What is the nature of the Cooper/Boles amendment and what are the implications?












2















I understand the Cooper/Boles amendment is an “amendment to the motion.” The motion being Theresa May’s “Brexit Plan B”.



What is an amendment to a motion? A proposed change to the wording of legislation that must be voted on? Must the motion proposer ensure the amendment is voted on?



And what will the in-practise effect of this amendment be?










share|improve this question























  • The BBC has a comprehensive guide to the proposed amendments. The actual text of the amendments will appear on on Parliament's website on the day of the debate, if not before.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    43 mins ago
















2















I understand the Cooper/Boles amendment is an “amendment to the motion.” The motion being Theresa May’s “Brexit Plan B”.



What is an amendment to a motion? A proposed change to the wording of legislation that must be voted on? Must the motion proposer ensure the amendment is voted on?



And what will the in-practise effect of this amendment be?










share|improve this question























  • The BBC has a comprehensive guide to the proposed amendments. The actual text of the amendments will appear on on Parliament's website on the day of the debate, if not before.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    43 mins ago














2












2








2








I understand the Cooper/Boles amendment is an “amendment to the motion.” The motion being Theresa May’s “Brexit Plan B”.



What is an amendment to a motion? A proposed change to the wording of legislation that must be voted on? Must the motion proposer ensure the amendment is voted on?



And what will the in-practise effect of this amendment be?










share|improve this question














I understand the Cooper/Boles amendment is an “amendment to the motion.” The motion being Theresa May’s “Brexit Plan B”.



What is an amendment to a motion? A proposed change to the wording of legislation that must be voted on? Must the motion proposer ensure the amendment is voted on?



And what will the in-practise effect of this amendment be?







united-kingdom brexit






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









BenBen

2,3651028




2,3651028













  • The BBC has a comprehensive guide to the proposed amendments. The actual text of the amendments will appear on on Parliament's website on the day of the debate, if not before.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    43 mins ago



















  • The BBC has a comprehensive guide to the proposed amendments. The actual text of the amendments will appear on on Parliament's website on the day of the debate, if not before.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    43 mins ago

















The BBC has a comprehensive guide to the proposed amendments. The actual text of the amendments will appear on on Parliament's website on the day of the debate, if not before.

– Steve Melnikoff
43 mins ago





The BBC has a comprehensive guide to the proposed amendments. The actual text of the amendments will appear on on Parliament's website on the day of the debate, if not before.

– Steve Melnikoff
43 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














The meaning of "amendment" here does indeed correspond with its generic one of "formal change to legal text". Generically a motion is the proposal under debate. Unlike a bill, which might be tens or even hundreds of pages long, a motion will often be relatively short and simple. Picking a few examples from last week's Hansard:





  • That this House has considered children’s social care in England.

  • That this House notes the publication of the Fourteenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee on Sustainable seas, HC 980.




They might also attempt to progress legislation:





  • "I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."




For motions which the standing Commons rules deem amendable, MPs other than the one making the original proposal may propose changes to the language of the motion, ranging from adding or removing a single word, to rewriting the content entirely. The Speaker will then choose which amendments are debated along with the main text. Votes on amendments happen in sequence (again chosen by the Speaker) with a final vote on the resulting motion.



In regard to the EU Withdrawal Act, the enacted version required that if the House decided to reject the government's proposed withdrawal agreement then





  1. A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

  2. A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

  3. A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—



    • a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and

    • a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.






It's this "amendable neutral motion" into which the the Labour front bench and various groups of backbenchers, including Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles are attempting to construct instructions for parliament and the government regarding how to proceed with Brexit. Any version with a clear majority probably wouldn't have legal force in of itself, but could modify the rules the Commons operate under and would be dangerous for the government to ignore.



Neither the original text of the government motion, nor the amendments seem to be on the web yet (and there is still time for both to be revised), but from media reports the amendment tabled by Cooper and Boles contains provisions to eventually force a vote by MPs to request an extension on Brexit day if an agreement has not been voted through by February 26. It would do this by allowing time for debate of a bill Nick Boles has already proposed (or a very similar one). This bill would itself have legal force.






share|improve this answer
























  • Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

    – origimbo
    1 hour ago













  • So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • @Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

    – origimbo
    28 mins ago













  • @Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    12 mins ago











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38266%2fwhat-is-the-nature-of-the-cooper-boles-amendment-and-what-are-the-implications%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














The meaning of "amendment" here does indeed correspond with its generic one of "formal change to legal text". Generically a motion is the proposal under debate. Unlike a bill, which might be tens or even hundreds of pages long, a motion will often be relatively short and simple. Picking a few examples from last week's Hansard:





  • That this House has considered children’s social care in England.

  • That this House notes the publication of the Fourteenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee on Sustainable seas, HC 980.




They might also attempt to progress legislation:





  • "I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."




For motions which the standing Commons rules deem amendable, MPs other than the one making the original proposal may propose changes to the language of the motion, ranging from adding or removing a single word, to rewriting the content entirely. The Speaker will then choose which amendments are debated along with the main text. Votes on amendments happen in sequence (again chosen by the Speaker) with a final vote on the resulting motion.



In regard to the EU Withdrawal Act, the enacted version required that if the House decided to reject the government's proposed withdrawal agreement then





  1. A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

  2. A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

  3. A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—



    • a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and

    • a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.






It's this "amendable neutral motion" into which the the Labour front bench and various groups of backbenchers, including Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles are attempting to construct instructions for parliament and the government regarding how to proceed with Brexit. Any version with a clear majority probably wouldn't have legal force in of itself, but could modify the rules the Commons operate under and would be dangerous for the government to ignore.



Neither the original text of the government motion, nor the amendments seem to be on the web yet (and there is still time for both to be revised), but from media reports the amendment tabled by Cooper and Boles contains provisions to eventually force a vote by MPs to request an extension on Brexit day if an agreement has not been voted through by February 26. It would do this by allowing time for debate of a bill Nick Boles has already proposed (or a very similar one). This bill would itself have legal force.






share|improve this answer
























  • Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

    – origimbo
    1 hour ago













  • So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • @Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

    – origimbo
    28 mins ago













  • @Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    12 mins ago
















3














The meaning of "amendment" here does indeed correspond with its generic one of "formal change to legal text". Generically a motion is the proposal under debate. Unlike a bill, which might be tens or even hundreds of pages long, a motion will often be relatively short and simple. Picking a few examples from last week's Hansard:





  • That this House has considered children’s social care in England.

  • That this House notes the publication of the Fourteenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee on Sustainable seas, HC 980.




They might also attempt to progress legislation:





  • "I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."




For motions which the standing Commons rules deem amendable, MPs other than the one making the original proposal may propose changes to the language of the motion, ranging from adding or removing a single word, to rewriting the content entirely. The Speaker will then choose which amendments are debated along with the main text. Votes on amendments happen in sequence (again chosen by the Speaker) with a final vote on the resulting motion.



In regard to the EU Withdrawal Act, the enacted version required that if the House decided to reject the government's proposed withdrawal agreement then





  1. A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

  2. A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

  3. A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—



    • a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and

    • a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.






It's this "amendable neutral motion" into which the the Labour front bench and various groups of backbenchers, including Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles are attempting to construct instructions for parliament and the government regarding how to proceed with Brexit. Any version with a clear majority probably wouldn't have legal force in of itself, but could modify the rules the Commons operate under and would be dangerous for the government to ignore.



Neither the original text of the government motion, nor the amendments seem to be on the web yet (and there is still time for both to be revised), but from media reports the amendment tabled by Cooper and Boles contains provisions to eventually force a vote by MPs to request an extension on Brexit day if an agreement has not been voted through by February 26. It would do this by allowing time for debate of a bill Nick Boles has already proposed (or a very similar one). This bill would itself have legal force.






share|improve this answer
























  • Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

    – origimbo
    1 hour ago













  • So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • @Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

    – origimbo
    28 mins ago













  • @Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    12 mins ago














3












3








3







The meaning of "amendment" here does indeed correspond with its generic one of "formal change to legal text". Generically a motion is the proposal under debate. Unlike a bill, which might be tens or even hundreds of pages long, a motion will often be relatively short and simple. Picking a few examples from last week's Hansard:





  • That this House has considered children’s social care in England.

  • That this House notes the publication of the Fourteenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee on Sustainable seas, HC 980.




They might also attempt to progress legislation:





  • "I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."




For motions which the standing Commons rules deem amendable, MPs other than the one making the original proposal may propose changes to the language of the motion, ranging from adding or removing a single word, to rewriting the content entirely. The Speaker will then choose which amendments are debated along with the main text. Votes on amendments happen in sequence (again chosen by the Speaker) with a final vote on the resulting motion.



In regard to the EU Withdrawal Act, the enacted version required that if the House decided to reject the government's proposed withdrawal agreement then





  1. A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

  2. A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

  3. A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—



    • a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and

    • a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.






It's this "amendable neutral motion" into which the the Labour front bench and various groups of backbenchers, including Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles are attempting to construct instructions for parliament and the government regarding how to proceed with Brexit. Any version with a clear majority probably wouldn't have legal force in of itself, but could modify the rules the Commons operate under and would be dangerous for the government to ignore.



Neither the original text of the government motion, nor the amendments seem to be on the web yet (and there is still time for both to be revised), but from media reports the amendment tabled by Cooper and Boles contains provisions to eventually force a vote by MPs to request an extension on Brexit day if an agreement has not been voted through by February 26. It would do this by allowing time for debate of a bill Nick Boles has already proposed (or a very similar one). This bill would itself have legal force.






share|improve this answer













The meaning of "amendment" here does indeed correspond with its generic one of "formal change to legal text". Generically a motion is the proposal under debate. Unlike a bill, which might be tens or even hundreds of pages long, a motion will often be relatively short and simple. Picking a few examples from last week's Hansard:





  • That this House has considered children’s social care in England.

  • That this House notes the publication of the Fourteenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee on Sustainable seas, HC 980.




They might also attempt to progress legislation:





  • "I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."




For motions which the standing Commons rules deem amendable, MPs other than the one making the original proposal may propose changes to the language of the motion, ranging from adding or removing a single word, to rewriting the content entirely. The Speaker will then choose which amendments are debated along with the main text. Votes on amendments happen in sequence (again chosen by the Speaker) with a final vote on the resulting motion.



In regard to the EU Withdrawal Act, the enacted version required that if the House decided to reject the government's proposed withdrawal agreement then





  1. A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

  2. A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

  3. A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—



    • a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and

    • a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.






It's this "amendable neutral motion" into which the the Labour front bench and various groups of backbenchers, including Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles are attempting to construct instructions for parliament and the government regarding how to proceed with Brexit. Any version with a clear majority probably wouldn't have legal force in of itself, but could modify the rules the Commons operate under and would be dangerous for the government to ignore.



Neither the original text of the government motion, nor the amendments seem to be on the web yet (and there is still time for both to be revised), but from media reports the amendment tabled by Cooper and Boles contains provisions to eventually force a vote by MPs to request an extension on Brexit day if an agreement has not been voted through by February 26. It would do this by allowing time for debate of a bill Nick Boles has already proposed (or a very similar one). This bill would itself have legal force.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 hours ago









origimboorigimbo

10.9k22441




10.9k22441













  • Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

    – origimbo
    1 hour ago













  • So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • @Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

    – origimbo
    28 mins ago













  • @Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    12 mins ago



















  • Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

    – origimbo
    1 hour ago













  • So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

    – Ben
    1 hour ago











  • @Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

    – origimbo
    28 mins ago













  • @Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    12 mins ago

















Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

– Ben
1 hour ago





Thank you. What does “could modify the rules the Commons operate under” mean in this context?

– Ben
1 hour ago













Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

– origimbo
1 hour ago







Several amendments, including Cooper/Boles would take away the usual right of the government to set the order of business for the day (i.e. what Commons will spend its time on) either for one specific bill (Cooper/Boles) or more generally (e.g. Grieve). This would probably be necessary for a non-Government Bill varying the rules of Brexit day to go through all the stages needed to become law.

– origimbo
1 hour ago















So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

– Ben
1 hour ago





So amendments to the motion, although not legally binding, must be permitted to take effect as regards the rules of the house?

– Ben
1 hour ago













@Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

– origimbo
28 mins ago







@Ben Unless there's actual statute involved, the rules are whatever the House (i.e. the majority of MPs) decides they are, provided it can be brought to a vote.

– origimbo
28 mins ago















@Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

– Steve Melnikoff
12 mins ago





@Ben: just to add to origimbo's excellent answer & comments: motions may alter or suspend specific standing orders of the House of Commons; and these changes may be permanent, temporary (e.g. for the current session), or just affect a specific debate or matter. Business motions typically use the last of these to increase or limit the amount of time available to debate a particular matter. Regardless, standing orders are binding on the House, and are enforced by the Speaker.

– Steve Melnikoff
12 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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%2f38266%2fwhat-is-the-nature-of-the-cooper-boles-amendment-and-what-are-the-implications%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

SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints