The media are now reporting John Major will have his own questions to answer and are going into detail on the cash for question scandal and his decision to prorogue
That may be the plan
"Yes, the only time we prorogued parliament was political expediency and highly undemocratic. We shouldn't do that again..."
But the EU will surely barely notice No deal because of their better preparations (said a PB expert).
So perhaps you can answer the question as to whether our hardball no deal approach will bring the EU grovelling to its knees on account of the sheer destruction and chaos it will bring upon them, or whether no deal is no problem at all and we will breeze right on without really noticing it save for a temporary shortage of avocados from Ocado.
What I have said (as you yourself have agreed in your more lucid moments) is that in Britain's case, the big ticket scare stories in the immediate term won't happen. In the longer term there will no doubt be other challenges, which can be dealt with case by case. Where the solution is financial, the UK will enjoy the *ongoing* benefit of no longer contributing to the EU budget.
In terms of the EU, I would imagine their most pressing concern is £30bn to find. Disruption to member states is another issue, and whilst we're constantly reminded that a smaller proportion of the EU's exports go to the UK than vice versa, it should be remembered that the effect won't fall proportionately. For every largely unaffected Luxembourg there is a significantly affected Republic of Ireland.
30 billion is a rounding for them , Boris has promised to spend more than that already and they can split it 27 ways, get real.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
Interesting comment on Sky that will John Major be questioned why he prorogued the HOC over cash for questions.
This whole thing is spinning wildly out of control
Well it can hardly be argued that proroguing was advantageous for Major given the outcome of the 1997 GE.
Well the political ramifications are a seperate issue. Boris may pay the price politically for proroguing Parliament (or he may not) - that will be up to the voters to decide in a general election.
The question for now is whether it's legal or not. It looks to me that the governments legal case is watertight,
I would suspect that the general population hold the current bunch of MPs in contempt. They have proved to be of no use in the 'big' areas. As such the less time they spend in circular impotent debates the happier the general population will be.
For parliament to be pushed into a new situation where decisions have to be made and are forced upon a recalcitrant parliament could be viewed as a positive.
Interesting idea but presumably still bumps up against the DUP.
if it gives NI some trading advantages all parties will probably say yes.
Its actually astounding that the local MLAs havent the brains to turn the current impasse to their advantage.But theyd rather sit in the trenhes and shoot at eachother.
As the article says, it would be a different customs and tariff environment from the UK and hence would I'm sure fall foul of a DUP red line but if they call it a freeport and this allows the DUP to accept it without losing face then I'm all for it.
Don't forget we have agreed that May was the crap salesman and Boris the supersalesman.
Is it actually a workable plan or just another unicorn?
Not sure - it is the backstop by another name but if they can point to several mainland areas which are treated in the same way then perhaps yes it could work.
I mean this is a classic developing economy move. The Peoples' Republic of China instituted Special Economic Zones (and very successfully too) in the 90s to encourage enterprise and investment as they began to open to the West. No idea how many other countries have them (Delaware I suppose is an obvious example).
It's the "internal export" mechanism which might prove quite unicorny.
But the internal export mechanism would also have to include local consumer purchases where appropriate so it's not that unicorny - I suspect the approach required already exists in the methods used to remove the risk of carousal export fraud on high value electronic goods such as CPUs and mobile phones.
Ah in which case then yes it becomes workable. The biggest barrier would be convincing the DUP that if it's ok for Teeside (forever a part of the UK) then it's OK for NI (forever* a part of the UK). Which isn't a huge stretch or shouldn't be for a sensible person. But then it's the DUP we are talking about...
*maybe
The DUP are in a bind and need to get out too
Yep it is quite elegant although I don't know the mechanisms in detail (sounds like @eek does and was able to provide some insight)
Then we will be out of the EU. But it will not have gone away. If we leave with no deal we will still need a deal with them. It will look remarkably like May's deal. We will pay what we agree we owe them. We will not pay extra for market access unless we get that market access. We will need to facilitate trade as quickly as possible. That means decisions will need to be taken on how much regulatory equivalence we can live with to ensure market access. Some will find these decisions difficult. Tough.
There will be a lot to do and it will probably need a new Parliament to do it. Life will go on. In Scotland we know about the bitterness caused by referendums. Those on the losing side still harbour a grievance which we hear every day. But the trains are (mostly) on time and the economy totters along damaged by both the previous referendum and the threat of another but still functioning. So let it be with Brexit.
You are massively underestimating just how much division this approach would cause. The country would be in ferment, against a backdrop of likely disruption from a chaotic Brexit. In what way is that ever going to be accepted as legitimate or a way for building a future? It would be overturned sooner rather than later, just as soon as the constitutionalists prise the usurpers out of Downing Street.
The division is being caused by those who do not accept the result and rejected a perfectly reasonable compromise. It is absurd to blame the government for fighting back against such an undemocratic and irrational response. May does bear a lot of responsibility for this mess. If she had not been so incompetent, so secretive and so high handed things might have gone better but it was beyond her to reach out or achieve a consensus. That does not excuse the behaviour of remainers, especially those elected on a ticket of honouring the result.
Quick question: what do you think of the behaviour of all the Conservative MPs (ie all of them, including the ERG) who were elected in 2015 on a ticket of maintaining Britain's place in the Single Market?
“Challenging”. Ho ho. Aye, you lot are challenged right enough.
Yet you managed to lose to this challenged lot when it really mattered in 2014.
We lost to SLab footsoldiers, Gordon Brown, the Daily Record and the BBC. In contrast, the Tories were an absolute gift to the Yes campaign.
Utter rubbish, it was Tories energy which got out over 90% of Scottish Tory voters for No, while useless SLab lost over a third of their traditional voters to Yes and then even more to the SNP. Indeed the 95% of Scottish Tory voters who voted No was even higher than the 86% of SNP voters who voted Yes.
Tonight SLab will likely fall to 4th in the Shetland by election behind the Scottish LDs, SNP and Scottish Tories, a pathetic shell of a party whose machine once dominated Scottish politics, now rejected by nationalists and unionists alike
90% of diddly squat did not win IndyRef1 for the BritNats. It was purely a Scottish Labour/BBC joint victory, based on wall-to-wall lies, which is also why both those institutions have crippled reputations. The Cons were a dreadful hindrance to the No campaign (especially Osborne).
SLab-watchers will not be waiting on tenterhooks for the Shetland result. Numpty.
"It was purely a Scottish Labour/BBC joint victory"
LOL
When the BBC is repatriated south of the border following the tartan victory, viewers north of the border will have endless reruns of Dr Finlay's Casebook and Fyfe Robertson documentaries to look forward to. Can't wait.
Ah yes the old, Scotland won't be able to watch Dr Who gambit.
Classic. Economically illiterate but classic.
Twas a joke, Alistair. Obviously didn't translate. Never mind.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
For every largely unaffected Luxembourg there is a significantly affected Republic of Ireland.
I think you’ll find there’s only one Republic of Ireland. Who are the significantly affected counterparts of Poland, Finland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia?
Question of the day - Is a humble address that asks the Queen to reverse her decision particularly humble ?
Seems an odd word for it
"I suppose you are quite a great lawyer?" I said, after looking at him for some time. "Me, Master Copperfield?" said Uriah. "Oh, no! I'm a very umble person."
The media are now reporting John Major will have his own questions to answer and are going into detail on the cash for question scandal and his decision to prorogue
Well he did set a very poor precedent.
He's #metoo himself on the question of historic abuses of power in parliament. This is a bit like Blair asking for an inquiry into airstrikes in Syria
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
It really is a job for the HOC. Maybe in time they will get round to it
Interesting comment on Sky that will John Major be questioned why he prorogued the HOC over cash for questions.
This whole thing is spinning wildly out of control
Well it can hardly be argued that proroguing was advantageous for Major given the outcome of the 1997 GE.
Well the political ramifications are a seperate issue. Boris may pay the price politically for proroguing Parliament (or he may not) - that will be up to the voters to decide in a general election.
The question for now is whether it's legal or not. It looks to me that the governments legal case is watertight,
A fool could have told them that and saved the gazillions in lawyers fees
Interesting idea but presumably still bumps up against the DUP.
if it gives NI some trading advantages all parties will probably say yes.
Its actually astounding that the local MLAs havent the brains to turn the current impasse to their advantage.But theyd rather sit in the trenhes and shoot at eachother.
As the article says, it would be a different customs and tariff environment from the UK and hence would I'm sure fall foul of a DUP red line but if they call it a freeport and this allows the DUP to accept it without losing face then I'm all for it.
Don't forget we have agreed that May was the crap salesman and Boris the supersalesman.
Is it actually a workable plan or just another unicorn?
Not sure - it is the backstop by another name but if they can point to several mainland areas which are treated in the same way then perhaps yes it could work.
I mean this is a classic developing economy move. The Peoples' Republic of China instituted Special Economic Zones (and very successfully too) in the 90s to encourage enterprise and investment as they began to open to the West. No idea how many other countries have them (Delaware I suppose is an obvious example).
It's the "internal export" mechanism which might prove quite unicorny.
But the internal export mechanism would also have to include local consumer purchases where appropriate so it's not that unicorny - I suspect the approach required already exists in the methods used to remove the risk of carousal export fraud...
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
Exactly and is just what you expect from the sleazy crooked Tories who can never be trusted to be Gentlemen. They must have a great laugh when they give out all that guff about convention , acting as gentlemen , etc whilst thinking , first chance I will stiff the stupid little peasant.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
An outer limit sounds eminently reasonable - to have prorogued as proposed and as discussed in the leadership campaign [which is where all the anti-proroguation quotes come from] from the start of September until the start of November would have been unreasonable.
To prorogue for 4 scheduled sitting days is bog standard. And to prorogue for a few scheduled sitting days and a recess that is due already has precedence too, one of the longer recent proroguations was because it straddled the Whitsun recess so no reason not to straddle the annual Conference recess.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
It really is a job for the HOC. Maybe in time they will get round to it
When they are allowed to sit.
And no doubt at that point will be accused of interfering unnecessarily with the executive's exercise of prerogative powers.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
An outer limit sounds eminently reasonable - to have prorogued as proposed and as discussed in the leadership campaign [which is where all the anti-proroguation quotes come from] from the start of September until the start of November would have been unreasonable.
To prorogue for 4 scheduled sitting days is bog standard. And to prorogue for a few scheduled sitting days and a recess that is due already has precedence too, one of the longer recent proroguations was because it straddled the Whitsun recess so no reason not to straddle the annual Conference recess.
There is every reason if the Commons would have voted not to take the recess.
I thought it was not in the EU's remit to decide when we leave or not and that UK had to chose to change date or it was fixed in stone. WE seem to have lots of expert numpties running about like headless chickens spouting all sorts of crap.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
It really is a job for the HOC. Maybe in time they will get round to it
Indeed. Parliament can legislate at any time to set a limit on how long Parliament itself can be prorogued for.
It's not something the courts will want to get involved with.
Gina Miller back in the news. Will there be any more clangers as people fall over themselves to accuse others of base motives/highlight their own wonderfulness?
“They might as well have put a bone through her nose” was the PB observation on The Sun’s photo, I seem to remember, until...
It is bonanza time for lawyers, like a shoal of pirhanna's, their wallets will bulging.
And the thing is Malc it is just going to get worse with threats of litigation flying in from all quarters and most probably for years to come
G there are two lots who never lose Bookies and Lawyers, you can guarantee you will never see a poor Bookie or Lawyer in your life.
There are plenty of poor lawyers - legal aid defence barristers, for example. And solicitors are due to loose a good deal of their run of the mill work to automated systems very soon.
Interesting comment on Sky that will John Major be questioned why he prorogued the HOC over cash for questions.
This whole thing is spinning wildly out of control
Well it can hardly be argued that proroguing was advantageous for Major given the outcome of the 1997 GE.
Well the political ramifications are a seperate issue. Boris may pay the price politically for proroguing Parliament (or he may not) - that will be up to the voters to decide in a general election.
The question for now is whether it's legal or not. It looks to me that the governments legal case is watertight,
A fool could have told them that and saved the gazillions in lawyers fees
At least they're trying all avenues, not just doing an Arlene and just stamping her foot, or a Boris and saying Yes, No, Possibly, No way (after having reflected on the advantages to him personally.
"The prorogation is not a coup. It has been designed with just enough points of justification to fall narrowly short of a constitutional outrage (it allows for the conventional September recess for party conferences, the new Queen’s Speech, and time for debate both at the start and end of the period before 31 October) but it is, without doubt, a brazen use of executive power to set the timetable for political advantage."
I agree entirely with that paragraph, but think the author is (possibly/probably) wrong in thinking this is the start of the Brexit endgame. I think prorogation is designed to create a further extension, and specifically not to deliver Brexit by the end of October, whilst allowing the PM to cynically claim he did everything to leave as promised.
Seems possible. Hes trying to be very clever, and it could work but equally might be over complicating things.
For every largely unaffected Luxembourg there is a significantly affected Republic of Ireland.
I think you’ll find there’s only one Republic of Ireland. Who are the significantly affected counterparts of Poland, Finland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia?
I thought it was part of Belgium that was likely to be a problem!
Gina Miller back in the news. Will there be any more clangers as people fall over themselves to accuse others of base motives/highlight their own wonderfulness?
“They might as well have put a bone through her nose” was the PB observation on The Sun’s photo, I seem to remember, until...
One thing that probably unites us all is that another sodding Gordon Brown intervention is unwanted.
No. It is a very good suggestion
It will leave the questions that need answers:
Is unilateral withdrawal of the date permissible under Article 50? Can an extension be given without a request from the departing country? How will the date of the new extension be arrived at? What agreement (EU members and leaving state) is required? What will any extension be used for? How will U.K. contributions be input to EU committees and structures be made during the new extension?
It may be a nice idea, but it opens so many questions that it may be inadvisable.
And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.
In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
It was never tested in court. I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
An outer limit sounds eminently reasonable - to have prorogued as proposed and as discussed in the leadership campaign [which is where all the anti-proroguation quotes come from] from the start of September until the start of November would have been unreasonable.
To prorogue for 4 scheduled sitting days is bog standard. And to prorogue for a few scheduled sitting days and a recess that is due already has precedence too, one of the longer recent proroguations was because it straddled the Whitsun recess so no reason not to straddle the annual Conference recess.
There is every reason if the Commons would have voted not to take the recess.
And it closes the whole of Parliamentary business down, which a recess would not have done.
Gina Miller back in the news. Will there be any more clangers as people fall over themselves to accuse others of base motives/highlight their own wonderfulness?
“They might as well have put a bone through her nose” was the PB observation on The Sun’s photo, I seem to remember, until...
The Sun just printed an unedited picture, The Times lightened her skin. People saw both photos and jumped headfirst into a bucket of potentially libellous moral outrageux over the wrong one
But the EU will surely barely notice No deal because of their better preparations (said a PB expert).
So perhaps you can answer the question as to whether our hardball no deal approach will bring the EU grovelling to its knees on account of the sheer destruction and chaos it will bring upon them, or whether no deal is no problem at all and we will breeze right on without really noticing it save for a temporary shortage of avocados from Ocado.
What I have said (as you yourself have agreed in your more lucid moments) is that in Britain's case, the big ticket scare stories in the immediate term won't happen. In the longer term there will no doubt be other challenges, which can be dealt with case by case. Where the solution is financial, the UK will enjoy the *ongoing* benefit of no longer contributing to the EU budget.
In terms of the EU, I would imagine their most pressing concern is £30bn to find. Disruption to member states is another issue, and whilst we're constantly reminded that a smaller proportion of the EU's exports go to the UK than vice versa, it should be remembered that the effect won't fall proportionately. For every largely unaffected Luxembourg there is a significantly affected Republic of Ireland.
I have certainly agreed that it won't be armageddon although frankly I have no idea what the effects of no deal will be.
I am not entirely convinced that our trump card is the £30bn. An "emergency" contribution from members would yield that in an instant should it be required. It really is a pinprick compared with each member state's budget (although not the EU's budget).
