According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
It rather undermines the claim that all is in hand under Project Yellowhammer let alone beforehand.
Note also the statement that needs to be made under section 20(5).
Lady Hale is going to have to get her spider brooch out again, if the government goes down this route.
It is pantomine. They have no expectation of winning, probably no desire to and actually deliver no deal, but like the idea of the courts blocking them as it plays into their further division narrative.
Yes, it is a pantomime. But the whole thing is a pantomime. The Benn Act is a pantomime.
The Commons could & should VNOC Boris and install someone who will do what they want.
I have zero sympathy with anyone involved in the pantomime.
Why? There is a chance a VONC won't work and it is purely Boris's (and Cummings) own fault that he is in the mess he is in
You have rather given the game away with it being Boris' "own fault". I seem to remember you wanted Boris sued for damages, even if he resigns, as one of your more ridiculous claims.
I suggest that those who want to avoid No Deal arrange among themselves who is to be PM and provide us with some sensible Government.
It might be impressive. It might actually convince people that here at last is a group of politicians who are trying to act for the good of the country and provide measured and sensible Government.
BW used to be a CDU heartland now its hippy central
Not really all that astonishing. Prime Minister Kretschmann is heading for his third term in office, and in his first two terms he has destroyed neither Daimler-Benz nor Porsche, nor any other BW industries.
He first came into office in 2011 on a mere 25% (with the social democrats on 24% as junior partner), after the 2016 elections, on 30%, he headed a coalition with the conservatives on 27%. The 8% gain for the Greens just reflects the overall trend in Germany.
It should be noted that the Green Party of today is considered to be a moderate centrist party, albeit with an environmentalist slant, in general, the BW subsection in particular. There clearly is nothing 'hippyesq' about them at all.
Off to get crushed on the black and white board shortly but in terms of how the public see it all etc, if parliament thinks avoiding no deal is all that matters and they do not trust the PM to follow the law they have a moral and constitutional duty to remove him. The truth is they want to embarrass the PM and receive what they will expect will be the electoral benefits of that by 'making' him do it. And they wonder why there is anger........ They have the votes to remove him and the will to install an Interim PM to request the extension. They'd rather play games. Its being noticed.
I think it's more why should they take the blame with the electorate when this entire mess is due to the Conservative Party.
And Jess Phillips losing her seat in Yardley. Interesting.
That is based on a YouGov poll that compared to GE 2017 has the Conservatives down 10%, Lab down 19% and the Libs up 15%.
Now to assume UNS is an oversimplification. However, I think it is more plausible in Birmingham Yardley than a model which converts into a result in Yardley that has Lab down 29% and LD up 20%, with just 29% voting for Brexit supporting parties (Con and BXP) in a seat that voted 60% to Leave.
Off to get crushed on the black and white board shortly but in terms of how the public see it all etc, if parliament thinks avoiding no deal is all that matters and they do not trust the PM to follow the law they have a moral and constitutional duty to remove him. The truth is they want to embarrass the PM and receive what they will expect will be the electoral benefits of that by 'making' him do it. And they wonder why there is anger........ They have the votes to remove him and the will to install an Interim PM to request the extension. They'd rather play games. Its being noticed.
I think that's way off the mark. I think the reason they have followed the legislative route is that if there's a vote of no confidence there's too big risk that parliament will be dissolved without a new prime minister being appointed. And that parliament needs to be sitting in case Johnson does try anything desperate at the last minute - such as this crazy idea of invoking the Civil Contingencies Act.
And Jess Phillips losing her seat in Yardley. Interesting.
That is based on a YouGov poll that compared to GE 2017 has the Conservatives down 10%, Lab down 19% and the Libs up 15%.
Now to assume UNS is an oversimplification. However, I think it is more plausible in Birmingham Yardley than a model which converts into a result in Yardley that has Lab down 29% and LD up 20%, with just 29% voting for Brexit supporting parties (Con and BXP) in a seat that voted 60% to Leave.
Might depend on whether John Hemming is standing again for the LDs.
It rather undermines the claim that all is in hand under Project Yellowhammer let alone beforehand.
Note also the statement that needs to be made under section 20(5).
Lady Hale is going to have to get her spider brooch out again, if the government goes down this route.
It is pantomine. They have no expectation of winning, probably no desire to and actually deliver no deal, but like the idea of the courts blocking them as it plays into their further division narrative.
Yes, it is a pantomime. But the whole thing is a pantomime. The Benn Act is a pantomime.
The Commons could & should VNOC Boris and install someone who will do what they want.
I have zero sympathy with anyone involved in the pantomime.
Why? There is a chance a VONC won't work and it is purely Boris's (and Cummings) own fault that he is in the mess he is in
You have rather given the game away with it being Boris' "own fault". I seem to remember you wanted Boris sued for damages, even if he resigns, as one of your more ridiculous claims.
I suggest that those who want to avoid No Deal arrange among themselves who is to be PM and provide us with some sensible Government.
It might be impressive. It might actually convince people that here at last is a group of politicians who are trying to act for the good of the country and provide measured and sensible Government.
We would be delighted if they did. They do not seem able (or you might say willing with some justification) because of party loyalties.
Exceptional times call for exceptional measures and the best thing that could happen is a further 100 Tory MPs resign the whip and Labour MPs ostracise Corbyn in return. It is still fanciful but given there was an anyone but Boris whatsapp group with close to 100 MPs in the first Tory leadership contest perhaps it is not impossible.
BW used to be a CDU heartland now its hippy central
Not really all that astonishing. Prime Minister Kretschmann is heading for his third term in office, and in his first two terms he has destroyed neither Daimler-Benz nor Porsche, nor any other BW industries.
He first came into office in 2011 on a mere 25% (with the social democrats on 24% as junior partner), after the 2016 elections, on 30%, he headed a coalition with the conservatives on 27%. The 8% gain for the Greens just reflects the overall trend in Germany.
It should be noted that the Green Party of today is considered to be a moderate centrist party, albeit with an environmentalist slant, in general, the BW subsection in particular. There clearly is nothing 'hippyesq' about them at all.
AfD got 15% there last time too and are taking both CDU and SPD votes
I'm watching a newscaster I haven't seen before (I'm in France) and she is kippering Johnson in a way I haven't yet seen.
Is this a Brit newscaster or a French one?
A Brit. It's on English TV. She's interviwing him in Manchester. I missed her name and it could well have been a local news. I'm trying to find her name without luck.
BW used to be a CDU heartland now its hippy central
Not really all that astonishing. Prime Minister Kretschmann is heading for his third term in office, and in his first two terms he has destroyed neither Daimler-Benz nor Porsche, nor any other BW industries.
He first came into office in 2011 on a mere 25% (with the social democrats on 24% as junior partner), after the 2016 elections, on 30%, he headed a coalition with the conservatives on 27%. The 8% gain for the Greens just reflects the overall trend in Germany.
It should be noted that the Green Party of today is considered to be a moderate centrist party, albeit with an environmentalist slant, in general, the BW subsection in particular. There clearly is nothing 'hippyesq' about them at all.
AfD got 15% there last time too and are taking both CDU and SPD votes
Correct. The latest forcast has them on 12% for the next election.
I'm watching a newscaster I haven't seen before (I'm in France) and she is kippering Johnson in a way I haven't yet seen.
Is this a Brit newscaster or a French one?
A Brit. It's on English TV. She's interviwing him in Manchester. I missed her name and it could well have been a local news. I'm trying to find her name without luck.
It rather undermines the claim that all is in hand under Project Yellowhammer let alone beforehand.
Note also the statement that needs to be made under section 20(5).
Lady Hale is going to have to get her spider brooch out again, if the government goes down this route.
It is pantomine. They have no expectation of winning, probably no desire to and actually deliver no deal, but like the idea of the courts blocking them as it plays into their further division narrative.
Yes, it is a pantomime. But the whole thing is a pantomime. The Benn Act is a pantomime.
The Commons could & should VNOC Boris and install someone who will do what they want.
I have zero sympathy with anyone involved in the pantomime.
Why? There is a chance a VONC won't work and it is purely Boris's (and Cummings) own fault that he is in the mess he is in
You have rather given the game away with it being Boris' "own fault". I seem to remember you wanted Boris sued for damages, even if he resigns, as one of your more ridiculous claims.
I suggest that those who want to avoid No Deal arrange among themselves who is to be PM and provide us with some sensible Government.
It might be impressive. It might actually convince people that here at last is a group of politicians who are trying to act for the good of the country and provide measured and sensible Government.
We would be delighted if they did. They do not seem able (or you might say willing with some justification) because of party loyalties.
Exceptional times call for exceptional measures and the best thing that could happen is a further 100 Tory MPs resign the whip and Labour MPs ostracise Corbyn in return. It is still fanciful but given there was an anyone but Boris whatsapp group with close to 100 MPs in the first Tory leadership contest perhaps it is not impossible.
If MPs believe No Deal is as bad as is claimed, then they should install the obvious candidate, who is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
And Corbyn will willingly write the letter, as he wants to start his own negotiation with the EU.
So the criminal cabal in no 10 will try and use legislation that deals with a national emergency to stop the Benn Act whilst at the same time saying no deal isn’t a problem and the country is prepared so why the emergency ?
Use of the CCA would be an unforgivable abuse of power
It would not get past the courts. At least not on my reading of the Act. And note that to trigger it a statement must be made setting out the basis for claiming that there is the requisite emergency. So the government can’t get away with exercising some nebulous prerogative power without explanation. They have to comply with the terms of the Act and that will be judicially reviewable like any other power exercised by an authority pursuant to statute.
And Jess Phillips losing her seat in Yardley. Interesting.
That is based on a YouGov poll that compared to GE 2017 has the Conservatives down 10%, Lab down 19% and the Libs up 15%.
Now to assume UNS is an oversimplification. However, I think it is more plausible in Birmingham Yardley than a model which converts into a result in Yardley that has Lab down 29% and LD up 20%, with just 29% voting for Brexit supporting parties (Con and BXP) in a seat that voted 60% to Leave.
Might depend on whether John Hemming is standing again for the LDs.
It'll be even more inaccurate if he isn't. He used to depend on Conservatives voting tactically for the Libs. I can't see that happening this time around! I would expect the LD vote to increase by less than UNS suggests in Leave-voting Yardley, not more.
BW used to be a CDU heartland now its hippy central
Not really all that astonishing. Prime Minister Kretschmann is heading for his third term in office, and in his first two terms he has destroyed neither Daimler-Benz nor Porsche, nor any other BW industries.
He first came into office in 2011 on a mere 25% (with the social democrats on 24% as junior partner), after the 2016 elections, on 30%, he headed a coalition with the conservatives on 27%. The 8% gain for the Greens just reflects the overall trend in Germany.
It should be noted that the Green Party of today is considered to be a moderate centrist party, albeit with an environmentalist slant, in general, the BW subsection in particular. There clearly is nothing 'hippyesq' about them at all.
Yes. When I worked for Cruelty Free International, we tried to get the local Green authorities to crack down on some particular nasty experiments by a leading research institute on monkeys involving lengthy water deprivation. The Green party members at their state conference were quite supportive, but the Green state and municipal authorities declined to do anything.
I can't help thinking that the government hasn't got the tiniest idea of what it's going to do next month.
Goodness. One tweet causing, yet again, tempers to fray. No categorical proof. No serious investigation. Nothing. Just a bloke who thinks he knows something.
This is a perfect example of why this is all getting so out-of-hand. Twitter is destroying rational and measured debate and fuelling inflamed partisanship solely to bolster the narcissistic authors’ ego.
This might be true. It might not. The effect however is, as displayed by some comments here, tantamount to chanting “burn the witch”.
Burn the witch if it is proven to be the case. if that’s your thing. But at least try to validate your opprobrium first before jumping to conclusions.
Personally I’d shut twitter down. Permanently. The damage it’s doing to reason and considered thought is frightening.
I'm watching a newscaster I haven't seen before (I'm in France) and she is kippering Johnson in a way I haven't yet seen.
Is this a Brit newscaster or a French one?
A Brit. It's on English TV. She's interviwing him in Manchester. I missed her name and it could well have been a local news. I'm trying to find her name without luck.
Boris did a round of sit downs with regional journalists today ahead of the Tory conference. Maybe Nina Warhurst from BBC North West (If it was Manc-flavoured)?
Where Trump goes Boris follows. Looks like they're in very big trouble.
OT. A cruise ship arrived today and the pssengers were so fat that they completely filled the narrow alleyways of the old town. I was having a coffee and the attractive Rumanian waitress said to me 'Are they English or American?' 'American I think'. 'I'm surprised the ship didn't sink!' she said*
* In fact I discoverd the passengers were nearly all English. What must the French make of us?.
IANAL.. but my brief glance at the CCA gave me the impression the Supreme Court would have to schedule some extra time for the hearing to give them a chance to stop laughing..
I did warn of this possibility a month or so ago. No one seemed to take it seriously then as a possibility but the act is so poorly drafted and so wide ranging in its powers I think there is a real danger there.
It is another piece of Blairite authoritarian legislation that needs scrapping as soon as possible but no one seems to take the threat seriously until it is actually used.
I can't help thinking that the government hasn't got the tiniest idea of what it's going to do next month.
Goodness. One tweet causing, yet again, tempers to fray. No categorical proof. No serious investigation. Nothing. Just a bloke who thinks he knows something.
This is a perfect example of why this is all getting so out-of-hand. Twitter is destroying rational and measured debate and fuelling inflamed partisanship solely to bolster the narcissistic authors’ ego.
This might be true. It might not. The effect however is, as displayed by some comments here, tantamount to chanting “burn the witch”.
Burn the witch if it is proven to be the case. if that’s your thing. But at least try to validate your opprobrium first before jumping to conclusions.
Personally I’d shut twitter down. Permanently. The damage it’s doing to reason and considered thought is frightening.
It didn't cause my temper to fray, and it didn't particularly change my thinking. If it's accurate, it just tends to confirm my feeling that so far from having some cunning master plan, Johnson hasn't got a clue what to do.
I can't help thinking that the government hasn't got the tiniest idea of what it's going to do next month.
Goodness. One tweet causing, yet again, tempers to fray. No categorical proof. No serious investigation. Nothing. Just a bloke who thinks he knows something.
This is a perfect example of why this is all getting so out-of-hand. Twitter is destroying rational and measured debate and fuelling inflamed partisanship solely to bolster the narcissistic authors’ ego.
This might be true. It might not. The effect however is, as displayed by some comments here, tantamount to chanting “burn the witch”.
Burn the witch if it is proven to be the case. if that’s your thing. But at least try to validate your opprobrium first before jumping to conclusions.
Personally I’d shut twitter down. Permanently. The damage it’s doing to reason and considered thought is frightening.
There were rumours about prorogation which were denied and then turned out to be true.
This government has shown itself utterly indifferent to the law and conventions and willing to use any trick to try and get its own way. Those who oppose it need to be alert to what it may be up to.
I would very much prefer it if we had a government that I could implicitly trust would not try to ignore the law. But we don’t. We have a PM who lies about his intentions and even lies about what the Benn Act says.
I can't help thinking that the government hasn't got the tiniest idea of what it's going to do next month.
Goodness. One tweet causing, yet again, tempers to fray. No categorical proof. No serious investigation. Nothing. Just a bloke who thinks he knows something.
This is a perfect example of why this is all getting so out-of-hand. Twitter is destroying rational and measured debate and fuelling inflamed partisanship solely to bolster the narcissistic authors’ ego.
This might be true. It might not. The effect however is, as displayed by some comments here, tantamount to chanting “burn the witch”.
Burn the witch if it is proven to be the case. if that’s your thing. But at least try to validate your opprobrium first before jumping to conclusions.
Personally I’d shut twitter down. Permanently. The damage it’s doing to reason and considered thought is frightening.
It didn't cause my temper to fray, and it didn't particularly change my thinking. If it's accurate, it just tends to confirm my feeling that so far from having some cunning master plan, Johnson hasn't got a clue what to do.
So the criminal cabal in no 10 will try and use legislation that deals with a national emergency to stop the Benn Act whilst at the same time saying no deal isn’t a problem and the country is prepared so why the emergency ?
Use of the CCA would be an unforgivable abuse of power
It would not get past the courts. At least not on my reading of the Act. And note that to trigger it a statement must be made setting out the basis for claiming that there is the requisite emergency. So the government can’t get away with exercising some nebulous prerogative power without explanation. They have to comply with the terms of the Act and that will be judicially reviewable like any other power exercised by an authority pursuant to statute.
I think any attempt to do this will end in Boris being dismissed by the Queen. She won't want to, but she'll have no choice.
Johnson using some kind of arcane legal jiggery pokery to try to force a no deal is about the only way I can see for him to proceed short of leading the Cons victoriously into opposition as some on here have championed.
And also the Supreme Court's judgment this week said: "To give only a few examples, in the Case of Proclamations the court protected Parliamentary sovereignty directly, by holding that prerogative powers could not be used to alter the law of the land. Three centuries later, in the case of Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508, the court prevented the Government of the day from seeking by indirect means to bypass Parliament, in circumventing a statute through the use of the prerogative. More recently, in the Fire Brigades Union case, the court again prevented the Government from rendering a statute nugatory through recourse to the prerogative, and was not deflected by the fact that the Government had failed to bring the statute into effect."
Johnson using some kind of arcane legal jiggery pokery to try to force a no deal is about the only way I can see for him to proceed short of leading the Cons victoriously into opposition as some on here have championed.
Unfortunatly the CCA is not in anyway arcane and is very open to abuse.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament (and sane people) don't want a no deal but if he gets as far as finding a legal mechanism to take us to the brink of no deal I can see one hell of a fight in the courts the outcome of which is far from certain as their last line of defence would be the people voted for it.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament was prorogoued (or not) on the 9th September and it took until Tuesday this week, the 24th for the Supreme Court to nullify it - 15 days. It took longer than that because the prorogation was announced on the 28th August, which prompted court cases that had already been launched to be sped-up, but that is 27 days from the announcement of the prorogation to the Supreme Court ruling it unlawful and void.
The Benn Act calls for a letter to be sent no later than October 19th, so if the Act were suspended by an Order in Council on the 18th, then cases progressing to the same timescale as the prorogation cases from August 28th would see judgment announced on November 14th - a fortnight past exit day.
Why is it that the Privy Council has the power to suspend Statute Law? Seems like a bonkers power for it to have.
So the criminal cabal in no 10 will try and use legislation that deals with a national emergency to stop the Benn Act whilst at the same time saying no deal isn’t a problem and the country is prepared so why the emergency ?
Use of the CCA would be an unforgivable abuse of power
It would not get past the courts. At least not on my reading of the Act. And note that to trigger it a statement must be made setting out the basis for claiming that there is the requisite emergency. So the government can’t get away with exercising some nebulous prerogative power without explanation. They have to comply with the terms of the Act and that will be judicially reviewable like any other power exercised by an authority pursuant to statute.
I think any attempt to do this will end in Boris being dismissed by the Queen. She won't want to, but she'll have no choice.
That's one thing I don't see happening. Whilst theoretically serving at the pleasure of HM, the identity of the Prime Minister is a matter for Parliament. The Palace won't let reluctant MPs hide behind the Queen.
Just seen the Cummings footage on the Six O'Clock News. I'm biased, but I think that doesn't do the government any harm at all.
To achieve what objective? If they want to achieve a majority government it does them harm. If it wants to be popular with Brexit do or die fans it is fine.
We shall see!
Not necessarily. It may unite parliamentary support for a 2nd referendum and that is what decides Brexit, not a GE. Note not all Tory MPs voted for the Tory conference to go ahead. I wouldnt be surprised if the govt majority is today closer to -60 than -40.
If you think another referendum settles this I have a bridge to sell you.
What does settle 'it' though? I can't think of anything, except possibly dissolution of the UK and rebalancing of the contituent nations to suit their respective demoi (I looked it up). I realise that reflects my own prejudices, but if anyone has any realitsic alternatives I'm willing to give them a hearing.
Nothing settles it. But then nothing is ever totally settled.
Cum. says MPs should vote for his boss's deal (which his boss does not have) if they want the death threats to stop. Between this and calling MPs "dead", and the illegal suspension of the elected representatives by the unelected government, how is this different from Cum. as Hitler and Boris as the idiot face of the Enabling Act?
BW used to be a CDU heartland now its hippy central
Not really all that astonishing. Prime Minister Kretschmann is heading for his third term in office, and in his first two terms he has destroyed neither Daimler-Benz nor Porsche, nor any other BW industries.
He first came into office in 2011 on a mere 25% (with the social democrats on 24% as junior partner), after the 2016 elections, on 30%, he headed a coalition with the conservatives on 27%. The 8% gain for the Greens just reflects the overall trend in Germany.
It should be noted that the Green Party of today is considered to be a moderate centrist party, albeit with an environmentalist slant, in general, the BW subsection in particular. There clearly is nothing 'hippyesq' about them at all.
Yes. When I worked for Cruelty Free International, we tried to get the local Green authorities to crack down on some particular nasty experiments by a leading research institute on monkeys involving lengthy water deprivation. The Green party members at their state conference were quite supportive, but the Green state and municipal authorities declined to do anything.
Personally, I am strongly sympathetic of your cause and wish you all the best for advancing it in future.
Your experience seems to illustrate the detriments of the realpolitik of coalition governments, especially, and sadly, those with conservative participation.
So the criminal cabal in no 10 will try and use legislation that deals with a national emergency to stop the Benn Act whilst at the same time saying no deal isn’t a problem and the country is prepared so why the emergency ?
Use of the CCA would be an unforgivable abuse of power
It would not get past the courts. At least not on my reading of the Act. And note that to trigger it a statement must be made setting out the basis for claiming that there is the requisite emergency. So the government can’t get away with exercising some nebulous prerogative power without explanation. They have to comply with the terms of the Act and that will be judicially reviewable like any other power exercised by an authority pursuant to statute.
I think any attempt to do this will end in Boris being dismissed by the Queen. She won't want to, but she'll have no choice.
That's one thing I don't see happening. Whilst theoretically serving at the pleasure of HM, the identity of the Prime Minister is a matter for Parliament. The Palace won't let reluctant MPs hide behind the Queen.
As said many times the Queen is not going to do anything which interferes with the make up of parliament still less who is PM.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament was prorogoued (or not) on the 9th September and it took until Tuesday this week, the 24th for the Supreme Court to nullify it - 15 days. It took longer than that because the prorogation was announced on the 28th August, which prompted court cases that had already been launched to be sped-up, but that is 27 days from the announcement of the prorogation to the Supreme Court ruling it unlawful and void.
The Benn Act calls for a letter to be sent no later than October 19th, so if the Act were suspended by an Order in Council on the 18th, then cases progressing to the same timescale as the prorogation cases from August 28th would see judgment announced on November 14th - a fortnight past exit day.
Why is it that the Privy Council has the power to suspend Statute Law? Seems like a bonkers power for it to have.
The Courts are well able to speed things up if they need to and if such a case arose I would expect them to do so.
I suspect most of the pressure is actually coming from Tory voters and activists who want to leave the EU rather than this conspiracy theorist nonsense.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament was prorogoued (or not) on the 9th September and it took until Tuesday this week, the 24th for the Supreme Court to nullify it - 15 days. It took longer than that because the prorogation was announced on the 28th August, which prompted court cases that had already been launched to be sped-up, but that is 27 days from the announcement of the prorogation to the Supreme Court ruling it unlawful and void.
The Benn Act calls for a letter to be sent no later than October 19th, so if the Act were suspended by an Order in Council on the 18th, then cases progressing to the same timescale as the prorogation cases from August 28th would see judgment announced on November 14th - a fortnight past exit day.
Why is it that the Privy Council has the power to suspend Statute Law? Seems like a bonkers power for it to have.
I wasn't aware it did, and the Bill of Rights appears to agree with me.
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I said these threats are wrong. Nonetheless it is ridiculous to think you can behave this provocatively and outrageously and not expect any personal resistance.
Maugham is an out and out Revoker. His position is to say to 17 million people: shut up, butt out, your opinions are misinformed and unwanted, we are cancelling your democratic vote, and the government’s promise to honour your vote is worthless, thanks to my legal efforts.
It’s like someone walking around Luton with a Bibi Netanyahu/Star of david tee shirt. Technically and ideally it should be fine, but you’re going out of your way to inflame, and you’re a fucking dick who might get lamped, and many will say you deserved it.
Lamped is a word I haven't heard since Uni. It was a favourite of a colleague of mine
'Lamped' is only used round here in reference to poaching.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament was prorogoued (or not) on the 9th September and it took until Tuesday this week, the 24th for the Supreme Court to nullify it - 15 days. It took longer than that because the prorogation was announced on the 28th August, which prompted court cases that had already been launched to be sped-up, but that is 27 days from the announcement of the prorogation to the Supreme Court ruling it unlawful and void.
The Benn Act calls for a letter to be sent no later than October 19th, so if the Act were suspended by an Order in Council on the 18th, then cases progressing to the same timescale as the prorogation cases from August 28th would see judgment announced on November 14th - a fortnight past exit day.
Why is it that the Privy Council has the power to suspend Statute Law? Seems like a bonkers power for it to have.
An Act abolishing this power is just the sort of Act that a Parliament seizing the order paper could pass.
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Agree, but it raises the interesting question of timing. Could it be done (not that I think it will) at such a time that 31 October comes and goes before a ruling could be made. We would be talking about at least two stages of hearings. An ex parte 'quia timet' injunction hearing would be good fun for the lawyers. With the government's current run of luck their best plan might be to engage Lord Pannick now on their behalf.
So the criminal cabal in no 10 will try and use legislation that deals with a national emergency to stop the Benn Act whilst at the same time saying no deal isn’t a problem and the country is prepared so why the emergency ?
Use of the CCA would be an unforgivable abuse of power
It would not get past the courts. At least not on my reading of the Act. And note that to trigger it a statement must be made setting out the basis for claiming that there is the requisite emergency. So the government can’t get away with exercising some nebulous prerogative power without explanation. They have to comply with the terms of the Act and that will be judicially reviewable like any other power exercised by an authority pursuant to statute.
I think any attempt to do this will end in Boris being dismissed by the Queen. She won't want to, but she'll have no choice.
That's one thing I don't see happening. Whilst theoretically serving at the pleasure of HM, the identity of the Prime Minister is a matter for Parliament. The Palace won't let reluctant MPs hide behind the Queen.
As said many times the Queen is not going to do anything which interferes with the make up of parliament still less who is PM.
she is too busy looking after herself and her dodgy family
So the criminal cabal in no 10 will try and use legislation that deals with a national emergency to stop the Benn Act whilst at the same time saying no deal isn’t a problem and the country is prepared so why the emergency ?
Use of the CCA would be an unforgivable abuse of power
It would not get past the courts. At least not on my reading of the Act. And note that to trigger it a statement must be made setting out the basis for claiming that there is the requisite emergency. So the government can’t get away with exercising some nebulous prerogative power without explanation. They have to comply with the terms of the Act and that will be judicially reviewable like any other power exercised by an authority pursuant to statute.
I think any attempt to do this will end in Boris being dismissed by the Queen. She won't want to, but she'll have no choice.
That's one thing I don't see happening. Whilst theoretically serving at the pleasure of HM, the identity of the Prime Minister is a matter for Parliament. The Palace won't let reluctant MPs hide behind the Queen.
As said many times the Queen is not going to do anything which interferes with the make up of parliament still less who is PM.
she is too busy looking after herself and her dodgy family
I hear the latest plan is to jump straight to Megan as the next Queen.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament (and sane people) don't want a no deal but if he gets as far as finding a legal mechanism to take us to the brink of no deal I can see one hell of a fight in the courts the outcome of which is far from certain as their last line of defence would be the people voted for it.
A referendum which, legally, was advisory not mandatory would not, I think, be a sufficient basis to overrule the principles laid down in the recent SC decision. Not least because there would be ample evidence from the manifesto and statements of the Leave campaign that people had voted to leave with a deal and not on the basis of a disorderly withdrawal.
But step back a bit: a disorderly withdrawal forced through in such circumstances has no chance of lasting. There will be no consensus, no acceptance or even grudging acquiescence. Anything that goes wrong will be hung round the necks of those forcing something through in this way. Winning the battle and losing the war comes to mind.
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
just a bit of banter
Just a few opposition politicians getting their windows smashed in. It makes you wonder whether the average German was really disgusted by Kristallnacht.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Parliament (and sane people) don't want a no deal but if he gets as far as finding a legal mechanism to take us to the brink of no deal I can see one hell of a fight in the courts the outcome of which is far from certain as their last line of defence would be the people voted for it.
A referendum which, legally, was advisory not mandatory would not, I think, be a sufficient basis to overrule the principles laid down in the recent SC decision. Not least because there would be ample evidence from the manifesto and statements of the Leave campaign that people had voted to leave with a deal and not on the basis of a disorderly withdrawal.
But step back a bit: a disorderly withdrawal forced through in such circumstances has no chance of lasting. There will be no consensus, no acceptance or even grudging acquiescence. Anything that goes wrong will be hung round the necks of those forcing something through in this way. Winning the battle and losing the war comes to mind.
Yes but the next engagement is in 2022. There would be no other process to bring a reckoning forward.
Labour taking charge post no deal would be very dangerous for them.
Doesn't this tell us more about Ms Johnson than about the pressure on her spiv brother?
My understanding is that the real reason she turned to Change UK from the LDs is that the LDs were too picky to let her stand as an LD parliamentary candidate.
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
just a bit of banter
Just a few opposition politicians getting their windows smashed in. It makes you wonder whether the average German was really disgusted by Kristallnacht.
Have to say they make their own trouble, one lot is as bad as the other and no innocents. They are a useless bunch of windbags wrecking the country. Then they wonder why people get upset. Every man jack of them out for themselves and then surprised the moronic idiots wandering the streets get upset. PS , when And and Dec are the top entertainers in the UK why is anybody surprised we don't have riots on a regular basis. The country is full of stupid people.
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Agree, but it raises the interesting question of timing. Could it be done (not that I think it will) at such a time that 31 October comes and goes before a ruling could be made. We would be talking about at least two stages of hearings. An ex parte 'quia timet' injunction hearing would be good fun for the lawyers. With the government's current run of luck their best plan might be to engage Lord Pannick now on their behalf.
Then again, perhaps Johnson simply intends to manufacture a situation so critical that MPs are forced to replace him?
The only valid interlocutor between the UK and the European Council is the Head of State (a non-starter, MPs can't force the Queen to go to Brussels) or the Head of Government. If the Head of Government won't obey the Benn Act, then presumably Parliament will have to install an alternative who will in order to ask for the A50 extension?
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
just a bit of banter
Just a few opposition politicians getting their windows smashed in. It makes you wonder whether the average German was really disgusted by Kristallnacht.
Have to say they make their own trouble, one lot is as bad as the other and no innocents. They are a useless bunch of windbags wrecking the country. Then they wonder why people get upset. Every man jack of them out for themselves and then surprised the moronic idiots wandering the streets get upset.
They used to call the SNP bullies because about seven of them said something harsh on Twitter. Now the death threats are coming in and it is good clean banter and if you disagree with the government you should expect to get the shit kicked out of you, apparently.
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
just a bit of banter
Just a few opposition politicians getting their windows smashed in. It makes you wonder whether the average German was really disgusted by Kristallnacht.
I would happily swap Kristallnacht for non-violent free speech, however florid ('Knife him in the front' - Jess Phillips) any day. It is the performing of civil violence we need to condemn. Angry and violent words are better dealt with by aiming higher. 'A soft answer turneth away wrath' and all that.
Doesn't this tell us more about Ms Johnson than about the pressure on her spiv brother?
My understanding is that the real reason she turned to Change UK from the LDs is that the LDs were too picky to let her stand as an LD parliamentary candidate.
Flakes, the whole shower.
Sure. But there is sufficient reportage on the shysters s3t to profit from crash Brexit as to at least suggest there is substance in her claim
According to the Guardian, Jo Maugham has been advised by police to wear a stab vest, and to have a panic button at home.
I feel sorry for him. And this is wrong. But really, in what world do you think you can blithely try and annul 17.4 MILLION votes, without some horrible blowback? You can’t. It’s delusional. If I tried to tell 17 million people their opinions were legally worthless, I’d expect to get the shit kicked out of me, several times, at the very least.
While I agree their motive has primarily been blocking Brexit entirely, they haven’t done anything illegal to further their aims. He shouldn’t have to live in fear for doing things allowed by law.
I think people have got this mostly the wrong way round. Really robust free speech, including colourful and violent language (Tory vermin, Kill the Bill, Knife him in the front and all that) is the permitted alternative to settling things by violence.
just a bit of banter
Just a few opposition politicians getting their windows smashed in. It makes you wonder whether the average German was really disgusted by Kristallnacht.
Have to say they make their own trouble, one lot is as bad as the other and no innocents. They are a useless bunch of windbags wrecking the country. Then they wonder why people get upset. Every man jack of them out for themselves and then surprised the moronic idiots wandering the streets get upset.
They used to call the SNP bullies because about seven of them said something harsh on Twitter. Now the death threats are coming in and it is good clean banter and if you disagree with the government you should expect to get the shit kicked out of you, apparently.
Who is saying that. There are always nutters about but there are also a bunch of moronic politicians making out they are being badly treated. The arseholes never gave it a thought when the SNP and FM were getting pelters and threats on a regular basis but now it is big news when they get some stupid tweets from some halfwits. No sympathy for them I am afraid.
Something weird’s happening to Boris, and I’m starting to feel concerned for the guy. Is he utterly in thrall to this Cummings character and his methods, perhaps through the tutelage of Gove? Things aren’t right.
What the Supreme Court would have to do is quash the PM's advice to HM to invoke the CCA. If that happened no State of Emergency would have existed and any OiC made under the CCA would be " null, void and of no effect ". Exactly as they dealt with the prorogation.
It's almost as if the Supreme Court was sending a broad hint.
Something weird’s happening to Boris, and I’m starting to feel concerned for the guy. Is he utterly in thrall to this Cummings character and his methods, perhaps through the tutelage of Gove? Things aren’t right.
TBH I don't think he's up to the job of PM. He could get by with phoning in as Mayor of London and Foreign Sec but the buck stops with the PM.
Johnson using some kind of arcane legal jiggery pokery to try to force a no deal is about the only way I can see for him to proceed short of leading the Cons victoriously into opposition as some on here have championed.
I can’t remember who that was, was it the grand old duke of epping forest parish councillor (failed) by any chance
Johnson using some kind of arcane legal jiggery pokery to try to force a no deal is about the only way I can see for him to proceed short of leading the Cons victoriously into opposition as some on here have championed.
I can’t remember who that was, was it the grand old duke of epping forest parish councillor (failed) by any chance
But that would be a prerogative power, no? which would be justiciable and challengeable in the courts. Surely?
Yes and yes. And since it would break the “don’t take the piss” rule recently established, it would be struck down pronto.
Agree, but it raises the interesting question of timing. Could it be done (not that I think it will) at such a time that 31 October comes and goes before a ruling could be made. We would be talking about at least two stages of hearings. An ex parte 'quia timet' injunction hearing would be good fun for the lawyers. With the government's current run of luck their best plan might be to engage Lord Pannick now on their behalf.
Then again, perhaps Johnson simply intends to manufacture a situation so critical that MPs are forced to replace him?
The only valid interlocutor between the UK and the European Council is the Head of State (a non-starter, MPs can't force the Queen to go to Brussels) or the Head of Government. If the Head of Government won't obey the Benn Act, then presumably Parliament will have to install an alternative who will in order to ask for the A50 extension?
I’m afraid they can I think through a humble address as we discussed a few eons ago on here.
Bozo wants to be brought down and for a GNU to be formed temporarily to get the extension.
Then he will play the people’s champion during the election . The more unhinged he becomes the more likely opposition MPs will put aside their differences to do that .
Bozo wants to be brought down and for a GNU to be formed temporarily to get the extension.
Then he will play the people’s champion during the election . The more unhinged he becomes the more likely opposition MPs will put aside their differences to do that .
We've been round this house. If we're still in the EU after Oct 31 Boris is finished.
Bozo wants to be brought down and for a GNU to be formed temporarily to get the extension.
Then he will play the people’s champion during the election . The more unhinged he becomes the more likely opposition MPs will put aside their differences to do that .
If you think Corbyn wants to sign that letter or go anywhere near it then you’re probably a little idealistic. He only wants Johnson to sign for obvious reasons.
It’s electoral kryptonite for him and Boris.
The only people who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as PM.
As Corbyn wouldn’t support Swinson or AN other, draw your own conclusions.
Bozo wants to be brought down and for a GNU to be formed temporarily to get the extension.
Then he will play the people’s champion during the election . The more unhinged he becomes the more likely opposition MPs will put aside their differences to do that .
It's fascinating how much the madman theory mirrors the (alleged) tactics of Donald Trump.
Bozo wants to be brought down and for a GNU to be formed temporarily to get the extension.
Then he will play the people’s champion during the election . The more unhinged he becomes the more likely opposition MPs will put aside their differences to do that .
If you think Corbyn wants to sign that letter or go anywhere near it then you’re probably a little idealistic. He only wants Johnson to sign for obvious reasons.
It’s electoral kryptonite for him and Boris.
The only people who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as PM.
As Corbyn wouldn’t support Swinson or AN other, draw your own conclusions.
Lord Sumption said the other day that if BJ refused to sign the letter the court could nominate another (perhaps the cabinet secretary) whose signature would be de jure that of the PM.
If you think Corbyn wants to sign that letter or go anywhere near it then you’re probably a little idealistic. He only wants Johnson to sign for obvious reasons.
It’s electoral kryptonite for him and Boris.
The only people who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as PM.
As Corbyn wouldn’t support Swinson or AN other, draw your own conclusions.
If the government resigns Corbyn is going to have a difficult time avoiding making the request for an extension.
We LOVE his tough response. Finally someone speaking up in there for the 17.4 million. I don't care if it is some posturing - they ALL do that. Boris actually IS the People's Champion
Comments
I suggest that those who want to avoid No Deal arrange among themselves who is to be PM and provide us with some sensible Government.
It might be impressive. It might actually convince people that here at last is a group of politicians who are trying to act for the good of the country and provide measured and sensible Government.
He first came into office in 2011 on a mere 25% (with the social democrats on 24% as junior partner), after the 2016 elections, on 30%, he headed a coalition with the conservatives on 27%. The 8% gain for the Greens just reflects the overall trend in Germany.
It should be noted that the Green Party of today is considered to be a moderate centrist party, albeit with an environmentalist slant, in general, the BW subsection in particular. There clearly is nothing 'hippyesq' about them at all.
Now to assume UNS is an oversimplification. However, I think it is more plausible in Birmingham Yardley than a model which converts into a result in Yardley that has Lab down 29% and LD up 20%, with just 29% voting for Brexit supporting parties (Con and BXP) in a seat that voted 60% to Leave.
Exceptional times call for exceptional measures and the best thing that could happen is a further 100 Tory MPs resign the whip and Labour MPs ostracise Corbyn in return. It is still fanciful but given there was an anyone but Boris whatsapp group with close to 100 MPs in the first Tory leadership contest perhaps it is not impossible.
And Corbyn will willingly write the letter, as he wants to start his own negotiation with the EU.
This is a perfect example of why this is all getting so out-of-hand. Twitter is destroying rational and measured debate and fuelling inflamed partisanship solely to bolster the narcissistic authors’ ego.
This might be true. It might not. The effect however is, as displayed by some comments here, tantamount to chanting “burn the witch”.
Burn the witch if it is proven to be the case. if that’s your thing. But at least try to validate your opprobrium first before jumping to conclusions.
Personally I’d shut twitter down. Permanently. The damage it’s doing to reason and considered thought is frightening.
OT. A cruise ship arrived today and the pssengers were so fat that they completely filled the narrow alleyways of the old town. I was having a coffee and the attractive Rumanian waitress said to me 'Are they English or American?' 'American I think'. 'I'm surprised the ship didn't sink!' she said*
* In fact I discoverd the passengers were nearly all English. What must the French make of us?.
It is another piece of Blairite authoritarian legislation that needs scrapping as soon as possible but no one seems to take the threat seriously until it is actually used.
"That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall."
Bill of Rights, 1688 . http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2
This government has shown itself utterly indifferent to the law and conventions and willing to use any trick to try and get its own way. Those who oppose it need to be alert to what it may be up to.
I would very much prefer it if we had a government that I could implicitly trust would not try to ignore the law. But we don’t. We have a PM who lies about his intentions and even lies about what the Benn Act says.
“Let’s not send £350 million a week to Brussels. Let’s spend it on lawyers instead.”
We could put it on the side of a bus.
"To give only a few examples, in the Case of Proclamations the court protected Parliamentary sovereignty directly, by holding that prerogative powers could not be used to alter the law of the land. Three centuries later, in the case of Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508, the court prevented the Government of the day from seeking by indirect means to bypass Parliament, in circumventing a statute through the use of the prerogative. More recently, in the Fire Brigades Union case, the court again prevented the Government from rendering a statute nugatory through recourse to the prerogative, and was not deflected by the fact that the Government had failed to bring the statute into effect."
The Benn Act calls for a letter to be sent no later than October 19th, so if the Act were suspended by an Order in Council on the 18th, then cases progressing to the same timescale as the prorogation cases from August 28th would see judgment announced on November 14th - a fortnight past exit day.
Why is it that the Privy Council has the power to suspend Statute Law? Seems like a bonkers power for it to have.
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1177214043687399424
Your experience seems to illustrate the detriments of the realpolitik of coalition governments, especially, and sadly, those with conservative participation.
An Act abolishing this power is just the sort of Act that a Parliament seizing the order paper could pass.
Bozo is destroying those and if what John Major says is true then effectively any PM could annul any law whenever they felt like it .
A referendum which, legally, was advisory not mandatory would not, I think, be a sufficient basis to overrule the principles laid down in the recent SC decision. Not least because there would be ample evidence from the manifesto and statements of the Leave campaign that people had voted to leave with a deal and not on the basis of a disorderly withdrawal.
But step back a bit: a disorderly withdrawal forced through in such circumstances has no chance of lasting. There will be no consensus, no acceptance or even grudging acquiescence. Anything that goes wrong will be hung round the necks of those forcing something through in this way. Winning the battle and losing the war comes to mind.
Labour taking charge post no deal would be very dangerous for them.
My understanding is that the real reason she turned to Change UK from the LDs is that the LDs were too picky to let her stand as an LD parliamentary candidate.
Flakes, the whole shower.
PS , when And and Dec are the top entertainers in the UK why is anybody surprised we don't have riots on a regular basis. The country is full of stupid people.
The only valid interlocutor between the UK and the European Council is the Head of State (a non-starter, MPs can't force the Queen to go to Brussels) or the Head of Government. If the Head of Government won't obey the Benn Act, then presumably Parliament will have to install an alternative who will in order to ask for the A50 extension?
The arseholes never gave it a thought when the SNP and FM were getting pelters and threats on a regular basis but now it is big news when they get some stupid tweets from some halfwits. No sympathy for them I am afraid.
In effect the government would be arguing that no deal is a national emergency and will try and stop an Act that seeks to remove the emergency !
Lmao !
It's almost as if the Supreme Court was sending a broad hint.
That is implicit in Bozos statements . He becomes more loathsome by the day .
(And of course Jeremy Corbyn who also wants brexit.)
Then he will play the people’s champion during the election . The more unhinged he becomes the more likely opposition MPs will put aside their differences to do that .
prorogued
It’s electoral kryptonite for him and Boris.
The only people who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as PM.
As Corbyn wouldn’t support Swinson or AN other, draw your own conclusions.
The last extension was signed off by Tim Barrow the UK ambassador to the EU . Conceivably he could do it and what does member state mean in legalese.
Can it mean anything the EU want it to mean ? They don’t want to get involved but might have to!
Boris will nominate him and he can hardly say no.
Und ansonsten, Herzlichen Glückwunsch für die neue Staatsbürgerschaft!