They have said that we can have as long an extension as we need, with only two conditions.
A decision must be made by April 12th. We cannot just keep debating for eternity, we must choose how (or if) we want to leave. If our chosen course then requires a 2 year extension it will be granted, but we cannot waste another 2 years and still end up with no decision.
If an extension takes us into the next EU parliament we must elect representatives for it. Otherwise we would still be a member but have no say in what goes on.
Neither of these conditions are unreasonable.
On what evidence have you decided that dragging this out for another 2 years would be better for the EU than us leaving now? Either way will cost the EU money, but at least once we’ve left they can start to mitigate their losses. Our departure is also delaying other projects that the EU wants to move on.
It is the UK that will (deservedly) suffer the most from from this, the EU will cope fine either way. Just accept that this is entirely the UK’s fault. The EU has been more than fair at every stage of the process. It’s people like you blaming the EU for everything that led to Brexit in the first place.
It’s not better, either. Or at least not to any degree of certainty.
Lopping my hand off is bad.
A single pinprick is less bad.
A billion pinpricks is worse than losing a hand.
Maybe that single pinprick leads to seeing a doctor who diagnoses a previously unknown cancer.
So, what? Guarantee that it’s only the single one and not a billion first. And that point has been made repeatedly only to be ignored.
There are several ways the uncertainty can be resolved. One is letting the UK go without a deal. Another is granting an extension but in a way that resolves the uncertainty, i.e. by insisting on a viable path forward with firm timeframes, even if the actual exit will end up years away.
Right now, there’s only a vague hope that the UK will eventually settle on some exit plan at some hazy future date.
I’ve a vague hope of winning the lottery, which is a lot better outcome than quitting my job for better prospects. But I’m not making any life decisions based on the slim hope of winning the lottery. Any firm plan is better than “well, I’ll win the lottery, then, won’t I?” Going back to school, having an offer from a different company, a marriage proposal from a wealthy person, etc. These are all plans that don’t require a miracle to occur first.
Revocation to avoid no deal (L) could, if no other deal is reached.
Confirmatory public vote (M) could, depending on the options given for voting. There’s been a lot of debate over whether “Remain” should be an option on any future referendum. It could end up being a straight vote between whatever deal is chosen vs no-deal, with no option to remain.
Also today - the PM will be having a meeting with her backbenchers. There are rumours that she’ll set the date for her resignation. She certainly seemed relatively relaxed at Prime Ministers Questions earlier.
The “would” makes it a legal question. Also, recognise there’s are distinctions between PM Farage, PM Farage’s government, and the UKIP majority. Legally, would PM Farage by himself (or his government) be able to invoke Article 50? No. Legally, would the UKIP majority be able to invoke Article 50? Yes.
I think changing the verb to “should” asks a better question. My view is that PM Farage and his government would have a constitutional obligation to respect the referendum. A change in government does not free the new government from legislation and actions of previous governments. However, the strength and manner of that respect would depend on UKIP’s election manifesto, and promises made to the electorate during the campaign. Let’s assume that Farage and UKIP campaigned from day one that they intended to overturn the referendum. It would be clear that the general election was in effect a second referendum. The duty of Farage and Parliament would then be to try and reconcile the two opposing votes, and see if any of the goals of the referendum Remain votes could be met. But yes, in this scenario, Farage should invoke Article 50.
In a different alternate universe, consider if the Liberal Democrats had won the 2017 general election. In that universe, PM Vince Cable should consider the referendum Leave majority’s goals, but also should revoke the Article 50 declaration.
Going back to PM Farage, let’s change the assumption such that he promised that the UKIP government would not invoke Article 50. Should he then feel free to do an about-face and break his promise? No. He should be obligated and expected to honour his promises, even if that obligation isn’t a legal one.
No, that’s horrible. Nearly three years have been sucked up by Brexit. Business confidence is low, the economy is being damped down, and little government action is taking place. And the people of the UK are absolutely sick of Brexit. Maintaining the status quo is the one thing that would be worse than an over-the-cliff No-Deal Brexit.
I’m amazed at Bercow’s strong words regarding ruling out MV3. He says he’s instructed the Table Office to reject any notwithstanding motions to bypass his ruling. That sounds way beyond his remit.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It seems that Rees-Mogg may have destroyed his reputation among hard-line Brexteers for nothing.
He has stated that he is now prepared to support May’s withdrawal agreement, despite previously repeatedly condemning it as ‘vassalage’ to the EU. So apparently he now prefers vassalage to the possibility of revoking A50 and staying in the EU on equal (or better) terms to the other members.
He is being called a traitor by many on the extreme right… and it may all be for nothing, as Bercow is taking a hard line against MV3, and it may never be put to a vote again anyway.
He is simply saying that he is not going to allow devious technicalities to be used as a way of getting round his ruling on repeat votes. He is on very solid ground in refusing to accept repeat votes.
This is well within his remit, but if the Commons doesn’t like it they can vote to overturn his ruling. They won’t.
At this point, it doesn’t look like May will have enough MP’s supporting the WA anyway. But if she did, then wouldn’t Andrea Ledsom be able to question the speaker’s decision using a point of order? I’m not clear on the mechanism, but I believe a point of order was raised last week on some issue, and Bercow backed down rather than seeing the point go to a vote.
May has told Tory MPs she will resign if her withdrawal agreement is passed, before the next phase of Brexit talks - presumably leaving the next phase to the ERG. :dubious:
I’m glad she’s leaving, but still don’t expect that will change enough minds for the Withdrawal Agreement to go through. But between her resignation and whatever the results of the indicative votes, there’s probably enough of an impetus to ask the EU for a longer extension. Which is necessary, but disappointing.
Yeah, clever. Her Deal won’t pass. The DUP remain opposed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the prospect of a hard right Brexiter becoming Tory leader would put off some Tory moderates from backing the deal.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It’s currently unlikely there’ll even be another vote on the deal, Bercow made it pretty clear that he won’t allow it. It’s an empty threat/promise by May, as there’s pretty much no way that her deal now happens.
So, 3 theoretical options. Leave with no deal, revoke Article 50 or negotiate a new deal with the EU. The EU has ruled out the last one, and I simply can’t see May revoking it. So, no deal here we come.
I’ve no money to stockpile anything, so I’ll probably be swinging from the rafters shortly.
