For The Love Of My Fellow Abers.
Editor's Blog6 mins ago
Ten Minutes Ago On News
The government will abandon its Brexit bill if MPs vote down its three-day timetable to get it through Parliament.
A No 10 source said if the programme was rejected and the EU confirmed a delay to the 31 October exit, it would instead push for a general election.
The source told the BBC: "We won't waste further months with this Parliament."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by NellieMay. 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.
Fairly extraordinary. The government was likely to win the Second Reading vote, and the question over timetabling ought to be seen as procedural rather than vital. It is only the mindless obsession with an arbitrary deadline that is driving this. If MPs agree in principle to passing the legislation, why should it be so outrageous for them to wish to amend certain sections of it that -- let's be clear -- both sides of the argument might find objection?
Such an important and significant piece of legislation deserves proper scrutiny. "Get Brexit done" is the cry. Why not "Get Brexit done right"? The answer is clear. Johnson's strategy has never been about Brexit, it is only, and has only ever been, a means to an end, for him to seize power and control.
Such an important and significant piece of legislation deserves proper scrutiny. "Get Brexit done" is the cry. Why not "Get Brexit done right"? The answer is clear. Johnson's strategy has never been about Brexit, it is only, and has only ever been, a means to an end, for him to seize power and control.
Another thing: Johnson's strategy to hold an election *before* Brexit is risky, at best: as long as Brexit hasn't happened then he will be in a dogfight with both the Brexit Party, who may steal vital votes and even seats, and Remain Parties, who might feel energised enough to stop the thing altogether. If, on the other hand, he concedes the timetable to MPs but manages to pass the legislation through anyway, is that not a victory? There is the risk, perhaps, that an amendment for a 2nd referendum would pass, but it's a fairly small risk at the moment -- Parliament has had this option available to it for years and been unable to find the numbers to support it. On the other hand, the reward would be to be seen to have "GOT Brexit Done", and I would have thought this would have been enough to secure a healthy majority, or even a landslide, as the support for the Brexit Party fades away.
I just don't get this strategy. The obsession with a 31/10 exit date may yet backfire on Johnson.
I just don't get this strategy. The obsession with a 31/10 exit date may yet backfire on Johnson.
"Jim, I think he may get the deal through."
Indeed, Dannyk, but I think that's about the Second Reading, rather than the timetable motion. I fully expect the Second Reading to pass, because MPs would understandably wish to be seen to support the principle of Brexit, and Second Reading is an agreement in principle to debate and then pass the legislation and the deal.
But the complaint here is over timetabling. Should a piece of legislation running to over 110 pages, that aims to create law to give Ministers sweeping powers in the coming years with little or no Parliamentary Scrutiny, be passed through in three days? The answer is manifestly not. More time should be spent to scrutinise the legislation. The government is refusing to provide that time, and is threatening to kill the bill altogether if it loses on that point.
Indeed, Dannyk, but I think that's about the Second Reading, rather than the timetable motion. I fully expect the Second Reading to pass, because MPs would understandably wish to be seen to support the principle of Brexit, and Second Reading is an agreement in principle to debate and then pass the legislation and the deal.
But the complaint here is over timetabling. Should a piece of legislation running to over 110 pages, that aims to create law to give Ministers sweeping powers in the coming years with little or no Parliamentary Scrutiny, be passed through in three days? The answer is manifestly not. More time should be spent to scrutinise the legislation. The government is refusing to provide that time, and is threatening to kill the bill altogether if it loses on that point.
Fair enough. Can't keep wasting time & extensions. One knows full well there won't be a better deal negotiated. So Labour's joke at getting a better one can be ignored. For sure time is tight, but whose fault is that. It's a delta on May's draft agreement anyway so most is already analyzed; it just needs going over the changed bits and deciding if it's better than no-deal come the 31st.
Having been listening to the BBC news channel all criticism seems less than serious. Moans about the cost of change to improve things, moans about having the ability to decide issues at Westminster rather than some foreign power deciding for us, moans about the work needed to make things sorted. Nothing of substance. A few days should be all they need to decide between the 2 practical options without trying to tag on irrelevances in the hope of thwarting things again. Get it done or reset parliament via a GE.
Having been listening to the BBC news channel all criticism seems less than serious. Moans about the cost of change to improve things, moans about having the ability to decide issues at Westminster rather than some foreign power deciding for us, moans about the work needed to make things sorted. Nothing of substance. A few days should be all they need to decide between the 2 practical options without trying to tag on irrelevances in the hope of thwarting things again. Get it done or reset parliament via a GE.
// Fair enough. Can't keep wasting time & extensions. One knows full well there won't be a better deal negotiated. //
Even supposing that to be true, the question of how the deal is to be implemented in UK law is important. For example, should the Deal be subject to ratification in a 2nd referendum (maybe not, but it is a matter for debate)? Should the end of the "implementation period" be flexible at the discretion of the Government or of Parliament? Should Workers' Rights be enshrined in primary legislation, and if so, how? etc, etc.
Even supposing that to be true, the question of how the deal is to be implemented in UK law is important. For example, should the Deal be subject to ratification in a 2nd referendum (maybe not, but it is a matter for debate)? Should the end of the "implementation period" be flexible at the discretion of the Government or of Parliament? Should Workers' Rights be enshrined in primary legislation, and if so, how? etc, etc.
I watched an interview with Matthew Parris (ardent Tory Remainer) saying that MPs rarely have the time or desire to study all the minutiae contained in bills. They vote on the spirit of the legislation. The excuse that they need more time for scrutiny is fallacious.
Lets have a GE. Get Cons back with a majority and get the Brexit deal passed (for better or worse!).
Lets have a GE. Get Cons back with a majority and get the Brexit deal passed (for better or worse!).
// Jim, most of what you say can be sorted out during the transition period. //
To an extent, perhaps, but the question of the role of Parliament cannot. Introducing powers that give the future government carte blanche to change these things at their leisure undermines the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Which, funnily enough, the Bill explicitly states should be recognised and upheld (Clause 36).
Also, when the Government was attempting to defend its prorogation, it explicitly stated that Parliament would be given "ample time" to debate and scrutinise Brexit legislation. It is for Parliament, and not Government, to decide how much time is "ample".
To an extent, perhaps, but the question of the role of Parliament cannot. Introducing powers that give the future government carte blanche to change these things at their leisure undermines the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Which, funnily enough, the Bill explicitly states should be recognised and upheld (Clause 36).
Also, when the Government was attempting to defend its prorogation, it explicitly stated that Parliament would be given "ample time" to debate and scrutinise Brexit legislation. It is for Parliament, and not Government, to decide how much time is "ample".
We have laws/systems now. For the most part, rights remain as is until Westminster decides to deviate from the present system. No point in holding a 2nd referendum. It's that or no-deal. A further appeal to the public whilst nice, is left too late and can only be a delaying tactic now, the way things have gone. Implementation period should be as short as possible as it's further delay, so if Westminster opts to cut it short, all the better. I'm sure anything really vital can be discussed in the next few days, after they've agreed to go to the second reading.
// ... MPs rarely have the time or desire to study all the minutiae contained in bills. //
Even if that is true, then firstly it's a bad habit that the Commons has got into, and secondly the Lords may wish to spend time scrutinising it themselves.
In recent months, Brexit-supporting peers have, not entirely unreasonably, complained that their Remain-supporting colleagues have attempted to force through two Bills at breakneck pace, namely the two Acts that successfully passed to introduce delays to Brexit. I am sure they would not wish to rush through a bill that is even longer, and far more significant in its scope.
What is a few extra weeks if it means getting it right? The only sensible explanation can be that this Government doesn't particularly care about Brexit one way or the other, and only wishes to either give itself sweeping and unchecked powers now, or to give it the perfect excuse to set up a "Parliament v. the People" election campaign, so that it can do the same thing afterwards.
Even if that is true, then firstly it's a bad habit that the Commons has got into, and secondly the Lords may wish to spend time scrutinising it themselves.
In recent months, Brexit-supporting peers have, not entirely unreasonably, complained that their Remain-supporting colleagues have attempted to force through two Bills at breakneck pace, namely the two Acts that successfully passed to introduce delays to Brexit. I am sure they would not wish to rush through a bill that is even longer, and far more significant in its scope.
What is a few extra weeks if it means getting it right? The only sensible explanation can be that this Government doesn't particularly care about Brexit one way or the other, and only wishes to either give itself sweeping and unchecked powers now, or to give it the perfect excuse to set up a "Parliament v. the People" election campaign, so that it can do the same thing afterwards.
https:/
Don’t know if this will work if you’re not a subscriber. Funny cartoon relating to ‘Just get it done!’
Don’t know if this will work if you’re not a subscriber. Funny cartoon relating to ‘Just get it done!’
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Crosswords29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Connections 314 - Sat 20 April
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