Having exhausted the German carmakers and the Italian prosecco makers as our potential saviours, I really don't see the budget contribution as being the game changer and of frightening the EU into capitulation.
Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:
So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.
So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
Gina Miller back in the news. Will there be any more clangers as people fall over themselves to accuse others of base motives/highlight their own wonderfulness?
“They might as well have put a bone through her nose” was the PB observation on The Sun’s photo, I seem to remember, until...
The Sun just printed an unedited picture, The Times lightened her skin. People saw both photos and jumped headfirst into a bucket of potentially libellous moral outrageux over the wrong one
There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.
It is bonanza time for lawyers, like a shoal of pirhanna's, their wallets will bulging.
And the thing is Malc it is just going to get worse with threats of litigation flying in from all quarters and most probably for years to come
G there are two lots who never lose Bookies and Lawyers, you can guarantee you will never see a poor Bookie or Lawyer in your life.
With the possible exception of lawyers who do legal aid.
The government has decreed since Thatcher's time 'private good, public bad' and has aimed to eliminate anything the public sector does to help the lives of the poor and downtrodden (like helping pay a poor person's legal expenses if their employer or landlord shafts them). So to provide further tax cuts for those with yachts, the lawyers who provided this public service were themselves shafted.
The PM, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary voted against it. Indeed it was the PM and Foreign Secretary who sabotaged it - without bothering to even read the final text - and made it unpalatable to the country.
Forget the actions of others - are people not capable of reading the actual text and deciding for themselves. MPs in particular ?
That's what I did.
One of my biggest shocks in my whole life of being politically aware was just how few MPs seemed to have actually done this.
It was largely impenetrable legalese for the 3/4 of it I read, I dont think i gained a great deal from doing so.
That said MPs should be better at parsing legalese and as decision makers should feel an obligation to read it themselves and not just rely on summaries.
It is bonanza time for lawyers, like a shoal of pirhanna's, their wallets will bulging.
And the thing is Malc it is just going to get worse with threats of litigation flying in from all quarters and most probably for years to come
G there are two lots who never lose Bookies and Lawyers, you can guarantee you will never see a poor Bookie or Lawyer in your life.
So true.
I think it maybe an old joke but a cruise ship sank and when a reporter asked about it the question came back
'Do you want the good news or bad news first'
Bad first was the reply.
'There were no survivors'
So what on earth is the good news ?
'They were all lawyers'
(Sorry Alastair, Cyclefree and our other lawyers)
There was a similar 'joke' some years ago in pharmaceutical circles about replacing lab rats with lawyers on the grounds that there were more of them, they bred faster and the female staff didn't get attracted to them!
It's going to blow Steve Barclay's mind when he discovers that UK citizens get freedom of movement, too, isn't it?
He's so bloody dense it makes my blood boil that he has any power whatsoever. When you see the likes of Barclay and Francois you surely have to think we can do better than this. These imbeciles should not be running things.
Er... M'lud, this Parliamentary session is virtually the longest on record and we want to present our exciting new legislation for the NHS and police to the Commons and to the British People in a Queens Speech in the same way thats happened hundreds and hundreds of times during the glorious reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Honestly these people are just wasting everyone's time (and their own money) with this bullshit.
It could be nonsense and still legal
It feels to me like MPs want the courts to let them off the hook and not face up to certain actions. If it is illegal then great, we need to know that, but whether it is or not their are actions they can take and should take.
Interesting comment on Sky that will John Major be questioned why he prorogued the HOC over cash for questions.
This whole thing is spinning wildly out of control
Well it can hardly be argued that proroguing was advantageous for Major given the outcome of the 1997 GE.
Well the political ramifications are a seperate issue. Boris may pay the price politically for proroguing Parliament (or he may not) - that will be up to the voters to decide in a general election.
The question for now is whether it's legal or not. It looks to me that the governments legal case is watertight,
A fool could have told them that and saved the gazillions in lawyers fees
At least they're trying all avenues, not just doing an Arlene and just stamping her foot, or a Boris and saying Yes, No, Possibly, No way (after having reflected on the advantages to him personally.
Far too little and far too late, they sat on their arses forever trying to get the best benefit for themselves and now are outraged that Boris has outwitted the fools and got them just where he wants them. They are getting just what they deserve and it is the public that will pay for it. The country is full of idiots, morons , cheats and comic singers and has chosen an appropriate bunch of cretins to rule over the shitshow.
Alastair`s piece, while interesting as always, is rather irksome.
He says 1) "A policy that no one had voted for" : people voted to leave whether via a deal or not, 2) "have been imposed by an unelected Prime Minister" : No PMs are elected, we elect a party and that party selects its leader.
A lot of nonsense is being talked in general at the moment. Proroguing paliament is a dubious practice to be sure, but in this case it is only in response to even more dubious practices by MPs who seek to put representative democracy above direct democracy and try to claim the moral high ground. We had a referendum!
I voted remain by the way. The referendum should never have happened. There can be no good outcome from this whatever happens.
Comments
"Yes, the only time we prorogued parliament was political expediency and highly undemocratic. We shouldn't do that again..."
For parliament to be pushed into a new situation where decisions have to be made and are forced upon a recalcitrant parliament could be viewed as a positive.
I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
"Me, Master Copperfield?" said Uriah. "Oh, no! I'm a very umble person."
To prorogue for 4 scheduled sitting days is bog standard. And to prorogue for a few scheduled sitting days and a recess that is due already has precedence too, one of the longer recent proroguations was because it straddled the Whitsun recess so no reason not to straddle the annual Conference recess.
And no doubt at that point will be accused of interfering unnecessarily with the executive's exercise of prerogative powers.
WE seem to have lots of expert numpties running about like headless chickens spouting all sorts of crap.
It's not something the courts will want to get involved with.
“They might as well have put a bone through her nose” was the PB observation on The Sun’s photo, I seem to remember, until...
And solicitors are due to loose a good deal of their run of the mill work to automated systems very soon.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9910413/Philanthropist-Gina-Miller-takes-swipe-at-charity-careerists.html
Is unilateral withdrawal of the date permissible under Article 50?
Can an extension be given without a request from the departing country?
How will the date of the new extension be arrived at? What agreement (EU members and leaving state) is required?
What will any extension be used for?
How will U.K. contributions be input to EU committees and structures be made during the new extension?
It may be a nice idea, but it opens so many questions that it may be inadvisable.
I am not entirely convinced that our trump card is the £30bn. An "emergency" contribution from members would yield that in an instant should it be required. It really is a pinprick compared with each member state's budget (although not the EU's budget).
Having exhausted the German carmakers and the Italian prosecco makers as our potential saviours, I really don't see the budget contribution as being the game changer and of frightening the EU into capitulation.
I think it maybe an old joke but a cruise ship sank and when a reporter asked about it the question came back
'Do you want the good news or bad news first'
Bad first was the reply.
'There were no survivors'
So what on earth is the good news ?
'They were all lawyers'
(Sorry Alastair, Cyclefree and our other lawyers)
NEW THREAD
The government has decreed since Thatcher's time 'private good, public bad' and has aimed to eliminate anything the public sector does to help the lives of the poor and downtrodden (like helping pay a poor person's legal expenses if their employer or landlord shafts them). So to provide further tax cuts for those with yachts, the lawyers who provided this public service were themselves shafted.
That said MPs should be better at parsing legalese and as decision makers should feel an obligation to read it themselves and not just rely on summaries.
It feels to me like MPs want the courts to let them off the hook and not face up to certain actions. If it is illegal then great, we need to know that, but whether it is or not their are actions they can take and should take.
Humbug.
He says 1) "A policy that no one had voted for" : people voted to leave whether via a deal or not, 2) "have been imposed by an unelected Prime Minister" : No PMs are elected, we elect a party and that party selects its leader.
A lot of nonsense is being talked in general at the moment. Proroguing paliament is a dubious practice to be sure, but in this case it is only in response to even more dubious practices by MPs who seek to put representative democracy above direct democracy and try to claim the moral high ground. We had a referendum!
I voted remain by the way. The referendum should never have happened. There can be no good outcome from this whatever happens.