Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

I voted reluctant remain as there’s plenty wrong with the EU but I was suspicious of what leaving could bring.

 

I would vote again. I’d vote remain again, still plenty wrong with the EU, but I’ve now had plenty of time to have a good look at the shower of cheating shite that want to take us in a different direction. They are not good people.

I’d be a more positive remain vote than last time.

I suspect the country as a whole could easily still vote leave for a variety of bizarre reasons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Unless I'm missing something, surely he has an easy way out? 

If they offer an alternative delay, he either has to accept it or if he doesn't then Parliament can vote to accept it instead?

So he asks them to offer a one week extension instead of three months, solely to get the legislation through, they offer that, he accepts. Benn Act satisfied, Parliament has no say on the matter and the road is ended.

nope, Benn act says the length too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

nope, Benn act says the length too

Quote

 

If MPs haven’t approved a deal in a meaningful vote, or approved leaving the EU without a deal by 19 October, then the prime  minister must send a letter (specifically worded in the Act) to the president of the European Council which seeks an extension to Article 50 until 31 January 2020. If the EU agrees to the date, then the prime minister should also agree.

If the EU proposes an alternative date, then the prime minister should agree to it, unless MPs do not vote for a motion – within two days – which approves the date suggested by the EU.

The Act does not stop the prime minister from agreeing an extension to Article 50 himself.

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/benn-act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I missing?

He had to ask for a delay to 31th Jan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Unless I'm missing something, surely he has an easy way out? 

If they offer an alternative delay, he either has to accept it or if he doesn't then Parliament can vote to accept it instead?

So he asks them to offer a one week extension instead of three months, solely to get the legislation through, they offer that, he accepts. Benn Act satisfied, Parliament has no say on the matter and the road is ended.

Isn't that covered by the Padfield/frustration stuff that legal twitter has been discussing in relation to the Gov's shenanigans, i.e. it would be working against the Act and the intention of the Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StefanAVFC said:

What am I missing?

He had to ask for a delay to 31th Jan.

And if they say "no dice, how about this date instead?" then he can accept or refuse. If he accepts, it's sorted. If he refuses, Parliament get a say.

So if they say "how about November 3rd instead?" The act allows him to accept or refuse that date.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

And if they say "no dice, how about this date instead?" then he can accept or refuse. If he accepts, it's sorted. If he refuses, Parliament get a say.

So if they say "how about November 3rd instead?" The act allows him to accept or refuse that date.

Seeing how his grand plan was to write 3 letters, I doubt he's that clever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Isn't that covered by the Padfield/frustration stuff that legal twitter has been discussing in relation to the Gov's shenanigans, i.e. it would be working against the Act and the intention of the Act.

If he hadn't reached agreement on a deal, then I expect that would be the case. 

But he can now, in good faith (or as close to good faith as Johnson can realistically get) say that he just needs a short extension to pass the necessary legislation to get the deal through. 

If the intention of the Act is to prevent no-deal, is trying to pass legislation for a deal frustrating the purpose of the Act in any way? At least in the eyes of a judge having to make a legal ruling on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different topic, the childishness of sending 3 letters is absurd.

at least 35% of people in this country want this man as our leader

We deserve the shit we're in

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Xela said:

I voted to remain. If there was a 2nd referendum I wouldn't vote again. The behaviour of all parties in this process has switched me off from ever taking an interest in politics again. 

It's weird. It's almost as if ripping up the economic and legal order of the country, in a way that half the people who live there don't want isn't a straightforward, overnight process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

If he hadn't reached agreement on a deal, then I expect that would be the case. 

But he can now, in good faith (or as close to good faith as Johnson can realistically get) say that he just needs a short extension to pass the necessary legislation to get the deal through. 

If the intention of the Act is to prevent no-deal, is trying to pass legislation for a deal frustrating the purpose of the Act in any way? At least in the eyes of a judge having to make a legal ruling on it?

I see what you're getting at and perhaps you're right but I think there are a couple of things to consider:

It's not a deal yet as the necessary legislation is not a mere formality but a potential stumbling block before what has been agreed by the Gov and the EU becomes a deal by way of legislation and ratification - thus the good faith bit for a 'short extension just to pass legislation' doesn't really hold;

As you've quoted from the Institute for Gov paper, the Act had a deadline of today for approving a deal or approving a no deal in order for the requirement of the Prime Minister seeking an extension to 31st Jan to not have to kick in. Yes, it also talks about the EU not agreeing to it and proposing alternative dates but I think the journey to that place would be important for the sake of any court case and any view of whether the PM had not properly complied. Given that the A50 process has the bit about 'in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements', I think the EU would be quite wary of being complicit in something that may be deemed to fall foul of that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

On a different topic, the childishness of sending 3 letters is absurd.

at least 35% of people in this country want this man as our leader

We deserve the shit we're in

I doubt that many people want this man as our leader but what’s the alternative? Jeremy Corbyn?

Edited by Vive_La_Villa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Possible future challenges to the WABs:

 

Given those are not changes that have been agreed by the EU, would the Commons passing such an amendment be all that different to the Brady Amendment nonsense of May's DWA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

They did then refer to a million ( being claimed by organisers) and showed quite a lot of arial footage 

Later in the bulletin yes. Huw Edwards' initial 'headline comment' was 'thousands'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I doubt that many people want this man as our leader but what’s the alternative? Jeremy Corbyn?

Gets my vote. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I doubt that many people want this man as our leader but what’s the alternative? Jeremy Corbyn?

I wouldn’t want either as the leader. In a straight binary choice between the two, I can’t get my head around people that would choose Johnson. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â