Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle

Debub wrote: »

from Laura Kuenssberg:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49813639

The highest court in the land has just ruled that the serving prime minister broke the law. He gave the Queen advice that was unlawful.
And the scope and strength of this judgement cannot just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in.
But the decision to suspend Parliament may just have blown up in Number 10's face.
In his two months in power, Boris Johnson has lost his first six Commons votes, broken the law by suspending Parliament and misled the monarch.
Even for a politician who seems to enjoy breaking the rules, that is a serious charge that, only two months into office, even the most brazen Johnson backer cannot simply shrug off.

I give you Andrew Bridgen
http://players.brightcove.net/2540076170001/B1Hli6KCG_default/index.html?videoId=6088967202001

Mr Bridgen said: We need Boris to be strong now.
It is the worst possible decision for our democracy.
I think what we have got is a Parliament is completely out of step with the sentiment of the country.
They are holding our democracy to ransom.
They are completely ignoring the vote we had in 2016 to Leave the European Union.
It is an absolute disgrace as far as I’m concerned.
What we are going to see now is the Speaker John Bercow taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers tune until the 31st of October when he resigns.
We have got a zombie Parliament that won’t go back to the people and be held to account.

BorneTobyWilde

Trump talking now, saying there are working with Boris to finalise a great trade deal. I thought they could not even discuss trade deals unless they had left.

lawred2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I give you Andrew Bridgen
http://players.brightcove.net/2540076170001/B1Hli6KCG_default/index.html?videoId=6088967202001

Maybe someone should inform Andy that the SC has nothing to do with Parliament.

GM228

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Indeed, legal commentators after the hearings thought the judgement would be split, anything up to 6-5. Johnson managed to lose on justiciability AND on lawfulness AND get an 11-0 unanimous verdict.

Absolutely crushing defeat. I wonder if the men in grey suits will be having a word on his return from the US, he is dragging the Tory party through the absolute depths of public humiliation.

The unanimous verdict was quite a shock to everyone on both sides, possibly a first for a sitting of 5+ judges on a constitutional issue.

Once again David Allen Green gives a good summary. Johnson's losses (love the witness statement mention):-

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1176462135792152583?s=19

robinph

GM228 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1176494900826624001?s=19

Tease, anyone care to speculate?

Mogg getting booted out of the Privy Council for misleading the monarch, followed by a ceremonial squashing of his top hat?

VinLieger

robinph wrote: »

Mogg getting booted out of the Privy Council for misleading the monarch, followed by a ceremonial squashing of his top hat?

Was gonna speculate as well its something to do with Mogg, hes in cabinet although hes not a minister which the tweet specifically mentions

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

The mindset of the average English Brexiteer is that they don't really care if Scotland leaves the UK, or if the backstop becomes enforced. They just want themselves to be out of the thing.

Here again we see the likely ultimate consequence of Brexit: the irreversible breakup of the United Kingdom. It must be intensely galling to be an English nationalist right now - having those bloody Paddies causing trouble for England over a stupid line on a map of Ireland, and those bloody Scottish judges having the nerve to decide how and when the Parliament in London should conduct its business.

When IndyRef2 comes to pass, we can be pretty sure that the "better together" banners are not going to feature highly in the campaign on the English side of Hadrian's Wall.

briany

CelticRambler wrote: »

When IndyRef2 comes to pass, we can be pretty sure that the "better together" banners are not going to feature highly in the campaign on the English side of Hadrian's Wall.

It would have to be an extraordinarily negative campaign from Westminster. It wouldn't even so much be better together as a list of thinly veiled threats and condescension about the Scottish independence movement.

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

Mogg getting booted out of the Privy Council for misleading the monarch, followed by a ceremonial squashing of his top hat?

Isn't that treason? I'm not sure, it was hung, drawn and quartered or beheaded. And Pritti Patel, Home Secretary, is a fan of of capital punishment. Would make great TV.

banie01

listermint wrote: »

By whom farage? The myriad of pensioners who support ukip?
Whom exactly because they haven't shown themselves in any number to date.

Many of whom live abroad, have healthcare and social care provision along with reciprocal pension benefits all thanks to EU membership...
Yet who travelled back to the UK to vote leave?

Turkey's and Christmas spring to mind every time I think of the gammon faced Ex-pats at referendum time!

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1176505634658951169

Indeed he does.

Only one way he can get a deal - accept the terms of the WA (with the backstop provisions only applying to NI to help him sell it).

GM228

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Isn't that treason?

Contrary to popular belief lieing to the Monarch is not treason.

briany

What's Johnson's next move? Could he just advise the Queen to prorogue parliament again?

Zubeneschamali

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Simply put, the various positions put forth from the UK body politic are not credible.

Which is why I now think they will not leave at all.

LeinsterDub

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump talking now, saying there are working with Boris to finalise a great trade deal. I thought they could not even discuss trade deals unless they had left.

They've already signed a few trade deals , maybe which state we'll continue on the same terms we have now. They can't come into force until they leave . The EU and Britain can't discuss trade until they leave.

Hoppy Jack

briany wrote: »

What's Johnson's next move? Could he just advise the Queen to prorogue parliament again?

