The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

I’m pretty sure that splitting them would be pointless anyway, since according to the Withdrawal Act 13(1)(b),  the House needs to approve both parts – if the future declaration isn't passed as acceptable then the Withdrawal Act cannot become law.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/

Looks like they are splitting it, which if it passes tomorrow would mean the extension until May 22nd would apply and then they hope and pray they can somehow get the votes for the political declaration and all subsequent legislation passed in the next eight weeks.

Good luck with that.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Looks like they are splitting it, which if it passes tomorrow would mean the extension until May 22nd would apply and then they hope and pray they can somehow get the votes for the political declaration and all subsequent legislation passed in the next eight weeks.

Good luck with that.

So tomorrow's vote is nothing more than an 'indicative' one?

Edit: Yes, I know it satisfies the requirements of the EU for the sake of the longer extension but it does nothing, as you say, with respect to the domestic ratification of the WA.

Edited March 28, 2019 by snowychap

[Chindie]

Splitting the WA out from the declaration is a complete waste of time. It isn't going to change anything, and it's entirely arguable you can't split them.

Plus the Withdrawal Agreement is the bit they all hate. Chopping it onto your it's own thing isn't changing anything.

[snowychap]

If it fails tomorrow, does May stand up and declare her intention to ask the house to go for an early election (obviously, she wouldn't do it that way - she didn't last time as she thought it was still in her power)?

And then is the GE run solely on the basis of Tory as Leave v Labour as Anti-Leave using tomorrow's vote as 'the evidence'?

If so then we're in for one of the worst election campaigns that we could imagine.

Edited March 28, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Mark Elliott:

Quote

Meaningful Vote 3: The legal implications of separating the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration

The Government has confirmed that tomorrow, Friday 29 March, it will lay a motion before the House of Commons seeking its approval of the Withdrawal Agreement — but not of the Political Declaration concerning the UK’s future relationship with the EU. It has further indicated that if the Withdrawal Agreement is approved, it will introduce into Parliament the long-awaited ‘Implementation Bill’, which would be needed in order to give effect in domestic law to the Withdrawal Agreement. As far as the legal implications of this proposed course of action are concerned, three issues are worth mentioning.

Article 50 extension

If the House of Commons approves the Withdrawal Agreement by the end of tomorrow, this will have significant implications for the date of the UK’s departure from the EU. At last week’s European Council, it was decided that the UK would, by default, leave the EU not on the originally scheduled date of 29 March but on 12 April instead. However, it was further decided that if the House of Commons were to approve the Withdrawal Agreement by the end of 29 March, the date of the UK’s departure would be 22 May instead of 29 March. Importantly, the European Council’s decision about extending the Article 50 period did not require the Commons to approve the Political Declaration by 29 March. Thus, approval of the Withdrawal Agreement alone would be sufficient to unlock the longer extension of Article 50 to 22 May. That, in turn, would provide time that could potentially be used to make changes to the Political Declaration — something that the EU has indicated it is open to.

All of this assumes that the EU would be willing to accept that a vote on the Withdrawal Agreement only was sufficient to satisfy last week’s European Council decision regarding the extension of Article 50 to 22 May. A possible difficulty is that Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union refers to ‘an agreement … setting out the arrangements for [the Member State’s] withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union’. On one view, at least, this might be taken to suggest that the requirement set by the European Council, that the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ be approved by 29 March in order to unlock the 22 May extension, means that the Withdrawal Agreement including the Political Declaration must be approved by tomorrow. The Government has clearly assumed, and has presumably received legal advice to the effect that, approval of the Withdrawal Agreement alone is sufficient to trigger the 22 May extension, but this does not seem to me to be absolutely clear.

