Brexit Arms

[time4chocolate]

Not much else to say really 🍷🍷🍷

Also, landlady, do you have any ‘Raid’ behind that bar?

I said that Scottish marriage laws are nothing to do with devolved powers - and given that the Act that defines them predates devolution by 20 years that is correct.

HTH

You can pay tax when you are 5 let alone 16. Not sure 5 year olds should have the vote though. Adult students don't pay Council tax. Taxation without representation is a red herring.

Scottish 16 year olds can vote for Scottish Parliament and local council elections. This was the franchise definition which was used for Indyref1 hence why they voted then as did EU citizens living in Scotland. Given the result would have affected the Constitutional settlement for the whole UK I think the GE franchise should have been used but that would have made defining "Scottish" a political minefield. The residency based franchise also helped the SNP "civic nationalism" narrative.

On the broader point I support votes for all 16 year olds. My DD was admitted to hospital as a 17 year old. She was expected to make independent decision about her medical care, including a full anaesthetic operation. If they can make life and death decisions they can surely vote.

The impact of the Scottish referendum has been that Scottish teenagers are generally more politically engaged, which I think is a good thing. Plenty of adults vote on no more than a whim.

On the Bill's timetabling I think Labour was monumentally stupid yesterday. If they had agreed the timetable they could then have voted through a CU and / or PV amendment before the Bill was pulled. This would have given them something far more constructive to take to a GE than "Brexit blockers" - unless they knew they didn't have the votes for either. In any event I think it is very naive to assume the Bill had the votes to pass because the amendments proposed would have wrecked the fragile coalition for the Deal and would likely have required EU sign off.

Oh and I agree it is pure semantics whether or not Scottish marriage rules predate Devolution. It is in part a consequence of the separate legal systems - the divorce and inheritance rules are all different too.

The Scottish NHS and education systems predate Devolution too. They are commonly referred to as "devolved" areas. In fact under the Devo max recommendations and Sewell convention I think it is more a case that all matters are "devolved" unless specifically reserved. That is certainly the long term aim but I would need to check the exact state of progress as the Smith Commission left somewhat of a dog's breakfast.

Suffice to say I agree with Epicwaffle it is a discussion of semantics and pedantry. Please don't get Ian Blackford to opine on it though because he would never shut up, it is way above his pay grade and I am pretty sure he would get stuck. The lawyers all disagreed about the definition of "Devolved" during the Art 50 case and the Prorogation case.
As the Scottish Supreme Court Judge dissented in the Art 50 case but not on this point it could be argued that even the lawyers agreed to disagree.

We could do the status of agricultural subsidy and regulation if you really want to kick off. There is a legitimate debate over this repatriating EU powers in this area and I keep meaning to check where it has landed.

In the spirit of returning the pub to it’s prior light atmosphere. I have found a dartboard for the pub. Im sure everyone can unite behind this one in memory of Dave the twat. (Cameron, not Sally’s dave.)

behold....

Sally’s dave is a twat too. 🕯

Atrocious grammar from me there. Apologies.

I think there is no way any bill is getting through without a majority government so General election is a must now. Bj was right to pause the bill because it would have allowed Labour to do pre-election window dressing and mostly just wreck a bill which will otherwise pass easily, even after genuine common sense amendments which will hopefully take place, if they get a larger majority. Was generally quite encouraged by some of the debate yesterday after the main mps had their say and for the first time in a long time felt sympathy with mps who had grappled with conflicting thoughts. They were obviously not the ones who just want to wreck everything purely to make themselves look good, always the tactic of desperate people with no talent or intellect.

Well said meganbacon.

It is in part a consequence of the separate legal systems

And also differences in the principles of religion and consent.

On the broader point I support votes for all 16 year olds. My DD was admitted to hospital as a 17 year old. She was expected to make independent decision about her medical care, including a full anaesthetic operation. If they can make life and death decisions they can surely vote.

12/13 year olds can consent to medical procedures (Gillick compétent) so this is not a good argument in favour of voting at 16.

On the Bill's timetabling I think Labour was monumentally stupid yesterday.

This is a judgement based on tactical, partisan advantage.

What if some of those MPs thought that voting through complex major legislation without scrutiny was a bad idea?

Of course it is bad to push through legislation without proper scrutiny but based on Re ent history it is not unreasonable to assume they would use the time to wreck the bill. It is just a function of the low standards of behaviour they’ve all fallen to as disempowered (either because in a minority government or opposition etc) individuals unable to drive through an agenda by legitimate means. They will just sink lower and lower until one set is empowered by having a majority so let’s hope a gl delivers that.

Could they not have tabled an amendment to the business motion?

I thought Bercow had decided to allow this nowadays?

Government were stupid to think such a huge piece of legislation could be discussed and challenged in such a short space of time. They should have scheduled several weeks. They are going to be numerous amendments to be voted on. The final version needs to be radically different than the rubbish version presented. It’s bad enough leaving in the first place but let’s at least try and leave with a strong starting position.

Government were stupid to think such a huge piece of legislation could be discussed and challenged in such a short space of time. They should have scheduled several weeks. They are going to be numerous amendments to be voted on. The final version needs to be radically different than the rubbish version presented.

And there is the reason why the govt were not stupid to table such a tight timeline.

Wrecking amendments.

And by tabling such a tight timeline, the opposition blocked it (as expected) and the optics are therefore people vs Parliament - BoJo trying time deliver, Brexit blockers trying to subvert.

A very obvious tactical move by govt.

I've said before - anti Brexit MPs remain blind to the bigger political picture

They continue to dance to the beat dictated by Cummings.

Hi all - just popping really quickly. Weren't we having punts the other evening before the WA was delayed? I believe my forecast was 327. Based on my interpretation of the 'optics' of course.

With a result of 329 - did I win?

Any update from the EU yet?

🏆 for Hate 😇

They won’t be wreaking amendments, they will be proposals to improve the protections and processes going forward particularly relating to NI and employment rights. Boris got caught out so quickly - wasn’t difficult!

There will absolutely be several wrecking amendments and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

Is any amendment that seeks to alter the agreement a wrecking amendment?

For example, the bill currently places restrictions on the final FTA that will be negotiated with the EU (basically, the WAIB limits the FTA to the terms of the non-binding political declaration - creating a binding and unilateral legal obligation on the U.K. that is irrelevant to the EU). There is no need for this restriction to be written into law, and the opposition may seek to change it. It will only wreck the bill if the Tories refuse to compromise and prefer to abandon the WA rather than amend it.

Agree of course there will be wrecking amendments.
How was Boris caught out? He is almost indifferent to whether we have a deal or a general election and Jc knows that so his only workable tactic is to delay and hope enough wrecking tactics stick to change the polls in his favour.

I don’t care how long the process takes so long as the deal is improved. Boris’s deal is worse than May’s and nothing like as good as we enjoy now.

There probably will be wrecking amendments too - but they have less chance of passing (not clear if a customs union has a majority and almost certain that new referendum doesn't).

The amendments that are most likely to pass are ones that correct poor drafting, and ones which limit overreach (eg the restriction on the terms of the eventual FTA that I referred to previously).