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?
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
add a comment |
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
New contributor
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
united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
ᆼᆺᆼ
New contributor
asked yesterday
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
22817
22817
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered yesterday
useruser
11.2k32644
11.2k32644
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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