BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

coopster_the_1st

Fenix wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The longer they deny the electorate an election the worse the answer is going to be for them.

I fail to see how an election would sort out Brexit. You could have a government comprising God and all of his Angels and you'd still not sort out the Irish Border problem.


Are you getting the Brexit you were promised ?

The majority of the Irish border problem is solved by a free trade agreement. The EU have politicised the Irish border and a clean Brexit calls their bluff.

My Brexit is getting closer. We may have to clean Brexit first though.. The EU is more inflexible than I originally thought but cold hard economic realityy, just as they are heading for a recession massively improves the UK's position.
The EU elections arrived at the perfect time for leavers. There is a lovely irony to that

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The EU elections arrived at the perfect time for leavers. There is a lovely irony to that

Just after we should have left?

bobmcstuff

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

elbowloh

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

I can't remember a time when Parliament has had less trust in a PM? They think that every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie and every action has an ulterior motive (and rightly so in my opinion). It's extraordinary.

surrey_commuter

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

I am amazed how few people have highlighted that this prevents future PMs from bypassing Parliament. It was a staggeringly short-term move by a tiny group of ideological obsessed loons. Sane members of the Tory party must be shittin it as they realise they have given the keys to people who don’t care about the future of their party or country.

tailwindhome

Coopster the 1st wrote:

My Brexit

Quite

Stevo_666

Alejandrosdog wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Geoffrey Cox wrote:

But the time is coming, the time is coming Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.

This was theme to his answers to various questions. He is good orator whether you agree with him or not.

You think?

Most professional commentators seem to think he’s making a fool of himself.

Yes, so is Bercow. Who thinks he isn't? Perhaps they need to be forced to listen to any number of other public speakers.

Yes Cox speaks very well, the pace, the clarity, the intonation and use of language are all excellent. his performance is what you would expect from a good barrister.

Naturally since this is politics there are many willing to rubbish the man for any number reasons but that doesn't erase the skills and aptitude he demonstrates at the dispatch box. I think he'd make a good PM

Have to say I enjoyed Cox's speech today.

coopster_the_1st

TailWindHome wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

My Brexit

Quite

If you are going to be a xxxx I'll just add you to the xxxx list.

Bye!

Stevo_666

Also, now that parliament has been un-prorogued, I wonder it will actually achieve in the next few weeks? A VONC and GE are pretty much off the table in the short term and the Benn Bill is already in place.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Longshot

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

coopster_the_1st

Longshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

Which law?

tailwindhome

I see the 'it wasn't unlawful, they made a new law' narrative has found it's audience.

ballysmate

Longshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

There seems to be a reliance on R v Chaytor as case law to establish that the courts and not Parliament to determine the scope of Parliamentary Privilege in arriving at the judgement in this instance and the interpretation of Article 9
The arbitrators of the law have stated that they take precedence over the lawmakers and that is blurring politics and law.

rjsterry

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

Which law?

Common Law

orraloon

As I said to my Slovakian specialist nurse and my Greek consultant today during my hospital clinic appointment (all praise the NHS), it's good to feel appreciated.

tailwindhome

The UK Prime Minister has stood up in the House of Commons and said the Supreme Court was wrong.

The UK is a really bad place.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

I see the 'it wasn't unlawful, they made a new law' narrative has found it's audience.

If only they understood common law.

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

Which law?

Common Law

From Wikipedia:

In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law)


Thanks for confirming the judges were making it up to fit their agenda

bompington

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

Which law?

Common Law

From Wikipedia:

In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law)


Thanks for confirming the judges were making it up to fit their agenda

So let me get this right, all common law, i.e. the vast bulk of English law since Alfred the Great or whenever, is null and void? Mainly because you don't like it? You really are very, very lacking in knowledge and intelligence: the logical leap from the definition of common law to "making it up to suit their agenda" must involve some kind of hyperspace jump

Entertaining, too, in a fun-to-be-banging-your-head-off-a-brick-wall kind of way, to see that you're back to the "they'll come crawling to us for a deal" line. Much delusion.

rick_chasey

I guess the conservatives can’t claim they’re into upholding the law anymore, given their response to the SC.

BoJo really has energised his opponents to work together.

morstar

So the Ct1st precedent has been set...
Wikipedia trump's the Supreme Court for interpretation of fine legal detail.
I know the interpretation is simply following the Brexit divide but I do genuinely think this is bigger than Brexit. Our PM has tried some pretty dubious tactics to thwart unfavourable parliamentary arithmetic. It may suit your agenda today. But, what about next time?...
That parliament and the law has challenged questionable tactics every step of the way is a good thing IMHO.
Conversely, Bally's point about the mechanism available to parliament (vonc) is an interesting one.

robert88

bompington wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Longshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rather than courts getting involved in politics.

They didn't. They got involved in The Law.

Which law?

Common Law

From Wikipedia:

In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law)


Thanks for confirming the judges were making it up to fit their agenda

So let me get this right, all common law, i.e. the vast bulk of English law since Alfred the Great or whenever, is null and void? Mainly because you don't like it? You really are very, very lacking in knowledge and intelligence: the logical leap from the definition of common law to "making it up to suit their agenda" must involve some kind of hyperspace jump

Entertaining, too, in a fun-to-be-banging-your-head-off-a-brick-wall kind of way, to see that you're back to the "they'll come crawling to us for a deal" line. Much delusion.

The Brexit end game is the overthrow of any restraint on their agenda. Exactly where that takes us is likely to be very unpleasant for their opponents.

tailwindhome

...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also, now that parliament has been un-prorogued, I wonder it will actually achieve in the next few weeks? A VONC and GE are pretty much off the table in the short term and the Benn Bill is already in place.

It makes absolute sense for the opposition to hoist Johnson on his “out by 31st October” petard and it equally seems sensible to make hay on that by going for one at that point.

If I read correctly they could attempt a VONC near to October 17 because that is the final deadline for U.K. asking for an extension and gives an opportunity to create a different government for a fortnight or so.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also, now that parliament has been un-prorogued, I wonder it will actually achieve in the next few weeks? A VONC and GE are pretty much off the table in the short term and the Benn Bill is already in place.

It makes absolute sense for the opposition to hoist Johnson on his “out by 31st October” petard and it equally seems sensible to make hay on that by going for one at that point.

If I read correctly they could attempt a VONC near to October 17 because that is the final deadline for U.K. asking for an extension and gives an opportunity to create a different government for a fortnight or so.

I can see it from the opposition point of view, but that on its own does not constitute achieving a lot in my opinion.

Also not sure a VONC around 17 Oct is without risk as if it passes, an alternative government that commands the support of the house needs to be formed in 14 days. If they can't do that then parliament is dissolved for a GE and time is up.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also, now that parliament has been un-prorogued, I wonder it will actually achieve in the next few weeks? A VONC and GE are pretty much off the table in the short term and the Benn Bill is already in place.

It makes absolute sense for the opposition to hoist Johnson on his “out by 31st October” petard and it equally seems sensible to make hay on that by going for one at that point.

If I read correctly they could attempt a VONC near to October 17 because that is the final deadline for U.K. asking for an extension and gives an opportunity to create a different government for a fortnight or so.

V23 of Jon Worth's Brexit Diagram has it that the Benn Act will be amended to bring forward the date when an A50 extension must be requested, Johnson refusing to comply, then a VONC to bring in a caretaker PM to get the extension by 17th October and call a GE. Given we all know Johnson will try to sabotage the A50 request I think that may be their only option. Not risk free but I'm not sure there is a risk free option.

Having got the extension, I'm not sure what could be brought in to force cooperation.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also, now that parliament has been un-prorogued, I wonder it will actually achieve in the next few weeks? A VONC and GE are pretty much off the table in the short term and the Benn Bill is already in place.

It makes absolute sense for the opposition to hoist Johnson on his “out by 31st October” petard and it equally seems sensible to make hay on that by going for one at that point.

If I read correctly they could attempt a VONC near to October 17 because that is the final deadline for U.K. asking for an extension and gives an opportunity to create a different government for a fortnight or so.

V23 of Jon Worth's Brexit Diagram has it that the Benn Act will be amended to bring forward the date when an A50 extension must be requested, Johnson refusing to comply, then a VONC to bring in a caretaker PM to get the extension by 17th October and call a GE. Given we all know Johnson will try to sabotage the A50 request I think that may be their only option. Not risk free but I'm not sure there is a risk free option.

Whatever the outcome of whether it will be a VONC or an election (one will definitely happen this year) the important thing for all parties will be the timing regarding 31/10/19.
I would have thought going early was preferable but there are likely nuances.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also, now that parliament has been un-prorogued, I wonder it will actually achieve in the next few weeks? A VONC and GE are pretty much off the table in the short term and the Benn Bill is already in place.

It makes absolute sense for the opposition to hoist Johnson on his “out by 31st October” petard and it equally seems sensible to make hay on that by going for one at that point.

If I read correctly they could attempt a VONC near to October 17 because that is the final deadline for U.K. asking for an extension and gives an opportunity to create a different government for a fortnight or so.

Maybe.
But I'm sure BJ will plead that he has been stymied in his attempts to force through Brexit and that even if he did refuse to agree to another extension, we could not legally leave the EU at that point.
This would play well with hard Brexiteers as no matter who was elected PM, they would be bound by the same constraints unless they had a significant majority in the House to overturn any legislation.
Corbyn remains un electable to anyone with more than a single brain cell and a vote for the Libdems potentially lets in Corbyn.
So no, I don't envisage it making a massive difference to any subsequent GE.

orraloon

I'm going to be in Belgium on 17th October. Might just stay there. How does one claim asylum from the looney bin which is dUK right now?