Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
Yawn.
If Benn had wanted him to sign it, he'd have added that as a clause in the act.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
Indeed. And all the shrill complaints are doing are reinforcing his desire to make it clear that he is doing so against his will.
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That sums Johnson up. Any collateral damage is utterly inconsequential so long as there is the merest hint of benefit to him.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
Indeed. And all the shrill complaints are doing are reinforcing his desire to make it clear that he is doing so against his will.
Yes I’m swinging votes all over the country with my shrill complaints.
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That’s quite interesting. How do their Lordships engage on something so specialist as patent law? It had never occurred to me that could end up in the Supreme Court but I guess it ultimately has to.
Yep, it’s the Supreme Court so they hear civil cases of every kind. They are there because they are brilliant, it’s that simple really. I have sat in sessions of the US Supreme Court and the justices there are just not close to the same level (but do have extraordinary clerks).
The really funny thing is that there was so much discussion about the possibility of his refusing to send the letter, resigning as prime minister, putting in a substitute prime minister to send the letter then coming back, and so on and so forth.
And here we are with the letter done with less fuss than a schoolboy's thank you letter to Aunt Flo for the lovely socks.
Yes. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
What about nuking Spain as well
Why are we angry with Spain today? Why is hyufd angry with Spain?
Someone on other thread saying EU have told Johnson to hold a confirmatory ref. I can’t find that anywhere.
Also Labour say there can’t be an election for two years in case Boris uses it to no deal the country? That’s apparently what Starmer said. Can they really get away with no election for two more years? 😟
HYUFD was losing it over Spain and just went well 'HYUFD'
No truth in the confirmatory referendum
Of course labour cannot avoid an election. There are ways of ignoring them
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
Yawn.
If Benn had wanted him to sign it, he'd have added that as a clause in the act.
The text should have stated “seek an extension... by walking naked down Downing St”
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
I hope the DUP are enjoying rubbing shoulders with parliamentary politicians who secretly and in my experience very often not so secretly despise them. In worrying that the deal puts them on the UK's window ledge they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative and Unionist Party were their best guarantors that they will not be allowed to fall off it. I suspect that might be rather less the case now.
The Tories threw the DUP under a bus. They did right by the island of Ireland because, in the end, the unionist bit of the party name is now redundant. Brexit matters more.
Did they really? Lord Trimble seems quite happy. Sturgeon even referred to NI's privileged status compared to Scotland. Never mind I'm sure the DUP will jog along fine with their new found bien pensant allies.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
Indeed. And all the shrill complaints are doing are reinforcing his desire to make it clear that he is doing so against his will.
Yes I’m swinging votes all over the country with my shrill complaints.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Except the letters aren't smart-arsed. Boris' is actually warm and cordial, and it lays out what his and the government's thoughts are on an extension.
Stephen Nolan reporting on 5 live that DUP sought assurances from Jester on Tuesday on rumours about his NI concession.
He told them there is no fucking way I will agree to a border down Irish Sea or agree to VAT changes.
In their words the next day he did the exact opposite of what he said he would never do 24hrs earlier.
It does sound like the DUP are mightily pissed off. I wonder whether they are considering if they are at the point of supporting an alternative PM in order to put an end to this deal?
It might sound fanciful that they would put Corbyn into Number 10, but they have literally been in government with Sinn Fein, so I don't think supporting a couple of soft-headed London supporters of Sinn Fein would really faze them. And it would teach the Tories a lesson about crossing the DUP.
Corbyn is worse than Sinn Fein!
I agree though taking DUP votes off Tories and onto opposition parties could throw up some hideous losses for Boris. It’s yet more votes that won’t vote for an election that empowers him?
But are they gone for any length of time, surely this spat can blow over? Boris deal is great for northern island, I recall Robsmithson saying start buying NI properties now
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
Yawn.
If Benn had wanted him to sign it, he'd have added that as a clause in the act.
Could there be a legal impediment to a signature signed under the duress of an act of Parliament?
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That’s quite interesting. How do their Lordships engage on something so specialist as patent law? It had never occurred to me that could end up in the Supreme Court but I guess it ultimately has to.
Yep, it’s the Supreme Court so they hear civil cases of every kind. They are there because they are brilliant, it’s that simple really. I have sat in sessions of the US Supreme Court and the justices there are just not close to the same level (but do have extraordinary clerks).
I really hope that the end result of all this is not a politicised judiciary. That's one aspect of civil life in the UK that works quite well.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
He sent the letter as required then another one stating his own position. It doesn’t ask the EU to ignore the extension request, it just restates Johnson’s position. It’s absolutely fine. In any case, Tusk has said that he has the extension letter and will consult on it. Everything is progressing as it should. There just isn’t a case to build here.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but thehow.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Really? They add context to the decision they are being asked to make. That Parliament (contrary to the expectation when the Act was passed) have not actually rejected the WA, and if appropriate legislation is passed in the next week or so then an extension will not be required. Is that not factually correct, and material information pertinent to the decision to extend?
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That’s quite interesting. How do their Lordships engage on something so specialist as patent law? It had never occurred to me that could end up in the Supreme Court but I guess it ultimately has to.
Yep, it’s the Supreme Court so they hear civil cases of every kind. They are there because they are brilliant, it’s that simple really. I have sat in sessions of the US Supreme Court and the justices there are just not close to the same level (but do have extraordinary clerks).
I wonder who they bring in for advice? The potential subjects are too varied to keep anyone on staff. Untangling potential conflicts of interest in appointing advisers who are any good must be a nightmare.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Except the letters aren't smart-arsed. Boris' is actually warm and cordial, and it lays out what his and the government's thoughts are on an extension.
Come of it! The intentions certainly are, along with not signing the first. It is the act of someone who is trying to imply they are contemptible of due process. Trouble is by sending the first, albeit grudgingly he has followed the rules, the next two letters are just pathetic distractions.
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That’s quite interesting. How do their Lordships engage on something so specialist as patent law? It had never occurred to me that could end up in the Supreme Court but I guess it ultimately has to.
Yep, it’s the Supreme Court so they hear civil cases of every kind. They are there because they are brilliant, it’s that simple really. I have sat in sessions of the US Supreme Court and the justices there are just not close to the same level (but do have extraordinary clerks).
That's unfortunate for them. Whilst appointments are political there one would hope there are enough politically suitable candidates who are also brilliant to get through.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Pter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Petulant, to be sure. Not so sure about moronic, since at best they are just his posturing to his supporters, and at worst deemed to be frustrating the act...which will please his supporters. If it puts off people voting for his legislation, but then that is the beauty of legislation - they don't have to trust him personally if they are confident the wording of the proposed act does what they think it does.
The really funny thing is that there was so much discussion about the possibility of his refusing to send the letter, resigning as prime minister, putting in a substitute prime minister to send the letter then coming back, and so on and so forth.
And here we are with the letter done with less fuss than a schoolboy's thank you letter to Aunt Flo for the lovely socks.
Yes. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
What about nuking Spain as well
Why are we angry with Spain today? Why is hyufd angry with Spain?
Someone on other thread saying EU have told Johnson to hold a confirmatory ref. I can’t find that anywhere.
Also Labour say there can’t be an election for two years in case Boris uses it to no deal the country? That’s apparently what Starmer said. Can they really get away with no election for two more years? 😟
HYUFD was losing it over Spain and just went well 'HYUFD'
No truth in the confirmatory referendum
Of course labour cannot avoid an election. There are ways of ignoring them
Is the election in December then or will it have till wait till after holidays or wait for nice weather? The country can’t be governed with this parliament now.
Spains actually quite nice friendly place to Brits. I know people who had to use health service when holiday there and said it was really good.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
Indeed. And all the shrill complaints are doing are reinforcing his desire to make it clear that he is doing so against his will.
Yup. It’s getting him off the hook, and none of them get it.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Except the letters aren't smart-arsed. Boris' is actually warm and cordial, and it lays out what his and the government's thoughts are on an extension.
Come of it! The intentions certainly are, along with not signing the first. It is the act of someone who is trying to imply they are contemptible of due process. Trouble is by sending the first, albeit grudgingly he has followed the rules, the next two are just pathetic distractions.
It's a pathetic distraction to provide some context?
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read and hold hearings on, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so we don't get any unpleasant surprises as a result of speed-legislating.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting one thing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
Aren't we technically not even on MV 3 yet? I seem to recall some kerfuffle over MV3 not including the PD making it, for some reason, not a true MV (the FT summary of the votes goes MV1, MV2 and Exit deal)? And since MV4 today then became not meaningful, that'd make MV5 really MV3?
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but thehow.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Really? They add context to the decision they are being asked to make. That Parliament (contrary to the expectation when the Act was passed) have not actually rejected the WA, and if appropriate legislation is passed in the next week or so then an extension will not be required. Is that not factually correct, and material information pertinent to the decision to extend?
You know that is not the intention. He is playing to his adoring audience. He may have lost today but he is doing his victory lap anyway.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so people actually have time to read it.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting onevthing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
Stephen Nolan reporting on 5 live that DUP sought assurances from Jester on Tuesday on rumours about his NI concession.
