The 3 months is only if the existing Deal (that's been voted down twice) is signed/agreed by Parliament. Then the 3 months is to get the various bits of necessary legislation + regulations in order.
If the Deal isn't signed, 3 months is no use - hence the part of the wording that says it will have to be a longer extension. Presumably because there'll be a new round of negotiations on something without May's arbitrary red lines.
And given how much store Leavers set on the principle of controlling your own borders, I'd expect them to be very sympathetic to the EU on this issue ;wink
I thought it was the EU's arbitrary red line around the backstop issue that was stopping things. ;hmm
The UK want the borders, and have explicitly said they'd like to move their regulations away from EU norms. The EU is holding them to their word, and insisting that the border be a real one.
Unless you're saying the UK should be allowed to leave the EU, but hold on to Northern Ireland, but stop people coming into the UK, but not Northern Ireland, but promise to have a proper border, unless they don't have a proper border, but the EU should believe their promises based on the UK's exemplary political behaviour as displayed over the last three years.
There was a BBC news item a few weeks ago where a reporter drove along the border and its a nightmare. There are numerous roads that cross back and forth over the border, the N54 from Monaghan to Cavan crosses the border four times in the space of 6 miles.
And not just roads, there's a Dublin-Belfast train, it would have to stop for border checks somewhere between Drumintree and Thistle Cross.
There was a BBC news item a few weeks ago where a reporter drove along the border and its a nightmare. There are numerous roads that cross back and forth over the border, the N54 from Monaghan to Cavan crosses the border four times in the space of 6 miles.
People who live or work near a border area make many trips back and forth daily - school on one side, house on the other, one's work on one side, other's work requires driving back and forth, kids swimming lessons on one side, grandparents on the other, big supermarket on one side, best friend on the other...
He’s entitled to do that constitutionally albeit a bit hypocritical given that he ignores it at other times. If it stays as it is we are heading for a no deal brexit as the vote last week was only indicative and non binding.
"If no-deal is rejected, MPs will vote on Thursday on delaying Brexit by extending Article 50 - the legal mechanism that takes the UK out of the EU. The EU has said it would need "a credible justification" before agreeing to any extension."
My question is if MPs vote to delay Brexit but the EU does not agree to any extension, is the next logical step to revoke Article 50 and would that be decided by Parliament?
"If no-deal is rejected, MPs will vote on Thursday on delaying Brexit by extending Article 50 - the legal mechanism that takes the UK out of the EU. The EU has said it would need "a credible justification" before agreeing to any extension."
My question is if MPs vote to delay Brexit but the EU does not agree to any extension, is the next logical step to revoke Article 50 and would that be decided by Parliament?
I'm guessing Aslef can answer this
Aslef, where are you? ;biggrin
Sorry, got distracted. Got a lot on my plate
Your question can be divided into two parts.
Yes, parliament voted to invoke Article 50 so I guess they would have to vote to revoke it.
No, there is no logical step, logical went out the window when Cameron promised a referendum believing that the Tories wouldn't win a majority in 2015, they'd need the Lib Dems in a coalition again and the Lib Dems would veto it for him.
Comments
If the Deal isn't signed, 3 months is no use - hence the part of the wording that says it will have to be a longer extension. Presumably because there'll be a new round of negotiations on something without May's arbitrary red lines.
And given how much store Leavers set on the principle of controlling your own borders, I'd expect them to be very sympathetic to the EU on this issue ;wink
Unless you're saying the UK should be allowed to leave the EU, but hold on to Northern Ireland, but stop people coming into the UK, but not Northern Ireland, but promise to have a proper border, unless they don't have a proper border, but the EU should believe their promises based on the UK's exemplary political behaviour as displayed over the last three years.
And not just roads, there's a Dublin-Belfast train, it would have to stop for border checks somewhere between Drumintree and Thistle Cross.
lol
Can't wait to see what the Daily Mail call him in tomorrow's headlines.
If it stays as it is we are heading for a no deal brexit as the vote last week was only indicative and non binding.
as was the Brexit referendum. ;whistle
No, the PM has said she is going to ask for an extension.
tbh, if she ignores the vote on the grounds you say, THAT would be hypocritical!
From the BBC today:
"If no-deal is rejected, MPs will vote on Thursday on delaying Brexit by extending Article 50 - the legal mechanism that takes the UK out of the EU.
The EU has said it would need "a credible justification" before agreeing to any extension."
My question is if MPs vote to delay Brexit but the EU does not agree to any extension, is the next logical step to revoke Article 50 and would that be decided by Parliament?
I'm guessing Aslef can answer this
Aslef, where are you? ;biggrin
Your question can be divided into two parts.
Yes, parliament voted to invoke Article 50 so I guess they would have to vote to revoke it.
No, there is no logical step, logical went out the window when Cameron promised a referendum believing that the Tories wouldn't win a majority in 2015, they'd need the Lib Dems in a coalition again and the Lib Dems would veto it for him.
They're outraged.
Who'd have thunk it ;lol