Tory Remainer ministers are lashed for 'kamikaze tactics' in furious Cabinet row after May's screeching U-turn as she declared Brexit CAN be delayed by two months if her deal fails
A furious Cabinet row saw Remainer ministers lashed for 'kamikaze' tactics today as Theresa May set out a screeching U-turn and admitted Brexit could be delayed. Amber Rudd, Greg Clark and David Gauke were slammed for going public with their demands for no deal Brexit to be ruled out in a newspaper article on Saturday. Chief Secretary Liz Truss criticised the 'kamikaze' approach while Commons leader Andrea Leadsom reportedly shouted in anger, the Spectator reported. The meeting began at 9.30am as normal, with Mrs May outlining what she would say in her statement to the House – including the promise of a vote on delaying Brexit if her deal doesn’t pass on March 12.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay updated ministers on progress in Brussels. Then, said one source, ‘the real fireworks began’. Brexit in-depth: All the latest news, analysis and expert opinion Mrs Leadsom, who was first to speak, did not hold back. She said the rebels had breached collective responsibility – the rule that ministers must stick to government policy or resign their posts.
Their ‘appalling behaviour’ was, she suggested, a betrayal and they were playing into the EU’s hands because Brussels now thinks ‘we are not going to leave without a deal’. The Government had lost credibility with Tory backbenchers and ‘if we carry on like this we will damage the party’, she fumed. Sitting just inches away, Claire Perry was the first to react. The energy minister had written – together with two other ministers – an article in the Mail yesterday also demanding a delay to ensure Britain was not ‘swept over the precipice’ of No Deal. She leaned back in her chair and muttered, ‘Oh, for God’s sake, Andrea!’
When it was her turn to speak, Mrs Perry hit back, saying it was the fault of Brexiteer backbenchers that the Government was ‘in this mess’ because they had refused to vote for Mrs May’s plan. She added that ‘so-called Remainers’ were the most active in defending the Prime Minister in public while Brexiteers had sat on their hands. Sources said Miss Rudd, Mr Gauke and Mr Clarke ‘stood their ground’. Chancellor Philip Hammond and Miss Rudd urged Mrs May to use any delay to explore options for a softer Brexit if her deal is defeated again. A source said: ‘They were both very clear that any extra time needs to be used to find a new compromise that can get through Parliament.’ Mr Hammond leapt to the defence of ministers who had spoken out, saying he ‘regretted the use of the word disloyalty’. Julian Smith, the Chief Whip, said he understood the concerns of the anti-No Deal ministers but argued they should not have gone public.
Other angry ministers included Communities Secretary James Brokenshire, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright and education supremo Damian Hinds. There was also a warning to Mrs May – from Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns – that any extension to Article 50 could last for far longer than intended. He pointed to the example of the Northern Ireland Assembly, saying: ‘Stormont was only supposed to suspended for a month.’ At the end of the meeting, Mrs May stressed the importance of ministers speaking with ‘one voice’. And in an attempt to focus minds, she set out the twin purpose of her Government – to deliver Brexit and to stop Jeremy Corbyn from gaining power.
After a brief banging of the tables, the meeting broke up shortly after 12.15pm. After briefing her Cabinet and with negotiations deadlocked in Brussels, the PM told the Commons no deal would only happen with 'explicit consent' and it will get a chance to extend Article 50 within a fortnight. Mrs May tried to soothe angry Eurosceptics by insisting that a delay could only be a 'one-off' and was not something she wanted to do. She stressed she will never cancel the Brexit process altogether, arguing that the UK could make a 'success' of no deal if it has to. But the concession leaves Tory hardliners with a stark choice of either backing Mrs May's plan in the next showdown, which will happen by March 12, or accepting an almost inevitable delay to the UK's departure.
Under the new timetable, a vote effectively ruling out no deal would then be staged on March 13, and a vote on an extension the following day - March 14. Mrs May refused to say whether the government would back the delay. Without revoking Article 50 no delay to Brexit can last forever - meaning MPs would have to agree a deal eventually. Unless Britain takes part in European Parliament elections in May, a delay cannot extend past the end of June. Brexiteer ringleader Mr Rees-Mogg warned a delay could not be cover for cancelling Brexit - insisting it would be a 'grievous error' that would 'undermine democracy'.
