Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionHow was the exact time of Brexit computed?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Can an Article 50 extension take effect pending approval from national states?What would a revoked Brexit after the 2019 EU parliament elections mean for the European Parliament?Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionIf the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?Can Theresa May easily circumvent the Yvette Cooper bill?Can a no-deal Brexit happen before the new extension end date of 31 October 2019?
Sally's older brother
Tips to organize LaTeX presentations for a semester
What is the chair depicted in Cesare Maccari's 1889 painting "Cicerone denuncia Catilina"?
How many time has Arya actually used Needle?
A term for a woman complaining about things/begging in a cute/childish way
Why do early math courses focus on the cross sections of a cone and not on other 3D objects?
What does it mean that physics no longer uses mechanical models to describe phenomena?
Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple,reliability and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?
Monty Hall Problem-Probability Paradox
Co-worker has annoying ringtone
Where is the Next Backup Size entry on iOS 12?
One-one communication
Special flights
NERDTreeMenu Remapping
What is the origin of 落第?
Was Kant an Intuitionist about mathematical objects?
My mentor says to set image to Fine instead of RAW — how is this different from JPG?
Why not send Voyager 3 and 4 following up the paths taken by Voyager 1 and 2 to re-transmit signals of later as they fly away from Earth?
How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics
How do living politicians protect their readily obtainable signatures from misuse?
Can an iPhone 7 be made to function as a NFC Tag?
Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?
A proverb that is used to imply that you have unexpectedly faced a big problem
New Order #6: Easter Egg
Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionHow was the exact time of Brexit computed?Is there a date (before 29 Mar 2019) when a hard Brexit is inevitable?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?What will happen if Parliament votes “no” on each of the Brexit-related votes to be held on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March?Can an Article 50 extension take effect pending approval from national states?What would a revoked Brexit after the 2019 EU parliament elections mean for the European Parliament?Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionIf the opposition wins a No Confidence vote in the week of April 8, 2019, could they stop No Deal?Can Theresa May easily circumvent the Yvette Cooper bill?Can a no-deal Brexit happen before the new extension end date of 31 October 2019?
Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?
If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?
I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:
If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change
but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.
united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
add a comment |
Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?
If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?
I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:
If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change
but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.
united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
add a comment |
Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?
If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?
I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:
If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change
but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.
united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
Does the UK Parliament have to approve the new Brexit extension till 31-Oct-2019?
If Parliament does not approve it, or does not do so before 11 pm, would that result in a no-deal Brexit tonight?
I am asking because the Institute for Government previously said this about the EU Withdrawal No.5 (Cooper-Letwin) bill, relating to the extension to 12 Apr:
If passed, [...] The Government would also need to amend the exit date in UK law, which it can do under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The bill would mean that the UK Government would not need approval votes to make the legal change
but I am not sure if that bill has since changed.
united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons
united-kingdom brexit house-of-commons
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
edited Apr 12 at 9:45
ᆼᆺᆼ
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
asked Apr 12 at 8:34
ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ
23817
23817
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
No, but it nearly did.
The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)
This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
1
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
1
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
add a comment |
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)
However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).
With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.
It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".
Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
1
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
1
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
1
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
add a comment |
No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40523%2fdoes-parliament-need-to-approve-the-new-brexit-delay-to-31-october-2019%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, but it nearly did.
The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)
This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
1
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
1
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
add a comment |
No, but it nearly did.
The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)
This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
1
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
1
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
add a comment |
No, but it nearly did.
The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)
This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
No, but it nearly did.
The Cooper-Letwin bill originally had language to that effect when it first passed in the Commons, but it got removed in House of Lords for precisely the reason you're asking about: they didn't want to end up with a no deal Brexit by accident due to possible overhead in Parliament. (At a more technical level, the other two answers so far cover what a negative instrument is and why it's being used to begin with.)
This live blog covered the amended bill as it went back through the Commons.
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
edited Apr 12 at 10:54
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
answered Apr 12 at 8:40
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
15.5k34270
15.5k34270
1
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
1
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
add a comment |
1
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
1
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
1
1
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
However, didn't they have to approve the extension to 12th of April? Is the current situation different?
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 8:57
1
1
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
@ᆼᆺᆼ: The original bill was so that Government needed to ask for a further article 50 extension, and then Parliament needed to confirm the date or something to that effect. I don't recollect the specific language, but it basically passed in the Commons. And then the Lords amended the bill so that Government could simply accept the extension without going through Parliament. The explainer you cite was last updated on April 5, and refers to the initial bill.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 12 at 9:12
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
Honestly, I don't know why SE doesn't allow accepting multiple answers. Oftentimes there are multiple different but correct answers. But ok; yours was first
– ᆼᆺᆼ
Apr 12 at 10:53
add a comment |
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)
However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).
With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.
It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".
Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
1
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
1
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
1
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
add a comment |
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)
However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).
With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.
It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".
Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
1
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
1
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
1
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
add a comment |
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)
However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).
With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.
It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".
Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 originally stated that:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
...where section 20(4) allows the government to issue an SI to change exit day to match any extension agreed by the EU and UK. This paragraph required both Houses to approve the SI before it comes into force, and is known as the affirmative resolution procedure. (See also this related question.)
However, section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 amended this to read:
A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This is the standard wording which means that the government can issue an SI to come into force whenever it likes, but either House can revoke it within 40 days. This is known as the negative resolution procedure, and makes it easier for the government to make changes it needs without having to wait for Parliament to approve them (though it should be noted that it's extremely rare for Parliament to block or revoke SIs).
With that change in place, the government issued The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019, which changes the definition of exit day to 31 October 2019 at 11.00 p.m. The SI came into force at 3:15pm on 11 April 2019, and was laid before Parliament an hour later.
It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for that day, in the list of "Papers subject to Negative Resolution".
Summary: Parliament no longer needs to approve the new exit day, but it has a fixed amount of time in which it can reject it.
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
edited Apr 12 at 12:37
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
answered Apr 12 at 9:31
Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff
4,75611838
4,75611838
1
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
1
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
1
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
add a comment |
1
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
1
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
1
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
1
1
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
Of course, parliament is quite adept at rejecting lately, so all bets are off.
– Chieron
Apr 12 at 15:26
1
1
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
@Chieron: I suspect both sides would whip against rejecting it. In any case, the SI doesn't actually change exit day; instead, it is a bookkeeping exercise to ensure that UK law matches the agreement with the EU. It is an interesting question as to what would happen if the SI were rejected.
– Steve Melnikoff
Apr 12 at 15:29
1
1
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Chieron: Parliament has already repeatedly voted down No Deal. Revoking the SI would effectively be a No Deal, so they're not going to do that, probably.
– Kevin
Apr 13 at 2:05
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
@Kevin they repeatedly voted down everything. This was a joke poking at the embarassing last weeks.
– Chieron
Apr 13 at 10:15
add a comment |
No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
add a comment |
No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
add a comment |
No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
No, because the Cooper bill implements it as a negative instrument. That means that it will happen unless Parliament votes against it, as opposed to the more common positive instrument where Parliament has to vote for it.
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
answered Apr 12 at 8:58
useruser
11.2k32744
11.2k32744
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40523%2fdoes-parliament-need-to-approve-the-new-brexit-delay-to-31-october-2019%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
