So is this just a symbolic measure, or is there any actual teeth to this becoming law?
It will be law when the Lords pass it. It's got teeth. Do the teeth bite? Fuck knows.
Does it actually require that an offered extension be accepted?
Not exactly sure but it seems very much to suggest that the government cannot legally take a No Deal over an offered extension
There has to be some limitations, since I doubt it would let the EU propose something ridiculous and have the UK legally obligated to obey.
A new law can be passed if need be, til then - no option. Must seek to avoid No Deal.
Of course any legal proceedings would be after we fall out...
But the EP elections deadline happens before then, so maybe the case can be resolved before we actually leave given there are rumours that preparations for the elections are going ahead anyway, just in case (this is the civil service we're talking about).
So this guy was BBC and a hard brexiteer. Let’s look at the positions he held:
Gibb is a former editor of the BBC's Sunday Politics and Daily Politics programmes.
Gibb was head of BBC Westminster in overall charge of the BBC’s political programme output - Daily and Sunday Politics, Andrew Marr Show, This Week and Radio 4’s Westminster Hour. Prior to joining the political team at Westminster he was Deputy Editor of BBC2’s Newsnight.
During the EU referendum campaign Gibb was editor of The Great Debate at Wembley Arena and Editor of the BBC’s General Election debate during the 2017 General Election.
I know I bang this drum quite a bit, but something has gone badly wrong at the BBC. Granted this guy is out, but it makes you wonder how much he influenced coverage while there.
So this guy was BBC and a hard brexiteer. Let’s look at the positions he held:
Gibb is a former editor of the BBC's Sunday Politics and Daily Politics programmes.
Gibb was head of BBC Westminster in overall charge of the BBC’s political programme output - Daily and Sunday Politics, Andrew Marr Show, This Week and Radio 4’s Westminster Hour. Prior to joining the political team at Westminster he was Deputy Editor of BBC2’s Newsnight.
During the EU referendum campaign Gibb was editor of The Great Debate at Wembley Arena and Editor of the BBC’s General Election debate during the 2017 General Election.
I know I bang this drum quite a bit, but something has gone badly wrong at the BBC. Granted this guy is out, but it makes you wonder how much he influenced coverage while there.
I'm sure it's just coincidence that Nigel Farage appeared on Question Time thirty two times despite never winning any of the seven attempts he made to be an MP.
That's not how the European elections work - those options are the different alliances between the various national parties. Who we vote for is basically the same roster of parties as a general or local election (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem etc). The elected MEPs will then join an alliance with a similar political background.
Not all of those 9 alliances have support from British parties. For example, the largest alliance in the European Parliament, EPP, is not supported by any UK political party (apart from a handful of Tory defections).
Anarchy Rules! on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The House of Lords is taking care of business in regards to the Cooper bill. Looks like the fast-tracking is happening.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The chances of the Lords not fast-tracking it seemed very low. It'll get through and then, well
We shall see!
It's just nice to see one part of the UK government taking care of business in an efficient manner. It's not exactly restoring my faith in democracy what with it being the House of Lords, but things have been such a mess I'll take what I can get.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+8
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
House of Lords has been better than commons for yonks - even if you look at things like the voting record of the lords spiritual who have consisitently been more socially liberal than the gov!
banks has been funding leafleting campaigns like this for a couple years too - due to sub 100k Tory membership ukip entryism plus leave eu have been very successful in scaring and influencing con mps
This is actually kind of nuts, from top to bottom.
In saner times the government would have already fallen due to the manifest lack of confidence the Commons has in it.
This is the bonkers bit, to me. Having a failure of a government lingering like a fart that won't go away because of a combination of legislative fuckery and a lack of cohesive will in the Commons seems positively unparliamentary.
Fixed Parliamentary Terms Act 2011. Dumb and bad.
Having done some research, I'm not sure this makes that much of a difference. As far as I can understand, before May would still get to decide if anything other than an explicit confidence motion counted as one. Given her flaunting of other parliamentary conventions I'm not sure the situation would be any different.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
That's not how the European elections work - those options are the different alliances between the various national parties. Who we vote for is basically the same roster of parties as a general or local election (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem etc). The elected MEPs will then join an alliance with a similar political background.
Not all of those 9 alliances have support from British parties. For example, the largest alliance in the European Parliament, EPP, is not supported by any UK political party (apart from a handful of Tory defections).
The alliances are formed beforehand, though, so looking at the alliances is the only sensible way to vote. For example: I will probably vote to keep Timmermans and the social-democrats in place, despite my frustrations with the Dutch socialists in our national arena.
This is actually kind of nuts, from top to bottom.
In saner times the government would have already fallen due to the manifest lack of confidence the Commons has in it.
No kidding. This is lack of confidence made manifest. She honestly should just flat resign once this goes through because clearly she has lost all control.
From the Guardian's live feed:
Gotta love the irony of a Brexiteer talking about the tyranny of the majority with what seems to be zero self-awareness.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+25
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
This is actually kind of nuts, from top to bottom.
In saner times the government would have already fallen due to the manifest lack of confidence the Commons has in it.
This is the bonkers bit, to me. Having a failure of a government lingering like a fart that won't go away because of a combination of legislative fuckery and a lack of cohesive will in the Commons seems positively unparliamentary.
Fixed Parliamentary Terms Act 2011. Dumb and bad.
Having done some research, I'm not sure this makes that much of a difference. As far as I can understand, before May would still get to decide if anything other than an explicit confidence motion counted as one. Given her flaunting of other parliamentary conventions I'm not sure the situation would be any different.
there was a process for this - making a vote count as confidence - but the more relevant convention is the one where the government invokes a no confidence after the defeat. this has particular historical resonance as it is what john major did after maastricht - every senior con I have talked to observed that before ftpa it would be unthinkable for her to have continued; and, moreover, the new rules on government formation made a lot more MPs wary of voting aye in any case when an explicit motion was brought.
this is also reflective of a change in experience in cabinet - far fewer old hands with strong parliamentary history
surrealitycheck on
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
That 'unthinkable' seems like wishful thinking in the Brexit political landscape.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
yeah, in (modern) politics, everything is "unthinkable" until someone says "eff it" and does it anyway.
+5
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
the power of the old convention was that if she had not nominated this as a no confidence or brought forward a no confidence the labour no confidence would have been vastly more likely to pass - all they would have to do is say "this is obviously the main business of the government, she is blatantly flouting clear convention in 2 different ways no confidence" and a lot of con MPs like eg Ken Clarke would have voted for it. the ftpa cleared the sense that this was the constitutionally appropriate response
also the advice may would have got from cabinet would have been totally different - one of the effective purposes of nominating a bill as confidence was that it acted as a turbo-charged whip. vote with the gov or get a general election; its conceivable this might have been felt to be the only way forward if she had no expectation of getting repeat votes.
EDIT: not to mention the advice from the whips would have stopped her holding the vote at all. they would have just said dont even think about it
WORLD'S LARGEST METAPHOR STRIKES ICEBERG, SINKS
-- The Onion, from back in the days when they actually wrote fiction and satire, rather than just summarizing the reality we all live in
+25
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Downing Street called their talks with Labour 'detailed and productive', so that's going nowhere fast.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+5
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
interesting that apparently the extension letter is already being drafted
split in cabinet apparently between idiots and barclay who want 22 may and hammond and cox (!) who want a longer extension with a "leave quickly if we actually pass the fucking thing" clause
one possible element of the discussions with labour might be including guarantees from both political parties in the extension request that they will honour any commitments no matter what happens with elections, which would probably be quite helpful
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
and hammond and cox (!) who want a longer extension with a "leave quickly if we actually pass the fucking thing" clause
How would this work practically with the EU elections? Once you start planning and holding those, then the "leave quickly" part would surely have to be amended to "but no earlier than the EU elections finishing" right?
and hammond and cox (!) who want a longer extension with a "leave quickly if we actually pass the fucking thing" clause
How would this work practically with the EU elections? Once you start planning and holding those, then the "leave quickly" part would surely have to be amended to "but no earlier than the EU elections finishing" right?
it would be a clause that would look like "if a withdrawal agreement satisfactory to both sides is passed during the extension period, and subject to timing considerations etc, the end date of this extension will be moved earlier" eg the 2 month technical extension if it is needed, or none at all if we have passed all necessary legislation and we and the eu are satisfied the exit will be orderly
I am so not in the mood for another six or more months of this.
Good news
There is another two years of sorting out the future relationship in the pipeline
2 years? my dear boy... that implementation period is extendable! and if theres one thing we can definitely guarantee its that suddenly being confronted with the actual trade offs of relinquishing all that hypothetical new sovereignty in a free trade agreement will be slow as shit
let us dream of a 10 year implementation period
surrealitycheck on
+5
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
peaple close to starmer and liddington leaking that what seems to be shaping up is
1) vote on the w/a with a government commitment to get a customs union + dynamic alignment on workers rights
2) a chance for mps to vote on whether or not the whole package should be ratified in a referendum
this seems like a credible attempt at compromise that is politically mad and i would be unsurprised if the whole thing was murdered in cabinet or simply felt to be untenable when tossed to the whips
also some informal eu comments that the idea of a flexible extension - nominally long but short if not required - solves the problem of us coming back and asking for endless short extensions, but of course needs to get past eu leaders too
EDIT: if that is what they offer labour need to no confidence the day after 12th april. angry conservative erg types will vote for it
anything else gives us the truly unfortunate possibility of being "just a month away from leaving if we can pass the w/a" for the next thousand years...
What even is that. That's nothing. A commitment to have a vote to see if there will be a second referendum?
yes....
this was teed up by hammonds earlier comments that it was not an absurd idea in and of itself and mps should be allowed to vote on it. the trick here is of course obvious
What even is that. That's nothing. A commitment to have a vote to see if there will be a second referendum?
yes....
this was teed up by hammonds earlier comments that it was not an absurd idea in and of itself and mps should be allowed to vote on it. the trick here is of course obvious
talking of
God i loathe that man.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
I am so not in the mood for another six or more months of this.
Good news
There is another two years of sorting out the future relationship in the pipeline
2 years? my dear boy... that implementation period is extendable! and if theres one thing we can definitely guarantee its that suddenly being confronted with the actual trade offs of relinquishing all that hypothetical new sovereignty in a free trade agreement will be slow as shit
let us dream of a 10 year implementation period
Don't forget the trade offs between trade deals
In which the americophile wing of the Tory party wrangles with the europhile wing and negotiate themselves into agreeing a set of internal regulations that rule out unfettered trade with either bloc
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
as we enter year 45 of the us-eu agricultural standards consensus discussion group as they argue over the uk food market,
Posts
A new law can be passed if need be, til then - no option. Must seek to avoid No Deal.
Of course any legal proceedings would be after we fall out...
But the EP elections deadline happens before then, so maybe the case can be resolved before we actually leave given there are rumours that preparations for the elections are going ahead anyway, just in case (this is the civil service we're talking about).
Wanted to follow up on this after reading the follow up tweet:
So this guy was BBC and a hard brexiteer. Let’s look at the positions he held:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Gibb
I know I bang this drum quite a bit, but something has gone badly wrong at the BBC. Granted this guy is out, but it makes you wonder how much he influenced coverage while there.
Robbie Gibb was head of BBC Political programming during the period of the European Referendum if you want any more BBC hatred fuel.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I'm sure it's just coincidence that Nigel Farage appeared on Question Time thirty two times despite never winning any of the seven attempts he made to be an MP.
That's not how the European elections work - those options are the different alliances between the various national parties. Who we vote for is basically the same roster of parties as a general or local election (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem etc). The elected MEPs will then join an alliance with a similar political background.
Not all of those 9 alliances have support from British parties. For example, the largest alliance in the European Parliament, EPP, is not supported by any UK political party (apart from a handful of Tory defections).
We shall see!
It's just nice to see one part of the UK government taking care of business in an efficient manner. It's not exactly restoring my faith in democracy what with it being the House of Lords, but things have been such a mess I'll take what I can get.
Wow
banks has been funding leafleting campaigns like this for a couple years too - due to sub 100k Tory membership ukip entryism plus leave eu have been very successful in scaring and influencing con mps
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Having done some research, I'm not sure this makes that much of a difference. As far as I can understand, before May would still get to decide if anything other than an explicit confidence motion counted as one. Given her flaunting of other parliamentary conventions I'm not sure the situation would be any different.
The alliances are formed beforehand, though, so looking at the alliances is the only sensible way to vote. For example: I will probably vote to keep Timmermans and the social-democrats in place, despite my frustrations with the Dutch socialists in our national arena.
No kidding. This is lack of confidence made manifest. She honestly should just flat resign once this goes through because clearly she has lost all control.
Gotta love the irony of a Brexiteer talking about the tyranny of the majority with what seems to be zero self-awareness.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
there was a process for this - making a vote count as confidence - but the more relevant convention is the one where the government invokes a no confidence after the defeat. this has particular historical resonance as it is what john major did after maastricht - every senior con I have talked to observed that before ftpa it would be unthinkable for her to have continued; and, moreover, the new rules on government formation made a lot more MPs wary of voting aye in any case when an explicit motion was brought.
this is also reflective of a change in experience in cabinet - far fewer old hands with strong parliamentary history
also the advice may would have got from cabinet would have been totally different - one of the effective purposes of nominating a bill as confidence was that it acted as a turbo-charged whip. vote with the gov or get a general election; its conceivable this might have been felt to be the only way forward if she had no expectation of getting repeat votes.
EDIT: not to mention the advice from the whips would have stopped her holding the vote at all. they would have just said dont even think about it
LBC is a radio station/news website.
WORLD'S LARGEST METAPHOR STRIKES ICEBERG, SINKS
-- The Onion, from back in the days when they actually wrote fiction and satire, rather than just summarizing the reality we all live in
Also I miss the Portadown News
I guess Mark Francois opened his mouth again.
Steam | XBL
split in cabinet apparently between idiots and barclay who want 22 may and hammond and cox (!) who want a longer extension with a "leave quickly if we actually pass the fucking thing" clause
one possible element of the discussions with labour might be including guarantees from both political parties in the extension request that they will honour any commitments no matter what happens with elections, which would probably be quite helpful
How would this work practically with the EU elections? Once you start planning and holding those, then the "leave quickly" part would surely have to be amended to "but no earlier than the EU elections finishing" right?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Good news
There is another two years of sorting out the future relationship in the pipeline
it would be a clause that would look like "if a withdrawal agreement satisfactory to both sides is passed during the extension period, and subject to timing considerations etc, the end date of this extension will be moved earlier" eg the 2 month technical extension if it is needed, or none at all if we have passed all necessary legislation and we and the eu are satisfied the exit will be orderly
2 years? my dear boy... that implementation period is extendable! and if theres one thing we can definitely guarantee its that suddenly being confronted with the actual trade offs of relinquishing all that hypothetical new sovereignty in a free trade agreement will be slow as shit
let us dream of a 10 year implementation period
1) vote on the w/a with a government commitment to get a customs union + dynamic alignment on workers rights
2) a chance for mps to vote on whether or not the whole package should be ratified in a referendum
this seems like a credible attempt at compromise that is politically mad and i would be unsurprised if the whole thing was murdered in cabinet or simply felt to be untenable when tossed to the whips
also some informal eu comments that the idea of a flexible extension - nominally long but short if not required - solves the problem of us coming back and asking for endless short extensions, but of course needs to get past eu leaders too
EDIT: if that is what they offer labour need to no confidence the day after 12th april. angry conservative erg types will vote for it
anything else gives us the truly unfortunate possibility of being "just a month away from leaving if we can pass the w/a" for the next thousand years...
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
yes....
this was teed up by hammonds earlier comments that it was not an absurd idea in and of itself and mps should be allowed to vote on it. the trick here is of course obvious
talking of
God i loathe that man.
Don't forget the trade offs between trade deals
In which the americophile wing of the Tory party wrangles with the europhile wing and negotiate themselves into agreeing a set of internal regulations that rule out unfettered trade with either bloc
My company writes tweets for Have I Got News For You, and we feel their pain
Steam: adamjnet