion and to be impolite 'telling the EU to do one'. Status quo in the EU is most definately not in their mindset
Yes, Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
So are you saying that in a situation where...
1. MP's vote for extending A50
2. The Lords support
3. May refuses
We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?
I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.
No deal, whatever its problems (whatever predictions you believe - from economic armageddon, to minor disruption) has one clear advantage over all other options. Once it happens we will be in a position of relative "certainty", where people have to stop talking in terms of hypotheticals, theoretical outcomes, personal beliefs etc etc, and actually start dealing with real situations. And maybe, given the total impasse and unreal world that almost all politicians seems to be occupying at the moment, that is what is needed.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
No. It can direct the government to ask the Council of Ministers for an extension.
Yes, Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
So are you saying that in a situation where...
1. MP's vote for extending A50
2. The Lords support
3. May refuses
We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?
I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.
It is ludicrous. If the Commons wants it, then they will have to bring down the Government to achieve it, and install one that will implement their wishes.
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot
"No deal" can't be on a ballot paper because what it means can't be defined.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Yes, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
No, the Sovereign is the Sovereign. The clue's in the name. The executive are those who exercise power and execute decisions on behalf of the sovereign. That is also one where the clue's in the name.
Mr. HYUFD, yeah, that was my thinking a while back, but May's pulling of the 11 December vote and running the clock down does make me think she'd prefer no deal to a referendum. We'll find out, I suppose.
Mr. JIM, an extension requires approval from all 27 other EU member states.
Revocation can be done unilaterally.
A few years ago, I visited Jerusalem. On a tour, my guide told me this story.
A journalist went to interview a rabbi who had prayed at the Western Wall every day come wind, shine, rain, snow or suicide bombings every day since 1967. The first question he asked was, 'what do you pray for?'
'World peace, an end to hunger, understanding between Jews and Gentiles and an end to poverty,' replied this sweet old rabbi.
The journalist was staggered. 'But how does it feel then when you open the paper and see all the headlines about war, famine, intifadas and the economic system?'
'Well, how do you think it feels?' returned the sweet old rabbi. 'It feels like I'm praying to a fecking wall.'
Having reiterated this simple point over and over to both Leavers and my fellow Remainers, without them even beginning to grasp it, I begin to understand how he felt.
By way of diversion from the present day, I’ve started Stephen Alford’s The Watchers. Thus far, entertaining. Do you know it ?
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot
"No deal" can't be on a ballot paper because what it means can't be defined.
Anything can be on the ballot paper. According to that logic Leave could not have been on the ballot paper at the last referendum because it could not be defined either. This is just another myth that Remainers like to spread around in the hope enough people will believe it.
Personally I would be happy with the deal but the idea you can just ignore or legislate away No Deal or that you can have a referendum where the view of a third of the population is not reflected in the questions is ridiculous.
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot
"No deal" can't be on a ballot paper because what it means can't be defined.
It can.
"Do you wish Parliament to give notice to the European Union that the UK wishes to remain within the European Union.
Yes, Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
So are you saying that in a situation where...
1. MP's vote for extending A50
2. The Lords support
3. May refuses
We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?
I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.
It might also be worth pointing out at this juncture that it has long been rumoured that Her Maj ain't a big fan of the EU. While she has generally (with very rare exceptions) had the sense to keep her views on controversial matters private, that seems plausible to me. The Commonwealth has always been where she's directed her energies. I can't therefore see her going against the advice of her Ministers under such circumstances and any such claim is wishful thinking.
The only option then left to Parliament would be to remove the Ministers in question and put in place ones who will act on Parliament's orders.
Oh, that's right, they can't do that, Corbyn having the brains of a retarded dung beetle or Andrew Bridgen has shot his bolt on confidence motions.
Mr. JIM, an extension requires approval from all 27 other EU member states.
Revocation can be done unilaterally.
A few years ago, I visited Jerusalem. On a tour, my guide told me this story.
A journalist went to interview a rabbi who had prayed at the Western Wall every day come wind, shine, rain, snow or suicide bombings every day since 1967. The first question he asked was, 'what do you pray for?'
'World peace, an end to hunger, understanding between Jews and Gentiles and an end to poverty,' replied this sweet old rabbi.
