Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Sporting grudges last much longer than 45 years. Tottenham fans still haven’t forgiven the way Arsenal were parachuted into North London from Woolwich and the top division by the Football League 100 years ago.
There is a local story in Lincolnshire that came up a few years ago regarding the local Portuguese workers in Boston.
Back in the Middle Ages Lincoln was the Royal Port of the region for the export of wool. Taxes were levied for the King on the wool as it was put on boats in Lincoln to go down the Witham and out to sea. But all the way down the Witham there are monasteries which were able to get their wool put onto the vessels after the Royal Port and so avoid paying taxes.
Eventually the King got fed up and moved the Royal Port status from Lincoln to Boston. This became a real point of anger between the two towns with Lincoln accusing Boston of having stolen its Royal status. There is a rivalry to this day which of course gets picked up in football.
A few years ago the local TV was in Boston talking to the Portuguese workers there about life in Lincolnshire and football rivalry was mentioned. One of the Portuguese told the reporter that one of the reasons people from Lincoln regarded people from Boston as their rivals was because Boston had stolen Lincoln's wool taxes.
A story that shows both the persistence of these traditions over the centuries and how well the new immigrants into the area had integrated into the community even down to their local rivalries.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to build a wall around Lincolnshire and fill it with water.
How do you fill a wall with water? Is it a sponge wall?
Perhaps the first bit of amending legislation to be tabled should be one saying that the PM is obligated to request an extension to the transition period 1 month before the expiry date should no new final agreement be in place. That would be a good way of reassuring the worries about the deal being a stepping stone to no deal, and we will then see how true to their word the ERG types are about abandoning no deal. Considering that no deal was supposed to only be a threat to the EU to get a better deal, and we now have that 'better deal' it can surely be removed for good from the table.
We haven't actually got any deal with the EU at all. To the extent that our relationship with the EU can be considered in isolation the only "benefit" of the WA is a transition period on existing terms (in return for cash). A period which is getting shorter by the day. With the exception of Northern Ireland there is nothing in the "deal" which provides any trading relationship with the EU post March 31st 2021 at all!
Indeed. And it is the key reason why it is worse than May’s deal. That deal provided a smooth transition to a new trading arrangement. This one leaves a cliff edge. It gives more cards to the EU than they had under May’s deal.
At some point this penny will, I hope, drop - with businesses if not MPs. They still don’t know on what basis they will be trading with the EU at the end of the transition period. So they will make their plans accordingly.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty any extension could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say the EU would consider an extension but has to be clear how the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week but any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not ruke until the last minute on the 31st
If the EU Parliament can’t vote in time are we to expect the EU council will chuck the UK out on no deal .
Per Bruno Waterfield, the EU Parliament is looking at the deal in committee tomorrow and voting on it on Thursday.
Caveat: Generally speaking Bruno Waterfield is totally full of shit.
Indeed may be full of s**t but there's no reason the EP can't do its job within a week, just as there's no reason Westminster can't do the same. If the EP ratifies the deal and the Council replies saying "No extension, vote on the deal" then Parliament will just have to do its job.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
Decades of abuse from them and telling me where I shone the sweet chariot means we Nigels have to support whoever Wales play.
+1 and all those forward pass "tries" in the 70's....
That is quite a petty reason to be holding a sporting grudge in 2019.
you obviously were not around in the 70's...
I was around in the seventies and I watched rugby in the 70s, and I'm not welsh.
I still think that bearing a grudge for over 45 years where the blame lies as much with poor refereeing as with "sportsmanship" from the players is quite petty. I also accept that sport is one area where you can be base you support on such petty ideas.
Sporting grudges last much longer than 45 years. Tottenham fans still haven’t forgiven the way Arsenal were parachuted into North London from Woolwich and the top division by the Football League 100 years ago.
There is a local story in Lincolnshire that came up a few years ago regarding the local Portuguese workers in Boston.
Back in the Middle Ages Lincoln was the Royal Port of the region for the export of wool. Taxes were levied for the King on the wool as it was put on boats in Lincoln to go down the Witham and out to sea. But all the way down the Witham there are monasteries which were able to get their wool put onto the vessels after the Royal Port and so avoid paying taxes.
Eventually the King got fed up and moved the Royal Port status from Lincoln to Boston. This became a real point of anger between the two towns with Lincoln accusing Boston of having stolen its Royal status. There is a rivalry to this day which of course gets picked up in football.
A few years ago the local TV was in Boston talking to the Portuguese workers there about life in Lincolnshire and football rivalry was mentioned. One of the Portuguese told the reporter that one of the reasons people from Lincoln regarded people from Boston as their rivals was because Boston had stolen Lincoln's wool taxes.
A story that shows both the persistence of these traditions over the centuries and how well the new immigrants into the area had integrated into the community even down to their local rivalries.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to build a wall around Lincolnshire and fill it with water.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty for any extension as it could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
Can they actually leave it that long? Doesn't there have to be legislation or standing orders passed in respective Parliaments.
The EU are not going to wait till then , this is media nonsense .
They haven’t spent 3 years trying to avoid a no deal to take it to the wire in this manner .
The way to avoid no deal is to ratify a deal. The EU has one it is happy with.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
But that really is a terrible position to be in. It gives 3rd party tariff free access to Turkish markets to any country which has an FTA with the EU without reciprocal tariff free access for Turkish goods. It is a lunatic idea and I suspect the only reason it is being pushed is because MPs do not understand the mechanics and think it is basically 'staying in the Customs Union'.
Sovereignty ultimately and always proceeds from the people.
In most cases they are content to appoint representatives to wield it on their behalf (Parliament has delegated sovereignty)
In the case of Brexit Parliament said “this is too hard. Tell* us what we should do”.
Hence the referendum drew on the same well of Sovereignty that Parliament has. As a result Parliament does not have the power to set aside the decision
* sorry, “Advise us what we should do”
Ah, we're introducing a new concept to the discussion, which is not unwelcome but could accidentally serve to muddy the waters. The discussion hitherto had been about whether a referendum could be democratically reversed. Of course I maintain that it can. And for that reason I'm forced to agree with you. Sovereignty dwells in the people, and parliament is a slave to that. The people should be the ones who get get Brexit over the line or cancel Brexit. We should put one of these deals to the British public and offer them the chance to accept it, to accept revoke or to accept no deal.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave. They also have the delegated authority to oversee how that happens.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
Post Brexit - yes
Even though she resigned over No Deal? Sorry, I don't think the membership will forgive her that. The ones still in the party aren't exactly the forgiving type.
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty any extension could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say the EU would consider an extension but has to be clear how the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week but any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not ruke until the last minute on the 31st
If the EU Parliament can’t vote in time are we to expect the EU council will chuck the UK out on no deal .
I would expect the Council will be called later this week but they will not agree without a genuine reason
Thinking of the amendments game, the only way things like Customs Union pass is if the likes of the LDs and Tiggers mendaciously support them, even then I'm dubious, CU was 3 short but most of the Tory cabinet abstained and would now be against and any Tories who voted for will be whipped against. 2nd ref stands a chance IF the DUP vote for which is highly unlikely, they might mischievously abstain if it's this week, I only see them voting for as a last ditch effort
There’s one thing supporting the deal for Labour MPs however supporting the government in a VONC is totally unacceptable.
That would be immediate withdrawal of the Whip . Even if MPs have been reselected removal of the whip means the party can find another candidate for the GE.
But the purpose of a VONC would be to ensure the WAIB does not pass. What's the point of seeking to pass the latter and then doing the former?
EU commentator says EU member states are coming round to Macron's hardline attitude and of course there is no certainty for any extension as it could be vetoed by a member state
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
Can they actually leave it that long? Doesn't there have to be legislation or standing orders passed in respective Parliaments.
At some point, if the Opposition won't vote for an election, the government is going to have little choice but to resign. If they survive this week they need to get the budget passed next month.
What does it actually mean for the 'government to resign' post-FTPA? Johnson could resign as PM, of course, and he could presumably also tell the Queen he didn't think any other Tory MP would have the confidence of the house (implying that she should call for the LOTO). Does governmental resignation mean anything more than just doing that?
Yes, we are in uncharted waters with the FTPA, it's a messy piece of legislation that is noteable for what it doesn't say as much as what it does.
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
Post Brexit - yes
The biggest issue is she’s a bit crap with demonstrable bad judgement
The biggest plus is her brother is quite influential
So the government must set out its proposed timetable for the WAIB, right? And they hope it can be done before 30 October (fat chance). Does parliament get to amend that, or do they reject the timetable and the government need to submit another one?
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
It seems unlikely the EU would leave it quite that late, as the Benn Act requires Parliament to vote on the extension and there wouldn't be time if the EU offer comes later than the 29th or so. The dates in the Benn Act effectively assume that the offer is made by the 30th -- it's not clear what happens if an offer comes on the 31st.
...in fact rereading it there's an amusing possibility where the EU make an extension offer at 11:50pm on the 30th. The Benn Act mandates that the PM accepts it by the end of that day and there isn't any time for him to put a motion down in Parliament that would make it "parliament's fault" he had to accept it.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
It hasn't changed. The instruction was Leave and remains Leave. Parliament can choose any form of Leave they like. That is their right. But they do not have the right to ignore the original instruction completely.
Sovereignty ultimately and always proceeds from the people.
In most cases they are content to appoint representatives to wield it on their behalf (Parliament has delegated sovereignty)
In the case of Brexit Parliament said “this is too hard. Tell* us what we should do”.
