It seems some hard-line Brexiteers now favour a longer extension because they think that they can replace May with one of their own and start negotiations all over again. Meanwhile, Barnier is saying that a longer extension must be for something more specific - a General Election, a further referendum, or a whole new approach (i.e, softer Brexit).
It might come as a surprise Stan but I'd certainly like it all to be over I am bloody dreading the next two weeks. The EU loves spinning this stuff out to the limit - I can see us waiting till 11PM next Friday to find out what's happening...
I shouldn't bite but can't help myself. People get the idea that the referendum was only advisory, and not legally binding, as, well, that's entirely true. Let's start with an example of a referendum which actually was legally binding; the 2011 referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote system to replace First Past The Post. Section 8 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 explicitly states that the Minister must implement the usage of the AV system if "more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No". [You can read the relevant sections here if you wish to.] You can see from the text of the Act that the Government of the day had no choice but to enact the result of the 2011 referendum, and had they not, they would have been successfully challenged in the courts. By contrast, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 made no such provisions. The legislation only required that the vote was held - and did not bind Parliament to enact that vote. Feel free to read the Act itself, or save yourself the time and skip to page 25 of this House of Commons Library briefing note on the 2015 Act. You'll see that the briefing [shared with all MPs at the time and publicly available], states that: "This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions." None of this is to say that there are not powerful arguments that the Government, and Parliament, should respect the result of the referendum. Not only was it a very large democratic voting process, but perhaps more importantly, the Prime Minister at the time - and his Government - made it clear that they intended to implement the result of the vote. I for one think that it should be enacted for these reasons. But these arguments are not those of law - the referendum being legally binding - but of politics and principle.
The bloke is doing his job. It’s not his fault May is an utterly useless ****ing scarecrow of a woman. Again, this is our parliament doing what it does. This is what you wanted then you cry about it when they don’t do it in exactly the way you thought they would.
The Christchurch rugby team is being asked to consider changing its name At the moment it's the crusaders I am hoping for the infidels Or the Canterbury cuckolds
I like her. Sounds like a very principled woman. It makes a nice change not to see a PM pandering to the right wing for cheap votes.
Dentists love her She's not above pandering The actual right wing party leader is a real bed wetter Never getting into power with him in charge Can't stand the bloke myself Mind you He's never had the misfortune to meet me
mays letter Dear Donald The UK Government's policy remains to leave the European Union in an orderly manner on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed in November, complemented by the Joint Instrument and supplement to the Political Declaration President Juncker and I agreed on 11 March. You will be aware that before the House of Commons rejected the deal for a second time on 12 March, I warned in a speech in Grimsby that the consequences of failing to endorse the deal were unpredictable and potentially deeply unpalatable. The House of Commons did not vote in favour of the deal. The following day it voted against leaving the EU without a negotiated deal. The day after that it supported a Government motion that proposed a short extension to the Article 50 period if the House supported a meaningful vote before this week's European Council. The motion also made clear that if this had not happened, a longer extension would oblige the UK to call elections to the European Parliament. I do not believe that it would be in either of our interests for the UK to hold European Parliament elections. I had intended to bring the vote back to the House of Commons this week. The Speaker of the House of Commons said on Monday that in order for a further meaningful vote to be brought back to the House of Commons, the agreement would have to be "fundamentally different-not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance". Some Members of Parliament have interpreted that this means a further change to the deal. This position has made it impossible in practice to call a further vote in advance of the European Council. However, it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House. In advance of that vote, I would be grateful if the European Council could therefore approve the supplementary documents that President Juncker and I agreed in Strasbourg, putting the Government in a position to bring these agreements to the House and confirming the changes to the Government's proposition to Parliament. I also intend to bring forward further domestic proposals that confirm my previous commitments to protect our internal market, given the concerns expressed about the backstop. On this basis, and in the light of the outcome of the European Council, I intend to put forward a motion as soon as possible under section 13 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 and make the argument for the orderly withdrawal and strong future partnership the UK economy, its citizens' security and the continent's future, demands. If the motion is passed, I am confident that Parliament will proceed to ratify the deal constructively. But this will clearly not be completed before 29 March 2019. In our legal system, the Government will need to take a Bill through both Houses of Parliament to enact our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement into domestic law. While we will consult with the Opposition in the usual way to plan the passage of the Bill as quickly and smoothly as possible, the timetable for this is inevitably uncertain at this stage. I am therefore writing to inform the European Council that the UK is seeking an extension to the Article 50 period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, until 30 June 2019. I would be grateful for the opportunity to set out this position to our colleagues on Thursday. Yours ever Theresa May
"As Prime Minister I am not prepared to delay #Brexit any further than June 30," says, Theresa May who has said on 108 occasions that "we are leaving the EU on March 29".
Silly cow won’t have any choice she honestly does believe she is in charge She is a straw man set up to fail and will be remembered as the worse PM of all time plus a women who nearly dated Ellers according to: of course Ellers
She stood up at PMQs today and, with no hint of shame, said that Parliament had 'indulged itself enough' with the Brexit question. This after she has fudged and delayed and basically held Parliament in contempt throughout the whole process. The worst PM I can remember, just when we needed someone with the ability to listen and compromise.
She will get the June Date then resign That’s the script The nation will fully accept she tried and failed The referendum result remains unchanged and will be filled under great idea st the time and always referred to : as something we need to look into ASAP (meaning never) so we will amble along inside the EU (same as the only deal anyway) until people cannot be arsed to mention it ever again New fresh politics promised and the sheep will be back on the gear. Back to poor turn outs etc and no one really caring how the country is run So the ‘tell them all to **** off ‘brigade will be remembered as undertone racists ... they will all die out as angry old farts
May out. Raab in. Head for WTO and get our country back from the controlling, patronising despotic ****s in Brussels.
So Tusk says that the delay will be conditional on May's deal being approved by Parliament next week. The traitor No-Dealers will be delighted and vote against once more, seeing their longed-for chaotic 29th March exit within reach. May will need more Labour MPS to vote for her deal to get it through, and would certainly get them if they get a chance to vote for it via the Kyle-Wilson amendment.
It’s anti democratic to have a few gammons and blue rinses appoint the prime minister of the country. If leadership changes we need a General Election, especially in current circumstances. And anyway if the MPs don't get behind a single candidate (ie all others drop out, like the spineless cowards did with May) it will take at least 7, more probably 12, weeks for the old gits to put their x in a box. There is no way that the MPs will allow a hard Brexiter like Raaaaab to run unopposed. Might not even get through to the final two. She’s to blame, but MPs have been almost as stupid. They had a chance to seize control last week and bottled it. Most of them voted Article 50 through on the nod. Twats. Cameron still takes the rosette for worst in show as far as PMs go for me though. He got us in this mess.
May be anti-democratic but it's practice by both Tories and Labour. I don't know what support Raab has. I'd take Hunt, so long as Raab was Brexit sec and was able to get on with it.
