UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

[mormont]

34 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

You still seem to be talking about "acceptance" of viability.

That's the implication I take from Wert's post, yes. 

[Which Tyler]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's the implication I take from Wert's post, yes. 

I don't see how, but fair enough. Implication from the written word can be more difficult to pick apart.
On a second look - I don't think we even need to read between the lines to find that he isn't saying that...

Quote

 

There seems to be something of an acceptance that one way forwards would be a government of national unity, consisting of the SNP, Labour, LibDems, Greens and Independent Conservatives. Such a government would not be willing to follow Corbyn, but Harriet Harman appears to be acceptable to the Conservatives and LibDems, and she is both Labour and the elder stateswoman of the House. I also suspect that Ken Clarke would be acceptable to many Labour supporters, but might be harder to swallow for Corbyn.

Such a government would have to trade horses a lot, so there'd be no immediate Article 50 revocation (as wanted by the LibDems), nor the immediate nationalisation of the railways (as wanted by Labour). Instead there'd likely be a moratorium on domestic policy and an agreement to hold Ref3 as soon as possible, which would probably require a further extension of Article 50 to March to allow a referendum to take place in February.

Arranging such an alliance is hugely problematic, so it may not happen. However, the numbers are now there for it in the HoC unless Boris does some sharp moving, perhaps offering the Tories he kicked out some pretty hefty sweetners to get them back in the fold ASAP.

The problem is that the alternatives are not particularly appealing for anyone: a highly unpredictable general election which could deliver anything from a surprise Corbyn majority to a Johnson-Farage double act winning a populist election engineered by Dominic Cummings to another completely gridlocked Parliament. I can't see the opposition parties tabling a VONC unless Johnson can be shamed into resigning. If that happens, the remaining Tory leadership candidates are such a bunch of complete no-hopers, that a Conservative majority becomes improbable and Corbyn may be more tempted to roll the dice.

 

 

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 9/24/2019 at 10:07 PM, The Marquis de Leech said:

I just about choked on my drink. An unbelievably awful decision, and one that the judiciary would never dare make in any other circumstances. Politically, it renders the entire constitutional framework fluid in a way not seen since 1910 - and that is not a good thing.

Worst case scenario is that this gets full seventeenth century, with multiple competing loci of power. And that way lies... something very, very dark.

Sure every constitutional action the executive takes must be able to be subject to challenge by the people. Otherwise you have the opportunity for unbridled power. The only genuine direct recourse of the people to challenge executive action is judicial review. So the recourse to challenge prorogation directly is the courts. What Parliament should do is change the law and make prorogation either subject to ratification by parliament before the Queen is so advised, or the PM's ability to unilaterally prorogue without Parliament's consent should be limited to a week at most.

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Sure every constitutional action the executive takes must be able to be subject to challenge by the people. Otherwise you have the opportunity for unbridled power. The only genuine direct recourse of the people to challenge executive action is judicial review. So the recourse to challenge prorogation directly is the courts. What Parliament should do is change the law and make prorogation either subject to ratification by parliament before the Queen is so advised, or the PM's ability to unilaterally prorogue without Parliament's consent should be limited to a week at most.

Um, no. Should calling an election be subject to Judicial Review? Election dates? Such political decisions are made by politicians, not judges - which is why the notion of non-justiciability exists. Honestly, this "looking behind the veil" at the motivation for the prorogation decision opens the door for the complete Americanisation of the British judiciary. Never mind Brexit - that's only the matter at hand. This court ruling is the most important constitutional decision seen in Britain for perhaps three centuries, and the court has gotten away with it because everyone's too distracted by Brexit shenanigans. 

BTW, prorogation is inherently limited in its scope: the Government needs Parliament to raise taxes, and Parliament can express its displeasure by no-confidencing the Government when it returns. Prorogation, like dissolution, is a purely political matter.

[The Marquis de Leech]

19 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Nope - I used the right word.

Parliament makes laws, the courts enforce them

Prorogation is a matter of constitutional convention, as is the comity between Parliament and the Courts. Convention has always held that prorogation and dissolution of Parliament - as matters of the Royal Prerogative, and High Political decisions - is not a matter for the courts. The courts have now decided that it is, because they want to, and can get away with it.

