16 Word Brexit Begins Bill
Discussion
paulrockliffe said:
BlackLabel said:
alfie2244 said:
Hopefully someone will explain what is going on...........preferable in layman's terms 
As I understand it Labour proposed a motion calling on the PM to debate in parliament her plan for Brexit. Dozens of Tory MPs threatened to vote with Labour. To avoid this embarrassment the government then tabled an amendment to the motion where they accepted Labour's demands but at the end of the motion they added a bit calling for article 50 to be triggered before the end of March. The Tory MPs who were threatening to vote with Labour will now vote for the government. As for what this means in relation to the court case, well perhaps someone more knowledgable can explain that because I'm stumped.
I'd imagine the Labour amendment will be deliberately vague as Labour's stance is deliberately vague because they have to deal with their voters that voted for Brexit and their leader that voted to leave the EU. The Government will commit to whatever the amendment is, but it won't mean anything in reality and if the Government is committed to anything as a result that it doesn't do or achieve, we're leaving anyway.
Might it nullify the Court Case as Parliament have been consulted and agreed to trigger Article 50?
Labour are using an opposition day to table a motion asking May to publish her plan. Lots of Tory MPs think she should do this as well. They don't buy the argument that it will affect our negotiating strategy if we tell people in advance what our broad aims might me. The Govt have climbed down in the face of a rebellion and said, OK but we want you to also agree to our timetable for a50. This timetable doesn't conflict with labour policy so they have indicated they will agree.
To an extent, this is Govt calling the labour and the rebels bluff. Trying to smoke out any intention to block Brexit as they have claimed. labour have not blinked and maintain they have no intention of blocking it so the amendment is fine.
This is not a formally binding decision that could create law. It is like the referendum and will create an advisory informal agreement that Parliament will get to see a plan before a50 is published and they will support it being issued in March.
This is not the legally binding vote on a50 needed to deal with the Supreme Court issue. If the verdict of the High Court is upheld this will still be required. If the plan is not published or the the MPs don't like it, they will still be able to vote against a50 if that is their decision.
Amateurish said:
So why exactly did the government appeal to the supreme court?
I mentioned why I think they did it before. It's about establishing the Royal Prerogative to unmake treaties where the provisions of that treaty are enacted with Acts Of Parliament. In the current case its the European Communities Act. In future it could be the Human Rights Act.
This seems to be being dealt with in a bubble. Nothing can be decided in isolation because the EU will not begin negotiations until article 50 has been triggered.
Some are asking for the governments plans to be disclosed before Article 50 is triggered, but how can the government formulate any `plan, until the EU`s position has been made known? Consequently Michel Barnier for the EU has made `its' starting position known.
The government should just state that `its starting' position will be for the UK to leave the EU, but retain full access to the single market, so that Article 50 can be triggered, and then, and only then, can any of the horse trading begin.
Those who seek to delay the triggering of Article 50, are only making the whole process longer, and more difficult for both the UK, and the EU.
Some are asking for the governments plans to be disclosed before Article 50 is triggered, but how can the government formulate any `plan, until the EU`s position has been made known? Consequently Michel Barnier for the EU has made `its' starting position known.
The government should just state that `its starting' position will be for the UK to leave the EU, but retain full access to the single market, so that Article 50 can be triggered, and then, and only then, can any of the horse trading begin.
Those who seek to delay the triggering of Article 50, are only making the whole process longer, and more difficult for both the UK, and the EU.
Pan Pan Pan said:
This seems to be being dealt with in a bubble. Nothing can be decided in isolation because the EU will not begin negotiations until article 50 has been triggered.
Some are asking for the governments plans to be disclosed before Article 50 is triggered, but how can the government formulate any `plan, until the EU`s position has been made known? Consequently Michel Barnier for the EU has made `its' starting position known.
The government should just state that `its starting' position will be for the UK to leave the EU, but retain full access to the single market, so that Article 50 can be triggered, and then, and only then, can any of the horse trading begin.
Those who seek to delay the triggering of Article 50, are only making the whole process longer, and more difficult for both the UK, and the EU.
MPs back government's Brexit timetableSome are asking for the governments plans to be disclosed before Article 50 is triggered, but how can the government formulate any `plan, until the EU`s position has been made known? Consequently Michel Barnier for the EU has made `its' starting position known.
The government should just state that `its starting' position will be for the UK to leave the EU, but retain full access to the single market, so that Article 50 can be triggered, and then, and only then, can any of the horse trading begin.
Those who seek to delay the triggering of Article 50, are only making the whole process longer, and more difficult for both the UK, and the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500
Just watched an hour of sky news, I can't work out what the hell they've voted for, as every side seems to have taken something different from it. It's written in English and I thought fairly simple but it isn't... because MPs talk b
ks.
On the other hand the MP for 19th century has an attractive logic that cuts through nicely, begging the question wtf is going on https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/videos/11...
ks.On the other hand the MP for 19th century has an attractive logic that cuts through nicely, begging the question wtf is going on https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/videos/11...
don'tbesilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
This seems to be being dealt with in a bubble. Nothing can be decided in isolation because the EU will not begin negotiations until article 50 has been triggered.
