Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
They have until next Thursday , no rush.
At risk of sounding like your good self Malc, it would some of them that long to count to ten on their fingers.
Edit - if anyone saw that, I do apologise. It was a genuine typo.
If yesterdays cabinet was truly 14-10 against May, but she went ahead anyway, doesn't this mean that "primus inter pares" is no longer a thing?
Wasn't there a famous story of a Thatcher cabinet meeting where all those who spoke were against the proposal, and Maggie summed up by saying the clear mood of the meeting was in favour?
But my point is that any legislation to attempt to frustrate or forbid No Deal is useless, and debating it is surely a waste of time? No Deal can only be prevented by some other positive choice that both Parliament and the EU can accept (save in the case of Revocation, which is the only option that the UK can choose unilaterally.)
If Parliament achieves a majority for something that the Government can take to the EU - a Revocation letter, the existing Withdrawal Agreement, or some kind of plan either for a WA vs Remain referendum or an Andrex Soft Brexit deal that the EU27 might be prepared to allow more time to be arranged, then we avoid No Deal. Otherwise No Deal happens. In this respect at least, Theresa May was entirely correct: it's no use MPs saying what they are against, they have to make up their mind what they are for.
Basically they want a magic piece of legislation that means May has to revoke without them ever actually voting for revoke themselves.
Oh, I see, of course...
...however, (a) if things get that far then everyone who votes for this bill will be categorised as a revoke supporter, so it won't actually help much; and (b) if the Commons explicitly voted to invoke A50 (as it, of course, did) but then failed to explicitly vote to revoke A50, wouldn't that leave them on somewhat dubious legal ground?
Not if the EU won't allow us to extend and Parliament rules out No Deal.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
Piers Morgan says something controversial on Twitter to draw attention to himself and your speechless?
Thing is I think Morgan now believes the ranting, red faced, 'political correctness gone mad' persona that he's created is genuine, and that he's spouting the uncontroversial good sense of the ordinary bloke on the street. For an aficionado of human hypocrisy he's rich pickings though.
Fame is a mask that eats the face. Do it long enough and you forget who you were.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
The problem is that all people who voted leave have different opinions on what they voted for. Richard Tyndall and myself both wanted to leave the political side of the EU but have no problems with a customs union and freedom of movement - others hate the idea of freedom of movement.
Equally my current viewpoint is that Brexit is a failed project (for various reasons repeated here and elsewhere continually). And the best thing to do with a failed or failing project is to return to where you began, learn the appropriate lessons and possibly try again. Which is why I’m happy with things being revoked as I suspect there are a couple of cards that could be used to invoke A50 again we’re anyone to desire to do so.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Argument 1 of many that would alllow A50 to be reinvoked were that desired down the line.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliamen
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
How the does me saying that MP votes should not be secret because they need to be accountable lead to that? I cannot even conceive how you made a leap from 'MP's need to be accountable' to 'this is a slippery slope to someone wanting to kill an MP'. That's outrageous.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Labour would win easily in that scenario. Conservative voters would be either furious because Brexit had been cancelled, or furious because the party had been trying to take us to No Deal. Labour on the other hand would pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifestos, the next Labour manifesto has surely got to be a radicle one? I cannot believe Corbyn would pass the opportunity to implement a radicle program. Many Tories will have a hard decision to make in that does the Uk relationship with Europe trump much higher taxes, more state intervention in the economy and a very Liberal social policy?
I am cross with the Tories and voted for them despite Brexit in 2017, however if Article 50 is revoked and the Tories get back to focusing on the economy and issues that do not focus on Europe I might vote for them again.
At the moment I don't think I can vote Tory and am drawn toward Change UK or failing that Lib Dem. This is not because I feel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
I was a Tory member until shortly before TM became PM. I thought Cameron was very good until he made the mistake of 2016 referendum. It is a pity he 'won' in 2015 as his legacy would have been much better if he had just taken the UK through the dark period of austerity, which was hard but necessary.
I have no political ambition now, I never really had any serious ambition anyway i.e. being an MP as I have done too many stupid things that might become public knowledge and used against me!
My membership of the Tory party was based on sound public finances and running a strong dynamic economy. All this nonsense on Europe has become tiresome. In the early to mid nineties I used to think getting out of the EEC/ EU was viable if we had a Free Trade deal with Nafta, failing that the US. I have thought for a decade or more that this approach will not work it is a pipe dream as we are too integrated with the EU. Besides the economy and reality does not really work like this!
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
As we have voted to reclaim our rights to elect those who pass our laws and our Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 to enact us getting those rights if May unilaterally revoked she would be denying us those rights.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is an MPs accountability to his or her constituents, its not good enough to vote in secret and would, if allowed, become a cozy way out of accountability in the future
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
This is where that sort of talk ends:
How the does me saying that MP votes should not be secret because they need to be accountable lead to that? Fuck you very much.
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
He seems to be working his way through a particularly dark bucket list.
If he was jailed for 16 months less than a year ago...
...something doesn't add up!
Nah, the criminal justice system in this country is a joke. There are some people who think we shouldn't bother sending such people to prison.
If he was released after half his sentence, he must have been a very busy bee, planning, failing, getting arrested and convicted all in an amazing three months.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
As we have voted to reclaim our rights to elect those who pass our laws and our Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 to enact us getting those rights if May unilaterally revoked she would be denying us those rights.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
As we have voted to reclaim our rights to elect those who pass our laws and our Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 to enact us getting those rights if May unilaterally revoked she would be denying us those rights.
Flouncing out. Overreaction is never good, and thick skin is needed, but my gods, when someone you think is reasonable says something like that, I am bloody speechless.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Because Parliament have voted to leave the EU.
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
They voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. Doesn't preclude her from later revoking it. There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
Agreed. No one wants MPs to be subjected to violence or intimidation, but letting them avoid being personally accountable because it is easier is not an answer, it has serious negative implications. Being an MP is not meant to be easy. Collective accountability is not enough. If it were, it would not have developed the way it has anyway.
He seems to be working his way through a particularly dark bucket list.
If he was jailed for 16 months less than a year ago...
...something doesn't add up!
Nah, the criminal justice system in this country is a joke. There are some people who think we shouldn't bother sending such people to prison.
If he was released after half his sentence, he must have been a very busy bee, planning, failing, getting arrested and convicted all in an amazing three months.
I am not sure that is the right timeline. I think his conviction for grooming was after his murder plot.
Bit OTT at White Hart Lane the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. When we moved to the Emirates we walked out at 15:00 on the first Saturday of the season and played a game of football.
You’re just jealous that they’ve got a better stadium than yours.
Is it? What I know for certain is that I'm much happier travelling to Islington rather than Haringey.
Tottenham is hip these days. Some banging clubs up there and the regen scheme around the new stadium has improved the area. Highbury is a bit too posh middle class for football.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Because Parliament have voted to leave the EU.
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
They voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. Doesn't preclude her from later revoking it. There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
I'm seeing wishful thinking here, not analysis. If you want to live in a fantasy world, fine. But in the real world, they would have to vote on it, and they can't pass it. Indeed, if May could revoke unilaterally, she could almost certainly also pass the WA unilaterally given the Miller case only required for Parliament to vote on Article 50 and Grieve's amendment may not be binding.
In any case, since the odds of May revoking without orders from the Commons are zero, and there remains no realistic alternative who might even try, the point is moot.
Light relief: the almost entirely forgotten about Newport West by-election takes place tomorrow. Labour, as one would expect, are the overwhelming favourites. A distant second with most bookmakers, however, would appear to be Ukip rather than the Conservatives.
Flouncing out. Overreaction is never good, and thick skin is needed, but my gods, when someone you think is reasonable says something like that, I am bloody speechless.
You didn't say anything wrong. The actions of people like Mair or Renshaw should not be an excuse for making MPs unaccountable for the decisions they make.
Light relief: the almost entirely forgotten about Newport West by-election takes place tomorrow. Labour, as one would expect, are the overwhelming favourites. A distant second with most bookmakers, however, would appear to be Ukip rather than the Conservatives.
The Ukip candidate is Neil Hamilton.
I keep hoping he will Fayad from view. And I keep seeing him cashing in instead.
The Article 50 revocation isn’t clear . Lawyers argue on both counts , May can do it by herself versus she needs MPs .
Even if she could do it by herself she would still want cover by MPs . However let’s say in an emergency , say complete chaos , huge run on the pound etc she and let’s say there was no time she could push it legally .
The reason is down to abrogation of rights . Triggering article 50 can lead to the eventual loss of certain citizens rights and the Royal Perogative can’t be used in domestic law to do that .
Revoking Article 50 doesn’t remove rights it keeps them as the status quo .
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
So Parliament will own whatever mess they cook up, having rejected the only realistic option open to them. They either trash the economy, or the democratic institutions of this country.
Serve them right for being so useless, but why do they have to bugger the rest of us along the way?
Parliament can choose to do anything they like in my book, or at least they should be able to do so. The only caveat is an intervention by HMQ.
I cannot believe that we've managed to get to a position in the first place where the ECJ even think they have jurisdiction, let alone actually have.
Well yes. That's the point. They could revoke. But they're not doing it. At this moment they are not in fact doing anything, they are failing to take the necessary steps to avoid the consequences of their earlier actions.
In the absence of a Fairy Godmother who appears out of a cloud, Revokes on their behalf and disappears again, 2nd best is a secret ballot. Parliament then has collective responsibility for a decision and is accountable as a whole. But individual MPs are relatively safe from retribution.
It seems to me that, if they were offered this, they'd revoke. Anonymity offers protection to vulnerable MPs who fear violence from thugs like those seen in London recently.
An unwritten constitution is 'flexible'. So can the speaker, whose clerks are no doubt reading this, investigate the feasibility?
A secret ballot would be utterly wrong
Voters are entitled to know how their representatives vote
The Article 50 revocation isn’t clear . Lawyers argue on both counts , May can do it by herself versus she needs MPs .
Even if she could do it by herself she would still want cover by MPs . However let’s say in an emergency , say complete chaos , huge run on the pound etc she and let’s say there was no time she could push it legally .
The reason is down to abrogation of rights . Triggering article 50 can lead to the eventual loss of certain citizens rights and the Royal Prerogative can’t be used in domestic law to do that .
Revoking Article 50 doesn’t remove rights it keeps them as the status quo .
If the aim of the No Deal legislation is really to try to force Theresa May to revoke unilaterally (whilst those who voted for it hold up their hands and claim it's not their fault) then they are taking an almighty gamble. If the ECJ later decides that the revocation doesn't adequately comply with the UK's own legal requirements then we're out.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Because Parliament have voted to leave the EU.
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
They voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. Doesn't preclude her from later revoking it. There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
Yes they voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. They didn't authorise her to revoke it.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Because Parliament have voted to leave the EU.
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
They voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. Doesn't preclude her from later revoking it. There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
I'm seeing wishful thinking here, not analysis. If you want to live in a fantasy world, fine. But in the real world, they would have to vote on it, and they can't pass it. Indeed, if May could revoke unilaterally, she could almost certainly also pass the WA unilaterally given the Miller case only required for Parliament to vote on Article 50 and Grieve's amendment may not be binding.
In any case, since the odds of May revoking without orders from the Commons are zero, and there remains no realistic alternative who might even try, the point is moot.
Grieves Amendent was to an Act of Parliament therefore legally binding . That’s the key issue.
Or to be clearer it amended the Bill which after passing both houses becomes an Act .
The Article 50 revocation isn’t clear . Lawyers argue on both counts , May can do it by herself versus she needs MPs .
Even if she could do it by herself she would still want cover by MPs . However let’s say in an emergency , say complete chaos , huge run on the pound etc she and let’s say there was no time she could push it legally .
The reason is down to abrogation of rights . Triggering article 50 can lead to the eventual loss of certain citizens rights and the Royal Prerogative can’t be used in domestic law to do that .
Revoking Article 50 doesn’t remove rights it keeps them as the status quo .
If the aim of the No Deal legislation is really to try to force Theresa May to revoke unilaterally (whilst those who voted for it hold up their hands and claim it's not their fault) then they are taking an almighty gamble. If the ECJ later decides that the revocation doesn't adequately comply with the UK's own legal requirements then we're out.
If it comes to an actual vote to revoke, then the MP's on either side of the vote will be as they were tonight.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
You are joking, right? 'Our sovereign parliament' means the legislature - that is, both houses plus the crown. It does not mean the house of commons. I assume you are only pretending not to know that.
