Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Has anyone picked up that in Shetland last night BOTH Labour and the Tories lost their deposits? Indeed they got such a hammering that they wouldn't have saved one adding their votes together.
That must be pretty rare.
But it does feel that the people of Shetland may be speaking for the country on how they view the Westminster performance of the 'big two'
SNP still below the 37% they got in Orkney and Shetland in 2015
It's a tedious game, but how did the SCon candidate's performance in Shetland last night compare to O&S in 2015, or indeed 2017?
More than the SCons got in Shetland in 2011
And more than double what the SCons got in Shetland in 2019.
We could describe last night as the final point of the downward trajectory of the arc of the Ruth Davidson years, or the BJ effect...
There was a further swing from SLab to SCon last night with the SNP still below its 2015 voteshare
It’s like trying to debate religion with a member of Islamic State.
He truly is bonkers. The SCons got absolutely whipped yesterday in Shetland and HY is droning on about how well they did. He is just beyond reason.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
I assume you have you blocked it.
I had calls from 01287 numbers in the last few days. Both scams and both blocked. I also have BT protect and when you report it it adds to BT database and helps them to take further blocking action so you will not receive similar calls again
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
LOL!
The PM has always had the right to fire all SPADs. Firing a SPAD who committed Gross Misconduct after being warned what the consequences would be if they continued to commit Gross Misconduct is anything but emasculation and humiliation.
The leaking culture needs to end and this may do it.
A key member of the Chancellor’s team has been fired without the Chancellor being consulted or even warned. Cummings has shown total contempt for Javid. He has shown the world that he is entirely irrelevant and that his input is of absolutely no importance. That is the very essence of emasculation and humiliation.
I am surprise the lady has not yet spoken to the media. Perhaps she is agreeing a deal with a Sunday newspaper!
I think you'll find she has been speaking to the media and that's why she was fired.
You know this for certain, do you?
There's been a proper disciplinary process and legal advice obtained to make sure that the dismissal was fair, both substantively and procedurally, has there?
There's no question, is there, that she might be acting as a whistleblower, in which case, firing her would land the government in deep - and expensive - trouble?
Or are you just making up shit because you're assuming what you would like to be true?
Errm, he just said fired - not lawfully fired, or justifiably fired - so I don't see that any of that is really on point.
He also accused the lady of leaking official secrets and suggested she be prosecuted.
Proof in his hands. Otherwise, with compensation and/or a nda, things could get nasty. She hadn't worked all that long for Javid/the Government/The Treasury though had she? So employment protection could be iffy. I once knew someone who made a habit of picking a row with members of staff just before their EP deadline. Damn' silly it seemed to me. All that training time!
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
LOL!
The PM has always had the right to fire all SPADs. Firing a SPAD who committed Gross Misconduct after being warned what the consequences would be if they continued to commit Gross Misconduct is anything but emasculation and humiliation.
The leaking culture needs to end and this may do it.
A key member of the Chancellor’s team has been fired without the Chancellor being consulted or even warned. Cummings has shown total contempt for Javid. He has shown the world that he is entirely irrelevant and that his input is of absolutely no importance. That is the very essence of emasculation and humiliation.
I am surprise the lady has not yet spoken to the media. Perhaps she is agreeing a deal with a Sunday newspaper!
What can they do? Sack her twice?
Prosecute. Under the Official Secrets Act.
Being fired is an offence? If she was disclosing stuff about her work then yes, the OSA would apply, but to disclose what is effectively a personnel matter concerning her own employment?
She was leaking official secrets which was a Gross Misconduct offence for which she was sacked but not yet prosecuted. Just because the case hasn't been handed to the Police yet doesn't mean it can't be.
Would love to see a prosecution on that, a field day for lawyers with a public interest defence.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I am reluctantly supporting leaving with any pretty much any deal. Pray tell how that is a diehard remainer?
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
He will not give up the dosh and the fancy cars for something as small as emasculation and humiliation. Best paid clerks in the country.
Don't think the dosh comes into it. By all accounts, the Saj took a massive paycut to go into politics. I'd be very surprised if he gave up the chancellorship - after all, after PM, its the job everyone wants, particularly for a financier like him.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I am reluctantly supporting leaving with any pretty much any deal. Pray tell how that is a diehard remainer?
The Ante's been upped. If your not willing to concede to no-deal then you are now a diehard remainer.
It's simultaneously a hard ball tactic to force MPs to submit to the executive, and at the same time an entirely routine matter which no one should be concerned about.
The extreme logical contortions required of diehard Johnson supporters go some way to explaining the nonsense they come out with.
Every time I come in Sky have got two 'contestants,' (for that is what they are) diametrically opposed, spouting the same boring arguments on brexit. Do the broadcasters not realise they are not doing any service at all to the debate.
My daughter and son in law have been away for the last three days and my son in law has just asked me what is happening. I explained about the prorogue and the fight that remain mps are putting up in the HOC to stop a no deal and obtain an extension
Now, my son in law is not interested in politics but it is interesting that he could not see any sense in doing that as he said it will just perpetuate the arguments. He said we just need to get out at the end of October.
I would not be surprised if that is not a widely held view and frankly I do not think the consequences concern them
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
LOL!
The PM has always had the right to fire all SPADs. Firing a SPAD who committed Gross Misconduct after being warned what the consequences would be if they continued to commit Gross Misconduct is anything but emasculation and humiliation.
The leaking culture needs to end and this may do it.
A key member of the Chancellor’s team has been fired without the Chancellor being consulted or even warned. Cummings has shown total contempt for Javid. He has shown the world that he is entirely irrelevant and that his input is of absolutely no importance. That is the very essence of emasculation and humiliation.
I am surprise the lady has not yet spoken to the media. Perhaps she is agreeing a deal with a Sunday newspaper!
I think you'll find she has been speaking to the media and that's why she was fired.
You know this for certain, do you?
There's been a proper disciplinary process and legal advice obtained to make sure that the dismissal was fair, both substantively and procedurally, has there?
There's no question, is there, that she might be acting as a whistleblower, in which case, firing her would land the government in deep - and expensive - trouble?
Or are you just making up shit because you're assuming what you would like to be true?
Errm, he just said fired - not lawfully fired, or justifiably fired - so I don't see that any of that is really on point.
He also accused the lady of leaking official secrets and suggested she be prosecuted.
Proof in his hands. Otherwise, with compensation and/or a nda, things could get nasty. She hadn't worked all that long for Javid/the Government/The Treasury though had she? So employment protection could be iffy. I once knew someone who made a habit of picking a row with members of staff just before their EP deadline. Damn' silly it seemed to me. All that training time!
The relationship between Crown Servants and employment law is complex, and SpAds even more so. But you’re not looking at a normal employer/employee situation. I’d be amazed if anything untoward had been done here.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
LOL!
The PM has always had the right to fire all SPADs. Firing a SPAD who committed Gross Misconduct after being warned what the consequences would be if they continued to commit Gross Misconduct is anything but emasculation and humiliation.
The leaking culture needs to end and this may do it.
A key member of the Chancellor’s team has been fired without the Chancellor being consulted or even warned. Cummings has shown total contempt for Javid. He has shown the world that he is entirely irrelevant and that his input is of absolutely no importance. That is the very essence of emasculation and humiliation.
I am surprise the lady has not yet spoken to the media. Perhaps she is agreeing a deal with a Sunday newspaper!
What can they do? Sack her twice?
Prosecute. Under the Official Secrets Act.
Being fired is an offence? If she was disclosing stuff about her work then yes, the OSA would apply, but to disclose what is effectively a personnel matter concerning her own employment?
She was leaking official secrets which was a Gross Misconduct offence for which she was sacked but not yet prosecuted. Just because the case hasn't been handed to the Police yet doesn't mean it can't be.
Would love to see a prosecution on that, a field day for lawyers with a public interest defence.
Spycatcher, here we come! And, since the issue is current......
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I am reluctantly supporting leaving with any pretty much any deal. Pray tell how that is a diehard remainer?
The Ante's been upped. If your not willing to concede to no-deal then you are now a diehard remainer.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
That’s just not true in the slightest.
It is true - the more you whine about no-deal - the more likely no-deal is to happen.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
OMG this changes everything! How could we have been so blind as to lead to a one day pause in production! I'm sorry everyone, oh so sorry. I was wrong, very wrong, I never realised we would lose an ENTIRE DAY of production. What can we do to prevent this!?
Don't say the word 'pause' so loud please, we've just got through one round of street protests.
Trying to be funny is a very, very high risk strategy for Leavers atm. They are in danger of looking like that US tv comic with his go on Donald, I double dare you to run for president shtick - i.e., like complete dorks.
Can you let me know when they actually do a funny? The suspense is killing me.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
I assume you have you blocked it.
I had calls from 01287 numbers in the last few days. Both scams and both blocked. I also have BT protect and when you report it it adds to BT database and helps them to take further blocking action so you will not receive similar calls again
Of course. As I posted upthread/earlier somewhere anyway, I now get calls purporting to come from BT indicating that as a result of my persistent blocking I've missed a warning call and my internet/landline is about to be blocked. B****x
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
I assume you have you blocked it.
I had calls from 01287 numbers in the last few days. Both scams and both blocked. I also have BT protect and when you report it it adds to BT database and helps them to take further blocking action so you will not receive similar calls again
Of course. As I posted upthread/earlier somewhere anyway, I now get calls purporting to come from BT indicating that as a result of my persistent blocking I've missed a warning call and my internet/landline is about to be blocked. B****x
Sadly another scam. I did speak to BT some months ago about the scam calls and they were very interested and helpful
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
1) The country is polarised. To bring the nation together, every Friday evening shall see free cake provided to boost morale. 2) The space cannon is to be used to improve the quality of the House of Commons by ejecting surplus MPs from the Earth. Ticket sales will go towards funding repairs to the Palace of Westminster. 3) Our former policy of invading France has been modified, to help improve relations with our EU friends and allies. It is now our policy to lead a coalition in the invasion of France, in the spirit of friendship. 4) To bolster British culture, morris dancers will find VAT removed from wiffle stick oil and lace clothing for men. 5) Restaurants serving food on anything but actual crockery will be targeted by the solar death ray and melted down.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
Why should you be right and not others?
I personally think my genius is down to a mixture of genetic and environmental factors but I'm willing to debate the issue.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
IANAL, but yes, they may fail on that point. However, if at least one of them gets past that test, then the question of the PM's motivation will be relevant.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
That’s just not true in the slightest.
It is true - the more you whine about no-deal - the more likely no-deal is to happen.
It's just a fact I'm afraid.
War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! No deal is the fault of people trying to stop no deal! Brexit is the fault of Remainers! Leaving the Single Market increases Free Trade! Do you people even listen to yourselves? Seriously, you're proper mental.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
To be honest Alastair it has to be the HOC that takes action on this.
