The Brexit Thread

[ursus arctos]

GY, that is technically true as to the current state of play, but ignores his legal obligation to request an extension should Parliament not approve a deal.

Excellent points from Janik.

The UK has all kinds of very serious problems, but I am very envious of your Supreme Court.

[Levin]

GY, that is technically true as to the current state of play, but ignores his legal obligation to request an extension should Parliament not approve a deal.

Excellent points from Janik.

The UK has all kinds of very serious problems, but I am very envious of your Supreme Court.

Well I've already seen quote tweets of 'commentators' saying that appointments to the court should follow the US pattern. Because that's working brilliantly.

[Ginger Yellow]

GY, that is technically true as to the current state of play, but ignores his legal obligation to request an extension should Parliament not approve a deal.

Hence my "or having asked for an extension". We can (and will) still legally leave, without a deal, if the request is refused.

[ursus arctos]

Well I've already seen quote tweets of 'commentators' saying that appointments to the court should follow the US pattern. Because that's working brilliantly.

As always, I am thrilled to be on the opposite side of an argument from Toby Young.

What a putz.

[Janik]

Part of me wonders if the cabal at No10 did not wish for this to happen, if their aim is to go to an election on a ticket of rampant populism...

I find that rather implausible myself. And that is because rampant populism generally admires 'strength'. Yes, they will support belligerent bullying bluster from someone outside power, but once that individual is into power the people who admire populist politicians expect action from them. They must deliver on that belligerence.
There is a subtle but hugely important difference between "We want to do this, we know and you know it's the right thing to do, but they will prevent it happening" to "We tried to do this, but got ordered not to and were forced to accept that."

This was Cum-dog's 'clever' stratagem for getting one over on parliament. Showing it wasn't needed and could be bypassed. It's blown up in his face, as have all his other 'clever' ruses for not playing the game straight over the past few months.

[ursus arctos]

You've thought this through more thoroughly than Cummings.

I also wonder if his advice was to challenge the ruling more forcefully.

[Snake Plissken]

The neck of these lot:

The Government is tomorrow expected to table a motion paving the way for a short conference recess

Cabinet ministers are working on the assumption that it will pass and Tory conference will still go ahead

Chances of getting it: Nil.

[Janik]

Unless the former Tories stripped of the whip were welcomed back and guaranteed to be selected again for their seats. That bribe might work...


Back on the idea that this is not good ammunition for a populist:-

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage described the prime minister's decision to suspend Parliament as "the worst political decision ever" following the Supreme Court defeat.

He called for Mr Johnson's chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, to quit.

Now, there are personal animosities there, apparently. But that also gives a feel for the light that will shine on this from those who are agitating to leave.

Remember that the more extreme Leave elements are very suspicious that Johnson and the Tories plan is to ultimately throw their hands up, say it's not achievable and betray them by keeping Britain in the EU. That Johnson's Leave and No Deal support is all a charade. Head-banging nonsense of course, but that idea is out there. Articles like the one clown wrote for the Telegraph in 2013 about how Britain leaving the EU would be a terrible mistake get wheeled out. Any reverse like this just pours fuel on that particular fire.

[ursus arctos]

As would welcoming back the "saboteurs" even more.

[Janik]

https://twitter.com/Truth101The/status/1176464516823035904

[Amor de Cosmos]

35+% will be Johnson/Farage even if he takes a shit on the carpet at Buck House. Even the most obvious counter-factuals ("so how would you feel if PM Corbyn suspended Parliament and talked openly about ignoring the law?") cut no ice with that crowd. Sorry, but 3 years of evidence leaves little doubt there.

Yup. There are people like my BiL who thinks "They're all rotten, but Corbyn's a communist!"

[Satchmo Distel]

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage described the prime minister's decision to suspend Parliament as "the worst political decision ever" following the Supreme Court defeat.

Yet Farage had previously supported prorogation, of course, writing in the Torygraph in late August that it was seen by Brexiteers as a "positive move" that would bring a GE closer.

Now he's seeing the GE floating off until after October 31 and has to go back to attacking the Tories, with all hope of a Tory/Brexit pact fucked.

[Diable Rouge]

Yup. There are people like my BiL who thinks "They're all rotten, but Corbyn's a communist!"

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1176503721519456256

[Satchmo Distel]

Some non-Tory voters may worry that if he resigns, his successor may be more competent (the Trump-Pence dilemma).

[Janik]

Yet Farage had previously supported prorogation, of course, writing in the Torygraph in late August that it was seen by Brexiteers as a "positive move" that would bring a GE closer.

Now he's seeing the GE floating off until after October 31 and has to go back to attacking the Tories, with all hope of a Tory/Brexit pact fucked.

Well yes. He is still in the position of not having to live up to his bluster. The point is that is what he and the people he is a mouthpiece for are saying now. It's not gone as they expected, and they have changed their tune and are blaming Johnson for it.

[pebblethefish]

It's a bit of a pointless poll. 99.9% of the responders will not know whether the proroguing was unlawful, because it's all about intricacies of law. That's why they got a bunch of judges to look at it. Probably a similar percentage will not have changed their opinion on resignation as a result of this either - I think everyone is firm enough on their views on him already.

[Kevin S]

It's also worth noting that they have squared English and Scottish law by ruling that the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen is justiciable under English law. Which effectively overturns a ruling from ~100 years ago, IIRC.

Blimey, you've got a long memory.

[Nefertiti2]

this is really good by anthony barnett on the coming threat to the consitituion

[sw2borshch]

So, I can't embed tweets, but would be obliged if someone would tidy it up for me.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/s...367006208?s=19

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1176556627367006208

[Toby Gymshorts]

*cricket applause*

[Satchmo Distel]

Tory Conference is likely to go ahead but in a restricted form, with ministers jetting between London and Manchester.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...rty-conference

[Flynnie]

These two parts feel important in the context of a rumour that they will just prorogue again.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.

...

This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

The court can't make a pre-emptive ruling on speculation, but this flies as close to it as possible. It says "don't you even dare!"

It's also worth noting that they have squared English and Scottish law by ruling that the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen is justiciable under English law. Which effectively overturns a ruling from ~100 years ago, IIRC. Johnson has not just lost a particular case, his powers have been significantly and permanently limited. So thanks to Gina Miller for that one, for bringing her case in London.


Oh, and one more - proroguing was just about the only thing Johnson had actually achieved so far. And now it's been ruled that it never happened. He really is a spectacular loser, isn't he?

If he tries to prorogue again, the Queen should flatly deny his request. That isn't wishcasting, the Queen should not accede to a request that is likely to be looked at very dimly by the courts (I assume the English courts will have taken notice of the unanimous shitkicking their decision was given by the Supreme Court) by a man who transparently does not command the confidence of the House. she would be taking a more political stand by granting it than by denying it, in my opinion.

[San Bernardhinault]

The queen acceded to an illegal request. She must quit.

[Amor de Cosmos]

We don't know exactly what she was asked though do we? However it would be an excellent excuse for her to abidicate, if she did the cost would almost certainly be a boatload of Tory votes.