Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
I know that if you’re struggling to get by on your current wages, you don’t need a mass influx of competition for your job from people who will happily do it for less money and live in worse conditions, and if I were an employer, I’d be rubbing my hands together at the prospect.
You Tories are first to tell us that wage growth is strong and we have nearly full employment. We still have freedom of movement.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
The big difference is in 2017 we had Paul Nuttall’s Farageless UKIP and two main parties saying they’ll honour the referendum result, now we have Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and 2 more years of filibuster from the big 2. I think the latter will outpoll the former by a significant factor.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
I know that if you’re struggling to get by on your current wages, you don’t need a mass influx of competition for your job from people who will happily do it for less money and live in worse conditions, and if I were an employer, I’d be rubbing my hands together at the prospect.
You Tories are first to tell us that wage growth is strong and we have nearly full employment. We still have freedom of movement.
Big increase in non EU immigration too. Whats your point?
My point is as I made it. Your attempt to conflate -132k in EU immigration with +34k from the ROW tells it’s own story.
And the wage growth is a direct result of that is it? Nothing to do with increases in minimum wage and public sector pay? Nothing to do with us having not enough people to fill existing vacancies anyway?
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
LOL, Tuba is well named. It does not safeguard 2500 jobs in Scotland, it will likely be a net loss more like.
Hmm, too early to judge, despite the apparent attempt to get people to draw the conclusion that all the jobs will be in Fife. The Grauniad news report doesn't say where the jobs are, and given the prefabrication techniques likely to be involved, they could be all over the UK. Moreover, wherever the hulls are fabricated, much of the value will reside in engineering and electronics equipment produced elsewhere than Rosyth and possibly even overseas. We had similar announcements of £xm of destroyers and frigates being promised for the Clyde in indyref 1 but a lot of the value was elsewhere - and they were mostly cancelled after 2014. What is proposed today is nothing like as much, and I see it is being hinted that BAe who did the Daring class on the Clyde didn't get the contract.
Edit: BBC confirms (a) to be produced across the UK (which is entirely to be expected in the nature of such things) and (b) very cheap - at least at present - compared to the sort of thing that was to hjave been built before.
It will be a NET loss for Scotland, some assembly work at Rosyth , job cuts at Govan and the majority as additional work around England. Yet another lie from 2014 Referendum confirmed for certain.
Indeed. What happened to the Clyde "frigate factory" production line? I do wonder how the unions and their leaders there are feeling - especially given the latter's campaigning in 2014. Poor chaps (the members I mean).
Yes where are Paul Sweeney and all those union leaders now , we will not see them apologising for misleading the workers. Also have to say the workers should have had the common sense to know better.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
I know that if you’re struggling to get by on your current wages, you don’t need a mass influx of competition for your job from people who will happily do it for less money and live in worse conditions, and if I were an employer, I’d be rubbing my hands together at the prospect.
You Tories are first to tell us that wage growth is strong and we have nearly full employment. We still have freedom of movement.
Big increase in non EU immigration too. Whats your point?
My point is as I made it. Your attempt to conflate -132k in EU immigration with +34k from the ROW tells it’s own story.
And the wage growth is a direct result of that is it? Nothing to do with increases in minimum wage and public sector pay? Nothing to do with us having not enough people to fill existing vacancies anyway?
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - oliticians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
Disclaimer, I live on disability benefits and have direct experience of work capabilityy and thus make things even harder for me.
A valuable insight. I hope life gets better for you.
No worries there, as long as I can play chess and research things that interest me, eat and stay warm theres not much more needed. Money isn't really all that.
It's a bit glib for me to agree, as I have money, but, fuck it, I strongly agree.
I spent the morning reading a brilliant biography of Nietzsche ("I am dynamite", by Sue Prideaux). Then I had a very nice breakfast - poached eggs on sourdough, with chili, chives and soy. Later I will meet some old friends for a glass of wine.
What more do you need, than this: emotional, intellectual and physiological nourishment? Not much, really.
BTW I never realised how brilliant Nietzsche's aphorisms are. "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" - that's his. I also loved this one: "Never trust a thought that occurs to you indoors".
Thankyou for that cogent and honest reply, and the same to El Capitano.
I fear the future, if Remain wins. I fear the future, if No Deal "wins".
We desperately need a deal. Any deal. These fucking useless MPs need to see that disaster is just over the hill, and coming our way. Ludicrous ultra-Remainers like Grieve, or Soubry, and their equivalents on the No Deal side, have to be thrown in a very deep pit, and kept their until this is done.
For this, though, I do not lay the blame at "Remainers". I lay the blame at May. She tried to have a brexit election, and lost. So obviously she did not have a mandate to single handedly try and create a Brexit deal. But that is what she attempted, and what Johnson is trying to do now. Instead the strategy should have been uniting the House around a feasible deal. If an actual Norway style deal had ever reached the House as a serious proposition and the "Remainers" had voted it down, I would agree with you. But the only deal presented was based on May's red lines and an attempt to go to the far leave side of the issue rather than middling along.
The "solution" has been in plain sight almost all along. It requires Remainers to accept the fact of the vote and Leavers to accept that Brexit has failed on the premise that they voted for.
At that point you go for damage limitation, which is to sign up for just about every EU programme going except membership itself. It's not a sensible outcome. It's the least damaging outcome.
The least damaging outcome is the withdrawl agreement. Unfortunately it was poorly sold by Mrs May to both sides. The form of leave you suggest as palatable is anything but to most leavers (and I think we'd sooner remain and have Farage in Brussels than that).
It isn't palatable to Leavers because they are still in denial about what's possible with Brexit. That denial of reality is the fundamental reason why we haven't left yet. And while a No Deal exit is entirely possible it doesn't solve anything, in fact makes things much worse. The problem still needs to be solved.
People blame May, MPs etc but Brexit cannot and will not work on the original Leave premise. We can only move on when people recognise Brexit has failed. We're not there yet.
We should be subsidizing higher education more to help people compete in a globalized world. The fact I’ve had to save for over 2 years and forgo many luxuries on a below average salary just to attempt a career change means it is out of reach for many.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
I know that if you’re struggling to get by on your current wages, you don’t need a mass influx of competition for your job from people who will happily do it for less money and live in worse conditions, and if I were an employer, I’d be rubbing my hands together at the prospect, and tempted to demonise anyone who threatened it.
Presumably you also think that people should be stopped from working beyond their county boundaries. The same argument applies. All those nasty young men from Lincolnshire seeking work in Sheffield. The Steel City industrialists are selling out the good folk of South Yorkshire by employing them.
You’d presume incorrectly
So what is it about the invaders from Lincolnshire swarming across the border that you are ok with, when you can't stand the idea of a Danish decorator painting the walls of a house up the street? Spoiler, I already know the answer to this.
I can stand the idea of a Danish decorator painting the walls of a house up the street
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
I know that if you’re struggling to get by on your current wages, you don’t need a mass influx of competition for your job from people who will happily do it for less money and live in worse conditions, and if I were an employer, I’d be rubbing my hands together at the prospect.
You Tories are first to tell us that wage growth is strong and we have nearly full employment. We still have freedom of movement.
Big increase in non EU immigration too. Whats your point?
My point is as I made it. Your attempt to conflate -132k in EU immigration with +34k from the ROW tells it’s own story.
And the wage growth is a direct result of that is it? Nothing to do with increases in minimum wage and public sector pay? Nothing to do with us having not enough people to fill existing vacancies anyway?
Supply and demand, I’m a believer in it
Demand already exceeds supply. What we lack is the skills.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - oliticians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
Disclaimer, I live on disability benefits and have direct experience of work capabilityy and thus make things even harder for me.
A valuable insight. I hope life gets better for you.
No worries there, as long as I can play chess and research things that interest me, eat and stay warm theres not much more needed. Money isn't really all that.
It's a bit glib for me to agree, as I have money, but, fuck it, I strongly agree.
I spent the morning reading a brilliant biography of Nietzsche ("I am dynamite", by Sue Prideaux). Then I had a very nice breakfast - poached eggs on sourdough, with chili, chives and soy. Later I will meet some old friends for a glass of wine.
What more do you need, than this: emotional, intellectual and physiological nourishment? Not much, really.
BTW I never realised how brilliant Nietzsche's aphorisms are. "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" - that's his. I also loved this one: "Never trust a thought that occurs to you indoors".
Chasing the dream is tiring and damaging. Cooking yourself a really good meal, that's happiness
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
Thankyou for that cogent and honest reply, and the same to El Capitano.
I fear the future, if Remain wins. I fear the future, if No Deal "wins".
We desperately need a deal. Any deal. These fucking useless MPs need to see that disaster is just over the hill, and coming our way. Ludicrous ultra-Remainers like Grieve, or Soubry, and their equivalents on the No Deal side, have to be thrown in a very deep pit, and kept their until this is done.
For this, though, I do not lay the blame at "Remainers". I lay the blame at May. She tried to have a brexit election, and lost. So obviously she did not have a mandate to single handedly try and create a Brexit deal. But that is what she attempted, and what Johnson is trying to do now. Instead the strategy should have been uniting the House around a feasible deal. If an actual Norway style deal had ever reached the House as a serious proposition and the "Remainers" had voted it down, I would agree with you. But the only deal presented was based on May's red lines and an attempt to go to the far leave side of the issue rather than middling along.
The "solution" has been in plain sight almost all along. It requires Remainers to accept the fact of the vote and Leavers to accept that Brexit has failed on the premise that they voted for.
At that point you go for damage limitation, which is to sign up for just about every EU programme going except membership itself. It's not a sensible outcome. It's the least damaging outcome.
On one hand, you're right, and I suspect that any non-whipped process would converge on that after a few cycles. (The indicative votes were getting there, and it was crazy to think that two cycles was going to be sufficient.)
However, if that's what we're going to do... what's the point? Still paying in, still following the rules, no trade deals, no ability to control migration. Just out of most of the political discussions.
It might be having a physics brain, but I can't help thinking that the problem has been the structure of the EU. Not that we're trapped, but that the independence-convenience relationship is wonky. We've spent three years looking for a way of getting more independence with only a bit of inconvenience. The reality seems to be that, if we only step a little way out of the EU, we get less independence than now, plus a bit of extra inconvenience. The search for freedom has led to people proposing harder and harder Brexits, which leads to more inconvenience than the public is likely to tolerate.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
I didn’t realise you were more qualified in this matter than the judges in the Court of Session.
Mr. Noo, "We are just not a country that takes strategy seriously enough. "
Au contraire. The political class is one that didn't take strategy around leaving seriously.
They took seriously the continued integration of the UK into the EU, to the extent that leaving is extremely difficult. They took seriously tactics to prevent us leaving (breaking conventions happily until the Prime Clown did likewise).
I agree that, to use the Irish joke, when it comes to directions we wouldn't like to be starting from here.
But I do think revokers (and there's a big difference between with and without a referendum) significantly underestimate the consequences of us staying in.
When it come to flinging powers they'd been entrusted with, temporarily, by the electorate to the EU, the Commons was happy to do so. Now they've voted to endorse the referendum result and are trying everything to stop us actually leaving. How trustworthy does that look?
The Lisbon Treaty passed without murmur from the Lib Dems and Labour despite manifesto pledges to hold a referendum on it. Clegg even had a three line whip abstention on the argument we should have a 'real' referendum on staying in or coming out.
There are major problems with every potential outcome. The withdrawal agreement sounds wretched. Leaving with no deal guarantees significant turbulence, at least in the short term. And with those options looming largest it's understandable that most of the attention has been on those drawbacks.
But those imagining a rosy happy clappy 'healing' of the nation if we end up remaining are deluding themselves. The political polarisation will worsen. Every single step of integration will be salt in the wound of those who had their vote, won it, and saw it thwarted by the will of the political class who had resolved to oppose rather than enact the electorate's decision.
Regardless of where one is on the spectrum of opinion, a long-lasting and unifying result has to be one that can take most people with it.
My suspicion is that if the Lib Dems et al. get their way they'll integrate us as much as possible to reduce the chance that we ever get a say again, and that even if we get one leaving would be practically impossible. That'll be a spur to the anti-EU side.
/endramble
SNIP I was also thinking last night out how smug the SNP are now with their efforts to block Brexit and yet if Scotland ever votes for independence, the Unionists will pay them back in spades with the same tricks.
What would be different from what unionists did in Indyref 1, they will try to employ the same lies and underhand tactics and throw everything the state can at it. However like the 51 other countries who got out from under the yoke they can only delay it for so long.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - oliticians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
Disclaimer, I live on disability benefits and have direct experience of work capabilityy and thus make things even harder for me.
A valuable insight. I hope life gets better for you.
No worries there, as long as I can play chess and research things that interest me, eat and stay warm theres not much more needed. Money isn't really all that.
It's a bit glib for me to agree, as I have money, but, fuck it, I strongly agree.
I spent the morning reading a brilliant biography of Nietzsche ("I am dynamite", by Sue Prideaux). Then I had a very nice breakfast - poached eggs on sourdough, with chili, chives and soy. Later I will meet some old friends for a glass of wine.
What more do you need, than this: emotional, intellectual and physiological nourishment? Not much, really.
BTW I never realised how brilliant Nietzsche's aphorisms are. "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" - that's his. I also loved this one: "Never trust a thought that occurs to you indoors".
Brexit hasn't killed us (or not many of us) thus far. When does the reviving and invigorating flow of strength start?
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
The line was the clyde shipyards were going to build 13 type 26s. This is final confirmation that they aren't. Somehow this vindicates McDougall?
That hasn't been the line for a long time. The tories cut the T26 from 13 to 8 in the 2015 SDSR. The RN gave up hulls 7 and 8 for the T45 in order to guarantee a full 13 hull order for T26 but got fucked anyway.
The line on the T31 was that it would be more affordable and therefore have much greater export potential but they've ended up picking the biggest and most expensive variant with very limited export potential.
The tories absolutely despise those parts of the armed forces that actually do the fighting.
It was part of their benefits of not going independent and as stated at the time they were lying through their teeth. The workers were stupid enough to believe Labour and the unions and vote NO and are now reaping their rewards. Dole queue for most of them.
PtP's assessment sounds credible to me. In pre-discussion Palace said "don't even think about forcing HMQ to say no", Govt then worked out absolute maximum they could get away with asking for on that basis before letter was ever presented. No discussion with JRM as deal was already done.
For HMQ to say no and provoke that kind of crisis, the prorogation request would have needed to be so egregious as to be beyond all doubt. That wasn't quite the case. In the Commonwealth realms there are examples of much more nakedly political prorogations than we had ever seen in the UK, so a high bar has been set for rejection. Holding that thought, if the UK had a Governor General, he'd probably be taking whatever heat is reflecting onto the Queen at the moment, and be facing likely resignation.
Agree with this, but if the Scottish Court of Session view holds through to the Supreme Court, Johnson has implicated the monarch in an illegal act without directly lying to her. That should send him to the metaphorical Tower. Even without that, Cummings/Johnson have driven a coach and horses through the constitutional conventions that the monarchy operates by.
Attlee, major both prorogued for political reasons, it would not be unprecedented
Neither of those actions was challenged in the courts, so aren't legal precedents. If, for example, I were to breach a contract with you and you decided for pragmatic reasons not to take me to court, that wouldn't be a legal precedent for anything - there's no judicial decision on it.
It's fairly clear why there weren't challenges in those cases. For Major, the effect was the election was a month earlier than it would otherwise have been, and I am sure his opponents (while they were critical of the fact it meant cash for questions publication was delayed) didn't really mind that at all. For Attlee, I doubt the Conservatives were keen on being seen to defend the unelected house in what was, in reality, a hopeless rearguard action that was merely delaying the inevitable.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
Thankyou for that cogent and honest reply, and the same to El Capitano.
I fear the future, if Remain wins. I fear the future, if No Deal "wins".
We desperately need a deal. Any deal. These fucking useless MPs need to see that disaster is just over the hill, and coming our way. Ludicrous ultra-Remainers like Grieve, or Soubry, and their equivalents on the No Deal side, have to be thrown in a very deep pit, and kept their until this is done.
For this, though, I do not lay the blame at "Remainers". I lay the blame at May. She tried to have a brexit election, and lost. So obviously she did not have a mandate to single handedly try and create a Brexit deal. But that is what she attempted, and what Johnson is trying to do now. Instead the strategy should have been uniting the House around a feasible deal. If an actual Norway style deal had ever reached the House as a serious proposition and the "Remainers" had voted it down, I would agree with you. But the only deal presented was based on May's red lines and an attempt to go to the far leave side of the issue rather than middling along.
Yes, TMay must carry the can for lots of this. Her idiotic red lines led here.
But Remainers ARE actively fighting Brexit, in any form, certainly these past weeks. Ultra-Remain MPs sense total victory, and they won't accept any deal. And they are gaining in confidence at the worst time - see the Lib Dems coming out for Revoke.
Her mistake was not the red lines per se, but the utter failure to change course once the majority was lost. She tried to have an election to ram her red lines through. She failed, a sign that the electorate simply wasn't behind her. A complete change of course was obviously needed the moment the exit poll came out. A soft Brexit, with the opposition and devolved nations involved in the process, and we'd have been out now. Then we could have an election on whether to be closer or more detached. Or even about other stuff.
The only reason I voted Leave was the effect FOM had on British workers at the lower end of the pay scale, and its my belief that’s why they voted for it too,
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Thankyou Byronic (though to be fair I have sometimes encountered more abuse canvassing than I ever have on PB)
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - oliticians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
Disclaimer, I live on disability benefits and have direct experience of work capabilityy and thus make things even harder for me.
A valuable insight. I hope life gets better for you.
No worries there, as long as I can play chess and research things that interest me, eat and stay warm theres not much more needed. Money isn't really all that.
It's a bit glib for me to agree, as I have money, but, fuck it, I strongly agree.
I spent the morning reading a brilliant biography of Nietzsche ("I am dynamite", by Sue Prideaux). Then I had a very nice breakfast - poached eggs on sourdough, with chili, chives and soy. Later I will meet some old friends for a glass of wine.
What more do you need, than this: emotional, intellectual and physiological nourishment? Not much, really.
BTW I never realised how brilliant Nietzsche's aphorisms are. "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" - that's his. I also loved this one: "Never trust a thought that occurs to you indoors".
Brexit hasn't killed us (or not many of us) thus far. When does the reviving and invigorating flow of strength start?
Probably in the tertiary stage of syph, sorry, Brexit, when the nation will hug horses and weep, and then roar like a wounded animal until it is fed tiny Piedmontese sweetmeats.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
SNIP I was also thinking last night out how smug the SNP are now with their efforts to block Brexit and yet if Scotland ever votes for independence, the Unionists will pay them back in spades with the same tricks.
What would be different from what unionists did in Indyref 1, they will try to employ the same lies and underhand tactics and throw everything the state can at it. However like the 51 other countries who got out from under the yoke they can only delay it for so long.
He has a point though. The cunning, unity of purpose and subtlety of thought that Unionism and Westminster have shown during Brexit has certainly given me pause for thought.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
So you know better than the judges in the Court of Session? Indeed, as a lawyer myself, albeit one infinitely less distinguished than the panel of that court (and, it would appear, yourself) I have read their judgments from start to finish and could not discern what you say. Could you point me to the relevant passages with an explainer for my apparently simple brain?
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Particularly so when those who told us to lose money laying Boris are among those digging him out
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
Their point, surely, is that the Government advised HM Queen to prorogue to pursue the proper purpose of preparing a Queen's Speech, concealing what would have been an improper purpose (in the Court of Session's view) of curtailing debate on Brexit?
If I were to bet on it, I think the Supreme Court will uphold prorogation on the basis that curtailing debate may be right or wrong as a political matter, but is not an improper purpose. They may well, however, be critical of the apparent fact that the true purpose was concealed. That is, the Queen appears to have been lied to.
We should be subsidizing higher education more to help people compete in a globalized world. The fact I’ve had to save for over 2 years and forgo many luxuries on a below average salary just to attempt a career change means it is out of reach for many.
The absolute gutting of the FE sector has had an even more severe effect. At least graduates do have the possibility of saving a little to gain more qualifications.
The "solution" has been in plain sight almost all along. It requires Remainers to accept the fact of the vote and Leavers to accept that Brexit has failed on the premise that they voted for.
At that point you go for damage limitation, which is to sign up for just about every EU programme going except membership itself. It's not a sensible outcome. It's the least damaging outcome.
On one hand, you're right, and I suspect that any non-whipped process would converge on that after a few cycles. (The indicative votes were getting there, and it was crazy to think that two cycles was going to be sufficient.)
However, if that's what we're going to do... what's the point? Still paying in, still following the rules, no trade deals, no ability to control migration. Just out of most of the political discussions.
It might be having a physics brain, but I can't help thinking that the problem has been the structure of the EU. Not that we're trapped, but that the independence-convenience relationship is wonky. We've spent three years looking for a way of getting more independence with only a bit of inconvenience. The reality seems to be that, if we only step a little way out of the EU, we get less independence than now, plus a bit of extra inconvenience. The search for freedom has led to people proposing harder and harder Brexits, which leads to more inconvenience than the public is likely to tolerate.
Dunno what we do about that, though.
I am pro-EU, although my interest in this forum isn't particularly to push that line. Having said that, the EU does have big problems. The biggest problem in my view is the EU's over reliance on legalism rather than democratic accountability, which is alienating. The problem is that the EU is NOT actually the superstate its opponents claim it to be. Member states resist boosting EU accountability for that reason. Not sure how that gets resolved. Early USA eventually resolved the same issue in favour of a powerful state, but it took a century and a civil war to get there, and in any case the circumstances were very different.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
So you know better than the judges in the Court of Session? Indeed, as a lawyer myself, albeit one infinitely less distinguished than the panel of that court (and, it would appear, yourself) I have read their judgments from start to finish and could not discern what you say. Could you point me to the relevant passages with an explainer for my apparently simple brain?
No, HYUFD simply doesn't understand the grounds for their judgment.
SNIP I was also thinking last night out how smug the SNP are now with their efforts to block Brexit and yet if Scotland ever votes for independence, the Unionists will pay them back in spades with the same tricks.
What would be different from what unionists did in Indyref 1, they will try to employ the same lies and underhand tactics and throw everything the state can at it. However like the 51 other countries who got out from under the yoke they can only delay it for so long.
He has a point though. The cunning, unity of purpose and subtlety of thought that Unionism and Westminster have shown during Brexit has certainly given me pause for thought.
TUD, we always knew they were fixated and cunning, it is just out in the open now rather than being hidden. The veil has slipped.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
That's not my understanding from speaking to one of the counsel representing the MPs in Scotland. The working assumption is that there will be a case from NI forming a part of the appeal on the prorogation point. The NI Court of Appeal is sitting tomorrow to hear the appeal from this decision to facilitate this. Whether the GFA aspect will be carried forward as well I do not know.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
As Urwin has been proven correct, it makes it likely that there is in fact another plan called Operation Black Swan for the real worst case scenario. I'm fairly surprised that it hasn't leaked yet.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
So you know better than the judges in the Court of Session? Indeed, as a lawyer myself, albeit one infinitely less distinguished than the panel of that court (and, it would appear, yourself) I have read their judgments from start to finish and could not discern what you say. Could you point me to the relevant passages with an explainer for my apparently simple brain?
No, HYUFD simply doesn't understand the grounds for their judgment.
Well, his post implies he has read it carefully, and I think we should assume good faith. Come on HYUFD - which specific passages in the judgment(s) lead you to believe that the decision made was a political one?
As Urwin has been proven correct, it makes it likely that there is in fact another plan called Operation Black Swan for the real worst case scenario. I'm fairly surprised that it hasn't leaked yet.
I assume if the Supreme Court confirms the Court of Session's decision, all these matters will be properly scrutinised.
If not, they will be properly scrutinised in a month's time, despite Johnson's best efforts to keep them under wraps and minimise the time for scrutiny.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Its nothing to do with sovereignty. It just proves that being in the EU is better than not being in the EU.
If being outside was so good, we wouldn’t have any issue leaving.
Yes, and it’s perfectly possible to leave - just not in a way that’s compatible with May’s idiotic red lines
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
The only reason I voted Leave was the effect FOM had on British workers at the lower end of the pay scale, and its my belief that’s why they voted for it too,
They're not going to be happy when it has the opposite effect then. When the migrants go back, those potatoes will still need picking, and whoever's doing it won't be earning as much as they would otherwise.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
Their point, surely, is that the Government advised HM Queen to prorogue to pursue the proper purpose of preparing a Queen's Speech, concealing what would have been an improper purpose (in the Court of Session's view) of curtailing debate on Brexit?
If I were to bet on it, I think the Supreme Court will uphold prorogation on the basis that curtailing debate may be right or wrong as a political matter, but is not an improper purpose. They may well, however, be critical of the apparent fact that the true purpose was concealed. That is, the Queen appears to have been lied to.
I would agree with this. I think Boris is seriously overstating matters to say that the High Court supported him. The question is not whether this was done for an improper purpose and was an abuse of a political tool available to a PM. The question is whether that is justiciable.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
That's not my understanding from speaking to one of the counsel representing the MPs in Scotland. The working assumption is that there will be a case from NI forming a part of the appeal on the prorogation point. The NI Court of Appeal is sitting tomorrow to hear the appeal from this decision to facilitate this. Whether the GFA aspect will be carried forward as well I do not know.
HYUFD was absolutely wrong in claiming the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland." The court didn't "take a different line." It decided not to consider the issue.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
So you know better than the judges in the Court of Session? Indeed, as a lawyer myself, albeit one infinitely less distinguished than the panel of that court (and, it would appear, yourself) I have read their judgments from start to finish and could not discern what you say. Could you point me to the relevant passages with an explainer for my apparently simple brain?
No, HYUFD simply doesn't understand the grounds for their judgment.
Well, his post implies he has read it carefully, and I think we should assume good faith. Come on HYUFD - which specific passages in the judgment(s) lead you to believe that the decision made was a political one?
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Particularly so when those who told us to lose money laying Boris are among those digging him out
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Thankyou Byronic (though to be fair I have sometimes encountered more abuse canvassing than I ever have on PB)
HYUFD. I salute your persistent posting in the face of mounting opposition. I dont agree with you on Brexit, BJ and the way the Tories have ditched voters like me for people who would rather die than vote Tory. But you will discover that when safe Labour seats remain Labour!
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Its nothing to do with sovereignty. It just proves that being in the EU is better than not being in the EU.
If being outside was so good, we wouldn’t have any issue leaving.
Yes, and it’s perfectly possible to leave - just not in a way that’s compatible with May’s idiotic red lines
Not quite- May's red lines lead to the Withdrawal Agreement as-is, including falling into the backstop for at least some time. The trouble is that leaving on that basis doesn't look attractive.
I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute. Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national. Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
That's not my understanding from speaking to one of the counsel representing the MPs in Scotland. The working assumption is that there will be a case from NI forming a part of the appeal on the prorogation point. The NI Court of Appeal is sitting tomorrow to hear the appeal from this decision to facilitate this. Whether the GFA aspect will be carried forward as well I do not know.
HYUFD was absolutely wrong in claiming the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland." The court didn't "take a different line." It decided not to consider the issue.
The issue was before the Judge at first instance, it will be before the Court of Appeal tomorrow and it will be before the Supreme Court on the 17th. I accept it would again be wrong to draw any inference of approval or indeed disapproval from the decision but those are the facts.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Thankyou Byronic (though to be fair I have sometimes encountered more abuse canvassing than I ever have on PB)
HYUFD. I salute your persistent posting in the face of mounting opposition. I dont agree with you on Brexit, BJ and the way the Tories have ditched voters like me for people who would rather die than vote Tory. But you will discover that when safe Labour seats remain Labour!
Thankyou, though I note even Tory Remainers like you are voting LD now not Corbyn Labour.
I also have no doubt safe Labour seats will remain safe for now, it is marginal Labour seats the Tories need to win for a majority
It would actually be kinda amusing if an election returned the tories as largest party but unable to form a government. People hate to realise the tories are the most popular party in the country, and the Tories would hate coming top and not governing. Everyone Is therefore unhappy so all is equal.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
Their point, surely, is that the Government advised HM Queen to prorogue to pursue the proper purpose of preparing a Queen's Speech, concealing what would have been an improper purpose (in the Court of Session's view) of curtailing debate on Brexit?
If I were to bet on it, I think the Supreme Court will uphold prorogation on the basis that curtailing debate may be right or wrong as a political matter, but is not an improper purpose. They may well, however, be critical of the apparent fact that the true purpose was concealed. That is, the Queen appears to have been lied to.
Makes an amount of sense. Poor form but not illegal?
I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute. Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national. Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society.
That second paragraph looks like a good topic for a politics essay question.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Could you be any more stupid and ignorant if you tried?
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this. To quote from the BBC report:
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
But isn't that saying that the NI court didn't consider it necessary to decide on those aspects relating to prorogation because English and Scottish courts had already made decisions that were proceeding to the Supreme Court? Excluding isn't the same as rejecting.
That's not my understanding from speaking to one of the counsel representing the MPs in Scotland. The working assumption is that there will be a case from NI forming a part of the appeal on the prorogation point. The NI Court of Appeal is sitting tomorrow to hear the appeal from this decision to facilitate this. Whether the GFA aspect will be carried forward as well I do not know.
HYUFD was absolutely wrong in claiming the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland." The court didn't "take a different line." It decided not to consider the issue.
The issue was before the Judge at first instance, it will be before the Court of Appeal tomorrow and it will be before the Supreme Court on the 17th. I accept it would again be wrong to draw any inference of approval or indeed disapproval from the decision but those are the facts.
Then you accept that HYUFD was taking nonsense when he said the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland."
So why did you say I was wrong? Can you be clear, please?
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
You know nothing of isam's background. Pff.
Here's a bit about my background: I was homeless in my 20s. Now we've established my poverty credentials, I've got one think to say: Fuck Brexit.
I was homeless in my 20s too. Next.
Living in a squat in London with junkies and art students is not exactly sleeping on the streets in Wolverhampton, now is it?
In terms of demographics, this site does have quite a few people with eventful life stories, both good and bad. @JBriskinindyref2 has also been homeless if memory serves.
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
So you know better than the judges in the Court of Session? Indeed, as a lawyer myself, albeit one infinitely less distinguished than the panel of that court (and, it would appear, yourself) I have read their judgments from start to finish and could not discern what you say. Could you point me to the relevant passages with an explainer for my apparently simple brain?
No, HYUFD simply doesn't understand the grounds for their judgment.
Well, his post implies he has read it carefully, and I think we should assume good faith. Come on HYUFD - which specific passages in the judgment(s) lead you to believe that the decision made was a political one?
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
Again, please point me the specific sections where you consider that they have the law wrong and made, in your own words, a judgment in “political terms”? You’ve read the judgment and feel able to expound on the constitutional law in this matter so it shouldn’t be difficult for you
Pleased to see the Northern Irish High Court today takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland yesterday and backs the Government in ruling that No Deal Brexit would not be illegal but a political decision
Your post is unclear, but I assume you are aware that the Court of Session decision had nothing to do with a “no deal Brexit”, it was concerned with the lawfulness or otherwise of the executive shutting down the legislature to prevent scrutiny of its actions?
The right to prorogue Parliament is given to the sovereign, even under the FTPA, the Court of Session however made a judgement in political terms on how it was being used to Stop Brexit, despite Parliament returning on 14th October before Brexit
So you know better than the judges in the Court of Session? Indeed, as a lawyer myself, albeit one infinitely less distinguished than the panel of that court (and, it would appear, yourself) I have read their judgments from start to finish and could not discern what you say. Could you point me to the relevant passages with an explainer for my apparently simple brain?
No, HYUFD simply doesn't understand the grounds for their judgment.
Well, his post implies he has read it carefully, and I think we should assume good faith. Come on HYUFD - which specific passages in the judgment(s) lead you to believe that the decision made was a political one?
The monarch can prorogue Parliament for any reason, even under the FTPA, just not dissolve Parliament yet the Court accused the government of styming Parliament despite the fact it would return for a Queen's Speech before October 31st
We await the detail of the Judges' reasoning tomorrow but in essence they seem to be saying that prorogation is a power given to the PM but it has, like other powers, to be used properly. "Properly" in this context is for a legal or legitimate purpose. They have concluded that it was for an improper purpose, namely curtailing debate and they have therefore found the use of the power was illegitimate in this case.
I don't agree with them, I don't agree that this is a matter for the Courts at all, but it is wrong to say that this is a political decision. It is a decision which was political consequences which is a different matter entirely.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
Particularly so when those who told us to lose money laying Boris are among those digging him out
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
You know nothing of isam's background. Pff.
Here's a bit about my background: I was homeless in my 20s. Now we've established my poverty credentials, I've got one think to say: Fuck Brexit.
I was homeless in my 20s too. Next.
Living in a squat in London with junkies and art students is not exactly sleeping on the streets in Wolverhampton, now is it?
In terms of demographics, this site does have quite a few people with eventful life stories, both good and bad. @JBriskinindyref2 has also been homeless if memory serves.
PB, eh? One minute it's heated argument over whether the 1961 or 1945 Lafite is the better vintage, and the next it's who was homeless and penniless and where for longest.
Unfashionable as it, can I just salute HYUFD for his almost unfailing good manners, when he is roundly abused and insulted by 70% of the commenters on here?
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
How is it polite to continually misrepresent posters, politicians and voters who want to leave with a deal as diehard remainers?
It is not misrepresentation, it is fact and I have never included those who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement as diehard Remainers
Rory Stewart?
I have correctly accused Grieve, Lee, Greening and Gyimah of being diehard Remainers but not Stewart
But you are a diehard remainer and yet you persist with this fantasy that you would be happy to leave the EU without a deal.
No, he is a diehard Borisophile. A dying breed of lobotomised automatons that cannot empathise with normal people and will be ruthlessly replaced by Cummy post-Brexit with a Russian made bot.
On NI - It's patently clear from Para 116 (See above) which way the judge would have decided had the same matter been in consideration before him as was decided by the English and Scottish courts. That is that he would have ruled in favour of the Gov't with the matter of prorogation being non justiciable.
Remainers who so blithely want to Remain - as if it's a decision akin to going back to the pub - need to answer some questions.
How do they think the British people will react, when they are told: "that's it. Brexit is too difficult, because we are in too deep. We have to go back in to the EU, and be subject to EU law, EU courts, and unelected EU politicians, and we will stay in forever, because we have proved that leaving is impossible.
"You are not a sovereign people. You haven't been sovereign for some time. Your nation is over."
That is pretty much the perfect soil in which to grow our first far right populist leader. I cannot imagine a better scenario for the birth of British Fascism. Discuss.
Yeah obviously there will be a load of aggro if we don’t leave, it will probably enable decades of far right parties doing well. All because rich people who want mass immigration can’t understand what it is like to be a poor person under those conditions.
And what do you know about being a poor person?
What does Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees Mogg know about being a poor person?
Nothing. That is what.
You know nothing of isam's background. Pff.
Here's a bit about my background: I was homeless in my 20s. Now we've established my poverty credentials, I've got one think to say: Fuck Brexit.
I was homeless in my 20s too. Next.
Living in a squat in London with junkies and art students is not exactly sleeping on the streets in Wolverhampton, now is it?
In terms of demographics, this site does have quite a few people with eventful life stories, both good and bad. @JBriskinindyref2 has also been homeless if memory serves.
PB, eh? One minute it's heated argument over whether the 1961 or 1945 Lafite is the better vintage, and the next it's who was homeless and penniless and where for longest.
The issue was before the Judge at first instance, it will be before the Court of Appeal tomorrow and it will be before the Supreme Court on the 17th. I accept it would again be wrong to draw any inference of approval or indeed disapproval from the decision but those are the facts.
That is true, but I think it slightly disingenuous to suggest that the NI judgment had anything much to say about the justiciability of the prorogation powers, even though the issue was before it.
The judgments are for now effectively one all, and a non decision, as they head to the SC.
I find it fairly extraordinary that the English court dismissed the idea that it should have anything at all to say about any length of prorogation, no matter how long - but at the same time, I was quite surprised by the Scottish court's willingness to intervene in this particular case.
I wouldn't like to guess which way the SC might jump.
Comments
The Northern Ireland judgment is about the legality of No Deal.
The Scottish judgment is about the legality of proroguing parliament.
Do you have a friend who could explain the difference to you in words of one syllable?
I spent the morning reading a brilliant biography of Nietzsche ("I am dynamite", by Sue Prideaux). Then I had a very nice breakfast - poached eggs on sourdough, with chili, chives and soy. Later I will meet some old friends for a glass of wine.
What more do you need, than this: emotional, intellectual and physiological nourishment? Not much, really.
BTW I never realised how brilliant Nietzsche's aphorisms are. "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger" - that's his. I also loved this one: "Never trust a thought that occurs to you indoors".
People blame May, MPs etc but Brexit cannot and will not work on the original Leave premise. We can only move on when people recognise Brexit has failed. We're not there yet.
However, if that's what we're going to do... what's the point? Still paying in, still following the rules, no trade deals, no ability to control migration. Just out of most of the political discussions.
It might be having a physics brain, but I can't help thinking that the problem has been the structure of the EU. Not that we're trapped, but that the independence-convenience relationship is wonky. We've spent three years looking for a way of getting more independence with only a bit of inconvenience. The reality seems to be that, if we only step a little way out of the EU, we get less independence than now, plus a bit of extra inconvenience. The search for freedom has led to people proposing harder and harder Brexits, which leads to more inconvenience than the public is likely to tolerate.
Dunno what we do about that, though.
Please, do educate us.
This is all from https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/ by the way
His restraint is sometimes superhuman (as is his loyalty to the Tory party, but that's his choice).
It's fairly clear why there weren't challenges in those cases. For Major, the effect was the election was a month earlier than it would otherwise have been, and I am sure his opponents (while they were critical of the fact it meant cash for questions publication was delayed) didn't really mind that at all. For Attlee, I doubt the Conservatives were keen on being seen to defend the unelected house in what was, in reality, a hopeless rearguard action that was merely delaying the inevitable.
"He also excluded a challenge against the suspension of Parliament because the issue formed the "centrepiece" of proceedings in England and Scotland."
A complete change of course was obviously needed the moment the exit poll came out. A soft Brexit, with the opposition and devolved nations involved in the process, and we'd have been out now.
Then we could have an election on whether to be closer or more detached. Or even about other stuff.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1172110391423488001
Can't imagine where they got that idea from.
It's going to be a fun election.
"Are you liar, Prime minister?"
Every day. From every journalist.
https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1172109584359665666
If I were to bet on it, I think the Supreme Court will uphold prorogation on the basis that curtailing debate may be right or wrong as a political matter, but is not an improper purpose. They may well, however, be critical of the apparent fact that the true purpose was concealed. That is, the Queen appears to have been lied to.
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1172111854589685761
https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/McCord (Raymond), JR83 and Jamie Waring's Applications v the Prime Minister and others.pdf
I'd advise checking before relying on the factual accuracy of a BBC report.
If not, they will be properly scrutinised in a month's time, despite Johnson's best efforts to keep them under wraps and minimise the time for scrutiny.
The third of Lord Sumptions Reith lectures anticipated this brilliantly and highlights the nuances of the roles of Judges: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2019/Reith_2019_Sumption_lecture_3.pdf
https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/McCord (Raymond), JR83 and Jamie Waring's Applications v the Prime Minister and others.pdf
HYUFD was absolutely wrong in claiming the Northern Ireland court "takes a different line from the Court of Session in Scotland." The court didn't "take a different line." It decided not to consider the issue.
I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.
Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.
Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society.
I also have no doubt safe Labour seats will remain safe for now, it is marginal Labour seats the Tories need to win for a majority
So why did you say I was wrong? Can you be clear, please?
In terms of demographics, this site does have quite a few people with eventful life stories, both good and bad. @JBriskinindyref2 has also been homeless if memory serves.
I don't agree with them, I don't agree that this is a matter for the Courts at all, but it is wrong to say that this is a political decision. It is a decision which was political consequences which is a different matter entirely.
Nice to see he had the courtesy to apologise.
Oh...
The judgments are for now effectively one all, and a non decision, as they head to the SC.
I find it fairly extraordinary that the English court dismissed the idea that it should have anything at all to say about any length of prorogation, no matter how long - but at the same time, I was quite surprised by the Scottish court's willingness to intervene in this particular case.
I wouldn't like to guess which way the SC might jump.