Brexit View

[rendelharris]

Good points there Loz.

[keano77]

Not quite that simple Loz.

I understand your point but I think I'm right in saying Corbyn's imaginary coalition government of June 2018 would need to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. They couldn't agree to put Brexit on hold with the EU until this had been done (can't stop clock). Everything would need to be in place, passed all stages, Lords, Royal Assent etc, before midnight on 30 March 2019.

Can't see that coalition achieving that - be like rats fighting in a sack

[edhistory]

I'll get back to actual detail of the Bill later.

> Good points there Loz.

I like fantasy futureology too.

> before midnight on 30 March 2019.

I might have missed it but the Bill has an "exit date" and does not refer to a specific date of 30 March 2019.

[Loz]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not quite that simple Loz.

>

> I understand your point but I think I'm right in saying Corbyn's imaginary coalition government of

> June 2018 would need to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. They

> couldn't agree to put Brexit on hold with the EU until this had been done (can't stop clock).

That bill is one paragraph that grants the PM power to notify the EU of the intention to withdraw the UK from the EU. Nothing more, nothing less.

[keano77]

My reference to the date 30 March 2019 refers to the cut off date for current Brexit talks at one minute past midnight on the 30 March 2019 which were initiated under the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Surely this Act would need to be repealed before hypothetically a different government could agree with the EU to stop the clock?

I'm not referring to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19

[Loz]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My reference to the date 30 March 2019 refers to the cut off date for current Brexit talks at one

> minute past midnight on the 30 March 2019 which were initiated under the European Union

> (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Surely this Act would need to be repealed before

> hypothetically a different government could agree with the EU to stop the clock?

There is nothing in any legislation that ties the government to a particular date... or even ties them to actually do Brexit at all. The only impediment would be whether Article 50 itself is reversible - and that is open to debate as it does not actually say one way or the other.

[keano77]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> keano77 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Not quite that simple Loz.

> >

> > I understand your point but I think I'm right in

> saying Corbyn's imaginary coalition government of

> > June 2018 would need to repeal the European

> Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. They

> > couldn't agree to put Brexit on hold with the EU

> until this had been done (can't stop clock).

>

> That bill is one paragraph that grants the PM

> power to notify the EU of the intention to

> withdraw the UK from the EU. Nothing more,

> nothing less.

I'm not sure about that Loz. Corbyn's fantasy coalition might need to repeal said Act above and introduce a new Bill

European Union (Notification of Changed Our Mind Please Let Us Stay) Bill 2018.

[Loz]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure about that Loz. Corbyn's fantasy coalition might need to repeal said Act above and

> introduce a new Bill European Union (Notification of Changed Our Mind Please Let Us Stay) Bill 2017.

You are forgetting you gave them the power to make and remove legislation without reference to Parliament. After all, Brexit would then be "no longer appropriate".

[keano77]

No. My friend Gina's victory made it clear Article 50 could only be invoked with Parliament's authority, such authority been conferred on the PM by the said Act. I suspect with EU agreement the current Govt and PM might be able to stop the clock.

My question is can a new coalition govt put Brexit on hold without repealing the Act that gave the PM authority to start Brexit talks and Parliament passing a new Act? In the meantime the Article 50 March 30 2019 deadline is ticking away

[Loz]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My question is can a new coalition govt put Brexit on hold without repealing the Act that gave the PM

> authority to start Brexit talks and Parliament passing a new Act? In the meantime the Article 50

> March 30 2019 deadline is ticking away

Absolutely, yes. The PM would still theoretically have the authority to trigger Brexit, so the legislation would still hold. Saying 'you can' do something is very different to saying 'you must' do something. There was nothing in that bill that said she had to trigger Brexit (which is why she, not parliament, decided the date A50 was triggered). So, stopping Brexit would not go against any UK legislation. (Though not repealing it in the longer term would leave that authority in place.)

So, Theresa May could, quite legally, stop the Brexit process tomorrow. Though that would trigger a lot of legal debate about the A50 wording. A50 has a provision to extend the time limit, but there is nothing in there about abandoning the process altogether, so that is very unclear.

[keano77]

Ok I concede on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Corbyn's fantasy coalition probably wouldn't need to repeal it.

Whether he could stop Article 50 Brexit talks and restart them might be more of a matter for the EU Parliament and ECJ than the UK Parliament though

[uncleglen]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism

the 1.1 'in general use' just about sums up what fascism is.....and the left are guilty of those things just as much as the right

[JoeLeg]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fasci

> sm

>

> the 1.1 'in general use' just about sums up what

> fascism is.....and the left are guilty of those

> things just as much as the right

Hush, I'm trying to listen to the grown-ups talking.

[Loz]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fasci

> sm

>

> the 1.1 'in general use' just about sums up what

> fascism is.....and the left are guilty of those

> things just as much as the right

I'm not talking about your use with the left wing - more your general use in applying it to everyone and anyone. You seem to overlook the definition's use of the word 'extreme'.

[red devil]

Interesting comments today from Blair... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40615119

I never quite understood why Cameron didn't go back to the EU after the Referendum, and propose that there needed to be some reform on immigration. Instead he couldn't get away quick enough. McDonnell's comments don't surprise me, both he and Corbyn see Brexit as a back door to their Utopian Socialist idyll...

[Jenny1]

I was no fan of Thatcher's economic policies, but she had a formidable work ethic and was a good tactician and strategist. The current lot we're burdened with wouldn't have been fit to shine her shoes.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/germans-tell-irish-that-the-british-are-a-disgrace-35935039.html

And I'm not giving the Labour leadership a get-out either. How come we have such incompetent individuals at the top of politics these days?

[DulwichFox]

Thatcher was clever.. ?? Mmmh no deceitful.

She gave 'Council' Tenants the opportunity to buy there own homes..

.. insuring that they could not then afford to go on strike..

...at a time when the

Shipbuilding industry was finished.. The Mining Industry was finished.. The Steel Industry was finished.

The mines closed.. The shipyards closed.. The Steelworks closed .. People had no jobs and they lost their homes.

They were snapped up at auction by unscrupulous landlords. Hence the affordable housing shortage.

DulwichFox

[Jenny1]

Absolutely DulwichFox. I agree with all of that. But people are complex and often exhibit great strengths along with appalling shortcomings. I disagreed with virtually every domestic policy Thatcher ever carried out, but she was no fool and she wasn't lazy. This current lot are both.

[JoeLeg]

Thatcher at least BELIEVED in what she was doing. I stand opposed to almost everything she did, but I respect the fact that she truly believed in the path she walked. As you say, not something that we see much of these days.

[Jenny1]

Absolutely JoeLeg. That's part of it, to be sure. The central irony being that Corbyn, and other 'Bennite' members of the Labour Party, clearly 'believe' in Brexit in a way that the PM, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor (who are actually implementing the policy) don't.

But there are also issues of simple competence too. That's what really struck me about the Irish Independent article above - and indeed many other accounts of what's currently going on in government. The bumbling drift is unforgiveable.

[JoeLeg]

In fairness we should remember that so much of why we read over the next twelve months will be both sides leaking and briefing in an attempt to shore up public opinion under their position. It surprises me not at all that German politicians are telling Irish ones that the British don't know what they're doing. It may be true, it may not. Your wider point about the general idiocy of politicians these days is inarguably true I feel, but I'm wary of such strident positions being posted in the media, it smells too much like people trying to gain position in the talks.

[Jenny1]

Hi JoeLeg. I quite agree that there will always be 'briefing with an agenda'. One always has to bear that in mind.

But in my view events bear out the conclusion that the government isn't handling this matter competently.

I watched David Davis' performance before the Parliamentary select committee and found him unprepared. I saw his tweeted statement that the first thing negotiators should do post the referendum result would be to do a separate deal with Germany, compared it with the current reality, and found his views (at best) naieve. I saw his tweets suggesting the withdrawl of the banking and medical regulatory authorities from the UK would be up for discussion, saw the EU take a rapid unilateral decision on this (as was always their right), and reached the same conclusion.

I do not find May, Johnson or Fox any more convincing.

[JoeLeg]

I wish I could disagree with you...

[malumbu]

The penultimate Question Time before the election was revealing where Labour, Greens and Lib Dems all spoke with one voice, that Brexit was a political not economic decision and that the single market was very much Thatcher's vision (supported by all those in her cabinet that I can remember snd a bedrock of all Prime Ministers that followed, including this one albeit that the country has decided).

Great if someone who can explain to me that whist as PM that was genuinely so popular with her supporters at the time, and still loved by the Tory blue rinse brigade, the same blue rinse brigade are so anti Europe.

Please feel free to pick anything apart that I have just said as interested in learning.

[red devil]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Absolutely DulwichFox. I agree with all of that.

> But people are complex and often exhibit great

> strengths along with appalling shortcomings. I

> disagreed with virtually every domestic policy

> Thatcher ever carried out, but she was no fool and

> she wasn't lazy. This current lot are both.

Perhaps the current crop of MPs are merely reflecting the current electorate, and I can only see it getting worse with social media. Who'd want to me an MP only to be constantly mocked, and/or subjected to misogyny, racism, homophobia etc. I can't get access to read all of this article, but it's clear the point the author is making... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/16/treat-mps-contempt-contemptible-will-apply-job/