Hence the referendum drew on the same well of Sovereignty that Parliament has. As a result Parliament does not have the power to set aside the decision
* sorry, “Advise us what we should do”
Ah, we're introducing a new concept to the discussion, which is not unwelcome but could accidentally serve to muddy the waters. The discussion hitherto had been about whether a referendum could be democratically reversed. Of course I maintain that it can. And for that reason I'm forced to agree with you. Sovereignty dwells in the people, and parliament is a slave to that. The people should be the ones who get get Brexit over the line or cancel Brexit. We should put one of these deals to the British public and offer them the chance to accept it, to accept revoke or to accept no deal.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave. They also have the delegated authority to oversee how that happens.
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
But that really is a terrible position to be in. It gives 3rd party tariff free access to Turkish markets to any country which has an FTA with the EU without reciprocal tariff free access for Turkish goods. It is a lunatic idea and I suspect the only reason it is being pushed is because MPs do not understand the mechanics and think it is basically 'staying in the Customs Union'.
Yes it's a shocker. But one more of the potential unintended consequences of this. People are likely to opt for the worst of all worlds because it sounds cuddly.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
Post Brexit - yes
The biggest issue is she’s a bit crap with demonstrable bad judgement
The biggest plus is her brother is quite influential
Did you literally just say that the best thing about a woman is that there's a man telling her what to think? You do know this is 2019, not 1819, right?
No. They are upholding the result of the 2017 GE. The only party that campaigned on the possibility of leaving without a deal in 2017 failed to secure a majority, and even they said “no deal is better than a bad deal” - expressly accepting that bad deals might exist. What was left in Parliament after the 2017 GE were a number of differing interpretations of what a deal should be. Each MP (save for those who ran on a platform expressly opposed to Brexit like the SNP and the LDs) is attempting to get what, in their judgement, is the best deal for the country. Why should Parliament accept any old deal put in front of it in the name of “respecting” a vote that was superseded by their own mandate?
If Leave had won in 2016 with a specific deal in mind you might, might, have a point. But there is little or no mandate whatsoever for leaving at all costs.
These arguments do go round in circles don’t they?
Leave did win with a specific deal in mind. Specifically that deal consisted of.
* Regaining control of our laws * Regaining control of our borders * Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ * Ending payments to the EU * Ability to sign free trade deals * Controlling our own trade policy * Leaving the Single Market * Getting a deal with the EU for free trade
Boris's deal meets every single one of those objectives. People objecting are those who don't want us to meet one or more of those objectives.
They will just carry on as before, only way this will end is if EU say enough and the clowns are forced to make a decision one way or the other.
If that happens BJ will disrupt the EUCO budget settingnptocess and disrupt...The EU cant afford that
BJ wants his deal agreed by 31st October and UK out, and it is in EU interests as you say re their budgets, so hard to see them not helping him.
They are clearly wary of doing so too much though, since 'absolutely no extensions' stated unequiocally a week ago would have seen the MV sail through.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
Not enough time. The HOC needs to accept or reject this deal quickly and stop messing about
There's always time to get the right deal. High pressure sales tactics are always a sure sign you're being sold a lemon.
Like waiting until the last minute to pass the Benn Act in a day?
What's wrong with the Benn Act? It's worked exactly as intended. And its backers had to blag [edit] time on the order paper, unlike the government, so there was a reason it was rushed.
Perhaps the first bit of amending legislation to be tabled should be one saying that the PM is obligated to request an extension to the transition period 1 month before the expiry date should no new final agreement be in place. That would be a good way of reassuring the worries about the deal being a stepping stone to no deal, and we will then see how true to their word the ERG types are about abandoning no deal. Considering that no deal was supposed to only be a threat to the EU to get a better deal, and we now have that 'better deal' it can surely be removed for good from the table.
We haven't actually got any deal with the EU at all. To the extent that our relationship with the EU can be considered in isolation the only "benefit" of the WA is a transition period on existing terms (in return for cash). A period which is getting shorter by the day. With the exception of Northern Ireland there is nothing in the "deal" which provides any trading relationship with the EU post March 31st 2021 at all!
Indeed. And it is the key reason why it is worse than May’s deal. That deal provided a smooth transition to a new trading arrangement. This one leaves a cliff edge. It gives more cards to the EU than they had under May’s deal.
At some point this penny will, I hope, drop - with businesses if not MPs. They still don’t know on what basis they will be trading with the EU at the end of the transition period. So they will make their plans accordingly.
It is also a far more one sided cliff edge than now if you accept that the no1 priority for the EU was not actually averting no deal, but averting a hard border in Northern Ireland for the good of the Republic and the peace process. They don't want no deal, but they can probably live with it. Its worst consequence (the hardening of Irish border) will have been avoided next time around.
He suggested that if the WDA goes through with an amendment for a 2nd referendum Labour would argue for the question to be BJ's deal or Remain.
I was under the impression that once the WDA is agreed, we can't remain - we would have to rejoin. Starmer was implying that we could remain if we changed our minds during the implementation period. Is he wrong?
Philip_Thompson said: " Boris's deal meets every single one of those objectives. People objecting are those who don't want us to meet one or more of those objectives."
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
But that really is a terrible position to be in. It gives 3rd party tariff free access to Turkish markets to any country which has an FTA with the EU without reciprocal tariff free access for Turkish goods. It is a lunatic idea and I suspect the only reason it is being pushed is because MPs do not understand the mechanics and think it is basically 'staying in the Customs Union'.
It’s one of many lunatic ideas. Any idea that has been put forward since the day after the referendum has been described by a plurality of the population, but never a majority, as “lunatic”. No-deal, EEA, NI Backstop, All-UK Backstop, Customs Union....which option united the country? IIRC is some limited polling evidence that EEA might, but that’s not conclusive evidence, and it doesn’t solve the NI problem.
No. They are upholding the result of the 2017 GE. The only party that campaigned on the possibility of leaving without a deal in 2017 failed to secure a majority, and even they said “no deal is better than a bad deal” - expressly accepting that bad deals might exist. What was left in Parliament after the 2017 GE were a number of differing interpretations of what a deal should be. Each MP (save for those who ran on a platform expressly opposed to Brexit like the SNP and the LDs) is attempting to get what, in their judgement, is the best deal for the country. Why should Parliament accept any old deal put in front of it in the name of “respecting” a vote that was superseded by their own mandate?
If Leave had won in 2016 with a specific deal in mind you might, might, have a point. But there is little or no mandate whatsoever for leaving at all costs.
These arguments do go round in circles don’t they?
Leave did win with a specific deal in mind. Specifically that deal consisted of.
* Regaining control of our laws * Regaining control of our borders * Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ * Ending payments to the EU * Ability to sign free trade deals * Controlling our own trade policy * Leaving the Single Market * Getting a deal with the EU for free trade
Boris's deal meets every single one of those objectives. People objecting are those who don't want us to meet one or more of those objectives.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
Post Brexit - yes
Even though she resigned over No Deal? Sorry, I don't think the membership will forgive her that. The ones still in the party aren't exactly the forgiving type.
Time to heal the party and to be honest it is more united today than anytime since Boris was elected
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
He suggested that if the WDA goes through with an amendment for a 2nd referendum Labour would argue for the question to be BJ's deal or Remain.
I was under the impression that once the WDA is agreed, we can't remain - we would have to rejoin. Starmer was implying that we could remain if we changed our minds during the implementation period. Is he wrong?
He's hoping that the EU allow sufficient extension time for his referendum to be held, so we don't leave until afterwards.
She went on to say it is clear the EU would consider an extension but has to know what the extension would be used and for and for now they are likely just to see what happens this coming week. However, any extension will require a full meeting of the 27 and they may not rule on this until the last minute on the 31st
It seems unlikely the EU would leave it quite that late, as the Benn Act requires Parliament to vote on the extension and there wouldn't be time if the EU offer comes later than the 29th or so. The dates in the Benn Act effectively assume that the offer is made by the 30th -- it's not clear what happens if an offer comes on the 31st.
...in fact rereading it there's an amusing possibility where the EU make an extension offer at 11:50pm on the 30th. The Benn Act mandates that the PM accepts it by the end of that day and there isn't any time for him to put a motion down in Parliament that would make it "parliament's fault" he had to accept it.
So if the extension is for 100 years at 100x the GDP based financial contribution with no early termination...
He suggested that if the WDA goes through with an amendment for a 2nd referendum Labour would argue for the question to be BJ's deal or Remain.
I was under the impression that once the WDA is agreed, we can't remain - we would have to rejoin. Starmer was implying that we could remain if we changed our minds during the implementation period. Is he wrong?
Presumably he meant that the WDA would go through subject to a referendum (which would require an extension)
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
It hasn't changed. The instruction was Leave and remains Leave. Parliament can choose any form of Leave they like. That is their right. But they do not have the right to ignore the original instruction completely.
What is this "right"? Is it a moral right? Parliament certainly has the legal right. If it is a moral right, who determines what is a moral right? Is that you?
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
He suggested that if the WDA goes through with an amendment for a 2nd referendum Labour would argue for the question to be BJ's deal or Remain.
I was under the impression that once the WDA is agreed, we can't remain - we would have to rejoin. Starmer was implying that we could remain if we changed our minds during the implementation period. Is he wrong?
Depends on what he means by implementation period.
If he is talking about the period between the bill passing and Brexit day (currently 31st October) then he is right but that would require a massive extension.
If he is talking about the Transition period after 31st October (assuming we leave then) then he is wrong. We will have officially left and would have to apply to rejoin.
alex said: "Presumably he meant that the WDA would go through subject to a referendum (which would require an extension)"
If the EU granted an extension to 31/1 this would not give sufficient time for a confirmatory referendum to take place. If, as I expect, an amendment is added to insist on a confirmatory referendum on Boris`s deal - and this passes - what then?
