Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
It looks to me that the Government are desperate to get the European Union (Withdrawal) Act royal assent and on the statute books, so there is legal certainty about Brexit taking effect next year.
If the EU use the amendment to stall negotiations until 30th November in the hope of forcing the softest of Brexits (entirely possible) then i can’t see the Government surviving.
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
Great. Just great.
We always had until November, we need time for the rest of the EU to ratify the deal.
We're properly into the twilight zone if there is no deal agreed by November 30th given the EU's (Perfectly understandable) need to have one done before then. So if there is no deal by Nov 30th then there is no deal.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
No we won't as both May and Corbyn still oppose EEA
We are in a very strange place now, @HYUFD so I would hesitate to rule anything out categorically. Especially, as has been demonstrated today, as parliament is not particularly minded to listen to their leaders on either side.
There is not a majority for EEA on the Labour benches unless they want to be Turkeys voting for UKIP Christmas given it requires free movement and most Labour seats voted Leave largely because of immigration concerns, let alone on the Tory benches
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
Great. Just great.
No we have until March for the deal to be ratified by 28 Parliaments and the European Parliament. You think that's going to happen overnight?
It's been said all along the negotiations would need to end six months early to provide time for the Parliamentary ratifications to go through smoothly (though I suspect that six months includes some wriggle room in case of last minute slippages).
Just read a link to Guido that someone posted down thread. Reading the comments under the article I didn't realise there were so many UKIPers in the country let alone that all of them posted on Guido. They're also 100% Trump supporters. He's collected all the nutters in one place. Well done Guido.
We're properly into the twilight zone if there is no deal agreed by November 30th given the EU's (Perfectly understandable) need to have one done before then. So if there is no deal by Nov 30th then there is no deal.
If there are not dozens and dozens of meetings taking place as we speak (everyone is of course on holiday in August) between EU and UK civil servants then I will be quite concerned.
There is pulling things out at the last minute for agreements about agreements. But this is the trade deal. This is our future relationship for the next XX years.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Can we end up in both the EEA and the CU? I thought being in the EEA/EFTA would mean that we're in the SM but outside the CU. Norway is outside the CU and has a customs border with Sweden.
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
Great. Just great.
We always had until November, we need time for the rest of the EU to ratify the deal.
No deal by the 30th November doesn't give the EU enough time to ratify (Remember it is 27 members !) And the whole parliamentary process will take ages if it starts on Nov 30th... but parliament voted today for the exit to be on 29th March ! How is that circle squared.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
It looks to me that the Government are desperate to get the European Union (Withdrawal) Act royal assent and on the statute books, so there is legal certainty about Brexit taking effect next year.
If the EU use the amendment to stall negotiations until 30th November in the hope of forcing the softest of Brexits (entirely possible) then i can’t see the Government surviving.
The other possibility is that May is trying to show the EU she can get a deal through the UK Parliament, to unlock hitherto stalled negotiations (since the Lords made their amendments) but there are a number of ways the EU could play this.
They might not necessarily care about May surviving, even though I would in their situation.
"I think the chances of a deal being done are so much higher now."
You could be right. It will concentrate the minds of the negotiators. The alternative is several years of uncertainty which no one wants.
I think it is a very clever move, the EU will be desperate for a deal now, they will not want the alternative.
Will they? Parliament is full to the brim with the worst kind of remainer, the longer they drag it out the more chance that Parliament will take any kind of shite deal. The EU just got a huge win, our MPs are working to strengthen the hand of our enemy. It's absolutely disgraceful.
There is no way that will happen, the press coverage of any MP doing what they can to block Brexit will just be too awful for any MP to risk it.
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
Great. Just great.
We always had until November, we need time for the rest of the EU to ratify the deal.
No deal by the 30th November doesn't give the EU enough time to ratify (Remember it is 27 members !) And the whole parliamentary process will take ages if it starts on Nov 30th... but parliament voted today for the exit to be on 29th March ! How is that circle squared.
Parliament can change the law again and move the exit date.
Just read a link to Guido that someone posted down thread. Reading the comments under the article I didn't realise there were so many UKIPers in the country let alone that all of them posted on Guido. They're also 100% Trump supporters. He's collected all the nutters in one place. Well done Guido.
Brexit Bulldog and out......
Your extreme views would be deemed too wild for The Canary or Guido tbf
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
Great. Just great.
We always had until November, we need time for the rest of the EU to ratify the deal.