He told them there is no fucking way I will agree to a border down Irish Sea or agree to VAT changes.
In their words the next day he did the exact opposite of what he said he would never do 24hrs earlier.
It does sound like the DUP are mightily pissed off. I wonder whether they are considering if they are at the point of supporting an alternative PM in order to put an end to this deal?
It might sound fanciful that they would put Corbyn into Number 10, but they have literally been in government with Sinn Fein, so I don't think supporting a couple of soft-headed London supporters of Sinn Fein would really faze them. And it would teach the Tories a lesson about crossing the DUP.
I have no doubt they would be prepared to do this but at a risk of losing the goodwill of Tory voters and other Leavers who I suspect are not only Ulster unionism's strongest but perhaps only real supporters on the mainland. Their current stand actually makes a united Ireland more rather than less likely in the medium term.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
Aren't we technically not even on MV 3 yet? I seem to recall some kerfuffle over MV3 not including the PD making it, for some reason, not a true MV (the FT summary of the votes goes MV1, MV2 and Exit deal)? And since MV4 today then became not meaningful, that'd make MV5 really MV3?
I have to admit a personal interest here - probably the most important patent case ever to be heard in the UK is due to be argued in the Supreme Court next week from Monday to Thursday. We have someone covering it. That must not be postponed for something as frivolous as a letter!!!
That’s quite interesting. How do their Lordships engage on something so specialist as patent law? It had never occurred to me that could end up in the Supreme Court but I guess it ultimately has to.
Yep, it’s the Supreme Court so they hear civil cases of every kind. They are there because they are brilliant, it’s that simple really. I have sat in sessions of the US Supreme Court and the justices there are just not close to the same level (but do have extraordinary clerks).
I wonder who they bring in for advice? The potential subjects are too varied to keep anyone on staff. Untangling potential conflicts of interest in appointing advisers who are any good must be a nightmare.
They all have their own teams - and they get a lot of documentation from the litigants. A big part of the job the counsel do during the hearings is to educate the justices. Most of them will have heard cases in most areas already, though.
The really funny thing is that there was so much discussion about the possibility of his refusing to send the letter, resigning as prime minister, putting in a substitute prime minister to send the letter then coming back, and so on and so forth.
And here we are with the letter done with less fuss than a schoolboy's thank you letter to Aunt Flo for the lovely socks.
Yes. HYUFD was certain he would not send the letter. This should have been the day that Johnson resigned and we were left without a PM, or Corbyn became a PM only to lose a Vote of No Confidence on Tuesday, or something else like that.
HYUFD is certain of a lot of s**t. We're also going to repartition Ireland and send the troops in to beat up Nicola Sturgeon. Have I missed something?
What about nuking Spain as well
Why are we angry with Spain today? Why is hyufd angry with Spain?
Someone on other thread saying EU have told Johnson to hold a confirmatory ref. I can’t find that anywhere.
Also Labour say there can’t be an election for two years in case Boris uses it to no deal the country? That’s apparently what Starmer said. Can they really get away with no election for two more years? 😟
HYUFD was losing it over Spain and just went well 'HYUFD'
No truth in the confirmatory referendum
Of course labour cannot avoid an election. There are ways of ignoring them
Is the election in December then or will it have till wait till after holidays or wait for nice weather? The country can’t be governed with this parliament now.
Spains actually quite nice friendly place to Brits. I know people who had to use health service when holiday there and said it was really good.
I think a December election is very unlikely
HYUFD comments on Spain were to do with the jailing of the separatists in Barcelona
It should have been enough for our PM to agree a deal with the EU, but the politicians, who we were told wouldn’t have the final say, demanded the final say
So they voted to stop us leaving, three times.
Now there is a deal that MPs will vote for and we can leave
So MPs vote to render the vote meaningless
How can anyone defend them? You’ll look back on it with horror
The fact that Johnson has a very different deal to May entirely justifies Parliament playing a role in determining how we leave the EU, since such a deal has a large bearing on the law of the land and the rights of its citizens, and it is for Parliament to decide such matters, not the PM.
If a Prime Minister wants to pass a deal then they have to find a deal that can command a majority to vote for it.
They could have had a vote on it today, but voted not to!
Yes, it is frustrating not to see whether Johnson has the numbers behind his deal, but it's entirely Johnson's fault if he's acted in such a way that MPs do not trust him to ensure that the UK does not No Deal by running out of time to pass the WAIB. There was surely a compromise amendment that the government could have formulated that would have reassured Letwin and allowed a meaningful test of opinion on Johnson's deal to go ahead.
Johnson's obsession with the October 31st deadline made that a step too far for him to take.
