Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

By that measure yes.

That's mainly due to a lack of interest though. It's not a complex thing to understand. The difference is that a leading politician, minister, and foreign minister at that, might want to understand it before campaiging against it.

Plus of course, if all of that happens - confirming that the UK government & house of lords etc are concerned about the legality of Jonson's use of A16 - it certainly wouldn't be helpful for a future arbitration case with the EU where they declare the opposite.

Your point being?

You miss the point, I think. If he acts unlawfully according to UK law, he can be restrained by the UK courts (as he was when he attempted to prorogued Parliament, to take the example that you yourself chose). The Withdrawal Agreement has been enacted into UK law, so if he (for example) purports to invoke Art 16 improperly, people can challenge that in the UK courts.

The point is that if Johnson tries to invoke Art 16 illegally, he'll be stymied by the UK courts, just as he was when he tried to prorogue Parliament. He may get lots of headlines about traitor judges, but that's no use to him; he's supposed to be the guy who gets Brexit done. If his efforts to get this particular aspect of Brexit done collapse in welter of court proceedings and parliamentary shenanigans he is damaging his own unique selling point, and calling attention to his own failure to achieve the one thing he promised he could achieve. He doesn't want that.

As you say, he doesn't care about much, but he does care about optics. And this would not be good optics. The man you told you he had got Brexit done turns out not to have got Brexit done, and to be unable to get Brexit done. There's no positive, Johnson-friendly spin you can put on that.

It can only be triggered for a legitimate purpose and to bring in legitimate safeguard measures. While the executive has a certain discretion in relation to that, if the UK government intends to take the p*ss (which they certainly have been threatening to), then the court can (and in fact must) reverse it.

The courts can't reverse it however if Johnson changes the law.

So Johnson's options are:

1. A "sober" triggering of A16;

2. A "slightly dodgy" A16 triggering - which may be overturned & will likely be attacked; or

3. Introduce a new IM bill (effectively) to signpost that he is proposing to renege on WA.

Alternatively this is exactly what Johnson wants. He obviously doesn't want to trigger A16, either because he knows the damage it will cause or that it really is the last threat he has and once done he is out of cards.

We saw that play out when he agreed the deal, where he continually threatened a No Deal yet at the very end accepted a deal that he originally said was fantastic but now says he awful.

What he wants more than anything is an enemy to fight against. The brave hero fighting for England, Britain and the little man. The brave and bold Boris standing up against the liberal elites. The EU bureaucrats, the stuff Judges, the remoaners. The rights and wrongs don't matter. It is the story he can spin that is the important bit.

So the Tories slide further in the polls. And this week's vote on triple lock pension. Coupled with the economic reports from impact of brexit.

I'd pose the question, do they really care ? Have they just been trying to push the boat as far out as they can. They try to install loyalists into positions of power be it independent institutions or media orgs like the BBC and offcom for future shaping of the narrative. But they're managed to prise billions out the tax payer into loyalists and relations. So do they actually care about the polls now. It's just a case of furthering whatever is left main goals achieved which is to make people very wealthy of brexit or whatever other crisis. Luckily for them covid popped up first so opportunity came much quicker than the death by a thousand asset cuts of brexit. But with the covid money they can make hay on the asset self off UK wide.

Creating and compounding wealth project accomplished. Polls .. who cares

The treaty doesn't stipulate legitimate purposes in any detail. Divergence of trade is mentioned. There doesn't look to be much scope for a court to over rule. Reality is the phraseology is vague and unspecific, Borris is probably ok from a legal POV to trigger it.