Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

robinph

CelticRambler wrote: »

What about an abdication? I'm imagining the Queen traipsing through the gorse in Balmoral saying "Fekkit. I've had a enough of this shyte. Tell Charles to get his head measured ..."

That wouldn't trigger the months of national mourning and red top newspapers changing to black, sad songs played on the radio constantly and documentaries on the telly about how wonderful she was though.

brickster69

sandbelter wrote: »

Au contraire, Opening move of the 2019 general election.

Probably yes. However i do not think an election will be purely based on Brexit.

It would be run along the lines of one party who has accepted the vote and respect the wishes of the people v parties who are openly trying to stop the UK leaving full stop. Which is the total opposite of what the promised to do.

bobmalooka

brickster69 wrote: »

Probably yes. However i do not think an election will be purely based on Brexit.

It would be run along the lines of one party who has accepted the vote and respect the wishes of the people v parties who are openly trying to stop the UK leaving full stop. Which is the total opposite of what the promised to do.

Ehhhh, that is purely based on brexit is it not?

robinph

brickster69 wrote: »

Probably yes. However i do not think an election will be purely based on Brexit.

It would be run along the lines of one party who has accepted the vote and respect the wishes of the people v parties who are openly trying to stop the UK leaving full stop. Which is the total opposite of what the promised to do.

What is that if it's not about Brexit then?

Seth Brundle

brickster69 wrote: »

Checkmate. All we need now is for the EU not to budge

budge on what?
The EU have agreed a compromise with the UK. Now the UK need to decide whether no deal really is better than what they percieve as a bad deal (when in reality, the WA is far from being a bad deal for either side!)
Should the EU compromise again when the UK have offered absolutely nothing?

brickster69 wrote: »

Probably yes. However i do not think an election will be purely based on Brexit.

It would be run along the lines of one party who has accepted the vote and respect the wishes of the people v parties who are openly trying to stop the UK leaving full stop. Which is the total opposite of what the promised to do.

When is Brexit not Brexit?

Sam Russell

Could the EU move the 31st of Oct deadline to a later date? - Say 31st Jan 2020 - on the basis that the 1st of Nov is the start of the new commission, and a later date suits them better. So not a new extension, just an adjustment.

VinLieger

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the EU move the 31st of Oct deadline to a later date? - Say 31st Jan 2020 - on the basis that the 1st of Nov is the start of the new commission, and a later date suits them better. So not a new extension, just an adjustment.

Macron is adamant that unless theres a major development ie a new government requesting an extension or a scheduled referendum then no more extensions or adjustments are going to happen

ilovesmybrick

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the EU move the 31st of Oct deadline to a later date? - Say 31st Jan 2020 - on the basis that the 1st of Nov is the start of the new commission, and a later date suits them better. So not a new extension, just an adjustment.

I don't see why they would. By the end of October the UK will have wasted the entirety of the six month extension on a Tory leadership race, their summer holidays, and now this nonsense. I don't see there being any appetite to drag this out for another three months.

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the EU move the 31st of Oct deadline to a later date? - Say 31st Jan 2020 - on the basis that the 1st of Nov is the start of the new commission, and a later date suits them better. So not a new extension, just an adjustment.

I don't think the EU can unilaterally delay or adjust the date, only at the request of the UK.

Stop moaning ffs

Bercow isn’t having it.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1166650135989948418?s=21

briany

briany wrote: »

I don't think Johnson is Mr. No Deal, and I don't think he's Mr. Deal. I think he's Mr. Whatever-the-Hell-Keeps-Him-and-his-Party-the-More-Electable..

I said this yesterday. I....stand corrected...

GM228

Johnson has "asked" the Queen is all that is reported everywhere and all that is stated in his letter to MPs, but, it is not clear has she actually given her permission?

MarinersBlues

Seth Brundle wrote: »

When is Brexit not Brexit?

I'm not 100% sure but I am nearly certain that: Brexit means Brexit

trellheim

has anyone got access to a realtime Bloomberg feed, whats sterling/euro/USD looking like, XE.com looksl ike its delayed a bit

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the EU move the 31st of Oct deadline to a later date? - Say 31st Jan 2020 - on the basis that the 1st of Nov is the start of the new commission, and a later date suits them better. So not a new extension, just an adjustment.

NO!