No-deal Brexit

Even if the House of Commons agrees to the Withdrawal Agreement tomorrow, and even if this unlocks the 22 May extension of the Article 50 period, this will not in itself prevent a no-deal Brexit. Leaving to one side the possibility of a further extension to the Article 50 period, a no-deal Brexit can only be avoided in one of two ways: leaving with a withdrawal agreement or revoking Article 50 and thereby aborting the Brexit process. Crucially, approval of the Withdrawal Agreement by the House of Commons tomorrow would not permit the Government to move ahead and ratify the Agreement — a step that must be taken before the Agreement can have legal effect. The reason why approval tomorrow would not suffice is that section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says that before ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement can happen, both it and the Political Declaration must be approved by the House of Commons. It also says that a further Act of Parliament must be enacted, making provision for the implementation in domestic law of the Withdrawal Agreement. As the law currently stands, therefore, the Government cannot ratify the Withdrawal Agreement until both it and the Political Declaration have been approved in accordance with section 13 of the Withdrawal Act.

Implementation Bill

As noted above, the Government has indicated that if the House of Commons approves the Withdrawal Agreement tomorrow, it will bring forward the Implementation Bill. Some commentators have pointed out, quite correctly, that that Bill might contain a provision dispensing with the need, set out in section 13 of the Withdrawal Act, for the House of Commons to approve the Political Declaration. In legal terms, it would be perfectly possible for that to happen, earlier legislation (the Withdrawal Act) always being open to amendment by subsequent legislation (the Implementation Bill). However, two points are worth bearing in mind. First, merely inserting a provision in the Bill would not dispense with the need for the Commons’ approval of the Political Declaration. The legal requirement for such approval set out in section 13 of the Withdrawal Act would remain in place unless and until the Implementation Bill received royal assent. Second, while it would be legally possible for the requirement for approval of the Political Declaration to be removed by the Implementation Bill, it is hard to see why, in political terms, this would be of any assistance. One the one hand, if the Political Declaration (in its current or future form) turned out to be acceptable to Parliament, dispensing with the need for its approval would be beside the point. On the other hand, if Parliament remained discontent with the Political Declaration, it is difficult to understand why it would be prepared to enact legislation dispensing with the need for its approval.

 

[Xann]

Quote

 

We are reduced to this. A humiliated, supplicant British prime minister sitting alone in a Brussels side room for six hours while the rest of the European Union discusses our fate. A government no longer capable of governing. A country that has become a byword for chaos and dysfunction. A sundered “United Kingdom”. Hundreds of thousands of Britons seeking citizenship in other EU states. Industry howling in rage and frustration. MPs needing police protection. People stockpiling food and medicines. The public discourse poisoned. Families split. Friends riven. The military on standby in case of civil unrest.

This is not “taking back control”. This is not the proud, independent, liberated Britain that the Brexiteers promised. It is grotesque, calamitous, an epic act of self-harm brought about not by some war or disaster but by our own stupidity. And the true “enemies of the people” are not those opposing this catastrophic Brexit. They are not the million decent people from every background who marched in London last Saturday, or the five million who have petitioned to revoke Article 50, but those whose lies, zealotry, and political recklessness have all but broken Britain. For posterity’s sake, those self-styled “patriots” who have so grievously betrayed their country should be named and shamed.

The original sin was that of David Cameron, now blithely writing his memoirs in his shepherd’s hut, enjoying exotic holidays and enriching himself on the speakers’ circuit.

The public was not clamouring for a referendum on EU membership. Cameron called it for the narrow purpose of uniting his party and fending off Ukip. He offered an ill-informed electorate a binary choice on an extraordinarily complex issue of profound constitutional importance without even the safeguard of a 60 per cent threshold for approval.

It was one of the most foolish gambles ever taken by a British prime minister, and one that unleashed the charlatans, rogues and demagogues of the Leave campaign.

They proceeded to seduce voters with fake facts and bogus promises. They stoked fears, fuelled grievances and inflamed prejudices. They appealed to the lowest human impulses, and unlocked the ugliest features of the British character – xenophobia, jingoism, aggression, insularity, arrogance and a perverse, pig-headed pride in our own ignorance.

The insurgent Leave.EU camp of Nigel Farage and Arron Banks broke electoral laws, and had links with Donald Trump’s campaign advisers and the Russian ambassador. The official Vote Leave campaign, with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove as its figureheads, spread blatant lies – the £350m weekly NHS dividend, the 80 million Turks heading our way. Johnson shamelessly promised we could “have our cake and eat it”. Gove shamelessly trashed experts...

... The ERG has been shamefully aided and abetted by much of the British press – most notably the Telegraph, the Sun, the Express and the Daily Mail under its former editor, Paul Dacre.

First those papers brainwashed the British people with three decades of relentlessly negative and mendacious coverage of EU matters of the sort that Johnson pioneered as the Telegraph’s correspondent in Brussels from 1989 to 1994.

You would never have known from their coverage that Britain was actually a big, powerful player with plenty of allies in Brussels – not a lone member state fighting a valiant rearguard action against scheming continentals bent on destroying our way of life. Or that that EU membership greatly amplified – rather than diminished – Britain’s global influence. Or that Britain, more than any other member state, created the EU’s single market of 500
million people.

During and since the referendum campaign those papers have abandoned any pretence of impartiality, of seeking to enlighten their readers or of holding our government to account. They pump out propaganda worthy of a second-rate banana republic. They downplay Brexit’s rapidly escalating costs, savage its opponents, and accuse the EU of negotiating in bad faith...

... The Telegraph is now so debased that its main front page “news” story on Mondays is frequently a report on whatever pseudo-Churchillian nonsense Boris Johnson has just produced in the weekly column that it pays him £275,000 a year to write.

Last but not least, a sizeable number of MPs should be included in this hall of shame. At least two-thirds voted Remain in 2016. Most privately consider Brexit an act of folly. Some have since shown great courage in fighting for their convictions, but too many have chosen to take the path of least resistance, to put their careers and party before the interests of the country, to follow and not to lead.

Events are now moving so rapidly that it is impossible to predict what the situation will be even by the time this article is printed. Just conceivably, enough MPs will have discovered their spines to avert a complete disaster. Just conceivably they will have paused to ask themselves what was so awful about EU membership that leaving is worth such turmoil. Just conceivably they will have realised that there is no deal nearly as good as the one we already have.

 

New Statesman

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

Plus the Withdrawal Agreement is the bit they all hate. Chopping it onto your it's own thing isn't changing anything.

Hmm. That's not quite right. Even allowing for dramatic license on the "all" bit.

Starmer has said as the dispatch box that Labour don't have a problem with the withdrawal agreement. Sensibly, as a Labour negotiated version would be basically the same document but just carving out Northern Ireland rather than placating the DUP with the UK backstop.

Yes, the DUP and the Broadmoor wing of the Conservative party have a problem with it, but for anyone living in the real world it's the inevitable consequence of the decision that the country has made.

Edited March 28, 2019 by ml1dch

[LondonLax]

The whole point of this proposal, to split the withdrawal agreement off of the political agreement (the bit with all her red lines), is to try and show Labour up.

Are they actually a leave party? If they are they also need this withdrawal agreement to leave, however they would choose to do it. 

Labour’s problem is that they would want to be in power when the withdrawal agreement is signed so they can control the direction afterwards. That’s why the direction from Labour will be to vote against. May is hoping enough of them will turn, on the basis that this is a necessary step to deliver their own ideal Brexit.  

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The whole point of this proposal, to split the withdrawal agreement off of the political agreement (the bit with all her red lines), is to try and show Labour up.

Are they actually a leave party? If they are they also need this withdrawal agreement to leave, however they would choose to do it. 

I heard a suggestion earlier that tomorrow serves no other purpose than providing Conservative election leaflets with the ammunition to report that "Labour are trying to thwart Brexit" when they vote against it.

[snowychap]

This thread is worth a read:

 

[Villarocker]

16 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

You mean where the public were mislead by fool's like farage, Johnson and gove? 

Misled in terms of the money but, we should be able to create our own laws and dictate who can come into the country and when. 

