Re: Summary of the issue?

Post #430,642 by malraux 9/3/19 9:38:32 PM 9/3/19 10:19:09 PM Reply	Re: Summary of the issue? BJ is trying to prevent Parliament from preventing him from allowing a no-deal crash out of the EU. He failed, miserably from what I can see, to the extent that he even managed to lose his majority during his second-ever speech as PM. One of his Tory ministers literally walked over to the opposing side and sat down as a newly-minted Liberal Democrat while he was speeching at everyone, causing the 1-vote majority to flip away from BJ's government to the other side. This would be somewhat like McCain suddenly deciding to be a Democrat while McConnell was giving a speech about why Obamacare was bad. Then a bunch of the Blimey Minister's own party, in stark contrast to how it's been working over here, went against him because of some silly thing called "responsibility to the country over party" or other such twaddle. He got his clowny ass handed to him in the vote and then threatened to force an election (spoiler alert: he can't without 2/3 of the Commons (I think?) agreeing to do so, and they won't because he's a Trumpy-smelling shit) which would then dismiss Parliament until after the no-deal crash out on Oct. 31. The vote was to allow a vote on the no-deal preventative measure because Bercow allowed a Standing Order 24 end-around to table an emergency discussion without needing the PM to bring it to the floor. Not so amusing: the House of Lords still has to pass the bill that the Commons is likely to vote into being tomorrow, and that's more like the Senate where a single jackass can hold the entire proceedings up until time runs out on the 9th and the prorogue sets in. Or something like that. They could have been playing indoor cricket for all I know. But at least nobody grabbed the big Queen Puissant Monarch Stick of Monarchy Power this time. Also, Jacob Rees-Mogg the Lounger looks and sounds like Michael Palin to me. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. Edited by malraux Sept. 3, 2019, 09:45:03 PM EDT Edited by malraux Sept. 3, 2019, 10:19:09 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #430,644 by drook 9/3/19 11:01:58 PM 9/3/19 11:01:58 PM Reply	Arrgh! That first sentence is exactly what I was talking about. It was a triple negative. Let's see if I can reverse-engineer it. 1) BJ wants to crash out with no deal. 2) "Rebels" in Parliament have introduced a measure which would prevent that. (Somehow? Last I heard the EU doesn't have to care about what they decide.) 3) BJ is trying to call a new election, which would scuttle that measure. 4) Parliament voted that they would vote on the measure. I believe I've got the high level right. So what about my question on point 2? What's the actual content of the measure they just voted to vote on? -- Drew
Post #430,645 by scoenye 9/3/19 11:20:25 PM 9/3/19 11:20:25 PM Reply	Mostly procedural at this point They voted to take control of the agenda away from BJ. Next up is to try and introduce a measure presumable asking (beg?) the EU to extend the deadline again. (Or to force BJ to ask for another extension. Either way, granting that is entirely up to the EU.)
Post #430,651 by mmoffitt 9/4/19 9:00:52 AM 9/4/19 9:00:52 AM Reply	The Benn bill is reasonably straight-forward. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the UK does not leave the European Union on the 31 October without an agreement, unless Parliaments consents. The Bill gives the Government time either to reach a new agreement with the European Union at the European Council meeting next month or to seek Parliament’s specific consent to leave the EU without a deal. If neither of these two conditions have been met, however, by 19th October – ie the day after the European Council meeting concludes – then the Prime Minister must send a letter to the President of the European Council requesting an Article 50 extension until 31 January 2020. The form of the letter is set out in a schedule to the Bill. If the European Council agrees to an extension to the 31 January 2020, then the Prime Minister must immediately accept that extension. If the European Council proposes an extension to a different date then the Prime Minister must accept that extension within two days, unless the House of Commons rejects it. The Bill has cross-party support from MPs who believe that the consequences of No Deal for the economy and the country would be highly damaging. No Deal is not in the national interest. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168560598650621953.html It's passage would not prevent a no-deal crash out per se, (although in practice it would since there is no desire for a no-deal crash out in Parliament). It simply mandates that Parliament must have a say. Which doesn't seem to me to be all that controversial. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #430,655 by drook 9/4/19 1:24:54 PM 9/4/19 1:24:54 PM Reply	If they continue not doing anything, does the EU at some point just kick them out? -- Drew
Post #430,657 by mmoffitt 9/4/19 2:41:46 PM 9/4/19 2:41:46 PM Reply	I don't think that's likely. Everything else aside, that would dramatically increase the likelihood of The Troubles returning to Ireland and no sane person wants that. But it would also hurt Europe if the UK left without a deal - just not as dramatically as it would hurt the UK. I'm claiming no expertise here, just voicing an opinion. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #430,661 by scoenye 9/4/19 7:21:47 PM 9/4/19 7:21:47 PM Reply	Europe may take up baseball yet Dragging this out indefinitely is not in their interest either. The first extension came with a warning that there would not be another just for the sake of extending things. They'll likely extend it now due to the upheaval but a 3rd request may result in "you're out!". Especially given no progress has been made at all on the agreement.
Post #430,663 by pwhysall 9/5/19 1:59:30 AM 9/5/19 1:59:30 AM Reply	There is no "you're out!" There is only "there are no more extensions, and as you have not retracted your Article 50 declaration, it now takes effect". The EU cannot eject the UK. The UK can only leave or not.
Post #430,665 by drook 9/5/19 7:36:14 AM 9/5/19 7:36:14 AM Reply	Ok, so a bit more then semantics, but ... If they don't retract their Article 50 declaration, then they're out? -- Drew
Post #430,667 by mmoffitt 9/5/19 10:44:22 AM 9/5/19 10:44:22 AM Reply	If the EU refuses another extension and the UK doesn't revoke, they're out and chaos ensues. The EU has said they won't approve any deal that does not include the backstop. Even if the UK is somehow miraculously able to "leave" without the backstop, as Peter has noted and documented quite well here, even ignoring the not insubstantial work that would have to be done to craft a new UK-EU trade deal and have it agreed, the UK will be scrambling to replace all the EU regulations currently present with their own. There are messy divorces and then there's this abortion. They had their 500 uninformed fools and we had ours. We murdered Socrates here with Trump. They murdered Socrates there with the Brexit referendum. There can be no one left to defend the idea of democracy wherein "the common man" is allowed any say in how a society is governed. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #430,668 by boxley 9/5/19 11:04:45 AM 9/5/19 11:04:45 AM Reply	well you should be happy about trump and sing his praises since he doesnt beleive the common man should have a say either "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #430,669 by mmoffitt 9/5/19 11:45:25 AM 9/5/19 11:45:25 AM Reply	Hardly. He's exploiting the common man's idiocy, bigotry, xenophobia and inability to see things clearly and come to a logical conclusion about anything in order to achieve power. They shouldn't have a say, but they do. And he is exploiting them. Mind you, he is a stupid as they are, he just happened to win the lottery of birth. So, TBH, I cannot say for certain if he is exploiting them or is just one of their kindred spirits. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #430,675 by Ashton 9/5/19 5:52:17 PM 9/5/19 5:52:17 PM Reply	Well said.. Sadly.
Post #430,677 by scoenye 9/5/19 6:54:38 PM 9/5/19 6:54:38 PM Reply	Part of that is covered The EU Withdrawal Act is a copy/paste operation that transfers all EU laws & regulations to the UK books.
Post #430,656 by malraux 9/4/19 1:33:59 PM 9/4/19 1:33:59 PM Reply	:-D The setting: Parliament can't typically bring bills to the floor for a vote unless the Government (read: the Prime Minister) allows it, much like McConnell or Pelosi. However, unlike our Congress, there are occasions where Parliament can wrest control of the agenda from the Government. Standing Order 24 wrote some rules around that, one having to do with emergency discussions. The Commons invoked the rule yesterday to attempt to gain control of the agenda to vote on a bill blocking a No Deal Brexit. The vote yesterday was a vote on whether or not to allow that control to be wrested, and it passed because 20 Tory (Conservative) ministers rebelled. So, that vote passed, which now allows the Commons to discuss and vote on the actual bill to block a No Deal Brexit. That's happening today: The first vote passed and now they're considering amendments, then it goes to the Lords. The bill itself would require the PM to go to Brussels to ask for an extension of 3 months if the alternative would be to crash out. You're right in that the EU doesn't have to agree but it's very likely they would. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!