The journalist was staggered. 'But how does it feel then when you open the paper and see all the headlines about war, famine, intifadas and the economic system?'
'Well, how do you think it feels?' returned the sweet old rabbi. 'It feels like I'm praying to a fecking wall.'
Having reiterated this simple point over and over to both Leavers and my fellow Remainers, without them even beginning to grasp it, I begin to understand how he felt.
By way of diversion from the present day, I’ve started Stephen Alford’s The Watchers. Thus far, entertaining. Do you know it ?
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
Mr. JIM, an extension requires approval from all 27 other EU member states.
Revocation can be done unilaterally.
A few years ago, I visited Jerusalem. On a tour, my guide told me this story.
A journalist went to interview a rabbi who had prayed at the Western Wall every day come wind, shine, rain, snow or suicide bombings every day since 1967. The first question he asked was, 'what do you pray for?'
'World peace, an end to hunger, understanding between Jews and Gentiles and an end to poverty,' replied this sweet old rabbi.
The journalist was staggered. 'But how does it feel then when you open the paper and see all the headlines about war, famine, intifadas and the economic system?'
'Well, how do you think it feels?' returned the sweet old rabbi. 'It feels like I'm praying to a fecking wall.'
Having reiterated this simple point over and over to both Leavers and my fellow Remainers, without them even beginning to grasp it, I begin to understand how he felt.
By way of diversion from the present day, I’ve started Stephen Alford’s The Watchers. Thus far, entertaining. Do you know it ?
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Yes, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
Um, the Cabinet is a subcommittee of the Privy Council. Parliament considers and signs off on law. Conceptually Cabinet and Parliament are separate. There's no reason (other than convention) that Cabinet members have to be Parliamentarians.
Yes, Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
So are you saying that in a situation where...
1. MP's vote for extending A50
2. The Lords support
3. May refuses
We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?
I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.
It might also be worth pointing out at this juncture that it has long been rumoured that Her Maj ain't a big fan of the EU. While she has generally (with very rare exceptions) had the sense to keep her views on controversial matters private, that seems plausible to me. The Commonwealth has always been where she's directed her energies. I can't therefore see her going against the advice of her Ministers under such circumstances and any such claim is wishful thinking.
The only option then left to Parliament would be to remove the Ministers in question and put in place ones who will act on Parliament's orders.
Oh, that's right, they can't do that, Corbyn having the brains of a retarded dung beetle or Andrew Bridgen has shot his bolt on confidence motions.
Also entertaining.... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/17/rudy-giuliani-is-not-doing-his-best-work-these-days-224026 As a radical civil libertarian, I subscribe to the teaching that any citizen accused of wrongdoing deserves the best lawyer money can buy—even if, like President Donald Trump, he talks and sometimes acts like a mobster. But I question the wisdom of anybody, Trump included, employing an attorney like Rudy Giuliani who sometimes sounds as deranged as a mob attorney.
Now let me stipulate here and at top volume that there’s absolutely no evidence that Giuliani, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has ever suborned perjury, bribed court officials, fixed juries or laundered money as many mob lawyers have dutifully done over the years. Nor has he tried to rig online polls for Trump and settle his debts with a Walmart bag filled with cash. That would be Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, who says he performed such labors at Trump’s direction....
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
Well, if that's the case surely she can sign the Deal unilaterally as well, because she won't be taking away any rights that are not lost under No Deal which would happen otherwise anyway.
I would not like to see her try it though. It didn't end well for Tiberius Gracchus.
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
Yes, Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
So are you saying that in a situation where...
1. MP's vote for extending A50
2. The Lords support
3. May refuses
We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?
I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ
The act of revoking A50 is under the sole jurisdiction of the ECJ who have made their ruling
If it can be included as an amendment to a Bill, then I think it would be legally binding.
'Think' or 'Know'.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse but i'm finding that over time since the referendum remainers have postulated any number of unassailable roadblocks to Brexit which have turned out to be anything but when actually challenged.
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot
500 MPs back Remain or Deal, you only need 326 for a majority, thus it only takes a handful of Deal backers to switch to a Remain v Deal EUref2 after the Deal alone was rejected for EUref2 to have a majority.
