Is Theresa May seriously thinking of unearthing the mummified corpse of her deal and wheeling its stinking carcass into the House of Commons – again!


They'd better have a copious supply of air fresheners in the Commons chamber, if the PM once again drags her deal out of its sarcophagus and dumps it on the floor of the house for another meaningful vote (MV3).

But that's what it looks like she might be up to.

And she's been encouraged to do so by the words of the leader of the Tory Eurosceptic European Research Group (ERG), who said he was reluctantly considering supporting it.

Now a number of Brexiteers might follow Rees-Mogg's lead, but it looks like it would be a step too far for the DUP.

But with MPs gearing up for their take-over of parliament tomorrow, I don't think many of the rest of them would go anywhere near her Withdrawal Agreement. She should just leave it dead and buried to rot.

The question of the lawfulness or not, of the Prime Minister's actions in ordering that the Article 50 process be extended by first making an international agreement with the other EU27 member states, before getting round to obtaining parliamentary approval is rumbling on.

Solicitor Robin Tilbrook, who is also the Chairman of the English Democrats, has entered the fray by writing a judicial review letter before claim to Government lawyers, to say that in his opinion the Prime Minister does not have the power to ask the EU for such an extension without an express act of parliament.

Tilbrook first wrote to them before the extension was asked for, so they responded by saying that, as no decision had been taken, then there was no matter to answer.

But once the PM had ordered the Article 50 extension letter be sent, Tilbrook wrote again last Friday, pointing out that:

"Ministers, including the Prime Minister, only have official power either on the basis of Statutory powers or on the basis of Royal Prerogative powers."

And citing the Gina Miller case and the fact that the PM had to use an act of parliament to trigger Article 50 in the first place he says:

"It follows that on the face of it, the Prime Minister’s request for an extension is illegal.

"Also any agreement for an extension which might have been agreed by the European Council is also without any Statutory authority."

And this is extremely important, because if an act of parliament was proved to be necessary to extend Article 50, then not only could it make this extension null and void, it could also make any extension at this late stage all but impossible. Let alone revoking Article 50.

And this leads me, with my suspicious mind, to surmise that is why the PM conducted this business the way she did.

And finally, the EU Parliament has passed the so-called Copyright Directive much to the satisfaction of those copyright holders who feel ripped off by people copying their work on the internet.

But many people are saying it will kill off such things as memes and parodies on the web as well as introducing a so called 'link tax' when hyperlinking to online news outlets.

The two suspect Articles in the original document were firstly Article 11 concerning the link tax and secondly the meme and parody destroying Article 13.

But since this first reared its ugly head a couple of years ago it has been re-written and now the old Article 11 is now Article 15 and the old Article 13 is now Article 17.

The press Article 15 seems to have been watered down from its original as there is now no risk of a hyperlink tax.

But although the new Article 17 expressly allows for users to exploit existing copyright exceptions for quotation, criticism and review as well as for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche, usually termed 'fair use', there are serious questions as to whether technology would be capable of dealing with such exceptions.

Last year, for example, the YouTube boss, Susan Wojcicki, warned that:

"This legislation poses a threat to both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world and, if implemented as proposed, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European Creators, businesses, artists, and everyone they employ.

"The proposal will force platforms, like YouTube, to prioritise content from a small number of large companies. The burden of copyright proof will be too high for most independent creators to instantly demonstrate."

The directive is not yet law in the EU as it now goes to the EU Council next and could be adopted as soon as April the 9th.

But if brought into law, member states and those that wish to operate inside the EU, will find themselves caught up in it very soon as member state law-makers would have only two years to make the directive effective in their respective countries.

It will be interesting to see what the big social media and news aggregator platforms make of these recent changes. Then there's all those EU social media users out there who might not be happy with the result when it hits Facebook, Twitter and Youtube etc.

So, please let us all know what you think by leaving a comment below.

Thank you for watching.


EU Parliament Adopts Copyright Directive, Including 'Article 13'

Comment Here!