I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Easy answer - they can't because it requires unanimity among all member states and until the UK leaves it is still a member state. So unless it agrees to it, the EU cannot extend.
And in practice, if we didn't ask for an extension the EU would not extend on its own even if it could.
They might elect to act as if the transition period were in force - although I think it unlikely.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Two issues. Firstly yes UK law was changed via regulation. That can't happen if Parliament is dissolved.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
of course and the LDs said no increase in Uni fees
Why are we not in the Euro?
because we;d totally fuck it.
Bundesbank didnt want us in IIRC
Mind you, the Bundesbank had strong reservations about Germany going in. At one point they threatened to derail the whole process by refusing to allow Germany to inflate the value of its gold reserves as part of its asset base.
the BB were more realistic about mixing a social market economy with anglo saxon capitalism than John Major ever was.
Are you the same person who voted for Brexit so that the government would intervene more in the economy to provide more stimulating jobs?
As a unionist you'll come to appreciate ever closer union once it's the thing that binds England and (a united) Ireland.
so now youre claiminn RoI will rejoin the UK
can we afford it ?
Did you write this?
"Clearly Ireland now wishes to be brought under the moral tutelage of more modern, more secular, more capitalistic powers. London is a more logical and convenient choice for that role than Brussels."
It felt strange reading that piece - as if I'd intruded into some parallel universe in which Brexit is going so smoothly and Boris's only fault is that a few silly foreigners just don't appreciate how magnificent he is.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I hope he is. As you have thoughtfully demonstrated, people have a lopsided memory of what he achieved and what he didn't achieve. His deal will be one of those if only moments according to historians (I believe) and probably set down as a great missed opportunity.
As a unionist you'll come to appreciate ever closer union once it's the thing that binds England and (a united) Ireland.
so now youre claiminn RoI will rejoin the UK
can we afford it ?
Did you write this?
"Clearly Ireland now wishes to be brought under the moral tutelage of more modern, more secular, more capitalistic powers. London is a more logical and convenient choice for that role than Brussels."
It felt strange reading that piece - as if I'd intruded into some parallel universe in which Brexit is going so smoothly and Boris's only fault is that a few silly foreigners just don't appreciate how magnificent he is.
I got the sneaky feeling the author, and the Spectator, is trying to convince itself as much as anything else.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Easy answer - they can't because it requires unanimity among all member states and until the UK leaves it is still a member state. So unless it agrees to it, the EU cannot extend.
And in practice, if we didn't ask for an extension the EU would not extend on its own even if it could.
They might elect to act as if the transition period were in force - although I think it unlikely.
The UK did not ask for 31st October. It asked for June 30. Mrs May was not even in the room when the 31st October date was agreed.
When was the 29th March date changed ? Before or after 29th March. Please mention the date.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Two issues. Firstly yes UK law was changed via regulation. That can't happen if Parliament is dissolved.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
I believe you are correct on the second point but wrong on the first.
Yes both sides have to agree to an extension under Article 50.
But no, Parliament being dissolved does not prevent the date being changed by regulation. Government in its basic form continues to function even when Parliament has been dissolved. The PM is still PM until he is replaced and the basic operation of Government continues. Hence Alistair Darling was able to go to Brussels and negotiate on behalf of the UK during the Greece crisis even though the election had been held and discussions were underway on forming a new Government. It was very much to his credit that he chose to consult with Osborne on what the UK position should be and what it should commit to. There was no legal requirement for him to do that.
So my understanding is that the Government could, if it chose, seek an extension even though Parliament has been dissolved as Parliament has no direct role in that decision.
I just hope Corbyn is gone by Indyref2 (if it happens). I think we all saw the effects of his 'campaigning' in the Eu Referendum. If the Union does come to an end, it'll be in part down to the selfish decision of Labour members to vote for someone who made them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, as opposed to an actual plausible leader who actually cares about the survival of the UK.
OK folks, serious advice sought. How should one plan for the practicalities of a no-deal Brexit?