What are you on about? The UK Rep sent it, and it is under authority of the PM, should it have come from his personal email address or something to be 'from' him? Even gallowgate is focusing on whether there was frustration not quibbling over whether he sent it or not. Do you mean to tell me a court would claim he did not comply with the Act because the UK Rep sent across the paperwork?
Aren't we technically not even on MV 3 yet? I seem to recall some kerfuffle over MV3 not including the PD making it, for some reason, not a true MV (the FT summary of the votes goes MV1, MV2 and Exit deal)? And since MV4 today then became not meaningful, that'd make MV5 really MV3?
Edit: I can see the historical arguments now. "The third meaningful vote, referred to by those at the time as the fifth meaningful vote..., was to overturn the decision of the fourth vote, which was of course not a vote at all". It's Final Fantasy 3 (US) being followed by Final Fantasy 7 all over again.
The letter as set out in the schedule was sent - as required by law. I doubt Johnson licked the envelope and stuck the stamp on himself. But it was sent - almost certainly electronically (with a possible paper copy to follow) - and would not have been sent without the express instruction from the PM.
How is that not complying with the law?
I would expect better than this sort of pettiness from a former parliamentarian, I really would.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
And I would be amazed if Bercow allowed a second attempt at the MV
Whatever happens I feel pretty happy on one front . I was very worried about a breakdown in negotiations and then Johnson using the blame game against the EU.
I have no time for Johnson but his second letter is very emollient in tone and I think once the UK leaves relations will start off from a good point .
Johnson owns this deal , he said it’s a great deal and because the ERG have got behind it , it’s a “ True Brexit “ . The only risk for him I can see is if by some miracle a second vote happens .
Because it’s now a true Brexit ,it’s perfectly acceptable for Remainers to say it’s the deal v Remain.
I totally agree, that’s a very wise post. leavers have defined and got behind what true brexit is (in their opinion obviously Farage and various soft brexiteers will call them heretics) the game has subtle changed this week, we now know what remain want, revoke, we now know what Tory (and vast majority of leave in the country) want, with any sort of prolonged stalemate and filibustering the momentum could build for some sort of ref showdown to, as Cameron would say, settle it for a generation.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
And I would be amazed if Bercow allowed a second attempt at the MV
In fairness to him I'm not sure what the point would be - while it might theoretically pass now an extension has been asked for, they're already bringing forward the legislation so why the need for the MV?
ALthough were there any differences between MV1 and MV2 to permit bringing that one back?
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
And I would be amazed if Bercow allowed a second attempt at the MV
If he doesnt we leave with no deal and he is responsible
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
The WA would need the EU to agree changes which as you say is unlikely. However there's much morw to do - for exampke the WAIB is a big, very important piece of domestic legislation - which under TMay's plans was supposed to have a good few months. This is the kind if thing you definitely shouldn't be doing in a few days unless there's a giant meteor impact expected a week on thursday, and scrutiny will definitely make it better.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read and hold hearings on, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so we don't get any unpleasant surprises as a result of speed-legislating.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting one thing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
Remainers have probably twigged, with horror, that we are on the verge of ending up with a far worse deal for them than May’s deal (which they could have voted for). One that could mean no deal on WTO terms in eighteen months. One that will see the U.K. leaving the Customs Union making any future “rejoin” effort far more complicated (especially if new non EU deals are negotiated which preclude it)
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
And I would be amazed if Bercow allowed a second attempt at the MV
If he did and all those who voted for letwin today were unhappy they could just do the same thing again, because speaker would struggle to resist similar amendment and their anger?
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
The WA would need the EU to agree changes which as you say is unlikely. However there's much morw to do - for exampke the WAIB is a big, very important piece of domestic legislation - which under TMay's plans was supposed to have a good few months. This is the kind if thing you definitely shouldn't be doing in a few days unless there's a giant meteor impact expected a week on thursday, and scrutiny will definitely make it better.
It may be very important, but the decision is quite simple as there will be no opportunity for revisions to the text. The only reason to delay the process is for some MPs to try and find yet more clever schemes to sabotage the whole thing.
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
The WA would need the EU to agree changes which as you say is unlikely. However there's much morw to do - for exampke the WAIB is a big, very important piece of domestic legislation - which under TMay's plans was supposed to have a good few months. This is the kind if thing you definitely shouldn't be doing in a few days unless there's a giant meteor impact expected a week on thursday, and scrutiny will definitely make it better.
You mean remain Parliament amends it so it’s not true brexit anymore? Because Boris doesn’t have the numbers to stop them? How does he stop this?
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
And I would be amazed if Bercow allowed a second attempt at the MV
If he doesnt we leave with no deal and he is responsible
You don’t need a MV5 , you can just do it all within the WAIB . The reason the government want a MV5 is in relation to being able to withdraw the extension request.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so people actually have time to read it.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting onevthing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
edmundintokyo expects the Johnson deal to pass, but more slowly during a short extension, and considers that to be a better end result then passing it in a rush, or having Labour impose May's deal onto the ERG.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so people actually have time to read it.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting onevthing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
edmundintokyo expects the Johnson deal to pass, but more slowly during a short extension, and considers that to be a better end result then passing it in a rush, or having Labour impose May's deal onto the ERG.
Yeah, I appreciate the claim, but I don't see how taking six weeks to debate and pass something is any different from six days when the text is not amendable. The decision at this point is simple. Do MPs want Brexit or not?
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read and hold hearings on, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so we don't get any unpleasant surprises as a result of speed-legislating.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting one thing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
Remainers have probably twigged, with horror, that we are on the verge of ending up with a far worse deal for them than May’s deal (which they could have voted for). One that could mean no deal on WTO terms in eighteen months. One that will see the U.K. leaving the Customs Union making any future “rejoin” effort far more complicated (especially if new non EU deals are negotiated which preclude it)
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
Remainers have probably twigged, with horror, that we are on the verge of ending up with a far worse deal for them than May’s deal (which they could have voted for). One that could mean no deal on WTO terms in eighteen months. One that will see the U.K. leaving the Customs Union making any future “rejoin” effort far more complicated (especially if new non EU deals are negotiated which preclude it)
Yes, from their point of view it's much worse than TMay's deal.
OTOH I do think there's some real value to them in having all the prominent brexiters' fingerprints on it (except Farage, sadly). The position they didn't want to be in is having to put up with brexit with all its disappointments and shitty consequences, but the brexiters are able to avoid responsibility for it and blame it on a remainer PM making a BINO.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
OK so everyone's variously been bitching about the goverment and parliament and Britain's genuinely shitty constitution but take a step back and the outcome seems pretty functional, doesn't it?
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so people actually have time to read it.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting onevthing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
edmundintokyo expects the Johnson deal to pass, but more slowly during a short extension, and considers that to be a better end result then passing it in a rush, or having Labour impose May's deal onto the ERG.
Yeah, I appreciate the claim, but I don't see how taking six weeks to debate and pass something is any different from six days when the text is not amendable. The decision at this point is simple. Do MPs want Brexit or not?
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Yes, let's do away with divisive things like voting
Oh and as well as Lord Pannick, David Allen Green accepts that the side letter is lawful (and will have been advised by and plugged in to many lawyers).
You can all stop arguing now.
I mean I was convinced with Lord Pannick...
When even arch-remainers are saying the Benn Act is spent....
The Benn Act isn’t spent . That depends on what happens on Monday . But I will agree with the brilliant Lord Pannick. There’s nothing in the second letter that’s a big deal .
It’s well crafted and does not frustrate the act because at no time does he ask the EU to refuse the extension. And let’s be honest he could just get on the phone and say refuse without any of us ever knowing .
Apologies for not being precise. My point is that when people like Lord Pannick are saying he's complied by the act, it's over.
No worries , he has indeed complied with the Benn Act but because of the Letwin Amendment the effect of the Act isn’t spent . As in the extension request is still active .
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
I thought they were going straight to the bill, with second reading occurring on Tuesday?
The last I saw they’re trying for MV5 on Monday , they want to do that and at the same time use a technical ruse to remove the effect of the Letwin Amendment.
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
And I would be amazed if Bercow allowed a second attempt at the MV
In fairness to him I'm not sure what the point would be - while it might theoretically pass now an extension has been asked for, they're already bringing forward the legislation so why the need for the MV?
ALthough were there any differences between MV1 and MV2 to permit bringing that one back?
As I recall no one twigged it was wrong until after MV2. This lot spend more time in bar than in library. 😄.
Wasn’t it Eagle who said, wait a minute Mr Speaker? Or Was that the carpenters
re: the latest episode of BBC Parliament's hit series "Brexit".
I admit the series has generally been superbly scripted, with one cliffhanger after another. But I'm starting to wonder if the overpaid scriptwriters are on crack.
First of all, what was that lame "Letwin Amendment" nonsense? If they're really running so low of interesting plot devices to postpone the resolution of the story, maybe it's time to put the show out of its misery.
Secondly, are we really supposed to believe that the Opposition Forces would allow the hobbit called Boris to remain in power - and continue the negotiations with the Evil Empire - when they could remove him at any time?
