Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?












18















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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    18















    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.










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      18












      18








      18


      1






      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.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      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






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Apr 12 at 9:45







      ᆼᆺᆼ













      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Apr 12 at 8:34









      ᆼᆺᆼᆼᆺᆼ

      23317




      23317




      New contributor




      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          19














          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.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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



















          15














          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.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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



















          4














          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.






          share|improve this answer
























            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
            });


            }
            });






            ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            19














            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.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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
















            19














            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.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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














            19












            19








            19







            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.






            share|improve this answer















            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 12 at 10:54

























            answered Apr 12 at 8:40









            Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

            15.4k34270




            15.4k34270








            • 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





              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











            15














            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.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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
















            15














            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.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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














            15












            15








            15







            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.






            share|improve this answer















            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 12 at 12:37

























            answered Apr 12 at 9:31









            Steve MelnikoffSteve Melnikoff

            4,73111838




            4,73111838








            • 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





              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











            4














            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.






            share|improve this answer




























              4














              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.






              share|improve this answer


























                4












                4








                4







                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.






                share|improve this answer













                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.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Apr 12 at 8:58









                useruser

                11.2k32744




                11.2k32744






















                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    ᆼᆺᆼ is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Plaza Victoria

                    Puebla de Zaragoza

                    Musa