Deal or No Deal supporters number about 300-350 combined but even then a number of No Dealers will stick to No Deal regardless not EUref2 unless they think the Deal or a Deal v No Deal poll is the only way of stopping a Deal v Remain poll
If it can be included as an amendment to a Bill, then I think it would be legally binding.
'Think' or 'Know'.
I'm not trying to be a smart arse but i'm finding that over time since the referendum remainers have postulated any number of unassailable roadblocks to Brexit which have turned out to be anything but when actually challenged.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Yes, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
No, the Sovereign is the Sovereign. The clue's in the name. The executive are those who exercise power and execute decisions on behalf of the sovereign. That is also one where the clue's in the name.
No, the Crown is not sovereign, we are not an absolute monarchy, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign as we are a constitutional monarchy. Therefore the Crown ultimately has to have a majority in Parliament to function and the Crown therefore always bows to the will of Parliament in the end, as has been the case since the Civil War and Glorious Revolution. The Queen will thus accept whatever has a majority in Parliament.
Theresa May is NOT the Crown in any case, merely a Minister of the Crown, the Queen remains the Crown and the Queen remains the executive at the end of the day.
It’s kinda of fake news...it seems she was duped into liking a post that wasn’t clear who it was created by.
The Britain First post that she shared was an innocent-looking image of British servicemen on parade, with the slogan: 'Like and share if you are proud of our Forces.'
No deal is not an option because it will be stopped by parliament if the government doesn't stop it first by coming up with a cross-party deal that has majority support plus A50 delay.
For what feels like the five millionth time:
Parliament does not have the authority to delay the implementation of Article 50 or avoid an exit without a deal. Only either the EU or a full revocation of A50 can do those things.
To reiterate, no deal is what happens unless positive action is taken to avoid it. As there isn't currently a majority for any positive course of action - possibly not even for revocation - it is now the likeliest outcome.
Article 50 can't be extended unless the EU agrees by unanimity. The EU has given strong hints it would agree. If the EU doesn't extend the UK, can revoke A50 any time before 29th March. It seems a reasonable course of action in the absence of alternatives, assuming people actually want to avoid No Deal, as they definitely should.
No they have said very clearly they would only accept an extension for circumstances where there was prospect of a change of position by the UK. I see nothing at the moment that would indicate such a change.
Publicly, the EU27 have told Theresa May the clock is ticking and that preparations for a no-deal Brexit are intensifying. Privately, the talk is all about extending the Article 50 period and defusing that time bomb due to go off on 29 March. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46907895
There's plenty more elsewhere. No guarantees, but seems likely and the UK can always revoke if necessary.
Pursuing extension makes sense if your overriding objective is not to entail big damage through an artificial deadline, you don't currently have a workable alternative, and you don't want to cancel at this stage.
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Mr. HYUFD, yeah, that was my thinking a while back, but May's pulling of the 11 December vote and running the clock down does make me think she'd prefer no deal to a referendum. We'll find out, I suppose.
I think she would prefer Remain v Deal to No Deal, revoking Art 50 or BINO, as it least gives her Deal a chance and if the voters vote Remain she can say she did her best for Brexit until the voters decided to reverse it
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ
There is no UK constitution. May has to adhere with the correct legal procedures . The Supreme Court dealt with the abrogation of rights . Those rights when triggering Article 50 would automatically fall away that’s why the government lost .
The case defined what is allowed using the Royal Perogative , the disgraceful smearing of Gina Miller by some Leavers showed how clueless most of then where re the fundamental importance of her winning .
If the government had won they could in future at the stroke of a pen change UK citizens rights . But the disgusting right wing media were too busy peddling lies and calling her everything under the sun .
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Has Starmer effectively conceded that Labour could not negotiate a better deal than May?
No, but he couldn't do better if he sticks to Mrs May's red lines. The fact is Mrs May's deal is the best anyone could have hoped for with the assorted red lines in place. That said it is an unsatisfactory compromise on so many levels.
Parliament remains sovereign, Grieve and Bercow know the law and the constitution back to front and that if they can get Parliament to vote to extend Article 50 this week they are now in control not the PM.
Does Parliament have the actual authority to extend A50?
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Yes, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, so if the Commons and Lords votes for it that will likely be what happens as the Queen will then almost certainly approve it.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
Um, the Cabinet is a subcommittee of the Privy Council. Parliament considers and signs off on law. Conceptually Cabinet and Parliament are separate. There's no reason (other than convention) that Cabinet members have to be Parliamentarians.
No but Cabinet Members whether Parliamentarians or not are merely servants of the executive which remains the Crown and thus the Queen and sovereignty thus remains with the Queen in Parliament not the PM and Cabinet in Parliament
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Because she has to do what parliament wishes.
Yes, the Queen is sensible enough to know one of her ancestors, Charles 1st, was deposed when he tried to defy the will of Parliament and another, James IInd, was forced into exile.
The Queen has no interest in trying to enforce an absolute monarchy, she knows the monarchy relies on its position as being a constitutional monarchy which respects the will of Parliament
It’s kinda of fake news...it seems she was duped into liking a post that wasn’t clear who it was created by.
The Britain First post that she shared was an innocent-looking image of British servicemen on parade, with the slogan: 'Like and share if you are proud of our Forces.'
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ
The act of revoking A50 is under the sole jurisdiction of the ECJ who have made their ruling
The phrase in the judgment is "in accordance with its constitutional requirements". Nothing about "approval".
The UK's constitutional requirements would be a matter for the UK Supreme Court to rule on. With regard to revocation, the Supreme Court hasn't yet made a ruling.
So the negotiation process has been a pointless charade because we've always had a majority of remainer MP's in parliament who were never going to let Brexit happen.
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
Well, if that's the case surely she can sign the Deal unilaterally as well, because she won't be taking away any rights that are not lost under No Deal which would happen otherwise anyway.
I would not like to see her try it though. It didn't end well for Tiberius Gracchus.
No because of the meaningful vote . Of course the default position is no deal but MPs voted for that by triggering Article 50 therefore the removal of rights has been okayed by Parliament . The key point is who can remove rights . Revoking Article 50 does not see an abrogation of rights . I followed the whole case and read the entire transcript . It was brilliant seeing the arguments played out .
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
As we are a representative democracy ultimately, the only thing the Queen might stop is revoking Brexit altogether with no EUref2 (which virtually no MP advocates anyway), she would not block extending Art50 or Euref2 if Parliament voted for it
So the negotiation process has been a pointless charade because we've always had a majority of remainer MP's in parliament who were never going to let Brexit happen.
At least without another referendum that is what it looks like yes
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.
It’s kinda of fake news...it seems she was duped into liking a post that wasn’t clear who it was created by.
The Britain First post that she shared was an innocent-looking image of British servicemen on parade, with the slogan: 'Like and share if you are proud of our Forces.'
Funny how this surfaces within a couple of days of the QT audience, usually relied upon to be somewhat more left and remain than the general population, gave a massive round of applause to Isabel Oakshott for suggesting we leave the EU with no deal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk3YMSoMI8
So the negotiation process has been a pointless charade because we've always had a majority of remainer MP's in parliament who were never going to let Brexit happen.
No. Had the Tories come up with an acceptable deal that had been supported by the leavers, there are enough MPs who would have been willing to see it through. We are in the current mess because over nearly three years the Conservatives first chose to progress it as an internal party matter, rather than a cross-party one, and then failed to bring a substantial part of their own party with them.
It’s kinda of fake news...it seems she was duped into liking a post that wasn’t clear who it was created by.
The Britain First post that she shared was an innocent-looking image of British servicemen on parade, with the slogan: 'Like and share if you are proud of our Forces.'
Funny how this surfaces within a couple of days of the QT audience, usually relied upon to be somewhat more left and remain than the general population, gave a massive round of applause to Isabel Oakshott for suggesting we leave the EU with no deal? www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk3YMSoMI8
This original "allegation" is 3 years old, it is just been rehashed by the cult online to support Diane's screaming racialist BBC.
The thought that the BBC would employ (directly or indirectly) an EDL supporter, let alone in the sensitive area of the politics arena. I mean come on.
QT have definitely had issues with audience, with elected officials / party members posing as regular members of the public, but I think that is more down to that QT can only really do so much vetting and so some determined politico probably will get in by underhand means.
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.
I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ
There is no UK constitution. May has to adhere with the correct legal procedures . The Supreme Court dealt with the abrogation of rights . Those rights when triggering Article 50 would automatically fall away that’s why the government lost .
The case defined what is allowed using the Royal Perogative , the disgraceful smearing of Gina Miller by some Leavers showed how clueless most of then where re the fundamental importance of her winning .
If the government had won they could in future at the stroke of a pen change UK citizens rights . But the disgusting right wing media were too busy peddling lies and calling her everything under the sun .
I do not agree with you so maybe just best to respect we each have our view
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.
Indeed and Parliament has decided to make May PM. Parliament has decided to invoke Article 50. So as things stand that's where we are.
If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.
This has been covered many times . Legally May does not need approval of the Commons to revoke or extend article 50.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
TM has to have 'constututional' approval to revoke A50 as set out by the ECJ
The act of revoking A50 is under the sole jurisdiction of the ECJ who have made their ruling
The phrase in the judgment is "in accordance with its constitutional requirements". Nothing about "approval".
The UK's constitutional requirements would be a matter for the UK Supreme Court to rule on. With regard to revocation, the Supreme Court hasn't yet made a ruling.
I accept your correction but of course the idea TM can just take it on her own to revoke A50 is unthinkable
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.
Indeed and Parliament has decided to make May PM. Parliament has decided to invoke Article 50. So as things stand that's where we are.
If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.
Parliament won't revoke Article 50 on its own, it will return that power to the voters in an EUref2 reverse Brexit and Remain v Leave with Deal referendum
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.
Indeed and Parliament has decided to make May PM. Parliament has decided to invoke Article 50. So as things stand that's where we are.
If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.
Parliament won't revoke Article 50 on its own, it will return that power to the voters in an EUref2 reverse Brexit and Remain v Leave with Deal referendum
It is funny how often you make these statements of fact which then turn out to be completely wrong.
It’s kinda of fake news...it seems she was duped into liking a post that wasn’t clear who it was created by.
The Britain First post that she shared was an innocent-looking image of British servicemen on parade, with the slogan: 'Like and share if you are proud of our Forces.'
Funny how this surfaces within a couple of days of the QT audience, usually relied upon to be somewhat more left and remain than the general population, gave a massive round of applause to Isabel Oakshott for suggesting we leave the EU with no deal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk3YMSoMI8
People are getting increasingly pissed off with this nonsense. Time and opportunity for a more sensible departure is running out.
Got around to watching the Uncivil War last night. Brilliant performance from Cumberbatch but otherwise found it somewhat less than convincing although I did like Craig Oliver's focus group scene.
Funny how this surfaces within a couple of days of the QT audience, usually relied upon to be somewhat more left and remain than the general population, gave a massive round of applause to Isabel Oakshott for suggesting we leave the EU with no deal?
As has been said here countless times, the way the QT audience is made up is by inviting the various parties and interests groups to send people, plus some from the general population. The effect of that is that the QT audience tends to be more partisan both ways (i.e. everyone can get a good cheer from their members present) but not normally more left-wing or remain.
The Queen will not be intervening on the side of Remainers, merely respecting the will of Parliament.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
Why would the Queen put whatever a few hundred MP's want over the what the majority of her subjects voted for?
Aside from the fact that no-one seems to know precisely what they voted for, the Queen's involvement nowadays is purely formal; she follows whatever parliament has decided.
Indeed and Parliament has decided to make May PM. Parliament has decided to invoke Article 50. So as things stand that's where we are.
If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.
Parliament won't revoke Article 50 on its own, it will return that power to the voters in an EUref2 reverse Brexit and Remain v Leave with Deal referendum
It is funny how often you make these statements of fact which then turn out to be completely wrong.
In a rare moment of agreement it would certainly be welcome if HY were to exercise a little more judgement and caution and was somewhat less eager to always tell us all what is certain to happen, usually based on a single piece of the jigsaw.
Only 100 to 150 MPs back No Deal, 300 MPs odd back Remain, 202 MPs back the Deal.
In my view a Remain v Deal referendum is more likely than No Deal and of course the Commons could well vote to force May to extend Article 50 if no Deal is agreed by mid February this week too based on Grieve and Cooper's proposals
And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
It will be an extension merely to EUref2, Remain v Deal, so the EU will agree that. ]
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
Really? I see nothing at all to indicate that is likely and it will be fought all the way by the Leave side. You like to believe that it will happen but it is likely there will be a Deal vs No Deal ballot
500 MPs back Remain or Deal, you only need 326 for a majority, thus it only takes a handful of Deal backers to switch to a Remain v Deal EUref2 after the Deal alone was rejected for EUref2 to have a majority.
Deal or No Deal supporters number about 300-350 combined but even then a number of No Dealers will stick to No Deal regardless not EUref2 unless they think the Deal or a Deal v No Deal poll is the only way of stopping a Deal v Remain poll
You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.
And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.
Comments
We saw the same with the 'dementia tax.' There, May proposed an end to the ridiculous practice of forcing people to sell their homes to pay for care, driving them into expensive and restrictive residential care instead. She proposed to increase the amount of money the government would leave the estate and collect it at a more appropriate moment. Yet the Greens and Labour - whose own proposals were far more arbitrary and onerous and would probably have massively increased costs all round - sneakily labelled it the 'dementia tax' and because she couldn't get the message across it cost her a majority.
Whatever her considerable strengths, she simply can't relate to people in the way Blair and Cameron could and therefore while she often has much better ideas (bearing in mind Blair in 2003 actually had the support of a small majority of the country over his Iraq fiasco) she simply can't implement them.
And the double irony of course is that Brexit is not even her fault but was forced on her by the voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/20/ultra-orthodox-haredi-jews-resist-new-sex-education-guidance
It will force MP's to publicly make a decision that they will have to justify to their constituencies at the next GE.
Easy for MP's in remain majority areas but something of a headache for the rest.
If you negotiate for a house or a car and say "if we can't agree a deal I'll blow my head off and splatter you in blood" it just might work. Never seen it done though.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/01/half-time-american-public-opinion-midway-through-trumps-first-term-and-the-race-to-2020/
Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
Or does that authority remain with the executive regardless of what parliament may demand?
Revocation can be done unilaterally.
It may have the authority to instruct the PM to petition the Council for an extension.
Which is (a) uncertain and (b) very different.
It's kind of a metaphor for the whole process.
Never forget the executive is ultimately the Queen, May and her Cabinet are merely the Queen's chief ministers in Parliament
A Remain v Deal EUref is the likeliest option now
A journalist went to interview a rabbi who had prayed at the Western Wall every day come wind, shine, rain, snow or suicide bombings every day since 1967. The first question he asked was, 'what do you pray for?'
'World peace, an end to hunger, understanding between Jews and Gentiles and an end to poverty,' replied this sweet old rabbi.
The journalist was staggered. 'But how does it feel then when you open the paper and see all the headlines about war, famine, intifadas and the economic system?'
'Well, how do you think it feels?' returned the sweet old rabbi. 'It feels like I'm praying to a fecking wall.'
Having reiterated this simple point over and over to both Leavers and my fellow Remainers, without them even beginning to grasp it, I begin to understand how he felt.
The improving popularity of no deal is due to the voters being promised a saving of £39 billion and to be impolite 'telling the EU to do one'. Status quo in the EU is most definately not in their mindset
1. MP's vote for extending A50
2. The Lords support
3. May refuses
We will see the then Queen intervene on the side of remainers?
I'm no constitutional expert (that much is clear) but this sounds ludicrous.
Thus far, entertaining. Do you know it ?
Personally I would be happy with the deal but the idea you can just ignore or legislate away No Deal or that you can have a referendum where the view of a third of the population is not reflected in the questions is ridiculous.
"Do you wish Parliament to give notice to the European Union that the UK wishes to remain within the European Union.
Yes/No."
The only option then left to Parliament would be to remove the Ministers in question and put in place ones who will act on Parliament's orders.
Oh, that's right, they can't do that, Corbyn having the brains of a retarded dung beetle or Andrew Bridgen has shot his bolt on confidence motions.
What a shambles.
The Gina Miller case was won because Royal Perogative cannot be used to remove rights of citizens without approval of Parliament .
Revoking or extending article 50 does not remove rights of citizens . If it ended up back in court that is the key point . Of course politically that’s a different issue altogether .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40356113
It is rumoured that the Queen chooses her hats with care.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/17/rudy-giuliani-is-not-doing-his-best-work-these-days-224026
As a radical civil libertarian, I subscribe to the teaching that any citizen accused of wrongdoing deserves the best lawyer money can buy—even if, like President Donald Trump, he talks and sometimes acts like a mobster. But I question the wisdom of anybody, Trump included, employing an attorney like Rudy Giuliani who sometimes sounds as deranged as a mob attorney.