No deal by the 30th November doesn't give the EU enough time to ratify (Remember it is 27 members !) And the whole parliamentary process will take ages if it starts on Nov 30th... but parliament voted today for the exit to be on 29th March ! How is that circle squared.
Parliament can change the law again and move the exit date.
Parliament can propose to change the exit date, BUT the EU need to agree to that. Why should Barnier ?
We're properly into the twilight zone if there is no deal agreed by November 30th given the EU's (Perfectly understandable) need to have one done before then. So if there is no deal by Nov 30th then there is no deal.
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
I am reminded of the votes over the proportion of the Lords that would be elected where all the options were defeated - though there was a majority in the Commons for Lords Reform there was no majority for a specific choice of reform, given several alternatives.
I could see the same scenario playing out with Brexit.
The difference being that once the Withdrawal Bill is passed then leaving with no deal becomes the status quo option in the absence of an alternative being agreed.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
We're properly into the twilight zone if there is no deal agreed by November 30th given the EU's (Perfectly understandable) need to have one done before then. So if there is no deal by Nov 30th then there is no deal.
Not so. The EU can go to the 59th minute of the 11th hour, and frequently does so as a negotiating strategy. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and it can be agreed at any time until we actually leave the legal grasp of the EU – several years hence.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Chances of No Deal Brexit have just dropped sharply. If Parliament is going to get control of negotiations if no deal has been done by the end of November, then the majority in Parliament who favour a deal is going to get one of one form or another.
EU have said that deal will have to be done by end of October to allow time to get them all to agree and vote in EU Parliament. Government is handing Parliament the cliff edge.
We thought we had to next March. Now we only have till this October.
Great. Just great.
We always had until November, we need time for the rest of the EU to ratify the deal.
No deal by the 30th November doesn't give the EU enough time to ratify (Remember it is 27 members !) And the whole parliamentary process will take ages if it starts on Nov 30th... but parliament voted today for the exit to be on 29th March ! How is that circle squared.
Parliament can change the law again and move the exit date.
Parliament can propose to change the exit date, BUT the EU need to agree to that. Why should Barnier ?
In their interests.
(Yes I know I sound like the half witted Leavers who said they need us more than we need them)
But a disorderly Brexit isn't uniform across the EU it'll disproportionately impact several countries particularly Ireland and Spain.
You can't base policy on threats - real or imagined. That doesn't bring anything to the debate other than attention seeking and victim hood. Poor.
Yes, let’s dismiss and belittle her concerns. There has never been a case of an elected politician being murdered by a right-wing Brexit extremist after all.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
How are the EU going to cover the £39Bn hole in their accounts if no deal ?
Tariffs on imports from the UK?
We import more than we export to the EU, so they'll lose that game.
It was tongue in cheek really but any import duties we exact on goods coiming into the UK will be paid for by UK consumers, not out of the EU budget... whereas duties charged on UK goods going to the EU (paid for by EU consumers) could (presumably) be diverted bolster the EU budget. Approciate it would only make a small dent in the gap.
But anyway 'no deal' looks less likely than it did at lunchtime. Thankfully.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Very very early on, well prior to the Referendum, I noted, because it had been told to me by someone close to the situation, that the EEA was not an option "for a country the size of the UK".
It seems that we have all been getting ahead of ourselves, myself included.
You can't base policy on threats - real or imagined. That doesn't bring anything to the debate other than attention seeking and victim hood. Poor.
Yes, let’s dismiss and belittle her concerns. There has never been a case of an elected politician being murdered by a right-wing Brexit extremist after all.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
I thought diplomacy was conducted under the royal prerogative?
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
Why would they block it? Why is it in their interests at all?
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
Looks like a small group of Remain Tory MPs has TMay by the throat in as much of a vice as the ERG.She is held captive by 2 competing groups. Running through cornfields might just look like paradise just now.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
I think the existing EEA members might have something to say about that...
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
I think the existing EEA members might have something to say about that...
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
I think the existing EEA members might have something to say about that...
Why would they say "no", rather than "yes"?
Because the might not want to be in the Customs Union
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HofC could abolish the PM and the Cabinet if it wishes as Parliament is sovereign and that is the basis of our unwritten constitution as Charles 1st found out
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The cabinet are appointed by the PM, with the power of the Crown.
