Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Wasting Time? How the Article 50 extension has been used

SystemSystem Posts: 12,606
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Wasting Time? How the Article 50 extension has been used

When the last Article 50 extension was obtained on 10 April, Donald Tusk said: “Please do not waste this time.”  

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,593
    First! Like the LibDems
  • Me_Me_ Posts: 66
    Almost first. Sad that I forgot my own password. Now I'm going to read the article.
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    Wasted. Inevitably.
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    What happens 'IF' Supreme Court finds against the Government? What are the possible remedies?

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Penddu said:

    What happens 'IF' Supreme Court finds against the Government? What are the possible remedies?

    My guess is that Bercow will announce that the Commons will meet tomorrow and there will be an emergency bill to take away from the PM the power to advise the Queen to prorogue
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,760
    MikeSmithson said:

    Penddu said:

    What happens 'IF' Supreme Court finds against the Government? What are the possible remedies?

    My guess is that Bercow will announce that the Commons will meet tomorrow and there will be an emergency bill to take away from the PM the power to advise the Queen to prorogue
    But that would require permission from the Queen to remove the prerogative right?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Well the Palace is going to be mighty pissed off if the SC rules that Johnson has in effect lied to her.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,631
    Gallowgate said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Penddu said:

    What happens 'IF' Supreme Court finds against the Government? What are the possible remedies?

    My guess is that Bercow will announce that the Commons will meet tomorrow and there will be an emergency bill to take away from the PM the power to advise the Queen to prorogue
    But that would require permission from the Queen to remove the prerogative right?
    Yeah, difficult to do that without the government okaying the idea.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    And Boris declined to answer questions about whether he'd bunged public money to an old flame; the Lord Chancellor, after due consideration and weighing one thing against another, announced the government was broadly in favour of obeying the law; the prime minister said he would not resign even if the Supreme Court rules against him: donnez-moi un break.
  • johnthetaxijohnthetaxi Posts: 6
    Penddu said:

    What happens 'IF' Supreme Court finds against the Government? What are the possible remedies?

    Parliament is recalled .Boris proposes a motion of confidence in himself and his government abstains on the vote ,forcing the opposition to vote no confidence .Boris and the Government resign giving Corbyn14 days to form a government ,which wont happen Boris Gets the election he wanted .Election result hung Parliament .Paddy Power make new Book on who or what will be next move .Sound familiar .Two options Crash out or end it .
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,756
    edited September 2019
    MikeSmithson said:

    Well the Palace is going to be mighty pissed off if the SC rules that Johnson has in effect lied to her.

    Are we sure the whole thing wasn't their idea? Cummings wants to shut down parliament until Brexit Day, some bright spark at the palace wants to keep the Queen out of politics, so they compromise on only shutting down parliament some of the time, and using the new session of parliament as cover...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,121
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    And Boris declined to answer questions about whether he'd bunged public money to an old flame; the Lord Chancellor, after due consideration and weighing one thing against another, announced the government was broadly in favour of obeying the law; the prime minister said he would not resign even if the Supreme Court rules against him: donnez-moi un break.

    Parliament has the right to declare that the government does not have their confidence, or to vote for Parliament to be dissolved and for an election to take place.

    Two things which, for reasons only known to themselves, it has been rather reluctant to do.
  • Yellow_SubmarineYellow_Submarine Posts: 647
    As a non lawyer if the Court decides the exercise of prerogative is judiciable then the rest is easy. It's like a Court setting aside a County Council's decision to close a Library under the ' no reasonable person test '. It's not that County Councils don't have the power to close Libraries. They do. Or that Courts get to decide if Libraries close. They don't. It's whether the process followed was proper. So *if* prerogative is judiciable and *if* the Court has seen a stack of embarrasing paper trail admitting the prorogation was political then under the maximalist reading of ' no reasonable person ' the Court simply voids the decision. Just as the County Council is then free to close the Library again after it follows due process the PM could prorogue again on the basis of better less politicised advice. Though the reassembled Parliament might act to legislate to remove the perogative first.

    The difference is of course that there is ample case and statute law on how County Councils should close Libraries. My understanding only the recent Sri Lankan case is an obvious precedent in a Westminster system.

    As a donor to the Crowdfunder for the Scottish case I see today as Win/Win/Win. Total defeat will lead the next non Tory government to put prorogation into statute law. Es5ablishing judiciability even if this prorogation is ruled lawful is a huge step forward regardless. If the prorogation is voided then that's a Euromillions win. There are bigger issues at play here than Brexit. This is Executive vs Legislature stuff that has been running since the Norman Yoke.
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    Thanks for the excellent comments. Personally I am hoping that he will be forced to turn up at PMQ dressed in a yellow chicken output...but realistically any decision against him will be welcome irrespective of remedy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,827
    Perhaps not wisely, but we do seem to have crammed quite a lot in.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,827
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    And Boris declined to answer questions about whether he'd bunged public money to an old flame....

    To be fair, he has gone on record that the affair was conducted in an entirely proper manner...

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,756
    edited September 2019
    Sandpit said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    And Boris declined to answer questions about whether he'd bunged public money to an old flame; the Lord Chancellor, after due consideration and weighing one thing against another, announced the government was broadly in favour of obeying the law; the prime minister said he would not resign even if the Supreme Court rules against him: donnez-moi un break.

    Parliament has the right to declare that the government does not have their confidence, or to vote for Parliament to be dissolved and for an election to take place.

    Two things which, for reasons only known to themselves, it has been rather reluctant to do.
    I don't think the reasons are particularly secret? Political decisions generally have a publicly justifiable reason and a political self-interest reason.

    In this case the public justification, which is correct and true, is that in addition to actually abusing its power to prorogue, his team has also threatened to abuse its responsibility for proposing a successor, and its power to set the date of the election. So they need to block those paths, preferably by making sure an extension is agreed, before they open up those particular paths that he says he's going to abuse.

    The political self-interest reason is that Boris is trying to get away with pretending that he's realistically negotiating a deal, while also telling people who don't want a deal that he's not going to accept the kind of deal that he could realistically negotiate. So the other parties want to let that process play out before they agree to an election, so he can only ride the one horse or the other.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,756
    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Sandpit said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    And Boris declined to answer questions about whether he'd bunged public money to an old flame; the Lord Chancellor, after due consideration and weighing one thing against another, announced the government was broadly in favour of obeying the law; the prime minister said he would not resign even if the Supreme Court rules against him: donnez-moi un break.

    Parliament has the right to declare that the government does not have their confidence, or to vote for Parliament to be dissolved and for an election to take place.

    Two things which, for reasons only known to themselves, it has been rather reluctant to do.

    Entirely reasonably, MPs do not trust the PM or the person who tells him what to do. Both are proven and habitual liars. They know that Johnson and Cummings wanted a general election that they could call at a time that suited them, so declined to give them that power. Johnson reaped what he sowed, but will probably come out on top anyway thanks to Labour's unelectability.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,758
    Of course politicians have spent the summer playing politics. With the country, and Parliament, evenly split, what else did people expect.

    Anyway, this thread is an excellent argument against future extensions, given that industry and the public seem to want the uncertainty over.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    asjohnstone said:

    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
    Labour, Greens, SNP and maybe PC would work together to avoid a Tory government and hold a 2nd ref. There is every chance in terms of seat numbers that the SNP are more important than the Lib Dems.

    I'm not going to bet on it but are there odds on SNP finishing with more seats than the Lib Dems? or the reverse?

    Just curious how punters/bookmakers would have priced it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,756
    Fishing said:


    Anyway, this thread is an excellent argument against future extensions, given that industry and the public seem to want the uncertainty over.

    They might want the uncertainty over, but they don't want any of the specific ways - Available Deal, No Deal, Revoke - that the uncertainty could be ended.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Fishing said:

    Of course politicians have spent the summer playing politics. With the country, and Parliament, evenly split, what else did people expect.

    Anyway, this thread is an excellent argument against future extensions, given that industry and the public seem to want the uncertainty over.

    No Deal does not end uncertainty. It just makes UK citizens and businesses less free than they are now, and the UK government more dependent on the goodwill of third parties.

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    TheJezziah said:


    asjohnstone said:

    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
    Labour, Greens, SNP and maybe PC would work together to avoid a Tory government and hold a 2nd ref. There is every chance in terms of seat numbers that the SNP are more important than the Lib Dems.

    I'm not going to bet on it but are there odds on SNP finishing with more seats than the Lib Dems? or the reverse?

    Just curious how punters/bookmakers would have priced it.
    I see the SNP somewhere in the low to mid 40s, I'd expect the Lib Dems to have more.

    I'd price the Lib Dems somewhere around 1.75 favs
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    That's an impressive summary of our hysterical thrashing about. I wonder, though, whether we might not credit May with the legacy of some naff Honours List appointments.

    Many years ago a small classroom at college had several small pen and ink drawings eerily showing lumpen children playing in crumbling Roman ruins at dusk. Those pictures haunt me to this day. We are they.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Well the EU wasted a lot of time by negotiating a deal it was too dumb to see would not pass parliament.

    What goes around comes around Mr Tusk.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1176339522113679360?s=21
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    TGOHF said:

    Well the EU wasted a lot of time by negotiating a deal it was too dumb to see would not pass parliament.

    What goes around comes around Mr Tusk.

    You are absolutely right to say the EU27’s biggest mistake has been to trust the UK government to deliver results. Presumably, it has now learned that lesson.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Major move on PredictIt, partly echoed on Betfair:

    https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3537/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-his-first-term
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Nigelb said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    And Boris declined to answer questions about whether he'd bunged public money to an old flame....

    To be fair, he has gone on record that the affair was conducted in an entirely proper manner...

    It gives the term "Backdoor Boris" a wholly new meaning.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1176262794586533894

    Buttigieg dropping truth bombs...
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    TGOHF said:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1176339522113679360?s=21

    :D
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,423
    One can only admire Ms Cyclefree's optimism.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,550
    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1176359210113818624
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,811
    Yellow_Submarine said:

    As a non lawyer if the Court decides the exercise of prerogative is judiciable then the rest is easy. It's like a Court setting aside a County Council's decision to close a Library under the ' no reasonable person test '. It's not that County Councils don't have the power to close Libraries. They do. Or that Courts get to decide if Libraries close. They don't. It's whether the process followed was proper. So *if* prerogative is judiciable and *if* the Court has seen a stack of embarrasing paper trail admitting the prorogation was political then under the maximalist reading of ' no reasonable person ' the Court simply voids the decision. Just as the County Council is then free to close the Library again after it follows due process the PM could prorogue again on the basis of better less politicised advice. Though the reassembled Parliament might act to legislate to remove the perogative first.

    The difference is of course that there is ample case and statute law on how County Councils should close Libraries. My understanding only the recent Sri Lankan case is an obvious precedent in a Westminster system.

    As a donor to the Crowdfunder for the Scottish case I see today as Win/Win/Win. Total defeat will lead the next non Tory government to put prorogation into statute law. Es5ablishing judiciability even if this prorogation is ruled lawful is a huge step forward regardless. If the prorogation is voided then that's a Euromillions win. There are bigger issues at play here than Brexit. This is Executive vs Legislature stuff that has been running since the Norman Yoke.

    My 'like' is for being a crowdfunder for the Scottish case. I don't see the prorogation issues being bigger than Brexit nor the legislature v executive stuff. I don't see it as much more than a mild humiliation for Johnson which will run off him like water off a duck's back. Bullindon Boys don't feel shame.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    SouthamObserver said:

    TGOHF said:

    Well the EU wasted a lot of time by negotiating a deal it was too dumb to see would not pass parliament.

    What goes around comes around Mr Tusk.

    You are absolutely right to say the EU27’s biggest mistake has been to trust the UK government to deliver results. Presumably, it has now learned that lesson.

    Perhaps the EU should have proposed that they appoint representatives to conduct both sides of the negotiations!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,756
    TheJezziah said:

    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1176262794586533894

    Buttigieg dropping truth bombs...

    That tweet isn't going down well on r/neoliberal
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,756
    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.

    If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    It’s times like this when one understands how military takeovers happen in countries with public support.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,550
    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.

    If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
    Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.

    You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,811
    TGOHF said:

    Well the EU wasted a lot of time by negotiating a deal it was too dumb to see would not pass parliament.

    What goes around comes around Mr Tusk.

    You can hardly hold the EU reponsible for negotiating a deal that our parliament rejects. Get a grip!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,705
    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Which is one reason for ending the parliamentary session, (although the length of time could be shorter!)

    While the speaker can prevent Mays deal IV in the old session it can be presented again in the new session without any changes if desired.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,719
    TGOHF said:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1176339522113679360?s=21

    He really is a dick.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.

    If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
    Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.

    You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
    When the alternative is to give Boris a win ? I think they might...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,550
    philiph said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Which is one reason for ending the parliamentary session, (although the length of time could be shorter!)

    While the speaker can prevent Mays deal IV in the old session it can be presented again in the new session without any changes if desired.
    Yep.

    Which is why Boris needs at least a one day prorogation, even if he loses today.

    Although part of me would love the delicious irony of the SC ruling prorogation was unlawful and yet our Brexiting by No Deal because there is no further extension beyond 31st October and the Speaker wouldn't allow May's Deal to come back again..... What a legacy that would be!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,719
    There will be no deal as long as the government is intent on becoming a tax haven and regulatory free for all on the border of the EU, undermining single market rules for the enrichment of American big business.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/johnson-hints-at-major-reforms-to-tax-and-industry-post-brexit
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Goodness, I wouldn’t want to get on @Cyclefree’s wrong side - she takes no prisoners.

    As it happens, I regard the last few months as mildly constructive. We are testing different Brexit solutions to destruction (and in the process wrecking the reputations of their proponents). Not until there is only rubble will there be progress.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,756
    MarqueeMark said:



    Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.

    You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?

    The alternative is a general election.
    No Deal can't happen unless this parliament wants it (it doesn't) or the EU makes it happen (don't think it will).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I confess that I am on the edge of my seat for the judgment this morning. It’s not every day or even every century that you get a case of such constitutional importance. Whatever is decided, these will be words for the ages.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,719
    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.

    If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
    Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.

    You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
    We have a zombie government, an election is imminent. The EU will almost certainly extend to let that happen. So the choice for Labour MPs is to vote for the deal and give the Tories a 10pt boost in the polls, or force an extension that takes 10pts off the Tories and then have an election. They're not stupid.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,550
    TGOHF said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.

    If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
    Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.

    You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
    When the alternative is to give Boris a win ? I think they might...
    I suppose the Labour Party owning No Deal might just be the most stupid thing they haven't done yet.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Talk of Boris Johnson negotiating a deal rather presupposes he’ll still be in a job at the end of the week. That’s a long way from certain, depending on today’s outcome.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,811
    asjohnstone said:

    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
    I would say that after Brighton Labour are hanging on to being a part of the 'Remain alliance' by their fingertips. I don't think they thought through the consequences of what they were doing. It's not fatal but I'd say they've made a Johnson win more likely
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,962
    TheJezziah said:

    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1176262794586533894

    Buttigieg dropping truth bombs...

    It’s a clever tweet.

    Many left-wing Democrat activists will read into it what they want to but he hasn’t committed to anything at all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,453
    alex. said:

    It’s times like this when one understands how military takeovers happen in countries with public support.

    Er, no. Just as well that the Tories have decimated the armed forces. Back to the Seventies again:

    https://youtu.be/oJ-9R6NCZ0A
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,962
    Tissue_Price said:

    https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1176359210113818624

    I’ll believe it when I see it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,453
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Talk of Boris Johnson negotiating a deal rather presupposes he’ll still be in a job at the end of the week. That’s a long way from certain, depending on today’s outcome.

    Instead of a leaders speech at conference, he could have the old bill taking down his particulars.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,756
    asjohnstone said:

    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
    Nah, I reckon Remain voters are smart enough to realise that in some constituencies, the only vote that will get them what they want is to vote for Labour.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1176339522113679360?s=21

    https://twitter.com/williamsonkev/status/1176241683970822147
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,550
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good thread header. Clearly we have wasted the time.

    But if I were the EU, I'd still be tempted to give a 2nd chance. If we get another extension, then we should have another election pretty soon after.

    Now there's a chance that leads to deadlock once again.

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    If the EU gives us no further extensions, it will know if Britain really will leave BY 31st OCTOBER. If it minds how that leave occurs - and wants to prevent an EU-wide recession - then Juncker can start up the production line at the EU fudge factory and talk to Boris. Then Parliament votes on Boris's Deal or No Deal. (Nothing coming out of Brighton this week suggests that Corbyn will go for revoke. It is not a politically viable option.)

    If it really doesn't give a shit as to the way we leave, if their lines are of the most unalterable shade of crimson, it says you have the deal. Then Parliament votes on May's Deal or No Deal.

    At least the incoming Commission in November knows where it stands. And May's Leagacy may yet be her Deal is what Parliament enacts - at the fourth time of asking. And yet Boris will get the political credit for making Brexit happen. Having craftily used the extension the EU gave us in March....and done what May could not do.

    Brexit.
    Their order of preference is Remain, soft Brexit, May Brexit, No Deal, undermine SM/screw Ireland brexit.

    If Boris brings back May's deal he will have a rebellion in his own party. Can't see many Lab Mps backing it either.
    Of course MPs will back it - if the alternative is No Deal. They have just spent the time since the EU extended parading their views on the awfulness of No Deal.

    You forget that Boris and many in the Conservative Party have already voted for May's Deal. So it comes down to Labour. Are they going to permit No Deal? Really? What planet are you on?
    We have a zombie government, an election is imminent. The EU will almost certainly extend to let that happen.
    Why? The EU have a route to get their negotated deal - May's Deal - finally approved by Westminster well before any General Election can happen. And frankly, who knows what Government the UK's ornery voters are going to deliver after that election they wait for.... Quite possibly more chaos.

    No more extensions - and the UK goes out of the EU on their terms. What's not to love in Brussels?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    OldKingCole said:

    One can only admire Ms Cyclefree's optimism.

    :)
  • CaptainBuzzkillCaptainBuzzkill Posts: 335
    OnlyLivingBoy said:



    We have a zombie government, an election is imminent. The EU will almost certainly extend to let that happen. So the choice for Labour MPs is to vote for the deal and give the Tories a 10pt boost in the polls, or force an extension that takes 10pts off the Tories and then have an election. They're not stupid.

    I did ask this on another thread and may have missed the reply but what is to stop the government resigning and then the Tories blocking a replacement?


  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    AlastairMeeks said:

    I confess that I am on the edge of my seat for the judgment this morning. It’s not every day or even every century that you get a case of such constitutional importance. Whatever is decided, these will be words for the ages.

    Me too.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1176374903655882752

    https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1176376376989032450
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,550
    rkrkrk said:

    asjohnstone said:

    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
    Nah, I reckon Remain voters are smart enough to realise that in some constituencies, the only vote that will get them what they want is to vote for Labour.
    Hope is father to the thought....
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Casino_Royale said:

    TheJezziah said:

    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1176262794586533894

    Buttigieg dropping truth bombs...

    It’s a clever tweet.

    Many left-wing Democrat activists will read into it what they want to but he hasn’t committed to anything at all.
    There were tweets to that effect (the latter part about concrete proposals)

    It is just a small win, the first stage is accepting you have a problem, which will require more people to give voice to that problem. Pretty soon those small wins start adding up. The millenials will be more important electorally than the baby boomers soon.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    CaptainBuzzkill said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:



    We have a zombie government, an election is imminent. The EU will almost certainly extend to let that happen. So the choice for Labour MPs is to vote for the deal and give the Tories a 10pt boost in the polls, or force an extension that takes 10pts off the Tories and then have an election. They're not stupid.

    I did ask this on another thread and may have missed the reply but what is to stop the government resigning and then the Tories blocking a replacement?


    Insufficient number of MPs?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Cyclefree in the header said:

    She tried to get another vote on her deal but withdrew in the face of pretty fierce opposition from her own MPs and Cabinet.

    I'd add to this that this extra vote would have had the option of a referendum, and it was this that led to her defenestration because it had a better chance of success than the previous efforts.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,453
    rkrkrk said:

    asjohnstone said:

    rkrkrk said:

    .

    But on the other hand, it might lead to a remain alliance win (2nd ref between remain or soft leave). Alternatively, it could mean a Boris majority. Well at least then the EU know Britain really will leave, and promptly too.

    There is no remain alliance; it was still born in Brighton this week
    Nah, I reckon Remain voters are smart enough to realise that in some constituencies, the only vote that will get them what they want is to vote for Labour.
    A good number of individual MPs have come out for Remain quite openly. They can be trusted by Remainers, the others not so much. Party discipline has completely broken down in both major parties. Both leaders are being fragged by their own troops.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    This is doing the rounds:

    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1174950179234959360?s=21

    Looks like a straightforward case of GIGO to me, but I share in case others feel differently.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,794
    Good morning, everyone.

    There was a disappointing lack of wigs earlier. I hope the Supreme Court appears suitably attired this time.

    Still a shame we don't have Law Lords any more. Much more impressive title.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Goodness, I wouldn’t want to get on @Cyclefree’s wrong side - she takes no prisoners.

    As it happens, I regard the last few months as mildly constructive. We are testing different Brexit solutions to destruction (and in the process wrecking the reputations of their proponents). Not until there is only rubble will there be progress.

    I’m a sweetie, really.

    (Unless you misbehave ..... :) )
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    It does make one wonder if Corbyn is a Tory plant.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,962
    TheJezziah said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    TheJezziah said:

    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1176262794586533894

    Buttigieg dropping truth bombs...

    It’s a clever tweet.

    Many left-wing Democrat activists will read into it what they want to but he hasn’t committed to anything at all.
    There were tweets to that effect (the latter part about concrete proposals)

    It is just a small win, the first stage is accepting you have a problem, which will require more people to give voice to that problem. Pretty soon those small wins start adding up. The millenials will be more important electorally than the baby boomers soon.
    None of that means (as I think you’re hoping) that Buttigieg will impose socialist nirvana.

    From his past record, he’s very much an evidence-based policy maker, and creative on implementing solutions too.
  • CaptainBuzzkillCaptainBuzzkill Posts: 335
    AlastairMeeks said:



    Insufficient number of MPs?

    Do you mean there would be insufficient votes against one of the number of options that have been mentioned?

    I'm not sure I see a majority for either Corbyn or a GoNU.


  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,811
    Despite the daunting length of the header it is actually more tightly written than cyclefree's usual and well worth the effort.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,661
    Yellow_Submarine said:

    As a non lawyer if the Court decides the exercise of prerogative is judiciable then the rest is easy. It's like a Court setting aside a County Council's decision to close a Library under the ' no reasonable person test '. It's not that County Councils don't have the power to close Libraries. They do. Or that Courts get to decide if Libraries close. They don't. It's whether the process followed was proper. So *if* prerogative is judiciable and *if* the Court has seen a stack of embarrasing paper trail admitting the prorogation was political then under the maximalist reading of ' no reasonable person ' the Court simply voids the decision. Just as the County Council is then free to close the Library again after it follows due process the PM could prorogue again on the basis of better less politicised advice. Though the reassembled Parliament might act to legislate to remove the perogative first.

    It is extremely difficult to see how in practice either the judges could void the prorogation of Parliament, or how Parliament could take the power of proroguing away from the PM. I can foresee all sorts of unintended consequences to both actions, cf the FTPA.

    I was wondering if one of the reasons they were asking about possible remedies is because they are concerned they can't void this decision even if they find it shouldn't have happened. After all, if they do that all the laws passed in the washup will be voided, but they have already started to take effect. Meanwhile, if they order a recall during the Tory conference that will certainly look like them playing politics. Even Dominic Cummings would struggle to miss a goal left as open as that.

    I don't envy them, but I also have to say I wasn't impressed by the reasoning of the Scottish judges. Their way out could be to endorse the judgment of every other judge with a rider that since this power is open to abuse Parliament should consider limiting prorogations to e.g. fourteen days.

    Which would still wreck Johnson, indeed rather more effectively than a ruling he's a liar:
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,239
    My non expert assessment of the Supreme Court case is that the government didn't make as good a case as they could have done, by refusing to provide a justification for the prorogation when asked. Which itself suggests dishonesty.

    It doesn't necessarily mean they will lose. If Cummings and Johnson had been somewhat competent in following a process, I doubt the claimants' case would stand a chance of winning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,661
    SquareRoot said:

    It does make one wonder if Corbyn is a Tory plant.

    Don't know about the 'Tory' part, but he certainly resembles numerous plants of my acquaintance, especially my geraniums. A bit of red, but mostly rambling around.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    CaptainBuzzkill said:

    AlastairMeeks said:



    Insufficient number of MPs?

    Do you mean there would be insufficient votes against one of the number of options that have been mentioned?

    I'm not sure I see a majority for either Corbyn or a GoNU.


    The Conservatives would need to force a vote. Remember, Jeremy Corbyn has yet to do so for Boris Johnson. It is more likely than not that the next Prime Minister will also not face an immediate vote of no confidence.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,962
    FPT - I’ve now got David Cameron’s memoirs and have made it to Chapter Five.

    No, it’s not Thomas Hardy but it’s more interesting for the content less travelled. For example, it really comes across about how hard he works (he really wasn’t an essay crisis guy) and I was struck by his description of Norman Lamont as deeply sensitive, which I didn’t know. His experiences of Black Wednesday were formative, and he is deeply anti-Euro. He also knew the Tory party was toast as soon as John Smith sadly passed away, because he recognised just how skilled Blair was as the inevitable successor.

    Also, some things that you easily forget with time are brought back to life: such as how virtually everyone smoked (still) in the early 1990s, and you couldn’t see the other side of the room in committee rooms and ministerial offices.

    Easy to forget now.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    edited September 2019
    Roger said:

    Despite the daunting length of the header it is actually more tightly written than cyclefree's usual and well worth the effort.

    If you want “daunting length” try the Supreme Court’s decision.

    And thanks. Compliments from you are as rare as sensible politicians these days.
  • CaptainBuzzkillCaptainBuzzkill Posts: 335
    AlastairMeeks said:


    The Conservatives would need to force a vote. Remember, Jeremy Corbyn has yet to do so for Boris Johnson. It is more likely than not that the next Prime Minister will also not face an immediate vote of no confidence.

    If a sitting government was to resign though and there wasn't support for an alternative what is the next step?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FF43 said:

    My non expert assessment of the Supreme Court case is that the government didn't make as good a case as they could have done, by refusing to provide a justification for the prorogation when asked. Which itself suggests dishonesty.

    It doesn't necessarily mean they will lose. If Cummings and Johnson had been somewhat competent in following a process, I doubt the claimants' case would stand a chance of winning.

    I agree with all of that. I’m expecting the Supreme Court to find the matter justiciable. The arguments put forward on Sir John Major’s behalf on this point were compelling to me.

    Whether the government’s conduct was so bad as to justify court intervention is much more debatable. The government has done its level best to allow the court to draw adverse inferences as to its motives but the fact the Parliament was not wholly thwarted in its oversight of the executive is a strong point in the government’s favour.

    I’m really glad I’m not one of the judges.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    CaptainBuzzkill said:

    AlastairMeeks said:


    The Conservatives would need to force a vote. Remember, Jeremy Corbyn has yet to do so for Boris Johnson. It is more likely than not that the next Prime Minister will also not face an immediate vote of no confidence.

    If a sitting government was to resign though and there wasn't support for an alternative what is the next step?
    Support is only tested by a vote of no confidence.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited September 2019
    ydoethur said:

    Yellow_Submarine said:

    As a non lawyer if the Court decides the exercise of prerogative is judiciable then the rest is easy. It's like a Court setting aside a County Council's decision to close a Library under the ' no reasonable person test '. It's not that County Councils don't have the power to close Libraries. They do. Or that Courts get to decide if Libraries close. They don't. It's whether the process followed was proper. So *if* prerogative is judiciable and *if* the Court has seen a stack of embarrasing paper trail admitting the prorogation was political then under the maximalist reading of ' no reasonable person ' the Court simply voids the decision. Just as the County Council is then free to close the Library again after it follows due process the PM could prorogue again on the basis of better less politicised advice. Though the reassembled Parliament might act to legislate to remove the perogative first.

    It is extremely difficult to see how in practice either the judges could void the prorogation of Parliament, or how Parliament could take the power of proroguing away from the PM. I can foresee all sorts of unintended consequences to both actions, cf the FTPA.

    I was wondering if one of the reasons they were asking about possible remedies is because they are concerned they can't void this decision even if they find it shouldn't have happened. After all, if they do that all the laws passed in the washup will be voided, but they have already started to take effect. Meanwhile, if they order a recall during the Tory conference that will certainly look like them playing politics. Even Dominic Cummings would struggle to miss a goal left as open as that.

    I don't envy them, but I also have to say I wasn't impressed by the reasoning of the Scottish judges. Their way out could be to endorse the judgment of every other judge with a rider that since this power is open to abuse Parliament should consider limiting prorogations to e.g. fourteen days.

    Which would still wreck Johnson, indeed rather more effectively than a ruling he's a liar:
    What would be the logic or democratic justification for fourteen days when Election prorogations are by statute longer? The fact that those prorogations are for a good reason doesn’t change the fact that during that period the Government acts without parliamentary oversight.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited September 2019
    I asked this before, but missed if there was an answer. If the prorogation is ruled invalid, what are the consequences for the extension bill, that was passed as part of the prorogation formalities?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,615
    TGOHF said:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1176339522113679360?s=21

    What an absolute drama queen she is. Totally lost the plot and her God complex has gone crazy. Time her parents took her away and sent her back to school. Total breakdown on the horizon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,036
    AlastairMeeks said:

    I confess that I am on the edge of my seat for the judgment this morning. It’s not every day or even every century that you get a case of such constitutional importance. Whatever is decided, these will be words for the ages.

    And I am going to be in court (no, not that court). So frustrating. But I think the Justices will be very conscious that Constitutional law classes will never be the same again.
  • CaptainBuzzkillCaptainBuzzkill Posts: 335
    AlastairMeeks said:


    Support is only tested by a vote of no confidence.

    I'm not sure i'm understanding.

    Are you saying that my suggested scenario of the government resigning and then Tories+others blocking any alternative isn't possible?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,661
    edited September 2019
    alex. said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yellow_Submarine said:

    As a non lawyer if the Court decides the exercise of prerogative is judiciable then the rest is easy. It's like a Court setting aside a County Council's decision to close a Library under the ' no reasonable person test '. It's not that County Councils don't have the power to close Libraries. They do. Or that Courts get to decide if Libraries close. They don't. It's whether the process followed was proper. So *if* prerogative is judiciable and *if* the Court has seen a stack of embarrasing paper trail admitting the prorogation was political then under the maximalist reading of ' no reasonable person ' the Court simply voids the decision. Just as the County Council is then free to close the Library again after it follows due process the PM could prorogue again on the basis of better less politicised advice. Though the reassembled Parliament might act to legislate to remove the perogative first.

    It is extremely difficult to see how in practice either the judges could void the prorogation of Parliament, or how Parliament could take the power of proroguing away from the PM. I can foresee all sorts of unintended consequences to both actions, cf the FTPA.

    I was wondering if one of the reasons they were asking about possible remedies is because they are concerned they can't void this decision even if they find it shouldn't have happened. After all, if they do that all the laws passed in the washup will be voided, but they have already started to take effect. Meanwhile, if they order a recall during the Tory conference that will certainly look like them playing politics. Even Dominic Cummings would struggle to miss a goal left as open as that.

    I don't envy them, but I also have to say I wasn't impressed by the reasoning of the Scottish judges. Their way out could be to endorse the judgment of every other judge with a rider that since this power is open to abuse Parliament should consider limiting prorogations to e.g. fourteen days.

    Which would still wreck Johnson, indeed rather more effectively than a ruling he's a liar:
    What would be the logic or democratic justification for fourteen days when Election prorogations are by statute longer? The fact that those prorogations are for a good reason doesn’t change the fact that during that period the Government acts without parliamentary oversight.

    Now here's where a constitutional lawyer would be useful. I don't think Election prorogations *are* longer, because Parliament is prorogued and then dissolved. When it is dissolved, it is not prorogued, because it doesn't exist.

    So I don't see that as a problem. However, I could be wrong.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    AlastairMeeks said:

    CaptainBuzzkill said:

    AlastairMeeks said:



    Insufficient number of MPs?

    Do you mean there would be insufficient votes against one of the number of options that have been mentioned?

    I'm not sure I see a majority for either Corbyn or a GoNU.


    The Conservatives would need to force a vote. Remember, Jeremy Corbyn has yet to do so for Boris Johnson. It is more likely than not that the next Prime Minister will also not face an immediate vote of no confidence.
    There needs to be a vote of confidence to avert an election.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,615
    FF43 said:

    My non expert assessment of the Supreme Court case is that the government didn't make as good a case as they could have done, by refusing to provide a justification for the prorogation when asked. Which itself suggests dishonesty.

    It doesn't necessarily mean they will lose. If Cummings and Johnson had been somewhat competent in following a process, I doubt the claimants' case would stand a chance of winning.

    Their tea is out, just a case of how much of a booting they get.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,239
    The solution for the prorogation issue is for Parliament, not government, to be responsible for its own closure, except in defined situations where the parliament must be prorogued or must not be prorogued. This requires a change of the law and the Supreme Court rules on the law and not as it should be.

    On topic, the whole of Brexit is a waste of time. It was never going to succeed.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    alex. said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    CaptainBuzzkill said:

    AlastairMeeks said:



    Insufficient number of MPs?

    Do you mean there would be insufficient votes against one of the number of options that have been mentioned?

    I'm not sure I see a majority for either Corbyn or a GoNU.


    The Conservatives would need to force a vote. Remember, Jeremy Corbyn has yet to do so for Boris Johnson. It is more likely than not that the next Prime Minister will also not face an immediate vote of no confidence.
    There needs to be a vote of confidence to avert an election.
    Not if the government simply resigned.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,661
    alex. said:

    I asked this before, but missed if there was an answer. If the prorogation is ruled invalid, what are the consequences for the extension bill, that was passed as part of the prorogation formalities?

    That's one of the ones that would be voided...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,811
    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the daunting length of the header it is actually more tightly written than cyclefree's usual and well worth the effort.

    If you want “daunting length” try the Supreme Court’s decision.

    And thanks. Compliments from you are as rare as sensible politicians these days.
    For advertisers who dont want to lose their shirt brevity is essential. For lawyers who want to live the good life the opposite is true!

    But a very interesting read.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    ydoethur said:

    alex. said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yellow_Submarine said:

    As a non lawyer if the Court decides the exercise of prerogative is judiciable then the rest is easy. It's like a Court setting aside a County Council's decision to close a Library under the ' no reasonable person test '. It's not that County Councils don't have the power to close Libraries. They do. Or that Courts get to decide if Libraries close. They don't. It's whether the process followed was proper. So *if* prerogative is judiciable and *if* the Court has seen a stack of embarrasing paper trail admitting the prorogation was political then under the maximalist reading of ' no reasonable person ' the Court simply voids the decision. Just as the County Council is then free to close the Library again after it follows due process the PM could prorogue again on the basis of better less politicised advice. Though the reassembled Parliament might act to legislate to remove the perogative first.

    It is extremely difficult to see how

    I was wondering if one of the reasons they were asking about possible remedies is because they are concerned they can't void this decision even if they find it shouldn't have happened. After all, if they do that all the laws passed in the washup will be voided, but they have already started to take effect. Meanwhile, if they order a recall during the Tory conference that will certainly look like them playing politics. Even Dominic Cummings would struggle to miss a goal left as open as that.

    I don't envy them, but I also have to say I wasn't impressed by the reasoning of the Scottish judges. Their way out could be to endorse the judgment of every other judge with a rider that since this power is open to abuse Parliament should consider limiting prorogations to e.g. fourteen days.

    Which would still wreck Johnson, indeed rather more effectively than a ruling he's a liar:
    What would be the logic or democratic justification for fourteen days when Election prorogations are by statute longer? The fact that those prorogations are for a good reason doesn’t change the fact that during that period the Government acts without parliamentary oversight.

    Now here's where a constitutional lawyer would be useful. I don't think Election prorogations *are* longer, because Parliament is prorogued and then dissolved. When it is dissolved, it is not prorogued, because it doesn't exist.

    So I don't see that as a problem. However, I could be wrong.
    But the underlying situation is the same. Govt exists, without oversight. And largely governed by convention only in what it is allowed to do during that period (eg. Darling refusing to take any decisions during the EU crisis in 2010).
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025