Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

bilston

lawred2 wrote: »

Why not? Does he not believe in nor have confidence in his own words? It's his Brexit.

Where were all the ooomph and vigour and hulk like powers that we've all been told is needed to deliver Brexit?

Or is it that that's just all bluster to cover for ignorance and being deeply ill informed?

Ah come on, it would have been a circus had he gone out. The crowd were cheering the Luxembourg PM for sticking it to him. Had he been out he would have been booked and it would have been uncomfortable for all. Maybe he deserves it, but I can see why he gave it a wide berth.

As I say I feel a bit dirty defending him, but on this occasion I'm not sure he was in the wrong.

lawred2

bilston wrote: »

Ah come on, it would have been a circus had he gone out. The crowd were cheering the Luxembourg PM for sticking it to him. Had he been out he would have been booked and it would have been uncomfortable for all. Maybe he deserves it, but I can see why he gave it a wide berth.

As I say I feel a bit dirty defending him, but on this occasion I'm not sure he was in the wrong.

something about making your bed and lying in it comes to mind

bilston

lawred2 wrote: »

Why not? Does he not believe in nor have confidence in his own words? It's his Brexit.

Well I can't argue with this because I don't think he is a devoted Brexiteer. It's just convenient for him.

But again I'm just saying that I understand why he didn't go out and speak in front of a crowd that were clearly opposed to him.

bilston

lawred2 wrote: »

something about making your bed and lying in it comes to mind

Again, I wouldn't disagree with that either

Leroy42

bilston wrote: »

I'm not a Boris Johnson fan, but maybe he had a point. It would have been chaotic if he had taken part with protestors there cheering the Luxembourg PM and probably booing him. No politician in their right mind would have taken part.

Whether he had a point of not, the effect is that this trip is a complete and utter disaster for Johnson. Forget the presser, apart from the drama of it it is a non event.

What it telling is that there was no big handshake with Juncker, no claim of future prospects and positivity. And then Luxembourg PM seemed genuinely angry (I saw that not knowing the man so could be wrong).

The only reason for these visits is to try and move things along in ones favour. By any measure, today Johnson did the complete opposite.

His spin doctors will be out in force telling everyone that the mighty Luxembourg tricked him, it was a set up. Johnson had no choice. And this twin idea that the EU is so soft as to be about to collapse whilst at the same time being so strong that the UK is being bullied continues on.

If this was just today, you could possibly found a way to ignore it. But not after the press conf given by Leo last week. The EU are very clear on their position, they are not about to blink, not about to climbdown.

bilston

Strazdas wrote: »

But there was no onus on Bettel to cancel the press conference either. There were 140 journalists present, mostly international.

Yeah, that's correct, although is it standard procedure for protestors to be present at a press conference following a meeting between two leaders?

Itssoeasy

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Seriously, if by any miracle UK does not leave the eu, would anyone want them sniping and giving out (Farage and others) ad infinitum? They will be a thorn in the side forever more given their superior stance and hubris lol.

I think the issue is over now. They should just go and leave us all alone. But I do realise their decision will impact us and many others, another sign of their cavalier attitude towards their neighbours. But so be it.

Clean break needed now.

There's that stupid phrase again. Why in the hell are people under this illusion that once brexit is "sorted"( whatever sorted will mean by the end of this mess) that it'll be all grand again ? Regardless of what brexit happens, there won't be anything like a clean break. I don't know about others but I'm sick to the back teeth of brexit. It's unbelievable to see a nation like the U.K.who have done many good things in the world over the centuries and been responsible for so many advances in many areas of people's lives, to display so complete and utter stupidity over this one issue.

The U.K. Press and the usual quarters can spin this any way they like. Boris Johnson couldn't handle a few protestors and also because he'd have another moment like in Dublin where he'd say one thing and the leader opposite with say the exact opposite he'd look stupid.

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Ah come on, it would have been a circus had he gone out. The crowd were cheering the Luxembourg PM for sticking it to him. Had he been out he would have been booked and it would have been uncomfortable for all. Maybe he deserves it, but I can see why he gave it a wide berth.

As I say I feel a bit dirty defending him, but on this occasion I'm not sure he was in the wrong.

He should have tried once he knew Bettel was going ahead, it was incredibly disrespectful. If the crowd drowned him out he could have just left.

Strazdas

bilston wrote: »

Ah come on, it would have been a circus had he gone out. The crowd were cheering the Luxembourg PM for sticking it to him. Had he been out he would have been booked and it would have been uncomfortable for all. Maybe he deserves it, but I can see why he gave it a wide berth.

As I say I feel a bit dirty defending him, but on this occasion I'm not sure he was in the wrong.

Isn't it very telling that when he goes to an EU state, there isn't a single British person to support him? Pro-Johnson people would have been free to stand there and cheer him on.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

Ah come on, it would have been a circus had he gone out. The crowd were cheering the Luxembourg PM for sticking it to him. Had he been out he would have been booked and it would have been uncomfortable for all. Maybe he deserves it, but I can see why he gave it a wide berth.

As I say I feel a bit dirty defending him, but on this occasion I'm not sure he was in the wrong.

He should have tried once he knew Bettel was going ahead, it was incredibly disrespectful. If the crowd drowned him out he could have just left.

Of course he should have had the press conference. I mean he'd have mostly likely trotted out the same rubbish about wanting a deal he's said since he took office and his supporters at home would clap and say "well done prime minister" or something to that effect.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

What it telling is that there was no big handshake with Juncker, no claim of future prospects and positivity. And then Luxembourg PM seemed genuinely angry (I saw that not knowing the man so could be wrong).

If Johnson had any goodwill left, maybe some way to delay the conference or move the crowd further away would have been found. But Johnson is toxic in the EU, they know him far too well. He has earned his unpopularity in diplomatic circles, there will be little willingness to make life easy for him now or in the future. Serves him bloody well right, to be frank.

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Of course he should have had the press conference. I mean he'd have mostly likely trotted out the same rubbish about wanting a deal he's said since he took office and his supporters at home would clap and say "well done prime minister" or something to that effect.

That was his real problem...he have looked a complete fool saying that while Bettel was roasting him at the other podium...might even have argued with him he seemed that genuinely angry.
Boris wimped out, no doubt about it.

Gunmonkey

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Imagine you had agreed a deal with someone to buy a car. The next day they came back and said, actually when I got home the wife said she doesnt agree so the deals off.

Its not even that simple. Its more like:

EU: Ok, so how about €20000 for the car?
UK: will check with the missus *on phone* Ok she said that deal is not good enough!
EU:.....
UK:.....
EU: ...umm....are you going to make a counter offer or tell me what you do want?
UK: ehhhhh I'll give ya €50 and a bag of cans...oh and I got an All Cash with €5 on it here!
EU: I'm not giving you a car for that, everyone will want that deal, it will bankrupt me!
UK: ok ok yeesh....I have lots of other offers, great offers....technology, thats one!
EU: erm...so you will wire me the money or..?
UK: no, I will pay with "technology"....and if we cant reach an agreement I will just take the keys and drive off in the car!
EU: ehh...no, I would just call the police on you, you would be arrested and you and your families lives ruined when you go to jail! Thats a stupid idea.
UK: nuh uhh, I will get away with it and have a free car and you wont, you idiot hurhurhur!

Professor Moriarty

The Telegraph not too impressed by their correspondent tonight. Top three headlines:

How Boris Johnson took his begging bowl to the EU - and Luxembourg laughed in his face

Brexit latest news: Boris Johnson walks into ambush as Luxembourg's PM holds press conference next to empty podium

Boris Johnson was humiliated in Luxembourg. Was that what the EU wanted all along?

Leroy42

The real question is what happened in the near 2 hour (as I heard somewhere) meeting with Bettel? What went so badly that Bettel felt the need to talk like he did. Nobody is suggesting that it was all a set-up, so are we supposed to believe that Bettel was so annoyed with Johnson's decision not to attend the press conf that he said what he said?

No chance. As I said earlier, on its won one could argue that Bettel simply misspoke, got carried away without Johnson beside him to hold him back, but that falls apart when you consider the speech Leo gave. Different in tone, but the message is the same in both.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

The real question is what happened in the near 2 hour (as I heard somewhere) meeting with Bettel? What went so badly that Bettel felt the need to talk like he did. Nobody is suggesting that it was all a set-up, so are we supposed to believe that Bettel was so annoyed with Johnson's decision not to attend the press conf that he said what he said?

No chance. As I said earlier, on its won one could argue that Bettel simply misspoke, got carried away without Johnson beside him to hold him back, but that falls apart when you consider the speech Leo gave. Different in tone, but the message is the same in both.

I saw someone speculating that the actual meeting must have gone terribly for Bettel to tear into Johnson like that. He probably gave Bettel a load of meaningless waffle and the latter was getting more and more annoyed listening to it.

Mr.Nice Guy

A lot of comments are viewing the events of today through an Irish prism.

Thing is if the Johnson/Cummings tactic is to position the EU as the fall guys for No Deal, and merely to engage in sham talks, then today's events do him no harm. In fact it's quite possible Johnson's approval rating will even go up due to Bettel's comments being perceived as a slight by the British electorate, which will make the trip quite useful for him.

There's an echo here of Tusk's cherry-picking joke, which many outside the UK saw as a harmless quip but was taken as an insult by many within the UK. Here's an assessment from Nick Boles, who left the Tories over their handling of Brexit:

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1173612421082169344

I'd say he's correct on the first two points but not the last. It has to be remembered Brexit is a British (really English) nationalist movement. Having outsiders slag off their PM, however valid the reasons may be, will only serve to help the nationalist movement, since nationalism thrives on external antagonism.

I'd maintain Bettel got it tactically wrong today. The approach from Juncker, and Varadkar a week ago, was a wiser path to tread. Don't give these guys the narrative to sell back home that they want. Bettel, to use a Blair phrase, walked himself into an elephant trap.

SeaBreezes

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whether he had a point of not, the effect is that this trip is a complete and utter disaster for Johnson. Forget the presser, apart from the drama of it it is a non event.

What it telling is that there was no big handshake with Juncker, no claim of future prospects and positivity. And then Luxembourg PM seemed genuinely angry (I saw that not knowing the man so could be wrong).

The only reason for these visits is to try and move things along in ones favour. By any measure, today Johnson did the complete opposite.

His spin doctors will be out in force telling everyone that the mighty Luxembourg tricked him, it was a set up. Johnson had no choice. And this twin idea that the EU is so soft as to be about to collapse whilst at the same time being so strong that the UK is being bullied continues on.

If this was just today, you could possibly found a way to ignore it. But not after the press conf given by Leo last week. The EU are very clear on their position, they are not about to blink, not about to climbdown.

I wonder if this is all deliberate. He asked for the meeting, he set it up and would likely know in advance the setup for press conference. No new plans, just time wasting and frustrating the EU team, Suspicious timing after a weekend editorial that says 'the angrier I get the stronger I get' and now, magically there is something the UK media can all get angry about...

Shelga

Anyone know what time tomorrow we can expect the Supreme Court judgement?

J Mysterio

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

A lot of comments are viewing the events of today through an Irish prism.

Thing is if the Johnson/Cummings tactic is to position the EU as the fall guys for No Deal, and merely to engage in sham talks, then today's events do him no harm. In fact it's quite possible Johnson's approval rating will even go up due to Bettel's comments being perceived as a slight by the British electorate, which will make the trip quite useful for him.

There's an echo here of Tusk's cherry-picking joke, which many outside the UK saw as a harmless quip but was taken as an insult by many within the UK. Here's an assessment from Nick Boles, who left the Tories over their handling of Brexit:

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1173612421082169344

I'd say he's correct on the first two points but not the last. It has to be remembered Brexit is a British (really English) nationalist movement. Having outsiders slag off their PM, however valid the reasons may be, will only serve to help the nationalist movement, since nationalism thrives on external antagonism.

I'd maintain Bettel got it tactically wrong today. The approach from Juncker, and Varadkar a week ago, was a wiser path to tread. Don't give these guys the narrative to sell back home that they want. Bettel, to use a Blair phrase, walked himself into an elephant trap.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with your analysis of how this will be perceived by many in the UK, but have you considered that maybe Bettel doesnt give a sh1t? We are past the rubicon now.

For so long the Brexit conversation has been about moderating things for British taste and the British audience, but that was when a deal was still negotiable and May was actually putting effort in and trying things in parliament. Johnson has no intention of doing this. He is offering little and is like a bull in paliament. Why should Bettel or anyone else moderate themselves now for Johnson?

It is just another angle on the 'give Boris something to take home' line. He deserves nothing, has earned nothing... Other than contempt. What is he offering? Bettel has an audience too.

And Bettel, he actually meant what he was talking about today, he had some passion to bring to it. This is in direct contrast to Boris someone who is woodenly acting out some pantomine according to an awful script. If he had the courage of his convictions of course he would have spoken today. He has went from Hulk to coward in one day.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Thing is if the Johnson/Cummings tactic is to position the EU as the fall guys for No Deal.

If they are going out with No Deal, it's no longer an EU politicians problem who they blame. That's for the UK to sort out.

Imreoir2

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I wonder if this is all deliberate. He asked for the meeting, he set it up and would likely know in advance the setup for press conference. No new plans, just time wasting and frustrating the EU team, Suspicious timing after a weekend editorial that says 'the angrier I get the stronger I get' and now, magically there is something the UK media can all get angry about...

There is this unfortunate tendency to believe that there is some method to the madness. That it must all be part of some thoughtful strategy.

But I ask you, which is more likely, that we are wathing a master plan in opperation, or that we are watching a chancer winging it?

I am firmly of the belief that we are watching is a chancer taking things as they come, there is no strategy other than trying to take advantage of whatever oppertunities arise from the chaos and contradiction. Its a common enough tactic, and is only aided by those trying to guess at a plan where none exists. There is no plan, no grand strategy, there is only someone who is in way over their head but has enough of a brass neck to bluster their way through.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they are going out with No Deal, it's no longer an EU politicians problem who they blame. That's for the UK to sort out.

Exactly. What difference does it make if Boris pulls off a Pyrrhic victory and saves the Tories and his job. Once they are gone, they are gone.
The UK is looking at chaos for a long time...the further we can get away from it the better imo

GM228

Some updates/details for the Supreme Court cases starting tomorrow.

The questions being put to the court in each case are as follows:-

R (on the application of Miller) vs The Prime Minister:-

• Whether the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is justiciable in the courts; and
• If the decision is justiciable and the appeal is not academic, whether that advice was lawful.

Cherry & Ors vs Advocate General of Scotland:-

• Whether the challenge to the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is justiciable in the courts.
• Whether the appeal is in any event academic, given Parliamentary sittings before the UK’s exit from the EU on 31 October 2019?
• If the appeal is justiciable, whether the Prime Minister’s advice was lawful.

Both the Scottish and English cases will become joined cases and will be heard over the course of the next three days starting at 10:30 each day as follows:-

Tuesday 17th | |
10:30 to 13:00 | Appellant for Miller | Lord Pannick QC (2.5 hours)
14:00 to 16:00 | Appellant for Advocate General for Scotland from Inner House in Cherry | Lord Keen QC (2 hours)

Wednesday 18th | |
10:30 to 13:00 | Respondent for UK Government in Miller| Sir James Eadie QC (2.5 hours)
14:00 to 16:00 | Respondent for Advocate General for Scotland from Inner House in Cherry| Aidan O'Neill QC (2 hours)

Thursday 19th | |
10:30 to 11:00 | Oral Intervention by Scottish Government in Cherry/Miller | The Lord Advocate - James Mure QC (30 minutes)
11:00 to 11:40 | Oral Intervention by NI Claimant (McCord) in Cherry/Miller | Ronan Lavery QC (40 minutes)
11:40 to 12:10 | Oral Intervention by Counsel General for Wales | Mike Fordham QC (30 minutes)
12:10 to 12:30 | Oral Intervention by Sir John Major | Lord Garnier QC (20 minutes)
14:00 to 14:30 | Appellants reply for Advocate General for Scotland from Inner House in Cherry | Lord Keen QC (30 minutes)
14:30 to 15:00 | Appellants reply for Miller | Lord Pannick QC (30 minutes)

The written arguments of the parties:-

Gina Miller
Joanna Cherry QC MP
Prime Minister & Advocate General of Scotland

The conclusions given by each party, that proroguing was unlawful:-

Gina Miller wrote:

Conclusion

46. The Appellant therefore invites the Court to allow this appeal for the following

REASONS

(1) The Divisional Court erred in law in concluding the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is not engaged by the decisions of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a period of 5 weeks.

(2) The Divisional Court erred in law by failing to find that the advice of the Prime Minister was an unlawful abuse of power in the circumstances of this case.

(3) The Divisional Court erred in law in concluding at paragraph 51 of its judgement that the decision to prorogue for a period of 5 weeks was "inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge [its] legitimacy"

Joanna Cherry & Ors wrote:

CONCLUSION

9.1 The respondents submits that the First Division reached the correct decision in law and correctly drew adverse inferences of fact from the Executive’s conduct of and in this litigation.

9.2 Since, in accord with Scottish constitutional law and tradition, which may be said now to have been received into and become the common constitutional tradition of the Union, the Executive use in the circumstances of this case of its power to prorogue Parliament at this time, for this period and in these circumstances would be wholly unlawful and unconstitutional as found by the judges of the Inner House,the Appeal must be refused, and the decision of the First Division of the Court of Session upheld.

9.3 This will allow Parliament, if so advised, to decide when and whether to reconvene to sit and hold the Government to account in this period of deep political controversy and profound constitutional change which would result should the United Kingdom leave the European Union.

and that proroguing was lawful:-

Prime Minister & Advocate General of Scotland wrote:

CONCLUSION

126. The Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland invite the Court to dismiss the English appeal and to affirm the order of the Divisional Court and to allow the Scottish appeal, recall the interlocutor of the Inner House and restore the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary for the following among other:

REASONS

(1) The issues in the appeals are non-justiciable. There are no judicial and manageable standards against which the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament can be assessed. The exercise of this prerogative power is intrinsically one of high policy and politics, not law, which for reasons of constitutional propriety is assigned to politicians in the executive and not the courts. The appeals would also involve the courts identifying and enforcing a new constitutional convention as to the length of prorogation, which the courts have no jurisdiction to do.

(2) The advice was compatible with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, which requires compliance with law duly enacted by the Queen in Parliament. In circumstances where Parliament has legislated to sit in particular cases, but not generally and otherwise preserved
the prorogation prerogative, it would be positively inconsistent with Parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers for the courts to devise further constraints on the sittings of Parliament.

(3) The appeals are academic. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit in the first two weeks of September 2019 and will be able to do so on and after 14 October 2019. Indeed, Parliament used that time to pass the new Act, which further expresses its will about the terms and process of the UK’s exit from the EU.

(4) The advice was in any event lawful and in particular not vitiated by an impermissible purpose or regard to irrelevant considerations.


(5) The reading of a commission for the prorogation of Parliament to both Houses by Lords Commissioner is a proceeding in Parliament for the purposes of article IX of the Bill of Rights which the courts have no jurisdiction to impeach or question.

Finally, it will be possible to watch the proceedings live here if anyone is interested.

Strazdas

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I wonder if this is all deliberate. He asked for the meeting, he set it up and would likely know in advance the setup for press conference. No new plans, just time wasting and frustrating the EU team, Suspicious timing after a weekend editorial that says 'the angrier I get the stronger I get' and now, magically there is something the UK media can all get angry about...

I'm convinced Johnson's talk of progress and a deal is a total bluff, a smokescreen. If there was really something happening, we would be hearing lots of rumours about it from the EU.

For Forks Sake

Fairly clear thread here from the NY Times EU correspondent, reading between the lines would seem that the UK wanted the press conference brought indoors to (a) avoid the protesting Brits and (b) so they could cherrypick the journos that could attend. Didn't get their way so off they went.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nerdy nitpick: Pandora wasn't in the box; it was she who opened the box.

Pandora let hope out

May's self imposed red lines ruled it out

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm convinced Johnson's talk of progress and a deal is a total bluff, a smokescreen. If there was really something happening, we would be hearing lots of rumours about it from the EU.

The only thing you can be absolutely sure of at this point is that Johnson is bluffing.

Jeremy Corbyn should be like a final year performing arts student and using this time to draft and prepare the deliver of a 7 to 10 minute speech, the likes of would go down in history, for the HoC whenever it returns outlining the shambles of the Brexit negotiators approach for the last 3 years.

If they were self-analytical enough, they'd be mortified for what they have done.

The EU came out through one of their negotiators and called Johnson's claims Bullsh*t. That at a time when Ian Duncan Smyth, Farage, Johnson, Katya Adler et al all said that the EU would be clamouring to step back from their position.

This emperor is a naturist.

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pandora let hope out

May's self imposed red lines ruled it out

She closed it just in time for hope to remain. At which point she was promptly called an enemy of the people

J Mysterio

GM228 wrote: »

Some updates/details for the Supreme Court cases starting tomorrow...

Two of those QC with Irish names.