No point at all Graham.
Never said otherwise.
You said the date was blindingly obvious. That's why I asked you to expand but you were stuck in curt one word answer mode for some reason.
I am aware who sets the timetable and who is able to change it.
Still doesn't explain why it is a good idea for us to make laws that remove that possibility.
I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to agree that there is "no point at all" in such law, but you don't want it debated as it is obvious why we need it?
The date is important because it's in the plan, why is it in the plan?
Because all good plans need dates in them.
We don't have time to discuss trivial things like the date or the outcomes because we have to book meetings and flights etc. we need to do this because it's in the plan.
The outcomes are not really important compared to delivering the plan on time, if we don't do that we will all get into a lot of trouble. If we have to change dates then it means we need to re do the plan again and that could take weeks.
In reality it's a sorry mess somewhere between Arnold's revision timetables
[img] 
[/img]
and a massive government funded project where they specifically got the worst of the worst project guys in to do it who have no real idea what is going on but have made up some cool metrics and a dashboard
But his whole process is becoming farcical
Becoming? Has been since Cameron announced the referendum.
A study in procrastination by both sides almost as if neither side actually wants to face up to the implications of Britain leaving. Plus a few swivel eyed loons like IDS who just don’t want to face up to the real world of the 21st century.
A few months ago the guy was being attacked for not having a date in the plan, now it's the opposite. But this still ignore the obvious - the date is set, we know that, and any change is not at our discretion anyway. So the whole debate is pointless and doesn't not need masses of time or even words.
Hence the previous short replies.
I like that the Telegraph has gone all 'enemies of the people'
Or should that be enemies of the Putin?
Setting an arbitrary deadline to complete something when you have no idea what you're going to do is a bit silly, no? I see this all the time at work.
Brexit is like dog * on the Tory party shoe, they just want rid of it as quickly as possible so they can move on (blame) other people for all the other * that happens post Brexit.
Just as the Telegraph morphs to the Daily Mail the desperation of the Tory right becomes evident in the approach to Brexit - leaked cabinet minister letters, a vote that's not a vote, clearing out the sex pests, fixed dates? Ken Clark trying to talk down the loons..... oooh and where are those 58 reports.
It's a ****ing joke and about 50% of the people in this country are being subjected to the biggest "long con" the world has ever seen.
But his whole process is becoming farcical
Only someone who has had their head firmly stuck up their arse for the past two years could possibly think it is only now "becoming" farcical. It was stupid before the referendum, but the collapse of govt, rushing through of A50 with no thought to the consequences, brilliant pursuit of the election, its aftermath and subsequent hostage situation in No 10 is well beyond that.
Comedians are reduced to reading out headlines and waiting for the laugh. They genuinely couldn't make this stuff up.
An we are still no nearer any plausible credible plan for how to deal with this mess than we were in 2016. Tick tock.
The corporate raiders are already lining up, the only way to get inward investment post Brexit is low tax rates, low regulation of labour (see James Dyson and Tim "Wetherspoon") but don't worry poor people Wetherspoons will be able to knock 15p off a happy meal.
the French now arguing that fragmenting clearing is a bad idea (this morning)
Well at least quote the source if you heard/saw it this morning, THM. The rare "facts" you quote as fact turn out to be distortions so this probably is too.
Setting an arbitrary deadline
😯
Oldman - imagine how the >50% must feel when so many of the representative argue that their views should be dismissed. Lovely to see how F Field was treated yesterday when he mentioned this inconvenient fact!! Still the left has always sought to quash dissent and debate.
Setting an arbitrary deadline to complete something when you have no idea what you're going to do is a bit silly, no?
You may think that but the time to argue the point was when the Treaty of Lisbon was negotiated, now it is a fait accompli, absent unanimous agreement otherwise, ja?
Oldman - imagine how the >50% must feel when so many of the representative argue that their views should be dismissed.
It must be so nice in a black and white world...
Has the UK presented a realistic plan yet? Given any decent accurate assessments of what will follow their potential outcomes?
Nope nothing at all. The public is being kept in the dark as the more that comes to light the more people turn on the project.
What is it with you two? (THM & Mefty) Trolling or can't read A50?
The deadline can be moved if all parties agree. In fact, "we" could make it earlier with or without agreement.
There was no date/time in the referendum question.
Only in your eyes Ed. But hard to pitch something to suit your distorted lens. So won't even try.
Kelvin 😉
Still the left has always sought to quash dissent and debate.
front page of the torygraph would indicate that is not confined to one side of the debate
but dont let facts impinge on your bigotry 😉
Still the left has always sought to quash dissent and debate.
Please don't try to paint it as a left vs right issue. That infection has already taken over American politics, casting a shadow over every discussion.
As Ken Clarke said:
[i]"I am the rebel. I espoused the policies that the Conservative party has followed for the 50 years of my membership of it until we had a referendum 18 months ago, and I regret that I have not yet seen the light. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bolsover, remain consistent; we are probably each of us wrong. In the course of this, there are some very, very serious issues to be settled in this Bill. I ask the Government to reconsider silly amendments that were thrown out because they got a good article in The Daily Telegraph but might eventually actually do harm."[/i]
And while we are on Ken Clarke, his backing of Hilary Benn's point was on the money too:
[i]The right hon. Gentleman has been a political ally of mine in previous cross-party arrangements, but not on this occasion. He has dodged answering the perfectly serious point that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just put to him. As things stand, article 50 will take effect in March 2019 and we will leave. Anything in the Bill is superfluous to that. A problem could arise only if — and this is possible — 28 member states all agree that they are near to a conclusion but that they require a few more days or weeks to settle it. Once we are going they will not want us to stay in much longer, because they will not want us around for the European Parliament elections. However, it would be utterly foolish if 28 Governments all agreed to extend the process and the British representative had to say, “But we’ve put into ?British law a timing that says, to the second, when we are actually leaving.” That seems to me a rather serious flaw in the proposed new clause.[/i]
Graham - your correct, but read ^ and it's very much a Tory issue. Odd that...well not really when you don't think about it.
My reference was to quashing of dissent more that Brexshit/A50 tbc.
Kimbers - it's not really worth reading Torygaph, Indy, Guardian or Standard on this issue. They are all as bad as each other. Yes, the Torygraph was exceptional today.
What is it with you two? (THM & Mefty) Trolling or can't read A50?
Just making the point to Mols the deadline emanates from the treaty, not us. The clue was I quoted his post and mirrored his frightful use of "no?" in my post.
When you have to explain your sneer...
Just making the point to Mols the deadline emanates from the treaty, not us.
Kelvin seemed to be making the same point - but must have misunderstood.
A50 (3)
Read A50… the two years is not immovable. Why on earth try and make it so with a UK law and bind the hands of all involved in the negotiations? If we need an extra month, week, day, minute, second… either to reach an agreement, or to implement it, and all sides agree, then take that time. A50 uses language a 10 year old can understand to make it clear this is possible. Our government is trying to remove that flexibility, because…
When you have to explain your sneer...
I know I should exercise more self control when responding to such well meaning questions.
Read A50… the two years is not immovable.
absent unanimous agreement otherwise
Yes, it needs agreement to extend the period … why write into UK law that even with agreement the exit date is immutable?
Okay so we all agree that, with unanimous agreement from the EU, there [b][i]is[/i][/b] scope for moving the leave date (as also stated by Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn, et al)?
Yes? No argument there I think.
So the question is: why would we make it illegal for that to happen?
Especially when we already know the negotiations are behind and our Secretary for Brexit tells us that they will go to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour?
What does that move gain us?
(Edit: cross-post with kelvin making the same point)
Who's making the point you are arguing against?
[quote=GrahamS ]
What does that move gain us?
Us? Nothing?
May? It placates the rabid leavers in the tory part (temporarily)
Who's making the point you are arguing against?
The government.
And those MPs who dissent are slammed here for being time wasters, and in the press as mutineers.
I guess the argument is that if you wish to change the date then you should be forced to return to Parliament. Initially this looks impracticable but when you consider the need for everything to go through the EU parliament, it may well not be as there can't be negotiations going to wire.Yes, it needs agreement to extend the period … why write into UK law that even with agreement the exit date is immutable?
EDIT: But unusual for a Government to give away power.
Ooo… good news… special travel deal for those working in financial services after Brexit… I don't have my FT access here… can you post some quotes THM …?
there can't be negotiations going to wire.
1) you forget the EU is involved
2) our government looks to also be avoiding decision making
3) we could have an agreement, but, at the last minute, need more time to be ready for the exit date
4) an extension can be granted by the Council, it doesn't need to be immediately approved by the EU Parliament
Who's making the point you are arguing against?
Well, [i]you[/i] were arguing that [i]"the whole debate is pointless. We have an exit date"[/i], that it was blindingly obvious, very simple, and you couldn't understand why "both sides are getting sweaty about it".
So [i]presumably[/i] you don't think it should be debated and we should just accept this law?
No, I stick to my original point.
No, I stick to my original point.
Which was what THM?
I thought this was your original point on it:
[i]"..if their bored they could also get a bit sweaty about the date of leaving. That could pass a couple of hours and it's not as though the answer is obvious."[/i]
Little point us playing that game Graham. Time to walk away.
Mefty - it's a piss poor argument.
It is not the most compelling one, but I am not a dyed in the wool Brexiteer who extols the virtues of Parliamentary Primacy. Perhaps it is a preemptive move which Telegraphs the need for other compromises that they will be less keen on.
We have arbitrary deadlines set where I work. It usually results in half-arsed schemes.
@slowoldman couple that with piss poor planning and scoping and unrealistic expectations, difficult stakeholders and budget issues and it's only going one way. But still will of the people and all that best just suck it up princess and use the time spent worrying to perfect that Gruel recipe.
It was
Perhaps it is a preemptive move which Telegraphs the need for other compromises that they will be less keen on.
(Amusing capitalisation) Yeah I wondered if this was the intention, a show of [i]"Hey we really mean it. We've put the date in law and everything"[/i] but if it was then I think it has spectacularly backfired because veteran MPs have looked at it and rightly said [i]"What? Why on earth would you do that?"[/i].
No link, no source and that despite a request. You're just full of... hot air, THM.
but must have misunderstood.
He understood, but as you write in riddles with no source, link or anything tangible what you oringinally intended to say may have got lost in your attempts to belittle, sneer, condescend, mock, Micky take, troll, provoke, insult, mislead, talk down to... .
Ah, I now have an orphan post.
Not sure I agree with your points, fundamentally any deal has to be wrapped up to give time for the EU parliament to approve it, which I think is assumed to be a period of 6 months, so September next year. If it can't be done by September and everyone agrees a new deadline, there is more than sufficient time to get it through Parliament.
That said it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where its gets stuck in the EU, or indeed a member state's where applicable, parliament. In that case, a deadline extension may be sought at short notice and we will have created a rather unfortunate rod for our own back.
It was
Yes