The Article 50 revocation isn’t clear . Lawyers argue on both counts , May can do it by herself versus she needs MPs .
Even if she could do it by herself she would still want cover by MPs . However let’s say in an emergency , say complete chaos , huge run on the pound etc she and let’s say there was no time she could push it legally .
The reason is down to abrogation of rights . Triggering article 50 can lead to the eventual loss of certain citizens rights and the Royal Prerogative can’t be used in domestic law to do that .
Revoking Article 50 doesn’t remove rights it keeps them as the status quo .
If the aim of the No Deal legislation is really to try to force Theresa May to revoke unilaterally (whilst those who voted for it hold up their hands and claim it's not their fault) then they are taking an almighty gamble. If the ECJ later decides that the revocation doesn't adequately comply with the UK's own legal requirements then we're out.
If it comes to an actual vote to revoke, then the MP's on either side of the vote will be as they were tonight.
The whip won't carry much weight in a vote like that. I'd expect some more to come out in favour.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
You are joking, right? 'Our sovereign parliament' means the legislature - that is, both houses plus the crown. It does not mean the house of commons. I assume you are only pretending not to know that.
Strictly speaking it's the Queen and the two houses. It's the sovereign wot makes it sovereign.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
You are joking, right? 'Our sovereign parliament' means the legislature - that is, both houses plus the crown. It does not mean the house of commons. I assume you are only pretending not to know that.
Both houses plus the crown didn't just pass the act authorising the referendum, both houses plus the crown passed the act authorising the invoking of Article 50.
Which houses and has the crown authorised revoking it?
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
You are joking, right? 'Our sovereign parliament' means the legislature - that is, both houses plus the crown. It does not mean the house of commons. I assume you are only pretending not to know that.
Strictly speaking it's the Queen and the two houses. It's the sovereign wot makes it sovereign.
Even more strictly speaking it’s the Crown-in-Parliament not the Crown wot makes it sovereign
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
You're so vitriolic and intemperate you demean both you and this site.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
You are joking, right? 'Our sovereign parliament' means the legislature - that is, both houses plus the crown. It does not mean the house of commons. I assume you are only pretending not to know that.
Strictly speaking it's the Queen and the two houses. It's the sovereign wot makes it sovereign.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
You're so vitriolic and intemperate you demean both you and this site.
LOL. Yet another classic from the poster who has shone with their ability to be wrong about absolutely everything.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
Nothing.
The calculation is that voters who are genuinely disgusted with the 2016 result being overturned will, in future, give up bothering to vote or piss their votes up the wall on minor parties that have little or no chance of winning Parliamentary representation under the existing system.
A higher turnout for fringe political groups and a lower turnout overall (allied, quite possibly, to a new level of contempt or hatred for Westminster politicians, that more closely resembles that directed towards the federal Government and Congress by American voters,) are viewed, one would suspect, as prices well worth paying for having the 'right' people still bothering to traipse to the ballot box and the 'right' people being returned to Parliament.
General Election on same day as European poll, or shortly thereafter.
Result completely unpredictable.
Labour would win easily in that scenario. Conservative voters would be either furious because Brexit had been cancelled, or furious because the party had been trying to take us to No Deal. Labour on the other hand would pick up a relief rally from people opposed to Brexit in the first place, or just pleased to see the Tories stuffed.
I think it would depend on the manifestos, the next Labour manifesto has surely got to be a radicle one? I cannot believe Corbyn would pass the opportunity to implement a radicle program. Many Tories will have a hard decision to make in that does the Uk relationship with Europe trump much higher taxes, more state intervention in the economy and a very Liberal social policy?
I am cross with the Tories and voted for them despite Brexit in 2017, however if Article 50 is revoked and the Tories get back to focusing on the economy and issues that do not focus on Europe I might vote for them again.
At the moment I don't think I can vote Tory and am drawn toward Change UK or failing that Lib Dem. This is not because I feel they can win but a protest vote!
Well, strike me down with a feather.
I thought you were a Lib Dem!
I was a Tory member until shortly before TM became PM. I thought Cameron was very good until he made the mistake of 2016 referendum. It is a pity he 'won' in 2015 as his legacy would have been much better if he had just taken the UK through the dark period of austerity, which was hard but necessary.