On the Remain side, Tory Nick Boles and Labour's Yvette Cooper questioned whether the PM could be trusted to abide by her word - but this afternoon abandoned their plan to change the law to force a vote on delaying Brexit if there is no deal. The PM again drew a blank after a frantic round of Brexit talks with EU counterparts at a summit in Egypt over the past two days. EU council chief Donald Tusk heaped pressure on the PM by urging her to take the 'rational solution' of an extension. One proposal favoured in Brussels is a 21-month delay, which would essentially replace the transition period.
However, the PM suggested a postponement would only be possible for around two months, up to the European Parliamentary elections. Mrs May said: 'Let me be clear, I do not want to see Article 50 extended. 'Our absolute focus should be on working to get a deal and leaving on 29 March. 'An extension beyond the end of June would mean the UK taking part in the European Parliament elections. 'What kind of message would that send to the more than 17 million people who voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago now? ' And the House should be clear that a short extension – not beyond the end of June – would almost certainly have to be a one-off. 'If we had not taken part in the European Parliament elections, it would be extremely difficult to extend again, so it would create a much sharper cliff edge in a few months' time. An extension cannot take no deal off the table. The only way to do that is to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do, or agree a deal.'
I tried to reply to your wall of text. However, your argument was so long-winded the site will not allow it. Sure your MP wasn't Neil Kinnock?
Parliament has ruled out everything. Including implementing us leaving. As was promised. Might not be "legally" binding, but is binding if we want to be seen as decent, honest people.
The only definite thing is that Parliament intends to ignore the last referendum. Unless you count one side to a deal simultaneously rejecting the deal as agreed between the UK/EU AND telling the other side (the EU) that they rule out no deal. A case of "No Deal, and No No deal"-even Noel Edmonds couldn't sell that.
UK business needs certainty. 21 months of further uncertainty will cause far more harm than the deal on the table. It is true to say that most UK businesses would prefer to be in than out. but many businesses would prefer to be out than the purgatory that this uncertainty brings.
Imagine you were trying to flog, say, timeshare. I'm sure your experience could stretch to that. Who is going to buy when the future in relation to taxes, flights etc is unknown?
Which business is going to choose to invest in the UK when no-one knows the future trading position? Delay IS no deal-does no-one understand that?
The 5th largest economy in the world has chosen to leave the massive trading bloc after 45 years. Without a plan. So the plan now is to tell the 2nd largest trading bloc in the world to wait nearly 2 years, and have no medium-term plans for UK trade, while we decide what we are going to do? Really? and this isn't going to factor at all in how we or the EU approach whether to allow another vote.
And you believe that the next referendum will involve all sides telling us the truth? Good luck with that.
Some MPs claim to be honoring the referendum, when their constituency voted remain.
Some MPs whose constituency voted leave, claim to be supporting their party, and are in favour of a peoples vote.
Some claim party loyalty, wish to leave, yet the majority of their party members are in favour of remaining.
Others claim party loyalty, and wont support no deal, yet the majority of their party members are now in favour of no deal.
Yet more claim to express party loyalty as the reason for supporting the PMs deal, when a huge majority of their party does not support it.
Some of them claim to support their party, and ignore 3 line whips.
Others claim they are pursuing the best interests of the country, rather than their constituents or their party.
Some just follow their own ideology.
So where should an MPs loyalty lie, with their country, constituency, or their party?
In many cases these loyalties will conflict?
Should sitting MPs be deselected for following part policy, when it is contrary to the wishes of their constituency.
How can Labour MPs criticise those that resigned for not sticking to their manifesto commitments, when 2 weeks later the Labour Party decided to support a peoples vote, rather than their manifesto commitment to honour the referendum result?
If there is no majority in favour of the WA, no extension available, therefore we leave with no deal at the end of March.
Should the Government shrug, and claim that the ensuing disaster is down to democracy, or would we expect to stop the disaster despite the referendum result?
France would block Brexit delay 'without a clear objective', Macron says
France would block a delay to Brexit unless it had a "clear objective" based on a "new choice" by the British, Emmanuel Macron has said. Speaking at a joint press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris, the French president became the first EU leader to categorically raise the possibility of blocking an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period. "We would support an extension request only if it was justified by a new choice of the British," he told reporters. "But we would in no way accept an extension without a clear objective."
Labour has suspended MP Chris Williamson after he accused the party of being "too apologetic" over accusations of antisemitism. He made the comment to Momentum activists in a video obtained by the Yorkshire Post, where the Derby North MP claimed Labour had long "stood up to racism" but is "now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party". "I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion... we've backed off too much, we've given too much ground, we've been too apologetic," the ally of Jeremy Corbyn said.
MPs to vote on Brexit as Remainers and Brexiteers battle to alter May's course
MPs are preparing to vote on Brexit once again as politicians from all parties battle to alter Theresa May’s plan. The Prime Minister has put forward a ‘neutral motion’ asking the Commons to signal their approval for her current approach. MPs will also vote on five amendments to the motion, giving them a say on changing the course of the negotiations. Speaker John Bercow has selected five amendments, one of which was later withdrawn, and MPs are expected to begin voting at 7pm. They are: The Labour amendment This is an attempt by Jeremy Corbyn to force Mrs May to alter the political declaration, which is the text agreed with the EU outlining their lans for a future trade deal after Brexit. The amendment would require the UK to adopt Labour’s Brexit demands, including a permanent customs union. Labour has said it will officially back a second referendum if they are defeated later.
Labour has suspended MP Chris Williamson after he accused the party of being "too apologetic" over accusations of antisemitism. He made the comment to Momentum activists in a video obtained by the Yorkshire Post, where the Derby North MP claimed Labour had long "stood up to racism" but is "now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party". "I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion... we've backed off too much, we've given too much ground, we've been too apologetic," the ally of Jeremy Corbyn said.
Suspended , because his comments aren't helpful to the labour party , not necessarily , because what he said doesn't have an element of truth behind it .
Labour has suspended MP Chris Williamson after he accused the party of being "too apologetic" over accusations of antisemitism. He made the comment to Momentum activists in a video obtained by the Yorkshire Post, where the Derby North MP claimed Labour had long "stood up to racism" but is "now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party". "I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion... we've backed off too much, we've given too much ground, we've been too apologetic," the ally of Jeremy Corbyn said.
Suspended , because his comments aren't helpful to the labour party , not necessarily , because what he said doesn't have an element of truth behind it .
Mr Williamson is reported to have held a meeting with aides of Mr Corbyn's shortly before Prime Minister's Questions began at midday. Minutes later, he issued a statement on Twitter apologising, saying he never meant to downplay the "pernicious and cancerous" nature of anti-Semitism. But senior figures called for Labour to go further and take disciplinary action, with ex-leader Ed Miliband describing the row as "a test" for the party.
Mary Creagh said the suspension was "not a moment too soon", and Stephen Kinnock tweeted: "About time."
But it wasn't until Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, its reviewer of anti-Semitism cases Lord Falconer, and some of the party's prominent Jewish MPs intervened that the suspension took place. There seemed to be a greater willingness to do this in some parts of the party machine than others
Glad the Leadership has taken swift action today in suspending Chris Williamson and removing the whip. There is no place for these views in our Labour Party. This is what zero tolerance looks like
Wes Streeting MP Strongly welcome the suspension of Chris Williamson. We got there eventually and I hope that this sends a message to other people in the Labour Party that dismissing or delegitimising concerns about antisemitism isn’t acceptable.
Chris Williamson: Tom Watson demands Labour suspends MP who claimed party was 'too apologetic' over antisemitism Deputy leader calls for whip to be stripped from Jeremy Corbyn’s ally, amid mounting anger in the party over his behaviour
Labour’s deputy leader is demanding the suspension of backbench MP Chris Williamson after he claimed the party had been “too apologetic” over antisemitism. Tom Watson is writing to Labour’s chief whip calling for the whip to be stripped from Jeremy Corbyn’s ally, amid mounting anger over his behaviour in the party, The Independent has learned One Labour MP, Phil Wilson, condemned Mr Williamson’s speech as “outrageous”, saying: “I think he should be suspended from the Labour party.” Mr Watson has already described the Derby North MP’s comments as “deliberately inflammatory” – and the controversy will be raised in a meeting between senior MPs and the leadership later today.
They triggered a furious reaction from other Labour MPs, including Birmingham Yardley MP Jess Phillips, who said they seemed “specifically designed to upset”, adding: “Must be disciplined.”
Stephen Doughty, the Cardiff South MP tweeted: “This conduct is unacceptable and has no place in our party. I have made clear to both the leader's office and our whips that I expect urgent action to be taken.”
There will be a convaluted 2 page answer , basically saying that the anti semitic claims about labour have contributed to a lack of challenge to the tory government and Brexit in general . ....T o be clear I dont agree with that !