He could in theory but won’t. Would look dreadful. He’ll carry on. Let the HoC sit and ignore the angry speeches

briany

Hoppy Jack wrote: »

He could in theory but won’t. Would look dreadful.

Yes, we couldn't have him besmirching his otherwise stellar premiership so far. :pac:

Imreoir2

Hoppy Jack wrote: »

He could in theory but won’t. Would look dreadful. He’ll carry on. Let the HoC sit and ignore the angry speeches

There is little enough anyone could do if the prorougation was only for a week to allow for a Queens Speach, though if it was in the last week or two before the 31st then the courts could slap him down again.

jmayo

briany wrote: »

The mindset of the average English Brexiteer is that they don't really care if Scotland leaves the UK, or if the backstop becomes enforced. They just want themselves to be out of the thing. So, the NI-only backstop would meet widespread approval among the Brexit-voting public, and it's only game-playing among the political class that's currently stopping it.

Brexit is really an English nationalists dream.
The amount of people who see themselves as English rather than British has been growing over the last few decades.
Being British is now only something some can feel proud about at the Olympics.
The British empire is a distant memory and this is what butt hurts a lot of them.

Varta wrote: »

The EU can't be seen to be vindictive against ANY member. This false notion of certain members being more important than others is only heard out of the UK.

Never forget how vindictive the French can be.

robinph

briany wrote: »

What's Johnson's next move? Could he just advise the Queen to prorogue parliament again?

I got the impression that he can't and that the court stated that anything more than a week for writing a Queens speech without very clear justification as to why would be considered unlawful.

briany

robinph wrote: »

I got the impression that he can't and that the court stated that anything more than a week for writing a Queens speech without very clear justification as to why would be considered unlawful.

So that means that if Johnson wishes to prorogue again for longer than a week, he must first apply to the courts?

Chips Lovell

briany wrote: »

So that means that if Johnson wishes to prorogue again for longer than a week, he must first apply to the courts?

No. More that it could be shot down again. Possibility too that he could be found in contempt of court.

briany

Chips Lovell wrote: »

No. More that it could be shot down again. Possibility too that he could be found in contempt of court.

But court procedures take time to organise and execute. If Johnson successfully hand another prorogation on, say, the 15th of October, by the time the court ruled again that it was unlawful, it might be too late to matter. Unless it could now be fast-tracked.

Water John

Since a decision of the SC has already been given, that Parliament shouldn't be sidelined, if he were to try poroguing again at a crucial time, Millar would apply for what would in effect be an injunction. Great woman.

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

But court procedures take time to organise and execute. If Johnson successfully hand another prorogation on, say, the 15th of October, by the time the court ruled again that it was unlawful, it might be too late to matter. Unless it could now be fast-tracked.

I don't think it would take too long as the principle in question has already been decided upon. What possible argument could the government put forward to induce the court to reconsider in any depth an issue they so recently decided upon.

Chips Lovell

briany wrote: »

But court procedures take time to organise and execute. If Johnson successfully hand another prorogation on, say, the 15th of October, by the time the court ruled again that it was unlawful, it might be too late to matter. Unless it could now be fast-tracked.

It's doubtful he'd try anything so blatant, especially if, as you say, a hearing could be fast tracked and a repeat exercise could expose him to some form of liability.

I don't expect anything of much substance to happen now for the next three weeks. Johnson has said its "do or die" for an October 31 exit, so politically he has to be seen to take it right down to the wire. He'll go through the motions of pretending to look for a deal until the October 19 deadline provided by the Benn Act and only then request an extension with much protest on his part.

Parliament will probably only consent to a new election once it's sure than an extension has been requested and granted.

The other possibility is parliament agreeing an alternative exit arrangement that's acceptable to the EU and forcing that through, but I can't see that happening in the space of three weeks.

Quin_Dub

The ruling from the Supreme court was quite clear about the nature of Proroguing and it's use for suspending parliament for the Queens speech

This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented
Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between
the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite
different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can
meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members
ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general,
Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch
after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but
Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of
Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change
which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October.
Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people,
has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our
democracy was extreme.

So basically , they have completely shut off the Queens Speech as an excuse for prorogation.

They can put parliament into recess , but they cannot suspend it completely.

HOC and HOL are open for business from tomorrow morning on , there's nothing Johnson et al can do about it now.

Water John

Just try listening to what he says.

I hate Corbyn. The nonsense coming from him. "Within three months...."

edit: Coward. He brings it back to the "rich paying their share". Where's the position? Why should I vote for him if I were British?

Brexit matters. Now. This year.

Professor Moriarty

From Corbyn's speech:

His is a born-to-rule government of the entitled who believe that the rules they set for everyone else don’t apply to them. That’s what today’s supreme court judgment spells out with brutal clarity. There was no reason – “let alone a good reason”, the judges concluded – for the prime minister to have shut down parliament. He thought he could do whatever he liked just as he always does. He thinks he’s above us all. He is part of an elite that disdains democracy. He is not fit to be prime minister. Let me quote the supreme court’s conclusion: “Unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed” – they’ve got the prime minister down to a tee.

Bit of leadership from Corbyn at last.