[Politics] Brexit

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

he can campaign with the story he was thwarted by the EU and legions of remainers, had his hands tied, if you dont vote Conservative then Labour will abandon leave altogether, etc. enough to reduce the Farage vote.

I don't understand how you conclude that the Farrage vote will be reduced if Boris fails to get a deal by Oct 31, or agrees to an extension after Oct 31. Sensible tory leavers will of course keep voting for Boris, but rabid gammon leavers like PPF will vote for Farrage. Personally if I were a leaver I would probably vote for Farrage because he has always been clear about Brexit (leave, no plan, sunny uplands). If I were a leaver Tory I would be disgusted with Boris if he capitualtes....anyway....in more detail...

Let us imagine Boris fails to leave on Oct 31....how can he claim he was thwarted by the EU? He can only do that if he makes a credible proposal that is rejected. OK I understand a lot of the electorate don't understand what credible means and may be prepared to accept whatever lie Boris offers to explain his utter failire to deliver what he promised (and still promises). However, if we don't hard Brext it MUST be because Boris asks for and receives an extension. But he has absolutely vowed to not do this. I for one would be flabberghasted if he comes back with an extension. Flabberghasted.

And if I am flabberghasted, how do you think 'Brexit means Brexit' supporters would feel? Blood in the streets types like mouldy brains who, I see is gammoning off again above (on ignore before you ask).

So what do you mean by 'Labour will abandon leave altogether'? Corbyn has been hammered for explicitly stating he will NOT do that. Let's imagine you are right and labour apes the libdems with a 'remain' manifesto. That leaves Farrage and the tories supporting leave. Why would Labour, now firmly 'remain' 'reduce the Farrage vote'? People who support remain and are disappointed by Corbyn's equivocation would never vote for Farrage, and people who would vote for Farrage are not going to abandon Farrage if Labour come out in favour of remain.

Farrage will therefore take votes from the tories. If I were a leaver, and a tory, I would be sufficiently disgusted by the tories' utter failure to get Brexit done that Boris' utter failure to get Brexit done, kicking the can down the road in an extension, I would definitely vote for Farrage. Definitely. But you conclude the opposite?

Sorry pal, I don't follow your reasoning. I still maintain that we will hard Brexit in Oct, not least because Boris is finished if we don't. If Boris is tricked out of being able to do this (he won't ask for an extension in a way that will achieve it, and if we get one it will be imposed by the EU, and I'm not sure the EU can impose an extension, and why would they?), he will be up against Farrage in a GE, and the Leave vote will be split. We will end up either with a Tory/Farrage coalition, or a Labour/Liberal coalition. My guess is we will end up with Corbyn as PM.

 

[nicko31]

All of this law upholding will only serve to make the divide deeper and wider.

Had we left as we should, parties such as The Brexit Party would have disappeared over the horizon. Not only is that unlikely for some time now, they might even augment their support.

What is the alternative? Failure to act is setting precedent for future PM's proroguing parliament for their own agendas.

Would you be OK if Corbyn prorogued to shut down the army? Be careful what you wish for...

Its very disappointing that some (not all) Tories can't really accept the rule of law and are now trying exploit the situation with toxic populism.

We need more people like Gina Miller, who are prepared to stand up for all of us...

 

[BensGrandad]

Please learn the difference between unlawful and breaking the law.

The action of proroguing was unlawful and has been overturned, which is why Parliament is open for business today.

I know you love stirring it up, because as a pub landlord, there is no way you could be this naive. You did the same with the Calderon Appreciation evening which was nothing to do with you, nor was it affecting you in any way.

Nit picking but if something is unlawful it is only so because it contravenes a law and all I have asked is which one or rather which one did these 11 judges consider as opposed to the view of the Attorney General, the single highest legal person in the country. Or am I mistaken there.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Why are the media goading labour MPs into admitting they are afraid of a GE by not calling for one now? This is Farrage's trope (he said this again on R5 earlier).

Farrage would not benefit if a GE is called now, while there is a chance Boris will manouvre a hard Brexit on Oct 31 and arrange the GE for after we hard Brexit - he would get no votes.

But Farrage can goad Corbyn for not triggering a VONC and a GE because it scores cheap points. That's the sortof man he is.

However I don't understand why the BBC (R5) are colluding with his nonsense, by repeatedly asking labour MPs what hey are 'afraid of'.

Last night I heard a northern labour person (possibly an MP, possibly a union man) making a terrible hash of explaining why Corbyn hasn't triggered a GE yet. He made it soulnd like labour are afraid of losing.

The facts are that if a GE is triggered now, Boris can set a date after Oct 31, after we have left the EU (and with no reason for the Brexit party to exist, Boris will win). Calling a GE now benefits labour and remainers ONLY if it can be held before Oct 31. Boris would love a GE to be called right now, but only Corbyn can trigger this (via a VONC). The BBC must know this so they seem to be colluding with Boris by feeding into the 'labour scared of a GE' trope.

That said, if labour spokespeople cannot explain the labour position then they deserve all the mockery coming their way.

 

[Grombleton]

Nit picking but if something is unlawful it is only so because it contravenes a law and all I have asked is which one or rather which one did these 11 judges consider as opposed to the view of the Attorney General, the single highest legal person in the country. Or am I mistaken there.

You are mistaken. The AG isn't the single highest legal person in the country.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Nit picking but if something is unlawful it is only so because it contravenes a law and all I have asked is which one or rather which one did these 11 judges consider as opposed to the view of the Attorney General, the single highest legal person in the country. Or am I mistaken there.

You are mistaken BG. The suspension was never lawful, meaning that in fact it didn't happen. I'd leave it there if I were you

 

[BensGrandad]

You are mistaken BG. The suspension was never lawful, meaning that in fact it didn't happen. I'd leave it there if I were you

I fully understand that but WHY wasnt it is all I am asking also it appears and I am told my view of the Attorney General is wrong so I apologise.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Nit picking but if something is unlawful it is only so because it contravenes a law and all I have asked is which one or rather which one did these 11 judges consider as opposed to the view of the Attorney General, the single highest legal person in the country. Or am I mistaken there.

You don't have to contravene a particular law for something to be unlawful. A breaking of rules or conventions can be considered as unlawful even if they don't contravene a specific Act.

I also think you are confusing the role of the Attorney General who is an elected member of Parliament who advises the government and departments on law making but cannot sit on a government's cabinet.. That doesn't make them the highest legal person in the country as they have no judiciary role. The are basically the government's best elected legal person along with the Solicitor General.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I fully understand that but WHY wasnt it is all I am asking also it appears and I am told my view of the Attorney General is wrong so I apologise .

Hurray.

 

[happypig]

Nit picking but if something is unlawful it is only so because it contravenes a law and all I have asked is which one or rather which one did these 11 judges consider as opposed to the view of the Attorney General, the single highest legal person in the country. Or am I mistaken there.

Yes.

To expand : Any decision by the executive can be referred for a judicial review to determine if the decision was lawful. The referral is generally because there is no specific act to rely on.

An example would be the Home Secretary says a British Subject is prohibited from entering the country because she has done something abroad. There is no specific law covering this so the court is asked to rule on whether the decision is lawful.

As an extreme, you could complain to the police that Boris Johnson has committed Misconduct in Public Office but the bar is very high for prosecution.

 

[BensGrandad]

You don't have to contravene a particular law for something to be unlawful. A breaking of rules or conventions can be considered as unlawful even if they don't contravene a specific Act.

I also think you are confusing the role of the Attorney General who is an elected member of Parliament who advises the government and departments on law making but cannot sit on a government's cabinet.. That doesn't make them the highest legal person in the country as they have no judiciary role. The are basically the government's best elected legal person along with the Solicitor General.

I dont follow that as anybody could say that about anything without justification Had the judges said it is unlawful because........I would accept it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But Johnson can't 'no deal' at the end of October.

The very bare basics aren't in place to operate a 'no deal'. There are no lorry parks (other than temporarily using motorways and that has always gone well in the past, even very short term). There are no procedures in place for Customs to deal with EU goods being treated differently from present and having tariffs applied and there are also no staff recruited or trained to operate the procedures even if they existed. There are no automated systems specified (let alone designed, built and tested) and no IT infrastructure on which to operate these. So all ports are going to operate manual procedures, with no additional staff for the majority of their work ?

The alternative, of course is to give Tariff-free access to the EU, as at present, but under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules we then have to grant it to the whole world. (But won't solve the problem of the EU applying tariffs on all goods going the other way).

But even if we applied tariffs, if we leave with 'no deal' and no customs border in Northern Ireland, it means we are giving Ireland (and therefor the EU) complete tariff free access to all UK markets. In addition, if we allow Ireland and the EU tariff-free access, we have to grant it to the whole world under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules.

Then, from the position of the whole world having completely tariff-free access to all British markets, we have to start negotiating trade deals with them ? I'm no expert, but I'm struggling to see what more we could offer them to come to the table to begin negotiations if the whole world already have complete tariff-free access to all British markets.

It is, and has always been pure Bluff, just like the last two times. If the EU saw us building lorry parks, tendering for IT infrastructure and systems, recruiting and training customs staff, then they may believe we are serious.

All Johnson has to offer is a re-brand of TM's deal. And unless and until we invest a few years and £10s of Billions in infrastructure that's all there will always be

I agree with you. I have argued these last 3 years that Brexit will not happen because it cannot happen - any more than I can fly if I have sufficient determination and flap my arms really hard.

However.....we CAN hard Brexit - if we simply do it. OK, you predict carnage and I suspect carnage too. However Boris is gambling that our 'wartime spirit' will see us through and in the end we will thank him for his Churchillian courage and determination to deliver the will of the people (read that with a voice dripping with irony). No matter how painful it might be for the first few weeks and months. I think he's a mug, but that's another issues. You can hard brexit, leap off Beachy head, anything physically possible, if you decide to do so and have the means.....

So if Boris does not ask for an extension, to kick the can down the road, or at least ask in a way that the EU will agree, then we hard Brexit, no matter what the Benn law says. How can we ensure Boris makes a profound, sincere and persuasive case to the EU for an extension? He simply won't.

That said....I suppose he could mumble 'give us a few more months, guv' and the EU says 'OK, why not?' but this depends on the EU really really really wanting to avoid hard Brexit at any cost. Hmmmmm... in actual fact if I were in charge of the EU decision I might even offer an extension, and an open ended one. Why not? It means no pain for the EU. It carries no risk because after our debacle there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of any other nation in the EU voting to leave. And the longer our agony goes on, the more clear it will be to the others that voting leave would be a mistake. The EU benefits!

OK, thanks, you have provoked me into thought. Interesting times.

 

[happypig]

Why are the media goading labour MPs into admitting they are afraid of a GE by not calling for one now? This is Farrage's trope (he said this again on R5 earlier).

Farrage would not benefit if a GE is called now, while there is a chance Boris will manouvre a hard Brexit on Oct 31 and arrange the GE for after we hard Brexit - he would get no votes.

But Farrage can goad Corbyn for not triggering a VONC and a GE because it scores cheap points. That's the sortof man he is.

However I don't understand why the BBC (R5) are colluding with his nonsense, by repeatedly asking labour MPs what hey are 'afraid of'.

Last night I heard a northern labour person (possibly an MP, possibly a union man) making a terrible hash of explaining why Corbyn hasn't triggered a GE yet. He made it soulnd like labour are afraid of losing.

The facts are that if a GE is triggered now, Boris can set a date after Oct 31, after we have left the EU (and with no reason for the Brexit party to exist, Boris will win). Calling a GE now benefits labour and remainers ONLY if it can be held before Oct 31. Boris would love a GE to be called right now, but only Corbyn can trigger this (via a VONC). The BBC must know this so they seem to be colluding with Boris by feeding into the 'labour scared of a GE' trope.

That said, if labour spokespeople cannot explain the labour position then they deserve all the mockery coming their way.

A VONC doesn't have to trigger a General Election. If there is a viable alternative government they can take over. The fly in the ointment of this scenario is Corbyn's insistence that he be PM in a "unity government" against Swinson (and probably others) insistence that it be anyone but him.
There could, however, be behind the scenes negotiations going on to find an acceptable temporary PM to come in, delay A50 and arrange a GE.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I dont follow that as anybody could say that about anything without justification Had the judges said it is unlawful because........I would accept it.

They have said why it's unlawful.

They didn't just turn up Wednesday and say 'It's unlawful' then left.

You can read the justifications here. Fill your boots!

 

[beorhthelm]

...

I have been done over by three appeal judges and a crown court one before and now these muppets.

Judges make mistakes, and these eleven will have done more damage than any in history.

proroguing was not about Brexit, remember? nothing the court said has any bearing on the PM ability (or inability ) to proceed with Brexit. he just has to stay within the law, which is a matter for parliament to decide.

 

[beorhthelm]

Which they appear to be. If his actions were unlawful, which law did he break?

BRITISH Law

Which specific law and why no mention of prosecuting him as all law breakers are.

it may be worth reflecting the court verdict was he acted unlawfully. he didnt break a law, but didnt act within the law. important distinctions, though not for the outcome.

 

[theonlymikey]

...

I have been done over by three appeal judges and a crown court one before and now these muppets.

Judges make mistakes, and these eleven will have done more damage than any in history.

What the flying fook has a court case regarding parliament sovereignty v prerogative powers of the executive to do with a referendum vote?

Give me strength. No wonder this country is a mess.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

More evidence that Leavers are just bullys. Anyone that disagrees - or in this case upholds the LAW is an 'ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE'

The 'enemy of the people' is remainers in parliament who are constantly delaying Brexit, hoping to remain. The people voted to Leave it really could not be more clear.

Ah, the good old 'traitors' trope. I was waiting for this to turn up. Your post conjures up the image of 4 distinguished justices dressed in full robes, pouncing on you as you left a pub and setting about you with blunt instruments.

That's a big assumption that leavers are in the pub, your 20 years out of date on that one, clear head here and not smacked out on recreation drugs like the paranoid remainers, thought I would throw and assumption also as it would be rude not to, a better analogy would also be they were wielding axes.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I really can't help wishing this was all done and dusted. The grief over the next few years with the divides is going to be highly significant, with extremes becoming more extreme.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't understand how you conclude that the Farrage vote will be reduced if Boris fails to get a deal by Oct 31, or agrees to an extension after Oct 31. Sensible tory leavers will of course keep voting for Boris, but rabid gammon leavers like PPF will vote for Farrage. Personally if I were a leaver I would probably vote for Farrage because he has always been clear about Brexit (leave, no plan, sunny uplands). If I were a leaver Tory I would be disgusted with Boris if he capitualtes....anyway....in more detail...

its just a point of view. theres different levels of vote for Farage, the rabid leavers would vote for him regardless (maybe even if we have left!), then there is the hardcore. then there are those that would vote Farage in a European election but not a GE where other issues take precedence for them. the polling suggests 10-15% for Farage, maybe Johnson can spin a message of "i did everything i could" and reduce that by half for minor electoral impact. at any rate this will be the calculation Conservative party office will be weighing up, can they get away with delay. voting for Farage and having a Lab-Lib-SNP pact will not deliver brexit, will be a core part of any campaign.