Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

J Mysterio

ElectronVolt wrote: »

My questions is what are the consequences for him and his cabinet if they do refuse to obey the law? A lot of the checks and balances in the UK are proving to be nothing but an acceptance of precedent and fair play.

Hopefully jail for breaking the law.

ElectronVolt

J Mysterio wrote: »

Hopefully jail for breaking the law.

It seems that wouldn't be the case. However, the entire civil service would be required to obey the law, as enacted. So he'd be powerless.
He can't command the civil service to break the law. However, it would be a massive constitutional crisis and I would assume he'd have to be impeached.

J Mysterio

Now that bill is awaiting royal assent, its just a matter of what date the GE will be called for at this point. Johnson is finished, he is a lame duck.

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1170004090610487298

I expect it will be called for before the next EU summit.

GM228

J Mysterio wrote: »

ElectronVolt wrote: »

My questions is what are the consequences for him and his cabinet if they do refuse to obey the law? A lot of the checks and balances in the UK are proving to be nothing but an acceptance of precedent and fair play.

Hopefully jail for breaking the law.

There would have to be some sort of offence before charging, prosecuting and sending to jail, just because something is required to be done by law, does not mean that failure to do so is a crime or punishable by law, that said, there is the offence of misconduct in public office, but it is extremely difficult to prove and potentially even a failure to abide by the Act may not be enough to meet the standard required for such.

ElectronVolt wrote: »

It seems that wouldn't be the case. However, the entire civil service would be required to obey the law, as enacted. So he'd be powerless.
He can't command the civil service to break the law. However, it would be a massive constitutional crisis and I would assume he'd have to be impeached.

Impeachment is now obsolete, the HoC has not initiated one since 1806 when Lord Melville was (unsuccessfully) impeached.

Strazdas

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The right wing media in the UK is incredibly weaponised. I suppose, like all aspects of Brexit, one has to look at who owns these papers and what gain they might see in Brexit

They're the most partisan and tribal media in Europe. I'm not sure if the average Briton realises just how radicalised the press is.....some of the papers are more like alt right blogs than sources of news.

johnnyskeleton

Just catching up on a few Brexit twists and turns and this caught my eye:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnsons-irish-border-plan-stalls-disastrous-eu-brexit-backstop-talks

In a heavily trailed move, Johnson’s envoy, David Frost, proposed an all-Ireland food standards zone on Friday, but the UK is also seeking to give the Stormont assembly a say on whether it would continue in the years ahead.

The attempt to give the proposed arrangement what British officials have described as democratic legitimacy by involving politicians in Northern Ireland was firmly knocked back by the EU. European commission negotiators said such a proposal would leave Ireland in a constant state of uncertainty over the future.

I thought something might be done to try to answer the lack of democracy point e.g. asking the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum whether they wanted the backstop, as opposed to merely relying on what the DUP said. Which one would assume would pass comfortably.

I wonder did the U.K. or E.U. realise that Stormont only works if the largest Nationalist and Unionist parties can agree. If the section said that Northern Ireland could come out of the backstop if the L.A. approves it coming out, it would only happen in the most unexpected circumstances i.e. S.F. would have to vote for it. However, if it was proposed that it can only continue to apply if Stormont continued to approve it, then it would most likely come to a sudden and abrupt halt, unless DUP voters switched to UUP/Alliance.

briany wrote: »

I love how the Brexit party's ultimatum to the Conservatives of 'deliver Brexit or we'll contest the next election' would be ensuring that no form of Brexit would happen for the foreseeable future. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

That's assuming that deep down Brexiteers and the Brexit party actually want Brexit. Farage has made an entire career, and a lucrative one at that, despite his protestations of poverty, campaigning for Brexit. If Brexit is achieved, then he no longer has anything to rail against.

Particularly if Brexit turns out not to be as beneficial as he has told people it would be!

For Forks Sake

KFC 1 - Tories 0

https://twitter.com/KFC_UKI/status/1169970678658998277

ElectronVolt

They wouldn't try and hold it up with some mess in the Privy Council, would they?
Jacob Rees-Mogg is the Lord President of the Council.

I know the Privy Council's pretty broad, but it's just once you get past the HoC the system in the UK starts to look very archaic and like some vestige of empire.

Patser

All that KFC stuff is childish and pathetic, but it's all the Tories have left. They really were caught on the hop when Corbyn declined the election. That was Boris's get out of jail card, if he couldn't get his brexit.

Now he's trapped, and digging himself deeper into the trap every day. He can't have his election as long as opposition say no, has to dance to whatever tune they pass despite all his bluster about being dead in a ditch first, and every day he strengthens their hands by making more and more of his own supporters defect or resign. And now the Prorogue is going to shag him over too, as he has no time left to arrange another attempt for election if Monday goes as expected..

So calling Corbyn a chicken is pathetic. Labour and others can clearly see that Boris is stuck, and that be holding off he's looking poorer and poorer in the public's eye. And the big humiliation of facing Europe in October with his own parliament instructions forcing his hand is yet to come. Its delightful to watch as all these architects of Brexit - Mogg, Gove and Boris - face humiliation after humiliation.

If only Farage could be torn into too

circadian

I'd imagine Boris will request an extension but will do so in completely bad faith and intentionally trying to get the EU to decline.

The EU could do everyone a favour and call their bluff and grant an extension knowing that in a general election they'll probably get someone that's actually worth dealing with.

BorneTobyWilde

Does he really need to ask for an extension, Shirley the EU can just announce that they're extending Brexit in light of what has been passed into law in UK.

Strazdas

circadian wrote: »

I'd imagine Boris will request an extension but will do so in completely bad faith and intentionally trying to get the EU to decline.

The EU could do everyone a favour and call their bluff and grant an extension knowing that in a general election they'll probably get someone that's actually worth dealing with.

But the UK is going to have to come up with a major solution and very quickly. Ratify the WA, revoke A50, whatever.....it can't keep asking for extensions and more time

ancapailldorcha

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Does he really need to ask for an extension, Shirley the EU can just announce that they're extending Brexit in light of what has been passed into law in UK.

Except that this would constitute keeping a member state in the club which has given formal notice to leave. It would set a dangerous, authoritarian precedent and would be almost certainly illegal. Just because the UK's constitution is being dismembered by fanatics doesn't mean that the EU should follow their example.

GM228

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Does he really need to ask for an extension, Shirley the EU can just announce that they're extending Brexit in light of what has been passed into law in UK.

No there must be unanimous agreement from both sides.

Joe_ Public

There's no straightforward way out of it, but i believe they will have to come around to the idea that a second referendum is likely the best way forward and there's a chance Johnson might offer that in some fashion or else the opposition will have to get their act together for some form of GNU that can put another public vote in place either with or without a new WAB. I struggle to see any other way out unless the EU simply runs out of patience and decides to pull the plug.

BorneTobyWilde

It was people who were retired that swung the vote to leave.

Young people love to shoot their mouth off after the event, but were stuck on their Playstation, or taking selfies when it was time to vote.

seamus

If Labour win a GE, they'll call a new referendum. It's the only way to put an end to this circus.

BorneTobyWilde

one armed dwarf

On the question of turnout, I still wonder how much of an impact was had by the massive storms in London on the day of the vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_floods

Not that it is an excuse for apathy, but transport was impossible after work on that day

GM228

seamus wrote: »

If Labour win a GE, they'll call a new referendum. It's the only way to put an end to this circus.

Will they? Didn't Labour also rule out a new referendum.

Joe_ Public

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It was people who were retired that swung the vote to leave.

Young people love to shoot their mouth off after the event, but were stuck on their Playstation, or taking selfies when it was time to vote.

Couple of factors. It was definitely credit to Cummings for mobilising a lot of voters who didnt traditionally turn out, but were convinced this time they needed to do their duty. Also, it would have hurt the youth vote that the referendum was held outside term time as the student turnout would have been significantly less. In the event of an election or second vote, this time both of those factors will favour the remain side, though by how much i wouldnt be able to say exactly.

cryptocurrency

seamus wrote: »

If Labour win a GE, they'll call a new referendum. It's the only way to put an end to this circus.

People who say that are making a presumption remain would win. They are wrong.

BluePlanet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just catching up on a few Brexit twists and turns and this caught my eye:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnsons-irish-border-plan-stalls-disastrous-eu-brexit-backstop-talks



I thought something might be done to try to answer the lack of democracy point e.g. asking the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum whether they wanted the backstop, as opposed to merely relying on what the DUP said. Which one would assume would pass comfortably.

I wonder did the U.K. or E.U. realise that Stormont only works if the largest Nationalist and Unionist parties can agree. If the section said that Northern Ireland could come out of the backstop if the L.A. approves it coming out, it would only happen in the most unexpected circumstances i.e. S.F. would have to vote for it. However, if it was proposed that it can only continue to apply if Stormont continued to approve it, then it would most likely come to a sudden and abrupt halt, unless DUP voters switched to UUP/Alliance.



That's assuming that deep down Brexiteers and the Brexit party actually want Brexit. Farage has made an entire career, and a lucrative one at that, despite his protestations of poverty, campaigning for Brexit. If Brexit is achieved, then he no longer has anything to rail against.

Particularly if Brexit turns out not to be as beneficial as he has told people it would be!

I think it is entirely reasonable to look at some measure of democratic framework for a NI only backstop.
This also gives the DUP a way out of their position.
Perhaps leaving the Backstop requires a 2 year lead time or something along those lines.
Though anything like that may end up impairing investment in NI and the border areas.

What about the divorce bill though?
It's not only the Backstop that the Tories want to cut.

Zubeneschamali

Of course leave could win again, that would be fair enough, off with them.

Just like giving Boris a majority in the election, they would bring the locusts/rain of frogs etc on themselves and I will be stockpiling popcorn as the show will not be over for a long, long time.

Joe_ Public

cryptocurrency wrote: »

People who say that are making a presumption remain would win. They are wrong.

I think remain would win but thats not a presumption, just an opinion. People dont have to like the idea of another vote, but they should stop saying there's anything undemocratic about it. There isn't. Its a perfectly logical and democratic option to use to get the UK out of this mess.

Ben Done

Just wondering where people would rank the potential outcomes at this stage - No Deal, Deal (perhaps NI only backstop), and no Brexit.

Last week I would have said No Deal 60%, Deal 10%, No Brexit 30% but I'm thinking Deal might now be more likely?

Could the remain alliance hold through the election to make No Brexit likelier?

briany

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think remain would win but thats not a presumption, just an opinion. People dont have to like the idea of another vote, but they should stop saying there's anything undemocratic about it. There isn't. Its a perfectly logical and democratic option to use to get the UK out of this mess.

If the people of the UK want a no-deal Brexit, they can guarantee that by voting in a majority of MPs who'll be of a mind to deliver it.

Even with an extension, the UK always has the option to simply tell the EU they're leaving (with notice), AFAIK, so even if they get another extension, a GE that returns a no-compromise Brexit parliament would soon see the UK out of that.

And since the projections are for the Conservatives to actually gain seats, I see this being the most likely outcome, unless I'm missing something. Since 'the purge' the Cons would now be running very much on a Brexit-at-all-costs ticket, and would be more likely to be ideologically pure.

Joe_ Public

briany wrote: »

If the people of the UK want a no-deal Brexit, they can guarantee that by voting in a majority of MPs who'll be of a mind to deliver it.

Even with an extension, the UK always has the option to simply tell the EU they're leaving (with notice), AFAIK, so even if they get another extension, a GE that returns a no-compromise Brexit parliament would soon see the UK out of that.

And since the projections are for the Conservatives to actually gain seats, I see this being the most likely outcome, unless I'm missing something. Since 'the purge' the Cons would now be running very much on a Brexit-at-all-costs ticket, and would be more likely to be ideologically pure.

Well i wouldnt be so sure about any of that myself. I dont place that much faith in the polls, its far too volatile a situation imo, and all i know for sure is that the conservatives are going to lose 10 seats in Scotland so thats not great for starters. Also, going for a no deal strategy might help in relation to TBP, but is restricting yourself to that narrow subset of the electorate really a winning strategy? Thats likely not even 50% of the voting public.

I also personally dislike the idea of an election being used as a de facto referendum. The issues that need to be teased out for a GE deserve not to be lost in the fog of a one-issue campaign, although that said, i do believe labour - if they play it right - might succeed in playing it as a multi-issue election. All a bit uncertain though.

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I also personally dislike the idea of an election being used as a de facto referendum. The issues that need to be teased out for a GE deserve not to be lost in the fog of a one-issue campaign, although that said, i do believe labour - if they play it right - might succeed in playing it as a multi-issue election. All a bit uncertain though.

Labour should have the advantage in a GE since they can mop up anyone that isn't in favour of no deal. This would include hard core remainists, those who want Labour's idea of a Brexit deal, those who would accept the WA as it stands and so on.

Johnson's advantage is that there's a certain amount of sense to the idea that you can't negotiate properly unless you have at your disposal the option of walking away.

Irish Praetorian

Bit cynical wrote: »

Labour should have the advantage in a GE since they can mop up anyone that isn't in favour of no deal. This would include hard core remainists, those who want Labour's idea of a Brexit deal, those who might would the WA as it stands and so on.

Johnson's advantage is that there's a certain amount of sense to the idea that you can't negotiate properly unless you have at your disposal the option of walking away.

Er that might be the theory but have you looked at the poll numbers recently? The No-Deal Brexit vote is more or less consolidated by the Conservative party and potentially the Brexit party if it comes to an election over the issue. Meanwhile the Remain vote is nearly evenly divided between the Labour party who have spent the past three years building up a reputation for dithering on the issue, the Lib-Dems who have been more coherent but still struggle from the internecine sniping of their fellow Remainers, the Greens who are Green and the various regional Nationalist parties. A 'No-Deal Alliance' of Tories in most of the country and Brexit party in those areas typically considered Labour strongholds like the North, would likely make mincemeat of what is at present a very fractured Remain opposition.