EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[edwin_m]

LibDems appear to be saying they will vote for a deal as long as there is a referendum attached.

 

[bussnapperwm]

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

What made it worse is he is condoning people issuing death threats to Members of Parliament and their families (such as one MPs 5 year old child!), by saying "Humbug" to said threats.

 

[dgl]

Tweeted by Tom Peck of The Independent:

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

Absolutely disgusting, how the LEADER of the U.K. can say things like that, he should hang his head in shame.

 

[Mag_seven]

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.

A no deal Brexit would certainly in my view be economic suicide. Look at the government's own studies (Yellowhammer)

 

[muz379]

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

I am not entirely sure , there is no reference to it in the judgement but listed as respondents are counsel instructed by the government legal department who are in practice the ones that would have briefed the AG on the legal position . It goes without saying that the question the Prime minister asked of the AG was whether parliament can be shut down for five weeks from 9 September , judging by the fact that the prorogation ceremony went ahead the advice was that this would be lawful . Clearly the Supreme court judgement indicates otherwise that this was unlawful . Says to me that the AGs advice that this would be lawful was incorrect , or worthless .

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.

The sad thing is though , none of them seem to care . In my view there is a mix of those that simply do not care about important concepts like the rule of law and are frustrated that the independent judiciary dare question them,those that do not understand with enough nuance important constitutional conventions , and populists that are attempting to attack the independence of the Judiciary for some nefarious reason . But they are all doing the same bidding which is to question the motives of the independent judiciary in a highly inappropriate way . As the lord chancellor said today "We must all remember that our world-class judiciary always acts free from political motivation or influence and that the rule of law is the basis of our democracy, for all seasons. Personal attacks on judges from any quarter are completely unacceptable."

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.

The prime minister could indeed advise the queen to give consent to a prorogation again , this judgement does not make unlawful the exercise of that power generally , however if it attempted to initiate another lengthy prorogation without justification then the government could once again find itself subject to judicial review of that decision . And as an appellate court decision the judgement of the 24th September would act as precedent . It would be extremely embarrassing , unprecedented and possibly contempt of court to attempt to circumvent an order of the supreme court . Not to be taken lightly .

As for the queen deposing of the current government . I think that there is zero chance of that happening . The constitutional convention with regards to the monarchy is that they stay politically neutral , the judgement does not actually state that the Prime minister lied to the queen in his advice , this is conjecture from other politicians , the media and lay people and not a matter of fact which the court has ruled on , in fact their judgement is awfully careful to avoid trying to make any inferences as to his motivations behind the advice he gave to the queen . The problem with the queen deposing of the current government is that it is constitutionally unprecedented and leaves many uncertainties , it is unclear if any other MP could command a majority of the house , and it is unclear unlike the provisions of the fixed term parliament act what would happen next if no MP could command that majority , would we then have to have a GE , if so who decides when ?

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.

I have been pondering this situation, especially as Johnson has been absolutely clear and unambiguous in his calls for a no confidence vote today . I wonder what the effect would be of parliament being dissolved for an election on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 in the event that there was a vote of no confidence before

To recap , the "European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019" is the act which places an obligation on the Prime minister to seek an extention to the period under article 50(3) of the TFEU if parliament has not approved the terms of a withdrawal agreement or approved a statement by a minister that the UK is to leave the EU without a deal by the 19th October .

I wonder then if parliament is dissolved say on the the 26th September to allow for the 25 working day period of dissolution under the fixed term parliament act to carry out an election on the 1st November , would the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 obligating the prime minister to seek an extension from the EU still not become applicable on the 19th October ?

Yes the Prime minister could of course just ignore this piece of legislation . But then what is to stop someone bringing a judicial review of this decision on the 20th October , and the supreme court having a similarly swift hearing to the one in the prorogation case and making a judgement that not satisfying the obligation of the legislation is unlawful and making an order for the Prime minister to comply ? Would the prime minister then risk being in contempt of a supreme court order ? and if so what else could the supreme court do to compel the prime minister to act in compliance with the legislation ?

 

[Killingworth]

Boris clearly said he would both obey the law and would not extend beyond 31st October. Interesting days ahead.

 

[muz379]

Boris clearly said he would both obey the law and would not extend beyond 31st October. Interesting days ahead.

I mean did he not also say when he became prime minister that he would not call for an early general election ? and yet today he was doing exactly that in clear unambiguous terms .

I think right now he is banking on coming back from the Eu summit on the 17th October with a deal to put to parliament . Maybe he knows something we dont , I sincerely hope he does return with a deal that parliament approves of and which prevents a hard border in NI. But I also have my doubts as to the possibility of that .

Interested to see what happens if he comes back with a deal not that dissimilar to May's if he can convince the ERG and other Tory rebels to vote for it

 

[najaB]

I sincerely hope he does return with a deal that parliament approves of and which prevents a hard border in NI.

I wouldn't be happy if he managed it, but I'd rather that than crashing out of the EU without a deal.

 

[Giugiaro]

... the judgement does not actually state that the Prime Minister lied to the queen in his advice, ...

It doesn't say that the Head of State could come to that conclusion, if she was indeed tricked.
But, yes, there are at least two problems: One, she has to accept the Prime Minister's advice out of constitutional convention, and so will do it ad eternum, no matter the reason or causes; Two, she accepted prorogation conscious of its implications given the time and extension, and obviously she won't say or do anything if she did.

 

[Bantamzen]

Tweeted by Tom Peck of The Independent:

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

More evidence that this odious excuse of a human being is not fit to serve burgers at a fast food chain, let alone be Prime Minister. It is more clear to me than ever that he is now determined to drive the UK into Brexit next month no matter what the price, just to say he did Brexit. This is way beyond a mere constitutional crisis, this is now a national emergency. Boris Johnson is about to sell us down the river in an attempt to make himself look good, something he's been more than expert on failing to do all his political career. The train wreck of policies he's left in his wake over this time will dwindle into insignificance when the full effect of BoJoxit becomes all too clear.

 

[krus_aragon]

The train wreck of polices he's left in his wake

Don't worry, he's recruiting 20,000 more of those.

 

[SteveP29]

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.

And by the time we get to the second referendum we'll see where the ardent, rabid Brexiters that lead this sit in relation to their tax affairs once the extension is granted and if that sways the decision of the electorate once it dawns on them what its all been about in the first place

 

[najaB]

And by the time we get to the second referendum we'll see where the ardent, rabid Brexiters that lead this sit in relation to their tax affairs once the extension is granted and if that sways the decision of the electorate once it dawns on them what its all been about in the first place

What?!! You mean this hasn't been about reclaiming British sovereignty from the evil Europeans?

 

[Bantamzen]

Don't worry, he's recruiting 20,000 more of those.

Ooops!!!

And by the time we get to the second referendum we'll see where the ardent, rabid Brexiters that lead this sit in relation to their tax affairs once the extension is granted and if that sways the decision of the electorate once it dawns on them what its all been about in the first place

I'd love to believe that the majority of ordinary leavers would in time see what the real driver behind Brexit is. But these days Brexit has become a cult, and cult members are much hard to sway back to reality.

What?!! You mean this hasn't been about reclaiming British sovereignty from the evil Europeans?

Well, funnily enough....

 

[Spamcan81]

Absolutely disgusting, how the LEADER of the U.K. can say things like that, he should hang his head in shame.

He knows no shame unfortunately.

 

[Spamcan81]

Tweeted by Tom Peck of The Independent:

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

I wouldn't blame Jo Cox's husband for decking Bozo for that remark but that would be lowering himself to Bozo's level and I know he's a better man than the blond buffoon.

 

[DarloRich]

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

That isnt correct. The advice given was consistent with precedent to that point. The Supreme Court introduced new precedent with their decision. That is what happens sometimes and i think the focus on the advice is unhelpful unless that advice was NOT to prorogue

What made it worse is he is condoning people issuing death threats to Members of Parliament and their families (such as one MPs 5 year old child!), by saying "Humbug" to said threats.

More evidence that this odious excuse of a human being is not fit to serve burgers at a fast food chain, let alone be Prime Minister. It is more clear to me than ever that he is now determined to drive the UK into Brexit next month no matter what the price, just to say he did Brexit. This is way beyond a mere constitutional crisis, this is now a national emergency. Boris Johnson is about to sell us down the river in an attempt to make himself look good, something he's been more than expert on failing to do all his political career. The train wreck of policies he's left in his wake over this time will dwindle into insignificance when the full effect of BoJoxit becomes all too clear.

He knows no shame unfortunately.

he knows exactly what he is doing and you and others are launching head first into the trap.

The comments were outrageous but are designed to deflect and distract. Don't allow that to happen. Sadly several labour MPS did exactly that yesterday making heartfelt, emotional and frankly pointless speeches on this subject. All it did was allow Johnson to deflect and steer the terms of the discussion and hammer home his narrative which is designed to win back Brexit company fans and get them to vote for him.

The strategy is clear: rile up the opposition so they press for a vote of no confidence and deliver a general election. That can only happen once no deal is blocked as an option.

 

[radamfi]

It's a tried and tested formula, and one that works. Putin, Trump, Orban and Farage. Not a good time to be alive.

 

[AM9]

That isnt correct. The advice given was consistent with precedent to that point. The Supreme Court introduced new precedent with their decision. That is what happens sometimes and i think the focus on the advice is unhelpful unless that advice was NOT to prorogue...

Maybe the advice was not to prorogue and Cummings whispered into Johnson's ear saying "ignore him". Then the Attourney General toed the line to support the leavers.
Remember, conversations between an attoutrney and their client is confidential.

 

[DarloRich]

Maybe the advice was not to prorogue and Cummings whispered into Johnson's ear saying "ignore him". Then the Attourney General toed the line to support the leavers.
Remember, conversations between an attoutrney and their client is confidential.

Unless that privilege is waived. As I said IF the advice was that there is no legal reason, based on law and precedent, NOT to prorogue then there is no issue. If the advice was DO NOT DO THIS YOU FLAMING IDIOT then we might have story!

Even then the lawyer can only advise they cannot control. The AG could, of course, always resign if he felt undermined but that requires a back bone...............

 

[3141]

Maybe the advice was not to prorogue and Cummings whispered into Johnson's ear saying "ignore him". Then the Attourney General toed the line to support the leavers.

The situation is complicated enough without imagining all the might-have-beens! I see no reason to doubt that the government's legal officers gave advice they believed to accurate, though they may have added one or more caveats where there was some uncertainty, or expressed a view that on balance the advice was sound. We know there could be more than one view because a Scottish court came to a different conclusion in the case that was brought there.

 

[DarloRich]

it is clear Johnson is using the dispatch box to communicate with the kippery/brexity part of the electorate and is setting up his message that the commons is a "blocker" and is purposely frustrating the "will of the people" and that only he is on their side and will deliver a wonderful brexit.

All this is doing is making the media focus on the words De piffle uses which means his message is shared further. Stop it. Hold him and the government to account over Brexit and stop wasting time

 

[edwin_m]

it is clear Johnson is using the dispatch box to communicate with the kippery/brexity part of the electorate and is setting up his message that the commons is a "blocker" and is purposely frustrating the "will of the people" and that only he is on their side and will deliver a wonderful brexit.

All this is doing is making the media focus on the words De piffle uses which means his message is shared further. Stop it. Hold him and the government to account over Brexit and stop wasting time

I'm not sure how else it could have played out to be honest, with Johnson intent on provoking everyone and saying things that others felt they had to respond to. Otherwise it's just letting the bully walk over you.

No motion of no confidence was tabled so the collective opposition strategy is intact. And if Boris tries to pull a fast one Parliament will act quickly to plug any loophole and the courts will act quickly to hold him in contempt.

However that's just the first step of blocking the most disastrous no-deal outcome. Last night made it much less likely that Parliament will assemble a majority over any deal - trust between the two sides has been even further damaged. About the only hopeful sign I saw was the indication by the LibDems that they would support a deal as long as it was put to a referendum with Remain as an option.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure how else it could have played out to be honest, with Johnson intent on provoking everyone and saying things that others felt they had to respond to. Otherwise it's just letting the bully walk over you.

people got carried away and the whole thing got ranty. It just handed the initiative to De piffle

 

[Howardh]

Johnson has inherited a huge problem. If he thought of leaning towards remainers and producing a deal which would be acceptable - he alienates the hard-core who will move towards the Brexit Party and split the Tory vote at the next election; yet if he keeps on with this hard-line mantra he's alienating those of us who would compromise, and more than half the House.

It's probably one good reason for abandoning all and simply asking the public "do you want this deal, yes/no" and if the answer's "no" then we get asked again "well, do you want to leave without a deal or remain then?" Frankly this appears now to be the only way out.

If Johnson brings back an altered deal, it wouldn't surprise me now if the House turned it down in pure spite, especially if he hAS to ask for an extension (in the hope that if he does he falls on his own sword).

 

[Tetchytyke]

the non voters cannot and should not be considered as a vote for either Remain or Leave because they did not (or could not) vote.

That isn't the point, though, is it.

You can't spout on about "will of the people" when 62% of the electorate either voted against you or didn't give a preference either way.

With a slim majority conciliation and compromise is required, because otherwise you won't achieve anything.

 

[AM9]

The situation is complicated enough without imagining all the might-have-beens! I see no reason to doubt that the government's legal officers gave advice they believed to accurate, though they may have added one or more caveats where there was some uncertainty, or expressed a view that on balance the advice was sound. We know there could be more than one view because a Scottish court came to a different conclusion in the case that was brought there.

That doesn't conflict with what I said. The Attourney General was Johnson's counsel, he advised him, (and as I said, maybe not to Prorogue) but was Johnson effectively overruled by Cummings as prorogueing was part of his plan. The AG then acceded and put the case across according to his 'client's' wishes. That's what happens with any case where the lawyer's advice isn't what the client wanted to hear. Johnson would be very unlikely to sack Cox. We may never know, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the matter. That doesn't make it more complicated at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What made it worse is he is condoning people issuing death threats to Members of Parliament and their families (such as one MPs 5 year old child!), by saying "Humbug" to said threats.

But we're talking about this, and not about how he lied to the Queen, so the tactic is working. Same as when he said he made buses as a hobby; it became harder to find photos of Johnson next to that bloody bus.

 

[Killingworth]

Boris was suffering from jet lag and/or a virus picked up over the pond. Either way he'd have been better lying down in a darkened room. Far from soothing passions and encouraging consensus he did his best to polarise the red necks - on both sides! Brilliant example of how not to debate anything.

 

[Howardh]

Boris was suffering from jet lag and/or a virus picked up over the pond. Either way he'd have been better lying down in a darkened room.

He could have had a nice lie-down on the front bench, just like his mate.