I have no political ambition now, I never really had any serious ambition anyway i.e. being an MP as I have done too many stupid things that might become public knowledge and used against me!
My membership of the Tory party was based on sound public finances and running a strong dynamic economy. All this nonsense on Europe has become tiresome. In the early to mid nineties I used to think getting out of the EEC/ EU was viable if we had a Free Trade deal with Nafta, failing that the US. I have thought for a decade or more that this approach will not work it is a pipe dream as we are too integrated with the EU. Besides the economy and reality does not really work like this!
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
Please don't call me dumb. First, I'm not; secondly it's rude; thirdly it gives me an opening to say that i have always rated your contributions to this site as A1 for effort, but C3 for thinking skills. I wouldn't normally say that, but you started it.
Are you claiming that you *did* know what you were voting for in the sense that you foresaw us being in the position we are in now and still voted for it? Golly. And are you going to vote leave again in the forthcoming People's Vote?
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
You're so vitriolic and intemperate you demean both you and this site.
LOL. Yet another classic from the poster who has shone with their ability to be wrong about absolutely everything.
It’s the dry, cutting, caustic, razor sharp wit that gets me every time.
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Because Parliament have voted to leave the EU.
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
They voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. Doesn't preclude her from later revoking it. There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
Yes they voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. They didn't authorise her to revoke it.
The Act did not order her to invoke A50 by a specific date, so if she had not invoked A50 she would not be in breach of the Act, so it follows logically to me that the Act confers on the PM the discretion to invoke and revoke at will.
I'm sure that if we do revoke, and the Act is not subsequently repealed, that any future Leaver PM would be keen to use that discretion.
I'll be honest. I've been out tonight at a a sort of pre-drinks for a local awards do where my team has a nomination, and no shortage of drink has been taken. Can anyone give me a 50-word summary of exactly what the blue blazes has gone on today?
Parliament cannot rule out no deal without actively choosing another option. That is doubly true as the CJEU ruling indicated a vote in Parliament would be needed before Revoke could be accepted:
The ECJ noted that the conditions on any revocation would be the same as those stated in Article 50 for the original notification. First, the decision must be taken in accordance with the member state’s constitutional requirements. Secondly, the decision must be notified to the Council in writing thereafter.
Since a vote was needed to invoke, a vote countermanding it would surely be needed to revoke.
Not necessarily. A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties. Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
The point being that if May revoked, without a further parliamentary vote, she would be acting contrary to the wishes of our sovereign parliament. Which is not apparently allowed.
Why not? (Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
Because Parliament have voted to leave the EU.
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
They voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. Doesn't preclude her from later revoking it. There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
Yes they voted to authorise the Prime Minister to invoke A50. They didn't authorise her to revoke it.
The Act did not order her to invoke A50 by a specific date, so if she had not invoked A50 she would not be in breach of the Act, so it follows logically to me that the Act confers on the PM the discretion to invoke and revoke at will.
I'm sure that if we do revoke, and the Act is not subsequently repealed, that any future Leaver PM would be keen to use that discretion.
I don't see how that follows. The drafters could have granted the PM the power to revoke if that's what they wanted. They didn't, it was a one-way motion [as was argued before the Supreme Court at the time].
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
Please don't call me dumb. First, I'm not; secondly it's rude; thirdly it gives me an opening to say that i have always rated your contributions to this site as A1 for effort, but C3 for thinking skills. I wouldn't normally say that, but you started it.
Are you claiming that you *did* know what you were voting for in the sense that you foresaw us being in the position we are in now and still voted for it? Golly. And are you going to vote leave again in the forthcoming People's Vote?
He calls everyone dumb. You wouldn’t be a poster on this site if he hadn’t, at some point, called you dumb. What gets me is that even his insults lack any insight or originality. He’s not even very good at being rude.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
Nothing.
The calculation is that voters who are genuinely disgusted with the 2016 result being overturned will, in future, give up bothering to vote or piss their votes up the wall on minor parties that have little or no chance of winning Parliamentary representation under the existing system.
A higher turnout for fringe political groups and a lower turnout overall (allied, quite possibly, to a new level of contempt or hatred for Westminster politicians, that more closely resembles that directed towards the federal Government and Congress by American voters,) are viewed, one would suspect, as prices well worth paying for having the 'right' people still bothering to traipse to the ballot box and the 'right' people being returned to Parliament.
People said that MPs expenses would never be forgotten, that people would not vote and the like. People still voted in 2010 despite MPs expenses. Sure, some people did not vote or went to the fringes but life and Government went on. Yes, millions may feel aggrieved by no Brexit. But most of them will get over it as more pertinent issues arise.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
Please don't call me dumb. First, I'm not; secondly it's rude; thirdly it gives me an opening to say that i have always rated your contributions to this site as A1 for effort, but C3 for thinking skills. I wouldn't normally say that, but you started it.
Are you claiming that you *did* know what you were voting for in the sense that you foresaw us being in the position we are in now and still voted for it? Golly. And are you going to vote leave again in the forthcoming People's Vote?
Two days after the referendum result I wrote an article published on here that made the explicit comparison between the Leave victory and the Western interventions in the Middle East - all about winning the war but then potentially losing the peace. I made clear that the best way to avoid this was by compromise and taking into account the views of the 48% who voted Remain.
So don't preach to me about what I did and didn't know. I published it on PB for all to see and I stand by it now.
And yes if you voted the way you did without having bothered to find out the facts then you are dumb. There were plenty of people on both sides who did bother to find out and who then voted accordingly based on their own values and principles.
Your problem is not just that you are dumb to have voted in ignorance but that you then project that on to everyone else who voted.
I'll be honest. I've been out tonight at a a sort of pre-drinks for a local awards do where my team has a nomination, and no shortage of drink has been taken. Can anyone give me a 50-word summary of exactly what the blue blazes has gone on today?
Thanks
Drutt
May and Corbyn discuss compromise, but it probably won't happen MPs trying to pass law to stop No Deal, but it probably won't work No visible progress on the Deal, or any alternative Hard Brexit another day closer
I'll be honest. I've been out tonight at a a sort of pre-drinks for a local awards do where my team has a nomination, and no shortage of drink has been taken. Can anyone give me a 50-word summary of exactly what the blue blazes has gone on today?
Thanks
Drutt
May and Corbyn discuss compromise, but it probably won't happen MPs trying to pass law to stop No Deal, but it probably won't work No visible progress on the Deal, or any alternative Hard Brexit another day closer
I'll be honest. I've been out tonight at a a sort of pre-drinks for a local awards do where my team has a nomination, and no shortage of drink has been taken. Can anyone give me a 50-word summary of exactly what the blue blazes has gone on today?
I'll be honest. I've been out tonight at a a sort of pre-drinks for a local awards do where my team has a nomination, and no shortage of drink has been taken. Can anyone give me a 50-word summary of exactly what the blue blazes has gone on today?
Thanks
Drutt
May and Corbyn discuss compromise, but it probably won't happen MPs trying to pass law to stop No Deal, but it probably won't work No visible progress on the Deal, or any alternative Hard Brexit another day closer
2 government people you probably never heard of resigned. The HoC printer broke down.
I'll be honest. I've been out tonight at a a sort of pre-drinks for a local awards do where my team has a nomination, and no shortage of drink has been taken. Can anyone give me a 50-word summary of exactly what the blue blazes has gone on today?
Thanks
Drutt
May and Corbyn discuss compromise, but it probably won't happen MPs trying to pass law to stop No Deal, but it probably won't work No visible progress on the Deal, or any alternative Hard Brexit another day closer
Or revoke another day closer, the ERG are dicing with death as much as diehard Remainers
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
A strong case can be made for saying that they didn't know what they were voting for. I had only the sketchiest understanding of what I was voting against when I voted remain. I certainly know a fuck of a lot more about it now then I did then.
In that case you were fucking dumb and should have found out before you voted. But your idiocy does not give you the right to tar everyone else with the same brush.
You're so vitriolic and intemperate you demean both you and this site.
LOL. Yet another classic from the poster who has shone with their ability to be wrong about absolutely everything.
It’s the dry, cutting, caustic, razor sharp wit that gets me every time.
Who cares Doug. You are just an anonymous troll hiding behind a false identity.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
It is not at all clear how Brexit addresses the concerns of those at the sharp end of globalisation either.
Comments
They’ll have the beef too.
A vote was needed to invoke it as, constitutionally, a removal of status quo rights of the people of the UK cannot be enacted without the explicit consent of Parliament; the Government cannot do it under its own powers (such as agreeing and enacting Treaties.
Revoking A50 would not remove any such rights, so that requirement is not there. The executive powers of the Government in the treaties field should be enough (constitutionally)
(I may have garbled the above a bit)
https://twitter.com/BBCLancashire/status/1113038829399703552?s=19
Equally my current viewpoint is that Brexit is a failed project (for various reasons repeated here and elsewhere continually). And the best thing to do with a failed or failing project is to return to where you began, learn the appropriate lessons and possibly try again. Which is why I’m happy with things being revoked as I suspect there are a couple of cards that could be used to invoke A50 again we’re anyone to desire to do so.
I can't work out their silence? Any ideas?
(Don't say "the Gina Miller case"; that's been covered above)
...something doesn't add up!
The Executive cannot override Parliament.
So he's been jailed for over four years in total, so not eligible for HDC.
Am working on the assumption he's been given concurrent sentencing, not consecutive sentencing, he should be released on licence this July.
There are other items of legislation that have gone through that could cause confusion if not amended, but that wouldn't stop us staying in, I believe.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1113535847222185985
He was once the face of the BNP youth wing:
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1113081478945046528?s=19
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1113535651880869888
In any case, since the odds of May revoking without orders from the Commons are zero, and there remains no realistic alternative who might even try, the point is moot.
Meanwhile this debate is one hard Brexiter after another. A filibuster without any purpose since the votes are due at 10pm regardless.
The Ukip candidate is Neil Hamilton.
Good night.
Even if she could do it by herself she would still want cover by MPs . However let’s say in an emergency , say complete chaos , huge run on the pound etc she and let’s say there was no time she could push it legally .
The reason is down to abrogation of rights . Triggering article 50 can lead to the eventual loss of certain citizens rights and the Royal Perogative can’t be used in domestic law to do that .
Revoking Article 50 doesn’t remove rights it keeps them as the status quo .
https://twitter.com/FionaOnasanyaMP/status/1113511057606291456
Voters are entitled to know how their representatives vote
2019 GE - 2.44 - drifted out over last 24 hours
Next GE Most seats - Con still favourite at 2.04 - though it's become much tighter over last few days - Lab now 2.16
Next PM - Corbyn still available at 6.4 - though has shortened a bit.
Or to be clearer it amended the Bill which after passing both houses becomes an Act .
Which houses and has the crown authorised revoking it?
Anyone?
Was the Corn Laws split this brutal?
The calculation is that voters who are genuinely disgusted with the 2016 result being overturned will, in future, give up bothering to vote or piss their votes up the wall on minor parties that have little or no chance of winning Parliamentary representation under the existing system.
A higher turnout for fringe political groups and a lower turnout overall (allied, quite possibly, to a new level of contempt or hatred for Westminster politicians, that more closely resembles that directed towards the federal Government and Congress by American voters,) are viewed, one would suspect, as prices well worth paying for having the 'right' people still bothering to traipse to the ballot box and the 'right' people being returned to Parliament.
Are you claiming that you *did* know what you were voting for in the sense that you foresaw us being in the position we are in now and still voted for it? Golly. And are you going to vote leave again in the forthcoming People's Vote?
Wishing all PBers a peaceful night, think one may be needed!
I'm sure that if we do revoke, and the Act is not subsequently repealed, that any future Leaver PM would be keen to use that discretion.
Thanks
Drutt
https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com/Divisions/Details/672?byMember=false#notrecorded
So don't preach to me about what I did and didn't know. I published it on PB for all to see and I stand by it now.
And yes if you voted the way you did without having bothered to find out the facts then you are dumb. There were plenty of people on both sides who did bother to find out and who then voted accordingly based on their own values and principles.
Your problem is not just that you are dumb to have voted in ignorance but that you then project that on to everyone else who voted.
MPs trying to pass law to stop No Deal, but it probably won't work
No visible progress on the Deal, or any alternative
Hard Brexit another day closer
Not looking good.
The HoC printer broke down.
Think that covers it