Once the judiciary get involved it will play into Boris hands of the people v Parliament, the elite and the judiciary. Not a place to be
1) The country is polarised. To bring the nation together, every Friday evening shall see free cake provided to boost morale. 2) The space cannon is to be used to improve the quality of the House of Commons by ejecting surplus MPs from the Earth. Ticket sales will go towards funding repairs to the Palace of Westminster. 3) Our former policy of invading France has been modified, to help improve relations with our EU friends and allies. It is now our policy to lead a coalition in the invasion of France, in the spirit of friendship. 4) To bolster British culture, morris dancers will find VAT removed from wiffle stick oil and lace clothing for men. 5) Restaurants serving food on anything but actual crockery will be targeted by the solar death ray and melted down.
You can't import cake mix through Gatwick, though.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
1. Did the Queen act lawfully? Probably. 2. Did the Privy counselors act lawfully in advising the Queen? Maybe not.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
That’s just not true in the slightest.
It is true - the more you whine about no-deal - the more likely no-deal is to happen.
It's just a fact I'm afraid.
War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! No deal is the fault of people trying to stop no deal! Brexit is the fault of Remainers! Leaving the Single Market increases Free Trade! Do you people even listen to yourselves? Seriously, you're proper mental.
Boris himself made the point in the initial quote. I am merely backing up our PM in this time of crisis.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
I was wondering when remainers would start being blamed for all the damage by the madman driving off a cliff edge. Can no-one be allowed to say "hang on a second, it's too dangerous"?
The more you squeal it's too dangerous - the more danger you put us in.
Why should you be right and not others?
Briskin is barely even a troll now - more a gadflea. Ignore him.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
1. Did the Queen act lawfully? Probably. 2. Did the Privy counselors act lawfully in advising the Queen? Maybe not.
That is surely the issue?
You know the whole thing was a rubber stamping session. Disgraceful.
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
I assume you have you blocked it.
I had calls from 01287 numbers in the last few days. Both scams and both blocked. I also have BT protect and when you report it it adds to BT database and helps them to take further blocking action so you will not receive similar calls again
Of course. As I posted upthread/earlier somewhere anyway, I now get calls purporting to come from BT indicating that as a result of my persistent blocking I've missed a warning call and my internet/landline is about to be blocked. B****x
Sadly another scam. I did speak to BT some months ago about the scam calls and they were very interested and helpful
What other advice did they give? PM me if necessary.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
But then isn’t there a natural limit to that in that a thousand things couldn’t then happen (e.g. no Estimates would get passed and the army would disband) so actually it could only ever be a question of a few months? Also, because something looks mad (e.g. the PM can shut it all down on a whim via the sovereign) surely it doesn’t follow that it’s unlawful? It might just mean our constitution is mad. And it is.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
1. Did the Queen act lawfully? Probably. 2. Did the Privy counselors act lawfully in advising the Queen? Maybe not.
That is surely the issue?
Regina non potest peccare, so 1 is not a question which can usefully be asked.
1) The country is polarised. To bring the nation together, every Friday evening shall see free cake provided to boost morale. 2) The space cannon is to be used to improve the quality of the House of Commons by ejecting surplus MPs from the Earth. Ticket sales will go towards funding repairs to the Palace of Westminster. 3) Our former policy of invading France has been modified, to help improve relations with our EU friends and allies. It is now our policy to lead a coalition in the invasion of France, in the spirit of friendship. 4) To bolster British culture, morris dancers will find VAT removed from wiffle stick oil and lace clothing for men. 5) Restaurants serving food on anything but actual crockery will be targeted by the solar death ray and melted down.
Don't worry. You got my vote on 1). 5) is also attractive.
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
LOL!
The PM has always had the right to fire all SPADs. Firing a SPAD who committed Gross Misconduct after being warned what the consequences would be if they continued to commit Gross Misconduct is anything but emasculation and humiliation.
The leaking culture needs to end and this may do it.
A key member of the Chancellor’s team has been fired without the Chancellor being consulted or even warned. Cummings has shown total contempt for Javid. He has shown the world that he is entirely irrelevant and that his input is of absolutely no importance. That is the very essence of emasculation and humiliation.
I am surprise the lady has not yet spoken to the media. Perhaps she is agreeing a deal with a Sunday newspaper!
I think you'll find she has been speaking to the media and that's why she was fired.
You know this for certain, do you?
There's been a proper disciplinary process and legal advice obtained to make sure that the dismissal was fair, both substantively and procedurally, has there?
There's no question, is there, that she might be acting as a whistleblower, in which case, firing her would land the government in deep - and expensive - trouble?
Or are you just making up shit because you're assuming what you would like to be true?
No I don't know for certain, I'm speculating based on the evidence before us. Hence why I said "I think" rather than "I know".
If it does land the government in deep and expensive trouble then no doubt we'll probably find that out.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
But then isn’t there a natural limit to that in that a thousand things couldn’t then happen (e.g. no Estimates would get passed and the army would disband) so actually it could only ever be a question of a few months? Also, because something looks mad (e.g. the PM can shut it all down on a whim via the sovereign) surely it doesn’t follow that it’s unlawful? It might just mean our constitution is mad. And it is.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that. How
I have no specialist knowledge beyond being an experienced pensions solicitor. The courts are reluctant to leave discretionary powers unfettered, especially when they are so consequential. But the government will be given a lot of leeway even if it is under the purview of the courts.
Each suggestion that the government is extracting the urine will make the courts more inclined to act.
Every time I come in Sky have got two 'contestants,' (for that is what they are) diametrically opposed, spouting the same boring arguments on brexit. Do the broadcasters not realise they are not doing any service at all to the debate.
My daughter and son in law have been away for the last three days and my son in law has just asked me what is happening. I explained about the prorogue and the fight that remain mps are putting up in the HOC to stop a no deal and obtain an extension
Now, my son in law is not interested in politics but it is interesting that he could not see any sense in doing that as he said it will just perpetuate the arguments. He said we just need to get out at the end of October.
I would not be surprised if that is not a widely held view and frankly I do not think the consequences concern them
It is what I hear all the time from friends, family, leavers, remainers, uncle Tom Cobley et al.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Did he not foresee this might happen when he said no deal was a million to one and he could get us a deal?
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Spot on.
Behave in a calamitously stupid and dishonest way, then try to blame everyone else in sight.
Spot on for Boris Johnson, anyhow.
I think you're both missing the point. You diehard remainers with your court challenges and rallies are causing real damage to our country.
Please desist.
Please don't make yourself into one of those posters best skipped over.
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
I agree with you and also continue to agree it should not have been done. But again it is not Boris who is setting the precedent. Atlee in 1948 and Major in 1997 both did the same thing for similarly dubious reasons. Which is why I believe the legal challenges are a waste of time and money. What we need is a change in the law to prevent this happening again.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
But then isn’t there a natural limit to that in that a thousand things couldn’t then happen (e.g. no Estimates would get passed and the army would disband) so actually it could only ever be a question of a few months? Also, because something looks mad (e.g. the PM can shut it all down on a whim via the sovereign) surely it doesn’t follow that it’s unlawful? It might just mean our constitution is mad. And it is.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
How did the Belgians manage for all that time without a Government. Apart from letting Civil Servants take routine decisions. Or, come to that, the Northern Irish?
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
That’s not what the polls say.
Hmm. I'm sceptical about whether you are drawing the right conclusions. Ultimately it all comes down to Boris vs Corbyn. And how long people want to put up with the Brexit process and who promises closure and a brighter sunnier future. You seeing anything bright and sunny about Mr C?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
If I may butt in, I very much doubt that our negotiating position has been affected in the least bit by parliament's antics. Unsurprisingly, the EU27 started from the position that no responsible UK government could countenance crashing out in chaos, just as we rightly assume that they want a smooth transition. What's more, they know perfectly well that a no-deal crash out will be intolerable for us, so if it does happen they expect us to come crawling back in a few months anyway. So where's the UK's leverage? It's a chimera; as others have pointed out, it can't simultaneously be true that crash-out will be no big problem for the UK, and that it will be disastrously disruptive for the EU.
As you point out, in the circumstances the deal negotiated by Theresa May was pretty good. I think that the EU have played a fairly straight bat, not seeking to exploit our weakness particularly. I would criticise them for inflexibility (especially in the daft sequencing), but they've not been vindictive or taken undue advantage of our weak position.
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
That’s not what the polls say.
Hmm. I'm sceptical about whether you are drawing the right conclusions. Ultimately it all comes down to Boris vs Corbyn. And how long people want to put up with the Brexit process and who promises closure and a brighter sunnier future. You seeing anything bright and sunny about Mr C?
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
I agree with you and also continue to agree it should not have been done. But again it is not Boris who is setting the precedent. Atlee in 1948 and Major in 1997 both did the same thing for similarly dubious reasons. Which is why I believe the legal challenges are a waste of time and money. What we need is a change in the law to prevent this happening again.
The law has moved on a lot since 1948 and even 1997. In neither year was a case brought anyway, so they do not act as precedents. The courts really could go either way on this one.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
That was certainly Roddy Dunlop's first and primary point in Edinburgh. He pointed out that there was no precedent for any prorogation being challenged in the Courts ever (I think he was discounting the Civil War as a precedent). O'Neill is implicitly accepting that but claiming that analogous orders in council have been challenged successfully in the Courts. An example was a case brought by the Barclay brothers against an order in the Channel Islands which they successfully contended was not ECHR compliant.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable? If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant? Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that? What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this? Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
But then isn’t there a natural limit to that in that a thousand things couldn’t then happen (e.g. no Estimates would get passed and the army would disband) so actually it could only ever be a question of a few months? Also, because something looks mad (e.g. the PM can shut it all down on a whim via the sovereign) surely it doesn’t follow that it’s unlawful? It might just mean our constitution is mad. And it is.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
How did the Belgians manage for all that time without a Government. Apart from letting Civil Servants take routine decisions. Or, come to that, the Northern Irish?
Not sure I see the point? Not familiar with those examples but I do know that without a whole variety of things going through Parliament (usually on the nod so you don’t see them) this country would shut down. Parliament does more than most people thing it does, it’s just that a lot of it now happens on the nod by convention - not least because the Gvt has had a majority for at least confidence and supply.
@HYUFD constantly tells us that Boris is representing the ‘silent majority’ and then just ignores any evidence to the contrary. If Boris was delivering the Brexit the majority wanted then that would clearly show in the polls.
Once again he and his fellow Tory cultists have shown that democracy does not matter and the only thing that does matter is beating Jeremy Corbyn.
There is no majority in any poll for Remain or any Brexit Option.
Most Remainers back Revoke, most Leavers now back No Deal and the only compromise on the table, the Withdrawal Agreement, was rejected by MPs 3 times.
So tough
We arent going to no deal, so indeed it is tough on leavers.
I'm increasingly of the view that we are not going to leave at all. Johnson is going to crash and burn and he will take Brexit down with him.
I'd call it 60 40 that happens vs no deal Brexit. Theres no other options
Mr. Boy, many of those complaining of no deal voted against a deal on three occasions.
That's the obvious consequence of their actions.
The fault lies with the government, who never put a deal that could command a majority to the House, for reasons of internal party management. All you are saying is that MPs should cave in to blackmail. Personally I am glad they didn't - you should never give in to blackmail.
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
tl; dr
Genuinely suspecting it's more of a case of tl;cr, to be honest.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
I agree with you and also continue to agree it should not have been done. But again it is not Boris who is setting the precedent. Atlee in 1948 and Major in 1997 both did the same thing for similarly dubious reasons. Which is why I believe the legal challenges are a waste of time and money. What we need is a change in the law to prevent this happening again.
The law has moved on a lot since 1948 and even 1997. In neither year was a case brought anyway, so they do not act as precedents. The courts really could go either way on this one.
As with the initial Miller case, whilst I would be worried about its impact on whether we eventually leave or not, I can't in all conscience say I would be sorry to see a successful challenge. The law as it apparently stands seems wrong to me if it allows Boris to do this.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
That was certainly Roddy Dunlop's first and primary point in Edinburgh. He pointed out that there was no precedent for any prorogation being challenged in the Courts ever (I think he was discounting the Civil War as a precedent). O'Neill is implicitly accepting that but claiming that analogous orders in council have been challenged successfully in the Courts. An example was a case brought by the Barclay brothers against an order in the Channel Islands which they successfully contended was not ECHR compliant.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable? If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant? Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that? What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this? Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
That ECHR judgement sounds interesting. Our (literally) medieval assumptions in our constitution (such as it is) vs. a more modern concept of codified, absolute individual rights.
We are going to have to think about all this later on with cool heads and a level of grown up consensus. Assuming that’s ever possible again....
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
I think you insult the intelligence of the average bloke in the pub.
Boris with customary oomph agreed to have backstop settled in just 30 days last week, accepting it was up to Britain to provide a solution, and said he was "more than happy" with the "blistering timetable" Merkel had set out.
So is this it, trusted trader schemes using the technology that's already available to do this?
We can settle this with some polling, “if EU are convinced UK will no deal, will they back down on backstop?” Or “do you think Boris has a backstop plan or is he bluffing”. Or ask in EU country’s “should EU back down and compromise on the backstop?”
I’m confident you will be on the wrong side of the results.
How do you get a deal if you don’t even have a proposal? 😆
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
That’s not what the polls say.
Hmm. I'm sceptical about whether you are drawing the right conclusions. Ultimately it all comes down to Boris vs Corbyn. And how long people want to put up with the Brexit process and who promises closure and a brighter sunnier future. You seeing anything bright and sunny about Mr C?
Fair, and thought-provoking, point.
The problem with the closure argument is that Boris and a No Deal Brexit doesn't actually offer closure - it just moves things on to a world of continual small deals to sort the latest minor crisis out.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
But then isn’t there a natural limit to that in that a thousand things couldn’t then happen (e.g. no Estimates would get passed and the army would disband) so actually it could only ever be a question of a few months? Also, because something looks mad (e.g. the PM can shut it all down on a whim via the sovereign) surely it doesn’t follow that it’s unlawful? It might just mean our constitution is mad. And it is.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
How did the Belgians manage for all that time without a Government. Apart from letting Civil Servants take routine decisions. Or, come to that, the Northern Irish?
Not sure I see the point? Not familiar with those examples but I do know that without a whole variety of things going through Parliament (usually on the nod so you don’t see them) this country would shut down. Parliament does more than most people thing it does, it’s just that a lot of it now happens on the nod by convention - not least because the Gvt has had a majority for at least confidence and supply.
Point is that provided things are pointing in the right direction an Executive isn't immediately necessary. As you say a whole lot of things are done on the nod, and a similar amount don't need an executive decision unless something goes, or is likely to go, wrong.
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
If I may butt in, I very much doubt that our negotiating position has been affected in the least bit by parliament's antics. Unsurprisingly, the EU27 started from the position that no responsible UK government could countenance crashing out in chaos, just as we rightly assume that they want a smooth transition. What's more, they know perfectly well that a no-deal crash out will be intolerable for us, so if it does happen they expect us to come crawling back in a few months anyway. So where's the UK's leverage? It's a chimera; as others have pointed out, it can't simultaneously be true that crash-out will be no big problem for the UK, and that it will be disastrously disruptive for the EU.
As you point out, in the circumstances the deal negotiated by Theresa May was pretty good. I think that the EU have played a fairly straight bat, not seeking to exploit our weakness particularly. I would criticise them for inflexibility (especially in the daft sequencing), but they've not been vindictive or taken undue advantage of our weak position.
Its hypothetical but if the result of no deal is no departure and that is what you want it stands to reason that you don't try so hard to get something over the line. That is why taking no deal off the table as Parliament urged was so stupid and counter productive. That is also part of the critique of the backstop and whilst I would happily have lived with the backstop to get the deal done this is undoubtedly a reasonable apprehension.
I don't pretend that no deal is not seriously sub optimal, obviously it is. I don't pretend that it is not going to adversely affect us more than anyone else, obviously it will. But seeking to rule it out as an inconvenience that we were willing to endure was a mistake then and now.
Just watched a clip of Boris on the Beeb. Appreciate that he enrages so many people here but, really, its no contest between him and the other contenders. No contest at all. To the average bloke in the pub his arguments about how to get a deal simply make sense - and, actually they kind of do. The Remainer MPs are setting themselves up as the fall guys.
That’s not what the polls say.
Hmm. I'm sceptical about whether you are drawing the right conclusions. Ultimately it all comes down to Boris vs Corbyn. And how long people want to put up with the Brexit process and who promises closure and a brighter sunnier future. You seeing anything bright and sunny about Mr C?
Fair, and thought-provoking, point.
The problem with the closure argument is that Boris and a No Deal Brexit doesn't actually offer closure - it just moves things on to a world of continual small deals to sort the latest minor crisis out.
But it has moved the world on that bit; at the moment we're continually bickering about 'what if'!
For the avoidance of doubt my preference would be for Boris to say; 'Clearly we're in danger of making a very bad mistake. Can I have the Article 50 letter back please. And let's forget all this ever happened.'
Javid has been emasculated and humiliated. I genuinely cannot believe he has not resigned.
He will not give up the dosh and the fancy cars for something as small as emasculation and humiliation. Best paid clerks in the country.
Don't think the dosh comes into it. By all accounts, the Saj took a massive paycut to go into politics. I'd be very surprised if he gave up the chancellorship - after all, after PM, its the job everyone wants, particularly for a financier like him.
He will make a packet once he leaves though, meanwhile he lives high on the hog at our expense and some bellend can overrule him at the drop of a hat
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question wasts.
It might. But the consequence of that would
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
But then isn’t there a natural limit to that in that a thousand things couldn’t then happen (e.g. no Estimates would get passed and the army would disband) so actually it could only ever be a question of a few months? Also, because something looks mad (e.g. the PM can shut it all down on a whim via the sovereign) surely it doesn’t follow that it’s unlawful? It might just mean our constitution is mad. And it is.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
How did the Belgians manage for all that time without a Government. Apart from letting Civil Servants take routine decisions. Or, come to that, the Northern Irish?
Not sure I see the point? Not familiar with those examples but I do know that without a whole variety of things going through Parliament (usually on the nod so you don’t see them) this country would shut down. Parliament does more than most people thing it does, it’s just that a lot of it now happens on the nod by convention - not least because the Gvt has had a majority for at least confidence and supply.
Point is that provided things are pointing in the right direction an Executive isn't immediately necessary. As you say a whole lot of things are done on the nod, and a similar amount don't need an executive decision unless something goes, or is likely to go, wrong.
But we’re talking about the suspension of the legislature, not the executive. I might be misunderstanding but I think you were replying to me observing that even the most wicked of PM, if empowered to prorogue at will, could sustain a lack of legislature for a few months at most.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
This is just pure victim blaming.
"You shouldn't have fought back so you got what you deserve".
Given they've gone through about a million people in five months I'd say it is pretty efficient for a new government system. And there's not a backlog (yet), people just aren't applying.
Semantics? The WA was a preliminary agreement so that we could negotiate a trade deal, the famous future trading relationship. That's substance not semantics.
And as for the £30bn we established that that's all you are basing your negotiating position on.
Either the threat of no deal is calamitous and will force the EU to the negotiating table, or it is nothing to worry about so the EU will ignore it in much the same way that you are. It has to be one and you haven't told me which it is.
Nor have you troubled to tell me why No deal means a return to the stone ages for Britain but will be brushed off the EU's windscreen like an unfortunate fly.
In any case, these arguments will soon be rendered redundant by events. As someone who likes precise language, the change in the EU's language surely has not gone unnoticed. They're now speaking of considering proposals from the UK to replace the backstop 'in line' with the WA, and respecting Ireland's wishes. Sounds awfully like EU fudgespeak for 'sort something out with Ireland and you'll have our blessing' to me.
Ireland, for its part has made statements like this:
In sum, backstop could be replaced by technology + something extra for agriculture. The DUP also appear to be more than flexible in this issue, being reportedly prepared to consider an all Ireland ariculture customs regime in exchange for a time limit to the backstop.
There is every reason to feel confident that a last minute deal to avoid the dislocating effect of a no deal scenario is within reach.
The only fly in the ointment is f**ktards united in the House of Commons, so proud of themselves for 'preventing no deal' like a three year old who has just scribbled crayon all over Mum's new wallpaper, potentially emboldening the EU and Ireland to harden their position.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
That was certainly Roddy Dunlop's first and primary point in Edinburgh. He pointed out that there was no precedent for any prorogation being challenged in the Courts ever (I think he was discounting the Civil War as a precedent). O'Neill is implicitly accepting that but claiming that analogous orders in council have been challenged successfully in the Courts. An example was a case brought by the Barclay brothers against an order in the Channel Islands which they successfully contended was not ECHR compliant.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable? If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant? Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that? What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this? Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
That ECHR judgement sounds interesting. Our (literally) medieval assumptions in our constitution (such as it is) vs. a more modern concept of codified, absolute individual rights.
We are going to have to think about all this later on with cool heads and a level of grown up consensus. Assuming that’s ever possible again....
Sky Ticker - Bozo: "I'm afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that Brexit might be stopped in the uk by parliament the less likely they are to give us the deal we need."
Spot on Bozo, No-Deal Brexit nailed on because of sulky remainers.
Utter twaddle. The EU can work out perfectly well what is going in Parliament. They have long since assumed that through misplaced bravado and stupidity we will blunder into a No Deal exit. They are furious at our lack of good faith and failure to understand that it is our red lines which have led us to being offered a WA on these terms and have been told expressly by Johnson's envoy, David Frost, that the whole of the WA, not just the backstop are now up for grabs.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question wasts.
It might. But the consequence of that would
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
How did the Belgians manage for all that time without a Government. Apart from letting Civil Servants take routine decisions. Or, come to that, the Northern Irish?
Not sure I see the point? Not familiar with those examples but I do know that without a whole variety of things going through Parliament (usually on the nod so you don’t see them) this country would shut down. Parliament does more than most people thing it does, it’s just that a lot of it now happens on the nod by convention - not least because the Gvt has had a majority for at least confidence and supply.
Point is that provided things are pointing in the right direction an Executive isn't immediately necessary. As you say a whole lot of things are done on the nod, and a similar amount don't need an executive decision unless something goes, or is likely to go, wrong.
But we’re talking about the suspension of the legislature, not the executive. I might be misunderstanding but I think you were replying to me observing that even the most wicked of PM, if empowered to prorogue at will, could sustain a lack of legislature for a few months at most.
Danger of misunderstanding each other, perhap! I was supporting your point; either or both the Executive and the Legislature could be missing for a while and the 'practical managers' would carry on for a while. Bit like a lower form of life managing without a head!
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
That was certainly Roddy Dunlop's first and primary point in Edinburgh. He pointed out that there was no precedent for any prorogation being challenged in the Courts ever (I think he was discounting the Civil War as a precedent). O'Neill is implicitly accepting that but claiming that analogous orders in council have been challenged successfully in the Courts. An example was a case brought by the Barclay brothers against an order in the Channel Islands which they successfully contended was not ECHR compliant.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable? If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant? Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that? What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this? Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
That ECHR judgement sounds interesting. Our (literally) medieval assumptions in our constitution (such as it is) vs. a more modern concept of codified, absolute individual rights.
We are going to have to think about all this later on with cool heads and a level of grown up consensus. Assuming that’s ever possible again....
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
I agree with you and also continue to agree it should not have been done. But again it is not Boris who is setting the precedent. Atlee in 1948 and Major in 1997 both did the same thing for similarly dubious reasons. Which is why I believe the legal challenges are a waste of time and money. What we need is a change in the law to prevent this happening again.
The law has moved on a lot since 1948 and even 1997. In neither year was a case brought anyway, so they do not act as precedents. The courts really could go either way on this one.
As with the initial Miller case, whilst I would be worried about its impact on whether we eventually leave or not, I can't in all conscience say I would be sorry to see a successful challenge. The law as it apparently stands seems wrong to me if it allows Boris to do this.
There's no question it needs regulation. Whether this is an abuse or not (it is) it is a dangerous precedent that undermines the sovereignty of Parliament.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Were you equally critical of Robin Cook when he had to decide in a hurry which woman to spend the rest of his life with?
It's certainly an interesting approach when there's a legal case potentially hanging on this very point... unless he wants to lose it, of course.
I had assumed the really key legal question was whether the Sovereign’s decision to prorogue (for any reason) could be challenged at all at law. Am I wrong? I had assumed the challenges would all fail there, before considering the arguments.
It might. But the consequence of that would mean that Parliament could be prorogued at any time the heat got too much for a Prime Minister for any length of time, no matter what the consequences. That seems profoundly undemocratic and a terrible precedent.
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
I agree with you and also continue to agree it should not have been done. But again it is not Boris who is setting the precedent. Atlee in 1948 and Major in 1997 both did the same thing for similarly dubious reasons. Which is why I believe the legal challenges are a waste of time and money. What we need is a change in the law to prevent this happening again.
The law has moved on a lot since 1948 and even 1997. In neither year was a case brought anyway, so they do not act as precedents. The courts really could go either way on this one.
As with the initial Miller case, whilst I would be worried about its impact on whether we eventually leave or not, I can't in all conscience say I would be sorry to see a successful challenge. The law as it apparently stands seems wrong to me if it allows Boris to do this.
It does especially when it was driven by an untruth. Basically they have lied to the head of state.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
That's pure sophistry on your part. The only moment of leverage that MPs have in the negotiations is in witholding support for the deal. They were right to use that leverage to seek a compromise deal rather than May's hard Brexit. What you are saying is that that leverage is illusory because the government will leave with no deal rather than compromise. That may be right (I am not wholly convinced they are that mad or stupid, but frankly who knows these days). But the choice to leave with no deal is the government's, and you cannot pin the blame elsewhere no matter how much you want to deflect it from the Tories.
Just had a 'nuisance' call from an 01296 number; someone purporting to represent a firm called "Call Guardian'. Guy ..... heavy South Asian accent ...... knew my name. I think he was trying to sign me up to some protection racket. His number's on my 'Call Protect' now. 01296 is Aylesbury.
For many years, I have received an occasional from a withheld number. A lady (it is always a lady), says, “I’m told you woz in an accident?”
I keep wondering if the “woz” is scripted somehow.
Comments
Perhaps he did and knew no deal was a million to one because if no one else blocks it, then ultimately he will.
Or perhaps the great leader is not particularly good at thinking.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
As has been stated before, change the red lines and we get a different agreement. We could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, for instance. That is quite as compatible with the referendum result as as No Deal exit. After all, haven't we been told - endlessly - by Leavers that what was said during the campaign doesn't matter and cannot be treated as a guide to what sort of Leave we should have?
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
I had calls from 01287 numbers in the last few days. Both scams and both blocked. I also have BT protect and when you report it it adds to BT database and helps them to take further blocking action so you will not receive similar calls again
Please desist.
It's simultaneously a hard ball tactic to force MPs to submit to the executive, and at the same time an entirely routine matter which no one should be concerned about.
The extreme logical contortions required of diehard Johnson supporters go some way to explaining the nonsense they come out with.
My daughter and son in law have been away for the last three days and my son in law has just asked me what is happening. I explained about the prorogue and the fight that remain mps are putting up in the HOC to stop a no deal and obtain an extension
Now, my son in law is not interested in politics but it is interesting that he could not see any sense in doing that as he said it will just perpetuate the arguments. He said we just need to get out at the end of October.
I would not be surprised if that is not a widely held view and frankly I do not think the consequences concern them
https://youtu.be/Xbq3kc29Tmg
It's just a fact I'm afraid.
(Sorry @SouthamObserver - that simply too obvious to pass up)
B****x
I think it more likely it will be held to be reviewable but in wide parameters.
1) The country is polarised. To bring the nation together, every Friday evening shall see free cake provided to boost morale.
2) The space cannon is to be used to improve the quality of the House of Commons by ejecting surplus MPs from the Earth. Ticket sales will go towards funding repairs to the Palace of Westminster.
3) Our former policy of invading France has been modified, to help improve relations with our EU friends and allies. It is now our policy to lead a coalition in the invasion of France, in the spirit of friendship.
4) To bolster British culture, morris dancers will find VAT removed from wiffle stick oil and lace clothing for men.
5) Restaurants serving food on anything but actual crockery will be targeted by the solar death ray and melted down.
Once the judiciary get involved it will play into Boris hands of the people v Parliament, the elite and the judiciary. Not a place to be
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
2. Did the Privy counselors act lawfully in advising the Queen? Maybe not.
That is surely the issue?
Ignore him.
Genuinely interested in how you think a court would approach that.
Edit - for absolute clarity I’m not arguing in favour of what’s being done, I’m just curious on what basis a court might take a view. Whether a thing is right is different from whether a thing is lawful.
That's the obvious consequence of their actions.
If it does land the government in deep and expensive trouble then no doubt we'll probably find that out.
Each suggestion that the government is extracting the urine will make the courts more inclined to act.
As you point out, in the circumstances the deal negotiated by Theresa May was pretty good. I think that the EU have played a fairly straight bat, not seeking to exploit our weakness particularly. I would criticise them for inflexibility (especially in the daft sequencing), but they've not been vindictive or taken undue advantage of our weak position.
The hurdles the petitioners have to get over are numerous. They include:
Is this justiciable?
If it is, what was the motivation of the PM and is that relevant?
Is the Court allowed/entitled to reach a view on that?
What are the "lawful" parameters of the PM/Monarch's discretion on this?
Has Parliament in fact been prevented from debating either Brexit or a VoNC as a result of the order?
My guess is that whilst not closing the door in all and every circumstance the last point means that the answer to the first point in this particular case is no.
We are going to have to think about all this later on with cool heads and a level of grown up consensus. Assuming that’s ever possible again....
Boris with customary oomph agreed to have backstop settled in just 30 days last week, accepting it was up to Britain to provide a solution, and said he was "more than happy" with the "blistering timetable" Merkel had set out.
So is this it, trusted trader schemes using the technology that's already available to do this?
We can settle this with some polling, “if EU are convinced UK will no deal, will they back down on backstop?” Or “do you think Boris has a backstop plan or is he bluffing”. Or ask in EU country’s “should EU back down and compromise on the backstop?”
I’m confident you will be on the wrong side of the results.
How do you get a deal if you don’t even have a proposal? 😆
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
I don't pretend that no deal is not seriously sub optimal, obviously it is. I don't pretend that it is not going to adversely affect us more than anyone else, obviously it will. But seeking to rule it out as an inconvenience that we were willing to endure was a mistake then and now.
For the avoidance of doubt my preference would be for Boris to say; 'Clearly we're in danger of making a very bad mistake. Can I have the Article 50 letter back please. And let's forget all this ever happened.'
"You shouldn't have fought back so you got what you deserve".
In any case, these arguments will soon be rendered redundant by events. As someone who likes precise language, the change in the EU's language surely has not gone unnoticed. They're now speaking of considering proposals from the UK to replace the backstop 'in line' with the WA, and respecting Ireland's wishes. Sounds awfully like EU fudgespeak for 'sort something out with Ireland and you'll have our blessing' to me.
Ireland, for its part has made statements like this:
“It might sound as if technology can be a solution for the border, but you can’t open a truck and find whether an animal has a disease through technology,”
https://en.brinkwire.com/news/ireland-panic-varadkar-minister-comes-clean-over-no-deal-fears-very-difficult/
In sum, backstop could be replaced by technology + something extra for agriculture. The DUP also appear to be more than flexible in this issue, being reportedly prepared to consider an all Ireland ariculture customs regime in exchange for a time limit to the backstop.
There is every reason to feel confident that a last minute deal to avoid the dislocating effect of a no deal scenario is within reach.
The only fly in the ointment is f**ktards united in the House of Commons, so proud of themselves for 'preventing no deal' like a three year old who has just scribbled crayon all over Mum's new wallpaper, potentially emboldening the EU and Ireland to harden their position.
Boris has only got one ball
The other is in the Albert Hall
Rees Mogg is somewhat similar
But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Basically they have lied to the head of state.
A lady (it is always a lady), says, “I’m told you woz in an accident?”
I keep wondering if the “woz” is scripted somehow.