politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What can we expect from the planned Brexit inquiry
Comments
-
https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
Except that our formal exit is determined under EU law, so in your scenario it simply means that our law is out of step with EU law, under which we would still be members and bound by the obligations of such.Philip_Thompson said:
That confirms what I wrote. A Statutory Instrument may amend the definition, however if the statutory instrument fails to pass Parliament [it will but hypothetically] then exit day will remain as it is and the 1972 Act is repealed automatically.Benpointer said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?CarlottaVance said:
This has ss. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
Here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf0 -
Make the backstop apply to the whole of the UK.argyllrs said:If May gets MV3 through with the help of the ERG and Labour MP's, and with DUP against. Won't corbyn then table a VONC and get his General Election as the DUP could then scupper WA by doing so?.
If so then that leaves the ERG in a quandary; If they vote MV3 down, they risk losing brexit, if they help MV3 pass then some will surely lose their seats within the next six weeks?
Edit: and welcome. Where do you hail from?
(kidding)0 -
You are wrong. A Minister of the Crown makes the change by laying an SI before the Lords and Commons, the Lords and Commons then must pass it and can not amend or vary the SI they vote Aye or Nay. The SI takes effect if both Houses ratify it.Benpointer said:
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.TheWhiteRabbit said:I don't agree. The Minister "may" by regulation alter the exit day, but clearly it stays the same if such regulations are not duly made.
NickPalmer linked to a helpful explainer to how this works over the weekend.0 -
I’m not convinced that Rachel Sylvester is a objective authority any longer given that every one of her articles ends with a only just metaphorical “and May is an evil witch who deserves the blame for everything, ever.”. It’s pretty bloody tedious reading and must be even duller writing.Sean_F said:
Madder than Mad Jack McMad.CarlottaVance said:MADonis calls for another resignation:
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1110512425164513280
0 -
This conversation falls firmly with the category of ‘Only on PB’.Benpointer said:
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't agree. The Minister "may" by regulation alter the exit day, but clearly it stays the same if such regulations are not duly made.Benpointer said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.CarlottaVance said:
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.TheKitchenCabinet said:
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
Here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf0 -
Ah, so Parliament isn't sovereign. Good to know.IanB2 said:
Except that our formal exit is determined under EU law, so in your scenario it simply means that our law is out of step with EU law, under which we would still be members and bound by the obligations of such.Philip_Thompson said:
That confirms what I wrote. A Statutory Instrument may amend the definition, however if the statutory instrument fails to pass Parliament [it will but hypothetically] then exit day will remain as it is and the 1972 Act is repealed automatically.Benpointer said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?CarlottaVance said:
This has ss. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
Here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf0 -
It's what makes you keep coming back, isn't it?_Anazina_ said:
This conversation falls firmly with the category of ‘Only on PB’.Benpointer said:
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.0 -
The EU would consider us members, we would not and without the 1972 Act present to give supremacy to EU law then the law of the land would be that we are not. Under our constitution Parliament is sovereign over international law except where it derogates that it is not and that derogation would have been repealed.IanB2 said:Except that our formal exit is determined under EU law, so in your scenario it simply means that our law is out of step with EU law, under which we would still be members and bound by the obligations of such.
0 -
Fair point - if academic, since it will clearly pass unless there's suddenly a HoC majority for No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes a Minister may by regulations . . . that refers to the Statutory Instrument we are referring to. A change only occurs if the SI passes.Benpointer said:See section (4)
May did say on Monday that:
"The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.
So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.
Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit."0 -
You are confused. We are a member state of the EU because various of Her Majesty's governments have ratified the EU treaties. UK domestic law is irrelevant to that, except inasmuch as the treaties oblige us to align UK law with the EU's rules. If we don't, or if we repeal the 1972 Act or any other piece of EU-related legislation, that wouldn't stop us being a a Member State of the EU, it would simply put us in breach of the treaties (and might in the end get us thrown out, eventually).Philip_Thompson said:
It is because of our 1972 Act. If that is repealed we're out. Parliament is supreme and its derogation of supremacy in that Act would no long be there.RobD said:
I'd say membership of the EU is an area covered by EU treaty.Nigel_Foremain said:Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
0 -
Very low for both the Tories and Labour - people are fed up - and higher than I might have expected for TIGANO.Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
I read somewhere that the Chinese have built 25000km of high speed railway in the past 10 years.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Could well be completed before HS2 - or even CrossrailFoxy said:
Though this is an interesting piece. That Silk Road may well be reinvented by rail:Nigelb said:A very interesting article on Italy's BRI deal with China:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-s-Italian-advance-threatens-EU-unity
After Trieste, I wonder if China will try a port deal with Szczecin...