Have plenty of cash, but how much? Stock up on prescription medicines (for my wife, I am not on any) Stock up on toiletries, loo roll, batteries, light bulbs, printer ink, etc Stock up on tinned and dried foods, Planting winter vegetables Get bicycle serviced (in case petrol runs unavailable)
What else should we all be doing before its too late
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Two issues. Firstly yes UK law was changed via regulation. That can't happen if Parliament is dissolved.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
I believe you are correct on the second point but wrong on the first.
Yes both sides have to agree to an extension under Article 50.
But no, Parliament being dissolved does not prevent the date being changed by regulation. Government in its basic form continues to function even when Parliament has been dissolved. The PM is still PM until he is replaced and the basic operation of Government continues. Hence Alistair Darling was able to go to Brussels and negotiate on behalf of the UK during the Greece crisis even though the election had been held and discussions were underway on forming a new Government. It was very much to his credit that he chose to consult with Osborne on what the UK position should be and what it should commit to. There was no legal requirement for him to do that.
So my understanding is that the Government could, if it chose, seek an extension even though Parliament has been dissolved as Parliament has no direct role in that decision.
Which would require a GONU, after Johnson gets no confidenced. Absent that, I think the idea that it is too late to prevent No Deal is probably correct.
OK folks, serious advice sought. How should one plan for the practicalities of a no-deal Brexit?
Have plenty of cash, but how much? Stock up on prescription medicines (for my wife, I am not on any) Stock up on toiletries, loo roll, batteries, light bulbs, printer ink, etc Stock up on tinned and dried foods, Planting winter vegetables Get bicycle serviced (in case petrol runs unavailable)
What else should we all be doing before its too late
In Quebec's 2nd referendum on independence from Canada in 1995 Yes led most final polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No
Which is of no relevance at all.
I doubt Ashcroft’s subsamples are very reliable, but it is interesting that the former Labour Central belt now appears keener on Indy than the old SNP stronghold of the rural North East.
Glasgow remember voted for independence even in 2014, Edinburgh and Aberdeen still back the Union and oppose independence even on this poll.
Former rural traditional SNP seats like Moray now have a Tory MP
'Traditional SNP seats?????'
Reminds me of the line in "Arms & the Man".(Our position is almost historical : we can go back for nearly twenty years.)
I just hope Corbyn is gone by Indyref2 (if it happens). I think we all saw the effects of his 'campaigning' in the Eu Referendum. If the Union does come to an end, it'll be in part down to the selfish decision of Labour members to vote for someone who made them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, as opposed to an actual plausible leader who actually cares about the survival of the UK.
Corbyn is responsible for the rise in Scottish independence now? That's a new one. Nowt to do with the Tories or Brexit, no siree. The Scots yearn to be free from the yoke of the, err, leader of the opposition.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I doubt it'll be 5-0. Even Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and co. never managed that in England. And we were also a bowler short in this match. Having to bowl second fiddlers to the Sandman in the first innings wasn't ideal.
of course and the LDs said no increase in Uni fees
Why are we not in the Euro?
because we;d totally fuck it.
Bundesbank didnt want us in IIRC
Mind you, the Bundesbank had strong reservations about Germany going in. At one point they threatened to derail the whole process by refusing to allow Germany to inflate the value of its gold reserves as part of its asset base.
the BB were more realistic about mixing a social market economy with anglo saxon capitalism than John Major ever was.
Are you the same person who voted for Brexit so that the government would intervene more in the economy to provide more stimulating jobs?
absolutely. I like a put our voters first policy much like Mrs Merkel.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Two issues. Firstly yes UK law was changed via regulation. That can't happen if Parliament is dissolved.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
I believe you are correct on the second point but wrong on the first.
Yes both sides have to agree to an extension under Article 50.
But no, Parliament being dissolved does not prevent the date being changed by regulation. Government in its basic form continues to function even when Parliament has been dissolved. The PM is still PM until he is replaced and the basic operation of Government continues. Hence Alistair Darling was able to go to Brussels and negotiate on behalf of the UK during the Greece crisis even though the election had been held and discussions were underway on forming a new Government. It was very much to his credit that he chose to consult with Osborne on what the UK position should be and what it should commit to. There was no legal requirement for him to do that.
So my understanding is that the Government could, if it chose, seek an extension even though Parliament has been dissolved as Parliament has no direct role in that decision.
Which would require a GONU, after Johnson gets no confidenced. Absent that, I think the idea that it is too late to prevent No Deal is probably correct.
I think that is a separate matter. The only way in which my scenario comes about is if Boris gets cold feet after an election is called. A GONU only happens if Parliament can agree one. I was looking more at a situation where Boris is still PM after Parliament is dissolved and then changes his mind about No Deal.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Easy answer - they can't because it requires unanimity among all member states and until the UK leaves it is still a member state. So unless it agrees to it, the EU cannot extend.
And in practice, if we didn't ask for an extension the EU would not extend on its own even if it could.
They might elect to act as if the transition period were in force - although I think it unlikely.
The UK did not ask for 31st October. It asked for June 30. Mrs May was not even in the room when the 31st October date was agreed.
When was the 29th March date changed ? Before or after 29th March. Please mention the date.
It may not have asked for that date originally, but that doesn't mean it didn't agree to it eventually.
I hope he is. As you have thoughtfully demonstrated, people have a lopsided memory of what he achieved and what he didn't achieve. His deal will be one of those if only moments according to historians (I believe) and probably set down as a great missed opportunity.
it will certainly keep the historians going. However I suspect like all brexit matters the trenches have been dug and opnion will split along Leave\Remain lines.
of course and the LDs said no increase in Uni fees
Why are we not in the Euro?
because we;d totally fuck it.
Bundesbank didnt want us in IIRC
Mind you, the Bundesbank had strong reservations about Germany going in. At one point they threatened to derail the whole process by refusing to allow Germany to inflate the value of its gold reserves as part of its asset base.
the BB were more realistic about mixing a social market economy with anglo saxon capitalism than John Major ever was.
Are you the same person who voted for Brexit so that the government would intervene more in the economy to provide more stimulating jobs?
absolutely. I like a put our voters first policy much like Mrs Merkel.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
I think this is right. What happens will be determined by whether the moderate wings of the two main parties, plus the Lib Dems and independents (and possibly the SNP?) can agree that Corbyn is preferable to No Deal. If they can't agree, then we probably get No Deal anyway.
A lot of MPs are going to have a very unpalatable choice to make at some point. Penny for Luciana Berger's thoughts, in particular.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I doubt it'll be 5-0. Even Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and co. never managed that in England. And we were also a bowler short in this match. Having to bowl second fiddlers to the Sandman in the first innings wasn't ideal.
If, by some chance, we could get Smith cheaply, twice, their batting has actually been not much better than average.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
Or ours, with Anderson being incapacitated, and Woakes at least half incapacitated.
Though now we have allowed Smith to play himself into his best form, our prospects look as dismal as Brexit.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I doubt it'll be 5-0. Even Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and co. never managed that in England. And we were also a bowler short in this match. Having to bowl second fiddlers to the Sandman in the first innings wasn't ideal.
If, by some chance, we could get Smith cheaply, twice, their batting has actually been not much better than average.
OK folks, serious advice sought. How should one plan for the practicalities of a no-deal Brexit?
Have plenty of cash, but how much? Stock up on prescription medicines (for my wife, I am not on any) Stock up on toiletries, loo roll, batteries, light bulbs, printer ink, etc Stock up on tinned and dried foods, Planting winter vegetables Get bicycle serviced (in case petrol runs unavailable)
What else should we all be doing before its too late
Serious answer. None of that.
Whilst I agree with the general point, prescriptions might be wise.
