Crosswords3 mins ago
Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?
146 Answers
It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, //Shutting down the debate and arguing that any given vote ends the matter for ever is not a part of how democracies function.//
No one has suggested that - except you. Democracies function by honouring decisions made democratically - something you are intent on preventing. There's nothing to stop you campaigning for another vote - but the result should be honoured first. That is how democracy works.
No one has suggested that - except you. Democracies function by honouring decisions made democratically - something you are intent on preventing. There's nothing to stop you campaigning for another vote - but the result should be honoured first. That is how democracy works.
To take an obvious example where it's clearly wrong to argue that a result is disrespected, and democracy ruined, if a second vote on the same issue is held, the government has either tabled already or will soon table a motion "that there shall be an early election", for a vote to be held on Monday. But Parliament already voted on that on Wednesday, and rejected it. Luckily, that doesn't mark the end of the issue. And if the motion is defeated on Monday it *still* won't mark the end of it, and there could be a further vote on an early General Election some time in October.
You can argue that the result "has to be implemented first" if you like, but: the result was implemented once Article 50 Notification was given, and now Parliament is bogged down by deciding the detail. They can't reach agreement. Neither has the electorate.
You can argue that the result "has to be implemented first" if you like, but: the result was implemented once Article 50 Notification was given, and now Parliament is bogged down by deciding the detail. They can't reach agreement. Neither has the electorate.
I'm watching the Lords debating this Bill and a few are seeking assurances the UK won't vote against an extension date proposed by the EU.
Article 50 makes it clear we cannot be involved.
"4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it."
It's concerning that they do not know that and that no-one there is pointing out the facts.
Article 50 makes it clear we cannot be involved.
"4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it."
It's concerning that they do not know that and that no-one there is pointing out the facts.
// Jim, I didn't mention shutting down the debate. You did. //
I think I just found the sentence "No one has suggested that - except you." ambiguous, ie I read it as "No one has suggested [shutting down the debate] except you [who are making that suggestion yourself]." If you merely meant that "I'm not suggesting shutting down the debate" then I apologise for misreading the sentence, but I hope you can understand that it was a little ambiguous.
I think I just found the sentence "No one has suggested that - except you." ambiguous, ie I read it as "No one has suggested [shutting down the debate] except you [who are making that suggestion yourself]." If you merely meant that "I'm not suggesting shutting down the debate" then I apologise for misreading the sentence, but I hope you can understand that it was a little ambiguous.
"You make a reasonable point about the GE request, but on the other hand the 2/3rds requirement is totally unreasonable anyway."
Yes, agreed that 2/3 doesn't make sense. It's remarkable -- or possibly not *that* remarkable, to people who were paying more attention than I was at the very start -- that the FTPA has been shown to be broken in two different ways in the last two years. First, in 2017, it turned out that government could just call a snap election anyway, because in ordinary circumstances the Opposition could hardly vote to let a majority government keep control. And now we're seeing the second reason it's broken: a minority government which now relies on the Opposition for support in everything can be held in place for as long as the Opposition decides it's convenient. It's stupid.
Yes, agreed that 2/3 doesn't make sense. It's remarkable -- or possibly not *that* remarkable, to people who were paying more attention than I was at the very start -- that the FTPA has been shown to be broken in two different ways in the last two years. First, in 2017, it turned out that government could just call a snap election anyway, because in ordinary circumstances the Opposition could hardly vote to let a majority government keep control. And now we're seeing the second reason it's broken: a minority government which now relies on the Opposition for support in everything can be held in place for as long as the Opposition decides it's convenient. It's stupid.
Oh, I see.
In that case I think the answer, without this legislation, would be that if Johnson (on behalf of the UK) didn't agree to a different date, then, yes, he could veto it. So the way out of that would be to include a clause to the effect of "if the EU Council proposes a date other than 31st January 2020, the Prime Minister must return to the House and seek approval from both Houses for this new date before he can reach agreement with the EU Council on the new date."
But I would worry about the legal status of such a clause.
In that case I think the answer, without this legislation, would be that if Johnson (on behalf of the UK) didn't agree to a different date, then, yes, he could veto it. So the way out of that would be to include a clause to the effect of "if the EU Council proposes a date other than 31st January 2020, the Prime Minister must return to the House and seek approval from both Houses for this new date before he can reach agreement with the EU Council on the new date."
But I would worry about the legal status of such a clause.
No JIM, perhaps I have not been clear.
The PM wants to leave on 31.10.19. Unless there is agreement prior to 19.10.19 to leave before November or to leave with no agreement, the PM must ask for an extension.
The PM wants to leave on 31.10.19. If he has to ask for an extension the EU could have a discussion about extending it to 31.1.20 for example.
Every EU country would need to vote in favour of that date. The question is could the UK vote against that proposal in which case it would fall.
The PM could then say he has followed the law by seeking an extension.
Article 50 says the representatives of a country wishing to leave, cannot be involved in extension discussions meaning they have no veto.
The PM wants to leave on 31.10.19. Unless there is agreement prior to 19.10.19 to leave before November or to leave with no agreement, the PM must ask for an extension.
The PM wants to leave on 31.10.19. If he has to ask for an extension the EU could have a discussion about extending it to 31.1.20 for example.
Every EU country would need to vote in favour of that date. The question is could the UK vote against that proposal in which case it would fall.
The PM could then say he has followed the law by seeking an extension.
Article 50 says the representatives of a country wishing to leave, cannot be involved in extension discussions meaning they have no veto.
In that case, wouldn't it go back to the point I was suggesting? The UK can't be assumed to agree to any extension by default. Imagine if the EU, just to spite us, offered an extension of one day. Or ten years. It can hardly be true that in either case the UK was forced to comply.
It's clear that "in agreement with the member state concerned" means that the EU Council may hold discussions without the UK in attendance but can't reach a conclusion without the UK's consent. The only question, as far as I can see, is whether Johnson himself could veto the different date, or whether he would need to seek permission from Parliament.
Unless I am missing something, that is. But on the face of it I can't see what.
It's clear that "in agreement with the member state concerned" means that the EU Council may hold discussions without the UK in attendance but can't reach a conclusion without the UK's consent. The only question, as far as I can see, is whether Johnson himself could veto the different date, or whether he would need to seek permission from Parliament.
Unless I am missing something, that is. But on the face of it I can't see what.
//All EU members need to approve an extension and the question being asked is whether the UK could veto it and thus leave on 31.10.19 as planned.//
//Better legal minds than mine can spend their time arguing the point, but for my part, once the UK has made a request for a given date then it must surely stand to reason that it has agreed to that date.//
Please see my answer at 20:14 yesterday (seems a lifetime ago).
//….and lose our veto//
Wasn’t going to go over old ground, Jim, but you continually mention “our veto”.
Individual EU member nations, when voting in the EU Council, no longer have any effective power of veto in all but less than a dozen policy areas. The Treaty of Lisbon abolished the requirement for unanimity in no less than 45 policy areas. These include asylum, immigration, border controls, criminal law, the ECJ and social security. Among the few still requiring unanimity are the admission of new members, taxation and citizenship. However, the European Commission has its sights set on abolishing as many of those as it can (plenty of info available online. I can’t be bothered to look).
These vetoes are available to all member nations. I don’t know of any that are specific to the UK which have been retained as “grandfather rights”.
//Better legal minds than mine can spend their time arguing the point, but for my part, once the UK has made a request for a given date then it must surely stand to reason that it has agreed to that date.//
Please see my answer at 20:14 yesterday (seems a lifetime ago).
//….and lose our veto//
Wasn’t going to go over old ground, Jim, but you continually mention “our veto”.
Individual EU member nations, when voting in the EU Council, no longer have any effective power of veto in all but less than a dozen policy areas. The Treaty of Lisbon abolished the requirement for unanimity in no less than 45 policy areas. These include asylum, immigration, border controls, criminal law, the ECJ and social security. Among the few still requiring unanimity are the admission of new members, taxation and citizenship. However, the European Commission has its sights set on abolishing as many of those as it can (plenty of info available online. I can’t be bothered to look).
These vetoes are available to all member nations. I don’t know of any that are specific to the UK which have been retained as “grandfather rights”.
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.