The only time I want to be in Europe is with the Villa or on my summer hols. That doesn't make me racist - I have many foreign friends. I just want my country of birth to be able to take care of its own business and not be dictated to by a bunch of businessmen in Brussels. Having said that, we need the clowns in parliament to sort their shit out before that could ever happen. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The whole point of this proposal, to split the withdrawal agreement off of the political agreement (the bit with all her red lines), is to try and show Labour up.

Are they actually a leave party? If they are they also need this withdrawal agreement to leave, however they would choose to do it. 

Labour’s problem is that they would want to be in power when the withdrawal agreement is signed so they can control the direction afterwards. That’s why the direction from Labour will be to vote against. May is hoping enough of them will turn, on the basis that this is a necessary step to deliver their own ideal Brexit.  

Obviously Labour would like to control the process, but the bigger problem is that May's promise to resign suggests that the negotiations during the transition period on the future relationship will be conducted by an unknown individual, with unknown priorities, on the basis of a mandate stemming only from 120,000 Tory party members, who will be the only people to get a say in the matter. 

 

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

I heard a suggestion earlier that tomorrow serves no other purpose than providing Conservative election leaflets with the ammunition to report that "Labour are trying to thwart Brexit" when they vote against it.

I think that's exactly the plan. 

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

I heard a suggestion earlier that tomorrow serves no other purpose than providing Conservative election leaflets with the ammunition to report that "Labour are trying to thwart Brexit" when they vote against it.

On the basis that 6m people signed a remain petition last week And around 400,000 marched in London I’d say that was a dangerous gamble 

Edited March 29, 2019 by tonyh29

[Seat68]

5 hours ago, villarocker said:

Misled in terms of the money but, we should be able to create our own laws and dictate who can come into the country and when. 

The only time I want to be in Europe is with the Villa or on my summer hols. That doesn't make me racist - I have many foreign friends. I just want my country of birth to be able to take care of its own business and not be dictated to by a bunch of businessmen in Brussels. Having said that, we need the clowns in parliament to sort their shit out before that could ever happen. 

Which laws dictated to by businessmen in Brussels are you particularly unhappy with? 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

16 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Which laws dictated to by businessmen in Brussels are you particularly unhappy with? 

Which laws passed in Brussels could not be passed by any other independent nation? 

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Which laws passed in Brussels could not be passed by any other independent nation? 

That doesn't answer my question at all. But to address this whataboutery, none. That said if you have to turn a battleship it's marginally easier with a lot of tugboats helping. You want mobile phone operators, or employers, or airline companies or manufacturers to change their practices, one small nation would struggle to have an impact, whereas a bloc of countries will wield more power. 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

That doesn't answer my question at all. But to address this whataboutery, none. That said if you have to turn a battleship it's marginally easier with a lot of tugboats helping. You want mobile phone operators, or employers, or airline companies or manufacturers to change their practices, one small nation would struggle to have an impact, whereas a bloc of countries will wield more power. 

I like the analogy. I would probably counter though that the EU isn’t a lot of small tug boats but a huge bloody aircraft carrier. It may be turning the battleship but if it is going in the wrong direction what changes its course? 

[Demitri_C]

7 hours ago, villarocker said:

Misled in terms of the money but, we should be able to create our own laws and dictate who can come into the country and when. 

The only time I want to be in Europe is with the Villa or on my summer hols. That doesn't make me racist - I have many foreign friends. I just want my country of birth to be able to take care of its own business and not be dictated to by a bunch of businessmen in Brussels. Having said that, we need the clowns in parliament to sort their shit out before that could ever happen. 

You trust these fool's who have had three years to come up with a plan and have failed miserably to create better laws than what the EU have? 

Good luck with that one. If anything this whole process has shown why government needs governing as they all are absolutely hopeless. 

[ml1dch]

6 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

On the basis that 6m people signed a remain petition last week And around 400,000 marched in London I’d say that was a dangerous gamble 

I'd say there is nothing that either main party can do right now that isn't a dangerous gamble.

[StanBalaban]

On 27/03/2019 at 15:36, mjmooney said: