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.
Parliament can revoke A50 on its own but probably doesnt want to. It would prefer a referendum to justify it. May can probably revoke A50 on her own but wont want to unless there is no alternative by 28 March.
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.
The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.
The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.
If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
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.
Parliament can revoke A50 on its own but probably doesnt want to. It would prefer a referendum to justify it. May can probably revoke A50 on her own but wont want to unless there is no alternative by 28 March.
Both would want a smokescreen to try and pretend it wasn't there fault as they fear the consequences.
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.
He is a great contributor to the site with interesting insight but a few IMHO may help his credibility rather than his absolute certainty, especially in interpreting the polls
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.
Here I disagree. The Commission's remit is to decide the wording of the options that Parliament decides to put before the people. It is beyond their remit to consider what those options should be.
And a boycott will be utterly pointless and have no impact on the result, or its legitimacy. Not least because it will most likely be called for by people who know they have lost already.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
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
y 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.
Personally I would prefer a Remain v Leave, then if Leave Deal or No Deal choice but I think it is more likely Parliament votes for just Remain v Deal given less than 20% of MPs back No Deal even if at least a third of the voters do. I also doubt the Electoral Commission would overturn that question.
A referendum may be boycotted by some No Dealers but Remainers and Dealers would vote and I would still expect a 60% turnout even if less than the 72% in 2016, however as there would be no turnout threshold that would not be relevant
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.
He is a great contributor to the site with interesting insight but a few IMHO may help his credibility rather than his absolute certainty, especially in interpreting the polls
Yes. That and acknowledgement and explanation when his predictions change
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 .
Miller did the right thing for the wrong reasons. She has made it clear she will use any and all means to stop Brexit. Parliamentary approval, however right it was and however much we should be thankful for it as a means of further reducing the power of prerogative, was merely one of those means. I am certain that if she could have thrown a spanner in the works in some other way she would not have hesitated to do so. She is not in any way someone to be admired even if she did something right by accident.
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.
I've still not seen that yet. I can't imagine it would be something they'd syndicate abroad, yet the official online source is of course geoblocked.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
It's what brought the Uncivil War to mind. There is an increasing underlying anger that those focused on or based in London are just not getting. Again.
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.
The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.
The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.
If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
In a conflict between Parliament and the PM, the Queen will always back Parliament even if that requires Parliament to replace the PM.
Though I expect if Parliament voted for a Remain v Deal EUref2 May would accept it and just prepare her Deal campaign, saying she was forced into it by Parliament, as was clear last week she is moving to let Parliament make the running now having failed to get her Deal through Parliament with a majority
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
We are two camps.
I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
Hilary Benn on Marr confirms he will shift to back EUref2 if the PM does not move to propose permanent Customs Union membership
Is that Labour's official position, or just one of several?
Of course it is not. Labour are saying all kinds of different things and ignoring the outright rejection of a referendum by a large number of labour mps in leave areas, as expressed by Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy yesterday
Flint and Nandy are ignoring settled party policy, 90% of members, and 2/3 of party supporters.
Not just Flint and Nandy but many more, indeed sufficient with conservative mps, to ensure a referendum has nowhere near enough mps to pass it, a position recently confirmed by Chuka Umunna
Indeed David Lammy is so alarmed by this he is actively saying labour could split
the laminator seems to have been perpetually alarmed since 2010 so i wouldn't read too much into that.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
38% for No Deal is not astonishing, especially when Leave got 52%
From podcast I listened to last week, the arrests last week in Poland re Huawei was a similar thing. The Polish guy arrested was a former Polish security official.
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.
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
She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.
Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.
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.
Richard, what is your view of what Edmund Burke left us with: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
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.
I somehow have my doubts that Gina Miller will fight to the death for an Act of Parliament to revoke Brexit.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day
Most Leavers think it's crying wolf again.
I happen to think No Deal is when the wolf actually comes but it might take some months to emerge and it won't be manifested via food or medicine shortages (which are used because of their emotional traction) but in significant business and macroeconomic trading problems.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
We can expect the level of support to drop significantly if No Deal actually happens.
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.
Absolutely agree. But also how does the executive do it. British Government cant just extend it unilaterally.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day
Most Leavers think it's crying wolf again.
I happen to think No Deal is when the wolf actually comes but it might take some months to emerge and it won't be manifested via food or medicine shortages (which are used because of their emotional traction) but in significant business and macroeconomic trading problems.
I'm anything but surprised. Well, actually, I'm surprised support for no Deal isn't higher given how increasingly furious Leavers round here are with both Parliament and Berlaymont.
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.
It's interesting. May's vision of the Future Relationship, as described in the Political Declaration, is not compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement. Her goal is to be out of the Single Market and the Customs Union. This does not obviate the Irish Backstop and thus (absent a technological solution to the border) cannot be implemented. Labour's preference, on the other hand, effectively Norway Plus, is compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement. More than compatible, it is where the Withdrawal Agreement (via the Backstop) steers us to. So, the often heard line that Labour's Brexit is a unicorn and Mrs May is the realist? The truth is the very opposite of that.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
We can expect the level of support to drop significantly if No Deal actually happens.
