UK Politics: The Malice in the Chalice held by the Pfeffel with the Piffle is the Brexit that is true.

[Gaston de Foix]

On 9/15/2019 at 10:43 AM, mormont said:

I'm not of the opinion that the various opposition parties can ever agree on a government of national unity, so that's not likely to be an option.

This latest strategic leak from Johnson's team is more bluff and bluster, which is all he has ever had.  

I tend to agree with this analysis, but then I also thought that Boris wouldn't prorogue Parliament, haven't said he was not attracted to archaic mechanisms during the leadership campaign, and because it didn't really solve any of his political problems. 

If the SC declares the advice to the Queen was unlawful because it was pretextual and motivated by improper considerations (i.e., if it strikes down the advice on administrative law grounds not constitutional law ones), then in fact the government can advise the Queen to prorogue again, simply telling the truth this time.

Whether the Queen will follow the advice a second time around is a different matter.  But as a practical consideration, these statements and David Cameron's description of proroguing Parliament as "sharp practice" has hurt the government's cause in the SC. 

 

[Werthead]

It's a sign of the times that watching the Prime Minister of the UK run and hide from a press conference, leaving the Prime Minister of Luxembourg to field it alone is only mildly contemptible rather than deeply, nationally humiliating.

Johnson has also made it clear that he will, under no circumstances, follow the law requiring an extension of Article 50, meaning it is possible that he will end up in jail.

[The Anti-Targ]

So, what's the process? Bojo refuses to write/send the letter. Someone goes to court to get the court to make him send the letter. He refuses the court order and then is found to be in contempt of court? Or does someone seek to prosecute directly for failing to send the letter?

[James Arryn]

From the outside, it has always felt like the UK was inevitably creaking and groaning towards either slow-motion economic suicide or another clearer referendum. I am mildly impressed that enough people on all sides saw the suicide coming and braked, but I was also surprised how long most treated another referendum like pie in the sky. It seems to be much more on the actual table now. 

[ants]

The real question around a second referendum has always been Corbyn and Labour.  With the Torries and Labour both against it, 3rd Ref had no chance.  It sounds like Labour is more open than previously, but how much is that just talk?  Corbyn still seems to prefer a GE as a preferred option.  And officially the Labour position is that they would then campaign on no referendum.  Is there any strong evidence Corbyn will now support a 3rd referendum? 

But an election now may be very different to 2017, when Labour was wishy-washy on Brexit.  Its likely to play a far more central role.  How does he keep both his Remain and Leave supporters happy? 

I would have thought that a referendum actually gave him an out - he will negotiate a "better deal" (lol), which keeps Leavers happy, but will put it to a referendum which keeps Remainers happy.  It also means that the odds of his party being split like the Torries if he wins power is considerably less, as the Leavers can negotiate the deal and then there is no vote in parliament if passes the Referendum legislation early.  However, is there any evidence Labour thinks this way?  Not that I'm aware of.  

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, what's the process? Bojo refuses to write/send the letter. Someone goes to court to get the court to make him send the letter. He refuses the court order and then is found to be in contempt of court? Or does someone seek to prosecute directly for failing to send the letter?

As I have said before, the process would look like this:

• Act passes.
• Boris ignores it.
• Court injunction forces Boris to obey Act.
• Boris ignores it.
• Court finds Boris guilty of contempt of court.
• The Court opts to sentence him to prison.

Refusing to send the letter isn't the direct cause of prosecution. It's refusing to obey the inevitable court order to send the letter.

[Which Tyler]

No posts since 4.00 this morning.

I'm guessing nothing interesting has happened...

[Maltaran]

We’ve all disappeared as if we were in Luxembourg 

[williamjm]

58 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

No posts since 4.00 this morning.

I'm guessing nothing interesting has happened...

Boris prorogued the thread.

[Gaston de Foix]

26 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Boris prorogued the thread.

Gina Miller brought it back...if you are a lawyer, Miller No. 2 is compelling watching. 

But unlike Miller No.1 (where the views of individual judges was clear from their questions), the judges were playing their cards close to their chest today. I still think the government will win, but there are definitely judges who are sympathetic to Miller's case.  

This case doesn't impact Brexit at all, though.  Boris needs a deal with the EU to present to Parliament for approval, or he has to abandon his plan of leaving on Oct. 31. There's no other option, legally. 

[Which Tyler]

Just for today, there's no paywall on the FT. If this one is true, it's VERY damning for Boris Gump (sorry, trying to come up with new names than BJ that can still show my disdain for him - still quite fond of "The Incredible Sulk", it's just a bit long) https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-d9b7-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17?
 

Quote

 

Boris Johnson’s nightmare in Luxembourg was more than just a public embarrassment delivered at the hands of the Grand Duchy’s Xavier Bettel.

The FT on Wednesday morning reports on a chastening encounter over lunch between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, which one official described as a “penny dropping” moment for the prime minister over what it really means to replace the Irish backstop.

According to an account of the meeting, the prime minister was told by his EU counterparts in no uncertain terms that the UK’s plan to replace the backstop by allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock (known as SPS) was not enough to prevent customs checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border.

At that point, a befuddled Mr Johnson turned to David Frost, his chief negotiator, and Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”

The exchange, according to one EU official, was part of an abrupt “learning curve” for Mr Johnson in his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Barnier and Mr Juncker since he took office.

Another official describes the prime minister gradually “slumping” in his chair as the reality of the UK’s negotiating position and the limited time left to strike an agreement dawned on him. “He wasn’t used to hearing it”, added the official.

Article Continues...

 

Elsewhere; Labour don't want to hear from their student wing (too moderate, according to Momentum): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/labour-purges-its-student-wing-ahead-of-party-conference
 

Quote

 

The founder of Momentum, a key ally of Jeremy Corbyn, has succeeded in a bid to make the party effectively abolish its 40-year-old student wing, which is dominated by the more centrist side of the party.

Jon Lansman won the backing of Labour’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) for a motion that argued Labour Students was not officially affiliated and should be replaced.

The motion said Labour Students had not paid affiliation fees but this was disputed by Rania Ramli, its chair, who wrote to Jennie Formby, the party’s general secretary, setting out its case. Labour Students could now look at a legal challenge on the grounds it has been excluded on the basis of inaccurate information.

The move against Labour Students was condemned by a number of MPs as counterproductive at a time when the party should be focusing on preparing for an election rather than internal rows.

Article Continues...

 

Whilst Labour's Brexit stance is... to stay put on that fence:
A] Negotiate a new (customs union) deal with the EU
B] 3rd referendum
C] To remain neutral in that debate

It's apparently up for debate in their conference; but that seems to be the position agreed between Corbyn and the National Executive Committee:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/corbyn-vows-to-put-sensible-brexit-deal-to-voters-in-referendum

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Gina Miller brought it back...if you are a lawyer, Miller No. 2 is compelling watching. 

But unlike Miller No.1 (where the views of individual judges was clear from their questions), the judges were playing their cards close to their chest today. I still think the government will win, but there are definitely judges who are sympathetic to Miller's case.  

This case doesn't impact Brexit at all, though.  Boris needs a deal with the EU to present to Parliament for approval, or he has to abandon his plan of leaving on Oct. 31. There's no other option, legally. 

But there are illegal options, that if taken might have fall out for him and some others personally, but would not stop no deal Brexit from happening.

Seems insane that someone can act unlawfully and end up sealing the fate of the whole country, especially in the face of all evidence that suggest only a minority (possibly a tiny minority) of the people and certainly a minority of MPs actually want that outcome.

The legislation binding BoJo to an extension should have put a nuclear option in that would automatically trigger withdrawal of Art 50 if Bojo had not unequivocally sought an extension if a deal was not presented to and passed by parliament by 15 October, or whenever. Clearly Bojo assured destruction is the only incentive that will cause Bojo to do what is required of him.

"Article 50 is hereby withdrawn on 30 October 2019 unless..." or something like that.

Probably too many cowards in parliament to put in the nuclear option.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

 

Elsewhere; Labour don't want to hear from their student wing (too moderate, according to Momentum): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/labour-purges-its-student-wing-ahead-of-party-conference
 

Whilst Labour's Brexit stance is... to stay put on that fence:
A] Negotiate a new (customs union) deal with the EU
B] 3rd referendum
C] To remain neutral in that debate

It's apparently up for debate in their conference; but that seems to be the position agreed between Corbyn and the National Executive Committee

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As the right lurches more to the right, the left lurches more to the left. And no matter which way one lurches thar be loonies at both ends.

