[Discussion] Brexit means Brexit

Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.

For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/pWz5ox3.jpg)

The new tweet reads: "Here is how Nigel Farage can avoid being the Brexit Icarus and see us fly out of the EU to freedom"

I guess someone finally told them.

Slightly confused by the LDs coming out and stating that they will prop up neither Johnson or Corbyn in the event of a hung parliament. That's going to achieve precisely zero. Sooner or later they are going to have to decide who to support if they want a way out. For all their "We will revoke article 50 if we get a majority" they just aren't going to get a majority. Swinson's voting record while in coalition is also going to come under intense scrutiny I think.

Sorbicol wrote:

Sooner or later they are going to have to decide who to support if they want a way out. For all their "We will revoke article 50 if we get a majority" they just aren't going to get a majority.

Hasn't this been how they have been acting for the past 3 years? This is like one giant Monty Python sketch... oh wait...

The prorogation of the UK Parliament by Boris Johnson has been ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court

John Bercow, the speaker has already said Parliament must sit again ‘as soon as possible’.

I’ve no idea what the result of all this will be because Boris doesn’t seem to care. I’m half expecting him to declare martial law by the end of the day.

What an unholy mess.

Yikes.

Sorbicol wrote:

The prorogation of the UK Parliament by Boris Johnson has been ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court

Not only unlawful but the court voided the prorogation. Which means that parliament can sit again with immediate effect, apparently if it were not voided then parliament could only sit if it was formerly recalled, which is apparently a lengthy bureaucratic process in itself.

"We want our courts to be independent" - 2016

"Not like that" - 2019

I did not expect that outcome. Lovely.
Can Johnson just close parliament again immediately to waste time?

Shadout wrote:

I did not expect that outcome. Lovely.
Can Johnson just close parliament again immediately to waste time?

The general consensus is - maybe but not for long (I.e days rather than weeks) The court ruling makes clear you cannot suspend Parliament ‘for weeks’ without a very very good justification (alien invasion maybe?) so there would be little advantage in him doing so. Do it again and he runs the risk of being in contempt of parliament. That would be enough to get him arrested I’d expect.

It’s all about the Vote of No Confidence now. I don’t think Corbyn will call that until Boris has painted himself into a ‘I will not request an extension’ corner without time to do anything else, which he is legally obliged to do.

Essentially, the supreme court just transferred control of the British government from the Prime Minister to the Speaker. Think about it - if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be. It's ... interesting the lengths the Remainers will go to in order to avoid doing what they were told.

We know that in approving the prorogation, Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. We do not know what conversation passed between them when he gave her that advice. We do not know what conversation, if any, passed between the assembled Privy Counsellors before or after the meeting. We do not know what the Queen was told and cannot draw any conclusions about it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...

Sorbicol wrote:

It’s all about the Vote of No Confidence now. I don’t think Corbyn will call that until Boris has painted himself into a ‘I will not request an extension’ corner without time to do anything else, which he is legally obliged to do.

It should be obvious at this point that Corbyn won't call of a Vote of No Confidence, just as the Remainers have repeatedly refused to call a general election. Their only option is to continue to attempt to strongarm the government through the connivance of the Speaker, and the longer this goes on the worse it looks for them.

Aetius wrote:

Essentially, the supreme court just transferred control of the British government from the Prime Minister to the Speaker. Think about it - if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be. It's ... interesting the lengths the Remainers will go to in order to avoid doing what they were told.

What planet are you living on?

The supreme court upheld the law. No power was transferred. One action by the Prime Minister was judged illegal and undone. The ruling has no effect on any other action undertaken by the Prime Minister before or after this.

"if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be" conveniently ignores the fact that the law was used to rule it unlawful. Which means that no, anything CAN'T be ruled unlawful.

Jonman wrote:

"if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be" conveniently ignores the fact that the law was used to rule it unlawful. Which means that no, anything CAN'T be ruled unlawful.

Which law?

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

"if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be" conveniently ignores the fact that the law was used to rule it unlawful. Which means that no, anything CAN'T be ruled unlawful.

Which law?

Not a law - The Law. The one that is an agglomeration of the last several hundred years of settled law. You know, the thing that the Supreme Court enforces.

IMAGE(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/27/276574e37abf7489a1be665b931bf56becd1142cb062eb921ac1cce21e72af8f.jpg)

*turn on sound it is worth it.

Hasn't Johnson been elected a bunch of times for different positions in campaigns? And Brexit was a public vote? It seems Democracy kind of got the UK into this mess, it is not like it has been ignored.

Aetius wrote:

Essentially, the supreme court just transferred control of the British government from the Prime Minister to the Speaker.

This is absolutely not what happened. The Prime Minister is not in control of the British Government. The Prime Minister controls the executive and always Parliament is sovereign. It can appear as those the executive is in control of parliament but only because under most normal circumstances the executive is the head of a working parliamentary majority.

In this instance the Supreme Court was asked to adjudicate on whether or not the executive could exercise its crown prerogative power to prorogue parliament in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. The SC came back and said no, the power to prorogue parliament at least has some boundary conditions, namely that such a power can not be used to do an end run round parliamentary scrutiny. That's a fairly narrow and contained judgement and does not amount to "anything can be ruled unlawful". The SC additionally voided the prorogation on the basis that it was obtained through lying to The Crown.

The new thing here constitutionally is that it sets a precedent for the SC to adjudicate on the exercise of prerogative powers by the executive, something that it has traditionally not done.

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

"if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be" conveniently ignores the fact that the law was used to rule it unlawful. Which means that no, anything CAN'T be ruled unlawful.

Which law?

Note that this action was found to be unlawful and not illegal. The judgement was not that the executive contravened a specific law (i.e. did something illegal). The judgement was that the action was unlawful, in that it contravened the body of both constitutional law and precedent that sets out this prerogative power and its limits. Our constitution gives the executive certain prerogative powers, but it also gives parliament sovereignty and makes parliament responsible for scrutinising the actions of the executive. The SC judgement rules that the latter point of the constitution trumps the ability to exercise the prerogative to prorogue parliament when it is being used to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

Just to point out to everyone that you are kind of missing Aetuis' major point. It's not that the Supreme Court upheld the law, it's that they did it with no evidence. Therefore, they can overturn any act of the government using this same method. Or am I wrong, Aetuis?

Aetius wrote:

Essentially, the supreme court just transferred control of the British government from the Prime Minister to the Speaker. Think about it - if this can be ruled unlawful, anything can be. It's ... interesting the lengths the Remainers will go to in order to avoid doing what they were told.

We know that in approving the prorogation, Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. We do not know what conversation passed between them when he gave her that advice. We do not know what conversation, if any, passed between the assembled Privy Counsellors before or after the meeting. We do not know what the Queen was told and cannot draw any conclusions about it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...

Unfortunately for Aetuis, that point relies on you not reading the very next paragraph in the judgement.

We do know the contents of three documents leading up to that advice, annexed to a witness statement from Jonathan Jones, Treasury Solicitor and Head of the Government Legal Department. His evidence is that his department had made clear to all relevant departments, including the Prime Minister’s Office, the requirement to make thorough searches for and to produce all information relevant to Mrs Miller’s claim.

The court goes on to use one of these documents and other evidence to prove that the length was unnecessary for the reason given.

The unchallenged evidence of Sir John Major is clear. The work on the Queen’s Speech varies according to the size of the programme. But a typical time is four to six days. Departments bid for the Bills they would like to have in the next session. Government business managers meet to select the Bills to be included, usually after discussion with the Prime Minister, and Cabinet is asked to endorse the decisions. Drafting the speech itself does not take much time once the substance is clear. Sir John’s evidence is that he has never known a Government to need as much as five weeks to put together its legislative agenda.

Nor does the Memorandum from Nikki da Costa outlined in para 17 above suggest that the Government needed five weeks to put together its legislative agenda. The memorandum has much to say about a new session and Queen’s Speech but nothing about why so long was needed to prepare for it. The only reason given for starting so soon was that “wash up” could be concluded within a few days. But that was totally to ignore whatever else Parliament might have wanted to do during the four weeks it might normally have had before a prorogation. The proposal was careful to ensure that there would be some Parliamentary time both before and after the European Council meeting on 17th - 18th October. But it does not explain why it was necessary to curtail what time there would otherwise have been for Brexit related business. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to approve any new withdrawal agreement under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and enact the necessary primary and delegated legislation. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to make UK law ready for exit day and achieve an orderly withdrawal with or without a withdrawal agreement, which are laid down in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Scrutiny committees in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords play a vital role in this. There is also consultation with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Perhaps most tellingly of all, the memorandum does not address the competing merits of going into recess and prorogation. It wrongly gives the impression that they are much the same. The Prime Minister’s reaction was to describe the September sitting as a “rigmarole”. Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies; he has a constitutional responsibility, as we have explained in para 30 above.

So basically Johnson got caught in a lie. Again.

But I'm curious, Aetuis, why did you selectively quote the judgement like that?