I just hope Corbyn is gone by Indyref2 (if it happens). I think we all saw the effects of his 'campaigning' in the Eu Referendum. If the Union does come to an end, it'll be in part down to the selfish decision of Labour members to vote for someone who made them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, as opposed to an actual plausible leader who actually cares about the survival of the UK.
Corbyn is responsible for the rise in Scottish independence now? That's a new one. Nowt to do with the Tories or Brexit, no siree. The Scots yearn to be free from the yoke of the, err, leader of the opposition.
We are where we are because Leave won in 2016, which was in large part down to Labour's pitiful attempt to campaign for Remain. I also doubt that desire for independence would be strong as it is if Labour had actually had a decent pro-EU leader in charge, who didn't have -50 approval rating.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
Might well; whether it will lead to another a few years later is another, and different, question. Quite possible a QTWTAIN
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
From the point of view only of the future of the Conservative Party, there is only one thing worse than the UK crashing out with no deal, and that is the UK crashing out with no deal as a result of a cynical wheeze to deny parliament a say in preventing it. The first would probably destroy the party for a generation, the second would certainly destroy it for ever.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Two issues. Firstly yes UK law was changed via regulation. That can't happen if Parliament is dissolved.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
The Uk must agree, but it doesn’t have to go through parliament after the amendment the previous government got carried.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I doubt it'll be 5-0. Even Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and co. never managed that in England. And we were also a bowler short in this match. Having to bowl second fiddlers to the Sandman in the first innings wasn't ideal.
If, by some chance, we could get Smith cheaply, twice, their batting has actually been not much better than average.
It looked a lot better in their second innings.
It did. But IF we'd got Smith for 42 and 44, say, rather than 142 and 144, we'd need 113 to win with 5 wickets now. Game on! So, I reckon Smith has been the difference. No reason to reckon 5-0. They really aren't that superior.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
From the point of view only of the future of the Conservative Party, there is only one thing worse than the UK crashing out with no deal, and that is the UK crashing out with no deal as a result of a cynical wheeze to deny parliament a say in preventing it. The first would probably destroy the party for a generation, the second would certainly destroy it for ever.
It's the executive that has to agree to it. The EU doesn't negotiate with Parliament.
The EU will deal with whoever is authorised under the (unwritten) UK constitution. If parliament passes an Act authorising Larry the Cat to seek an extension, the EU will deal with Larry the Cat.
(Well, maybe not Larry the Cat, as he'd want to remain independent, but it could be something like the Brexit Select Committee).
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
Leaving us all hoping no-one goes and throws a match on it?
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
From the point of view only of the future of the Conservative Party, there is only one thing worse than the UK crashing out with no deal, and that is the UK crashing out with no deal as a result of a cynical wheeze to deny parliament a say in preventing it. The first would probably destroy the party for a generation, the second would certainly destroy it for ever.
I could not care less about the Tory party. I do care about my country and having its form of governance ruined or destroyed by the fuckwits who’ve taken over the party of which you used to be a member.
Tbf it’s not quite the apocalypse it seems at first glance. At one time Harland and Wolff employed 30,000 people in Belfast. Now it is... 130. About the same as one big supermarket.
I just hope Corbyn is gone by Indyref2 (if it happens). I think we all saw the effects of his 'campaigning' in the Eu Referendum. If the Union does come to an end, it'll be in part down to the selfish decision of Labour members to vote for someone who made them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, as opposed to an actual plausible leader who actually cares about the survival of the UK.
Corbyn is responsible for the rise in Scottish independence now? That's a new one. Nowt to do with the Tories or Brexit, no siree. The Scots yearn to be free from the yoke of the, err, leader of the opposition.
We are where we are because Leave won in 2016, which was in large part down to Labour's pitiful attempt to campaign for Remain. I also doubt that desire for independence wouldn't be strong as it is if Labour had actually had a decent pro-EU leader in charge, who didn't have -50 approval rating.
Indeed, well he also has to bear responsibility for Labour's decline in Scotland as his supporters installed a stale, grey, loyalist as SLab leader in the ridiculous belief that Corbyn's innate socialist appeal would lead to a surge in Labour support in the People's Republic of Scotland. Failing, of course, to realise that puritan Islingtonian vanity in a red rosette is about as popular in Scotland as Etonian arrogance - and the big problem SLab always had wasn't being too right-wing but being seen as a branch office of London, something that's arguably worse than ever, as Leonard can't even bring himself to denounce a crap Brexit strategy that's largely aimed at hanging on to seats in the north of England in the hope Tories implode in remain areas. Leonard's best strategy would be to pick fights with the national party, but no one is allowed to question the virtue of the Dear Leader.
An effective SLab leader making a passionate left-wing case against nationalism would be worth their weight in gold. Sadly, the slim chance of finding one is made even slimmer when you have to pick a loyalist no mark who is incapable of saying anything interesting as it might puncture the leadership's self-righteousness.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I doubt it'll be 5-0. Even Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and co. never managed that in England. And we were also a bowler short in this match. Having to bowl second fiddlers to the Sandman in the first innings wasn't ideal.
If, by some chance, we could get Smith cheaply, twice, their batting has actually been not much better than average.
It looked a lot better in their second innings.
It did. But IF we'd got Smith for 42 and 44, say, rather than 142 and 144, we'd need 113 to win with 5 wickets now. Game on! So, I reckon Smith has been the difference.
Of course - but it’s not just Smith who has played himself into form. Their middle order will come to the second test with a confidence which did not look possible after their first innings. And Lyon will be very, very happy.
Every worker is [ or was 20 years ago ] a protestant. Where is the DUPs power ?
Be fair. To survive for 107 years after you build a ship which is not fit for purpose, sinks and kills most of its passengers is pretty good going. Most brands would be glad of such staying power after such a “Ratner” moment.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
From the point of view only of the future of the Conservative Party, there is only one thing worse than the UK crashing out with no deal, and that is the UK crashing out with no deal as a result of a cynical wheeze to deny parliament a say in preventing it. The first would probably destroy the party for a generation, the second would certainly destroy it for ever.
I could not care less about the Tory party. I do care about my country and having its form of governance ruined or destroyed by the fuckwits who’ve taken over the party of which you used to be a member.
Indeed, but my point was that even in the narrowest sense of what they think is good for the party, they are spectacularly wrong.
So the Ashes are lost, the Union is finished, Brexit’s a disaster, the new government is bad as the old, and the £ is worth 5 cents.
It is all quite depressing, isn’t it? Or maybe it is just me.
We won the World Cup and only the first test
Yes, we won the world cup because the umpires did not know the rules, then beat almighty Ireland and, unless Archer turns out to be something special, looking at a 5-0 drubbing. This is not even the Aussies' strongest bowling line-up.
I doubt it'll be 5-0. Even Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and co. never managed that in England. And we were also a bowler short in this match. Having to bowl second fiddlers to the Sandman in the first innings wasn't ideal.
If, by some chance, we could get Smith cheaply, twice, their batting has actually been not much better than average.
It looked a lot better in their second innings.
It did. But IF we'd got Smith for 42 and 44, say, rather than 142 and 144, we'd need 113 to win with 5 wickets now. Game on! So, I reckon Smith has been the difference. No reason to reckon 5-0. They really aren't that superior.
Agreed. Take Smith away and the sides are well matched. It would be a cracking series. But he is what he is, and unless we magically find a bowler that can crack him, he will get a century in every Test and Australia will cruise to a comprehensive but rather boring victory.
I would like those in PB who know more about parliamentary procedures and the law. If I remember correctly, when the EU extended the 29th March date to 12th April or 22nd May, there was some discussion certainly amongst Brexitors [ I remember Bill Cash asking a question in the HoC as he always does ], that the actual Act of Parliament which said 29th March was not amended. I remember there was a post in PB saying that was not necessary because the EU changing the date always superseded Parlaiment. Is that correct ? In fact, was the 29th March date ever changed ?
Now I come to the Cummings conundrum. If Johnson and the Tories dissolve Parliament after a VoNC or anyway but calls an election after 31st October; according to them Brexit would have taken place already.
The reason I put forward the first para is this: what if the EU seeing the political impasse in the UK, unilaterally extend the 31st October deadline to, say, 31st December or any other date ?
Two issues. Firstly yes UK law was changed via regulation. That can't happen if Parliament is dissolved.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
I believe you are correct on the second point but wrong on the first.
Yes both sides have to agree to an extension under Article 50.
But no, Parliament being dissolved does not prevent the date being changed by regulation. Government in its basic form continues to function even when Parliament has been dissolved. The PM is still PM until he is replaced and the basic operation of Government continues. Hence Alistair Darling was able to go to Brussels and negotiate on behalf of the UK during the Greece crisis even though the election had been held and discussions were underway on forming a new Government. It was very much to his credit that he chose to consult with Osborne on what the UK position should be and what it should commit to. There was no legal requirement for him to do that.
So my understanding is that the Government could, if it chose, seek an extension even though Parliament has been dissolved as Parliament has no direct role in that decision.
Indeed governance continues and on an international level agreement could be made. But my understanding for the purpose of the date in the EU Withdrawal Act is that the date is changed via the government laying a procedure in Parliament. If Parliament is dissolved can they still do that? And if the can't won't the 1972 European Communities Act be repealed?
OK folks, serious advice sought. How should one plan for the practicalities of a no-deal Brexit?
Have plenty of cash, but how much? Stock up on prescription medicines (for my wife, I am not on any) Stock up on toiletries, loo roll, batteries, light bulbs, printer ink, etc Stock up on tinned and dried foods, Planting winter vegetables Get bicycle serviced (in case petrol runs unavailable)
What else should we all be doing before its too late
All that really matters is organising into larger groups. In Kosovo even the best prepared singles and couples got robbed, raped and murdered in short order.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Correct. I suspect it'll come down to "No Deal or (temporarily) Corbyn" - other solutions simply don't work.
A British government which proceeded with a No Deal Brexit in the face of a Parliamentary vote against it or a successful VoNC against such a government is playing with fire, IMO.
They are already playing with fire, and, as we’ve seen amply demonstrated by their enthusiasts here, think it will illuminate the way to an election victory.
From the point of view only of the future of the Conservative Party, there is only one thing worse than the UK crashing out with no deal, and that is the UK crashing out with no deal as a result of a cynical wheeze to deny parliament a say in preventing it. The first would probably destroy the party for a generation, the second would certainly destroy it for ever.
I could not care less about the Tory party. I do care about my country and having its form of governance ruined or destroyed by the fuckwits who’ve taken over the party of which you used to be a member.
Indeed, but my point was that even in the narrowest sense of what they think is good for the party, they are spectacularly wrong.
I know that; you know that; most sensible people know that. But they’re so drunk on their Kool-Aid that they seem oblivious of the damage they are doing.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
And in how many votes in Parliament in the last 20 years that affected England only have the votes of Scottish MPs made a difference?
This from 2015 partially answers your question:
By one analysis referred to in this blog post by UCL’s Robert Hazell, only 21 of 5,000 “divisions” in the House of Commons since 1997 would have produced different verdicts if Scottish MPs had been excluded. His colleague Alan Trench adds that only two bills in the New Labour era were passed due to Scottish (Labour) votes. (These were on big issues, though — university tuition fees and on foundation hospitals.)
OK folks, serious advice sought. How should one plan for the practicalities of a no-deal Brexit?
Have plenty of cash, but how much? Stock up on prescription medicines (for my wife, I am not on any) Stock up on toiletries, loo roll, batteries, light bulbs, printer ink, etc Stock up on tinned and dried foods, Planting winter vegetables Get bicycle serviced (in case petrol runs unavailable)
What else should we all be doing before its too late
Draw a border further south, and I'd happily self-identify as 'North British' or whatever it might be called. (Pieland?)
Not pies, surely? Deep fried Mars Bars.
Tut Tut Ydoethur, I have never in my life seen a place that sells deep fried Mars Bars or spoken to anyone who has eaten one. Poor poor stereotype. Now a nice pie is a different matter altogether.
I've had a deep fried Mars bar. Not especially recommended.
Bad enough on its own never mind frying it. Anyone suggesting it should be shot.
In Quebec's 2nd referendum on independence from Canada in 1995 Yes led most final polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No
Which is of no relevance at all.
I doubt Ashcroft’s subsamples are very reliable, but it is interesting that the former Labour Central belt now appears keener on Indy than the old SNP stronghold of the rural North East.
Glasgow remember voted for independence even in 2014, Edinburgh and Aberdeen still back the Union and oppose independence even on this poll.
Former rural traditional SNP seats like Moray now have a Tory MP
A VoNC in the UK govenment is obviously a UK-wide matter so not relevant. I asked for examples where the votes of Scottish MPs had impacted a vote that was specific to England only. There must be lots given how upset it makes some people on here.
Sunday trading and Tuition Fees.
A majority of English MPs backed liberalising Sunday trading laws in England, SNP MPs blocked it. Despite Scotland having liberalised Sunday Trading.
Labour tripled English tuition fees when a majority of English MPs voted against it. Forced through by SLAB MPs despite Scottish students getting free tuition in Scotland.
Two examples and both where Scottish MPs overrode English MPs hypocritically.
How would you feel if English MPs voted that Scottish students studying in Scotland should suddenly not just pay fees but that English students studying in England shouldn't?
So you did not read my reply. 1. The SNP clearly stated that the bill to change Sunday trading laws affected Scotland and that if they did not fix that then they would have to vote to protect Scotish intersets, Westminster ignored them 2. As I stated there is no Scottish Labour party, they have a regional office of the UK unionist Labour party there and they vote as told by their London masters. 3. PS: they voted against free tuition in Scotland and are a bunch of useless barstewards.
Here you go, Malc. SNP a bunch of lying, hypocritical, duplicitous fuckers.
Draw a border further south, and I'd happily self-identify as 'North British' or whatever it might be called. (Pieland?)
Not pies, surely? Deep fried Mars Bars.
Tut Tut Ydoethur, I have never in my life seen a place that sells deep fried Mars Bars or spoken to anyone who has eaten one. Poor poor stereotype. Now a nice pie is a different matter altogether.
Never been to Stonehaven then? The chippy there claims to be the place it was invented. There are also at least two chippies in Aberdeen that sell them.
But yes it is a terrible stereotype based on a couple of strange examples.
Richard , certainly not been up that way in a long time, but certainly an abomination for sure whoever thought it up.
In Quebec's 2nd referendum on independence from Canada in 1995 Yes led most final polls but No won 51% to 49% as Don't Knows went No
Which is of no relevance at all.
I doubt Ashcroft’s subsamples are very reliable, but it is interesting that the former Labour Central belt now appears keener on Indy than the old SNP stronghold of the rural North East.
That map is just uniform swing based on the poll. It is really, really not a projection.
I just hope Corbyn is gone by Indyref2 (if it happens). I think we all saw the effects of his 'campaigning' in the Eu Referendum. If the Union does come to an end, it'll be in part down to the selfish decision of Labour members to vote for someone who made them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, as opposed to an actual plausible leader who actually cares about the survival of the UK.
Corbyn is responsible for the rise in Scottish independence now? That's a new one. Nowt to do with the Tories or Brexit, no siree. The Scots yearn to be free from the yoke of the, err, leader of the opposition.
Also it was the Milibland Labour Party who happily campaigned with the Tories for Better Together, arguably the thing that broke many Scottish Labour voters away from the party.
Comments
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/05/ziska-usda-climate-agriculture-trump-1445271
And in practice, if we didn't ask for an extension the EU would not extend on its own even if it could.
They might elect to act as if the transition period were in force - although I think it unlikely.
Secondly the UK must agree to any extension. The EU can't change it unilaterally.
When was the 29th March date changed ? Before or after 29th March. Please mention the date.
Yes both sides have to agree to an extension under Article 50.
But no, Parliament being dissolved does not prevent the date being changed by regulation. Government in its basic form continues to function even when Parliament has been dissolved. The PM is still PM until he is replaced and the basic operation of Government continues. Hence Alistair Darling was able to go to Brussels and negotiate on behalf of the UK during the Greece crisis even though the election had been held and discussions were underway on forming a new Government. It was very much to his credit that he chose to consult with Osborne on what the UK position should be and what it should commit to. There was no legal requirement for him to do that.
So my understanding is that the Government could, if it chose, seek an extension even though Parliament has been dissolved as Parliament has no direct role in that decision.
If the Union does come to an end, it'll be in part down to the selfish decision of Labour members to vote for someone who made them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, as opposed to an actual plausible leader who actually cares about the survival of the UK.
How should one plan for the practicalities of a no-deal Brexit?
Have plenty of cash, but how much?
Stock up on prescription medicines (for my wife, I am not on any)
Stock up on toiletries, loo roll, batteries, light bulbs, printer ink, etc
Stock up on tinned and dried foods,
Planting winter vegetables
Get bicycle serviced (in case petrol runs unavailable)
What else should we all be doing before its too late
Absent that, I think the idea that it is too late to prevent No Deal is probably correct.
Reminds me of the line in "Arms & the Man".(Our position is almost historical : we can go back for nearly twenty years.)
A lot of MPs are going to have a very unpalatable choice to make at some point. Penny for Luciana Berger's thoughts, in particular.
Though now we have allowed Smith to play himself into his best form, our prospects look as dismal as Brexit.
If Parliament captures a day after a VoNC with Bercow's help, what stops Parlaiment changing the 31st October date with EU cooperation ?
Time for Boris to say its part of the NHS.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/harland-and-wolff-shipyard-that-built-titanic-to-go-into-administration-38374984.html
And then never quite get round to delivering them.....
So, I reckon Smith has been the difference. No reason to reckon 5-0. They really aren't that superior.
(Well, maybe not Larry the Cat, as he'd want to remain independent, but it could be something like the Brexit Select Committee).
An effective SLab leader making a passionate left-wing case against nationalism would be worth their weight in gold. Sadly, the slim chance of finding one is made even slimmer when you have to pick a loyalist no mark who is incapable of saying anything interesting as it might puncture the leadership's self-righteousness.
you're so last millenium
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald met workers from the shipyard which was once a bastion of working-class unionism.
Irish language activists were also at Stormont Estate and sang: "Save Our Yard" in Irish in a striking symbol of solidarity.
It was a sign of fraternity in Northern Ireland's at times deeply divided society.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/emergency-council-meeting-called-in-desperate-bid-to-secure-future-of-troubled-hw-shipyard-38364329.html
Their middle order will come to the second test with a confidence which did not look possible after their first innings. And Lyon will be very, very happy.
Be fair. To survive for 107 years after you build a ship which is not fit for purpose, sinks and kills most of its passengers is pretty good going. Most brands would be glad of such staying power after such a “Ratner” moment.
Oh...
By one analysis referred to in this blog post by UCL’s Robert Hazell, only 21 of 5,000 “divisions” in the House of Commons since 1997 would have produced different verdicts if Scottish MPs had been excluded. His colleague Alan Trench adds that only two bills in the New Labour era were passed due to Scottish (Labour) votes. (These were on big issues, though — university tuition fees and on foundation hospitals.)
If it was anything to do with me, it would involve piano wire, but I'll settle for jail and humiliation for main offenders.
What odds would you like on the Borders succeeding from Scotland within 10 years of independence?