quokula wrote: » https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1173607985911873542 The BBC really is nothing more than a Tory propoganda distributor these days.
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.
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?
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.
lawred2 wrote: » Why not? Does he not believe in nor have confidence in his own words? It's his Brexit.
lawred2 wrote: » something about making your bed and lying in it comes to mind
Strazdas wrote: » But there was no onus on Bettel to cancel the press conference either. There were 140 journalists present, mostly international.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » Thing is if the Johnson/Cummings tactic is to position the EU as the fall guys for No Deal.
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...
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.
Gina Miller wrote: Conclusion46. The Appellant therefore invites the Court to allow this appeal for the followingREASONS (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.
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.
