Indulge In Sweet Bliss: Send Chocolates...
History8 mins ago
Indicative Votes Point Nowhere
94 Answers
No alternative model attracted a majority.
The House was agreed, however, that there'll be no fireworks and festivity on the 29th and reiterates its determination that under no circumstances will it allow a "No Deal" Brexit
The House was agreed, however, that there'll be no fireworks and festivity on the 29th and reiterates its determination that under no circumstances will it allow a "No Deal" Brexit
Answers
If over half the people in a room want a switch turned off and the rest want it left on then there is no resolution whereby the split can be reflected. Although I'm sure the minority will suggest leaving it on but painting it so it looks off. Or claiming it's off but welding it open. Or maybe removing the cover but leaving it operating. Perhaps taking another vote,...
08:37 Thu 28th Mar 2019
Because the EU want the best terms for them does not make them bitter and vindictive. What did we expect -we asked to leave -but with no idea how or what relationship we wanted afterwards. If Scotland votes for Independence next time will England then give us all we want in an unbitter non vindictive way ? I don't think so !
whether leave-leaning, or remain-leaning, willing to bet a lot of the electorate feel like this
https:/
https:/
Please read again.
Neither would I (IF)NI wanted to go it alone.
A customs union deal was denied by 8 votes.
The DUP and SNP votes made a difference.
Please have your independence with my blessing.
And please fund the railway that will commute the illegal immigrants direct from Dover to your Borders.
Neither would I (IF)NI wanted to go it alone.
A customs union deal was denied by 8 votes.
The DUP and SNP votes made a difference.
Please have your independence with my blessing.
And please fund the railway that will commute the illegal immigrants direct from Dover to your Borders.
https:/
"MPs will be asked to vote again on Brexit on Friday but only on part of the deal negotiated with the EU, MPs have been told. They will vote on the withdrawal agreement - covering the "divorce bill", citizens' rights and the controversial Irish "backstop"."
Err... what was that last bit again ?
Sounds like the same question to me, bits dropped out or not.
"MPs will be asked to vote again on Brexit on Friday but only on part of the deal negotiated with the EU, MPs have been told. They will vote on the withdrawal agreement - covering the "divorce bill", citizens' rights and the controversial Irish "backstop"."
Err... what was that last bit again ?
Sounds like the same question to me, bits dropped out or not.
“…the exercise was still useful as it showed which might be more popular for want of anything better.”
Er..no. It showed what might be less unpopular. Slightly different.
The passage that you cite from the Withdrawal Act, Jim, seems to provide that the Minister may only lay an SI to ensure that the dates align. It doesn’t say that he must, nor does it say that it must be laid in response to some other agreement having been concluded and is thus submitted as a fait accompli:
-----
(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.
(5)In subsections (3) and (4) “the Treaties” means the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
-----
In fact it’s quite fundamental that Parliament should agree to any changes in the UK’s legislation before that change is agreed with any foreign power. Unless, that is, you accept that an agreement made by the PM - even one made "internationally" - without reference to Parliament automatically amends the UK’s legislation.
As you say it’s a moot point but Mrs May was constitutionally out of order. She should have brought her proposal to Parliament, laid the SI to have our legislation amended then travelled to Brussels or Strasbourg (as appropriate) to agree the change with the EU. This was confirmed by the Attorney-General.
Er..no. It showed what might be less unpopular. Slightly different.
The passage that you cite from the Withdrawal Act, Jim, seems to provide that the Minister may only lay an SI to ensure that the dates align. It doesn’t say that he must, nor does it say that it must be laid in response to some other agreement having been concluded and is thus submitted as a fait accompli:
-----
(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.
(5)In subsections (3) and (4) “the Treaties” means the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
-----
In fact it’s quite fundamental that Parliament should agree to any changes in the UK’s legislation before that change is agreed with any foreign power. Unless, that is, you accept that an agreement made by the PM - even one made "internationally" - without reference to Parliament automatically amends the UK’s legislation.
As you say it’s a moot point but Mrs May was constitutionally out of order. She should have brought her proposal to Parliament, laid the SI to have our legislation amended then travelled to Brussels or Strasbourg (as appropriate) to agree the change with the EU. This was confirmed by the Attorney-General.
Correct me if I'm wrong, NJ, but presumably a Minister of the Crown may only "lay by regulations" under terms that are explicitly laid out for them by Parliament? In which case the Minister *only* had permission to amend the definition exit day because it had changed in international law. The change in international law didn't have the effect of changing the UK's legislation automatically -- it can't do, of course -- but it created a contradiction between domestic and international law, and one that could only be resolved if either the EU revoked their legal assent to change exit day or, as has happened, if Parliament approved an SI to amend exit day.
So I still feel that, when you say "Mrs May was constitutionally out of order," this isn't true to the letter of the law. The permission to amend exit day was only given if it had already been amended in the treaties, and in no other instances. Now I may have misunderstood this but I did check this interpretation with a friend who understands legal stuff and this is essentially their argument rather than mine.
Where I *do* agree, though, is that this has clearly undermined the spirit of the 2018 Act, which was clearly meaning to fix 29th March as exit day. This was discussed on AB at the time, and it was clear from what meant Brexit supporters were saying, and clear, too, from my own frustrations at the fact that exit day had been so deliberately emphasised as tomorrow in UK law. It turns out that the amendment didn't even come close to having the effect intended, and makes rather a mockery of its even being introduced.
So I still feel that, when you say "Mrs May was constitutionally out of order," this isn't true to the letter of the law. The permission to amend exit day was only given if it had already been amended in the treaties, and in no other instances. Now I may have misunderstood this but I did check this interpretation with a friend who understands legal stuff and this is essentially their argument rather than mine.
Where I *do* agree, though, is that this has clearly undermined the spirit of the 2018 Act, which was clearly meaning to fix 29th March as exit day. This was discussed on AB at the time, and it was clear from what meant Brexit supporters were saying, and clear, too, from my own frustrations at the fact that exit day had been so deliberately emphasised as tomorrow in UK law. It turns out that the amendment didn't even come close to having the effect intended, and makes rather a mockery of its even being introduced.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News23 mins ago
News26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.