Axon wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I keep forgetting that I'm eligible for Irish citizenship, but then I remember how much I hate humidity.

The humidity in Dublin works the other way. It has a cooling effect. I've family from LA and Toronto and they love the weather on the East of the Country. It wasn't the bread basket of the British Empire for nothing Now, the West, on the other hand, is like being sprayed in the face 24/7. Basically Seattle but worse. Kerry is a jewel though. Anyone reading this, make it your business to travel through Kerry once. Magical.

See though, how could I go back without going back?

Also, this all made me think of Reginald D Hunter

There's an observation to be made here about the venue, but I haven't been able to come up with one, probably because I'm not in a position to make one unproblematically.

Wonder how much they spent on those “get ready for Brexit because we are definitely leaving on the 31st honest. For real this time” .

Cause my money is on it needing a dub-over fairly soon

IMAGE(https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=492338&stc=1&d=1570266506)

Europe should have just glued a plastic horn to a pony.

Given how f*cking stupid everyone involved seems to be, it probably would have totes worked.

Spoiler:

Of course, Brussels had laws against animal abuse, so they really did that to themselves

For those not watching, the current situation is hard to describe. For all intents and purposes it just appears to be an effort to avoid blame. The EU isn't going to compromise any of it's four pillars and the UK won't accept that. However, what is obvious is Northern Ireland is the key issue. The one positive is the UK has finally stopped with the "no checks at the border" nonsense which will at least begin to focus some minds. I'm still of the belief we are looking at the Irish sea being the border. Johnson current proposal of two borders is pie in the sky stuff but I suppose he has to put something on the table.

At least we are finally at the stage where reality is creeping in.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

There's an observation to be made here about the venue, but I haven't been able to come up with one, probably because I'm not in a position to make one unproblematically.

Are you referring to the political nature of the name or the word Black? The Black Rose is the unofficial symbol of Ireland, for those who might not know, from an old poem that nobody is sure who wrote. It's fallen out of favour because it's from a time where we defined our culture as "not English" but still it's there in many of our poems, painting and songs so I doubt it's going anywhere soon.

Ironically, always makes me think of Phil Lynott.

If your concern is it's use by bad actors, well, everything was used by bad actors Even our national flag. There is next to nothing you can go near without layers of issues with it here. The vast majority here will more often than not look at the context and not the symbols in of themselves. But perhaps this is all for another thread

Axon wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

There's an observation to be made here about the venue, but I haven't been able to come up with one, probably because I'm not in a position to make one unproblematically.

Are you referring to the political nature of the name or the word Black?

The word, as in me recognizing the name but being a white guy, I know there's a joke to be made here, but not by someone like me ; D

So, it appears we might actually have a breakthrough. I'm not betting on anything but it does appear we are heading to a NI only backstop.

It's the only real solution in all of this. I still don't get why Johnson is now offering this.

Axon wrote:

So, it appears we might actually have a breakthrough. I'm not betting on anything but it does appear we are heading to a NI only backstop.

It's the only real solution in all of this. I still don't get why Johnson is now offering this.

Supposedly the parliament opposition was planning to launch a SO24 motion next week with a view to no confidence motion immediately after the EU summit. That relies on the 20 unwhipped Tories voting against the government, but most of them want back into the party so wouldn't if he looked to be making progress (same with the Labour Brexit rebels). Add to that this week Green representing the One Nation bloc in the Tory party had a meeting with Johnson that they would not fight the election with No-Deal as the Brexit option in the manifesto (Downing Street has since said it would be Our Deal or No Deal) but it increased the risk that Johnson, if he lost the no confidence vote might not been able to keep control of the Parliamentary Party for an election. As always the reason Johnson has changed tack is for internal Conservative Party reasons rather than any new understanding.

That makes sense to me.

Digby Jones on BBC was back to claiming the Germans put pressure on Ireland at the last minute as he predicted. Well, only if you ignore that Johnson is the one backing down to Varadkar's red lines after three UK requested extensions but reality is clearly not these guys forte.

Of course, this could all change tomorrow.

Barkley met with Barnier for over two hours. This is beginning to take shape. All eyes on Westminster, the DUP, ERG, rebel Tories and Labour though. Don't forget folks, this is all a prelude to the final deal the UK get. In the end the UK could end up very like Norway and all of the major fallout could be avoided.

Still don't see how the City of London remains in it's current state.

Northern Ireland has long been a millstone round the neck of the rest of the UK - Daily Telegraph 11/10/2019

This is getting interesting...