Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to work out what is Britain’s European Strategy

123457»

Comments

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    Well, an anecdote for you.

    Nigel Farage's Dad is a member of one of London's finest and oldest military clubs. And he was today at that club chatting about the bloody mess his son has made of this country.

    Can things get any weirder ?

    Yes. They probably can.

    In unrelated news I have been sent an invitation by the Jewish Labour Movement (I am neither Jewish nor a Labour Party member) to hear Jess Phillips MP speak next week at one of their events which takes place at a location near me. I am quite tempted. I rather like Ms Phillips and there might be quite a lot for her to say.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited January 2019

    How can you possibly know that?
    That the Act does not confer that power is surely incontestable, since it only has 1 or2 paragraphs and doesn't say that. The question must be whether the gov already has the power without need of an Act I'd have thought. We've heard very certain opinions on both sides here. I can buy that perhaps it is not needed, but politically I don't see how it matters a great deal since surely no government of any stripe is going to proceed with revocation without parliamentary approval?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,570
    Great result for Yvette.

    Apparently even Jezza was forced to applaud.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,570
    NEW THREAD
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,337
    Sean_F said:

    It does, if you want to satisfy the UK Supreme Court. The Act contains no power of revocation.
    It didn’t even *force* her to invoke A50. It gave her permission to do so. And that’s it. I see nothing in there which binds anyone after the day she delivered the letter:

    1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,522

    How can you possibly know that?
    The Act is easy to read.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,333
    I imagine it was like those meetings at the end of Deutschland 86 where it's quite obvious it's all going to shit but they're coming up with mad ideas like changing the weather forecast to improve citizens' moral.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    I do. He showed what is needed in the referendum.

    The two key things a succesful PM needs is the vision of what you want to achieve and the ability to communicate it to the voters and others.

    Boris ticks both boxes. Ministerial legwork is primarily done by those it is delegated to, the PM needs to see the big picture. May fails in that regard same as Brown did, both are/were awful communicators. May fails in the big picture sense too.

    Boris may be grandiose at times but he can both communicate and see the big picture. Whether you like his big picture or what he's communicating is another matter.
    My main problem is I don't think he can see the big picture or has any genuine vision. I think he'd latch on to anything that in the moment seems like it will be popular and advance himself.

    Now, I'm not one to say it's all about having ideologically driven principles and sticking to them, on the contrary a lack of flexibility and an insistence upon purity I regard as a serious problem in a politician who aspires to be a leader, and of course all aspiring leaders will be driven, to some probably quite large degree, by what they think will be popular and naturally justify internally that what is good for them is also good for the country. But with Boris I think he is particularly obvious about it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,302
    kle4 said:

    That the Act does not confer that power is surely incontestable, since it only has 1 or2 paragraphs and doesn't say that. The question must be whether the gov already has the power without need of an Act I'd have thought. We've heard very certain opinions on both sides here. I can buy that perhaps it is not needed, but politically I don't see how it matters a great deal since surely no government of any stripe is going to proceed with revocation without parliamentary approval?
    That's fair in general but two points...

    1. What constitutes parlaimentary approval? It could be an amendment to another motion (e.g. the MV) calling on the government to revoke A50.

    2. In extremis, if we are approaching March 29th with no deal and No Deal looks sufficiently bad, the PM of the day could revoke and seek parliamentary approval later.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    It didn’t even *force* her to invoke A50. It gave her permission to do so. And that’s it. I see nothing in there which binds anyone after the day she delivered the letter:

    1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

    (2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
    Yes, sure, but it's not really very relevant, everyone who voted for the Act was aware the intention was that she would indeed notify. They are free to do as they please thereafter, but they cannot credibly claim not to have known and through parliamentary action gave authority to the notification which started the ticking clock and prepared the way for no deal, if things went badly. And yet they act like it is unreasonable that no deal exists as an option at all. That is the part that is just plain ridiculous given their positions.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601



    That's fair in general but two points...

    1. What constitutes parliamentary approval? It could be an amendment to another motion (e.g. the MV) calling on the government to revoke A50.

    2. In extremis, if we are approaching March 29th with no deal and No Deal looks sufficiently bad, the PM of the day could revoke and seek parliamentary approval later.

    What a mess that would be (which probably means it will happen). What would the status be if the PM revokes subject to parliamentary approval later, then they did not? Would it be valid or not?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,302
    Mortimer said:

    It’s a very short act, it doesn’t take long to read.
    I was referring to the 'satisfying the UK Supreme Court' part. I have already explained that the act does not need to be repealed, since it empowers but does not force the PM to invoke A50.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    Dura_Ace said:

    I imagine it was like those meetings at the end of Deutschland 86 where it's quite obvious it's all going to shit but they're coming up with mad ideas like changing the weather forecast to improve citizens' moral.
    Did it work?
This discussion has been closed.