Now let me stipulate here and at top volume that there’s absolutely no evidence that Giuliani, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has ever suborned perjury, bribed court officials, fixed juries or laundered money as many mob lawyers have dutifully done over the years. Nor has he tried to rig online polls for Trump and settle his debts with a Walmart bag filled with cash. That would be Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, who says he performed such labors at Trump’s direction....
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/12/05/bbc-question-time-fake-audiences/
I would not like to see her try it though. It didn't end well for Tiberius Gracchus.
It is also constitutionally sound, since the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution our unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy has been based on the principle the monarch accepts the will of Parliament and the Queen knows that absolutely.
The idea the Queen will put whatever May wants over what Parliament wants when May does not even have a majority in Parliament is absurd. In any case May last week effectively said it was up to Parliament to set the way forward after rejecting her Deal
The act of revoking A50 is under the sole jurisdiction of the ECJ who have made their ruling
I'm not trying to be a smart arse but i'm finding that over time since the referendum remainers have postulated any number of unassailable roadblocks to Brexit which have turned out to be anything but when actually challenged.
You may be right on this one though.
The BBC is going to have to respond to this.
Deal or No Deal supporters number about 300-350 combined but even then a number of No Dealers will stick to No Deal regardless not EUref2 unless they think the Deal or a Deal v No Deal poll is the only way of stopping a Deal v Remain poll
Theresa May is NOT the Crown in any case, merely a Minister of the Crown, the Queen remains the Crown and the Queen remains the executive at the end of the day.
The Britain First post that she shared was an innocent-looking image of British servicemen on parade, with the slogan: 'Like and share if you are proud of our Forces.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4007866/amp/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Question-Time-producer-rapped-BBC-shared-post-far-right-party-Britain-social-media.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46907895
There's plenty more elsewhere. No guarantees, but seems likely and the UK can always revoke if necessary.
Pursuing extension makes sense if your overriding objective is not to entail big damage through an artificial deadline, you don't currently have a workable alternative, and you don't want to cancel at this stage.
The case defined what is allowed using the Royal Perogative , the disgraceful smearing of Gina Miller by some Leavers showed how clueless most of then where re the fundamental importance of her winning .
If the government had won they could in future at the stroke of a pen change UK citizens rights . But the disgusting right wing media were too busy peddling lies and calling her everything under the sun .
The Queen has no interest in trying to enforce an absolute monarchy, she knows the monarchy relies on its position as being a constitutional monarchy which respects the will of Parliament
The UK's constitutional requirements would be a matter for the UK Supreme Court to rule on. With regard to revocation, the Supreme Court hasn't yet made a ruling.
So the negotiation process has been a pointless charade because we've always had a majority of remainer MP's in parliament who were never going to let Brexit happen.
No because of the meaningful vote . Of course the default position is no deal but MPs voted for that by triggering Article 50 therefore the removal of rights has been okayed by Parliament . The key point is who can remove rights . Revoking Article 50 does not see an abrogation of rights . I followed the whole case and read the entire transcript . It was brilliant seeing the arguments played out .
As we are a representative democracy ultimately, the only thing the Queen might stop is revoking Brexit altogether with no EUref2 (which virtually no MP advocates anyway), she would not block extending Art50 or Euref2 if Parliament voted for it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk3YMSoMI8
A more plausible explanation is that Abbott is actually rather shit.
The thought that the BBC would employ (directly or indirectly) an EDL supporter, let alone in the sensitive area of the politics arena. I mean come on.
QT have definitely had issues with audience, with elected officials / party members posing as regular members of the public, but I think that is more down to that QT can only really do so much vetting and so some determined politico probably will get in by underhand means.
I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.
If Parliament decides to replace May with a PM that will revoke Article 50 and if Parliament votes to give May's successor that power then that is within Parliaments rights.
'... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'
Quite.
Got around to watching the Uncivil War last night. Brilliant performance from Cumberbatch but otherwise found it somewhat less than convincing although I did like Craig Oliver's focus group scene.
And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.