Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2 · 07-09-2019 02:32PM

devnull wrote: »

Latest from Iain Duncan Smith:
Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith encouraged Mr Johnson to break the law, saying he would be seen as a Brexit "martyr" if judges opted to put him jail for breaching Parliament's terms.

Honestly it's going to full out dictatorship being encouraged now and the Telegraph are now saying that Labour are to blame as they are forcing Boris to break the law and causing a constitutional crisis.

If Boris disobeys the law there will be very ugly scenes I predict. All out full civil war and mayhem on the streets.

Things can spiral out of control very quickly if one side is seen to ignore the rules by which everyone is expected to abide. If Brexiters can flout the law, then they have no right to expect their oponents to abide by the law. That way lies anarchy.

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 02:44PM

GM228 wrote: »

The Act (like any), does need Royal Assent, there is no question of that, without it it is not law. The thing is Royal assent has not been refused in 311 years, but, it can be upon advice to the Queen of the PM.

I think the post was referring to "Queen's consent" which is a different thing to "Royal assent", though dont ask me how or why, as it is well above my lowly pay grade. From what i have read, it seems very possible there could be a challenge made on this point and legal opinion seems to be divided on whether Benn et al have covered themselves in the event of one.

GM228 · 07-09-2019 02:53PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the post was referring to "Queen's consent" which is a different thing to "Royal assent", though dont ask me how or why, as it is well above my lowly pay grade. From what i have read, it seems very possible there could be a challenge made on this point and legal opinion seems to be divided on whether Benn et al have covered themselves in the event of one.

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative, and provisions affecting the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, aswell as personal property or personal interests of the Crown. It does not fit into the question of Brexit unless they are trying to argue the government as as an agent of the Crown has limited its stance in relation to nternational negotiations.

fash · 07-09-2019 02:56PM

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

Good blog post by David Allen Green on why he (unless he resigns etc) must comply with parliament:
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/what-if-the-prime-minister-deliberately-broke-the-law-over-extending-article-50/

He would be liable in tort and would be certain to face significant jail time. In addition even anyone encouraging him to do so could also be prosecuted. Various newspapers need to watch out.

GM228 · 07-09-2019 03:00PM

fash wrote: »

Good blog post by David Allen Green on why he (unless he resigns etc) must comply with parliament:
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/what-if-the-prime-minister-deliberately-broke-the-law-over-extending-article-50/

He would be liable in tort and would be certain to face significant jail time. In addition even anyone encouraging him to do so could also be prosecuted. Various newspapers need to watch out.

I already mentioned the misconduct in public office offence the other day and as someone who studied it I really can't see the test satisfied.

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 03:03PM

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative, and provisions affecting the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, aswell as personal property or personal interests of the Crown. It does not fit into the question of Brexit unless they are trying to argue the government as as an agent of the Crown has limited its stance in relation to nternational negotiations.

Yes I believe that is what is being argued, but I haven't seen any definite suggestion that the government is going down that route. Just smoke and mirrors as of yet. Might not know until Monday.

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 03:16PM

Reading that convinces me he's very unlikely to beak the law but still can't see him seeking the extension either, so its either resignation or rabbit out of hat pulling and my moneys on the former.

trellheim · 07-09-2019 03:35PM

The Kinnock Amendment to the Benn bill - has anyone looked at that in any depth .....

GM228 · 07-09-2019 03:44PM

trellheim wrote: »

The Kinnock Amendment to the Benn bill - has anyone looked at that in any depth .....

It basically gives an obligation during any extension, but affords no legal obligation to adopt the WA.

This sums up accurately those obligations:-

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1169324567179026432?s=19

A Shropshire Lad · 07-09-2019 03:54PM

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

Also would like to point out that the statement about Labour being the ones causing the crisis is laughable. I suppose this is the Telegraph so very much a Tory paper

Thargor · 07-09-2019 04:02PM

beggars_bush wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-twilight-zone-police-escort-conservatives?__twitter_impression=true

This is magnificent reading

Don't splitter your coffee over your screen

Jesus this got lost in all the noise this week but what a complete and utter joke of an opposition Labour are:

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 04:05PM

GM228 wrote: »

It basically gives an obligation during any extension, but affords no legal obligation to adopt the WA.

This sums up accurately those obligations:-

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1169324567179026432?s=19

Is it just TM's WAB or is it the one that included the concessions supposedly offered during the cross party talks? If nothing else, this strikes me as a good way for labour MPs in leave seats to show voters they are genuinely doing all they can to achieve brexit save going down the no deal path.

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 04:12PM

Thargor wrote: »

Jesus this got lost in all the noise this week but what a complete and utter joke of an opposition Labour are:

She didn't handle that well but I would have a degree of sympathy with the position she's taking. If your going to offer a referendum you have to do so while being able to offer a credible leave option that would be able to pass through parliament. So somebody is going to have to renegotiate some form of better deal and that might have to be labour. None of this is easy and I don't blame them for getting a bit bogged down in it. Very easy just to have a fully remain or !eave position but that doesn't get you out of the brxit quandary imo

GM228 · 07-09-2019 04:13PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is it just TM's WAB or is it the one that included the concessions supposedly offered during the cross party talks? If nothing else, this strikes me as a good way for labour MPs in leave seats to show voters they are genuinely doing all they can to achieve brexit save going down the no deal path.

This is the text of his amendment:-

In order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.

Tell me how · 07-09-2019 04:18PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She didn't handle that well but I would have a degree of sympathy with the position she's taking. If your going to offer a referendum you have to do so while being able to offer a credible leave option that would be able to pass through parliament. So somebody is going to have to renegotiate some form of better deal and that might have to be labour. None of this is easy and I don't blame them for getting a bit bogged down in it. Very easy just to have a fully remain or !eave position but that doesn't get you out of the brxit quandary imo

I kind of agree. The option to remain is what is felt by many is now the preferred option but to honour the initial referendum they must negotiate a deal with the EU.

I think they'd be better placed if they said that they would use MAy's deal versus a remain option and thus, to some degree obsolve them from responsibility for said negotiated deal while presenting the preferred option.

It was interesting that Fiona Bruce, 3 out of other 4 guests on the panel and the audience all laughed derisively at Thornberry. That is what Labour (and other remain advocates) are going to face up to throughout any campaign for a GE.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2019 04:19PM

Labour's position is actually quite sensible but in an era of everything being black and white it sounds ridiculous.

The Tories view is that we will negotiate a deal but then go for a No Deal anyway. How is that any more ridiculous.

And Tice claims that would give all the advantages to the EU. Has he not been paying attention?

BP promised that voting for their MEP candidates would help change things in Brussels. What has changed? TM had red lines from the outset and got the WA.

MarinersBlues · 07-09-2019 04:22PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thargor wrote: »

Jesus this got lost in all the noise this week but what a complete and utter joke of an opposition Labour are:

She didn't handle that well but I would have a degree of sympathy with the position she's taking. If your going to offer a referendum you have to do so while being able to offer a credible leave option that would be able to pass through parliament. So somebody is going to have to renegotiate some form of better deal and that might have to be labour. None of this is easy and I don't blame them for getting a bit bogged down in it. Very easy just to have a fully remain or !eave position but that doesn't get you out of the brxit quandary imo

The fact she didn't seem to anticipate being asked that question wouldn't fill you with confidence about her ability to negotiate a good deal.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2019 04:27PM

That's all very well and good but who else?

The Tories have had 3 years and failed miserably. Lib dems want to remain. Same with SNP. BP? Farage is paid by the EU and won't explain how else he is funded. Not to mention the BP are too small to be in a position to negotiate.

So because of the 2 party system Labour is the only alternative. Either try them or continue on with the already failed Tories.

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 04:29PM

MarinersBlues wrote: »

The fact she didn't seem to anticipate being asked that question wouldn't fill you with confidence about her ability to negotiate a good deal.

For somebody long touted as a future leader of her party, I've never been that impressed by her during her public appearances. I don't know would she be part of any negotiating team, i suspect not.

Tell me how · 07-09-2019 04:31PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

That's all very well and good but who else?

The Tories have had 3 years and failed miserably. Lib dems want to remain. Same with SNP. BP? Farage is paid by the EU and won't explain how else he is funded. Not to mention the BP are too small to be in a position to negotiate.

So because of the 2 party system Labour is the only alternative. Either try them or continue on with the already failed Tories.

Personally I think Labour should be negotiating an agreed position with Lib dems, Greens (Just Caroline Lucas really), SNP and Change with a view to forming a coalition government after the GE.

Waiting until the GE to see which way the lie of the land is just plays in to Tories and Brexit Party hands by being able to attack them individually.

But, I have long said that Corbyn's position on Brexit and his performance as shadow PM has been part of this mess and so I don't have much confidence that he can turn in to a decisive and uniting leader.

Zubeneschamali · 07-09-2019 04:36PM

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative

Like instructing the PM to ask for and accept an extension to an international treaty, perhaps.

A Shropshire Lad · 07-09-2019 04:38PM

I admire Corbyn in the sense that I think he is genuinely cares about the social issues he wants to change things

The problem is he doesnt seem to have any charisma as a leader. The fact that Labour are still behind the Cons in the polls with all thats gone on is almost unbelieveable.

If Labour had a young Tony Blair leading them now they would be miles ahead in the polls

Zubeneschamali · 07-09-2019 04:40PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Labour's position is actually quite sensible

Unlikely to matter - there's no way Labour get an overall majority. I don't think the LibDems will go for the idea of leaving No Deal on the table for a year or two while negotiating a Lexit deal which Labour will then not back in a referendum.

Better to hold the referendum soonest, with WA vs Remain.

Tell me how · 07-09-2019 04:42PM

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

I admire Corbyn in the sense that I think he is genuinely cares about the social issues he wants to change things

The problem is he doesnt seem to have any charisma as a leader. The fact that Labour are still behind the Cons in the polls with all thats gone on is almost unbelieveable.

If Labour had a young Tony Blair leading them now they would be miles ahead in the polls

Most people like the idea of a truly social conscious leader but the problem is when you are ignoring the reality of what concerns people by constantly talking about something seen as idealistic.

Tony Blair would have at least figured out how to tell people what they want to hear while manoeuvring to be in a position to influence what it is you want.

Joe_ Public · 07-09-2019 04:43PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Personally I think Labour should be negotiating an agreed position with Lib dems, Greens (Just Caroline Lucas really), SNP and Change with a view to forming a coalition government after the GE.

Waiting until the GE to see which way the lie of the land is just plays in to Tories and Brexit Party hands by being able to attack them individually.

But, I have long said that Corbyn's position on Brexit and his performance as shadow PM has been part of this mess and so I don't have much confidence that he can turn in to a decisive and uniting leader.

That would be a nice thought for sure, but when you have the lib dems eyeing up lots of marginal labour seats, I'm sceptical of the possibility of any coalition arrangement or so called GNU. I thought they did well just to get the legislation through, but not so confident about anything more ambitious than that and I think Cummings has bet his house on them not being able to get it together either pre- or post- election.

Enzokk · 07-09-2019 05:04PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unlikely to matter - there's no way Labour get an overall majority. I don't think the LibDems will go for the idea of leaving No Deal on the table for a year or two while negotiating a Lexit deal which Labour will then not back in a referendum.

Better to hold the referendum soonest, with WA vs Remain.

Realistically what new deal would the EU offer Labour? The citizens rights and divorce part will not change so it is only the backstop, which will have to be kept because the EU will not trust the UK government to change in the time they are busy negotiating a trade deal so the deal they will offer the UK will be Theresa May's deal. If parliament had signed up to her deal and in 2022 Labour won a majority while they were negotiating a new hard Brexit FTA, they would come in and change it to a permanent customs union and closely following regulations of the single market for a better FTA. This doesn't change the deal May negotiated with the EU.

So I think the deal people will vote for if Labour is able to have a second referendum will be the WA with a change to the political declaration. Labour will not support this I assume, seeing that they voted against her deal before, and you would think remain could win on that deal.

That is why leavers want to part of a second referendum because they will be aware the unicorns has left the building and the deal they rejected is the best they can hope for.

Midster · 07-09-2019 05:11PM

This whole dam situation has been ridiculous right from the start. It’s simple to clear this blockage of democracy, and it should have absolutely been done months ago now.
And if it had have done, by now we would have already left or stayed.

The public decided to leave, but now the government cannot come to any kind of decision as to how to leave.
Or if to leave at all.

Put together 4/5 simple options that the government can agree on as being credible and allow the public to vote on them.

If the government cannot come to a decision, or if they cannot get to a majority, they simply have to cast it to a wider audience. This effects everyone, and once the public has been informed and has voted the government can get on with just that one thing.

Enzokk · 07-09-2019 05:11PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that wouldn't work. Northern Ireland would then be subject to EU law though part of the UK so Uk legislation which was in the EU competency would then cause a clash between EU and UK law.

The way around this would be for Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland which might lead to violence and bombings within the Republic which Ireland would have to try to put down whilst at the same time it was making large payments to the North which would be a lot higher than they are now because the North sends more goods to the rest of the UK than to anywhere else.

So what you are saying is that if NI is taken out of the EU and there is a hard border between Ireland and NI then there will be violence and bombs in Belfast and London, but if they are kept in against their will there will be bombs in Dublin.

So follow the logic of what the answer is to avoid violence and you get the answer for Brexit.

Enzokk · 07-09-2019 05:14PM

Midster wrote: »

This whole dam situation has been ridiculous right from the start. It’s simple to clear this blockage of democracy, and it should have absolutely been done months ago now.
And if it had have done, by now we would have already left or stayed.

The public decided to leave, but now the government cannot come to any kind of decision as to how to leave.
Or if to leave at all.

Put together 4/5 simple options that the government can agree on as being credible and allow the public to vote on them.

If the government cannot come to a decision, or if they cannot get to a majority, they simply have to cast it to a wider audience. This effects everyone, and once the public has been informed and has voted the government can get on with just that one thing.

Blame May for this. She went in for the red lines in her Florence speech and thus cornered the UK in their position. Remainers would have happily accepted a Norway arrangement if they went for it but instead she decided to go for a hard Brexit. Since then both sides have become entrenched and the time for compromise is long gone.

Midster · 07-09-2019 05:21PM

It doesn’t matter if you change leader under these circumstances, it has already been proven by the may/Boris change over.
It doesn’t even matter if you change party, because Westminster is at deadlock, whatever idea anyone has for the future of the the uk, in, out, deal or no deal, nobody is going to agree with anyone else who doesn’t share the same vision as them.

Westminster is split in so many directions no matter what happens, what any leadership tries to do, it will be fought tooth and nail by everyone else.

Under these circumstances the only thing you can do is pass the vote back to the public.

Put all sides brexit/remain politics into simple English, whittle it down to 4/5 educate the public, and allow the British people to vote on it.

Democracy got us into this mess so why not let democracy get us out of it. This should have been done right from the very start

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments