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.
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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
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.
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.
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.
I did not expect that outcome. Lovely.
Can Johnson just close parliament again immediately to waste time?
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...
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.
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.
"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?
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Of course, Brussels had laws against animal abuse, so they really did that to themselves
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.
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.
Pages