The HoC has no such power to get rid of a cabinet.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HofC could abolish the PM and the Cabinet if it wishes as Parliament is sovereign and that is the basis of our unwritten constitution as Charles 1st found out
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
Indeed - and in so doing the HoC will have got rid of the Cabinet.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
Technically they are all appointed by HMQ and could be dismissed by her at any time
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
I think the existing EEA members might have something to say about that...
Why would they say "no", rather than "yes"?
Because the might not want to be in the Customs Union
Okay, but why would our choice to join the EU Customs Union have to apply to them? Are the members of the EFTA in a Customs Union with each other?
The House of Commons resolves itself into a committee, and in that form requests the monarch to sign the treaty. Simple. If you've got an unwritten constitution you might as well make it work for you.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
Indeed - and in so doing the HoC will have got rid of the Cabinet.
But it can’t do a precision strike. It’s the government or nothing.
The House of Commons resolves itself into a committee, and in that form requests the monarch to sign the treaty. Simple. If you've got an unwritten constitution you might as well make it work for you.
I do love PB sometimes; clarification on the actual detail of the small concession offered to the Tory rebels has proved all this moot but we're still running with the possibilities.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
Technically they are all appointed by HMQ and could be dismissed by her at any time
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
Indeed - and in so doing the HoC will have got rid of the Cabinet.
But it can’t do a precision strike. It’s the government or nothing.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
Indeed - and in so doing the HoC will have got rid of the Cabinet.
But it can’t do a precision strike. It’s the government or nothing.
Indeed. And there would need to be a replacement government. Ben seems to be forgetting that Parliament is not an Executive, but a Legislature.
The House of Commons resolves itself into a committee, and in that form requests the monarch to sign the treaty. Simple. If you've got an unwritten constitution you might as well make it work for you.
I do love PB sometimes; clarification on the actual detail of the small concession offered to the Tory rebels has proved all this moot but we're still running with the possibilities.
Have any details of exactly what the “Customs Arrangement” backed by Morgan, JRM et al been released?
Isn’t the text of the amendment on one of the previous thread headers? The wording is vague enough that any treaty dealing with customs should be sufficient.
I think dinner this evening with mrs lee could be a bit tricky...how was your day darling...well I took a £30k + perks pay cut...why did you do that...matter of principle...and how have you used this new found freedom...I abstained....
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
There's some poor students of history and Parliamentary procedure on PB.
Parliament can remove a PM or cabinet ministers.
Here's the most recent attempt.
*History lesson today - Impeachment is a British procedure which the Americans then borrowed*
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HoC can get rid of the PM, and ergo the Cabinet.
I thought it "got rid" of the government in a motion of no confidence?
Indeed - and in so doing the HoC will have got rid of the Cabinet.
But it can’t do a precision strike. It’s the government or nothing.
Indeed. And there would need to be a replacement government. Ben seems to be forgetting that Parliament is not an Executive, but a Legislature.
Not at all. But as well as being a Legislature the HoC has the power effectively to sack the Executive and vote in a new one.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
No because that then has to apply to all the EEA EFTA members.
Kuenssberg seems to have given up any pretence at neutrality re Brexit... "...govt has arguably given away some of the incentive for the EU to do a decent deal in October"
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
I thought Portugal joined the EU in 1986, which was before the EEA even existed.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
No because that then has to apply to all the EEA EFTA members.
(From a technical perspective, there are often carve outs in multinational treaties that deal with specific circumstances for particular countries or groups. IIRC, the EEA treaty contains specific exemptions regarding Lapland. So, while it might be highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that the EEA treaty could be amended and contain specific provisions for us with regard to the customs union. )
Kuenssberg seems to have given up any pretence at neutrality re Brexit... "...govt has arguably given away some of the incentive for the EU to do a decent deal in October"
It’s a point one can argue, no? In fact, we are doing it on here!
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HofC could abolish the PM and the Cabinet if it wishes as Parliament is sovereign and that is the basis of our unwritten constitution as Charles 1st found out
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
I thought Portugal joined the EU in 1986, which was before the EEA even existed.
Correct, the single market was officially launched in 1993
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
No because that then has to apply to all the EEA EFTA members.
(From a technical perspective, there are often carve outs in multinational treaties that deal with specific circumstances for particular countries or groups. IIRC, the EEA treaty contains specific exemptions regarding Lapland. So, while it might be highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that the EEA treaty could be amended and contain specific provisions for us with regard to the customs union. )
Kuenssberg seems to have given up any pretence at neutrality re Brexit... "...govt has arguably given away some of the incentive for the EU to do a decent deal in October"
It’s a point one can argue, no? In fact, we are doing it on here!
I'm not saying she's lying, just that she's summarising through a Brexiteer lens.
More Labour rebels voted with the government, 5 plus Hopkins, than the 2 Tory rebels who voted against the government in the government's victory on the first Lords amendment proposing Parliament be given the final say on Brexit if it votes any EU deal down https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
No because that then has to apply to all the EEA EFTA members.
(From a technical perspective, there are often carve outs in multinational treaties that deal with specific circumstances for particular countries or groups. IIRC, the EEA treaty contains specific exemptions regarding Lapland. So, while it might be highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that the EEA treaty could be amended and contain specific provisions for us with regard to the customs union. )
Specific exemptions regarding Lapland
Santa Clause
OK, I checked the agreement, it was actually the Åland Islands and not Lapland.
I think dinner this evening with mrs lee could be a bit tricky...how was your day darling...well I took a £30k + perks pay cut...why did you do that...matter of principle...and how have you used this new found freedom...I abstained....
To be fair has his resignation not succeeded?
Arguably if he'd not announced he was rebelling then the government might not have felt under sufficient pressure to make today's concessions.
Comments
If the EU use the amendment to stall negotiations until 30th November in the hope of forcing the softest of Brexits (entirely possible) then i can’t see the Government surviving.
So if there is no deal by Nov 30th then there is no deal.
It's been said all along the negotiations would need to end six months early to provide time for the Parliamentary ratifications to go through smoothly (though I suspect that six months includes some wriggle room in case of last minute slippages).
Brexit Bulldog and out......
There is pulling things out at the last minute for agreements about agreements. But this is the trade deal. This is our future relationship for the next XX years.
(and @sarissa that is not twenty!!
And the whole parliamentary process will take ages if it starts on Nov 30th... but parliament voted today for the exit to be on 29th March !
How is that circle squared.
They might not necessarily care about May surviving, even though I would in their situation.
https://www.ippr.org/blog/britain-is-still-clueless-about-the-eu-s-motives-in-brexit-negotiations
https://twitter.com/DimitarBechev/status/1006565713950265345
I could see the same scenario playing out with Brexit.
The difference being that once the Withdrawal Bill is passed then leaving with no deal becomes the status quo option in the absence of an alternative being agreed.
Laura K:
We understand the government is willing to concede to the demand for a parliamentary motion in the event a final Brexit deal is voted down.
A parliamentary motion could be amended and voted on.
However, the government is not willing to agree to Conservative MP Dominic Grieve’s call for MPs to take control of negotiations in the last resort.
One of the leading Tory rebels has told the BBC “the government has bent not broken,” but it leaves the “fight for another day”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-44440809
(Yes I know I sound like the half witted Leavers who said they need us more than we need them)
But a disorderly Brexit isn't uniform across the EU it'll disproportionately impact several countries particularly Ireland and Spain.
Moron.
Golden rule of Brexit strikes again...
But anyway 'no deal' looks less likely than it did at lunchtime. Thankfully.
It seems that we have all been getting ahead of ourselves, myself included.
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1006567489222922240
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
Running through cornfields might just look like paradise just now.
The HoC has no such power to get rid of a cabinet.
Namely today's Tesco Strawberry score
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Norfolk
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
Somerset
West Sussex
Surrey
Kent
A total of nine, which is two down IIRC from Sunday.
West Sussex is a newcomer generally and Norfolk is a Tesco newcomer.
The east/west split receives extra confirmation.
So small you can see it from Brussels
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/1006562863983616000
That minor distraction apart, it’s a model of clarity. Keep them coming.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1006578955854471168
No kidding...
I notice that public sector employment has now increased for five consecutive quarters.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/march2018
Parliament can remove a PM or cabinet ministers.
Here's the most recent attempt.
*History lesson today - Impeachment is a British procedure which the Americans then borrowed*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_motion_to_impeach_Tony_Blair
Edit 1 - Ha, they used Phil Shiner as their legal adviser
Edit 2 - Boris Johnson signed the impeachment motion
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/12/einsteins-travel-diaries-reveal-shocking-xenophobia
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
Santa Clause
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1006580426289410053
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035
Sorry.
Arguably if he'd not announced he was rebelling then the government might not have felt under sufficient pressure to make today's concessions.