Brexit process

[Lord Beria3]

Well said Little John.

I would add that most of European is or will be seeing contracting populations soon so we may not need any one child policy anyway.

Germany and most of central eastern Europe already have Labour shortages due to low birth rate.

[fuzzy]

Well said Little John.

I would add that most of European is or will be seeing contracting populations soon so we may not need any one child policy anyway.

Germany and most of central eastern Europe already have Labour shortages due to low birth rate.

That doesn't help the UK. Due to the baywatch effect, most immigrants are english speakers and will not be interested in other countries. They already have large ghetto communities in the UK.

[Mark]

HMG (Amber Rudd) bottle it.....

Universal credit - U-turn on two-child cap on benefit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46827301

[fuzzy]

It sounds like she has bottled on applying the tax on already mothers rather than new ones. This is arguably right. If people should not be paid to copulate, they should at least know what their financial outcome is. But there are plenty of examples of gov victims to retrospective changes. The Tories seem to enjoy doing it. The state pension and means tested benefits have savagely altered.

[UndercoverElephant]

From this morning's Sunday Times. This is massive.

Theresa May has been warned that her government “will lose its ability to govern� after Downing Street uncovered a bombshell plot by senior MPs to seize control of Brexit negotiations and sideline the prime minister.

A cross-party group of senior backbenchers — including former Tory ministers — plan what one senior figure branded a “very British coup� if May loses the crunch vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday.

At least two groups of rebel MPs are plotting to change Commons rules so motions proposed by backbenchers take precedence over government business, upending the centuries-old relationship between executive and legislature.

Downing Street believes that would enable MPs to suspend article 50, putting Brexit on hold, and could even lead to the referendum result being overturned — a move that would plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

May’s team got wind of the plot on Thursday evening when one of the conspirators — a former cabinet minister — was overheard by the government chief whip Julian Smith discussing the plan in the MPs’ cloakroom. He commissioned written advice from legal experts, who warned May her government’s future was at stake.

Smith briefed May on Friday on the explosive document, which says: “Such an attempt represents a clear and present danger to all government business.

“Without control of the order paper, the government has no control over the House of Commons and the parliamentary business and legislation necessary to progress government policies. The government would lose its ability to govern.�

Dominic Grieve: rebel ringleader Dominic Grieve: rebel ringleader BEN STANSALL/AFP/GETTY IMAGES A senior government source said that May and her aides were “shellshocked� and declared: “This could be game over for Brexit.� Another added: “This sounds very like a very British coup — and one that has profound implications for democracy.�

Crucially, Commons sources say the Speaker, John Bercow, is likely to allow the gambit to proceed. It can now be revealed that one of the rebel ringleaders, the former attorney general Dominic Grieve, visited Bercow in his official residence on Tuesday, the day before the Speaker tore up Commons rules to help remainer MPs.

Last night, Grieve refused to deny he was examining plans to seize control of the Commons timetable. He said: “I have no doubt that lots of people may be looking at all sorts of ideas since we are in a deepening national political crisis.�

Britain will leave the EU on March 29 unless there is a new act of parliament overturning existing Brexit legislation. Senior Brexiteers assume this is not possible as the government controls the timetable of Commons business. The plot, which May’s aides believe is being orchestrated by Sir Oliver Letwin, an ally of David Cameron, would torpedo that assumption.

If, as expected, May loses the crunch vote on Tuesday evening, she must table a new plan by the following Monday. Tory whips believe plotters would then table an amendment to May’s plan (or the business motion that precedes it), proposing that future motions setting out the business of the House could be tabled by non-government members. If that passes, MPs, not ministers, could shape the future of Brexit.

Tomorrow night, members of the “Norway group�, which backs membership of the single market, will meet to discuss their plans. That group includes Letwin, Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock.

Boles last night confirmed he wants to make it illegal to leave with no deal. He said: “We have a mechanism which will give parliament control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal on March 29. To change a law you need to pass a law. I am working on ways to achieve that outcome. We will be publishing it on Tuesday.�

Labour’s Chris Leslie is also developing plans to cut off the salaries of ministers unless Downing Street abides by the rulings of the Commons. Even before the plot was uncovered, The Sunday Times had learnt MPs were plotting to get Bercow to suspend Commons standing order 14, which says that “government business shall have precedence at every sitting�. It has been in place since Charles Stewart Parnell’s campaign of obstructionism for Irish nationalism in the 1880s.

Last week, the Speaker tore up parliamentary precedent to allow another amendment by Grieve that set May a short deadline to return with a plan B — in defiance of the advice of the clerk of the Commons, who is guardian of the rules.

A source close to Bercow said: “Tearing up the standing orders is what I would expect to happen. He is setting out to stop Brexit. He’s part of the rebel team.�

Details of the plot are now being shared by Tory whips with leading Brexiteers to try to persuade them to back May’s deal to save Brexit.

Meanwhile, the European Commission will shortly publish a letter to reassure MPs that the controversial Northern Ireland backstop is “temporary�. Yet insiders still expect the prime minister to lose by 100 or more votes.

Letwin did not respond to a request for comment. Bercow’s spokeswoman said: “We have no knowledge of backbench rule changes. The Speaker did meet Mr Grieve on Tuesday. He meets members from both sides of the House and all parties.�

[stumuz1]

If true then something smelly is definitely afoot.

Our constitutional law history is all about taking power from the Crown in accretions. The last really big one was Lloyd George’s 1908 Old Age Pension Act and later the 1911 National Insurance Act.

To pay for the 'popular' policy he effectively filleted the British aristocracy by introducing what is now inheritance tax.

So Lloyd George 'took power' from the Crown (Earls,Dukes, Barons etc) and gave it to Parliament.

So Parliament taking power for itself from the Crown ( the Government) is not new but very rare, but it is usually done under the cloak of populism.

If the Times article is correct, this power grab may well run into trouble. Because all power grabs usually have overwhelming support from the populace. This one may not have universal support from the retainers. It will be loathed by the Brexiteers.

[Lord Beria3]

Plus it is not clear whether there is a majority within parliament for a plan b!

Parliament can only really take control if there is a majority for an alternative to the government's plan.

This times report could make the hard Brexit camp rethink their opposition to Mays plan.

[stumuz1]

Parliament can only really take control if there is a majority for an alternative to the government's plan.

No, Parliament can only make take power from the Crown if it is overwhelmingly popular with the people. The people are split. So a very difficult power grab.

This times report could make the hard Brexit camp rethink their opposition to Mays plan.

Sorry, no again. A power grab by parliament only works when 80% of the people favour it.
Think of it. When Lloyd George introduced the pensions act, there were many more poor people dying in poverty, than hugely rich land owning Dukes.

Power grab was successful.

Do you really think 80% of the people favour cancelling Brexit?

[Vortex2]

Heard on the radio today that 70% would prefer a clean break than May's option.

[UndercoverElephant]

If the Times article is correct, this power grab may well run into trouble. Because all power grabs usually have overwhelming support from the populace. This one may not have universal support from the retainers. It will be loathed by the Brexiteers.

Judging by what is being said in both the mainstream media and social media, the article is indeed correct.

Will it run into trouble? Maybe, but I don't see how the government can fight back. May has no majority, the DUP won't back her deal and it looked like she was going to try to use delaying tactics to force parliament to choose between her deal and no deal. There is a majority in parliament to prevent her from doing that, even if it means major constitutional changes, and the speaker is on the side of parliament.

It's huge. This will forever change the way hung parliaments operate in the UK. In some ways it is bigger than brexit.

[UndercoverElephant]

Parliament can only really take control if there is a majority for an alternative to the government's plan.

It can do that in stages. There is almost certainly a majority willing to vote to make no deal illegal, and revoking article 50 becoming the new default outcome, over-riding the relevant bits of the Withdrawal Bill. And now there is a mechanism for parliament to enact this as law without the co-operation of the government.

I think no deal just died. Grieve and Bercow have killed it.

This times report could make the hard Brexit camp rethink their opposition to Mays plan.

It may well do, but that doesn't mean May's plan can be revived. Even if every tory MP supports it, she's still screwed. The DUP will vote against it, so she would need opposition support to get it passed. But if this were likely to happen, then the DUP would support a Labour VonC and bring the government down.

[UndercoverElephant]

No, Parliament can only make take power from the Crown if it is overwhelmingly popular with the people. The people are split. So a very difficult power grab.

Who is going to stop Parliament from doing this? Who is going to tell a majority in Parliament, with the support and co-operation of the speaker, that they cannot do this? How can it be stopped?

[kenneal - lagger]

It sounds like she has bottled on applying the tax on already mothers rather than new ones. This is arguably right. If people should not be paid to copulate, they should at least know what their financial outcome is.

It is unfair to penalise people in retrospect so the government should announce that only two children will be paid allowances from a date in the future. Whether that is one or two years or sixteen or eighteen years to allow for people who are having children now is up for debate on just how fair we should be over how important a reduced population is.

........ The state pension and .......... have savagely altered.

That is because the pension provisions of successive governments have only allowed for funding from current income. It was thought by the Labour government and its economist advisers who set up the scheme that the economy would grow indefinitely into the future so that it would always be affordable to fund the pension provision from current taxation. We now know that an infinitely growing economy is a myth expounded by a group of professional economists and is a pipe dream based on flawed thinking.

[emordnilap]

It is unfair to penalise people in retrospect so the government should announce that only two children will be paid allowances from a date in the future. Whether that is one or two years or sixteen or eighteen years to allow for people who are having children now is up for debate on just how fair we should be over how important a reduced population is.

Agree. I've always thought it odd to encourage having extra children in an overcrowded country. There again, it's odd to pay public money to rich people too (landlords, farmers, bankers etc).

[stumuz1]

Who is going to stop Parliament from doing this? Who is going to tell a majority in Parliament, with the support and co-operation of the speaker, that they cannot do this? How can it be stopped?

That's quite straightforward.

According to parliamentary legal theorist A.V. Dicey who wrote " An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885).

The doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament :
1. Parliament can make or unmake any law as it sees fit.
2. Speaking legally, there is no limit, at least within the UK, to the legislative capability of the UK parliament, as Sir Ivor Jennings famously wrote in 1959 " the British Parliament Could legally ban smoking on the streets of Paris, or legally turn a Man into a woman.

OK, so far, so simple. Legally UK parliament is supreme.

It can ban smoking on the streets of Paris. But what would happen if if did ban smoking on the streets of Paris? How many Parisians would abide by it? It could arrest any French smoker who confessed to smoking on the streets of Paris when they arrived at Dover, but in effect it would be ignored.

So, as any constitutional lawyer will attest, once a parliament enacts a law that is rejected by a majority of the people= game over.

So, long story short, parliament is supreme. As long as a overwhelming majority of the people accept it.

If the referendum is usurped at least half of the peeps will be peeved. to say the least.