This is an interesting question, though.

There are a hell of a lot of Tory MPs's who won't wear a two-year extension ; and it may be the only kind of extension the EU are willing to give.

WhisperingOracle said:

This is an interesting question, though.

There are a hell of a lot of Tory MPs's who won't wear a two-year extension ; and it may be the only kind of extension the EU are willing to give.

If this Guardian article is right there are some doubters on the EU side about a long extension.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/extension-article-50-must-be-one-off-brussels-eu27-uk-brexit-delay

It's a very downbeat article. Sounds fatalistic about no deal from the EU side.

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LeaveMnsLeave/status/1101135857354973184

sorry i'm washing my hair...

Sunderland to London ! That's a long walk - 271 miles in total.

Bloody hell it really IS a https://www.marchtoleave.com/route

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

TOPPING said:

@eek

here you go - re-read this.

https://spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/

Africa would probably be better off today if it hadn't received any aid money over the last 60 years.

I think that aid is good for dealing with sudden emergencies, but it's no substitute for capitalism and honest government.

David Dollar has done a lot of work about that last. This is a seminal paper:

https://researchgate.net/publication/4863536_The_Increasing_Selectivity_of_Foreign_Aid_1984-2003

This is hardly a new issue, though - it was well known when I was dealing with displaced persons and refugees back in the mid-80s, and even earlier when I was in Yemen. Nothing is better for development than inward investment, rather than state aid, whereas emergency assistance works best with a coordinated international response. All aid should, where possible, use and build up existing local infrastructure (including decision-making) rather than undermining it.

Remarkably, I find myself agreeing with Lammy on this one. Charity is, of course, wonderful. But it is important how it is given.

OblitusSumMe said:

WhisperingOracle said:

This is an interesting question, though.

There are a hell of a lot of Tory MPs's who won't wear a two-year extension ; and it may be the only kind of extension the EU are willing to give.

If this Guardian article is right there are some doubters on the EU side about a long extension.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/extension-article-50-must-be-one-off-brussels-eu27-uk-brexit-delay

It's a very downbeat article. Sounds fatalistic about no deal from the EU side.

I think Geoff Cox being there this week has made it clear that the current WA is not going to be agreed by Parliament, but neither is a revocation of A50. If the EU won't reopen the WA, it's crash out or keep talking.

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LeaveMnsLeave/status/1101135857354973184

Either it will be like a nationwide tour of the Leadsom for Leader march, or it will be a magnet for yellow vests causing trouble.

Since the 'UK' voted for Brexit, why isn't he starting in Scotland? He could begin in the single Scottish constituency that just *possibly* voted to leave.

OblitusSumMe said:

WhisperingOracle said:

This is an interesting question, though.

There are a hell of a lot of Tory MPs's who won't wear a two-year extension ; and it may be the only kind of extension the EU are willing to give.

If this Guardian article is right there are some doubters on the EU side about a long extension.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/extension-article-50-must-be-one-off-brussels-eu27-uk-brexit-delay

It's a very downbeat article. Sounds fatalistic about no deal from the EU side.

This is a a very important article, because it suggests a potential clash between the commission and the member states over the length of Britain's delay. If correct, and the member states go on to dictate a shorter period, this would have major ramifications for the UK.

New thread

btw

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.

He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.

Hypothetical question: If the EU agree a three month extension to 30th June, could they also insist that we proceed with the EU elections, in order to cover the situation whereby we extend again or revoke A50?

The new EU Parliament sits on 2nd July, and if the UK is still a member on that date it would not be correctly constituted without our MEPs.

I think the problem they then have is that if we leave after that date, the distribution of seats amongst the remaining 27 is kind of broken. I am not sure exactly how much of an issue that is - but for example the election of a new president of the Parliament would be interesting if it included the votes of MEPs who then shortly afterwards left their seats.

I can se why the EU would be very keen to avoid such a situation.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

I can understand someone resigning over a 24 month extension. Resigning over a three month one, which will still almost certainly be required even if the WA passes, seems silly.

He knows that it's not just going to be a three month extension.

Hypothetical question: If the EU agree a three month extension to 30th June, could they also insist that we proceed with the EU elections, in order to cover the situation whereby we extend again or revoke A50?

The new EU Parliament sits on 2nd July, and if the UK is still a member on that date it would not be correctly constituted without our MEPs.

I think the problem they then have is that if we leave after that date, the distribution of seats amongst the remaining 27 is kind of broken. I am not sure exactly how much of an issue that is - but for example the election of a new president of the Parliament would be interesting if it included the votes of MEPs who then shortly afterwards left their seats.

I can se why the EU would be very keen to avoid such a situation.

My thinking is that by the time the Parliament actually sits, we either will be members or we won't be - but if we are and haven't conducted the elections then it's a problem.

Given that MEPs are elected from closed party lists, it would be easy enough to redo the D'Hondt counting process and seat distributions once the UK's membership status is confirmed, in order to determine who is eligible from each member state to be in the Parliament. That process being easier than trying to arrange election of the UK MEPs at a few days' notice.

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sandpit said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1101130011267026946

Likely the first of many, although to be honest the payroll has held together pretty well so far.

snip.

Asnipate

Anysnip b.

+snip

That is probably because you are too dumb to understand what the word means. Which I suspect derives from you not actually caring.

"The power that a country has to govern itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies"

Just because we are able to do the things you mention does not mean we are sovereign since there are many other areas where we have given up those powers to the EU.

So we need to Leave NATO on the same basis

Come on Mike, what was the last thing NATO forced the country to do? This week the Commission introduced a whole new BSE certification regime (2019/319), re-wrote the role of hearing officers in trade proceedings (2019/339), extended financial surveillance over a member state (2019/338), authorised an endocrine disruptor as a pesticide (2019/337), and ruled that Tequila can only come from Mexico (2019/335), amongst other things.

Saying you're fully sovereign because you can leave is like saying you're single because you can get divorced.