[Which Tyler]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As the right lurches more to the right, the left lurches more to the left. And no matter which way one lurches thar be loonies at both ends.

And the Lib Dems in the middle only need a 5% swing to hit the magic 25% which converts from being a good showing at the polls, to being a hundred+ MPs under the insanity of FPTP - Their Brexit stance is a principalled, but dangerous strategy though: https://www.economist.com/news/2019/09/17/the-liberal-democrats-bet-on-a-vow-to-overturn-the-brexit-referendum

Quote

Article Starts...
Unless polls are monumentally wrong, the Lib Dems’ promise to revoke Article 50 could prove as relevant as a Sunday league footballer’s plan for an elaborate celebration should he score the winning goal in an FA Cup final. Its main benefit was to generate attention and cement the Lib Dems’ position as the most ardent of the Remain-supporting parties. On that basis it succeeded. But while the Lib Dems trot along at 20% in the polls, Ms Swinson will not be heading to Downing Street.

Still, optimism abounded in Bournemouth. Normally the annual conference is a form of therapy for Lib Dems, jokes Tim Farron, who led the party in 2015-17 while it was on life support, with only 8% of the vote and eight MPs. Now its MPs are much more bombastic. Chuka Umunna, who defected from Labour (via Change UK) this summer, suggested that the party could win 200 MPs if it gets a 5% swing in the polls. When a party wins more than about a quarter of the vote, a deluge of seats follows, owing to the brutal logic of Britain’s first-past-the-post system.

Yet local politics can trump national swings. Remainers are clumped together in cities and Scotland, while the Leave vote is scattered throughout the country more evenly, making it easier for Brexit-supporting parties to pick up seats. A modest political headwind could blow the Lib Dems badly off course. Of the party’s 18 seats, only one—Orkney and Shetland—is truly safe. Instead the Lib Dems are inches from both death and glory. The next election could easily result in their best-ever result, or another dreadful one.

Article Continues...

 

[mormont]

Some blunt speaking from Michel Barnier:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49738897

Quote

The UK and EU "should not pretend to be negotiating" a Brexit deal if there are no new proposals on the table, the EU's chief negotiator has said.

Tactical, of course, but he's saying what we're all thinking. These 'negotiations' are window dressing.

Quote

He cast doubt on two ideas put forward by the UK - a single all-Ireland zone for agriculture and livestock and a Northern Irish veto over EU rules.

Am I reading this bit right? The UK government went to the EU and suggested that Stormont - a provincial assembly that hasn't met since January 2017 because the parties can't even agree to talk to each other about restarting their own government - should have a veto over 27 other countries with functioning governments?

[The Anti-Targ]

I can't imagine EU ever giving Northern Ireland a veto. So it seems like adding that into the mix means BoJo wanted the EU to knock it back,

[Gaston de Foix]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But there are illegal options, that if taken might have fall out for him and some others personally, but would not stop no deal Brexit from happening.

Seems insane that someone can act unlawfully and end up sealing the fate of the whole country, especially in the face of all evidence that suggest only a minority (possibly a tiny minority) of the people and certainly a minority of MPs actually want that outcome.

The legislation binding BoJo to an extension should have put a nuclear option in that would automatically trigger withdrawal of Art 50 if Bojo had not unequivocally sought an extension if a deal was not presented to and passed by parliament by 15 October, or whenever. Clearly Bojo assured destruction is the only incentive that will cause Bojo to do what is required of him.

"Article 50 is hereby withdrawn on 30 October 2019 unless..." or something like that.

Probably too many cowards in parliament to put in the nuclear option.

I wouldn't worry.  If Boris refuses to comply with the terms of the Act (and he will be doing so contrary to advice from government legal advisers), the Courts will swiftly direct others (eg the cabinet secretary) to do so in a timely manner.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Just for today, there's no paywall on the FT. If this one is true, it's VERY damning for Boris Gump (sorry, trying to come up with new names than BJ that can still show my disdain for him - still quite fond of "The Incredible Sulk", it's just a bit long) https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-d9b7-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17?
 

Elsewhere; Labour don't want to hear from their student wing (too moderate, according to Momentum): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/labour-purges-its-student-wing-ahead-of-party-conference
 

Whilst Labour's Brexit stance is... to stay put on that fence:
A] Negotiate a new (customs union) deal with the EU
B] 3rd referendum
C] To remain neutral in that debate

It's apparently up for debate in their conference; but that seems to be the position agreed between Corbyn and the National Executive Committee:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/corbyn-vows-to-put-sensible-brexit-deal-to-voters-in-referendum

First bit hardly news. And again, the key bit is, Johnson isn't getting any deal passed by Westminster. He is a dumbed down version of May with a penis (which seems to be important, because a manly PM would make the EU bend over backwards). That he is a impotent (couldn't resist to stay in that imagery, sorry) as his predecessor power wise is also not news, and the reason why the Tory leadership contest was a aste of everybody's time, and time was/is pretty precious good wrt the Brexit process. I'll leave it to our resident Tories to come up with a justification for it.

Second bit. Purges are just the thing British major parties do these days. Johnson in parliament, Corbyn within the Labour party.

The third bit is peak Corbyn and what sort of nonsense Labour's position is on Brexit.

A.) is blatant nonsense, as in he won't get the sorta deal that keeps everybody happy (the benefits of the SM membership for remainers) with reduced obligations (for the Leavers). And it's  a pretty obvious attempt to avoid campaigning for

B.) The second Referendum on Brexit, because that would annoy the mythical Labour Leave voters he needs, however this in combination with

C.) will further annoy and alienate remain voters and is really peak Jeezer. And it also has the benefit that the mythical Leave voters he is after will consider him equally untrustworthy. So a policy that pisses off the many not the few.

This one and the Labour Student purge I'll leave to @The Marquis de Leech to justify and to try to portray it as sensible (I'll settle for reasonable) policy positions.

8 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

And the Lib Dems in the middle only need a 5% swing to hit the magic 25% which converts from being a good showing at the polls, to being a hundred+ MPs under the insanity of FPTP - Their Brexit stance is a principalled, but dangerous strategy though: https://www.economist.com/news/2019/09/17/the-liberal-democrats-bet-on-a-vow-to-overturn-the-brexit-referendum

The LibDems have created a tactical mess of their own recently. At least that's what I think. Their announcement that they'd like to just revoke article 50 was not particularly clever. While Labour's lack of a clear logical positon on what they really want (I am assuming our Leech lord has not managed to put together a sensible defense of the indefensible), the LibDems went to the other extreme. What voters are they exactly after? They already have the remainiest of the remain party credentials. So I really don't get the point of opening themselves up for that "ignoring the referendum" line of attacks.

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Some blunt speaking from Michel Barnier:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49738897

Tactical, of course, but he's saying what we're all thinking. These 'negotiations' are window dressing.

Am I reading this bit right? The UK government went to the EU and suggested that Stormont - a provincial assembly that hasn't met since January 2017 because the parties can't even agree to talk to each other about restarting their own government - should have a veto over 27 other countries with functioning governments?

Yes, I think credit has to go to Varadkar. He was the first to put down Johnson publicly during their joint press conference, and has given a good example which other EU leaders now seem to be following, starting with Bettel. I can only imagine the screams of outrage pouring out of the Sun.

[A wilding]

20 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I can only imagine the screams of outrage pouring out of the Sun.

Right now the Sun seems to be busy trying to distract us by trampling on some people's private lives:

Ben Stokes describes Sun story about family as 'immoral and heartless'

Gareth Thomas: Journalist 'told rugby player's parents of HIV'

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yes, I think credit has to go to Varadkar. He was the first to put down Johnson publicly during their joint press conference, and has given a good example which other EU leaders now seem to be following, starting with Bettel. I can only imagine the screams of outrage pouring out of the Sun.

The EU are only speaking bluntly, while Farage and his cronies have been openly and obnoxiously attacking the EU in the European Parliament.  They have for a long time being damaging the national interest through their boorishness.