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1107290294368784384?s=19
0 -
We'd effectively be bound but without any real enforcement mehanism. Complete limbo.RobD said:
Ah, so Parliament isn't sovereign. Good to know.IanB2 said:
Except that our formal exit is determined under EU law, so in your scenario it simply means that our law is out of step with EU law, under which we would still be members and bound by the obligations of such.Philip_Thompson said:
That confirms what I wrote. A Statutory Instrument may amend the definition, however if the statutory instrument fails to pass Parliament [it will but hypothetically] then exit day will remain as it is and the 1972 Act is repealed automatically.Benpointer said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?CarlottaVance said:
This has ss. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
Here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf
Anyway, arbitrary since an SI extending the exit date would command a strong majority (even if taken to vote)0 -
Enjoy that thought.Philip_Thompson said:
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.CarlottaVance said:
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.0 -
A General Election would be interesting (I'm showing my PB credentials with that remark). It would show how much cut-through Brexit has made in the usual tribal polling. I'd expect a few very strange results.0
-
I'm having exactly the same discussion atm on Mumsnet tbf._Anazina_ said:
This conversation falls firmly with the category of ‘Only on PB’.Benpointer said:
May already effectively told the HoC yesterday that that will happen. I might be wrong but it's a Minister of the Crown not the HoC that make the change.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't agree. The Minister "may" by regulation alter the exit day, but clearly it stays the same if such regulations are not duly made.Benpointer said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.CarlottaVance said:
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:
"The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."
and
"(2) In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment."
Here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpga_20180016_en.pdf
0 -
Either May is wrong now, or the claim made by her government two years ago [oft-repeated here by Topping] that we were always sovereign as we could always repeal the 1972 Act was wrong. Both can't be correct.Benpointer said:
Fair point - if academic, since it will clearly pass unless there's suddenly a HoC majority for No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes a Minister may by regulations . . . that refers to the Statutory Instrument we are referring to. A change only occurs if the SI passes.Benpointer said:See section (4)
May did say on Monday that:
"The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.
So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.
Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit."
If the '72 Act is repealed we are out according to Parliamentary law if not international law and Parliamentary law would be supreme.0 -
ExactlyAndyJS said:
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.IanB2 said:
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.GarethoftheVale2 said:T
Large numbers of safe seats were no such thing within considerably less than living memory.
Newbury for example. Or possibly my favourite, hyper-marginal Somerton and Frome, 3 times held by the LDs with <1000 majority. Now "safe".
Not just LD implosions either - Romford was Labour in 1997, now Tory majority of nearly 14000
I suspect we may see some interesting results next time...0 -
Its all academic as Parliament will pass the SI.Recidivist said:
Enjoy that thought.Philip_Thompson said:
Not necessarily, the legal situation as it stands is a mess. EU law is only supreme because of the 1972 Act.CarlottaVance said:
This has confused a great many people, however, since, until the UK leaves the EU, UK law is subservient to EU law, it doesn't really matter what UK law says. EU law has been changed, so we are in the EU until the EU agrees we are out. If UK law isn't changed, it may well cause problems within the UK, but not internationally.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
Wasn't the "we were always sovereign" argument that we were sovereign because we could have always repealed the 1972 Act (and thus not be in the EU anymore) even before the Lisbon Treaty passed?
If the SI doesn't get through then as the law stands at 11pm on Friday we're out, the 1972 Act is repealed and because the Act is repealed Parliament will be supreme and if Parliament says we are out that will take priority over EU law since the EU law will have no standing without the 1972 Act to back it up.0 -
For Com Res it's a drop of 6% for Labour, and 4% for the Conservatives since the start of the year, to the benefit of TIG.WhisperingOracle said:
Very low for both the Tories and Labour - people are fed up - and higher than I might have thought for TIGANO.Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
Just a guess but their planning laws are probably a bit easier?anothernick said:
I read somewhere that the Chinese have built 25000km of high speed railway in the past 10 years.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Could well be completed before HS2 - or even CrossrailFoxy said:
Though this is an interesting piece. That Silk Road may well be reinvented by rail:Nigelb said:A very interesting article on Italy's BRI deal with China:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-s-Italian-advance-threatens-EU-unity
After Trieste, I wonder if China will try a port deal with Szczecin...
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1107290294368784384?s=190 -
No it fucking won't. (not you Carlotta i mean Chope). the EU will be in no mood to 're-negioate' and they know full well that this side of a GE there is NO majority for any tougher Brexit in the House anyway.CarlottaVance said:Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.....
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110556089110720519
The only way it works is a GE with a Hard Brexit leader, and that would be a disaster for the tory party,0 -
That is correct. There's been a big churn in seats between 2005 - 2017.JonCisBack said:
ExactlyAndyJS said:
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.IanB2 said:
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.GarethoftheVale2 said:T
Large numbers of safe seats were no such thing within considerably less than living memory.
Newbury for example. Or possibly my favourite, hyper-marginal Somerton and Frome, 3 times held by the LDs with <1000 majority. Now "safe".
Not just LD implosions either - Romford was Labour in 1997, now Tory majority of nearly 14000
I suspect we may see some interesting results next time...</p>0 -
That doesn't disagree with anything I wrote. I said all along the difference will be between domestic law and international law. It makes sense to have domestic law be the same as international law, which is what the 1972 Act provides for but once that is repealed then there would be a discrepancy and domestically Parliament is sovereign. Internationally it is not. Domestic law and international law would clash.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are confused. We are a member state of the EU because various of Her Majesty's governments have ratified the EU treaties. UK domestic law is irrelevant to that, except inasmuch as the treaties oblige us to align UK law with the EU's rules. If we don't, or if we repeal the 1972 Act or any other piece of EU-related legislation, that wouldn't stop us being a a Member State of the EU, it would simply put us in breach of the treaties (and might in the end get us thrown out, eventually).Philip_Thompson said:
It is because of our 1972 Act. If that is repealed we're out. Parliament is supreme and its derogation of supremacy in that Act would no long be there.RobD said:
I'd say membership of the EU is an area covered by EU treaty.Nigel_Foremain said:Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
Which is why this won't happen, it would be a horrible mess.0 -
Mr Back,
"I suspect we may see some interesting results next time..."
Great minds ... or perhaps not.0 -
Rachel Sylvester didn't write MADonis' tweetmatt said:
I’m not convinced that Rachel Sylvester is a objective authority any longer given that every one of her articles ends with a only just metaphorical “and May is an evil witch who deserves the blame for everything, ever.”. It’s pretty bloody tedious reading and must be even duller writing.Sean_F said:
Madder than Mad Jack McMad.CarlottaVance said:MADonis calls for another resignation:
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/11105124251645132800 -
Most UK persons seeking to enforce UK rights do so, under UK law, via the 1972 Act. They have rights in substance derived from the Treaties but on paper via the 1972 Act.Philip_Thompson said:
Either May is wrong now, or the claim made by her government two years ago [oft-repeated here by Topping] that we were always sovereign as we could always repeal the 1972 Act was wrong. Both can't be correct.Benpointer said:
Fair point - if academic, since it will clearly pass unless there's suddenly a HoC majority for No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes a Minister may by regulations . . . that refers to the Statutory Instrument we are referring to. A change only occurs if the SI passes.Benpointer said:See section (4)
May did say on Monday that:
"The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.
So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.
Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit."
If the '72 Act is repealed we are out according to Parliamentary law if not international law and Parliamentary law would be supreme.
Repeal of that Act would rid them of those rights whilst simultaneously not having the effect of removing us from the Treaty. Under the terms of those Treaties we are required to give effect to them, which would mean those parties with the benefit of the Treaty would then scramble to compel the UK to implement it.
EDIT: Seen your last post which makes more sense?0 -
I don't see what we've got to lose.Slackbladder said:
No it fucking won't. (not you Carlotta i mean Chope). the EU will be in no mood to 're-negioate' and they know full well that this side of a GE there is NO majority for any tougher Brexit in the House anyway.CarlottaVance said:Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.....
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110556089110720519
The only way it works is a GE with a Hard Brexit leader, and that would be a disaster for the tory party,0 -
Briefing note from DEEU on the exit date SI.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/789034/LEGISLATING_FOR_THE_EXTENSION_OF_A50.pdf
In short EU law takes priority over domestic law, but it would be a mess if the SI is not passed.
Draft SI
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111184622/contents0 -
Thought betfair had given up on replying to me but I have now received this.
Hi Christopher
Thanks for getting in touch.
Regards your query for 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended .
I t's confusing but the extension (either way) is conditional on approval/non-approval by the house of commons. We'll know for certain in 3 days time. Unless something astonishing occurs, it will indeed be extended but there is still a chance this could go in another direction.
Our traders are keeping a close eye on this and have been made aware of the points raised (which we appeciate).
Not sure I agree: there is conditional extension to 22 May and basically otherwise it is 12 April. It could be said to be worded as conditional with the condition being everything other than the condition for 22 May extension. This could easily have been worded as unconditional extension to 8 April with conditional further extension to 22 May and I am not sure they should distinguish between two such different wordings with identical effect.
Seems a pretty fine line they are drawing here but at least this is comprehensible reason and it is them that decide on the rules and interpretation.0 -
It was her article which generated the basis for it and was seen as a authority on what is alleged to have been happening.CarlottaVance said:
Rachel Sylvester didn't write MADonis' tweetmatt said:
I’m not convinced that Rachel Sylvester is a objective authority any longer given that every one of her articles ends with a only just metaphorical “and May is an evil witch who deserves the blame for everything, ever.”. It’s pretty bloody tedious reading and must be even duller writing.Sean_F said:
Madder than Mad Jack McMad.CarlottaVance said:MADonis calls for another resignation:
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/11105124251645132800 -
Yes but the original question was whether the Article 50 notice period (and therefore our membership of the EU) had been extended beyond the 29th March. The answer is yes, irrespective of anything parliament now does.Philip_Thompson said:
That doesn't disagree with anything I wrote. I said all along the difference will be between domestic law and international law. It makes sense to have domestic law be the same as international law, which is what the 1972 Act provides for but once that is repealed then there would be a discrepancy and domestically Parliament is sovereign. Internationally it is not. Domestic law and international law would clash.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are confused. We are a member state of the EU because various of Her Majesty's governments have ratified the EU treaties. UK domestic law is irrelevant to that, except inasmuch as the treaties oblige us to align UK law with the EU's rules. If we don't, or if we repeal the 1972 Act or any other piece of EU-related legislation, that wouldn't stop us being a a Member State of the EU, it would simply put us in breach of the treaties (and might in the end get us thrown out, eventually).Philip_Thompson said:
It is because of our 1972 Act. If that is repealed we're out. Parliament is supreme and its derogation of supremacy in that Act would no long be there.RobD said:
I'd say membership of the EU is an area covered by EU treaty.Nigel_Foremain said:Please don't exaggerate, it undermines your contributions. UK law, (or any law of the 28 sovereign nations that make up the EU) is not subservient to EU law, only areas that are covered under treaty, and particularly those aligned to trade . Many of these we would still have to adhere to even if we crash out with no deal as long as we wish to sell stuff to the remaining 27
Which is why this won't happen, it would be a horrible mess.0 -
High score for "Others" - Brexit Party starting to take off?Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
I repeat David Davis' comment because it is true. We are and always were sovereign. If I am a member of a golf club ( *shudder* ) I can leave at any time. That said, if I have signed up to certain conditions as a member it would be a matter for the club to determine whether I was in breach of any bye-laws by stomping out (as is my right). At that point they would either throw me out or come after me in law if something I had signed meant that there was a commitment to pay or do something.Philip_Thompson said:
Either May is wrong now, or the claim made by her government two years ago [oft-repeated here by Topping] that we were always sovereign as we could always repeal the 1972 Act was wrong. Both can't be correct.Benpointer said:
Fair point - if academic, since it will clearly pass unless there's suddenly a HoC majority for No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes a Minister may by regulations . . . that refers to the Statutory Instrument we are referring to. A change only occurs if the SI passes.Benpointer said:See section (4)
May did say on Monday that:
"The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.
So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.
Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit."
If the '72 Act is repealed we are out according to Parliamentary law if not international law and Parliamentary law would be supreme.0 -
The Lords ARE involved. Under Schedule 7 of the Withdrawal Act, regulations changing Exit Day must be approved by both the Commons and the Lords.Richard_Nabavi said:
The change in date in international and EU law has already happened as a consequence of the exchange of letters between the government and the EU. What you are referring to is the requirement in domestic UK law to align the domestic legislative position with that. If we were to fail to do so, we'd be in a legal mess but the date wouldn't change.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
AFAIK the Lords aren't involved - the UK bit is a statutory instrument so the minister decrees it and the Commons rubber-stamp it.0 -
Plus other golf clubs might be wary of taking you on in the future - or even letting you play - if you had left under a serious cloud.TOPPING said:
I repeat David Davis' comment because it is true. We are and always were sovereign. If I am a member of a golf club ( *shudder* ) I can leave at any time. That said, if I have signed up to certain conditions as a member it would be a matter for the club to determine whether I was in breach of any bye-laws by stomping out (as is my right). At that point they would either throw me out or come after me in law if something I had signed meant that there was a commitment to pay or do something.Philip_Thompson said:
Either May is wrong now, or the claim made by her government two years ago [oft-repeated here by Topping] that we were always sovereign as we could always repeal the 1972 Act was wrong. Both can't be correct.Benpointer said:
Fair point - if academic, since it will clearly pass unless there's suddenly a HoC majority for No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes a Minister may by regulations . . . that refers to the Statutory Instrument we are referring to. A change only occurs if the SI passes.Benpointer said:See section (4)
May did say on Monday that:
"The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.
So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.
Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit."
If the '72 Act is repealed we are out according to Parliamentary law if not international law and Parliamentary law would be supreme.
0 -
Ah right, thanks.prh47bridge said:
The Lords ARE involved. Under Schedule 7 of the Withdrawal Act, regulations changing Exit Day must be approved by both the Commons and the Lords.Richard_Nabavi said:
The change in date in international and EU law has already happened as a consequence of the exchange of letters between the government and the EU. What you are referring to is the requirement in domestic UK law to align the domestic legislative position with that. If we were to fail to do so, we'd be in a legal mess but the date wouldn't change.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
AFAIK the Lords aren't involved - the UK bit is a statutory instrument so the minister decrees it and the Commons rubber-stamp it.0 -
0
-
Maybe but would presumably include the Greens and maybe SNP, PlaidGIN1138 said:
High score for "Others" - Brexit Party starting to take off?Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
Interesting. I think I understand their logic.crandles said:Thought betfair had given up on replying to me but I have now received this.
Hi Christopher
Thanks for getting in touch.
Regards your query for 'UK - Brexit - Will Article 50 be extended .
I t's confusing but the extension (either way) is conditional on approval/non-approval by the house of commons. We'll know for certain in 3 days time. Unless something astonishing occurs, it will indeed be extended but there is still a chance this could go in another direction.
Our traders are keeping a close eye on this and have been made aware of the points raised (which we appeciate).
Not sure I agree: there is conditional extension to 22 May and basically otherwise it is 12 April. It could be said to be worded as conditional with the condition being everything other than the condition for 22 May extension. This could easily have been worded as unconditional extension to 8 April with conditional further extension to 22 May and I am not sure they should distinguish between two such different wordings with identical effect.
Seems a pretty fine line they are drawing here but at least this is comprehensible reason and it is them that decide on the rules and interpretation.
Their logic seems to be that if by 11pm on 29 March we ratify the deal we get an extension until 22 May.
If by 11pm on 29 March we have not ratified we get an extension until 12 April.
However if we revoke between now and 11pm on 29 March then neither condition will have been met. We will neither have ratified the deal, nor failed to ratify the deal.0 -
I would have hoped an experienced legislator in the Upper House had done due diligence.....oh, I see your problem....matt said:
It was her article which generated the basis for it and was seen as a authority on what is alleged to have been happening.CarlottaVance said:
Rachel Sylvester didn't write MADonis' tweetmatt said:
I’m not convinced that Rachel Sylvester is a objective authority any longer given that every one of her articles ends with a only just metaphorical “and May is an evil witch who deserves the blame for everything, ever.”. It’s pretty bloody tedious reading and must be even duller writing.Sean_F said:
Madder than Mad Jack McMad.CarlottaVance said:MADonis calls for another resignation:
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/11105124251645132800 -
The Opera Ain't Over Until The Fat Comely Lady SingsRichard_Nabavi said:0 -
I seem to recall we had a referendum about the voting system...Sean_F said:
That is correct. There's been a big churn in seats between 2005 - 2017.JonCisBack said:
ExactlyAndyJS said:
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.IanB2 said:
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.GarethoftheVale2 said:T
Large numbers of safe seats were no such thing within considerably less than living memory.
Newbury for example. Or possibly my favourite, hyper-marginal Somerton and Frome, 3 times held by the LDs with <1000 majority. Now "safe".
Not just LD implosions either - Romford was Labour in 1997, now Tory majority of nearly 14000
I suspect we may see some interesting results next time...</p>
Nottingham East was tory in the 80s. Now 20K Lab Maj, only smallish boundary changes. The OP about disparate constituency sizes is the only thing which needs fixing. Must be pretty soul destroying to have worked at the boundary commission in the last few years, all that hard work always criticised and not even enacted for way too long now.
Wales' over-representation is shocking
0 -
... Oh and how could I have forgotten TIG?logical_song said:
Maybe but would presumably include the Greens and maybe SNP, PlaidGIN1138 said:
High score for "Others" - Brexit Party starting to take off?Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
Probably noise, Opinium had them at 4%, MORI at 2%.GIN1138 said:
High score for "Others" - Brexit Party starting to take off?Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
Yes. And they've also got rather good at it.Benpointer said:
Just a guess but their planning laws are probably a bit easier?anothernick said:
I read somewhere that the Chinese have built 25000km of high speed railway in the past 10 years.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Could well be completed before HS2 - or even CrossrailFoxy said:
Though this is an interesting piece. That Silk Road may well be reinvented by rail:Nigelb said:A very interesting article on Italy's BRI deal with China:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-s-Italian-advance-threatens-EU-unity
After Trieste, I wonder if China will try a port deal with Szczecin...
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1107290294368784384?s=190 -
They are in the topline figures, 9%.logical_song said:
... Oh and how could I have forgotten TIG?logical_song said:
Maybe but would presumably include the Greens and maybe SNP, PlaidGIN1138 said:
High score for "Others" - Brexit Party starting to take off?Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
TIG is on 9%?logical_song said:
... Oh and how could I have forgotten TIG?logical_song said:
Maybe but would presumably include the Greens and maybe SNP, PlaidGIN1138 said:
High score for "Others" - Brexit Party starting to take off?Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.0 -
All sorts of once-safe Conservative seats are now safely Labour, and vice versa.JonCisBack said:
I seem to recall we had a referendum about the voting system...Sean_F said:
That is correct. There's been a big churn in seats between 2005 - 2017.JonCisBack said:
ExactlyAndyJS said:
Why is a seat safe in the first place? Because the voters have decided to make it so.IanB2 said:
If you live in a safe seat and your vote is wasted, it doesn't matter how big or small it is.GarethoftheVale2 said:T
Large numbers of safe seats were no such thing within considerably less than living memory.
Newbury for example. Or possibly my favourite, hyper-marginal Somerton and Frome, 3 times held by the LDs with <1000 majority. Now "safe".
Not just LD implosions either - Romford was Labour in 1997, now Tory majority of nearly 14000
I suspect we may see some interesting results next time...</p>
Nottingham East was tory in the 80s. Now 20K Lab Maj, only smallish boundary changes. The OP about disparate constituency sizes is the only thing which needs fixing. Must be pretty soul destroying to have worked at the boundary commission in the last few years, all that hard work always criticised and not even enacted for way too long now.
Wales' over-representation is shocking0 -
Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?0
-
Things must be real confusing in Arizona with summer time in some parts of the state but not others?CarlottaVance said:Time's changing....or not....
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/11105623013405409280 -
Welcome to the future:Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
The European Commission proposed in September ending the practice after an EU-wide opinion survey showed a large majority in favour of doing so. The survey generated 4.6 million responses, with 84 percent of respondents wanting to end seasonal clock changes.
Critics say the survey was dominated by Germans, who made up 70 percent of the respondents.
0 -
Are we going to leave?Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
Laura clinging to straws methinks0 -
It would be up to us (whether or not we're in the EU).Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
AIUI, the new rule gives EU states a choice to stay as they are, or adopt permanent summer or permanent winter time. Which I suspect will cause more of a dog's breakfast than there was before it was standardised!0 -
Good piece Cyclefree (as always).
Now let's talk about the real threat to President Donald Trump: his current plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, via the Justice Department and the Courts.
If he succeeds in having the ACA struck down, then I cannot see how is reelected in 2020. The ACA is broadly popular. But much worse, the people who would celebrate its repeal would vote Republican anyway. While those who benefit from it include a lot of new Republicans.
Worse, if the ACA is struck down in the courts, there will certainly be nothing to replace it. Tens of millions of people will lose affordable health care. That is political dynamite.
So, why do it?
Because it's Obama's law.0 -
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
0 -
YouGov done today:
Would a GE help with Brexit or not?
Probably help 14%
Probably make things even worse 44%
Not much difference 28% (DK 14%)
0 -
You're right. From p68 of the EU WA 2018prh47bridge said:
The Lords ARE involved. Under Schedule 7 of the Withdrawal Act, regulations changing Exit Day must be approved by both the Commons and the Lords.Richard_Nabavi said:
The change in date in international and EU law has already happened as a consequence of the exchange of letters between the government and the EU. What you are referring to is the requirement in domestic UK law to align the domestic legislative position with that. If we were to fail to do so, we'd be in a legal mess but the date wouldn't change.TheKitchenCabinet said:I am showing my total ignorance here but is it not the case that the change from March 29th as Brexit day has to be approved by both the Commons and the Lords?
In which case, why is it so certain that the date will change? There are not that many days to go so there has to be a risk procedure is hijacked to let the clock run out.
Again, apologies if I have completely missed the boat.
AFAIK the Lords aren't involved - the UK bit is a statutory instrument so the minister decrees it and the Commons rubber-stamp it.
Power to amend the definition of “exit day”
14 A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
0 -
Miss Vance/Mr. Tweed, cheers (I remember hearing that German comment earlier).0
-
Philip_Thompson said:
And then we get to 11pm on 29 March and the decision adopted is now clear that condition for extension to 8 April is met, therefore? But the whole brexit situation has evaporated, so is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?crandles said:
Their logic seems to be that if by 11pm on 29 March we ratify the deal we get an extension until 22 May.
If by 11pm on 29 March we have not ratified we get an extension until 12 April.
However if we revoke between now and 11pm on 29 March then neither condition will have been met. We will neither have ratified the deal, nor failed to ratify the deal.0 -
The way things are headed it will be permanent summer time for Remainers and permanent winter time for Leavers.Harris_Tweed said:
It would be up to us (whether or not we're in the EU).Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
AIUI, the new rule gives EU states a choice to stay as they are, or adopt permanent summer or permanent winter time. Which I suspect will cause more of a dog's breakfast than there was before it was standardised!0 -
https://www.facebook.com/kit.malthouse/videos/2261698580735799/
Kit Malthouse is correct to oppose a long extension. Liberal snowflakes will never meet us with a compromise. They want to wreck the whole thing. No deal.
0 -
Oh god. Has DFDS Liam Fox been wearing shorts in the clubhouse again?Benpointer said:
Plus other golf clubs might be wary of taking you on in the future - or even letting you play - if you had left under a serious cloud.TOPPING said:
I repeat David Davis' comment because it is true. We are and always were sovereign. If I am a member of a golf club ( *shudder* ) I can leave at any time. That said, if I have signed up to certain conditions as a member it would be a matter for the club to determine whether I was in breach of any bye-laws by stomping out (as is my right). At that point they would either throw me out or come after me in law if something I had signed meant that there was a commitment to pay or do something.Philip_Thompson said:
Either May is wrong now, or the claim made by her government two years ago [oft-repeated here by Topping] that we were always sovereign as we could always repeal the 1972 Act was wrong. Both can't be correct.Benpointer said:
Fair point - if academic, since it will clearly pass unless there's suddenly a HoC majority for No Deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes a Minister may by regulations . . . that refers to the Statutory Instrument we are referring to. A change only occurs if the SI passes.Benpointer said:See section (4)
May did say on Monday that:
"The Council’s Conclusions were subsequently turned into a legal Decision, with which the UK agreed, and which came into force last Friday.
So while the Government has today laid a Statutory Instrument, which will be debated later this week, to reflect this in our own domestic legislation, the date for our departure from the EU has now changed in international law.
Were the House not to pass the Statutory Instrument, it would cause legal confusion and damaging uncertainty, but it would not have any effect on the date of our exit."
If the '72 Act is repealed we are out according to Parliamentary law if not international law and Parliamentary law would be supreme.
(Disgraced Former Defence Secretary, not a North Sea ferry)0 -
Speccie pissed at Chas in Cuba:
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1110567731408056321
I suspect the FO may be playing a longer game...0 -
All EEA members adopt the current model of putting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March and putting them back on the last Sunday in October - bar Iceland. This would end in 2021 - assuming the Council of Ministers approves the change.Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
As Wikipedia states:
Daylight saving time: Norway follows the European Union in this matter!
Russia abolished the clock changes and moved to permanent 'summer time' a few years ago. The US and Canada put their clocks forward on the first Sunday in March - thus avoiding the madness we in the UK have now where it is light at 6am (before most people are up) but dark in evening rush hour.
We would presumably have to decide whether to have BST all year round or GMT all year round - the former would mean it gets light at 11am in the Highlands of Scotland in December and the latter would mean we have daylight at 3am from May to July. but it would get dark at 8pm.
Of course Scotland could have its own timezone - and stay om GMT all year?0 -
I think she simply over-interpreted what Sammy Wilson said. He wasn't advocating a one-year extension, he was saying that even that wouldn't be as bad as signing up to the deal and backstop.Benpointer said:
(It's probably a false dichotomy anyway, of course).0 -
IANAL but I imagine no if we revoke before 11pm on 29 March then the Article 50 period is over. Thus it's not extended.crandles said:
And then we get to 11pm on 29 March and the decision adopted is now clear that condition for extension to 8 April is met, therefore? But the whole brexit situation has evaporated, so is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?Philip_Thompson said:
Their logic seems to be that if by 11pm on 29 March we ratify the deal we get an extension until 22 May.
If by 11pm on 29 March we have not ratified we get an extension until 12 April.
However if we revoke between now and 11pm on 29 March then neither condition will have been met. We will neither have ratified the deal, nor failed to ratify the deal.0 -
Yes, that sounds right.Philip_Thompson said:
IANAL but I imagine no if we revoke before 11pm on 29 March then the Article 50 period is over. Thus it's not extended.crandles said:
And then we get to 11pm on 29 March and the decision adopted is now clear that condition for extension to 8 April is met, therefore? But the whole brexit situation has evaporated, so is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?Philip_Thompson said:
Their logic seems to be that if by 11pm on 29 March we ratify the deal we get an extension until 22 May.
If by 11pm on 29 March we have not ratified we get an extension until 12 April.
However if we revoke between now and 11pm on 29 March then neither condition will have been met. We will neither have ratified the deal, nor failed to ratify the deal.0 -
Deleted.0
-
Come on! Charles will be King one day and he just wants an insight into post-brexit BritainCarlottaVance said:Speccie pissed at Chas in Cuba:
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1110567731408056321
I suspect the FO may be playing a longer game...0 -
I think continental Europe still moves back an hour the last Saturday in September? It's only the UK and Ireland that make the change in October. Or maybe it's changed in recent years?brendan16 said:
All EEA members adopt the current model of putting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March and putting them back on the last Sunday in October - bar Iceland.Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
0 -
Interesting....Jolyon on the defensive...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1110430164851265536
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/11105663148196208640 -
Page 35 is interesting on the Independents - they are eating the LibDem vote, otherwise similar numbers from Con and Lab.Sean_F said:https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LML-Mar19-Final-Tables.pdf
Yet another Com Res poll:-
Con 33%, Lab 33%, TIG 9%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 7%, Others 10%.
The rest are a load of leading questions.
Agree on the leading questions!0 -
The proposal is that the changing of the clocks would end for all member states - who would then have to pick a permanent timezone (e.g. for us BST or GMT). Norway and Switzerland follow EU policies - so we presumably would follow in or out of the EU?.Harris_Tweed said:
It would be up to us (whether or not we're in the EU).Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
AIUI, the new rule gives EU states a choice to stay as they are, or adopt permanent summer or permanent winter time. Which I suspect will cause more of a dog's breakfast than there was before it was standardised!
0 -
When he's dealing with PM Corbyn?Fenman said:
Come on! Charles will be King one day and he just wants an insight into post-brexit BritainCarlottaVance said:Speccie pissed at Chas in Cuba:
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1110567731408056321
I suspect the FO may be playing a longer game...0 -
Basically he's saying his case was heard by a biased judge and the appeal judge is also biased. He's as deranged as the Brexiteers who blame the civil service for reality.CarlottaVance said:Interesting....Jolyon on the defensive...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1110430164851265536
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/11105663148196208640 -
The Regulations to change the leaving date in UK law are referred to within the programme motion setting out the indicative vote procedure, so presumably are already tabled.
Edit/tomorrow's business looks like it will deal with the Regulations and also debate the indicative options; the programme motion also limits scope for procedural disruption.
Indicative options to be tabled by members and selected by the Speaker.
Voting is between 7-7.30pm with results announced immediately.
Time on Monday 1st is set aside to continue the process.0 -
I will admit that is a possible conclusion. However the EU and EU council decisions still exist and the existing adopted decision says it is extended in these circumstances of the deal not being ratified. Note also that it is possible to extend deadline before deadline is reached, extension is independent and can come before usage of the extension. So why doesn't the adopted decision still extend the deadline after a revoke decision (which makes reaching the deadline cease to have any effect)? There still seems to me to be an awkward question of:Philip_Thompson said:
IANAL but I imagine no if we revoke before 11pm on 29 March then the Article 50 period is over. Thus it's not extended.crandles said:
And then we get to 11pm on 29 March and the decision adopted is now clear that condition for extension to 8 April is met, therefore? But the whole brexit situation has evaporated, so is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?Philip_Thompson said:
Their logic seems to be that if by 11pm on 29 March we ratify the deal we get an extension until 22 May.
If by 11pm on 29 March we have not ratified we get an extension until 12 April.
However if we revoke between now and 11pm on 29 March then neither condition will have been met. We will neither have ratified the deal, nor failed to ratify the deal.
Is the deadline extended but not used or does situation simply not exist or something else?0 -
The Max Bialystock of the legal profession.Richard_Nabavi said:
Basically he's saying his case was heard by a biased judge and the appeal judge is also biased. He's as deranged as the Brexiteers who blame the civil service for reality.CarlottaVance said:Interesting....Jolyon on the defensive...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1110430164851265536
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/11105663148196208640 -
I'm sure he's looking forward to vilifying the Public Enquiry ("Judge Led" - Ed Miliband)Richard_Nabavi said:
Basically he's saying his case was heard by a biased judge and the appeal judge is also biased. He's as deranged as the Brexiteers who blame the civil service for reality.CarlottaVance said:Interesting....Jolyon on the defensive...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1110430164851265536
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/11105663148196208640 -
No - definitely the last Sunday in October which is when airlines also introduce their winter schedules in Europe. This has been the position EU wide since 1998 - before then it was September on the continent and October in the UK and Ireland - and is enforced by an EU directive.anothernick said:
I think continental Europe still moves back an hour the last Saturday in September? It's only the UK and Ireland that make the change in October. Or maybe it's changed in recent years?brendan16 said:
All EEA members adopt the current model of putting the clocks forward one hour on the last Sunday in March and putting them back on the last Sunday in October - bar Iceland.Morris_Dancer said:Would that end of changing the clocks apply to the UK?
0 -
Yes, very good header. With inquiries I have noticed that so often they are a poor substitute for the law. When Hillsborough victims, or Grenfell victims, say they want justice, do they mean they want a prolonged inquiry to get to the bottom of things? No they do not. They want to see some people banged up.rcs1000 said:Good piece Cyclefree (as always).
Now let's talk about the real threat to President Donald Trump: his current plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, via the Justice Department and the Courts.
If he succeeds in having the ACA struck down, then I cannot see how is reelected in 2020. The ACA is broadly popular. But much worse, the people who would celebrate its repeal would vote Republican anyway. While those who benefit from it include a lot of new Republicans.
Worse, if the ACA is struck down in the courts, there will certainly be nothing to replace it. Tens of millions of people will lose affordable health care. That is political dynamite.
So, why do it?
Because it's Obama's law.
And it's so ghastly and pathetic to accept but I am afraid you are quite right about the thing that drives Trump above all else. Hatred for Barack Obama. If Obama came out tomorrow for banning Muslims from entering the US, Trump would immediately be proposing that funds for the Wall were diverted to a massive mosque building program in all American towns and cities.0 -
I would say a contract that gets extended but which is then immediately terminated prior to the original termination date has still been extended.
Thus there is at least some support for the proposition that (once the SI has been passed) A50 has been extended whether or not revoked prior to 30 March.0 -
There's always someone, isn't there. Reminds me of a professional case where the defendant, an old acquaintance,wanted me to speak up for him. I looked at what he'd done, what he was presenting as his reasoning and advised him to plead guilty and apologise. He refused to do so, was found guilty, fined and subsequently struck off by the professional disciplinary people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Basically he's saying his case was heard by a biased judge and the appeal judge is also biased. He's as deranged as the Brexiteers who blame the civil service for reality.CarlottaVance said:Interesting....Jolyon on the defensive...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1110430164851265536
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1110566314819620864
If he'd taken my advice he'd have been fined by the Court, but he might well not have been struck off.0 -
A50 itself doesn't depend on our domestic law and has already been extended. The SI just brings our statute book into line with that.TheWhiteRabbit said:I would say a contract that gets extended but which is then immediately terminated prior to the original termination date has still been extended.
Thus there is at least some support for the proposition that (once the SI has been passed) A50 has been extended whether or not revoked prior to 30 March.0 -
Will Bercow exclude the May deal from the list of options?
(On basis Commons has already rejected it).0 -
This story just gets weirder and weirder...
Prosecutors have dropped all charges against US actor Jussie Smollett for allegedly staging a racist and homophobic attack, his lawyers say.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-477115350 -
So Brexit could finally be decided on April Fools' Day. In no way would this be appropriate.IanB2 said:The Regulations to change the leaving date in UK law are referred to within the programme motion setting out the indicative vote procedure, so presumably are already tabled.
Edit/tomorrow's business looks like it will deal with the Regulations and also debate the indicative options; the programme motion also limits scope for procedural disruption.
Indicative options to be tabled by members and selected by the Speaker.
Voting is between 7-7.30pm with results announced immediately.
Time on Monday 1st is set aside to continue the process.0 -
They are not decisions, its simply an indicative process. So no (or at least, not for that reason).MikeL said:Will Bercow exclude the May deal from the list of options?
(On basis Commons has already rejected it).
It will be interesting to see what process Bercow uses to select the options and what the format might be for submitting them. Best case, groups of MPs supporting each of the recognised principal options (as per the BBC) will get together and work them up into proposals. Worst case dozens of individual MPs will send in every idea under the sun, all written and formatted differently, and the Speaker will have to try and sort some sense from it all.0 -
Afternoon all
NZ changed its clocks last weekend to move into winter time so it's 12 hours for one week before we go forward and it becomes 11 hours for the duration of the Northern summer (or Southern winter if you prefer).
I can't understand all this talk of a GE - no one can seriously believe that will help. IF we agree a long extension or revoke A50 I could see an argument for it but now, at this time, a waste of time, effort and micro-analysis of polls.
My thought on A50 was that the extension to 12/4 still needed to pass the UK Parliament as other legislation had been predicated or had named 29/3 as the day we leave the EU. If we pass the WA A50 ends and we move into the PD and other areas. If we revoke, A50 ends but it can be re-instigated as and when we like so for me there's little difference between revocation and extension apart from the fact revocation would allow for fresh negotiation to create a more acceptable WA (acceptable to the UK Commons that is).
None of these "indicative votes" matter - for all the legislature claims to have "seized control" it hasn't. The Executive isn't obliged to take any notice of these votes though it may be politically expedient so to do. We still have the WA, leaving without a WA or revocation or (perhaps) asking for a much longer extension. The latter two mean we will have to hold the EU Parliamentary elections, the former two mean we don't.
Holding an election doesn't mean you have to contest it - perhaps, given they are campaigning for and supportive of us leaving the EU, the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP might choose not to fight the election and argue they have better things to do.0 -
Mr. Urquhart, that's white privilege for you.0
-
At this rate the House of Commons could gradually start developing a taste for actually doing its job.williamglenn said:0 -
Not so. If you reject the backstop on principle and correctly assess that No Deal will screw Northern Ireland even more and considerably more than the South, you are more or less left with extension. Thing is, you can't admit to it.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think she simply over-interpreted what Sammy Wilson said. He wasn't advocating a one-year extension, he was saying that even that wouldn't be as bad as signing up to the deal and backstop.Benpointer said:
(It's probably a false dichotomy anyway, of course).0 -
I presume CNN will now spend 24/7 talking about how it raises more questions than it answers....Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Urquhart, that's white privilege for you.
0 -
0
