Confused

[weecalf]

If t May goes back to Europe to talk is what she brings back voted on in parliament ?Mrs May is the one who triggered 50 ,call a bad election ,came back from Europe with a bad deal acccording to some .So should it not be a cross party delegation sent back to Europe to talk .Delay brexit ,call an election .Open STORMONT again andlets all look forward to a happy summer .Whats so wrong with all that ?

[fiction-factory]

Confused. Yes I think you are, but don't worry, it is such a complex, confusing mess, that no-one really knows a way of resolving it even though a lot of people make a lot of noise and find it easy to criticise May but there is no consensus on how to improve things.

I suppose TM did trigger article 30 but "the House of Commons voted by a majority of 384 votes (498 to 114) to approve the second reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to allow the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 unconditionally".

Regarding a cross party delegation, it's difficult when Corbyn doesn't want to talk to TM explain his party's ideas (if they have any).

Anyway a cross party delegation is likely to be weighted towards Remainers which geos against the referendum result. I'm not sure everyone coudl agree on the composition of such a delegation.

[Old_Geezer]

A cross party delegation would have less chance than May of standing up to the EU and getting a deal resembling Brexit. We have no reason to delay exiting, we've waiting more than long enough already and simply delaying things can only be a remoaner attempt to overturn the decision to leave. We need to sort it now, as planned and agreed 2 years ago. An election would be at least as bad now as the last one was, and turkeys don't usually vote for Xmas. What's happened to change the situation at Stormont anyway ? We can have a happy summer once free from our EU masters. Unsure I can find much right with the questions in the OP.

[jim360]

A cross-party delegation has no right to speak to the EU, even supposing that OG is wrong and that such a delegation would work (although why he's any more sceptical about that than about May et al's ability is anybody's guess).

Only Government -- or, really, The Crown -- has the authority to conduct foreign affairs and treaty negotiations. Parliament's role is to approve and to ratify. The best a cross-party delegation can do is to deliver to the Government (ie, to Theresa May) a set of proposals that she then negotiates.

Constitutional law is messy, but a lot of this is indirectly set out in the Supreme Court ruling on whether or not Government had the authority to unilaterally withdraw from the EU (ie, to unilaterally give Article 50 notification) -- the answer was no, because in that case doing so would also have had the effect of repealing domestic laws, which the Crown (Government) can't do on its own whim.

Does that clear things up? Probably not. But basically foreign affairs are for Government and domestic affairs are for Parliament.

[Davemano]

May should go to Brussels and simply ask for a proper guarantee on the timing on the 'backstop' otherwise there will be no money handed over.

[jim360]

Non-starter of a suggestion: The point of the Backstop is to ensure that the border arrangements on the island of Ireland are not disturbed, no matter how long it takes to find a deal. By definition, setting a time limit destroys its purpose. European, and particularly Irish, leaders have made this clear, time and time again. They may find ways to provide the assurances people clearly want that they have no intention of keeping the UK in a Backstop indefinitely, but they cannot and will not do that in such a way that forces things to end by such-and-such a date, whether the future trading arrangement is ready or not.

[Davemano]

Obviously I am not well up on it, but I thought May's deal was voted against because there was no time limit on the 'backstop'

[Canary42]

I do wish the Leavers would realise the "demand" of the referendum vote was fully met when Article 50 was signed.

What we are waiting for now is for the "experts" in the government to work its execution out to the best benefit to the Country - that's what they are paid to do.

[ummmm]

Don't we get enough of this in news?

[Old_Geezer]

The referendum required us to leave, not start a process and then not leave. Triggering article 50 is just the start of the process.

More sceptical because the Tory party, love them or loath them, seem more eager to leave than other parties. Despite the handicap of a remainer in charge, they have a split due to those determined to get our sovereignty back, which restricts the worse temptations of that leader, as she needs to encourage the party split to narrow. Other parties seem keener on either ignoring the referendum and remaining, or in BINO suggestions, and would be even more keen to bend over backwards for their EU superiors. It'd be a disaster for the UK.