TEU 50.3 wrote:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Lars

devnull

Just when you think the environment cannot become any more toxic in the UK and it does this.

Having been over there last week, the Tory leadership and the right wing press have a lot to answer for, they have badly fractured society and are intent on increasing the severity of that fracture.

Boris is essentially now trying to act like a dictator.

trellheim

Johnson has "asked" the Queen is all that is reported everywhere and all that is stated in his letter to MPs, but, it is not clear has she actually given her permission?

waiting for privy council meeting to end afaik ( yes she decides in Council , and shes in Balmoral atm)

Chips Lovell

It's unlikely she won't consent to it. While it is unusual, it isn't entirely without precedent. I think the barrier to her intervening would be quite high, much higher than this.

I reckon Johnson sees this move as win-win for him. Best case scenario, it triggers a no confidence motion, which triggers an election, which he is likely to win.

Worst case scenario, it runs the clock down on Brexit and minimises parliament's ability to influence the process.

There is also the (currently by all appearances slim) possibility that he could lose an election, but he seems to be discounting that.

VinLieger

trellheim wrote: »

has anyone got access to a realtime Bloomberg feed, whats sterling/euro/USD looking like, XE.com looksl ike its delayed a bit

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/data/currencies/gbp-pairs/GBPEUR-exchange-rate


It dropped first thing but hasnt gone below 1.09 and has just been up and down for the last 2 hours

Shelga

Why would the Queen agree to this? How is it legal?

Chips Lovell

Shelga wrote: »

Why would the Queen agree to this? How is it legal?

More's the point, how is it illegal?

Shelga

Chips Lovell wrote: »

More's the point, how is it illegal?

Because it’s Johnson trying to become a dictator?

*edit* Hmm wonder why this springs to mind... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Now obviously Johnson is not a Nazi, but he is trying to do the same thing Hitler did in 1933 with the Reichstag.

farmchoice

Johnson needs an election. he needs this election to be forced on him by the opposition.
yesterday the opposition moved away from forcing a VONC towards...something else.
this forced Johnson into doing something to move the opposition back towards a VONC.



in the normal course of events what he has done is normal procedure so any cries of ''constitutional crisis'' will be easily brushed aside by him and his supporters.

VinLieger

Shelga wrote: »

Because it’s Johnson trying to become a dictator?

That means nothing legally, what he is doing may be morally, ethically and democratically wrong however thanks to the lack of a proper written constitution this is entirely legal.

robinph

Shelga wrote: »

Why would the Queen agree to this? How is it legal?

Because if she doesn't then they chop her head off.

Although I doubt it would come to that bloody end these days it would trigger getting rid of the monarchy.

boggerman1

The sooner the UK crashes out the better.it will affect us here no doubt but this can't stay going on and on.

Shelga

Are the headbangers going to turn against their beloved queen if she refuses this?

Brexit is eating itself.

Laois_Man

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I reckon Johnson sees this move as win-win for him. Best case scenario, it triggers a no confidence motion, which triggers an election, which he is likely to win.

This mornings move eliminates the possibility of a general election before Brexit. A VONC cannot occur until September 3rd meaning parliament cannot be dissolved until Sept 17th - when it is prorogued and therefore, cannot be dissolved!

brickster69

robinph wrote: »

What is that if it's not about Brexit then?

It is bigger than Brexit now. It is about MP's going against the wishes of the people. Those who stood on manifesto's to accept and implement those wishes.It could be about any subject really.

I think most countries in the world would respect the people wishes. Even if they never agreed with them.

Chips Lovell

Shelga wrote: »

Because it’s Johnson trying to become a dictator?

*edit* Hmm wonder why this springs to mind... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Now obviously Johnson is not a Nazi, but he is trying to do the same thing Hitler did in 1933 with the Reichstag.

Steady on. We're not there yet. While i agree that this is an attempt to bypass parliament, a.) it's more than likely a gambit to get an election, an b.) it isn't illegal.

The government does have some flexibility in terms of when a prorogation and subsequent state opening of parliament occurs. For example, it cancelled the latter twice in recent years (2011 and 2018). And there is precedent for prorogation to to circumvent opposition:

"Parliament has not been prorogued by a government as a means of circumventing parliamentary opposition to government policy since 1948, when Parliament was prorogued following the Lords' opposition to the Parliament Bill."

So while it may be worrying, i don't think it is illegal.