Business & Finance0 min 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
just wondering if someone at the commons gave the results of last night's votes to Diane Abbott to analyse.
all 8 votes were knocked back. but the "new referendum" vote lost by less than any of the others, and less than the amount of the last defeat of the PM's deal. this logic seems to have been interpreted as a "win" for this vote, and I don't get that at all. it lost, didn't it? or are some losses more lose-ey than others?
all 8 votes were knocked back. but the "new referendum" vote lost by less than any of the others, and less than the amount of the last defeat of the PM's deal. this logic seems to have been interpreted as a "win" for this vote, and I don't get that at all. it lost, didn't it? or are some losses more lose-ey than others?
The bizarre “leave without a deal and yet somehow also with some sort of “arrangement” was the biggest loser as it had the heaviest margin of defeat and the most votes against. That one won’t come back to fight another day. The ones that will return, should it come to that, can all be classed as “winners” of sorts I guess.
//So far as I can see, the only way it's possible to resolve that split is for one side or the other within the UK to abandon their principles and their beliefs.//
They don’t have to abandon them, Jim. They just needed to accept that their principles and beliefs did not hold sway as indicated by the result of the referendum, which was supposed to determine the way forward. (Remember “The government will implement what you decide”). Many never have done so and therein lies the problem.
I’m afraid the issue of “various versions of Brexit” and “dimmer switches” is wearing very thin. It was well known what leaving the EU would mean. The “indicative vote” absurdity held yesterday discussed a series of options all of which, with the exception of “No Deal”, would not achieve the “Leaving” that was clearly put to the people in the referendum. Not only was it a waste of time but it was an affront to the people who voted to leave. Quite why there needs to be an accommodation for those who voted to Remain is still a mystery to me and I have still not had a satisfactory answer when I ask what “accommodation” would have been made for Leavers had the result been the reverse.
The entire matter has been disastrously handled (probably with good purpose) from the outset by a Prime Minister and government who clearly had no intention of delivering Brexit. To suggest that Mrs May’s - or rather the EU’s -deal achieves that aim is insulting the intelligence of even the dimmest of observers. What suddenly makes it attractive with Mrs May’s belated promise to resign is quite beyond me. The argument that someone else needs to be in the chair for the next stage of discussions is spurious because if we “leave” under her deal the next stage of the discussions becomes largely academic.
“Arguably in any case given that there had the been a formal agreement between the government and the EU to an extension, that validated the extension in any case in international law.”
A good try, ikky. Alas some eminent Legal Eagles have pointed out that without the Statutory Instrument Mrs May had no authority to agree an extension. The leaving date was set in statute by the UK Parliament. It was not dependent on nor subject to influence by international law and nor was any amendment to it. Should the SI fail (which, like you, I’m sure it won’t) Mrs May’s handshake with the Euromaniacs would (or should) have been challenged. If so it would almost certainly have been declared “ultra vires” (beyond her powers) and so have no effect.
They don’t have to abandon them, Jim. They just needed to accept that their principles and beliefs did not hold sway as indicated by the result of the referendum, which was supposed to determine the way forward. (Remember “The government will implement what you decide”). Many never have done so and therein lies the problem.
I’m afraid the issue of “various versions of Brexit” and “dimmer switches” is wearing very thin. It was well known what leaving the EU would mean. The “indicative vote” absurdity held yesterday discussed a series of options all of which, with the exception of “No Deal”, would not achieve the “Leaving” that was clearly put to the people in the referendum. Not only was it a waste of time but it was an affront to the people who voted to leave. Quite why there needs to be an accommodation for those who voted to Remain is still a mystery to me and I have still not had a satisfactory answer when I ask what “accommodation” would have been made for Leavers had the result been the reverse.
The entire matter has been disastrously handled (probably with good purpose) from the outset by a Prime Minister and government who clearly had no intention of delivering Brexit. To suggest that Mrs May’s - or rather the EU’s -deal achieves that aim is insulting the intelligence of even the dimmest of observers. What suddenly makes it attractive with Mrs May’s belated promise to resign is quite beyond me. The argument that someone else needs to be in the chair for the next stage of discussions is spurious because if we “leave” under her deal the next stage of the discussions becomes largely academic.
“Arguably in any case given that there had the been a formal agreement between the government and the EU to an extension, that validated the extension in any case in international law.”
A good try, ikky. Alas some eminent Legal Eagles have pointed out that without the Statutory Instrument Mrs May had no authority to agree an extension. The leaving date was set in statute by the UK Parliament. It was not dependent on nor subject to influence by international law and nor was any amendment to it. Should the SI fail (which, like you, I’m sure it won’t) Mrs May’s handshake with the Euromaniacs would (or should) have been challenged. If so it would almost certainly have been declared “ultra vires” (beyond her powers) and so have no effect.
"...but I haven’t seen any reputable source claim that the SI had to be passed before any extension was agreed."
Geoffrey Cox, QC, the Attorney-General made his opinion known last week. Mrs May could not "legislate later" because the legislation was already in place. To provide an extension the legislation needs to be amended (or we leave tomorrow) and that can only be done with the concurrence of both Houses. Mrs May might have shaken hands, or kissed cheeks or whatever else they get up to agree things in Brussels/Strasbourg, but her agreement holds no authority unless and until the SI is agreed. She herself accepted this and suggested that Parliament "must" pass the SI or there will be constitutional chaos. There is no "must" about it and any chaos (which in fact amounts simply to the UK leaving at 11pm tomorrow) would be of her making
Geoffrey Cox, QC, the Attorney-General made his opinion known last week. Mrs May could not "legislate later" because the legislation was already in place. To provide an extension the legislation needs to be amended (or we leave tomorrow) and that can only be done with the concurrence of both Houses. Mrs May might have shaken hands, or kissed cheeks or whatever else they get up to agree things in Brussels/Strasbourg, but her agreement holds no authority unless and until the SI is agreed. She herself accepted this and suggested that Parliament "must" pass the SI or there will be constitutional chaos. There is no "must" about it and any chaos (which in fact amounts simply to the UK leaving at 11pm tomorrow) would be of her making
ich//I haven’t seen any reputable source claim that the SI had to be passed before any extension was agreed.//
You may want to watch and listen to this:-
https:/
You may want to watch and listen to this:-
https:/
Like I say, desperate people who want to lead us into a disastrous no deal Brexit trying to find legal loopholes. You can probably find a case for just about any permutation in theory: it’s probably why lawyers are wealthy people :-)
On “coming back” next week, that’s why it was important to stress that these were not “motions” and although they were all “defeated” in that they all polled more NOs than YESs, the exercise was still useful as it showed which might be more popular for want of anything better.
Hence “indicative”.
As I understand it, some may be subjected to a comparative ranking exercise using a preferential voting system. Those would still not be “motions” though.
On “coming back” next week, that’s why it was important to stress that these were not “motions” and although they were all “defeated” in that they all polled more NOs than YESs, the exercise was still useful as it showed which might be more popular for want of anything better.
Hence “indicative”.
As I understand it, some may be subjected to a comparative ranking exercise using a preferential voting system. Those would still not be “motions” though.
// There is no "must" about it and any chaos (which in fact amounts simply to the UK leaving at 11pm tomorrow) would be of her making. //
The UK has already agreed to the extension in international law, so the chaos would amount to the UK's national law being contradictory to international law. I am not going to claim that one takes precedence over the other, but that the contradiction exists would be chaos enough.
Elsewhere I provided what I believe to be a refutation of the claim that the Statutory Instrument had to be passed before Theresa May could agree to an extension. In summary, the relevant passage in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Section 20(4,5)) makes clear that the SI can only be laid to amend the definition of exit day to ensure that it aligns with the Treaties -- which is to say, two years after Article 50 Notification *unless* Article 50(3) applies, ie after reaching a unanimous agreement with the other member states to extend this period.
Now what certainly *is* true is that I haven't yet considered what would have happened had the Sec. of State for ExEU not laid the SI. Then, presumably, the definition of March 29th might still apply, so that the Section 1 of the 2018 Act, repealing the European Communities Act (1972) would still apply on that time. But this is now a hypothetical matter.
The UK has already agreed to the extension in international law, so the chaos would amount to the UK's national law being contradictory to international law. I am not going to claim that one takes precedence over the other, but that the contradiction exists would be chaos enough.
Elsewhere I provided what I believe to be a refutation of the claim that the Statutory Instrument had to be passed before Theresa May could agree to an extension. In summary, the relevant passage in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Section 20(4,5)) makes clear that the SI can only be laid to amend the definition of exit day to ensure that it aligns with the Treaties -- which is to say, two years after Article 50 Notification *unless* Article 50(3) applies, ie after reaching a unanimous agreement with the other member states to extend this period.
Now what certainly *is* true is that I haven't yet considered what would have happened had the Sec. of State for ExEU not laid the SI. Then, presumably, the definition of March 29th might still apply, so that the Section 1 of the 2018 Act, repealing the European Communities Act (1972) would still apply on that time. But this is now a hypothetical matter.
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.