What type of “extension” does it force her to seek? What if she tells Brussels that according to UK law she must seek an extension, but there is no withdrawal agreement and she really has no plans for anything different?
IOW, how hard must she seek an extension?
There’s more than one strand of activity going on.
May and Corbyn met today to try and hash out a compromise agreement, and they are going to continue tomorrow. The objective of this strand is to get something through Parliament, or at least a roadmap towards that, but of course there’s loads of party politics involved here.
It’s going to end up with a long extension, with UK participation in the upcoming EU elections (preparations are already underway for that), imo.
iswydt.
That would be a bit risky, though, wouldn’t it? Changing a single word, then sending it back to Commons could bring the whole thing tumbling down, no?
As a matter of law, as I understand it the Bill does leave open the possiblity that she could seek an extension in a way likely to provoke a rejection.
Nevertheless the Bill is politically significant. If she were to frustrate the legislated wishes of Parliament in this way she would jeopardise her own position and that of her government even more than she already has done. She would in effect be intentionally triggering a no-deal Brexit which Parliament has stated plainly that it does not want, and which it has instructed her not to pursue.
This is a bit academic, since she has already indicated that if the negotiated deal is not approved she will seek a further extension, so the Bill is only compelling her to do what she is already minded to do. But it gives her a legal and political mandate to seek, or at any rate to accept, a long extension, if the EU says that it’s a long extention or nothing.
This, coupled with the fact that the government is reportedly laying the groundwork to run the European parliamentary elections in May, gives a pretty clear indication as to the direction of travel.
The independence the Scots were mooting back in 2014 was predicted on rump-UK being an EU member state, so there would have been much common law and policy, much reciprocity, recognition and co-operation, etc not as a result of deals with the UK but simply as a result of common EU membership. Plus there were proposing some further alignment with the UK - e.g. Scotland would still link its currency to sterling, not the euro (necessarily, subject to EU agreement).
If the UK leaves the EU and then Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU you have to rethink all this, obviously, but it’s a bit premature to rethink it in any detail, since nobody knows what relgationship the UK will have withe the EU, how close itt will be, how much economic or regulatory integration, etc. I don’t think anybody really foresees a WTO border between England and Scotland, on the thinking tht a WTO border bewteen the UK and the EU is really not sustainable for the UK; even if there’s a no-deal Brexit they’ll be back looking for a deal pretty soon, and that’s likely to play out in much less time than it might take for a move for Scottixh independence to come to fruitiion.
There is, though, an ironic tension for Scotland. The harder the Brexit, the more Scotland is damaged, and the more it feels marginalised, disdained and disrespected in a UK effectively run by England. All of this must increase the pressure for independence, but it must also increase the cost of independence, in terms of a greater adverse impact on the Scottish economy as a result of leaving the UK, entering the EU, and finding thmselves with a hard border with their biggest trading partner.
Can it? For non-money bills, that takes (AFAIK) both a year’s wait and an intervening prorogation of Parliament, which is too long for the current crisis, and would also require the involvement of the government.
What was the significance of the motion to hold more indicative votes that was defeated when there was a tie and the Speaker voted against it? Merely procedural?
Yes, merely procedural. In a tie the Speaker is expected to cast their deciding vote for the status quo or more passive option. Of course, with our unwritten constitution nothing like this can be binding, but in this case it is entirely unremarkable for him to have voted this way, and to vote the other way would have been outrageous.
Yes, we have the same system in Canada. I was more interested in the motion itself; it being defeated doesn’t seem to be a major point in the interminable “How do you solve a problem like Brexit?” debate?
It might also cause the exact same kind of short-term shortages of essentials the UK fears in a no-deal Brexit - right now a colossal amount of goods of all sorts zoom through the chunnel on trains and trucks and to their respective destinations. If you add a border on the chunnel, that means customs inspections, and *that *means significant delays and reduced throughput. If you factor in the same thing at the border oop norf, it really doesn’t look good. If the UK doesn’t manage to stay in the customs union, it also means big price hikes due to customs at both ends. Scotland would then have to look into getting everything it needs from the EU by sea, which would take time and probably also big infrastructural investments into its ports… and all the while it suffers from shortages of goods and reduced export profits. Oh, and we probably suffer from whiskey shortages. It’s a nightmare.
It was an amendment to the daily business motion. It sought a third day of MPs indicative votes. It didn’t make much of a splash - other than the first application of Speaker Denison’s Rule since 1993 - because the government may introduce indicative votes of its own next week, depending on how the May-Corbyn summit goes.
Actually, it doesn’t. Not for commercial goods, anyway. HMRC still inspect a random amount and it’s up to the recipient to ensure that all duties etc are paid. Again, there are random inspections. For people and cars, the UK isn’t in Schengen anyway.
That’s not actually true for this part of Scotland. The harder the Brexit the better for NE Scotland. The oil trade is global, Norway is outside the EU, the fisheries return to UK fishermen, etc.
There’s a TIR system whereby goods in sealed containers can transit through third countries without being levied or inspected at either border. In principle it should work well to allow goods to be freighted through England to Scotland with minimal delay or additional cost. It would require Scots-destination consignments to be segregated and handled separately, though, which isn’t currently the case, so that woudl impose some additional cost.
I know you haven’t quite figured this out yet, but friendly reminder - the leave campaign lied to you. Like, a lot.
ISTR there’s at least one place where the border runs up the middle of the road (leading to Mock the Week making jokes about having to get your passport out every time you overtake another vehicle). And God help you if you live in Drummully.
I have mixed feelings about May turning to Corbyn to discuss Brexit options. On the one hand, it is at least a constructive attempt to find a solution to the current situation. On the other hand, it’s not like Corbyn has been any more of a vision of clarity with regard to what he and/or the Labour Party want with regard to Brexit than May has. If the two of them come to a coherent, workable agreement, it will be by purest chance.
I still don’t understand the argument that “If May does she’s finished!”. She’s already finished politically no matter how this pans out. Stay, leave, deal, no-deal - the country and Parliament are so fundamentally divided that no matter what she does at least half - and likely much more - of the populace and MPs on all sides of the House will hate and blame her. Again, her saving grace is that a majority of the populace and MPs also hate Jeremy Corbyn, all the other likely Tory contenders, and all the other parties. And as for “The Conservative Party is going to split” - it’s already split. I don’t know whether it’s irreparable but it’s certainly in an awful state.
You do realise that I live here in NE Scotland, right? I talk to people in the oil and fishing industries.
I know you haven’t quite figured this out yet but friendly reminder - the Remain campaign lied to you. Like, a lot.
Quartz is right. The Political Declaration clearly states that “the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state”. It does so in the context of expected bilateral cooperation and a new UK-EU fisheries agreement, but recognises that each side will have “regulatory autonomy”. There’s no question that Britain leaving the UK, at least under the current plan or under a no-deal Brexit, means leaving the Common Fisheries Policy, which is detested by UK fisherman.
Note also that the fishing industry was the business group most in favour of Leave; 92% according to one source. British fishermen want out of the EU – here’s why
That must have been one hell of a lie to convince the people who know the most about UK fishing to be overwhelmingly in favour of leaving.
Compared to the Leave campaign? It is to laugh. What did Remain lie about?
Leave told us we’d get back £350 million a week. Remain pointed out that number didn’t factor in the rebate nor the amount the EU pays back to the UK. Nigel Farage admitted the day after the referendum that the Leave campaign lied. Remain were correct.
Leave promised that the economically deprived areas that receive EU funding would have their funding covered by the UK government out of the money the UK wasn’t paying to the EU. In fact, Leave made promises of such funding to a sum of more than ten times the amount that the UK would get back from the UK, and these areas have subsequently learned that it is unlikely that they will receive much if any funding to make up the gap. Remain stated that the economically deprived areas would suffer greatly from the loss of funding which would not be covered by the government. Discussions of replacement funding have gone strangely quiet post-referendum and places like Cornwall and Wales who voted to Leave have been realising how much pain they’re now in for. Leave lied. Remain were correct.
Leave promised that leaving the EU would reduce NHS waiting times. Remain said that this was pure fantasy. Immigrants make up 20% of NHS staff (as opposed to 10% of the general population) and the number of nurses from Europe applying to work in the UK plummeted by over 90%, exacerbating an already serious shortage. Leave lied. Remain were correct.
Leave promised over and over that the UK would be able to negotiate better trade deals with the EU and with the rest of the world, quickly and easily. Remain pointed out that the UK would lose a vast amount of its negotiating clout and would in fact be competing with the rest of the EU. And as we have seen over and over, Leave lied and Remain were correct.
Remain said that voting to Leave would cripple the UK economy and result in businesses leaving the UK. Leave said this was fantasy. But businesses have already been leaving the UK in droves and the status of London as the top financial centre of the world permanently crippled, the economy is losing £600m a week due to uncertainty over Brexit and the country hasn’t even left yet. Prominent Leavers such as Dyson and Rees-Mogg have moved or are moving their investments and businesses out of the country. Leave lied. Remain were correct.
Leave promised that we would have “more democracy” and “more sovereignty”, yet the UK will still be subject to a vast amount of EU regulations while losing all representation in deciding what those regulations are. Leave lied.
Leave claimed - and continue to claim - that there will be a smooth transition. Meanwhile, the government is planning for massive shortages in food and medicine, and for Kent to become one big carpark.
In fact, what didn’t Leave lie about? What aren’t they lying about now? They called forecasts of economic downturn “Project Fear” while claiming that staying in the EU would result in foreign rape gangs roaming our neighbourhoods. They claim that allowing another vote would be undemocratic. They blame Remain for the fundamental failings of their own positions, and call them “Remoaners” while ceaselessly complaining and whining that the unicorn they were promised hasn’t been delivered. Everything Leavers say seems to be the opposite of reality. At this point if a Leaver told me the sun rose in the East I’d go out with a compass to check.