UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Just heard a Youtube video suggesting there's a legal way for BoJo to get around the Benn Act. Some instrument called an Order of Council (as opposed to an Order in Council). Apparently he (The Privy Council) can issue an Order of Council temporarily suspending The Benn Act so that come 19 Oct when Parliament has failed to pass a deal he is not bound by the Benn Act to sign a letter because the Benn Act is suspended.

Fitzgerald v. Muldoon says hi. If Boris tried that, I'd be cheering the courts on.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The tweet is suggesting such an order can be judicially reviewed. That would be a key element to confirm. Seems some people think OoCs can't be JR'd, whereas OiCs can be.

The recent court decision shows that traditional rules of what can be judicially reviewed no longer apply. For believers in judicial restraint like myself,it's a horrifying development, but the genie is out of the bottle.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Fitzgerald v. Muldoon says hi. If Boris tried that, I'd be cheering the courts on.

Is that case directly applicable? That was Muldoon essentially repealing an Act via press release. This would be using an actual regulatory instrument to delay or temporarily suspend the application of a law. Typically a law with an enduring effect is not significantly disrupted with a temporary suspension. In the case of the Benn Act it has a short shelf life and can be permanently disabled by using a temporary measure that lasts just 2 weeks.

3 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The recent court decision shows that traditional rules of what can be judicially reviewed no longer apply. For believers in judicial restraint like myself,it's a horrifying development, but the genie is out of the bottle.

I still think you're blowing it out of proportion. If an act by anyone (maybe except the Queen?) can be demonstrated to be unlawful then that act must be able to be examined by a court. If it is not possible to illegally prorogue Parliament then the court would have found that prorogation is non-justicable.

If by "traditional rules" you just mean "tradition", then yes, the recent ruling does show that tradition on what can be JR'd no longer applies. But tradition can, should and do change, so this change in tradition is not automatically a bad thing just because it's a change.

On this particular situation, it *shouldn't* be possible for the executive to completely thwart the will of Parliament. But it might be that a loophole in how OoCs can be used does allow an OoC to completely thwart Parliament's will in this case, because the act has a very short window of effect.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Fitzgerald v. Muldoon held that you can't suspend parliamentary statutes via regal authority. Which is what this would be. Even if you argue that it's regulatory, and hence under parliamentary authority, you're reduced to arguing that it's a Henry VIII clause situation - which it isn't.

(The temporary nature of the suspension would be irrelevant, since it would nullify the Act, and de facto repeal it. Hence the Henry VIII clause situation).

[karaddin]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Where did she say this?

How many times are you going to peddle this conspiracy stuff in this thread?

She said this on a BBC radio show. Zorral was not making this up and she wasn't the one raising the idea of people agitating for Brexit being motivated by profit from shorting the pound. I'm linking to a piece which includes a short transcript of the relevant part, but the link to the interview is in this piece if you care to go listen to it to confirm

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/09/26/a-bbc-hosts-jaw-dropping-response-to-a-bombshell-from-boris-johnsons-sister/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Quote

During the interview, Johnson spoke about what she thought was behind the PM’s “strongman gambit” in getting the UK out of the EU. After noting her brother’s role, and the role of his chief adviser Dominic Cummings, she said:

It also could be from, who knows, people who have invested billions in shorting the pound or shorting the country in the expectation of a no-deal Brexit. We don’t know.

Perhaps an apology would be in order on this occasion

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

She said this on a BBC radio show. Zorral was not making this up and she wasn't the one raising the idea of people agitating for Brexit being motivated by profit from shorting the pound. I'm linking to a piece which includes a short transcript of the relevant part, but the link to the interview is in this piece if you care to go listen to it to confirm

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/09/26/a-bbc-hosts-jaw-dropping-response-to-a-bombshell-from-boris-johnsons-sister/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Perhaps an apology would be in order on this occasion

Eh, in that bit you quote she's laying it out as a speculative possibility. She's saying she doesn't know. Which is not much different to promoting a conspiracy theory on the basis of no evidence.

I don't doubt that a lot of people who do this sort of thing did indeed short the pound on the belief that no-deal was going to happen on 31 Oct (Boris would run head long into it and there's nothing Parliament would do to stop it) and that it would be some measure of a disaster for Britain. And no doubt all of those people will be nervously waiting to see what happens*. But that's not really a problem, indeed for traders it might be seen as the sensible thing to do the minute Bojo was confirmed as PM. Making a prediction about the future and short trading is part of the system, and if you make good predictions then you stand to make a lot of money.

The problem is, if the people doing the shorting include Boris and/or the architects of the no-deal plan. That's a massive conflict of interest. The other problem is if people who did short put mountains of pressure on Boris and co to deliver no-deal for the sole reason of making sure the risk they took pays off. The system shouldn't allow people to make predictions and then manipulate the system to guarantee that outcome, that's basically insider trading, or something like it. And another problem is if there are people of influence who have shorted, but are out there in public reassuring people that all will be well. I don't know if any of those things have been proven to any degree, but they are all doable if you have no morals and you are confident of not getting caught.

*If I was them, I'd probably go out and place a large bet(s) with bookie(s) that there will be an extension on 31 Oct as a way of hedging my losses. If no deal happens, then the windfall from the shorting of the pound will be large and more than offset the cost of the bets placed on the extension happening. If an extension happens then the winnings from the bet(s) will soften the blow of having made the wrong call with the shorting.

[karaddin]

@The Anti-Targ I'm not saying that it's correct or that she said it was definitive, I'm saying that it was a thing that had been news in the last 24 hours and pointing out that it was posted as such by his sister is different to bringing it up as a random conspiracy theory.

 

[DanteGabriel]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Wow you are really stretching here. Nice work.

Given your penchant for unsubstantiated claims, wild exaggerations, and inability to support your arguments, it's a stretch for you to accuse anyone else of stretching.

Speaking of hypocrisy, though, I never got your opinion on Brave Victim of Antifa Violence Andy Ngo, laughing along with neo-Nazis as they planned a violent attack on a brewery.

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Speaking of hypocrisy, though, I never got your opinion on Brave Victim of Antifa Violence Andy Ngo, laughing along with neo-Nazis as they planned a violent attack on a brewery.

Oh but he's absolutely definitely posted it, probably right next to where he posted his totally not racist explanation for why Eastern Europeans are culturally bad for the UK.

[ants]

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

There are not many Remainer Tories left.  About 46% of the voters back the Conservatives or the The Brexit Party, and only about 16% of current Tory voters support Remain.  And, those who live in Labour/Conservative marginal constituencies will still vote Conservative to prevent the sorts of policies that the Labour conference backed from ever being implemented.

10 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yes. And we again arrive at the point of FPTP helping the Tories there, as in split remain vs. not so split leave vote. And the geographical split.

Again, 80-90% of Labour voters are remainers. Which makes that Labour Leadership stance so utterly bizarre.

The majority of Tory voters are cheering for that burning clown car. Another part of Cameron's legacy to unify his party. Again, Labour will probably have a much bigger problem with both camps. Last time around the remainers broke for Labour big time, since then the Politburo has not really treated them with respect, mildly put. So Labour is more likely to lose those voters (you know the Blairites, and Neo-Libruls, who are to be blamed for a Tory majority).

I thought the Supreme Court just told him that he cannot do that. I have really no idea, how to get out of this mess.

Where are people getting their stats from?  According to the YouGov information on the referendum (info here) has that 39% of Torries voted "Remain" and 35% of Labour voters voted "Leave" (it even has that 38% of Lib Dems voted Leave).  Those statistics are very very different from the ones being quoted above.  They would imply that the Torries going straight Brexit may be an issue for them, while it does explain Labour sitting on the fence (losing 35% of your voters, as opposed to the 10-20% quoted by a Horse Named Stranger is a much bigger problem).  

I'm still not sure why people think he electoral math all favours Boris.  Surely the Brexit party will split his vote, while the Lib Dems who showed in coalition they're not miles apart from traditional Tory positions will hunt his remain electorates.  

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, ants said:

Where are people getting their stats from?  According to the YouGov information on the referendum (info here) has that 39% of Torries voted "Remain" and 35% of Labour voters voted "Leave" (it even has that 38% of Lib Dems voted Leave).  Those statistics are very very different from the ones being quoted above.  They would imply that the Torries going straight Brexit may be an issue for them, while it does explain Labour sitting on the fence (losing 35% of your voters, as opposed to the 10-20% quoted by a Horse Named Stranger is a much bigger problem).  

I'm still not sure why people think he electoral math all favours Boris.  Surely the Brexit party will split his vote, while the Lib Dems who showed in coalition they're not miles apart from traditional Tory positions will hunt his remain electorates.  

Since 2017, there's been a big shakeout.  Lots of Remain Conservatives have gone Lib Dem, and lots of Labour leavers have gone Conservative or Brexit Party.

[mormont]

[mod] Stay on-topic please: it is definitely not on-topic to dredge up arguments from other threads, unless it is directly relevant to the topic under discussion. [/mod]

Moving on, the prospect of Johnson finding some tricksy way to get around the Benn Act is precisely why the opposition refuse to have a general election just yet. So long as Parliament is in session, they can stop any such manouevring by passing another Act, sitting all night and on weekends if they have to. Start a general election campaign, and oops, Johnson is still PM but Parliament is dissolved. He has a free hand, or very nearly - the only way to stop him as far as I can see is to try to get an emergency injunction in the courts, a dicey proposition.

There is, as we discussed earlier, no agreement among opposition parties about who would head a temporary government if a VONC passes or what that government would look like. So the only option is to keep things as they are until an extension is agreed.

