en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/23049017 Comments by archer101au https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082604393 The purpose of the Act was not to block a no deal Brexit. It was to provide additional time to negotiate a deal (this is what it says) - which has been done. The extension is available only to negotiate a particular type of deal - eg the Kinnock Amendment. I don't doubt the Courts would probably 'interpret it widely' but that is improper - it is not for the Courts to ignore or re-write what is clearly set out in the legislation. The meaning here is quite clear - Parliament could have rejected the Kinnock Amendment if they did not intend this limitation. One of the consequences of Brexit has been to expose the falling standards in the Court system. Tue, 22 Oct 2019 22:44:50 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082604393 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082603083 Only if the extension is for the purposes set out in the Act. You can't just ignore clauses in legislation that you don't like. Tue, 22 Oct 2019 21:53:13 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082603083 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082602642 Wrong. The Act says the extension is required "in order to debate and pass a Bill ... including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks." If the extension is not for this purpose the PM does not need to accept. Tue, 22 Oct 2019 21:35:21 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082602642 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082602471 You need to read the text of the Benn Act. That is not what it says. Tue, 22 Oct 2019 21:27:56 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082602471 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082601847 Boris can reject any extension under the Benn Act. Any extension has to be for the purpose of the Kinnock Amendment. Technically illegal for Boris to accept an extension to pass his deal later since to do so would be contrary to the provisions of the Benn Act. If Boris was going this way: (a) he would say he was still leaving on 31 Oct (he just did) (b) He would comply with the Benn Act by inviting the EU to offer an extension in response to the Benn Act before rejecting it (he just did). Tue, 22 Oct 2019 21:01:46 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-mps-are-almost-up-to-the-level-of-events-but-not-quite.html#IDComment1082601847 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082574345 They could pass a new bill, but they are running out of time. The QS debate has not concluded and obviously there is the WAIB to do now - it would be remarkable if they were to hold up all that just to pass a new bill about the extension. The wording of the Benn Act is "The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension ... in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks." I think that is clearly incompatible with obtaining an extension to pass Boris' deal. Boris would be entitled to refuse any extension offered in response to the Benn Act unless it specifies that it is for the purpose of the Kinnock Amendment. Tue, 22 Oct 2019 03:31:50 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082574345 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082566177 Yes, it has always been impossible for the HoC to replace a PM without calling an election if the PM does not resign. When Thatcher passed a VONC in Callaghan he did not resign and was PM until the day after the election. There is nothing in the FTPA that changes that position. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 22:21:19 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082566177 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082564572 I think Boris has been 'lawyered' to death. The moment Cox and co lost at the UKSC they were not interested in doing anything else that might lead to another defeat - anyone who has even engaged counsel knows that ultimately they are far more interested in their own interests and reputation than their client. Boris had multiple options to challenge the Benn Act but has refused to follow through. As you say, he could have blocked the Benn Act by blocking the Lords. But I think the constant whispering of lawyers in his ears has undermined his confidence. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 21:28:39 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082564572 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082564458 The Cabinet Manual is not law, nor is it convention. It is written by civil servants. The PM can reasonably claim that, in his view, no stable and enduring Government can evolve from the House, or that it would be unreasonable because such a Government would have no electoral mandate. This is especially true since the convention is that the LOTO is invited to become PM precisely because he has an electoral mandate to form a Govt if the existing Govt falls. This does not apply to a 'unity' candidate who has never stood for election on any platform of Government. Ultimately, HM acts on the advice of the PM. As it says clearly, "what occurs during the 14-day period is matter of politics and not procedure." And as a result, the PM can stay and the UKSC cannot intervene. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 21:25:26 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082564458 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082563616 The Letwin amendment does not do what many people on this board claim. It does not keep open an extension until after the WAIB is passed. It cannot do that, since that would require a change to the Surrender Act legislation and a mere motion cannot substitute for legislation. In fact, Boris can easily avoid the Surrender Act now: 1. If the 2nd reading of the WAIB passes, he can use this to satisfy S1.5 and S 1(1)(a) of the Surrender Act and withdraw the extension request. The Act simply says that a 'resolution' needs to be passed proposed by a 'Minister of the Crown' - which is exactly what passing the 2nd reading would accomplish. 2. In any event, Boris can refuse any extension offered by the EU. The Kinnock Amendment (1.4) is now relevant because there is a deal. Any extension has to be granted for the specific purpose of pursuing a WA that complies with the Kinnock Amendment. Since the WA does not comply with the amendment, the EU would basically have to declare that to provide an extension they want to tear up Boris' deal. They will not do so. Therefore Boris can decline any extension on the grounds that it does not comply with S1.4 of the Surrender Act. He would be able to argue that in fact it would be illegal for him to accept an extension whose objective was to pass his deal at a later date. The question is whether No 10 are serious about leaving the EU on 31 Oct, not whether they are able to do so. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:58:09 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082563616 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082563389 You keep repeating this but it is wrong. There is nothing in the FTPA that requires the PM to resign during the 14 days period or allow someone else to 'have a go' at forming a Government. It simply gives the Government (eg the existing Government) 14 days to try and reverse the motion of NC. Boris can NC himself (with Tory and SNP votes) and then wait out the 14 days to force an election. And nothing the UKSC can do about it, as the appointment of PM are not within their remit. Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:49:53 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/10/watch-bercow-refuses-meaningful-vote.html#IDComment1082563389 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-instead-of-the-falklands-war-letwin-sells-mps-an-insurance-policy.html#IDComment1082491305 I think you are missing the objective of the Letwin approach. He has no intention of supporting Boris' deal. He will vote for the Second Reading only so he can amend it to make it unacceptable to the Govt (and ERG). The WAIB will have to be withdrawn and then he is after the extension. So Boris has to hold out the risk that if they play this game, the EU may not offer an extension or he may not accept it. Sun, 20 Oct 2019 03:28:06 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/andrew-gimsons-commons-sketch-instead-of-the-falklands-war-letwin-sells-mps-an-insurance-policy.html#IDComment1082491305 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/our-friend-leo.html#IDComment1082284818 They cannot deliver a referendum - it is a money bill and the Government can simply ignore it. An impartial Speaker would not even let it proceed, but I assume Bercow will allow the bill to proceed and become 'law' - but without funding, the referendum can never happen. Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:56:23 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/our-friend-leo.html#IDComment1082284818 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/10/david-gauke-whatever-briefings-from-downing-street-may-claim-an-election-fought-on-a-no-deal-platform-would-be-disastrous.html#IDComment1082274810 +1 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 05:47:32 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/10/david-gauke-whatever-briefings-from-downing-street-may-claim-an-election-fought-on-a-no-deal-platform-would-be-disastrous.html#IDComment1082274810 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/the-day-the-conservatives-swung-behind-a-canada-type-brexit.html#IDComment1081834988 No, it can’t. The EEA treaty is not compatible with a Customs Union. To create that outcome would require a completely new mixed competency treaty that requires the approval of every Parliament in the EU. It would take years. Oh, and completely ignore the Good Friday Agreement since it would be a change in the constitutional arrangements of NI without the consent of both communities. There would not be ‘minimal’ checks between NI and GB - there would be a full customs and regulatory border. Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:05:27 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/the-day-the-conservatives-swung-behind-a-canada-type-brexit.html#IDComment1081834988 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/the-day-the-conservatives-swung-behind-a-canada-type-brexit.html#IDComment1081833024 You are right that in any other case, the Court would never agree to hear a case about a hypothetical outcome. But you can be sure that this Court will rule that Boris must follow their exact instructions or go to jail. Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:04:53 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/the-day-the-conservatives-swung-behind-a-canada-type-brexit.html#IDComment1081833024 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/the-day-the-conservatives-swung-behind-a-canada-type-brexit.html#IDComment1081832926 EFTA and EEA are INCOMPATIBLE with remaining in the Customs Union, and the Customs Union is what the EU insist upon. So this idea is, and has always been, nonsense. Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:02:34 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/the-day-the-conservatives-swung-behind-a-canada-type-brexit.html#IDComment1081832926 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/strangely-subdued.html#IDComment1081741212 The proposal for Boris which is leaked in the Telegraph today is a reasonable approach, and probably the ONLY plan that could ever lead to a deal. The ROI has been totally unrealistic in believing that they can ‘force’ NI, or the UK, to remain in the Customs Union. The consequence of Brexit is that a customs border would be created in Ireland and the discussion should always have been about how to mitigate it. Ireland is behaving as if it has a veto over Brexit which is simply not a reality. If they reject this offer, they will end up with exactly the same border outcome under no deal but with no money and no goodwill with the UK or the Unionist community. It should be an easy decision for them, but I suspect they will reject the offer in their usual offensive manner. The question is now whether this deal is better than no deal. In my view, I would choose no deal as I do not see the advantages in a WA that does little but concede ground and money to the EU for no return. But if I were an MP I would support this deal if asked by the PM, if: - We are not subject to the level playing field requirements - this is all for discussion during an FTA, not now. - We are not subject to the ridiculous provisions regarding defence. Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:30:00 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/10/strangely-subdued.html#IDComment1081741212 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/09/lord-ashcroft-could-conservative-mps-be-whipped-to-vote-that-they-do-not-have-confidence-in-their-government.html#IDComment1081661766 Not possible unfortunately. The UK does not ‘choose’ to pay the EU. The ‘own resources’ decision means that the EU legally ‘owns’ a share of UK income. That law only is repealed at Brexit. Therefore the Surrender Act does not involve ‘new’ expenditure because it is already committed. It does involve expenditure in other ways, but Bercow lied about this like he lied about Queens Consent. Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:45:31 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/09/lord-ashcroft-could-conservative-mps-be-whipped-to-vote-that-they-do-not-have-confidence-in-their-government.html#IDComment1081661766 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/09/lord-ashcroft-could-conservative-mps-be-whipped-to-vote-that-they-do-not-have-confidence-in-their-government.html#IDComment1081661608 There is simply no provision in the FTPA for another person to ‘become’ PM. If the PM does not resign, after 14 days there is an election. The FTPA does NOT talk about ‘someone else’ gaining the support of the House. It talks only about a new motion being passed showing confidence in ‘the Government’ - which will still be Boris if he does not resign. HM will not appoint a new PM unless Boris resigns and recommends it. There may be a ‘convention’ that a PM who loses a VONC resigns, but conventions are not being followed these days. Callaghan did not resign after Thatcher defeated him. Boris can cite the same precedent. Boris will wait 14 days and an election will occur. The Government of Remoaners is a pipe dream. Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:41:54 +0000 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/09/lord-ashcroft-could-conservative-mps-be-whipped-to-vote-that-they-do-not-have-confidence-in-their-government.html#IDComment1081661608