Bye bye Theresa

[Jobbo]

The SI has been laid anyway, so your argument is technical and irrelevant:

[NotoriousREV]

your argument is technical and irrelevant

I, for one, am shocked.

[GG.]

No we don't leave. We cannot enact any domestic law which makes us 'leave' the EU. We are still members of the EU until 12 April at least.

What would happen is that we would be members of the EU, we would have enacted a statute which purports to remove the application of EU law but it would still have direct effect domestically (remember your EU law lectures).

Its a constitutional quagmire though. The whole point of the European Communities Act is that is gives legal effect in the UK to those directives (including the ECJ jurisprudence on direct effect). So although the ECJ could demand that we give effect to historical and future directives, we wouldn't under UK law, have to comply with them because in our legal fiction, to preserve the (residual!) sovereignty of the UK parliament, we deem that EU law only takes precedence because we have the ECA 1972 saying that it does.

[GG.]

The SI has been laid anyway, so your argument is technical and irrelevant:

Laid but presumably given the timing subject to the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure (as the latter has a 40 day period to come into effect). So not irrelevant just yet as it needs to be voted on and passed.

[GG.]

your argument is technical and irrelevant

I, for one, am shocked.

Jobbo is incorrect. Surely that's more shocking.

Duncs was right though, I am quite enjoying this

[Swervin_Mervin]

Labour MPs now being whipped to support a 2nd referendum motion. Unless, of course, the wind changes direction before the vote.

[Swervin_Mervin]

MPs have voted by 331 - 287 to go ahead with further voting.

[Rich B]

MPs have voted by 331 - 287 to go ahead with further voting.

[GG.]

No we don't leave. We cannot enact any domestic law which makes us 'leave' the EU. We are still members of the EU until 12 April at least.

What would happen is that we would be members of the EU, we would have enacted a statute which purports to remove the application of EU law but it would still have direct effect domestically (remember your EU law lectures).

Its a constitutional quagmire though. The whole point of the European Communities Act is that is gives legal effect in the UK to those directives (including the ECJ jurisprudence on direct effect). So although the ECJ could demand that we give effect to historical and future directives, we wouldn't under UK law, have to comply with them because in our legal fiction, to preserve the (residual!) sovereignty of the UK parliament, we deem that EU law only takes precedence because we have the ECA 1972 saying that it does.

On reading further around this it is even more of a confusing clusterfuck than it first appears.

Apparently, although the commencement date for the EU Withdrawal Act was mid 2018, not all of the sections have been brought into force. One of which is the (pretty key) repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 embodied in section 1. The Government needs to move to bring this and other provisions into force and they haven't done so yet.

So, on that basis, S Jobson esq. would seem to be correct by default... until you consider that there is case law relating to the exercise of government power to bring sections of acts into effect (I had actually read this as part of my undergraduate degree in another context but forgotten it (the Fire Brigade Union case)) notes that implied into such power is the expectation that it would at some point be exercised, i.e. those latent provisions would be brought into force. This expectation can be discharged by periodic review of whether to bring said sections of an act into force and then concluding that they shouldn't be yet, so in theory the government could sit on its hands.

However, complicating it further is that if the definition of exit day is not amended from 29 March (i.e. because the statutory instrument is not passed when voted on in the house), the question arises as to whether the government could delay beyond this point as it was clear that would defeat the intention of parliament in passing section 1 (the repeal of the ECA) in the first place, as it hinges entirely on the definition of exit day, which unless amended by statutory instrument, remains as 29 March.

So the answer is that the repeal element is not actually in force (though other provisions as to what replaces the ECA are...) and in the event the SI is not passed and s1 of the EUWA is not brought into force, then the government would end up potentially in front of the courts for breach of a duty to exercise its power to bring that provision into force and not causing a constitutional crisis where the ECA is repealed but were still in the EU. Now THAT is one hell of a mess.

[JLv3.0]

It'll all be worth it though. Nearly there.

MUKGA.

[GG.]

All well and good for you mate, sat there in the desert using memes which will be banned over here and driving cars without black boxes and speed limiters

[JLv3.0]

Yep

Tbh I like the lack of democracy. The locals are basically children and they need a grownup to tell them what to do. Works OK. The end.

[Swervin_Mervin]

MPs have voted by 331 - 287 to go ahead with further voting.

Good innit?

Anyway, the votes will be on:

No Deal (B) – John Baron (Conservative) - Agrees to leave the EU on 12 April without a deal.

Common market 2.0 (D) – Nick Boles (Conservative) - Government joins the European Economic Area (EEA) through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and negotiates a temporary customs union until alternative arrangements can be found.

EFTA and EEA (H) – George Eustice (Conservative) - Remains in the European Economic Area (EEA), and applies to re-join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Declines to form a customs union but seeks “agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade”.

Customs union (J) – Ken Clarke (Conservative) - Enshrine the objective to form a customs union in primary legislation.

Labour’s alternative plan (K) – Jeremy Corbyn - Negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to secure Labour’s position, and pass these objectives into law.

Revocation to avoid no deal (L) – Joanna Cherry (SNP) - If the Withdrawal (Agreement) Bill has not been passed before exit day, the government will ask MPs to approve no deal. If this does not pass, the government will revoke Article 50.

Confirmatory public vote (M) – Margaret Beckett (Labour) - Government cannot implement or ratify the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration unless and until they have been approved in a referendum.

Contingent preferential arrangements (O) – Marcus Fysh (Conservative) - Malthouse Plan B: The UK makes its budgetary contributions to the EU to the end of 2020 and agrees with the EU a period of two years in which UK goods have full access to the EU.

Regarding Corbyn's motion K, anyone got a clue what the actual f*** Labour's position is that they're asking MPs to secure? how can you have a vote on something so vague?

[Simon]

It's probably more unicorns.

[GG.]

I think their suggestion is multi-pronged so I believe they're actually aiming for a Triceratops.

[mr_jon]

Well, at least the thread title might finally live up to its billing? Where's Bozza these days?

[Beany]

Oh fuck, please don't let that dribbling cuntstick get the PMs job.

[Orange Cola]

Oh fuck, please don't let that dribbling cuntstick get the PMs job.

This.

[speedingfine]

#readyforraab

[Pete_]

As a Northern Irish person, I can't believe the D U fucking P are the ones holding the powerstrings for probably the most important issue in European politics for severalgenerations. It's insanity.