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.
The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.
The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.
If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
In a conflict between Parliament and the PM, the Queen will always back Parliament even if that requires Parliament to replace the PM.
Though I expect if Parliament voted for a Remain v Deal EUref2 May would accept it and just prepare her Deal campaign, saying she was forced into it by Parliament, as was clear last week she is moving to let Parliament make the running now having failed to get her Deal through Parliament with a majority
No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?
If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
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.
The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.
The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.
If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
In a conflict between Parliament and the PM, the Queen will always back Parliament even if that requires Parliament to replace the PM.
Though I expect if Parliament voted for a Remain v Deal EUref2 May would accept it and just prepare her Deal campaign, saying she was forced into it by Parliament, as was clear last week she is moving to let Parliament make the running now having failed to get her Deal through Parliament with a majority
No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?
Arguably 1963.
Before that, 1931. Before that, 1911 (although both of those were her grandfather, not her).
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
Well its a shame remainers and leavers are happy to risk it then.
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
Well its a shame remainers and leavers are happy to risk it then.
'Shame' is a rather weak word for what's happening right now.
'... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'
Quite.
It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.
"perfectly good" is giving it a veneer of respectability it barely deserves. But yep - there is a means, right here, right now, to kill No Deal Brexit. Remainers are choosing not to take 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 .
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
38% for No Deal is not astonishing, especially when Leave got 52%
It must astonish Bev who believes only 36% voted for Brexit
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
Yes, I agree. I think it's pretty unthinkable that MPs would take it on themselves to back revocation unless a referendum approved 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 .
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
Well its a shame remainers and leavers are happy to risk it then.
'Shame' is a rather weak word for what's happening right now.
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
She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.
Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.
The Queen's great great grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose great great grandfather was George 1st. George 1sts grandmother was Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia, whose brother was Charles 1st and whose nephew was James IInd
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
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
Yes, I agree. I think it's pretty unthinkable that MPs would take it on themselves to back revocation unless a referendum approved it.
It's increasingly clear that the MPs lack the backbone to take any decision on this without passing it back to a referendum.
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 soverhe Queen remains the executive at the end of the day.
The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.
The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.
If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
In a conflict between Parliamjority
No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?
If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
No I am absolutely right.
There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.
If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
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
She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.
Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.
The Queen's great great grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose great great grandfather was George 1st. George 1sts grandmother was Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia, whose brother was Charles 1st and whose nephew was James IInd
Exactly. She is descended from Charles' niece and James' cousin.
William, by contrast, as a descendant of the Dukes of Grafton and Richmond, is a descendant of Charles I (and Charles II).
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.
Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
No deal terrifes me but even I occasionally succumb to the urge to want to blow a raspberry at the "people's" vote mob. "People" already voted.
When you spend two and a half years telling people they're a basket of racists and thickos for daring to disagree with you don't be surprised when they take the opportunity to stick their fingers up at you at every opportunity they can.
It's why I'm fairly certain Leave would win a second referendum. The remain campaign would most likely be equal parts hectoring and gloating. Nothing cuts through like "they're still not listening, tell them again".
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we end up with some sort of soft Brexity fudge at the 11th hour. But both sides are so polarised now it becomes harder and harder to see that happening.
I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.
Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.
Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
Which was doubly ironic given the individual in question voted Leave.
I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.
Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
Personally I find the ‘they must have been too stupid to understand the question’ brigade pretty bigoted. Leave or remain seemed pretty straightforward to me. The most sinister suggestion was that we should age limit the right to vote as people would not be alive to see the consequences. What next - disenfranchisement of disabled and terminally ill?
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
In a socialist paradise, Comrade, payment will not be important. You will be a member of the Party whether or not you pay your subs.
Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
I imagine if you are pure of heart and support the leader then a long time, if you are centre left blairite then probably you get the letter the day the DD bounces.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
In a socialist paradise, Comrade, payment will not be important. You will be a member of the Party whether or not you pay your subs.
Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.
But most people will be equally skint and starving so they will have solved the problem of relative poverty. I expect the UN to send a bid to say how well they have done.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Like the official source, I'm sceptical of both the sources and the article, all of which are trying to make an argument. I only know about the membership in two constituencies, though very different ones - they are both marginally off the peak but the drop is 5-10%. The vast majority (80-90%) are now on direct debit so it's not plausible that 20% are behind with subs.
That's not to say members are carefree - they feel unease about the Brexit position like everyone else, and are frustrated that Labour isn't clearer. But at this point they're not resigning in significant numbers.
In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
Still massive.
I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
In a socialist paradise, Comrade, payment will not be important. You will be a member of the Party whether or not you pay your subs.
Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.
But most people will be equally skint and starving so they will have solved the problem of relative poverty. I expect the UN to send a bid to say how well they have done.
The Vietnamese foreign minister in 1976, Nguyen Duy Trinh, when pressed to come up with an achievement of his government, said tartly 'we have distributed poverty equally.'
There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.
If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
Sorry but this is rubbish. If the PM wins a VONC then by definition they command the confidence of Parliament. The fact they refuse to enact a particular vote when that vote has no legally binding force is immaterial as far as our current system is concerned.
Now I would love to see the laws changed so that it is explicit that the PM has to obey the direction of Parliament. After all we vote for MPs not for the executive. But as it stands your claims are simply wrong.
The problem we have at the moment is that Parliament wants certain actions to be taken but does not want to be seen to be responsible for them as they fear the backlash. Otherwise they would simply pass a VONC.
Richard, what is your view of what Edmund Burke left us with: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
I have commented on what Burke said often before. He was of course right but his was only half of the equation. The other half was that when he followed his maxim, he was then unceremoniously dumped by his constituents in Bristol at the next opportunity. If an MP is to decide they known better than their constituents then they have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Moreover what we have far too much today is MPs acting as the representatives of their parties or of their own interests rather than of their electorate.
In fact this whole episode has been quite refreshing for the number of MPs (on both sides of the debate) who have stood by their consciences rather than by their party.
I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.
Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.
If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
Sorry but this is rubbish. If the PM wins a VONC then by definition they command the confidence of Parliament. The fact they refuse to enact a particular vote when that vote has no legally binding force is immaterial as far as our current system is concerned.
Now I would love to see the laws changed so that it is explicit that the PM has to obey the direction of Parliament. After all we vote for MPs not for the executive. But as it stands your claims are simply wrong.
The problem we have at the moment is that Parliament wants certain actions to be taken but does not want to be seen to be responsible for them as they fear the backlash. Otherwise they would simply pass a VONC.
If Parliament ie the House of Lords and the Commons voted for another EU referendum and the PM refused to implement it then the Government would likely lose a VONC anyway at that stage if not it is entirely possible than on a conflict between Parliament and PM on such a course of significance the monarch would replace the PM with someone more acceptable to Parliament
Comments
May can probably revoke A50 on her own but wont want to unless there is no alternative by 28 March.
The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.
If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
And a boycott will be utterly pointless and have no impact on the result, or its legitimacy. Not least because it will most likely be called for by people who know they have lost already.
As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
A referendum may be boycotted by some No Dealers but Remainers and Dealers would vote and I would still expect a 60% turnout even if less than the 72% in 2016, however as there would be no turnout threshold that would not be relevant
Though I expect if Parliament voted for a Remain v Deal EUref2 May would accept it and just prepare her Deal campaign, saying she was forced into it by Parliament, as was clear last week she is moving to let Parliament make the running now having failed to get her Deal through Parliament with a majority
I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46557096
Fascinating story.
From podcast I listened to last week, the arrests last week in Poland re Huawei was a similar thing. The Polish guy arrested was a former Polish security official.
Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
I happen to think No Deal is when the wolf actually comes but it might take some months to emerge and it won't be manifested via food or medicine shortages (which are used because of their emotional traction) but in significant business and macroeconomic trading problems.
A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs
I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
Before that, 1931. Before that, 1911 (although both of those were her grandfather, not her).
There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.
If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
William, by contrast, as a descendant of the Dukes of Grafton and Richmond, is a descendant of Charles I (and Charles II).
When you spend two and a half years telling people they're a basket of racists and thickos for daring to disagree with you don't be surprised when they take the opportunity to stick their fingers up at you at every opportunity they can.
It's why I'm fairly certain Leave would win a second referendum. The remain campaign would most likely be equal parts hectoring and gloating. Nothing cuts through like "they're still not listening, tell them again".
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we end up with some sort of soft Brexity fudge at the 11th hour. But both sides are so polarised now it becomes harder and harder to see that happening.
Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.
Just seen this on another forum. This was back in August!!!
THE UK SUBMITS SCHEDULES OF POST-BREXIT GOODS TARIFFS TO THE WTO – WHAT THAT MEANS
https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-schedules-of-post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-that-means/
NEW THREAD
That's not to say members are carefree - they feel unease about the Brexit position like everyone else, and are frustrated that Labour isn't clearer. But at this point they're not resigning in significant numbers.
Now I would love to see the laws changed so that it is explicit that the PM has to obey the direction of Parliament. After all we vote for MPs not for the executive. But as it stands your claims are simply wrong.
The problem we have at the moment is that Parliament wants certain actions to be taken but does not want to be seen to be responsible for them as they fear the backlash. Otherwise they would simply pass a VONC.
Moreover what we have far too much today is MPs acting as the representatives of their parties or of their own interests rather than of their electorate.
In fact this whole episode has been quite refreshing for the number of MPs (on both sides of the debate) who have stood by their consciences rather than by their party.