Repeals

If the duty of the Prime Minister under either section 1(1) or section 2(3) is
25e ngaged the following Acts are repealed-
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017;
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
Haulage Permit and Trailer Registration Act 2018;
Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018;
30Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018;
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

You've shed absolutely zero light on the subject, behaved like a complete idiot, gone out of your way to offend me repeatedly, and you presume thanks are due! You're not welcome. Not in the least. Stop trolling. — karl stone

It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult.

By the way, well done on playing victim.

It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult. By the way, well done on playing victim. — Benkei

Your link is a Bill - not an Act. It's not law. It's a proposal - the validity of which has not been examined by Parliament. A bill can say anything. Bills are often amended because they're not structured legally. Further, it proposes a course of action in the event of a referendum. That's not the question.

In the simplest possible terms the question is: Could Theresa May revoke Article 50 if she wanted to?

I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.

It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am.

I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.

It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am right. — karl stone

Oh great, now you're being purposefully obtuse. The Bill sets out which Acts need to be repealed to give effect to revoking the Article 50 Notice. Hence, both you and Evola were wrong to mention only one Act when there are several that need to be repealed, among them both the Acts you both mentioned.

Parliamentary vote is necessary. It's called parliamentary sovereignty.

... ministers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute or a statutory provision, for example by emptying it of content or preventing its effectual operation. ... rather than the Secretary of State being able to rely on the absence in the 1972 Act of any exclusion of the prerogative power to withdraw from the EU Treaties, the proper analysis is that, unless that Act positively created such a power in relation to those Treaties, it does not exist. — SCUK

Unless all those Acts mentioned in the Bill positively created the power for the government to repeal them, there is no royal prerogative to do so. Since those Acts do not positively create such power, May cannot revoke the article 50 notice.

I disagree.

In a speech in Brussels yesterday, EU Council President Donald Tusk described brexit as:

"Following (from) the decision and the will of the UK authorities."

It's the third such intervention I'm aware of, in which he's speaking over the shoulders of our government to the British people. Another was saying recently, both in a speech and on twitter:

"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."

And the other, was relayed on BBC Two's "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" - when Tusk said:

"I told David Cameron, there's no appetite for revolution in Europe. He told me he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea."

What Mr Tusk is making clear with these comments, is that the UK government, particularly Cameron and May, were complicit in the corrupt 2016 referendum. I have been saying this for some time now - and it's really very clear when one examines the facts.

Cameron took the UK out a centrist alliance in the EU, and joined right wing anti federalists, cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010 - while promising tens of thousands - or vote me out, then dictated a referendum by making it a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked.

Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose.

Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose. — karl stone

I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories.

I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories. — Tim3003

I'd have thought those in government were above absurd conspiracies - but we are where we are!

Dear Karl Stone,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”.

Government responded:

The Government is clear we will not have a second referendum. We continue to approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit, with a commitment to deliver the referendum result.

The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum, it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum. Following the outcome of the Meaningful Vote, the Government will approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit and with a commitment to deliver on the instruction given to us by the British people in 2016. We are focused on delivering an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Almost three quarters of the electorate participated, with 17.4 million voting to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.

Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.

In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is its duty to implement the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.

The British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise.

The deal we have negotiated takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom. It protects the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU and provides a fair financial settlement for UK taxpayers estimated to be between £35-39bn, resolving our obligations.

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, but instead we will continue to focus on holding meetings with colleagues across the House, looking to identify what is required to secure the support of Parliament and ensure that we leave in an orderly way on the 29 March 2019.

Department for Exiting the European Union

This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/disaster-capitalists-no-deal-brexit-environment?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR3ON6__UGQ-x5D8yTC_YFSnPMVnMTO0iaMxttIuqcSbyL9OjSfM7Tfh0Do

John Proctor; MEP - in the ECR, the far right European political party founded after the 2009 European elections at the behest of the then, Conservative Party leader - David Cameron.

The same David Cameron who cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010, while pledging to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - "or vote me out" - who announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

The same David Cameron who launched highly publicized "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was doomed to fail because his demands required treaty change, and who - upon arriving back in Britain, with his failure still fresh in the air, appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.

The same David Cameron who kept Theresa May in position as Home Secretary for six years, while she screeched about the Human Rights Act, sacked the long term head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, let 660,000 migrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum.

The same David Cameron who appointed his aide Craig Oliver to oversee the Remain campaign, and recommended Oliver for a knighthood on leaving office, having made a pig's fucking ear of the case for Remain!

...thinks Donald Tusk's remarks are bizarre!

This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. — karl stone

I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions?

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, — karl stone

It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work.

This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. — karl stone

Just to be clear, those are the government's words, not mine. I would point out the assumption that people voted for reasons related solely to the proposition on the ballot paper, is patently false. The Leave campaign lied egregiously, and incited discontent on many fronts, and then funneled all that discontent into a vote to leave the EU, in the most crooked ever episode in British political history.

I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions? — Echarmion

I'd have to disagree. To manipulate democratic processes in this way requires an exquisite understanding of how things work. For example, consider Cameron making the referendum a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people,
— Government response to the petition – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”. (see above)

It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work. — Echarmion

Have no illusions, they know brexit doesn't work. A catastrophic no deal brexit was the plan all along. Remember, this is the party that opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage/low regulation jobs market attractive to immigration, that sold off council housing and refused to build more, that sold off all the utilities at knock down prices to their pals in the city, that subsidized low wages and high rents with tax payer's money - starving local councils and public services of funding, and refused to remove jobless migrants as allowed under EU law.

This is the Party that blamed Labour for the 2008 financial crash - that was actually caused by banking deregulation under Thatcher, and imposed 10 years of unnecessary and counter productive austerity. This is the Party that provided for the referendum, that had one foot in each campaign, and is pursuing a no deal brexit for the excuse it will provide to do the same thing all over again, only worse.

Something to look forward to amongst the fear-mongering gloom.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/08/heathrow-stockpiling-rubber-gloves-from-eu-for-post-brexit-searches?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR3NgOn5doKGabRsHuvh2U_ETNxkAZEcFFxE6XVqOvmswsgpOaINP_6zAOQ

"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers." — karl stone

I kinda like Donald Tusk. And that Jean-Claude Drunker geezer, too. This was a funny moment.

"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."
— karl stone

I kinda like Donald Tusk. And that Jean-Claude Drunker geezer, too. This was a funny moment. — S

I'm kinda disappointed to get your post. Are we chatting now? Sharing funny youtube clips? Are you and I - like, girlfriends?

Are you and I - like, girlfriends? — karl stone

Yes, sweetie, but I'm the alpha, and as long you don't you forget that, we'll get along just peachy. :sparkle:

Yes, sweetie, but I'm the alpha, and as long you don't you forget that, we'll get along just peachy. — S

Great, well, that so, I'm assuming you agree with everything I've said, and can't think of anything to add or question.

The alpha thing, like iron and spinach turned out not to be true. Unfortunately both became popular and well cited enough to enter popular culture.

The alpha thing, like iron and spinach turned out not to be true. Unfortunately both became popular and well cited enough to enter popular culture. — fdrake

Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's flawed, in that - there's a natural individual interest in academia and science in upsetting the applecart of accepted wisdom; and here we enter a hall of conceptual mirrors, because it's something this paper does - while under-estimating the tendency in others. And now, it's something I'm doing to this paper. Vertigo!

I think the crux of the matter is that, few are talented enough to upset the applecart, and the less talented majority are not merely put out when it happens, but unqualified to judge.

I'm watching this Ted talk on the origins of language - and wondering why memetic theory, does not explain the apparent disparity between the views of archaeologists and anthropologists on the one hand, and biologists on the other - (12:20) that there was a sudden event at the dawn of human intellect - biologists reject on the basis of rate of genetic change and no obvious increase in cranial capacity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q

To my mind, a sort of conceptual evolution seems an obvious candidate to explain behavioural change evidenced in human artifacts, that has no obvious biological corollary.

Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's flawed, in that - there's a natural individual interest in academia and science in upsetting the applecart of accepted wisdom; and here we enter a hall of conceptual mirrors, because it's something this paper does - while under-estimating the tendency in others. And now, it's something I'm doing to this paper. Vertigo! — karl stone

The study that hypothesised alpha wolves based on wolf behaviour only used captive wolves. Wild wolves don't actually have the same social stratification. Even the person that came up with it has since rejected it.

The study that hypothesised alpha wolves based on wolf behaviour only used captive wolves. Wild wolves don't actually have the same social stratification. Even the person that came up with it has since rejected it. — fdrake

There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!

There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note! — karl stone

I didn't say what I said to undermine all notions of hierarchical organisation, I said it to undermine ones involving, even analogically, an outdated idea about wolves.

There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!
— karl stone

I didn't say what I said to undermine all notions of hierarchical organisation, I said it to undermine ones involving, even analogically, an outdated idea about wolves. — fdrake

Okay. Wolves - take note!

Brexit has given me a new appreciation of what Marx meant by class consciousness. Not working class consciousness - obviously, not even the Labour Party has that! But class consciousness nonetheless!

Wolves - take note! — karl stone

Noted. Besides, the idea of the alpha was just another criminal conspiracy started by David Cameron. Or was it the lizard people? I forget.

The evidence showing Cameron was a brexiteer is overwhelming; and I can only assume there's a Public Interest Immunity Certificate in place to gag the media on this subject, because PIIC's not only cover the subject in question, but the very existence of the PIIC itself.

Just seen this tweet:

Petition: 'Scroungers' Cameron should not be receiving a final salary pension after costing this country untold billions with a corrupt referendum for a failed policy. He must not be allowed to draw upon the public purse for the rest of his life.

Right on!

Hmm. I'm still not quite convinced. Can you please copy, paste, and resubmit some more of your lengthy, rambling conspiracy theories a few hundred more times, Inis 2.0?

Wait, I know! Why don't we just programme a spambot to do this for us? — S

I do admire your ability to address a really serious issue like brexit; something I maintain will permanently disable our ability to address global scale threats like climate change by promoting a deregulated race to the bottom, that could re-ignite the fires of sectarian violence in Ireland, cause Scotland to declare independence, permanently alienate our nearest and largest trading partners - a policy that was forced on the country by the corruption of democratic process, and manipulation of the electorate's perceptions with a concerted campaign of lies and incitement to xenophobia bordering on racism, and do so without ever getting serious? How do you dance on the edge of the abyss like that? How do you just not care?

You're funny. I've done the serious part in relation to Brexit. What you were replying to was about your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam.