Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019? The 2019 Stack...

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?

What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?

What do you call a plan that's an alternative plan in case your initial plan fails?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Why is the object placed in the middle of the sentence here?

What's the point in a preamp?

Why does the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) not include telescopes from Africa, Asia or Australia?

Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?

How to pronounce 1ターン?

How to delete random line from file using Unix command?

How to stretch delimiters to envolve matrices inside of a kbordermatrix?

I could not break this equation. Please help me

How long does the line of fire that you can create as an action using the Investiture of Flame spell last?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

How can I protect witches in combat who wear limited clothing?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Take groceries in checked luggage

Four Colour Theorem

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

Finding the path in a graph from A to B then back to A with a minimum of shared edges

How many people can fit inside Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?



Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionHow was the exact time of Brexit computed?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Can an Article 50 extension take effect pending approval from national states?What would a revoked Brexit after the 2019 EU parliament elections mean for the European Parliament?Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionIf the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?Can Theresa May easily circumvent the Yvette Cooper bill?Can a no-deal Brexit happen before the new extension end date of 31 October 2019?












18















Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?



If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?





I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:




If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change




but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.










share|improve this question









New contributor




ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    18















    Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?



    If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?





    I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:




    If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change




    but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      18












      18








      18


      1






      Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?



      If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?





      I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:




      If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change




      but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?



      If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?





      I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:




      If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change




      but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.







      united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday







      ᆼᆺᆼ













      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ

      22817




      22817




      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          19














          No, but it nearly did.



          The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)



          This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

            – ᆼᆺᆼ
            yesterday






          • 1





            @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

            – Denis de Bernardy
            yesterday













          • Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

            – ᆼᆺᆼ
            yesterday



















          15














          Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:




          A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.




          ...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)



          However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:




          A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.




          This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).



          With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.



          It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".



          Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

            – Chieron
            yesterday











          • @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            yesterday











          • @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

            – Kevin
            yesterday











          • @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

            – Chieron
            19 hours ago



















          4














          No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.






          share|improve this answer
























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "475"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40523%2fdoes-parliament-need-to-approve-the-new-brexit-delay-to-31-october-2019%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            19














            No, but it nearly did.



            The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)



            This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday






            • 1





              @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

              – Denis de Bernardy
              yesterday













            • Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday
















            19














            No, but it nearly did.



            The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)



            This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday






            • 1





              @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

              – Denis de Bernardy
              yesterday













            • Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday














            19












            19








            19







            No, but it nearly did.



            The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)



            This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.






            share|improve this answer















            No, but it nearly did.



            The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)



            This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

            15.2k34170




            15.2k34170








            • 1





              However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday






            • 1





              @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

              – Denis de Bernardy
              yesterday













            • Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday














            • 1





              However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday






            • 1





              @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

              – Denis de Bernardy
              yesterday













            • Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

              – ᆼᆺᆼ
              yesterday








            1




            1





            However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

            – ᆼᆺᆼ
            yesterday





            However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?

            – ᆼᆺᆼ
            yesterday




            1




            1





            @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

            – Denis de Bernardy
            yesterday







            @ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.

            – Denis de Bernardy
            yesterday















            Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

            – ᆼᆺᆼ
            yesterday





            Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first

            – ᆼᆺᆼ
            yesterday











            15














            Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.




            ...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)



            However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.




            This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).



            With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.



            It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".



            Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.






            share|improve this answer


























            • Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

              – Chieron
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

              – Steve Melnikoff
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

              – Kevin
              yesterday











            • @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

              – Chieron
              19 hours ago
















            15














            Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.




            ...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)



            However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.




            This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).



            With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.



            It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".



            Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.






            share|improve this answer


























            • Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

              – Chieron
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

              – Steve Melnikoff
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

              – Kevin
              yesterday











            • @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

              – Chieron
              19 hours ago














            15












            15








            15







            Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.




            ...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)



            However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.




            This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).



            With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.



            It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".



            Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.






            share|improve this answer















            Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.




            ...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)



            However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:




            A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.




            This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).



            With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.



            It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".



            Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered yesterday









            Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff

            4,71111838




            4,71111838













            • Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

              – Chieron
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

              – Steve Melnikoff
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

              – Kevin
              yesterday











            • @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

              – Chieron
              19 hours ago



















            • Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

              – Chieron
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

              – Steve Melnikoff
              yesterday











            • @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

              – Kevin
              yesterday











            • @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

              – Chieron
              19 hours ago

















            Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

            – Chieron
            yesterday





            Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.

            – Chieron
            yesterday













            @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            yesterday





            @Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.

            – Steve Melnikoff
            yesterday













            @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

            – Kevin
            yesterday





            @Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.

            – Kevin
            yesterday













            @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

            – Chieron
            19 hours ago





            @Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.

            – Chieron
            19 hours ago











            4














            No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.






            share|improve this answer




























              4














              No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.






              share|improve this answer


























                4












                4








                4







                No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.






                share|improve this answer













                No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                useruser

                11.2k32644




                11.2k32644






















                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40523%2fdoes-parliament-need-to-approve-the-new-brexit-delay-to-31-october-2019%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

                    VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

                    Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...