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

She said this on a BBC radio show. Zorral was not making this up

I never said Zorral made it up, I wanted to know where this came from as hadn't seen it. However, that doesn't stop it being put firmly into the category of conspiracy theory or any less ludicrous. She doesn't appear to be any smarter than her brother it seems.

Zorral has posted a few things in this thread that fall into tinfoil hat territory, especially the Thomas Cook stuff (could it be possible a company fails because it was badly run in a dying industry?!! no, must be some secret cabal of money men!). Could it also not be that 17m people voted to leave the EU, because they wanted to leave the EU, and it wasn't all some grand plan of some buinessmen (boo.. people with money = evil!) or the Russians.

[karaddin]

Well I answered your question on where it was from at least

[Derfel Cadarn]

A group of independent publishers (including Elsewhen Press, who’ve published my two novels to date) have written about the impact No Deal Brexit will likely have on them, as they get their paper and ink from Europe, and costs would rise. As would shipping, most likely.

https://nothingintherulebook.com/2019/09/27/independent-publishers-fear-no-deal-brexit-disaster/

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, ants said:

Where are people getting their stats from?  According to the YouGov information on the referendum (info here) has that 39% of Torries voted "Remain" and 35% of Labour voters voted "Leave" (it even has that 38% of Lib Dems voted Leave).  Those statistics are very very different from the ones being quoted above.  They would imply that the Torries going straight Brexit may be an issue for them, while it does explain Labour sitting on the fence (losing 35% of your voters, as opposed to the 10-20% quoted by a Horse Named Stranger is a much bigger problem).  

Read it somewhere I think, either Guardian or politics.co.uk (or ft on their free of charge day), or picked it up on one of the brexit vids. Anyway, like seanf mentioned, there's been some party movements happening since 2017. So I think the shift from 35% to <20% always looked credible to me. He is however wrong in one respect, the Labour Leavers up north have not really flocked to the Tories, they are still a no-go for them (culturally) - as much as it is for remain Tories heading straight for Labour. They will more likely end up at Frogface's party.

However bear in mind, Leaver vs. Remainer seems to be the big divider in terms of political identity (more so than Tory or Labour). Remember, two or three threads ago there was this opinion poll among Tories mentioned, whcih price they'd be willing to pay for the delivery of Brexit. Braek up of the Tory party? No, problem. Scottish independence and break up of the Union? Fair enough. Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM? Do not even joke about this. I still find it hillarious, that they thought a Corbyn Premiership was too much, while they were happy to sacrifice the Union of the UK and their own party.

Conversely I find the Labour party to be equally ridiculous for putting Corbyn higher on their wish list, than stopping Brexit. What I find particularly disheartening about that, was that I always believed the political left values policies more than personalities. Maybe that's the bit about the Labour party that enrages me most, who knows?

[Gaston de Foix]

Just dropping in to point out that John Major's specific concern about circumventing the Benn Act is legally bollocks (see the FBU case).  There is no way around the Benn Act. 

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Just dropping in to point out that John Major's specific concern about circumventing the Benn Act is legally bollocks (see the FBU case).  There is no way around the Benn Act. 

Good to know - though I AM sure that BJ /DC has found a loophole somewhere - he's not that good at bluffing. Of course, it may be a loophole that doesn't actually exist, but that won't stop them trying it (see prorogation). The questions are, how long does it take to legally decide if the loophole exists or not, and what can be done about it once he shows his hand. Which is why it's vitally important that parliament is sitting so that they can react; not dissolved awaiting a GE, and unable to react.

[Gaston de Foix]

3 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Good to know - though I AM sure that BJ /DC has found a loophole somewhere - he's not that good at bluffing. Of course, it may be a loophole that doesn't actually exist, but that won't stop them trying it (see prorogation). The questions are, how long does it take to legally decide if the loophole exists or not, and what can be done about it once he shows his hand. Which is why it's vitally important that parliament is sitting so that they can react; not dissolved awaiting a GE, and unable to react.

If they try to use a spurious argument they will lose the case within 7-10 days in the Divisional Court. 

Buckland and James Eadie (both principled lawyers) may also resign, creating further political problems for this government. 

Really, this whole debate is overblown.  BJ's been checkmated (but won't admit it).  His political strategy, as I understand it, if he fails to secure a deal is to blame the Benn Act and press for a general election.  If necessary, he will engineer a vote of no confidence in his own government and let Corbyn/Ken Clarke apply for the extension.  But all his choices are bad ones. 

[mormont]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49850484
 

Quote

 

Scotland's first minister has said she is "open-minded" about who might emerge to lead a temporary government if Boris Johnson is removed from office.

Nicola Sturgeon said she is "no fan" of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and is not pushing for him to become interim PM.

But she said opposition parties would need to compromise if they want to win a vote of no confidence in Mr Johnson.

 

So that's one party leader backing Corbyn as temporary PM, at least potentially, and one of the more important ones. Maybe this might happen after all.