The judiciary makes law all the time, of course. Such is the nature of the Common Law system, though no judge will ever admit it. But this sort of brazen power-grab is monstrous. One almost wonders if they'd be tempted to go full American and decide that they have the power to throw out statutes they don't like. After all, the US Supreme Court decided that it had that power two centuries ago...

[mormont]

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Um, no. Should calling an election be subject to Judicial Review? Election dates?

Those are subject to other restraints not applicable to prorogation. But honestly, if they were subject to judicial review that wouldn't be awful.

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Such political decisions are made by politicians, not judges - which is why the notion of non-justiciability exists.

The judges are familiar with that notion, more so than you are, I would suggest. They weren't ignorant of the notion: they just didn't believe it applies to prorogation.

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Honestly, this "looking behind the veil" at the motivation for the prorogation decision opens the door for the complete Americanisation of the British judiciary.

The judges deliberately did not consider the motivation of the Prime Minister, though. Only the effect of his decision.

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Prorogation, like dissolution, is a purely political matter.

That is your opinion: the judges differed. The judges do have credentials that suggest they may be better placed to make that decision.

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Convention has always held that prorogation and dissolution of Parliament - as matters of the Royal Prerogative, and High Political decisions - is not a matter for the courts. The courts have now decided that it is, because they want to, and can get away with it.

Another way to put it is that the notion that prorogation is not a matter for the courts has simply never before been tested. Put to the test, judges have found that it is.

 

[Gaston de Foix]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

The judges are familiar with that notion, more so than you are, I would suggest. They weren't ignorant of the notion: they just didn't believe it applies to prorogation.

This.  Honestly, the suggestions that (i) this decision precedes the "Americanisation" of the British judiciary is bullcrap.  American courts have the power to set aside statutes on constitutional grounds.  Parliamentary sovereignty is the foundation of the British constitution.  

In other news, Geoffrey Cox, whose legal advice was that prorogation was perfectly lawful, has directly attacked Parliament as "dead" and a "disgrace". Way to win friends and influence people.  Bullshit rhetoric aside, it only emphasizes that this Parliament has an alternative majority if it chooses to put one together.  My preference would be for that majority to be deployed to attach a second referendum to the terms of any deal that Boris brings back to the UK.  That will give the British ppl a clear choice to leave, on Boris' terms, or remain. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

My preference would be for that majority to be deployed to attach a second referendum to the terms of any deal that Boris brings back to the UK.  That will give the British ppl a clear choice to leave, on Boris' terms, or remain.  

That is contradictory to Labour party policy (yes, I had to laugh when I wrote Labour Party Policy which is somewhat of an oxymoron these (or is it oxycorbyn?)).

Remember they prefer a GE over a referendum, with the party deciding on their positin after a special convention once they are in power. Just writing that made me feel like my IQ dropped by 15 points in real time. Oh, I forgot the bit with the unicorn deal that a Labour goverment is gonna secure, and then putting forward in an referendum (there go another 15 points).

Anyway, before I end up with a post containing "ooooh Jeremy Corbyn" or me drinking paint thinner, let's just conclude that a referendum now seems unlikely. Even if it is the most logical step.

[Gaston de Foix]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That is contradictory to Labour party policy (yes, I had to laugh when I wrote Labour Party Policy which is somewhat of an oxymoron these (or is it oxycorbyn?)).

Remember they prefer a GE over a referendum, with the party deciding on their positin after a special convention once they are in power. Just writing that made me feel like my IQ dropped by 15 points in real time. Oh, I forgot the bit with the unicorn deal that a Labour goverment is gonna secure, and then putting forward in an referendum (there go another 15 points).

Anyway, before I end up with a post containing "ooooh Jeremy Corbyn" or me drinking paint thinner, let's just conclude that a referendum now seems unlikely. Even if it is the most logical step.

I don't deny that a second referendum prior to a GE is not current Labour Party Policy. 

But let's just think about this logically.  What are the options before this Parliament?

1.  Call a general election immediately or soon and get a new Parliament (current Tory policy).  Labour effectively has a veto under the FTPA, so it will depend on them. 

2.  Call a general election after Art. 50 extension secured (current Labour party policy).  This assumes (1) BJ doesn't bring a deal back to the UK or (2) if he does, the deal is voted down and he opts for a no-deal Brexit.  

3.  vote for BJ's deal.  If he has a majority, then the game is effectively over.  While such a vote would be much more close than MV3,  I don't think he has the numbers. 

4. BJ's deal comes close but doesn't win over enough Labour MPs/Tory rebels.  At this point, a grand bargain for a second referendum on the terms of the deal would win over some of the Dominic Grieves, Lib Dems and Labour remainers elected on a deliver Brexit manifesto. 

5.  Parliament rejects every option (as it did in the indicative votes process).  Such a Parliament would ultimately have to disband itself for a general election. 

Why should the Conservative government reach a grand bargain for a second referendum, risking the results of the first? Because it gets its preferred form of Brexit in return. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

1.  Call a general election immediately or soon and get a new Parliament (current Tory policy).  Labour effectively has a veto under the FTPA, so it will depend on them. 

The Tories are irrelevant in all of this. They are the goverment in name only. As they don't have majority. All the bluster and rage by Cox, Johnson, Mogg and those other clowns doesn't change it.

1 minute ago, Gaston de Foix said:

2.  Call a general election after Art. 50 extension secured (current Labour party policy).  This assumes (1) BJ doesn't bring a deal back to the UK or (2) if he does, the deal is voted down and he opts for a no-deal Brexit.  

If it gets voted down, he still has to ask for an extension I think. As in even a deal is passed in mid-october he would need an extension just to get all the required legislation passed. It's not like, the house just accepts the deal, and it's all done and dusted.

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

3.  vote for BJ's deal.  If he has a majority, then the game is effectively over.  While such a vote would be much more close than MV3,  I don't think he has the numbers.  

Check above.

3 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

4. BJ's deal comes close but doesn't win over enough Labour MPs/Tory rebels.  At this point, a grand bargain for a second referendum on the terms of the deal would win over some of the Dominic Grieves, Lib Dems and Labour remainers elected on a deliver Brexit manifesto. 

Grieve wants a second referendum regardless. But the entire excercise of a second referendum is pointless without the Labour votes. The Brexit Loony Monster Party (aka the ERG formerly known as the Tories) will not vote for a second referendum no matter what. Brexit has become an existential crises for them, if they don't deliver it, the vast majority of their voters won't be pleased.

5 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

5.  Parliament rejects every option (as it did in the indicative votes process).  Such a Parliament would ultimately have to disband itself for a general election. 

Eventually, yes. Basically Labour position. Ignoring the fact, that Corbyn is trailing Johnson in the polls quite significantly. And Labour cannot rely on remainers voting for them with their current policy.

8 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Why should the Conservative government reach a grand bargain for a second referendum, risking the results of the first? Because it gets its preferred form of Brexit in return. 

Nope, no need for them to go there. They want a GE where they can run No-deal vs Corbyn. That is the electoral straw they are clutching. And Corbyn seems to be very happy to help them with it.

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nope, no need for them to go there. They want a GE where they can run No-deal vs Corbyn. That is the electoral straw they are clutching. And Corbyn seems to be very happy to help them with it.

If Corbyn was happy with it, he would have accepted the calls for a GE.  Parliament has been kept alive to pass the Benn Act (and now, according to Corbyn to ensure it is implemented).  But then what?

Not that you are wrong, Stranger. Corbyn, just now: 

Corbyn says, for the good of the country, Johnson should go.

He says he wants an election. And Johnson wants an election. Corbyn ends:

If he wants an election, get an extension and let’s have an election.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

If Corbyn was happy with it, he would have accepted the calls for a GE.  Parliament has been kept alive to pass the Benn Act (and now, according to Corbyn to ensure it is implemented).  But then what?

Have GE some time in November after the UK got their extension. Lose that election, watch the Tories gun for no deal with a majority, and blame the Neo-librul remainers and Balirites for not voting for Corbyn (despite him also not getting those mythical Labour Leave votes up north).

[Chaircat Meow]

Tory benches going nuts for Johnson right now - he gave Corbyn quite a good hammering if you like that kind of knockabout. 

[Raja]

Lol - he didn't. It was full of bluster & did not answer a single question. His statement was bizarre & contradictory.

Corbyn & Blackford have been good.

[Heartofice]

Yeah Johnson was just rambling and pretty boring to be honest. The whole Corbyn coward angle is really quite childish and doesn’t do him any favours. Corbyn dodged it quite easily.

[Gaston de Foix]

The general style of debate in HoC has devolved from rapier to machete to bludgeon.  Attacks on integrity used to be uncommon: now they are par for the course. 

[Which Tyler]

BJ's "new" stategy seems to be to be as rude, beligerent and obnozious as humanly possible in order to goad his opponents to do what he wants them to in a fit of pique.

His performance today - just the lest 40 minutes that I've been home for - is the most despicable I've ever seen in parliament

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Um, no. Should calling an election be subject to Judicial Review? Election dates? Such political decisions are made by politicians, not judges - which is why the notion of non-justiciability exists. Honestly, this "looking behind the veil" at the motivation for the prorogation decision opens the door for the complete Americanisation of the British judiciary. Never mind Brexit - that's only the matter at hand. This court ruling is the most important constitutional decision seen in Britain for perhaps three centuries, and the court has gotten away with it because everyone's too distracted by Brexit shenanigans. 

BTW, prorogation is inherently limited in its scope: the Government needs Parliament to raise taxes, and Parliament can express its displeasure by no-confidencing the Government when it returns. Prorogation, like dissolution, is a purely political matter.

You'll have to come up with a different example, for the UK at least. My understanding of the fixed term parliaments act is that an election can't be called before the 5(?) years is up without a vote in parliament, thus it's not an executive action, hence why Bojo was unable to call an election for 16 Oct. And in terms of the normal election the action of the executive in calling the normal must be challengable. If the electoral act say you must call the election with 6 weeks notice and the executive calls it with 5 weeks notice, if parliament is recessed or prorogued it's the courts that will decide the calling of the election is unlawful and therefore null and void. If the act says the election must be on a Saturday and the executive sets the election on a different day, then this must also be challengable in court. If the executive can do a thing in an unlawful manner it must be able to be challenged in court, because court can't be recessed by the executive and so the executive can't get away with unlawful actions by putting that branch of govt on an extended holiday.

The question before the court was whether prorogation can be carried out unlawfully, the court decided it is possible to prorogue unlawfully and hence it is in the purview of the court to determine the lawfulness of a prorogation when asked to make such a determination.

This should not be seen as an Americanisation. The thing about America is that the courts can strike down legislation as unconstitutional, not just make rulings on the lawfulness of executive action. What's sacrosanct is the sovereignty of parliament, the SC should not have the power to strike out any legislation passed by parliament (at least it doesn't have that power in NZ, the court can find one piece of legislation to be in violation with a constitutional part of the law, like the Human Rights Act, but it can only recommend a remedy), and this court decision does not touch parliamentary sovereignty.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Have GE some time in November after the UK got their extension. Lose that election, watch the Tories gun for no deal with a majority, and blame the Neo-librul remainers and Balirites for not voting for Corbyn (despite him also not getting those mythical Labour Leave votes up north).

The electorate knowing what it does now (as opposed to 2016 and even 2017), and clearly knowing what each party's Brexit position is (Leave/no deal, straddle the fence, remain), if the Tory's get back with a majority (esp a majority that will vote through a no deal) then that's pretty much a mandate for the Tory's to do whatever they decide to do.

If there was a time for remainer Tories to vote for another party to preserve the union and stay in the EU and deny the Tory party a majority it will be whenever there's a GE before the final Brexit decision is carried out. They don't need to vote Labour, they just need to vote Lib Dem (or Plaid, or whoever) in large enough numbers in the right electorates.

[mormont]

So this is what we've come to. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49834301

Quote

 

Boris Johnson is facing a backlash from MPs after he was accused of using "dangerous" language over Brexit.

In a heated Commons debate, the prime minister used words such as "betrayal" and "traitor" and said a "surrender act" had been passed to stop Brexit.

A Labour MP referred to the murder of her colleague Jo Cox before the EU vote and said his remarks were "violent".

She said MPs faced death threats from people using similar language - but the PM dismissed her comments as "humbug".

Mr Johnson replied that the best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox - who campaigned for Remain - and bring the country together was "to get Brexit done".

Mrs Cox's husband, Brendan, later tweeted he felt "sick at Jo's name being used in this way".

 

There's nothing Johnson won't say to get his way. Contemptible. It's always been clear that he is out of his depth and that he only got this far due to his complete lack of scruples, decency or shame, but this is a new low.