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Except the letters aren't smart-arsed. Boris' is actually warm and cordial, and it lays out what his and the government's thoughts are on an extension.
Come of it! The intentions certainly are, along with not signing the first. It is the act of someone who is trying to imply they are contemptible of due process. Trouble is by sending the first, albeit grudgingly he has followed the rules, the next two are just pathetic distractions.
It's a pathetic distraction to provide some context?
If he wanted to add context why couldn't it be in the first letter? Because by writing multiple letters he thought he was being a clever dick!
The media are desperate for lettergate to end up in court .
If experts think he hasn’t frustrated the Act and the Padfield principle that’s good enough for me .
I think I’ll listen to them not some over excited journalists and more guff peddled by the BBC and others.
Lets be honest Jolyon is probably gonna take it to court regardless.
I hope not . Better off giving the money to charity . I’ve followed all the legal twists and turns but I can’t see the point . Johnson has sent the letter . Laura K droning on about the Supreme Court is talking guff .
How will it be a better sausage? There is going to be no changes to the ingredients now, the EU is highly unlikely to agree to yet another renegotiation.
The WA would need the EU to agree changes which as you say is unlikely. However there's much morw to do - for exampke the WAIB is a big, very important piece of domestic legislation - which under TMay's plans was supposed to have a good few months. This is the kind if thing you definitely shouldn't be doing in a few days unless there's a giant meteor impact expected a week on thursday, and scrutiny will definitely make it better.
It may be very important, but the decision is quite simple as there will be no opportunity for revisions to the text. The only reason to delay the process is for some MPs to try and find yet more clever schemes to sabotage the whole thing.
No, the decision on the MV is a simple binary question, but the accompanying domestic legislation is normal complicated domestic legislation.
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
What difference does that make?
For example, a 2nd referendum condition could be added onto the bill.
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Except the letters aren't smart-arsed. Boris' is actually warm and cordial, and it lays out what his and the government's thoughts are on an extension.
Come of it! The intentions certainly are, along with not signing the first. It is the act of someone who is trying to imply they are contemptible of due process. Trouble is by sending the first, albeit grudgingly he has followed the rules, the next two are just pathetic distractions.
It's a pathetic distraction to provide some context?
If he wanted to add context why couldn't it be in the first letter? Because by writing multiple letters he thought he was being a clever dick!
Because the first letter was defined by the wording of the act!
Please stop selectively quoting the Act. It is very clear that the seeking to obtain is by the sending of the letter. It is a single sentence:
"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."
I'm not a lawyer, but the wording ("must seek...by sending") that you quote appears to require that the Prime Minister sends a letter to the stated effect. Instead, he's got someone else to send it, declined to sign it, and instead signed one saying the opposite. I wouldn't have thought the Court will be impressed, but time will show.
Where does it say he has to sign it? He has sought by sending.
It doesn’t but its just petulant and moronic.
Obeying the law is petulant and moronic?
No but the smart-arsed second and third letters are petulant and moronic.
Except the letters aren't smart-arsed. Boris' is actually warm and cordial, and it lays out what his and the government's thoughts are on an extension.
Come of it! The intentions certainly are, along with not signing the first. It is the act of someone who is trying to imply they are contemptible of due process. Trouble is by sending the first, albeit grudgingly he has followed the rules, the next two are just pathetic distractions.
It's a pathetic distraction to provide some context?
If he wanted to add context why couldn't it be in the first letter? Because by writing multiple letters he thought he was being a clever dick!
Probably because he only wrote two, one having its content mandated by the Benn act; the third was from the EU ambassador.
Remainers have probably twigged, with horror, that we are on the verge of ending up with a far worse deal for them than May’s deal (which they could have voted for). One that could mean no deal on WTO terms in eighteen months. One that will see the U.K. leaving the Customs Union making any future “rejoin” effort far more complicated (especially if new non EU deals are negotiated which preclude it)
Yes, from their point of view it's much worse than TMay's deal.
OTOH I do think there's some real value to them in having all the prominent brexiters' fingerprints on it (except Farage, sadly). The position they didn't want to be in is having to put up with brexit with all its disappointments and shitty consequences, but the brexiters are able to avoid responsibility for it and blame it on a remainer PM making a BINO.
I agree, the really important development of the last few weeks is that Brexiteers now 100% own Brexit. This is crucial because post Brexit politics, after an initial wave of relief, will be almost entirely about who to blame for all the failures, disappointments and humiliations of Brexit, plus all the other bad things that have not much to do with Brexit but will be blamed on it, like we used to blame things on the EU. I will take no joy in saying "I told you so". Actually, who am I kidding. I'm going to fucking love it.
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
What difference does that make?
For example, a 2nd referendum condition could be added onto the bill.
The important part of that bill is the wording of the agreement between the UK and the EU. That's the text that will form an international treaty between those two, and that cannot be changed by future parliaments. Whatever fluff is attached to it can be repealed by any future parliament, without having to negotiate a new treaty. Say Labour manages to get something stronger attached to the bill regarding workers rights. There is nothing stopping a future government simply repealing that part of the act, whilst keeping the section regarding the treaty in force.
Aren't we technically not even on MV 3 yet? I seem to recall some kerfuffle over MV3 not including the PD making it, for some reason, not a true MV (the FT summary of the votes goes MV1, MV2 and Exit deal)? And since MV4 today then became not meaningful, that'd make MV5 really MV3?
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Yes, let's do away with divisive things like voting
Actually I think it's highly likely a second referendum would see the current deal through but that holding one is highly unwise because of the extreme feelings Brexit has engendered and something that hot heads will take advantage of.
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
Sure, but this is also true of basically every single piece of legislation in the entire history of ever. Nevertheless the experience of democracies is that it's better to read, scrutinize, amend and vote on bills, rather than just letting one dude zip through complex legislation binding on 67 million people and a 3 trillion dollar economy on a rainy Friday afternoon.
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Yes, let's do away with divisive things like voting
Actually I think it's highly likely a second referendum would see the current deal through but that holding one is extremely unwise because of the extreme feelings Brexit has engendered and something that hot heads will take advantage of.
Aren't we technically not even on MV 3 yet? I seem to recall some kerfuffle over MV3 not including the PD making it, for some reason, not a true MV (the FT summary of the votes goes MV1, MV2 and Exit deal)? And since MV4 today then became not meaningful, that'd make MV5 really MV3?
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
Sure, but this is also true of basically every single piece of legislation in the entire history of ever. Nevertheless the experience of democracies is that it's better to read, scrutinize, amend and vote on bills, rather than just letting one dude zip through complex legislation binding on 67 million people and a 3 trillion dollar economy on a rainy Friday afternoon.
But isn't it related to what is described in the actual treaty text, which at this point is not amendable?
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
Sure, but this is also true of basically every single piece of legislation in the entire history of ever. Nevertheless the experience of democracies is that it's better to read, scrutinize, amend and vote on bills, rather than just letting one dude zip through complex legislation binding on 67 million people and a 3 trillion dollar economy on a rainy Friday afternoon.
But isn't it related to what is described in the actual treaty text, which at this point is not amendable?
The WA is a treaty between nation states/int bodies. We need domestic legislation to provide powers to implement said agreement domestically.
That’s different text and there are different ways to meet treaty obligations.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
Sure, but this is also true of basically every single piece of legislation in the entire history of ever. Nevertheless the experience of democracies is that it's better to read, scrutinize, amend and vote on bills, rather than just letting one dude zip through complex legislation binding on 67 million people and a 3 trillion dollar economy on a rainy Friday afternoon.
But isn't it related to what is described in the actual treaty text, which at this point is not amendable?
It's not about the actual treaty text, it's about all the related domestic legislation.
The bill is amendable though. Especially when it comes to Statutory Instruments and other powers I assume the Executive will want to give itself regarding Brexit.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Amendments to the bill don't change anything regarding the treaty we will sign with the EU. The amendments can be repealed by any future parliament without having to negotiate with the EU.
Sure, but this is also true of basically every single piece of legislation in the entire history of ever. Nevertheless the experience of democracies is that it's better to read, scrutinize, amend and vote on bills, rather than just letting one dude zip through complex legislation binding on 67 million people and a 3 trillion dollar economy on a rainy Friday afternoon.
But isn't it related to what is described in the actual treaty text, which at this point is not amendable?
It's not about the actual treaty text, it's about all the related domestic legislation.
The domestic implementation of the treaty? I doubt the EU have left that much wiggle room!
It might sound fanciful that they would put Corbyn into Number 10, but they have literally been in government with Sinn Fein, so I don't think supporting a couple of soft-headed London supporters of Sinn Fein would really faze them. And it would teach the Tories a lesson about crossing the DUP.
I think there would be strong support for an Irish re-unification referendum in the near future.
Aren't we technically not even on MV 3 yet? I seem to recall some kerfuffle over MV3 not including the PD making it, for some reason, not a true MV (the FT summary of the votes goes MV1, MV2 and Exit deal)? And since MV4 today then became not meaningful, that'd make MV5 really MV3?
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Yes, let's do away with divisive things like voting
Actually I think it's highly likely a second referendum would see the current deal through but that holding one is highly unwise because of the extreme feelings Brexit has engendered and something that hot heads will take advantage of.
Well, you might be right or wrong about what the outcome of a vote would be. The main point here, though, is the idea that we avoid a democratic process because someone threatens violence. That can never be acceptable, and nor is it acceptable for anyone to talk of those threats in order to prevent democratic processes. The intention in such circumstances is to ask people to choose between safety and democracy. That is the kind of talk that makes a country look like a banana republic.
Comments
No truth in the confirmatory referendum
Of course labour cannot avoid an election. There are ways of ignoring them
I agree though taking DUP votes off Tories and onto opposition parties could throw up some hideous losses for Boris. It’s yet more votes that won’t vote for an election that empowers him?
But are they gone for any length of time, surely this spat can blow over? Boris deal is great for northern island, I recall Robsmithson saying start buying NI properties now
If MPs pass the MV5 but Bercow rules the Letwin Amendment still applies then Johnson can’t withdraw the extension request .
Spains actually quite nice friendly place to Brits. I know people who had to use health service when holiday there and said it was really good.
Nothing else to say.
Most likely there's now going to be a short extension, with or without an election, but Boris's deal will pass. From a remainiac perspective the proposed deal is nasty, but objectively it involves less can-kicking than TMay's, and the sort-of-border-in-the-Irish-Sea-but-with-consent allows much more latitude for GB to get a future relationship that it likes. And crucially, the most of the people who wanted Brexit are signed up to it, which is a much healthier place to be than we would be if Lab had backed TMay's deal and got it through against the opposition of the ERG.
And there will likely be a (short) extension. This means parliament will be able to vote on a bill they've actually had time to read and hold hearings on, and it may be possible to catch some problems with it and fix it. Boris has used Macron's artificial deadline to make the deal actually happen, but then having got the deal parliament has declawed it so we don't get any unpleasant surprises as a result of speed-legislating.
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting one thing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
https://ig.ft.com/brexit-exit-deal-vote/
That means the MV5 would satisfy fully the Benn Act and Johnson can withdraw the extension request .
Bercow is going to rule whether they can repeat the MV and on the Letwin Amendment and whether what the government is doing is out of order on Monday .
HYUFD comments on Spain were to do with the jailing of the separatists in Barcelona
Johnson's obsession with the October 31st deadline made that a step too far for him to take.
Edit: I can see the historical arguments now. "The third meaningful vote, referred to by those at the time as the fifth meaningful vote..., was to overturn the decision of the fourth vote, which was of course not a vote at all". It's Final Fantasy 3 (US) being followed by Final Fantasy 7 all over again.
How is that not complying with the law?
I would expect better than this sort of pettiness from a former parliamentarian, I really would.
ALthough were there any differences between MV1 and MV2 to permit bringing that one back?
If experts think he hasn’t frustrated the Act and the Padfield principle that’s good enough for me .
I think I’ll listen to them not some over excited journalists and more guff peddled by the BBC and others.
How is it approved without a MV then?
OTOH I do think there's some real value to them in having all the prominent brexiters' fingerprints on it (except Farage, sadly). The position they didn't want to be in is having to put up with brexit with all its disappointments and shitty consequences, but the brexiters are able to avoid responsibility for it and blame it on a remainer PM making a BINO.
There is a reason why they have refused to publish the bill.
Wasn’t it Eagle who said, wait a minute Mr Speaker? Or Was that the carpenters
I admit the series has generally been superbly scripted, with one cliffhanger after another. But I'm starting to wonder if the overpaid scriptwriters are on crack.
First of all, what was that lame "Letwin Amendment" nonsense? If they're really running so low of interesting plot devices to postpone the resolution of the story, maybe it's time to put the show out of its misery.
Secondly, are we really supposed to believe that the Opposition Forces would allow the hobbit called Boris to remain in power - and continue the negotiations with the Evil Empire - when they could remove him at any time?
For example, a 2nd referendum condition could be added onto the bill.
I think you are also right. As Bernard always was.
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Like him I worry about becoming a moral vacuum one day though.
That’s different text and there are different ways to meet treaty obligations.
Its not a simple thing.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
Bernard: in that case, I. Erm. Oh.
Sir Humphrey: Would you say you still have much to learn Bernard?
Bernard: Yes, Sir Humphrey.
The main point here, though, is the idea that we avoid a democratic process because someone threatens violence. That can never be acceptable, and nor is it acceptable for anyone to talk of those threats in order to prevent democratic processes. The intention in such circumstances is to ask people to choose between safety and democracy. That is the kind of talk that makes a country look like a banana republic.