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
It hasn't changed. The instruction was Leave and remains Leave. Parliament can choose any form of Leave they like. That is their right. But they do not have the right to ignore the original instruction completely.
What is this "right"? Is it a moral right? Parliament certainly has the legal right. If it is a moral right, who determines what is a moral right? Is that you?
I would refer to it as a democratic right rather than a moral one. Depends on how much you value democracy. What you are proposing is simply a modified version of 'might is right' devoid of all democratic responsibility.
Surely the fact the extension letter has been sent is in and of itself a material change?
Bercow would always have wiggle room, and MV2 was allowed (I cannot recall there being changes with MV1), but not sure what the point would be. While the vote was to trigger Benn, the stated wording of the amendment yesterday applies as a reason to keep waiting for any MV.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
The obvious solution to all this is for the WA to be passed with a request for extension until 31st March 2021. Then we get the transition period plus a vote at the table at the same time
alex said: "Presumably he meant that the WDA would go through subject to a referendum (which would require an extension)"
If the EU granted an extension to 31/1 this would not give sufficient time for a confirmatory referendum to take place. If, as I expect, an amendment is added to insist on a confirmatory referendum on Boris`s deal - and this passes - what then?
Hence why they should wait. If parliament decides on a referendum, they can offer a longer extension. That way they don't accidentally give too little time.
Ah, we're introducing a new concept to the discussion, which is not unwelcome but could accidentally serve to muddy the waters. The discussion hitherto had been about whether a referendum could be democratically reversed. Of course I maintain that it can. And for that reason I'm forced to agree with you. Sovereignty dwells in the people, and parliament is a slave to that. The people should be the ones who get get Brexit over the line or cancel Brexit. We should put one of these deals to the British public and offer them the chance to accept it, to accept revoke or to accept no deal.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave. They also have the delegated authority to oversee how that happens.
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
But that really is a terrible position to be in. It gives 3rd party tariff free access to Turkish markets to any country which has an FTA with the EU without reciprocal tariff free access for Turkish goods. It is a lunatic idea and I suspect the only reason it is being pushed is because MPs do not understand the mechanics and think it is basically 'staying in the Customs Union'.
Yes it's a shocker. But one more of the potential unintended consequences of this. People are likely to opt for the worst of all worlds because it sounds cuddly.
There's no getting away from the fact that the Best Deal is our current Deal, of Full EU membership with opt outs. All other deals merely vary in degree of crapness.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
But that really is a terrible position to be in. It gives 3rd party tariff free access to Turkish markets to any country which has an FTA with the EU without reciprocal tariff free access for Turkish goods. It is a lunatic idea and I suspect the only reason it is being pushed is because MPs do not understand the mechanics and think it is basically 'staying in the Customs Union'.
It’s one of many lunatic ideas. Any idea that has been put forward since the day after the referendum has been described by a plurality of the population, but never a majority, as “lunatic”. No-deal, EEA, NI Backstop, All-UK Backstop, Customs Union....which option united the country? IIRC is some limited polling evidence that EEA might, but that’s not conclusive evidence, and it doesn’t solve the NI problem.
EEA is a great idea. I would win my bet with Richard N for a start.
But a customs union really is a lunatic idea whether you are pro or anti-Brexit. It is one of those ideas that I suspect most people would regard as terrible if they actually understood what it meant in legal terms.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
Creative and imaginative I suppose, unpleasant though it may be!
Counsel for the petitioners (Aiden O'Neill once again) will no doubt want to make representations on that too. Whether the Court ultimately concludes anything needs to be done is a different question. Despite the letter not being signed I think that there has been substantial compliance and it is likely that will be the end of the matter but counsel for the PM may have a difficult morning.
Isn't an unsigned letter merely an interesting piece of paper?
Tusk seems to have accepted it as an application. Emails aren't signed but are used to form contracts daily. It might have been different if the EU had said this was not a formal application.
If it goes to court, the court will rule that Johnson has complied with the law and asked for an extension. And most of the media will report it as a victory for Johnson! The Cummings spin operation is genuinely brilliant.
Oh it's going to court. Aiden won't miss a chance like that. I think your assessment is right but there is the counter story of "humiliation". Neither are correct of course. Parliament passed a ridiculous law so that it had yet more opportunities not to make an actual decision. The PM has complied with it but it far from clear what, if anything, it will actually achieve.
I really cannot see the EU giving the UK an unconditional yes to any extension. As Boris has said that he will not negotiate in relation to an extension I don't see how one will come into effect. If the opposition had actually decided they wanted to revoke or even a second referendum they needed to come together to replace this minority government and then take control of the agenda. But that needed an actual decision which is beyond them.
I am sick to death of all this game playing. I was disgusted and depressed after yesterday, still am to be honest.
What is there to negotiate? Our PM and the EU have agreed a deal that looked as if it would pass a vote in parliament. Yesterday was a really sad day, like when you give one more chance to someone you know is going to let you down. This was the Brexit blockers time to shine, prove they did accept the result, and that they would honour the pledge they made to get elected. Unfortunately they just cant do it.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
Does she have the necessary purity to pass muster with the ideologues and entryists in the Conservative Party? I would have thought the membership would not touch her with a bargepole.
Post Brexit - yes
The biggest issue is she’s a bit crap with demonstrable bad judgement
The biggest plus is her brother is quite influential
Did you literally just say that the best thing about a woman is that there's a man telling her what to think? You do know this is 2019, not 1819, right?
You misunderstood me.
Her brother has a lot of contacts and relationships with influential people. This will likely improve her chances of winning a leadership contest. IMV from a betting perspective this will be one of the more important factors in determining whether she is likely to win.
Ah, we're introducing a new concept to the discussion, which is not unwelcome but could accidentally serve to muddy the waters. The discussion hitherto had been about whether a referendum could be democratically reversed. Of course I maintain that it can. And for that reason I'm forced to agree with you. Sovereignty dwells in the people, and parliament is a slave to that. The people should be the ones who get get Brexit over the line or cancel Brexit. We should put one of these deals to the British public and offer them the chance to accept it, to accept revoke or to accept no deal.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave. They also have the delegated authority to oversee how that happens.
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
He suggested that if the WDA goes through with an amendment for a 2nd referendum Labour would argue for the question to be BJ's deal or Remain.
I was under the impression that once the WDA is agreed, we can't remain - we would have to rejoin. Starmer was implying that we could remain if we changed our minds during the implementation period. Is he wrong?
Depends on what he means by implementation period.
If he is talking about the period between the bill passing and Brexit day (currently 31st October) then he is right but that would require a massive extension.
If he is talking about the Transition period after 31st October (assuming we leave then) then he is wrong. We will have officially left and would have to apply to rejoin.
And in all this those wanting a referendum or now called confirmatory vote expect it to be deal v remain. I have news for them, no deal has to be on the ballot as it has approx 40% support and it is TBP policy
Any idea it can be ignored will see Farage at the high court faster than Gina Miller could
Those backing a customs union amendment are morons. The deal is what it is. Back it, or don't. Go for a second referendum, or an election.
But you can't unilaterally alter a deal which requires both sides to support it, nor compel the PM or Government to back something they clearly don't.
An honest decision to revoke or have a referendum or have an election having rejected the deal is a legitimate perspective. Trying to deliberately scuttle the deal without voting against it via stupid, meaningless amendments is cowardly, foolish, and pathetic.
This Parliament is wretched.
We elected it.
None of the above was not an option on the ballot paper
You have the option of standing yourself if you can find enough of your fellow constituents to sign your nomination papers and the money for a deposit.
Democracy isn't easy, as a fictional US President once said.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
Not enough time. The HOC needs to accept or reject this deal quickly and stop messing about
There's always time to get the right deal. High pressure sales tactics are always a sure sign you're being sold a lemon.
Like waiting until the last minute to pass the Benn Act in a day?
What's wrong with the Benn Act? It's worked exactly as intended. And its backers had to blag [edit] time on the order paper, unlike the government, so there was a reason it was rushed.
I was being slightly facetious, but while there was reason for the rush there have been plenty of questions about what precisely is meant by the various sections of the Benn Act even though it is so short, there was a loing argument on here yesterday over its actual purpose and there's going to be legal complaints tomorrow about whether the PM's actions comply with it or not, and these are issues that could have been ironed out if they;d have even one more day, or acted before the recess. My fundamental problem with it is really just that often the same people who say it was ok to avoid proper scrutiny and processes on that one get apoplectic about the government trying the same thing as if it is a matter of principle, rather than a matter of degree (that is, the WAIB is obviously much more complicated and even in a rush would take a lot more time, but the principle of expediting it is not entirely unreasonable given the opponents accept that principle as ok when it helps them).
Bercow will of course refuse MV5, and wax lyrical about it in his preening peacock way about how he is the arbiter of what is orderly yadda yadda bleurgh So the actual vote of note will be Tuesday when they bring in the WAIB
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
They changed a couple of paragraphs for Johnson. Sure, technically they reopened it, but only by going back to what they had accepted could be a solution earlier in the process.
They would also happily accept a much closer arrangement with the UK in a customs union with the EU.
As I said last night I don't believe they can. EU Customs Union membership is only open to EU members. If it were 'a' customs union then that would be dealt with in the future trading arrangements.
I think what is in mind is a Turkey style relationship that is, I think, technically the “ European Union–Turkey Customs Union”. Replace “Turkey” with “United Kingdom” and you have what is proposed.
But that really is a terrible position to be in. It gives 3rd party tariff free access to Turkish markets to any country which has an FTA with the EU without reciprocal tariff free access for Turkish goods. It is a lunatic idea and I suspect the only reason it is being pushed is because MPs do not understand the mechanics and think it is basically 'staying in the Customs Union'.
Yes it's a shocker. But one more of the potential unintended consequences of this. People are likely to opt for the worst of all worlds because it sounds cuddly.
There's no getting away from the fact that the Best Deal is our current Deal, of Full EU membership with opt outs. All other deals merely vary in degree of crapness.
And when we Rejoin, consequent on the disaster we've become Outside, we won't get the same opt-outs!
Bercow will of course refuse MV5, and wax lyrical about it in his preening peacock way about how he is the arbiter of what is orderly yadda yadda bleurgh So the actual vote of note will be Tuesday when they bring in the WAIB
I think Bercow would be right to refuse it to be resubmitted. We just need to move on to the WAIB itself and see how these things fall.
These meaningful votes were always a waste of time.
But it is a waste of time. The EU will not open the deal
Why not? They did for Johnson. This is the kind of even-handed compromise necessary to get Brexit done.
Not enough time. The HOC needs to accept or reject this deal quickly and stop messing about
There's always time to get the right deal. High pressure sales tactics are always a sure sign you're being sold a lemon.
Like waiting until the last minute to pass the Benn Act in a day?
What's wrong with the Benn Act? It's worked exactly as intended. And its backers had to blag [edit] time on the order paper, unlike the government, so there was a reason it was rushed.
I was being slightly facetious, but while there was reason for the rush there have been plenty of questions about what precisely is meant by the various sections of the Benn Act even though it is so short, there was a loing argument on here yesterday over its actual purpose and there's going to be legal complaints tomorrow about whether the PM's actions comply with it or not, and these are issues that could have been ironed out if they;d have even one more day, or acted before the recess. My fundamental problem with it is really just that often the same people who say it was ok to avoid proper scrutiny and processes on that one get apoplectic about the government trying the same thing as if it is a matter of principle, rather than a matter of degree (that is, the WAIB is obviously much more complicated and even in a rush would take a lot more time, but the principle of expediting it is not entirely unreasonable given the opponents accept that principle as ok when it helps them).
Don't worry I have been accused of worse crimes than facetiousness.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Leave did win with a specific deal in mind. Specifically that deal consisted of.
* Regaining control of our laws * Regaining control of our borders * Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ * Ending payments to the EU * Ability to sign free trade deals * Controlling our own trade policy * Leaving the Single Market * Getting a deal with the EU for free trade
Boris's deal meets every single one of those objectives. People objecting are those who don't want us to meet one or more of those objectives.
Absolute rubbish.. Taking your points in order-
- the ECJ will have significant impact on goods moving from the GB to NI. “At risk” goods will be policed by a secretive “Joint Committee” made up of reps from both sides. So the ECJ will have jurisdiction over internal UK goods as the CJEU will bind the EU side of the committee. That Is greater power than it has today. Furthermore the (admittedly non binding) newly-revised political declaration does state that there should be a “level playing field for open and fair competition” between the EU and UK and asks that both parties “uphold the common high standards … at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change and relevant tax matters.” Further, an integral part of the UK, Northern Ireland, is legally required to remain aligned with some rules for the EU’s single market for goods, including the level playing field (see above) as those arrangements are part of the withdrawal agreement. It is certain we will have to abide by that in an FTA. - again, the NI border will effectively be controlled by this secretive “Joint Committee” - at least in respect of the movement of goods. We have surrendered control of an internal border to the EU, which we don’t even have now. - See above, In addition, the Court of Justice of the European Union willcontinue to have jurisdiction in cases brought by or against the UK before the end of the transition period—which would last until December 2020 at the earliest or, at the latest, December 2022. Also, as long as Northern Ireland remained aligned to the EU in terms of customs and tariffs, it would continue to apply those rules under the Court’s jurisdiction. Given to get an FTA we will also have to, likely, sign up to the “level playing field” then CJEU decisions will still effectively bind us. - He has agreed to pay during transition. What happens then is up for grabs. - Not until 2021 at the earliest and maybe not even then. - Our free trade policy will be fettered by point 1 (above) if NI is to stay in the UK - I’ll give you that one - That is absolute rubbish, this is a transition arrangement, not an FTA.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Reposted with corrected block quote
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
I see the Mail have a 'friend of Epstein' story about the disgusting slug Mandelson How very surprising
That is rather unexpected. Can't recall the last time the Mail published loosely sourced dirt on a quintessential member of the metropolitan liberal Remainer elite.
Comments
At some point this penny will, I hope, drop - with businesses if not MPs. They still don’t know on what basis they will be trading with the EU at the end of the transition period. So they will make their plans accordingly.
And the DUP might support this as a way of reducing the border issue . Labour MPs supporting the deal want some cover .
But this is now going to cause the ERG to start moaning .
The drama isn’t over yet !
Sorry, I don't think the membership will forgive her that. The ones still in the party aren't exactly the forgiving type.
2nd ref stands a chance IF the DUP vote for which is highly unlikely, they might mischievously abstain if it's this week, I only see them voting for as a last ditch effort
We've been around it here a few times and I think the consensus is that, as you suggest, the PM resigns to HMQ and either suggests nobody or suggests the LotO. It would then be up to Corbyn to tell the Queen whether or not he thinks he can survive a vote of confidence.
Johnson won't resign as Conservative Party Leader and will take the Conservatives into Opposition, immediately calling for a vote of no confidence in whoever has been appointed, to start the FTPA 14-day clock to a dissolution and election.
Some on here (not me) are of the opinion that Johnson can't actually resign until it becomes clear who would replace him, in which case he might try and call a vote of confidence in his own government.
The biggest plus is her brother is quite influential
...in fact rereading it there's an amusing possibility where the EU make an extension offer at 11:50pm on the 30th. The Benn Act mandates that the PM accepts it by the end of that day and there isn't any time for him to put a motion down in Parliament that would make it "parliament's fault" he had to accept it.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Maybe we should ask the people...?
* Regaining control of our laws
* Regaining control of our borders
* Ending jurisdiction of the ECJ
* Ending payments to the EU
* Ability to sign free trade deals
* Controlling our own trade policy
* Leaving the Single Market
* Getting a deal with the EU for free trade
Boris's deal meets every single one of those objectives. People objecting are those who don't want us to meet one or more of those objectives.
He suggested that if the WDA goes through with an amendment for a 2nd referendum Labour would argue for the question to be BJ's deal or Remain.
I was under the impression that once the WDA is agreed, we can't remain - we would have to rejoin. Starmer was implying that we could remain if we changed our minds during the implementation period. Is he wrong?
Not with regard to NI.
Loyalists are not the same as Unionists
Loyalists are terrorists
Of course I’m nervous if they are frustrated and it may require countermeasures
But I’m sure as fuck not going to bend to their threats
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
How very surprising
If he is talking about the period between the bill passing and Brexit day (currently 31st October) then he is right but that would require a massive extension.
If he is talking about the Transition period after 31st October (assuming we leave then) then he is wrong. We will have officially left and would have to apply to rejoin.
If the EU granted an extension to 31/1 this would not give sufficient time for a confirmatory referendum to take place. If, as I expect, an amendment is added to insist on a confirmatory referendum on Boris`s deal - and this passes - what then?
It’s a side issue . The material change has to be on what MPs are voting on .
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
But a customs union really is a lunatic idea whether you are pro or anti-Brexit. It is one of those ideas that I suspect most people would regard as terrible if they actually understood what it meant in legal terms.
Her brother has a lot of contacts and relationships with influential people. This will likely improve her chances of winning a leadership contest. IMV from a betting perspective this will be one of the more important factors in determining whether she is likely to win.
Any idea it can be ignored will see Farage at the high court faster than Gina Miller could
Democracy isn't easy, as a fictional US President once said.
So the actual vote of note will be Tuesday when they bring in the WAIB
(You are straying very close to the “vote again until you get the right answer” approach)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgPF5xtppTs
These meaningful votes were always a waste of time.
It can ask whatever, whenever it likes.
- the ECJ will have significant impact on goods moving from the GB to NI. “At risk” goods will be policed by a secretive “Joint Committee” made up of reps from both sides. So the ECJ will have jurisdiction over internal UK goods as the CJEU will bind the EU side of the committee. That Is greater power than it has today. Furthermore the (admittedly non binding) newly-revised political declaration does state that there should be a “level playing field for open and fair competition” between the EU and UK and asks that both parties “uphold the common high standards … at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change and relevant tax matters.” Further, an integral part of the UK, Northern Ireland, is legally required to remain aligned with some rules for the EU’s single market for goods, including the level playing field (see above) as those arrangements are part of the withdrawal agreement. It is certain we will have to abide by that in an FTA.
- again, the NI border will effectively be controlled by this secretive “Joint Committee” - at least in respect of the movement of goods. We have surrendered control of an internal border to the EU, which we don’t even have now.
- See above, In addition, the Court of Justice of the European Union willcontinue to have jurisdiction in cases brought by or against the UK before the end of the transition period—which would last until December 2020 at the earliest or, at the latest, December 2022. Also, as long as Northern Ireland remained aligned to the EU in terms of customs and tariffs, it would continue to apply those rules under the Court’s jurisdiction. Given to get an FTA we will also have to, likely, sign up to the “level playing field” then CJEU decisions will still effectively bind us.
- He has agreed to pay during transition. What happens then is up for grabs.
- Not until 2021 at the earliest and maybe not even then.
- Our free trade policy will be fettered by point 1 (above) if NI is to stay in the UK
- I’ll give you that one
- That is absolute rubbish, this is a transition arrangement, not an FTA.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1185865305916137472?s=20