Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: It's almost like reading out a thread off here.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrie...
That's hilarious. It just ends with a pointless insult. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrie...
Breadvan72 said:
Focusing on a mythical past is a Brexiter thing. The future is unknowable, but why not face the future as a strong and influential member of a strong group, rather than trust to Trump etc? Maybe not possible now, as the antics of the Brexiters have shattered the UK’s reputation as a serious and grown up player in Global politics. Johnson bears much blame for this. He was a joke Foreign Secretary before he became a joke Prime Minister.
He's polling rather well though, so your argument doesn't stack.Leicester Loyal said:
Breadvan72 said:
Focusing on a mythical past is a Brexiter thing. The future is unknowable, but why not face the future as a strong and influential member of a strong group, rather than trust to Trump etc? Maybe not possible now, as the antics of the Brexiters have shattered the UK’s reputation as a serious and grown up player in Global politics. Johnson bears much blame for this. He was a joke Foreign Secretary before he became a joke Prime Minister.
He's polling rather well though, so your argument doesn't stack.So it looks like yet another extension because " Parliament " needs 3 months to digest a 110 page document.
Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
digimeistter said:
So it looks like yet another extension because " Parliament " needs 3 months to digest a 110 page document.
Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
Parliament will pass further legislation preventing it. Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
Jinx said:
You might want to read up on the Lisbon treaty and the changes to the EU due in 2020
I have read the Treaty. I wager a small bet that you may not have done so. Reading Brexiter spin about the Treaty is no substitute for reading the Treaty itself, or the EU Act 2011, which double entrenched the veto. Note Statutory instructions to HMG, and a referendum backstop. The Act has mostly been repealed to permit Brexit. If Brexit were to be cancelled, the Act should be revived. Bussolini said:
digimeistter said:
So it looks like yet another extension because " Parliament " needs 3 months to digest a 110 page document.
Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
Parliament will pass further legislation preventing it. Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
That will play out well for them I'm sure.
digimeistter said:
So it looks like yet another extension because " Parliament " needs 3 months to digest a 110 page document.
Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
Here you go. Keep you out of mischief for a while Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...Withdrawal_AgreementBill.pdf
And this,
First reading
This is a purely formal stage, and there is no debate on the Bill.
Second reading
This is a debate on the main principles of the Bill, held in the chamber. A Government minister will open the debate by setting out the case for the Bill and explaining its provisions. The Opposition will respond and then other members are free to discuss it. The Government will close the debate by responding to the points made. No amendments can be made to the text of the Bill at this stage, although members may give an idea of the changes they will be proposing at later stages. At the end of the debate the House will vote on the Bill. If the vote is lost by the Government, the Bill cannot proceed any further, though it is rare for a Government Bill to be defeated at this stage.
Committee stage
This is a line-by-line consideration of the detail of the Bill. In the Commons this process may be carried out by a specially convened committee of MPs (a Public Bill Committee) that reflects the strength of the parties in the House as a whole. Alternatively committee stage may be taken in the chamber (in which case it is called Committee of the Whole House). In the Lords the committee stage will take place in the chamber or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster; either way any peer can participate.
A Public Bill Committee in the Commons can take oral and written evidence on the Bill. In either House the Committee will decide whether each clause of the Bill should remain in it, and will consider any amendments tabled by the Government or other members.
The amendments tabled may propose changes to the existing provisions of the Bill or may involve adding wholly new material. However, there are limits to what can be added to a particular Bill, as the amendments must be sufficiently close to its subject matter when introduced.
Government amendments to Bills (in Committee or at other stages: see below) may be changes to make sure the Bill works as intended, may give effect to new policy or may be concessionary amendments to ease the handling of the Bill. Amendments in the last category will respond to points made at an earlier stage or will have been tabled to avoid a Government defeat at the stage in question. Unless the amendments are purely technical in their effect, they will need the agreement of PBL Committee before tabling, and substantial changes in policy will need policy clearance too.
Report stage
In both Houses this stage takes place in the chamber. Only amendments are discussed, so if none are tabled this will be a purely formal stage. As in Committee the amendments may change what is in the Bill already or may involve new provisions being added.
Report stage is also referred to as Consideration in the Commons.
Third reading
In the Commons this is another general discussion of the Bill which invariably takes place immediately after Report. No amendments are possible. In the Lords, Third Reading will take place on a later day, and tidying up amendments can be tabled.
Later stages
Both Houses must agree on the text of a Bill before it can become an Act. This means that if the Bill is amended in the second House, it must return to the first House for those amendments to be considered. The first House can reject the amendments, make changes to them or suggest alternatives. A Bill may move backwards and forwards between the two Houses before agreement is reached, so this stage is sometimes called “ping pong”.
The time taken to go through all these stages depends on the length of the Bill, how controversial it is and whether it needs to be passed particularly quickly. An emergency Bill may be passed in a matter of days, whereas a larger Bill may be introduced at the beginning of the session and only passed at the end a year later.
Royal Assent and beyond
A Bill that has been passed by both Houses becomes law once it has been given Royal Assent and this has been signified to Parliament. It will then become an Act. Even then the Act may not have any practical effect until later on. Most provisions in an Act will either come into operation within a set period after Royal Assent (commonly two months later) or at a time fixed by the government. This gives the government and those people who are directly affected by the Act time to plan accordingly. The government may need to fill in some of the details of the new scheme by making orders or regulations under powers contained in the Act, for example to deal with procedural matters.
Three to five years after a Bill has been passed, the department responsible for an Act will normally review how it has worked in practice and submit an assessment of this to the relevant Commons departmental committee. The committee will then decide whether it wants to carry out a fuller post-legislative enquiry into the Act.
drdel said:
I'll recognise your legal expertise but I think you're a little light on your understanding of the defence sector and global industry. The EU hampered by debt is changing it strategy as is NATO, UN and WTO and what was in the past won't be what happens in the future
Nihil ad rem. Moving goalposts does not work! If the UK wanted to veto the army, it could. If changes in the landscape of possible warfare suggest that an EU army might be a good idea, that is a policy matter. The UK could still block the change and HMG would be mandated by UK law to do so unless a referendum told it to agree the change.All the blah above about QMV matters little. On the big Federalism issues the UK veto would stand.
Those who buy into the spun version of UK relationship with post Lisbon EU should please fact check.
digimeistter said:
So it looks like yet another extension because " Parliament " needs 3 months to digest a 110 page document.
Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
Parliament neither needs nor asked for 3 months to digest the WAB. The bill has been floating around unpublished for months, but the government chose to not release it. It does need more than 2 days to do so though. It's a 110 page legal text, not a Mills & Boon.Most likely it will come back with an array of remainer amendments - 2nd referendum, single market etc
What happens if Boris just pulls the deal and sits it out for 3 months and we leave by default ?
And how dare the rest of the house introduce amendments in the interest of their constituents, eh?
Frik said:
Parliament neither needs nor asked for 3 months to digest the WAB. The bill has been floating around unpublished for months, but the government chose to not release it. It does need more than 2 days to do so though. It's a 110 page legal text, not a Mills & Boon.
And how dare the rest of the house introduce amendments in the interest of their constituents, eh?
I posted the link above.And how dare the rest of the house introduce amendments in the interest of their constituents, eh?
I’m sure Digit will have critiqued it in no time.
Breadvan72 said:
drdel said:
I'll recognise your legal expertise but I think you're a little light on your understanding of the defence sector and global industry. The EU hampered by debt is changing it strategy as is NATO, UN and WTO and what was in the past won't be what happens in the future
Nihil ad rem. Moving goalposts does not work! If the UK wanted to veto the army, it could. If changes in the landscape of possible warfare suggest that an EU army might be a good idea, that is a policy matter. The UK could still block the change and HMG would be mandated by UK law to do so unless a referendum told it to agree the change.All the blah above about QMV matters little. On the big Federalism issues the UK veto would stand.
Those who buy into the spun version of UK relationship with post Lisbon EU should please fact check.
Remember, the project does not stand still. It was once just a trading bloc...
Nickgnome said:
Frik said:
Parliament neither needs nor asked for 3 months to digest the WAB. The bill has been floating around unpublished for months, but the government chose to not release it. It does need more than 2 days to do so though. It's a 110 page legal text, not a Mills & Boon.
And how dare the rest of the house introduce amendments in the interest of their constituents, eh?
I posted the link above.And how dare the rest of the house introduce amendments in the interest of their constituents, eh?
I’m sure Digit will have critiqued it in no time.
SeeFive said:
Breadvan72 said:
drdel said:
I'll recognise your legal expertise but I think you're a little light on your understanding of the defence sector and global industry. The EU hampered by debt is changing it strategy as is NATO, UN and WTO and what was in the past won't be what happens in the future
Nihil ad rem. Moving goalposts does not work! If the UK wanted to veto the army, it could. If changes in the landscape of possible warfare suggest that an EU army might be a good idea, that is a policy matter. The UK could still block the change and HMG would be mandated by UK law to do so unless a referendum told it to agree the change.All the blah above about QMV matters little. On the big Federalism issues the UK veto would stand.
Those who buy into the spun version of UK relationship with post Lisbon EU should please fact check.
Remember, the project does not stand still. It was once just a trading bloc...
A little mischievous of BV to raise the need for a referendum for changes outside the remit of the veto. I seem to recall a certain Blair character promising a referendum on the Lisbon treaty during an election year,
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-15390884
Edited by Gargamel on Wednesday 23 October 23:37
Bad idea to assume bad faith on the part of your interlocutor just because you cannot be bothered to look stuff up. Quite apart from the bad manners, it makes you look daft when what you think is a gotcha point turns out to be a dud, because of carefully Eurosceptic legislation insisted on by ERG etc precisely in order to insulate UK against mission creep .
Typical goalpost moving too. 2011 sceptics say we fear that X may happen. Parl legislates to prevent X happening. 2016 and 2019 sceptics then say oh gosh, we have what we asked for, but X might still happen based on some improbable contingencies. This despite dull reality that chances of UK political landscape changing sufficiently for the statutory protections to be discarded negligible.
Brexiters can never get enough cake to be had and eaten. Give them all the cake and they say wrong sort of cake, even when they specified the cake recipe.
Typical goalpost moving too. 2011 sceptics say we fear that X may happen. Parl legislates to prevent X happening. 2016 and 2019 sceptics then say oh gosh, we have what we asked for, but X might still happen based on some improbable contingencies. This despite dull reality that chances of UK political landscape changing sufficiently for the statutory protections to be discarded negligible.
Brexiters can never get enough cake to be had and eaten. Give them all the cake and they say wrong sort of cake, even when they specified the cake recipe.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 24th October 03:06
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff