EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[krus_aragon]

Not only scurrilous and very clever but also very arrogant—the clear implication of what he says here (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-po...ohnson-this-is-a-verdict-that-we-will-respect) is that he knows what's what better than the unanimous panel of 11 of the 12 Supreme Court judges. But then for any member of government one can easily see the attractions of desperately hanging on to the uncircumscribed powers of absolute monarchy represented by the doctrine that matters such as prorogation are political, for the executive only, and with no right of any court to intervene because they are political. (It also helps, of course, if you can be certain that the monarch and her advisers will just do what they're told, sign on the dotted line, and raise no awkward questions.)

To play Devil's advocate, he may disagree with their judgement because he knows the reason he sought a five-week prorogation. The trouble is that he didn't bother to tell the court (any of the three courts) what that reason was, so they had to make their decision without that information.

 

[Bantamzen]

To play Devil's advocate, he may disagree with their judgement because he knows the reason he sought a five-week prorogation. The trouble is that he didn't bother to tell the court (any of the three courts) what that reason was, so they had to make their decision without that information.

Well if he had some as yet undisclosed reason, other than what is blatantly obvious, then he had the chance to articulate them at the hearing via his legal team. However he clearly didn't, and so it is not unreasonable to assume that he called the extended prorogation was to limit the effect Parliament would have on his plans to exit the UK from the EU without a deal.

 

[edwin_m]

You mean this?

View attachment 68757

Didn't look like that at all when I visited. There was a menu in the right hand box with the list of available languages.

We obviously need a Latin translator to be able to speak to Johnson in a language he understands, because English clearly isn't one. Even better if it would also translate his remarks into the truth...

 

[krus_aragon]

Well if he had some as yet undisclosed reason, other than what is blatantly obvious, then he had the chance to articulate them at the hearing via his legal team. However he clearly didn't, and so it is not unreasonable to assume that he called the extended prorogation was to limit the effect Parliament would have on his plans to exit the UK from the EU without a deal.

Quite. If he had a good reason for needing a long prorogation, it's his fault for not telling us what it was.

 

[krus_aragon]

Didn't look like that at all when I visited. There was a menu in the right hand box with the list of available languages.

We obviously need a Latin translator to be able to speak to Johnson in a language he understands, because English clearly isn't one. Even better if it would also translate his remarks into the truth...

Maybe my father-in-law could help. He proudly states that he's fluent in three languages: English, Rubbish and Gibberish!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm still convinced that, slowly but surely, the credible options are being narrowed down to only the sole elephant in the room of just revoking Article 50 and getting on with our lives.

Yeah, a few people will be annoyed; the majority of the country will however be happy just to breathe a collective sigh of relief.

A few people won’t be annoyed, millions of people would experience the same cocktail of negative emotions that remainers have felt since 24th June 2016-and even worse.

Revoking Article 50 is essentially national suicide, and a great way to put Farage in No 10. The best thing right now is for the anti-Brexit Forces In this country to stand aside and let Brexit be delivered.

 

[najaB]

Revoking Article 50 is essentially national suicide, and a great way to put Farage in No 10. The best thing right now is for the anti-Brexit Forces In this country to stand aside and let Brexit be delivered.

Nigel is a single issue politician, I doubt he could win enough support to manage a coup like that. However, I agree that unilaterally revoking Article 50 would be a bad idea. There needs to be a plebiscite - either a referendum or a general election that delivers a majority government for a party whose manifesto promises to revoke it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Nigel is a single issue politician, I doubt he could win enough support to manage a coup like that. However, I agree that unilaterally revoking Article 50 would be a bad idea. There needs to be a plebiscite - either a referendum or a general election that delivers a majority government for a party whose manifesto promises to revoke it.

I don't think even Farage & his party foresee them forming a government, at best they are hoping to form a non-aggression pact with the Conservatives to try and win some seats off Labour as campaigning against them will likely split the right wing votes. Revoking A50 isn't really an option I'd agree, at least at this stage. What is needed is more time, it won't be popular but in order to assess exactly where were are we need at least another 6 months. Then if we get it, debate whether to have a General Election, or second referendum.

 

[Spamcan81]

Tories pre Supreme Court judgement : Prorogation is nothing to do with Brexit.
Tories post Supreme Court judgement : The court's decision to declare prorogation unlawful is an attempt to frustrate Brexit.
Well what is it chaps?

 

[Mag_seven]

Revoking Article 50 is essentially national suicide

A no deal Brexit would be national suicide.

 

[edwin_m]

A few people won’t be annoyed, millions of people would experience the same cocktail of negative emotions that remainers have felt since 24th June 2016-and even worse.

Revoking Article 50 is essentially national suicide, and a great way to put Farage in No 10. The best thing right now is for the anti-Brexit Forces In this country to stand aside and let Brexit be delivered.

That's an unlikely logical leap. The court verdict has made absolutely no difference to the facts that firstly Brexit in any form is a disaster for the UK, secondly the "will of the people" was based on false statements and in all probability the majority is now on the other side. All it changes is that the efforts to railroad Brexit through by suppressing the democratically elected representatives are to some extent frustrated. I do have concerns about revocation but the answer is a referendum, not to cave in to the Brexit bullies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A no deal Brexit would be national suicide.

And here we go with "project fear". Neither will be "national suicide", though both will cause certain specific issues, and a "no deal Brexit" is particularly undesirable.

Why is neither side in this whole debacle capable of reasoned and non-hyperbolic debate?

 

[Killingworth]

The Brexit party seem to be following the UKIP policy at the European Parliament by abstaining and being as awkward as possible. How their MPs would behave we can but imagine.

However, we're in a situation that becomes more divisive by the day. What we all need is clarity.

If we remain we have lost 3 years of constructive input into Europe and will have to re-engage and try to catch up. How we'd credibly do that is hard to see with so many negative voices still circling. But at least we'd be able to plan a little better. Nevertheless it's very likely inward investment has been deterred for years and that won't change without certainty.

If we leave, deal or no deal, the terms are likely to confuse for years while new agreements are put in place. Inward investment will be subdued until the position is more clear.

In both scenarios those trading with Britain will be wary and speculators will be making their millions.

Is that easy to explain in an election or referendum? Essentially it's emotive opinions of the degree of chaos or order that lie ahead.

Many who voted leave didn't expect to leave but only meant to give the government a kicking - they succeeded! Many who voted remain feared change although they may have felt happy to be out. Their fear was justified!

There is no simple solution. Hibernation for 5 years is not an option.

 

[Aictos]

My only view is this now sets a dangerous following as it means that anyone who disagrees with Govt policy or position can now cause weeks of disruption until it’s resolved in a court of law meaning far more wasteful red tape under the pretence of supporting democracy.

Meanwhile parliament can proceed to put roadblock after roadblock after roadblock in resolving Brexit which does nothing to resolve the Brexit question.

 

[krus_aragon]

The Brexit party seem to be following the UKIP policy at the European Parliament by abstaining and being as awkward as possible. How their MPs would behave we can but imagine.

They've been a bit more active in the Welsh Assembly. That lack of a "theyworkforyou"-style aggregator makes it a little difficult to pull up statistics on their voting activity, however.

They're often to be found voting against the (Labour/Lib-Dem) Governement, and kicking up a fuss where possible (they gave Carwyn Jones a scare when they and the Conservatives supported Plaid's Leanne Wood in nominations for First Minister - which came out as a 29-29 dead heat). But they've been far more newsworthy in matters outside voting, be it public spats between party members (Wales Leader Nathan Gill wasn't seeing eye-to-eye with Farage and the other AMs), resignations, ping-ponging between parties, periodic exclusion of members from the Senedd for their actions (1, 2, 3), etc.

Then the metamorphosis of (much of) UKIP into the Brexit Party made for a constitutionally interesting scenario, given that half of AMs are elected off a party list (and that party didn't exist at the last election).

 

[SteveP29]

Oh dear. This was not about blocking Brexit, or about going against the "will of the people". There are now 680 pages of debate on this subject on this forum alone, and thousands of other debates elsewhere around the net that have covered this time and again. It really is time to stop with simplistic "will of the people" argument, try to get a grasp as to why the "will of the people" has proven so difficult to achieve, and engage in a deeper debate as to what realistic options there are that don't involve tanking the economy.

Brexit can still be achieved, nothing has changed by this or any other ruling. What has changed is that the current and future Prime Ministers cannot use proroguing to shut down debate on what is a very critical, and very important decision. Brexit does not mean Brexit as many leavers have tried to claim. It means a complex process of removing ourselves from one of the world's most powerful economic & political unions in the world, in a staged manner than cannot be done in days, weeks, months or even years without serious consequences. Its time leavers woke up to this reality, and allowed the process to go through it's motions slowly and carefully, because the best case scenario is a similar deal to what we have as a member, whereas the worst case scenario is effectively rendering ourselves a third rate nation.

Quite correct.

Leavers only have this one statement left 'will of the people', the repeat it ad nauseum, the majority of those that say it have no idea that it is meaningless.
You lost, get over it seems to have bitten the dust too, thankfully, I haven't heard that for quite a while.

 

[DarloRich]

I saw some of the parliamentary exchanges involving Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and I have to say that he presented himself as the archetypal bonkers, arrogant Tory kipper. It was shameful and really quite stupid in the circumstance sot act in the way he did.

 

[krus_aragon]

I have to say that he presented himself as the archetypal bonkers, arrogant Tory kipper.

Is that the type of kipper the EU have banned*?

*according to Mr Johnson

 

[ainsworth74]

My only view is this now sets a dangerous following as it means that anyone who disagrees with Govt policy or position can now cause weeks of disruption until it’s resolved in a court of law meaning far more wasteful red tape under the pretence of supporting democracy.

What? You mean like they already could? That's exactly what Judicial Review is for and is very very regularly used for! Literally all the time!

 

[Killingworth]

I saw some of the parliamentary exchanges involving Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and I have to say that he presented himself as the archetypal bonkers, arrogant Tory kipper. It was shameful and really quite stupid in the circumstance sot act in the way he did.

I thought he started very well, accepting the decision and defending the Supreme Court. He then slipped away into bombast mode, but for Brexiteers it would have been brilliant.

Once he started on the dead Parliament he'd totally lost it for me. Yes, thanks to the preoccupation with Brexit far too little time is being spent on all the other issues that need attention. For that lack of time the deadhand of Brexit is largely responsible.

 

[ainsworth74]

He then slipped away into bombast mode, but for Brexiteers it would have been brilliant.

That's certainly the reaction I've seen on Twitter of the leavers I follow on there. Absolutely lapping it up.

 

[Howardh]

If 49% of the country think this bombastic approach by the Tories is terrific then that's fine by me. That leaves 51% of us to vote them down at the election and following referendum.

 

[muz379]

Tories pre Supreme Court judgement : Prorogation is nothing to do with Brexit.
Tories post Supreme Court judgement : The court's decision to declare prorogation unlawful is an attempt to frustrate Brexit.
Well what is it chaps?

What is even more concerning is that there are attacks on the Judiciary for this decision , just like the "enemies of the people headline" and I have just seen a story suggesting some in cabinet are talking about this judgement creating a path to radical judicial reform . Well why not radical constitutional reform with the reform of prerogative powers so there is stautory provisions around their use ?

Can you imagine what the right wing press would say about any other countries government threatening the independent judiciary because they made a decision they did not agree with

But populism is the order of the day so people are not stopping to think of the issues that this sort of thing could cause themselves in the long run .

My only view is this now sets a dangerous following as it means that anyone who disagrees with Govt policy or position can now cause weeks of disruption until it’s resolved in a court of law meaning far more wasteful red tape under the pretence of supporting democracy.

Meanwhile parliament can proceed to put roadblock after roadblock after roadblock in resolving Brexit which does nothing to resolve the Brexit question.

This Judgement does not set any dangerous following , it was a judicial review , judicial review is used all of the time to arbitrate disputes over decisions or actions of public bodies .Why are people only just learning about this very basic constitutional stuff ?

If not the judiciary then who do you suggest arbitrates in disputes over the governments exercise of power , especially in a situation such as proportionate when the government has used a prerogative power to stop parliament sitting ?

I saw some of the parliamentary exchanges involving Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and I have to say that he presented himself as the archetypal bonkers, arrogant Tory kipper. It was shameful and really quite stupid in the circumstance sot act in the way he did.

To be fair , I too would be fairly upset had the supreme court judge just ruled that my legal advice was worthless .

 

[najaB]

To be fair , I too would be fairly upset had the supreme court judge just ruled that my legal advice was worthless .

Was the actual legal advice presented to the Court? I know that BoJo declined to present a statement.

 

[3141]

Tories pre Supreme Court judgement : Prorogation is nothing to do with Brexit.
Tories post Supreme Court judgement : The court's decision to declare prorogation unlawful is an attempt to frustrate Brexit.
Well what is it chaps?

Going on from that, those who now say that the Supreme Court's decision frustrates Brexit (though it's not all Tories, and not all those saying it are Tories) are now in practice acknowledging that the purpose of the prorogation was to push Parliament aside and make it easier to force Brexit through, with or without a deal. So they're also acknowledging that when Boris denied that that is what he was up to, he was lying. So far none of them appears to realise that.

 

[Giugiaro]

Seems like the Government can setup another Prorogation.

If that's the case it actually seems to favour Boris since he can ask the Queen for just another favor and hold parliament for another couple of weeks before Brexit.
Now if he can survive until he can successfully do that... Yeah, I doubt it.

He may even not be able to do so. There's the question that the Queen may depose the current government. Her Majesty may say that the Crown was lied to by the sitting cabinet when advised on proroguing Parliament and ask the House to constitute a new one government. One that doesn't play around with both the Crown and the People.

 

[EM2]

Tweeted by Tom Peck of The Independent:

In the House of Commons, @BorisJohnson has just said the words: "The best way to honour Jo Cox's memory is to get Brexit done." Good grief. Just resign.

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1176942475598008320

 

[edwin_m]

He may even not be able to do so. There's the question that the Queen may depose the current government. Her Majesty may say that the Crown was lied to by the sitting cabinet when advised on proroguing Parliament and ask the House to constitute a new one government. One that doesn't play around with both the Crown and the People.

The opposition can do that at any time by calling and winning a vote of no confidence. But unless they can unite and assemble another government with a majority within 14 days there has to be an election and the sitting PM gets to decide what date the election will be. So there is a risk he will just call one for the 1st of November and let Brexit happen while Parliament is shut down for the campaign. Currently (unless it's changed in the last five minutes!) the opposition is refusing to call that vote until there is an extension to the Brexit deadline.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Tweeted by Tom Peck of The Independent:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1176942475598008320

Yeah, I watched that. Boris was below the belt with that one

 

[Struner]

Yeah, I watched that. Boris was below the belt with that one

& that’s when I stopped watching - in disgust. Just couldn’t stand it anymore.