No announcement yet.

The battle of Brexit!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    If there is no deal come Oct end, BJ has to ask for an extension.
    He can always refuse to do it anyway, stalling to the point of no return. He'd be in breach of British law of course, but the UK would then still be out of the EU - and whether the UK gets its inner affairs sorted is their problem.


    • Originally posted by kato View Post
      He can always refuse to do it anyway, stalling to the point of no return. He'd be in breach of British law of course, but the UK would then still be out of the EU - and whether the UK gets its inner affairs sorted is their problem.
      Leaving the EU is the only problem, bumpy ride afterwards yeh, but then prosperity without having its pockets pinched


      • If the PM does not obey the law he must resign and face trial.


        • Originally posted by snapper View Post
          If the PM does not obey the law he must resign and face trial.
          Unlike third rate countries the UK is a law abiding rules based Democracy. The law applies to everybody that flouts it, including the tin pot politicians that think democracy is just in books and can be ignored when convenient!


          • Originally posted by Freyr View Post
            the UK is a law abiding rules based Democracy.
            The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Parliament and government - not just in the UK, but all 16 Commonwealth realms - exercise their power only on behalf of the Queen.


            • Originally posted by kato View Post
              He can always refuse to do it anyway, stalling to the point of no return. He'd be in breach of British law of course, but the UK would then still be out of the EU - and whether the UK gets its inner affairs sorted is their problem.
              Courts can't block it and make him get the extension ? there is no stalling to the point of no return

              Otherwise there is no consent.

              UK has to consent to leave the EU.

              Bill passed by both houses means its law and the courts have to uphold that law.

              From an Indian pov courts step in when the govt is weak and BJ's is a minority govt.

              Courts are less likely to intervene when there is a strong majority.

              Will of the people and all that.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 19,, 03:32.


              • The whole fiasco reminds me of the January 16th 2014 'Dictatorship laws' that Yanukovych had no chance of enforcing here.


                • Originally posted by kato View Post
                  The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Parliament and government - not just in the UK, but all 16 Commonwealth realms - exercise their power only on behalf of the Queen.
                  or 'The Boss'


                  • No deal Brexit will devastate Spain, warns UK before showdown with Barnier


                    The EU is not ready for a no deal Brexit, Stephen Barclay said before warning a disorderly British withdrawal from the EU would destroy Spain’s tourism and fishing industries, cripple its exports, and damage its economy.

                    “I am surprised to hear the European Commission claim that the EU is fully prepared,” Mr Barclay said before warning Britain would leave the bloc on October 31 without a deal unless the EU tore up the Irish border backstop.

                    Spanish sherry, manchego cheese and cava would lose EU protection that prevents competitors from other regions using their celebrated names, Mr Barclay told an audience of Spanish businessmen in Madrid.

                    The commission’s insistence that no deal would mean restrictions on data sharing would have ramifications on the 45 million flights from the UK to Spain every year and hit unprepared small to medium sized businesses.

                    Spanish fishermen would lose access to British waters, Mr Barclay said. Delays at Calais would risk Spanish freight carrying lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers and raspberries, which is worth half a billion pounds a year, he added.

                    The Brexit Secretary will meet with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, in Brussels tomorrow for talks over the backstop. The EU insists that the backstop is the only solution on the table to prevent the need for customs checks on the Irish border after Brexit.

                    The commission admits that a no deal Brexit will harm the EU but adds it will damage Britain far more. When Mr Barclay made similar no deal threats about Ireland, EU sources said it hardened support for the backstop.

                    Mr Barclay said the backstop “had to go” because it was “a politically impossible ask” in the UK.

                    “The EU risks continuing to insist on a test that the UK cannot meet and that the UK Parliament has rejected three times,” he said, "What we need now is a genuine negotiation with creative and flexible solutions from both sides.”

                    He attacked the European Commission for a lack of pragmatism in talks over technical solutions to keep the border invisible. Brussels insists they are not developed enough to remove the need for border infrastructure yet.

                    “A refusal by the Commission to accept any risk would be a failure of statecraft and put at risk the future relationship of the UK and the EU because of a lack of flexibility, creativity and indeed pragmatism,” Mr Barclay said.

                    A European Commission spokeswoman said the EU was prepared for a no deal Brexit.

                    “We are not entering into the blame game,” she said, “Our role is to be constructive and to move forward the negotiations and to make progress so as to allow reaching the joint aim of having a deal and a Brexit on the basis of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement.”

                    She added, “Great leaders reach deals.”

                    Britain has submitted written proposals for alternatives to the Irish border backstop, the European Commission confirmed after Jean-Claude Juncker repeated long-standing EU demands for “concrete proposals” in writing yesterday.

                    A commission spokeswoman refused to say if the papers qualifed as “concrete proposals”.

                    'We have now shared in written form a series of confidential technical non-papers which reflect the ideas the UK has been putting forward,” a UK government spokesman said.

                    “We will table formal written solutions when we are ready, not according to an artificial deadline, and when the EU is clear that it will engage constructively on them as a replacement to the backstop,” the spokesman added.

                    British refusals to hand over documents outlining UK plans for a combination of an-all-Ireland food standards zone with technical solutions for the border led to suspicions Boris Johnson was trying to force a no deal Brexit.

                    UK and EU officials will hold technical talks in Brussels today before Stephen Barclay holds political level talks with Michel Barnier on Friday, amid signs the negotiations are intensifying ahead of the no deal deadline.

                    Mr Barclay’s speech will be seen in Brussels as an attempt to get EU member states like Spain to put pressure on the commission to compromise over the backstop.

                    Mr Barnier warned yesterday that nobody should underestimate the consequences of a no deal Brexit, which would be serious for the EU but particularly so for Britain in a speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

                    MEPs later passed a resolution saying the parliament would never back an agreement with Britain that did not include the backstop and that any no deal Brexit would be entirely the UK’s fault.


                    • I’m sick of explaining the real Brexit story to ill-informed foreigners

                      Vanishingly few outside these islands have ever been exposed to the Leave point of view.

                      “You Brits are crazy!” I’d only been in America for half an hour, but the conversation with my cab driver had already turned to Brexit. “Why do you say that?”, I asked, genuinely curious. He paused for a few seconds, obviously thinking hard. And then, finally, he gave me his answer: “Well, that’s what I read”.

                      It’s a privilege to travel a lot for work, and it seems spoiled to complain. But wherever I go – from the Middle East, to the US, Asia and, of course, throughout the EU – people overwhelmingly parrot the narrative peddled by Remainers: that Brexit is a catastrophic own goal, that Boris Johnson is an "Anglo-Trump", that Britain is somehow “withdrawing from the world”.

                      And some make the lazy – or rather, ignorant and insulting – assumption that Leave voters are far-right, nativist, uneducated racists.

                      I suppose I should be flattered that they then assume that I must be a Remainer. Their shock when I tell them that I voted Leave is palpable, like they’re thinking “Wow, you don’t look like a fascist, but maybe you’re just hiding it well”.

                      Why do they think this way? Perhaps few of them have visited the UK recently, or spoken to many British people? No, their own media are feeding this hysteria and pessimism about Brexit. A one-sided Remain narrative has wormed its way across borders and oceans, like some hideous EU directive, to become received wisdom around the world. Vanishingly few outside these islands have ever been exposed to the Leave point of view.

                      Take France. Rarely do the French media look for British commentators to provide a Brexit explanation. Much of the discussion involves one French pontificator versus another, talking in circles, with Boris Johnson almost unanimously written off as a pathetic clown. The indecision in London proves to the French, in the words of the American journalist, Anglophile and Bordeaux resident, Michael Johnson, “that the British are an egotistical, unhinged, indecisive, even childish people suffering from island fever, and who must be made to pay for three years of selfish posturing.”

                      This is a global trend. The New York Times, too, has been responsible for a raft of petty and ignorant reports on Brexit Britain, with tales of panicking citizens hoarding candles and loo roll en masse and even the bizarre claim that the British culinary palate only recently evolved beyond "porridge and boiled mutton". The Prime Minister, who, as Leavers understand all too well, is merely striving to uphold the democratic choice of the British people, is, in the eyes of nearly every non-Brit I talk to, responsible for a coup. (I wonder where they got that from?)

                      Johnson is also, according to one Eastern European acquaintance, a far-right, illiberal authoritarian, whose obvious soul-mate is Donald Trump. How he squares that with Johnson’s liberal, pro-immigration, pro-LGBT sentiments is beyond me. And the mere act of voting Leave is, I’m told, causing unprecedented and catastrophic economic self-harm. (Oh really? The last time I checked, our economy was ticking along just nicely).

                      So, as a dutiful Leave-supporting Brit, I make it my business to put these people right on a few things. I point out, for example, that 17.4 million people voted Leave in the biggest democratic exercise in British history, drawn from all parts of society, regions and age groups. Amazingly, many foreign nationals seem shocked by this.

                      I explain that three and a half years after taking the decision to leave the EU, Britain’s Remain elite has prevented it from happening. Far from withdrawing from the international stage, I say, we are as keen as mustard to sign trade agreements with countries all over the world. Brexit isn’t about insularity, but a demonstration of our desire to do business globally, unencumbered by the lumbering bureaucracy of the EU. I point out that just about the only thing Boris and Donald have in common is hair colour.

                      Then I come to the punchline – that Brexit is, at its core, about who makes the laws under which we live. Should it be our elected government, or a pseudo-democracy, accountable to the powerful and not the people?

                      “Oh, okay, I didn’t know that side of it”, people typically say, with a sheepish look.

                      That other countries have such a one-sided, blinkered view of Brexit shows the power of the Remain establishment. Its influence has spread all over the world, ramping up the pressure on the PM and giving succour to those in the EU determined to make Britain reverse its democratic choice or pay mightily for its sheer nerve in choosing out.

                      In fact, in my recent experience, only non-EU Switzerland seems properly to understand the Leave agenda. As a client in Zurich remarked to me just a few weeks ago: “The key thing about the EU is never to join in the first place”.



                      • Unanimous (11 Judges) decision today by the UK Supreme Court;

                        1. The issue is justicable; overturning the decision of the English Court.
                        2. The PMs advise to the Queen was unlawful.
                        3. As the advise was unlawful all procedures following were also unlawfully.
                        4. Parliament was never prorogued and is in effect still in session.

                        Summary of the decision:

                        Full Judgement;

                        In effect MPs can immediately return to the House.


                        • Counting down to Brexiteer attacks on 'unelected judges' or something similar. Weeks of mainlining propaganda is a poor preparation for meeting the reality bus head on.

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C


                          • Certainly a remarkably strong and clear limit set on the constitutional power of the executive as opposed to that of Parliament as a whole. Essentially the court is saying it was unlawful as it hampered "without reasonable justification" Parliaments constitutional role of oversight. I could see further cases brought when an election is called etc...

                            Apparently the Speaker is having 'urgent consultations' with Party leaders as to when Parliament returns though by law MPs could return now - if the Speaker were present.

                            What happens next? I should imagine Dominic Cummings get's fired and people call for Johnson's resignation. The point was the whole proroguation was un-necessary in the first place. Johnson or any PM is now bound by the Hilary Benn act to ask for an extension on October 19 if no new agreement is agreed by Parliament by that time. Why prorogue Parliament? It was a gamble to stop legislation being passed and has backfired spectacularly. The strategy stings of Cummings and has been rebounded disastrously.

                            There is a possibility that the Government might try to vote 'no confidence' in itself in order to trigger an election. Nothing of the sort has happened before as far as I know but they could get some Labour MPs to agree with them - which they would need as they have lost their majority. Alternatively a 'national government' could be formed with expelled Tories/LibDems/SNP/and some moderate Labour Party MPs. One question is who would lead such a Government and many would refuse to serve in a Corbyn Government. In theory any MP could lead it and Ken Clarke (the former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer and 'Father of the House' - longest serving MP - has been suggested). Such a new Government with a majority could in theory pass the legislation for a second referendum or even just revoke Article 50 outright thereby cancelling Brexit.

                            The Speaker just said that the House of Commons will sit tomorrow.


                            • 11 remain judges vote against the prorogation of parliament when they had no legal basis to do so. No surprise there I guess. More meddling to come no doubt by the Est

                              An election is required as soon as possible, reconfirm the Brexit vote which looking at the European elections should put to bed Jo Swinson and her dreams of becoming Führer von Großbritannien


                              • Their Lords and Ladyships made very clear in their judgement that their decision was nothing to do with whether the UK leaves the EU or not but strictly regarding the constitutional rights of Parliament and the use of the proroguement - which is a Royal prerogative advised by the PM. If the PM unlawfully advises the Queen to prorogue Parliament to curtail or inhibit Parliament's constitutional duty of oversight and making laws then the PMs advise is illegal and the prorogument null and void as ownership of stolen goods is. Nothing to do with Brexit whatsoever except that Johnson wants a no deal Brexit so illegally prorogued Parliament to stop them blocking him - which he failed to do anyway. It was the Government that forced the Courts to intervene by attempting to limiting the sovereignty of Parliament to the whim of the PM.