I'd also point out as well , that the whole issue of anti semitism within the labour party seems to have come to the fore since the appointment of corbyn . The perception , that he is a predominately a Palestinian supporter will have added not only to the genuine complainants , but be a perfect springboard to those who oppose this perceived view .
Too many politicians looking to feather their nests in the future get rid of every one of them not behind brexit in essence they are acting against the country in days gone by thay was treason Britain survived pre europe and no doubt will survive post Europe and i will probably get banned for my true feelings on this vote vote vote vote again until they get the answer they want As an ex fisherman i have no love for brussels
Too many politicians looking to feather their nests in the future get rid of every one of them not behind brexit in essence they are acting against the country in days gone by thay was treason Britain survived pre europe and no doubt will survive post Europe and i will probably get banned for my true feelings on this vote vote vote vote again until they get the answer they want As an ex fisherman i have no love for brussels
Now this is interesting ...how did being in the EU affected you negatively as a fisherman ? And how will being out of it , improve things for the fishing industry ?
MP's expressing their opinion and holding symbolic votes and parliamentary motions is not enough to delay Brexit. In order for a delay to Brexit beyond 29 March 2019 to occur legally, there has to be an Act of Parliament. Again, perhaps Gina Miller has inadvertently assisted the Brexit cause. At the heart of her case was whether or not Parliament could invoke Article 50 by way of the prerogative. It was her case brought before the Supreme Court which set the ruling that Parliament cannot use the Royal Prerogative to revoke an Act of Parliament.
There is one way in which Parliamentary approval is recognised by the courts in England & Wales. That is an Act of Parliament. In other to delay Brexit, legally, there has to be an Act of Parliament to that effect. There is simply no other way.Theresa May can make whatever statements she likes; but they are not legally enforceable.
Brexit has an Act of Parliament: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 1 says "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day". The Act has a glossary too and it defines "exit day" as the following: "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m". That has to be amended for there to be a legally enforceable delay to Brexit.
If MP's want to overturn it they have to amend the legislation. They cannot unilaterally decide to extend exit day. MPs may very well hold a parliamentary vote but there is no statutory basis for that to become legislation. A parliamentary motion is not an Act of Parliament. An expression of opinion in the Commons has no legal force.
Should Olly Robbins's comments made in a bar about Theresa May's tactic of it being her way or the long delay be true, she had better start looking into amending the Withdrawal Act. Soon. If not, and she sees to delay Brexit by way of a parliamentary motion, she is surely opening herself up to potentially one of the most important legal challenges in modern British political history.
MP's expressing their opinion and holding symbolic votes and parliamentary motions is not enough to delay Brexit. In order for a delay to Brexit beyond 29 March 2019 to occur legally, there has to be an Act of Parliament. Again, perhaps Gina Miller has inadvertently assisted the Brexit cause. At the heart of her case was whether or not Parliament could invoke Article 50 by way of the prerogative. It was her case brought before the Supreme Court which set the ruling that Parliament cannot use the Royal Prerogative to revoke an Act of Parliament.
There is one way in which Parliamentary approval is recognised by the courts in England & Wales. That is an Act of Parliament. In other to delay Brexit, legally, there has to be an Act of Parliament to that effect. There is simply no other way.Theresa May can make whatever statements she likes; but they are not legally enforceable.
Brexit has an Act of Parliament: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 1 says "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day". The Act has a glossary too and it defines "exit day" as the following: "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m". That has to be amended for there to be a legally enforceable delay to Brexit.
If MP's want to overturn it they have to amend the legislation. They cannot unilaterally decide to extend exit day. MPs may very well hold a parliamentary vote but there is no statutory basis for that to become legislation. A parliamentary motion is not an Act of Parliament. An expression of opinion in the Commons has no legal force.
Should Olly Robbins's comments made in a bar about Theresa May's tactic of it being her way or the long delay be true, she had better start looking into amending the Withdrawal Act. Soon. If not, and she sees to delay Brexit by way of a parliamentary motion, she is surely opening herself up to potentially one of the most important legal challenges in modern British political history.
that Should upset a few remainers:)
Doesn't upset me. However, your law seems a lot like my fishing.
It will not be difficult to get Parliament to agree to a SHORT extension. And then the date can be changed perfectly legally by a Statutory Instrument.
What will prove a lot more problematic is getting any agreement for the sort of massive extension that a new Referendum would need. If anyone could ever agree on the question to be put.
This Remainer would rather we left than carried on arguing for years.
Some industries will undoubtedly suffer as a result. Fishing will undoubtedly be one of them. But Democracy means doing things the majority want, not what I want.
one question i often ask if Europe was so special and beloved why are you living in England and not your promised land even the refugees are trying to escape from france !!
Comments
A furious Cabinet row saw Remainer ministers lashed for 'kamikaze' tactics today as Theresa May set out a screeching U-turn and admitted Brexit could be delayed. Amber Rudd, Greg Clark and David Gauke were slammed for going public with their demands for no deal Brexit to be ruled out in a newspaper article on Saturday.
Chief Secretary Liz Truss criticised the 'kamikaze' approach while Commons leader Andrea Leadsom reportedly shouted in anger, the Spectator reported.
The meeting began at 9.30am as normal, with Mrs May outlining what she would say in her statement to the House – including the promise of a vote on delaying Brexit if her deal doesn’t pass on March 12.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay updated ministers on progress in Brussels.
Then, said one source, ‘the real fireworks began’.
Brexit in-depth: All the latest news, analysis and expert opinion
Mrs Leadsom, who was first to speak, did not hold back.
She said the rebels had breached collective responsibility – the rule that ministers must stick to government policy or resign their posts.
Their ‘appalling behaviour’ was, she suggested, a betrayal and they were playing into the EU’s hands because Brussels now thinks ‘we are not going to leave without a deal’.
The Government had lost credibility with Tory backbenchers and ‘if we carry on like this we will damage the party’, she fumed.
Sitting just inches away, Claire Perry was the first to react. The energy minister had written – together with two other ministers – an article in the Mail yesterday also demanding a delay to ensure Britain was not ‘swept over the precipice’ of No Deal.
She leaned back in her chair and muttered, ‘Oh, for God’s sake, Andrea!’
When it was her turn to speak, Mrs Perry hit back, saying it was the fault of Brexiteer backbenchers that the Government was ‘in this mess’ because they had refused to vote for Mrs May’s plan.
She added that ‘so-called Remainers’ were the most active in defending the Prime Minister in public while Brexiteers had sat on their hands.
Sources said Miss Rudd, Mr Gauke and Mr Clarke ‘stood their ground’. Chancellor Philip Hammond and Miss Rudd urged Mrs May to use any delay to explore options for a softer Brexit if her deal is defeated again.
A source said: ‘They were both very clear that any extra time needs to be used to find a new compromise that can get through Parliament.’ Mr Hammond leapt to the defence of ministers who had spoken out, saying he ‘regretted the use of the word disloyalty’.
Julian Smith, the Chief Whip, said he understood the concerns of the anti-No Deal ministers but argued they should not have gone public.
Other angry ministers included Communities Secretary James Brokenshire, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright and education supremo Damian Hinds.
There was also a warning to Mrs May – from Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns – that any extension to Article 50 could last for far longer than intended.
He pointed to the example of the Northern Ireland Assembly, saying: ‘Stormont was only supposed to suspended for a month.’ At the end of the meeting, Mrs May stressed the importance of ministers speaking with ‘one voice’.
And in an attempt to focus minds, she set out the twin purpose of her Government – to deliver Brexit and to stop Jeremy Corbyn from gaining power.
After a brief banging of the tables, the meeting broke up shortly after 12.15pm.
After briefing her Cabinet and with negotiations deadlocked in Brussels, the PM told the Commons no deal would only happen with 'explicit consent' and it will get a chance to extend Article 50 within a fortnight.
Mrs May tried to soothe angry Eurosceptics by insisting that a delay could only be a 'one-off' and was not something she wanted to do.
She stressed she will never cancel the Brexit process altogether, arguing that the UK could make a 'success' of no deal if it has to.
But the concession leaves Tory hardliners with a stark choice of either backing Mrs May's plan in the next showdown, which will happen by March 12, or accepting an almost inevitable delay to the UK's departure.
Under the new timetable, a vote effectively ruling out no deal would then be staged on March 13, and a vote on an extension the following day - March 14.
Mrs May refused to say whether the government would back the delay. Without revoking Article 50 no delay to Brexit can last forever - meaning MPs would have to agree a deal eventually.
Unless Britain takes part in European Parliament elections in May, a delay cannot extend past the end of June. Brexiteer ringleader Mr Rees-Mogg warned a delay could not be cover for cancelling Brexit - insisting it would be a 'grievous error' that would 'undermine democracy'.
On the Remain side, Tory Nick Boles and Labour's Yvette Cooper questioned whether the PM could be trusted to abide by her word - but this afternoon abandoned their plan to change the law to force a vote on delaying Brexit if there is no deal.
The PM again drew a blank after a frantic round of Brexit talks with EU counterparts at a summit in Egypt over the past two days.
EU council chief Donald Tusk heaped pressure on the PM by urging her to take the 'rational solution' of an extension.
One proposal favoured in Brussels is a 21-month delay, which would essentially replace the transition period.
However, the PM suggested a postponement would only be possible for around two months, up to the European Parliamentary elections.
Mrs May said: 'Let me be clear, I do not want to see Article 50 extended. 'Our absolute focus should be on working to get a deal and leaving on 29 March. 'An extension beyond the end of June would mean the UK taking part in the European Parliament elections. 'What kind of message would that send to the more than 17 million people who voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago now? '
And the House should be clear that a short extension – not beyond the end of June – would almost certainly have to be a one-off. 'If we had not taken part in the European Parliament elections, it would be extremely difficult to extend again, so it would create a much sharper cliff edge in a few months' time. An extension cannot take no deal off the table. The only way to do that is to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do, or agree a deal.'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/tory-remainer-ministers-are-lashed-for-kamikaze-tactics-in-furious-cabinet-row-after-mays-screeching-u-turn-as-she-declared-brexit-can-be-delayed-by-two-months-if-her-deal-fails/ar-BBU92X7?ocid=spartanntp
Some MPs whose constituency voted leave, claim to be supporting their party, and are in favour of a peoples vote.
Some claim party loyalty, wish to leave, yet the majority of their party members are in favour of remaining.
Others claim party loyalty, and wont support no deal, yet the majority of their party members are now in favour of no deal.
Yet more claim to express party loyalty as the reason for supporting the PMs deal, when a huge majority of their party does not support it.
Some of them claim to support their party, and ignore 3 line whips.
Others claim they are pursuing the best interests of the country, rather than their constituents or their party.
Some just follow their own ideology.
So where should an MPs loyalty lie, with their country, constituency, or their party?
In many cases these loyalties will conflict?
Should sitting MPs be deselected for following part policy, when it is contrary to the wishes of their constituency.
How can Labour MPs criticise those that resigned for not sticking to their manifesto commitments, when 2 weeks later the Labour Party decided to support a peoples vote, rather than their manifesto commitment to honour the referendum result?
If there is no majority in favour of the WA, no extension available, therefore we leave with no deal at the end of March.
Should the Government shrug, and claim that the ensuing disaster is down to democracy, or would we expect to stop the disaster despite the referendum result?
France would block a delay to Brexit unless it had a "clear objective" based on a "new choice" by the British, Emmanuel Macron has said.
Speaking at a joint press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris, the French president became the first EU leader to categorically raise the possibility of blocking an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period.
"We would support an extension request only if it was justified by a new choice of the British," he told reporters.
"But we would in no way accept an extension without a clear objective."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/france-would-block-brexit-delay-without-a-clear-objective-macron-says/ar-BBU9muG?ocid=spartanntp
Labour has suspended MP Chris Williamson after he accused the party of being "too apologetic" over accusations of antisemitism.
He made the comment to Momentum activists in a video obtained by the Yorkshire Post, where the Derby North MP claimed Labour had long "stood up to racism" but is "now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party".
"I think our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion... we've backed off too much, we've given too much ground, we've been too apologetic," the ally of Jeremy Corbyn said.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-mp-suspended-over-antisemitism-row/ar-BBU9V9N?ocid=spartanntp
MPs are preparing to vote on Brexit once again as politicians from all parties battle to alter Theresa May’s plan.
The Prime Minister has put forward a ‘neutral motion’ asking the Commons to signal their approval for her current approach.
MPs will also vote on five amendments to the motion, giving them a say on changing the course of the negotiations.
Speaker John Bercow has selected five amendments, one of which was later withdrawn, and MPs are expected to begin voting at 7pm.
They are:
The Labour amendment
This is an attempt by Jeremy Corbyn to force Mrs May to alter the political declaration, which is the text agreed with the EU outlining their lans for a future trade deal after Brexit. The amendment would require the UK to adopt Labour’s Brexit demands, including a permanent customs union. Labour has said it will officially back a second referendum if they are defeated later.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/jacob-rees-mogg-hardline-brexiteers-ready-compromise-demands-125033858.html
Minutes later, he issued a statement on Twitter apologising, saying he never meant to downplay the "pernicious and cancerous" nature of anti-Semitism.
But senior figures called for Labour to go further and take disciplinary action, with ex-leader Ed Miliband describing the row as "a test" for the party.
Mary Creagh said the suspension was "not a moment too soon", and Stephen Kinnock tweeted: "About time."
But it wasn't until Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, its reviewer of anti-Semitism cases Lord Falconer, and some of the party's prominent Jewish MPs intervened that the suspension took place.
There seemed to be a greater willingness to do this in some parts of the party machine than others
@margarethodge
Follow
Follow @margarethodge
Glad the Leadership has taken swift action today in suspending Chris Williamson and removing the whip. There is no place for these views in our Labour Party. This is what zero tolerance looks like
Wes Streeting MP
Strongly welcome the suspension of Chris Williamson. We got there eventually and I hope that this sends a message to other people in the Labour Party that dismissing or delegitimising concerns about antisemitism isn’t acceptable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47393626
Chris Williamson: Tom Watson demands Labour suspends MP who claimed party was 'too apologetic' over antisemitism
Deputy leader calls for whip to be stripped from Jeremy Corbyn’s ally, amid mounting anger in the party over his behaviour
Labour’s deputy leader is demanding the suspension of backbench MP Chris Williamson after he claimed the party had been “too apologetic” over antisemitism.
Tom Watson is writing to Labour’s chief whip calling for the whip to be stripped from Jeremy Corbyn’s ally, amid mounting anger over his behaviour in the party, The Independent has learned
One Labour MP, Phil Wilson, condemned Mr Williamson’s speech as “outrageous”, saying: “I think he should be suspended from the Labour party.”
Mr Watson has already described the Derby North MP’s comments as “deliberately inflammatory” – and the controversy will be raised in a meeting between senior MPs and the leadership later today.
They triggered a furious reaction from other Labour MPs, including Birmingham Yardley MP Jess Phillips, who said they seemed “specifically designed to upset”, adding: “Must be disciplined.”
Stephen Doughty, the Cardiff South MP tweeted: “This conduct is unacceptable and has no place in our party. I have made clear to both the leader's office and our whips that I expect urgent action to be taken.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chris-williamson-labour-antisemitism-tom-watson-suspend-corbyn-a8799016.html
Britain survived pre europe and no doubt will survive post Europe
and i will probably get banned for my true feelings on this vote vote vote vote again until they get the answer they want
As an ex fisherman i have no love for brussels
There is one way in which Parliamentary approval is recognised by the courts in England & Wales. That is an Act of Parliament. In other to delay Brexit, legally, there has to be an Act of Parliament to that effect. There is simply no other way.Theresa May can make whatever statements she likes; but they are not legally enforceable.
Brexit has an Act of Parliament: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 1 says "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day". The Act has a glossary too and it defines "exit day" as the following: "29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m". That has to be amended for there to be a legally enforceable delay to Brexit.
If MP's want to overturn it they have to amend the legislation. They cannot unilaterally decide to extend exit day. MPs may very well hold a parliamentary vote but there is no statutory basis for that to become legislation. A parliamentary motion is not an Act of Parliament. An expression of opinion in the Commons has no legal force.
Should Olly Robbins's comments made in a bar about Theresa May's tactic of it being her way or the long delay be true, she had better start looking into amending the Withdrawal Act. Soon. If not, and she sees to delay Brexit by way of a parliamentary motion, she is surely opening herself up to potentially one of the most important legal challenges in modern British political history.
that Should upset a few remainers:)
However, your law seems a lot like my fishing.
It will not be difficult to get Parliament to agree to a SHORT extension. And then the date can be changed perfectly legally by a Statutory Instrument.
What will prove a lot more problematic is getting any agreement for the sort of massive extension that a new Referendum would need. If anyone could ever agree on the question to be put.
This Remainer would rather we left than carried on arguing for years.
Some industries will undoubtedly suffer as a result. Fishing will undoubtedly be one of them. But Democracy means doing things the majority want, not what I want.