Strazdas wrote: » A Scottish Supreme Court decision being thrown out by an English court and told they had come to the 'wrong decision'. It would look very bad in the current political climate (England shoving Scotland around and always telling them what to do).
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Johnson has written in the Telegraph tomorrow but it's paywalled. Anyone got the gist?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/15/boris-johnson-confident-closing-brexit-deal-heads-key-meeting/
CelticRambler wrote: » Sovereignty, my dear man. Same reason the UK wants out of the EU - so as not to be subject to the decisions of the ECJ.
GM228 wrote: » The SC is a UK court, not an English court.
Strazdas wrote: » Yes, but that it is not how it would be perceived : Scots would just see a court in London giving its verdict.
GM228 wrote: » The SC and ECJ are not comparable. The ECJ deals with EU law when deciding a case. The SC deals with the law from the jurisdiction of the appeal, in this case Scots Law, the SC is essentially sitting as a Scottish court when hearing a case on appeal from the CoS. The final decision whatever it may be will be considered a decision of a Scottish court, not a UK or English etc court.
Strazdas wrote: » The opening two paragraphs from Johnson are far from encouraging :Let us be in no doubt as to what has really happened in Parliament in the last couple of weeks. Let there be no ambiguity about the underlying motive. A large number of MPs – though by no means all – are simply trying to crush Brexit. In spite of all that they promised – and voted for – they just want to stop this country from ever leaving the European Union. This isn’t about trying to block a so-called “no deal” Brexit. Any such claim is utterly disingenuous. It’s about trying to stop Brexit from happening at all – and the opposition parties have emerged in their true anti-democratic colours....
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Essentials here:https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1173338221192929281
GM228 wrote: » So would an incorrect perception be another reason for Scottish independence?
Headshot wrote: » I was going to say this is delusion on a grand scheme thinking a deal is close but I honest believe they no there's no deal in sight and all this deal is close rubbish is just pandering for local consumption. BJ wants a no deal and will do anything to get it
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I think he does want a deal, it's just that he's utterly incompetent and has painted himself into a corner.
Headshot wrote: » I have big doubts about this so call deal since every EU source saying there's barely been any serious negotiationshttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/15/eu-officials-reject-boris-johnson-claim-huge-progress-brexit-talks It's pathetic reading for a PM who's suppose to be looking for a deal.
omerin wrote: » He will get some sort of deal with some rebranding on the backstop and the DUP will bend the knee. Not sure it will pass in the hoc but he will have covered all bases as far as he is concerned and will do well in the election having signed a pre election pact with the Brexit party. Lib dems and labour will be blamed for the UK still being in the EU, the DUP may not suffer as much as they could have but the cons will be decimated in Scotland but for him it's a price worth paying and he will make it up in England. I think the erg will fall in line when the dup sign off, but for the most part this is about England, it probably always was and the loss of Scotland is acceptable. I could be overestimating boris but I think he has played this very well, it doesn't look like it now but he is just moving the pieces on the board around.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » 49% in a poll today would vote for a no deal Brexit:https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1173292897883570181
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Johnson calling anyone "disingenuous", considering he's a consummate liar, is beyond ironic. And calling the opposition "anti-democratic" is beyond hypocritical. Johnson himself is beyond parody.
lawred2 wrote: » That poll is toss A 10% swing from remain to no deal? either the sample sizes are too small or the polling company is untrustworthy.
The flaw arises in circumstances where the Prime Minister brings a Withdrawal Agreement (“WA”) to Parliament for approval. And it arises from the mismatch between the provisions of the Benn Act and those of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “2018 Act“)
What follows is a slightly simplified description of the flaw, to aid readability. To avoid the PM having to request an extension from the EU under section 1 of the Benn Act the Commons must approve the WA. If they do, on or prior to 19 October, the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension falls away. However, the provisions of the 2018 Act specify further preconditions, beyond approval by the Commons of the WA, before the WA can be ratified and No Deal avoided. Those preconditions are set out in section 13(1) of the 2018 Act and include the passing of a further Act implementing the Withdrawal Agreement (the “Further Obligations”). Summing up, if the Commons approves the WA but these Further Obligations are not satisfied before 31 October 2019, then two consequences follow. First, the Benn Act will not apply to require the PM to request an extension from the EU. And, second, we will leave with No Deal. So, imagine the PM says privately to the ERG ‘support my WA and I will deliver No Deal.’ In those circumstances, with the help of some Labour MPs, the Commons might approve even Theresa May’s WA. The PM would thus have escaped the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension and could deliver No Deal. He could, for example, again suspend Parliament (subject of course to the outcome of this week’s Supreme Court hearing). There is some evidence (see below) that he plans to do this. And we would leave without a deal.
