Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

hometruths

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, he's trying very hard to give the impression that he will.

He is giving the impression that as PM he will not ask for an extension. That's very different to saying "I will flout the law".

Whilst I agree Johnson himself has evaded the specific question on whether he intends to respect the law other cabinet ministers have confirmed that there is no way he will break law.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

There is absolutely no way Johnson as PM will break the law, deliberately or otherwise, no matter how strongly he feels about the matter. It is ridiculous to believe he might.

Mass hysteria is building on this issue and it is complete nonsense!

There isn't much in his character to suggest he won't.
He's a liar and a cheat.

Peregrinus

schmittel wrote: »

He is giving the impression that as PM he will not ask for an extension. That's very different to saying "I will flout the law".

Whilst I agree Johnson himself has evaded the specific question on whether he intends to respect the law other cabinet ministers have confirmed that there is no way he will break law.

I agree with you that he won't, but he's trying to suggest that he will, by saying "I will never do this" rather than "I will resign rather than do this".

hometruths

Deleted User wrote: »

There isn't much in his character to suggest he won't.
He's a liar and a cheat.

Yes, he wouldn't lie straight in the bed, and will renege on his word etc etc. And I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him etc etc but these character defects are a far cry from a PM publicly ignoring a law passed by parliament.

Some punter was on Sky News last night saying the fact that he had accumulated a mountain of unpaid parking tickets was evidence of his disregard for the law and thus it was reasonable to believe he would defy an act of parliament. As I say, complete hysteria.

am i bovvered

DOCARCH wrote: »

Now that the DUP are in effect out of the equation....their votes mean nothing now....I would have thought BJ would have jumped at NI only backstop, which EU would agree to (did previously), and put revised WA to the HoC? Might be one way of delivering Brexit?

Looks like you were on the money.
Arlene flying to London this morning, hopefully to be told ...... she is DONE !

brick tamland

So it will all come down to if he can get enough votes (both from his own Party and the opposition) for a NI only backstop or its an enforced extension. That's the only move he has left.

Cant see that passing commons though

hometruths

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree with you that he won't, but he's trying to suggest that he will, by saying "I will never do this" rather than "I will resign rather than do this".

I am not sure I agree he is deliberately suggesting he will flout the law, though I think he is happy to let people believe that he will.

In normal times if a PM said I will never do something, the obvious conclusion that people would draw, whether they be MPs or voters, is that the PM would resign rather than be compelled to do something.

It is a good indicator of how screwed up the current parliament is that MPs are jumping to the conclusion that the PM will break the law.

Peregrinus

schmittel wrote: »

I am not sure I agree he is deliberately suggesting he will flout the law, though I think he is happy to let people believe that he will.

I think he's more than happy to let people beleive this; for whatever reason, he wants people to beleive this. He is intentionally fostering this impression.

schmittel wrote: »

In normal times if a PM said I will never do something, the obvious conclusion that people would draw, whether they be MPs or voters, is that the PM would resign rather than be compelled to do something.

It is a good indicator of how screwed up the current parliament is that MPs are jumping to the conclusion that the PM will break the law.

I think the whole Brexiter campaign to delegitimise parliament feeds into this. The more you convince yourself that what parliament is doing is fundamentally illegitimate, the easier it is for you to think that a True Brexiter PM could refuse to comply with illegitimate laws illegitimately enacted by an illegitimate parliament acting illegitimately.

But I suspect that not everybody who talks about the possibility that the PM would break the law actually thinks the PM would break the law. Some of them are trying to force him to come out and clarify his intentions by explaining that he will not break the law. (The Lord Chancellor's comments, for example, seem to me an attempt to get him to do this.)

lawred2

am i bovvered wrote: »

Looks like you were on the money.
Arlene flying to London this morning, hopefully to be told ...... she is DONE !

I'd love to be a fly on the wall to watch that.

The DUP have so stupidly backed themselves in to a corner that they could never come out of.. A corner that they had no mandate to occupy. They had quite possibly one of sweetest deals that could ever have been put together presented to them and they couldn't see past their narrow minded notion that Dublin might have actually had a say in the future of NI.

They haven't an ounce of political wit about them. A party predicated on nothing but partisan one-upmanship.

Ulsters says no.

The rest of us say f**k off

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the face of it, if Johnson deliberately seeks to the breach the law requiring him to seek an extension (e.g. by flatly refusing to send the letter that the Benn Bill requires the PM to send) that's the offence of misconduct in public office, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

Whether he would be prosecuted is another matter. The primary focus would be on getting the letter sent in time. And, if he were prosecuted, who is to say what sentence he would get?

I mentioned the offence a few days ago, it could be a difficult offence to charge due to the various tests involved, for example there must be a breach of the public trust, the culpability must be calculated to injure the public interest, your duty to the public as a whole is taken into account. There's a lot more to the offence and depending on the circumstances/defences raised saying the offence applies is not so clear cut.

The results of the referendum and the "wish" of the public to leave could be used as a defence for example, it would make for a very interesting case to watch and for us to discuss in the LD forum.

ambro25

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet (with apologies, been on a long "clean break" holiday: no news, no forums, no social media, etc.), but Tony Connelly has it that Phil Hogan is shortly to be confirmed by Von der Leyen as the EU's new trade commissioner and, as such, chief negotiator. He will be assisted by Sabine 'the machine' Weyand as secretary general of the Commission's DG Trade.

Trolling level: God-like!

hill16bhoy

am i bovvered wrote: »

Looks like you were on the money.
Arlene flying to London this morning, hopefully to be told ...... she is DONE !

What could be loosely termed as the Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community in Ireland, both north and south, rightly rejects a hard border in Ireland, yet many of us seem to think it’s A-OK to just plonk one in the Irish sea without the consent of Unionists.

That’s anti the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

We insist our concerns be listened to, why should we just dismiss the concerns of Unionists who see a border being placed in their own country?

They will see it as being hoodwinked into a united Ireland against their will - and their point of view is entirely fair.

There's a strand of rabble rousing trolling amongst the CNR community that has been quite sympathetic to Brexit, and goads Brexiteers to throw Unionists under a bus.

But this this is not the way any future united Ireland should happen.

We say rightly that there is a massive risk of any north-south hard border infrastucture being attacked by dissident Republicans - yet we completely discount the risk that any east-west hard border infrastructure could be attacked by Loyalists.

We say rightly that Irish people should not be divided, yet many of us do not apply the same standard when it comes to Unionists' relationship to Britain. That's a double standard.

NI creates a set of circumstances which are unique in Europe.

There has to be free movement both north-south and east-west.

Given this, the hard Brexiteers’ position is fundamentally untenable because of NI and will always be, because it requires free movement in one direction to end.

The hard Brexiteers are demanding something which was never, ever campaigned for or voted for - they are nihilists who need to be defeated because it’s not just British society they are out to ruin, but our peace - and even an NI only backstop runs its own risk of doing that.

josip

lawred2 wrote: »

I'd love to be a fly on the wall to watch that.

The DUP have so stupidly backed themselves in to a corner that they could never come out of.. A corner that they had no mandate to occupy. They had quite possibly one of sweetest deals that could ever have been put together presented to them and they couldn't see past their narrow minded notion that Dublin might have actually had a say in the future of NI.

They haven't an ounce of political wit about them. A party predicated on nothing but partisan one-upmanship.

Ulsters says no.

The rest of us say f**k off

But if the DUP sees that the writing is on the wall, then could they negotiate the mother of all sweeteners to acquiesce quietly?
It would be politically expeditious for them as they could claim that they were left with no other choice but managed to secure another handout for the people of Northern Ireland.

I can see an Irish Sea border solving Johnson's short term problems, but only at the expense of fueling his Scottish Independence medium to long term problems.

Enzokk

schmittel wrote: »

I am not sure I agree he is deliberately suggesting he will flout the law, though I think he is happy to let people believe that he will.

In normal times if a PM said I will never do something, the obvious conclusion that people would draw, whether they be MPs or voters, is that the PM would resign rather than be compelled to do something.

It is a good indicator of how screwed up the current parliament is that MPs are jumping to the conclusion that the PM will break the law.

How are you supposed to read a quote from him when he says this?

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1171182709772828673?s=20

Johnson: "I will go to Brussels on Oct 17th and negotiate our departure on Oct 31st hopefully with a deal, but without one if necessary. I will not ask for another delay. I will not ask to delay."

That is not a suggestion, that is a direct quote from him where he still asserts he will go get a deal on the 17th, but if he doesn't they will be leaving without one. He will not ask for another delay. He can get out of it by resigning as PM, but that doesn't break up parliament or force a general election, all it does is pass the buck to the next in line to ask for the extension.

What do we know of Johnson? He is a liar, he told his voters in his constituency he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop Heathrow Runway 3 and then magically had to be out of the country when the vote came up. So either he will get someone else to do the laws bidding or he will defy the law, or he will have lied again and ask for an extension.

Either way he is snookered it seems, but it is good that the opposition didn't fall for his tactics of trying to goad them into an election last night. That was his most obvious out, either win a majority and repeal the bill to ask for an extension or lose and be absolved of the responsibility.

ambro25 wrote: »

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet (with apologies, been on a long "clean break" holiday: no news, no forums, no social media, etc.), but Tony Connelly has it that Phil Hogan is shortly to be confirmed by Von der Leyen as the EU's new trade commissioner and, as such, chief negotiator. He will be assisted by Sabine 'the machine' Weyand as secretary general of the Commission's DG Trade.

Trolling level: God-like!

It has, I believe though that those working underneath him would be the negotiators and he will be the head of the department. It doesn't matter, Sabine Weyand has already been appointed I think as one of those negotiators so its not like Ireland will have someone who is unaware of the Brexit drama trying to negotiate a trade deal with the UK if they actually leave.

hometruths

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think he's more than happy to let people beleive this; for whatever reason, he wants people to beleive this. He is intentionally fostering this impression.

I agree with this. I suspect he thinks the belief will play well with the hard Brexit party voters, but of course he cannot explicity say that he would do it because that would alienate every other voter.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the whole Brexiter campaign to delegitimise parliament feeds into this. The more you convince yourself that what parliament is doing is fundamentally illegitimate, the easier it is for you to think that a True Brexiter PM could refuse to comply with illegitimate laws illegitimately enacted by an illegitimate parliament acting illegitimately.

I don't see a Brexiteer campaign to delegitimise Parliament to be honest, or at least I have not heard or read any comments that I have interpreted as such.

I think there is a Brexiteer anger that parliament is frustrating Brexit and thus the will of the people. IMO think it is truer to say there is a Remainer campaign to delegitimise the Johnson government, with protests shouting "Stop the Coup" etc.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I suspect that not everybody who talks about the possibility that the PM would break the law actually thinks the PM would break the law.

Agreed. I suspect many of the MPs that are talking about it, don't believe it at all, and are simply using it as an excuse for turning down the General Election.

And much like Johnson and his "Deal or No Deal we're leaving" talk, that is a perfectly reasonable political strategy.

How this pans out will come down to which side spins their actions more successfully - Johnson saying the opposition parties are frustrating democracy by refusing to respect the will of the people or seek a new mandate in a GE or Labour et al saying Government cannot be trusted, they abuse power, they lied in the referendum and are lying now etc.

lawred2

josip wrote: »

But if the DUP sees that the writing is on the wall, then could they negotiate the mother of all sweeteners to acquiesce quietly?
It would be politically expeditious for them as they could claim that they were left with no other choice but managed to secure another handout for the people of Northern Ireland.

I can see an Irish Sea border solving Johnson's short term problems, but only at the expense of fueling his Scottish Independence medium to long term problems.

:rolleyes:

they were given the mother of all handouts for the "people of Northern Ireland"

The DUP aren't interested in the "people of Northern Ireland" though. They are interested in partisanship and gerrymandering.

careless sherpa

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What could be loosely termed as the Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community in Ireland, both north and south, rightly rejects a hard border in Ireland, yet many of us seem to think it’s A-OK to just plonk one in the Irish sea without the consent of Unionists.

That’s anti the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

We insist our concerns be listened to, why should we just dismiss the concerns of Unionists who see a border being placed in their own country?

They will see it as being hoodwinked into a united Ireland against their will - and their point of view is entirely fair.

There's a strand of rabble rousing trolling amongst the CNR community that has been quite sympathetic to Brexit, and goads Brexiteers to throw Unionists under a bus.

But this this is not the way any future united Ireland should happen.

We say rightly that there is a massive risk of any north-south hard border infrastucture being attacked by dissident Republicans - yet we completely discount the risk that any east-west hard border infrastructure could be attacked by Loyalists.

We say rightly that Irish people should not be divided, yet many of us do not apply the same standard when it comes to Unionists' relationship to Britain. That's a double standard.

NI creates a set of circumstances which are unique in Europe.

There has to be free movement both north-south and east-west.

Given this, the hard Brexiteers’ position is fundamentally untenable because of NI and will always be, because it requires free movement in one direction to end.

The hard Brexiteers are demanding something which was never, ever campaigned for or voted for - they are nihilists who need to be defeated because it’s not just British society they are out to ruin, but our peace - and even an NI only backstop runs its own risk of doing that.

The political representatives of unionism have been central to the Brexit story. Right from the DUP dodgy adverts, being in a supply and confidence agreement with the Tory government, to scuppering the WA. They have painted themselves into a corner so not much point in crying 'crocodile' tears

CelticRambler

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What could be loosely termed as the Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community in Ireland, both north and south, rightly rejects a hard border in Ireland, yet many of us seem to think it’s A-OK to just plonk one in the Irish sea without the consent of Unionists.

The difference is that the Irish Sea is a border, a real one, already there and working effectively. Moreover, the Unionists already use it as justification for not aligning themselves with the UK when it suits them, for example in the matter of abortion & same-sex marriage legislation ... or indeed their cattle.

In practical terms, it wouldn't change anything for Unionists were that same border to be "beefed up" a bit, especially if that was done using the many and varied unobtrusive "technological solutions" that Brexiters tell us are available for such a purpose.

Peregrinus

schmittel wrote: »

I agree with this. I suspect he thinks the belief will play well with the hard Brexit party voters, but of course he cannot explicity say that he would do it because that would alienate every other voter.

Yes. I think he's trying to ride both horses, as it were. This rarely ends well.

schmittel wrote: »

I don't see a Brexiteer campaign to delegitimise Parliament to be honest, or at least I have not heard or read any comments that I have interpreted as such.

I think there is a Brexiteer anger that parliament is frustrating Brexit and thus the will of the people. IMO think it is truer to say there is a Remainer campaign to delegitimise the Johnson government, with protests shouting "Stop the Coup" etc.

Ah, see! The Brexiter campaign is having an effect! It's affected the way you see things.

Parliament isn't trying to frustrate Brexit; the only way to do that would be to revoke Art 50 notice, and Parliament is nowhere near doing anything like that.

We know from the Miller case that the constitutional responsibility for the terms on which Brexit happens rests with Parliament, and the majority in Parliament doesn't want Brexit to happen without a deal, because (a) this would be immensely harmful to the country, and (b) they consider - reasonably, in my view - that the referendum does not confer a mandate which requires Brexit to happen on no-deal terms.

None of that amounts to the frustration of Brexit; it amounts to an attempt to control and direct the implementation of Brexit, which is Parliament's job, basically.

schmittel wrote: »

Agreed. I suspect many of the MPs that are talking about it, don't believe it at all, and are simply using it as an excuse for turning down the General Election.

If so, it's an excuse that Johnson is handing to them on a silver salver, garnished with parsley.

I don't know how many of them think he would, or at least fear that he might. Others on the Brexit side of politics have been, um, cavalier with the law, and Johson himself is widely regarded as being utterly without principle. I suspect a lot of MPs might think that the only thing that would stop him breaking the law would be a realisation that he couldn't get away with it, and therefore a voluble campaign about how his intentions appear to be illegal might actually play a role in discouraging him from following through.

schmittel wrote: »

How this pans out will come down to which side spins their actions more successfully - Johnson saying the opposition parties are frustrating democracy by refusing to respect the will of the people or seek a new mandate in a GE or Labour et al saying Government cannot be trusted, they abuse power, they lied in the referendum and are lying now etc.

Yup. Though how it pans out will also come down to how people feel about Brexit itself - do 52% still want it to proceed?

Of course, the two things are related. If you oppose Brexit you are more likely to buy the "Johnson is a shyster" line, and vice versa.

hometruths

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup. Though how it pans out will also come down to how people feel about Brexit itself - do 52% still want it to proceed?

Agreed. Which is why I think that the Lib Dems publicly coming out as the party of revoke is a clever move. If they can mobilise effectively I think they will do very well.

Swinson has realised, like Johnson has, that the only way to play the next election is complete clarity on the Brexit issue. Now the LDs and Tories both have a very simple message to the electorate.

Tory - vote for us and get Brexit, deal or no deal, no more messing around.
Lib Dem - vote for us and get no Brexit, no more messing around.

Meanwhile still nobody knows what Labour's position is. The Tories and Lib Dems are both risking alienating half the electorate, but galvanising the other half. Labour is risking alienating everybody.

McMurphy

Jeffrey Donaldson on with Pat Kenny now.

Enzokk

schmittel wrote: »

Meanwhile still nobody knows what Labour's position is. The Tories and Lib Dems are both risking alienating half the electorate, but galvanising the other half. Labour is risking alienating everybody.

I think Labour position is very clear. The only way out of Brexit is a referendum. If parliament revokes article 50 without a referendum people like Farage will have a lot of firepower to galvanize voters and you will see angry scenes on the street.

So Labour is offering this referendum, but to ensure it is fair they will negotiate a deal with the EU then put this up to the people against Remain. This way people know what they are voting for, A or B, not A or B with 10 different meanings of B.

The Tories are trying to muddy the water of Labour's position, but for me it makes rational sense and is the clearest and the most obvious way out of this mess.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

With Parliament suspended what happens now in practical terms does anyone know?

Johnson goes to Brussels for the summit on the 17th/18th. He will propose either:

1) Nonsense which has already been shot down, just as a performance to look as if he is trying

or:

2) May's deal with some lipstick on it, perhaps taking out the backstop and replacing it with the all new NI only Ackbay Opstay.

If 1), the EU send him packing. If 2), the EU say fine, get it through Westminster and you're out.

Boris brings whichever proposal to Westminster, where it is rejected.

Faced with the Benn Act, Johnson will launch a court case arguing that the law is invalid because of something or other, perhaps Bercow's ruling that it did not need Queen's consent.

The opposition will not have time to wait for a ruling, so they'll seize control again, win a VoNC. Corbyn will put himself forward as PM and be rejected. After a huddle, some neutral like Ken Clarke will be put forward and get a majority. The new PM will request an extension to January.

The EU will say no, if you want an extension, here is 12 months, take it or leave it. The caretaker PM is obliged to bring that to Parliament and it will be accepted.

Then an election, a minority coalition, 2nd referendum, Brexit cancelled.

VinLieger

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Jeffrey Donaldson on with Pat Kenny now.

Making stuff up as usual, love they now have coined the term "UK single market" to try and legitimise their idiocy by conflating it with the EU single market.
Also choosing to completely ignore the vast vast funding NI get from the EU that once stopped will kill jobs across the country even if they don't have a sea border with the rest of the UK.

gmisk

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Labour position is very clear. The only way out of Brexit is a referendum. If parliament revokes article 50 without a referendum people like Farage will have a lot of firepower to galvanize voters and you will see angry scenes on the street.

So Labour is offering this referendum, but to ensure it is fair they will negotiate a deal with the EU then put this up to the people against Remain. This way people know what they are voting for, A or B, not A or B with 10 different meanings of B.

The Tories are trying to muddy the water of Labour's position, but for me it makes rational sense and is the clearest and the most obvious way out of this mess.

I really dont think it is to me. Have they explicitly said they want another referendum?

99problems1

Labour just don't want no deal, they want brexit.

I think labour are being seen as the "saviours" for the remainers but they want brexit themselves.

Zubeneschamali

gmisk wrote: »

I really dont think it is to me. Have they explicitly said they want another referendum?

Yes.

hill16bhoy

careless sherpa wrote: »

The political representatives of unionism have been central to the Brexit story. Right from the DUP dodgy adverts, being in a supply and confidence agreement with the Tory government, to scuppering the WA. They have painted themselves into a corner so not much point in crying 'crocodile' tears

CelticRambler wrote: »

The difference is that the Irish Sea is a border, a real one, already there and working effectively. Moreover, the Unionists already use it as justification for not aligning themselves with the UK when it suits them, for example in the matter of abortion & same-sex marriage legislation ... or indeed their cattle.

In practical terms, it wouldn't change anything for Unionists were that same border to be "beefed up" a bit, especially if that was done using the many and varied unobtrusive "technological solutions" that Brexiters tell us are available for such a purpose.

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

Charles Babbage

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

Not true. The backstop will stabilise NI and delay a United Ireland. That is why the Irish government wants it.

prawnsambo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

The strongest chance of a UI (and the polls support this) are in the case of a hard brexit. That's absolutely unarguable. So anything that steps back from that will actually mitigate that possibility.

A border in the Irish Sea, continues the status quo for the foreseeable future.