British Politics

We would have left on no deal otherwise.

The EU governments would have told them to vote again, anyway

 

Law should be exact we shouldn't be relying on its 'spirit'. A court would look at the specific caveats and conclude that Parliament would have added others if it thought necessary. Anyway this argument is back to front. The Government should justify the need for Laws not me have to justify not having them.

 

I agree....so why is the Bill drafted like it is? There is no logical reason for it.

 

I think PowerSpurs argument is that we could leave with the deal but if both sides didnt confirm the deal then it would turn into no deal.

 

I have no opinion on that. I just don't like the way the Bill is worded.

 

They are as exact as they can be, given they need to be clear and specific to the purpose of the Act. As postponing an election is not relevant to the Act, there is no need to mention it, as it would not be deemed to be in the spirit of the Act.

The papers accompanying the Covid Act explain it in more detail, as part of the reason they were brought in, was due to the need to postpone local elections, for which there was no Authority to do so prior to that. That alone should point you at the reasons your fears are unfounded on your chosen example.

 

how would you prefer it to be worded?

 

Clause 29 should expire on February 28 2021. Clause 31 should require that ALL regulations have no lasting effect unless approved by Parliament within 14 calendar days of being laid.

 

I don't agree. If the EU raised the issue of there being a nuclear security danger of a certain party winning an election, then surely that would be "a matter arising out of, or related to, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, the Security of Classified Information Agreement or any relevant agreement" and the Government could make any regulation it liked to deal with it, such as banning that party from standing.

 

Nope. Firstly, that would go to the arbitration panel. Secondly, any actions that are liable to be applied in such an unlikely situation would be subject to a LOT of Parliamentary, legal and constitutional debate.

 

You know how trade deals work? You shoulda said. You've spent 4 years giving the impression of total ignorance, yet all along you had this specialist knowledge? Brilliant.

 

It wouldn't be a matter for the Arbitration Panel because the EU and the UK Government could agree on a course of action so there is nothing to arbiter. There would be no way Parliament could even find out about it until the Regulation was made. I'm not saying it is likely but the Law is there to stop unscrupluous people so it needs to be robust.

 

I am concerned that you are, indeed, ****ing clueless

 

Wondered how long we'd have to wait for that spanner's contribution. The charges were dropped weeks ago, what took him so long?

 

The fact you've had to stretch for such a ridiculous and unlikely scenario, rather than just face the simple fact you've not understood the words, if you've even read them, speaks volumes.

Yes it would go to an arbitration panel, as that is what the law and constitution would require. You're trying to shoe-horn this situation into one where other factors would have kicked in long before.

 

Feel free to add your considered information on the detail of what we're talking about.

It should be good for a laugh if nothing else.

 

I'll pass, thanks. Don't want to distract you from your furious googling

 

Its way out of his depth, he is just trying to make himself relevant

 

Perhaps you could point me at the place you got your hard copy of the Act we're talking about from?

Even when you try to scuttle off, you're still good to laugh at.


Chalk up yet another Archie fail.