Some are asking for the governments plans to be disclosed before Article 50 is triggered, but how can the government formulate any `plan, until the EU`s position has been made known? Consequently Michel Barnier for the EU has made `its' starting position known.
The government should just state that `its starting' position will be for the UK to leave the EU, but retain full access to the single market, so that Article 50 can be triggered, and then, and only then, can any of the horse trading begin.
Those who seek to delay the triggering of Article 50, are only making the whole process longer, and more difficult for both the UK, and the EU.
MPs back government's Brexit timetableSome are asking for the governments plans to be disclosed before Article 50 is triggered, but how can the government formulate any `plan, until the EU`s position has been made known? Consequently Michel Barnier for the EU has made `its' starting position known.
The government should just state that `its starting' position will be for the UK to leave the EU, but retain full access to the single market, so that Article 50 can be triggered, and then, and only then, can any of the horse trading begin.
Those who seek to delay the triggering of Article 50, are only making the whole process longer, and more difficult for both the UK, and the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500
Surely Parliament can only ever debate various issues related to the UK leaving the EU, once the EU has made `its' position clear on the various matters involved? Debating before article 50 is triggered, on what the EU `might or might not do' is utterly pointless. Debate in parliament can only begin after article 50 is triggered and the EU makes known what its position on various matters actually is.
Didn't the EU cheif negotiator state we will have a worse deal than we do now?
It is i would have thought impossible to know exactly what the EU will offer/accept.
So, what can we do other than say we want to start with what we have now, minus any financial or other obligations to th e EU, and work down from there?
If the EU refuse point blank to allow access to the single market, then it will be an unobtainable goal if we wish to leave the EU/respect the referendum.
Absolutely pointless.
The mps might as well write to the EU, who i would think know quite well what the outcome of negotiations already.
Rather than going through all this.
It is i would have thought impossible to know exactly what the EU will offer/accept.
So, what can we do other than say we want to start with what we have now, minus any financial or other obligations to th e EU, and work down from there?
If the EU refuse point blank to allow access to the single market, then it will be an unobtainable goal if we wish to leave the EU/respect the referendum.
Absolutely pointless.
The mps might as well write to the EU, who i would think know quite well what the outcome of negotiations already.
Rather than going through all this.
philv said:
Didn't the EU cheif negotiator state we will have a worse deal than we do now?
It is i would have thought impossible to know exactly what the EU will offer/accept.
So, what can we do other than say we want to start with what we have now, minus any financial or other obligations to th e EU, and work down from there?
If the EU refuse point blank to allow access to the single market, then it will be an unobtainable goal if we wish to leave the EU/respect the referendum.
Absolutely pointless.
The mps might as well write to the EU, who i would think know quite well what the outcome of negotiations already.
Rather than going through all this.
It is not just a matter of what the EU will offer or accept, but also what the UK will offer, or accept. As posted before these negotiations cannot be conducted in a bubble, there are two sides to the negotiations, and neither will want to do anything that makes things worse for their own side. Hopefully pragmatism will prevail over arrogant blusterings.It is i would have thought impossible to know exactly what the EU will offer/accept.
So, what can we do other than say we want to start with what we have now, minus any financial or other obligations to th e EU, and work down from there?
If the EU refuse point blank to allow access to the single market, then it will be an unobtainable goal if we wish to leave the EU/respect the referendum.
Absolutely pointless.
The mps might as well write to the EU, who i would think know quite well what the outcome of negotiations already.
Rather than going through all this.
philv said:
Didn't the EU cheif negotiator state we will have a worse deal than we do now?
It is i would have thought impossible to know exactly what the EU will offer/accept.
So, what can we do other than say we want to start with what we have now, minus any financial or other obligations to th e EU, and work down from there?
If the EU refuse point blank to allow access to the single market, then it will be an unobtainable goal if we wish to leave the EU/respect the referendum.
Absolutely pointless.
The mps might as well write to the EU, who i would think know quite well what the outcome of negotiations already.
Rather than going through all this.
Exactly. We voted leave the EU, and is clear to any grown up, that implicit in that that the govt was to leave the EU on the best terms (for the UK) it could get, BUT leave. If it's hard so be it, something less than hard okay, if the govt thinks it's for the best. That's how I voted. All this laying out strategy, they won't be satisfied with anything they present to parliament that is not the red lines, and in the absence of them this will be used to frustrate the majority will of the people, and just to tee up, the worst possible terms from the EU for a new relationship, at best another referendum, take this or remain in, or "this is too complicated for the prols" a vote in parliament, to reject and remain, or leave, but effectively in name only. When if I understood the doom merchants earlier (strange how things change where the EU is concerned) it was article 50 triggered, if no agreement or no agreed terms at the end of 2yrs, we are just out.It is i would have thought impossible to know exactly what the EU will offer/accept.
So, what can we do other than say we want to start with what we have now, minus any financial or other obligations to th e EU, and work down from there?
If the EU refuse point blank to allow access to the single market, then it will be an unobtainable goal if we wish to leave the EU/respect the referendum.
Absolutely pointless.
The mps might as well write to the EU, who i would think know quite well what the outcome of negotiations already.
Rather than going through all this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff