Brexit: The fallout

10,764 posts in this topic

It's strange when you think you need to look to Italian politics for a bit of sanity: two party leaders who dislike each other decide to put aside their differences in order to defeat a common enemy. In the UK, you've got party leaders who only care about how their party will look in a general election. Boris Johnson has everything he wants: groups of people to blame if/when everything goes wrong and the UK crashes out at the end of October (including bizarrely the EU for what he is describing as intransigence, and the people who want to block a deal who he can blame for "weakening his hand"...he does love to use analogies which suggest this is all a game). It's the classic: "I don't care about the outcome, I just want someone to blame"

So, it's a win win for him.

Also, was I the only one thinking how yesterday was a perfect example of how broken the UK's constitution really is? An MP elected by 23,000 in one constituency (of 70,000), subsequently elected party leader by 90 thousand members of his own party can decide to close Parliament for a country of 60 million people. No need to involve the Lords, the Privy Council was represented/advised by his school friend, and the f@cking monarch keeps her useless mouth shut as ever. Seriously, replacing her with a nice potted plant would be a huge improvement...in fact, even an ugly potted plant....or a pot (sorry...I'll keep the anti-royal rant for another day...)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dstanners said:

.. monarch keeps her useless mouth shut as ever. ..

 

She has no power to deny the request.

 

If you think about it "the Johnson" has been clever in that he has used a normal procedure of parliament which has been timed to perfection to prorogue parliament to allow him to achieve his aims.  Knowing that this is such a normal procedure that there are no constitutional ways to block it by the Queen, nor in the courts (only if it can be proved that he done this for another reason other than that stated, which unless he or somebody senior stated as such would be virtually impossible IMHO).

 

 

Also, if the Queen did intervene then I think that would be even more serious trouble.  Traditionally she is supposed to remain politically neutral, and if she acted in some way to favour one side or the other then she would be taking a side which I believe cause all the pro-brexiters to turn against her mean that constitutionally she would put herself and family as risk of being deposed.

The Queen does not have to like the decision her political leaders and people choose, but she does have to respect it.

 

The anti-brexiters might want the Queen to intervene, but I'm afraid that they are grasping at straws.  This will never happen.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPs pledge to form alternative parliament in case of prorogation

 

Quote

Boris Johnson has been described as a threat to the “very nature” of British democracy at a cross-party meeting where MPs agreed to form an alternative parliament in the event of the prime minister shutting down the existing one to make a no-deal Brexit happen.

 

In a symbolic gathering at Church House in Westminster, where MPs met during the second world war, Labour’s John McDonnell took to the stage alongside the former Conservative MP Anna Soubry as well as the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson, and Caroline Lucas of the Green party.

 

They signed the Church House declaration, which said shutting down parliament would be “an undemocratic outrage at such a crucial moment for our country, and a historic constitutional crisis”.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

The anti-brexiters might want the Queen to intervene, but I'm afraid that they are grasping at straws.  This will never happen.

Rees Mogg is the leader of HM's privy council, so there wouldn't be many straws to grasp...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wulfrun said:

 

 

And what would this achieve?

 

According to Question 8 here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49495575

 

 

Quote


Can Jeremy Corbyn hold an alternative parliament if the Queen has suspended Parliament?

 

Jeremy Corbyn can hold whatever meetings he likes," Ms White (of the Institute for Government) says.

"Any group of MPs can meet when Parliament isn't sitting, and can hold discussions and can choose to vote, but it won't have any constitutional significance.

"It doesn't actually do anything in legislative terms"

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

The anti-brexiters might want the Queen to intervene, but I'm afraid that they are grasping at straws.  This will never happen.

Yes, and that is precisely why she could/should be replaced by a pot (but I don't want to derail the Brexit thread onto an anti-royal one). 

 

As an aside, she would have been entitled to rely on the opinion of the Privy Council, but as @Wulfrun has mentioned, that was headed up by the never delightful Rees-Mogg. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

 

 

And what would this achieve?

 

According to Question 8 here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49495575

 

 

 

 

 

I think the idea of doing this is that normally when they return on 14/10 or whenever it is then the debate on Brexit would start,however by debating it in the recess they are hoping to get the debate out of the way allowing them to actually do something when they return.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, El Jeffo said:

 

Interesting post on that thread:

j2_twatter.JPG.3b72c7d2f22508cbec3cc3f27

 

Describes our j² to the T, doesn't it?

 

Pot meet kettle. 

 

18 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

I wonder how many of them are Russian bots.

 

You blathered on for the better part of 2 years about a Russian collusion conspiracy despite an absence of evidence.  

 

While you slavishly defend your sources as respectable, the end result is that you were played for a fool by the very people you wish to emulate.   Your critical thinking skills are lacking. 

 

Pathetic.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, balticus said:

Pot meet kettle. 

Off meet fuck.

 

2 hours ago, balticus said:

You blathered on for the better part of 2 years about a Russian collusion conspiracy despite an absence of evidence. 

"Absence of evidence", huh?

 

Russia's manipulation of Twitter was far vaster than believed

Exposing Russia’s Effort to Sow Discord Online: The Internet Research Agency and Advertisements

Russia 'meddled in all big social media' around US election

Russian 2016 Influence Operation Targeted African-Americans on Social Media

Russia Sought to Use Social Media to Influence E.U. Vote, Report Finds

Russian influencers thrived on Instagram after Facebook, Twitter caught on

Russian trolls fueled anti-vaccination debate in U.S. by spreading misinformation on Twitter, study finds

 

More alt-facts from alt-bicus - who, as we all know, is an Estonian female who just happens to have detailed knowledge of many U.S. governors, senators, and House members - and even some state senate representatives - and is not at all an American male who formerly posted as SA618 and sorcerers_apprentice. And I find it noteworthy that alt-bicus says I've been blathering on "for the better part of 2 years", even though "her" account was only created in November 2018.

 

Of course, if you subscribe to alt-bicus' theories and those of her emperor-god Trump (PBUH as the CHOSEN ONE), it's all the media (ALL THE MEDIA) that are lying.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dstanners said:

No need to involve the Lords, the Privy Council was represented/advised by his school friend, and the f@cking monarch keeps her useless mouth shut as ever. Seriously, replacing her with a nice potted plant would be a huge improvement...in fact, even an ugly potted plant...or a pot (sorry...I'll keep the anti-royal rant for another day...)

 

According to your profile you are British. Any self-respecting Brit should know full well that the Queen has no political power at all.

 

"Could the Queen have said no?

 

It would have been impossible for the Queen to turn down the prime minister's request, our royal correspondent Jonny Dymond writes. The Queen acts on the advice of her prime minister.

 

While many, many people may be upset that Parliament is not going to sit at such time, precedent is on the side of those making this decision. The idea is these things are settled in the Palace of Westminster, not Buckingham Palace.

BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell adds: "It is most unlikely we will ever get any authoritative insight into what the Queen thought about the prime minister's request.

"In theory there are areas, known as the 'royal prerogative' where the monarch does have discretion, but in practice that discretion is a fantasy."

 

"The UK has a head of state who has always followed precedent and observed the rock-solid convention that as a constitutional monarch she is bound to follow the formal advice of her prime minister."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49495575

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, White Rose of Yorkshire said:

According to your profile you are British. Any self-respecting Brit should know full well that the Queen has no political power at all.

True on both counts (although these days, I have dual nationality). My point was not that the Queen should have done something, but that the nominal checks and balances provided by the UK constitution (such as it is) are a farce, and there is absolutely no point in having a Queen. As I also mentioned though - that is probably a point better left for another topic.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dj_jay_smith said:

Knowing that this is such a normal procedure that there are no constitutional ways to block it by the Queen, nor in the courts (only if it can be proved that he done this for another reason other than that stated, which unless he or somebody senior stated as such would be virtually impossible IMHO).

 

Funny you should say that, given that Ben Wallace has managed to say the quiet part out loud:

What's the penalty for lying to the Queen?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, El Jeffo said:

What's the penalty for lying to the Queen?

 

Hopefully "Off with his head" :ph34r:

 

Boris-Hitler.jpg.fec6c7c629a862f8c6495fd

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

Off meet fuck.

 

You are consistently wrong and absolutely pathetic in your attempts to deflect to J2.   

 

 

2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

"Absence of evidence", huh?

 

The Mueller Report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.   Full Stop. 

 

The $100k spent on FB ads beginning in 2012 had no material impact on the outcome of the election.   You will note that your "evidence" makes no attempt to quantify the impact.  Considering that the Clinton campaign spent north of $1 billion, that $100k is nothing.    Your learning-by-rote education has not prepared you to think critically and see how absurd the talking points are that you continue repeating.

 

The Russians deep operations which prevented Hillary from visiting the midwest battleground states and  prompted her to reveal her contempt for the suffering working classes were very effective.  ;) 

 

2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

who just happens to have detailed knowledge of many U.S. governors, senators, and House members - and even some state senate representatives

 

A function of my job and the fact that US poltics are influential on world events.   Why is that surprising?   Just because you are poorly informed about the US and easily duped doesn't make you less American. 

2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

And I find it noteworthy that alt-bicus says I've been blathering on "for the better part of 2 years", even though "her" account was only created in November 2018.

 

 

Are you under the impression that people can only read the content that was posted after they created an account?   :rolleyes:

 

2 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

Of course, if you subscribe to alt-bicus' theories and those of her emperor-god Trump (PBUH as the CHOSEN ONE), it's all the media (ALL THE MEDIA) that are lying.

 

Whether someone likes the media or Trump or not does not change the fact that you have been consistently wrong and continue repeating nonsense long after it has been debunked. 

 

Pathetic. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, balticus said:

Whether someone likes the media or Trump or not does not change the fact that you have been consistently wrong and continue repeating nonsense long after it has been debunked. 

 

Offered without evidence and dismissed without evidence. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to get this back on track, I note that Gina Miller has put in an application for judicial review of Boris' decision. It's been over 20 years since I studied judicial review, but from what I recall I am not sure this has a huge chance. There was no procedural impropriety: whilst the rules are weak, he hasn't gone beyond his powers. Another key ground (admittedly from 20 years ago!) was irrationality/unreasonableness: but I seem to recall the bar was set much higher than the wording would suggest (something along the lines that "no reasonable person could have taken that action"). Strangely, I think the best chance might be the one which seems the toughest: the action is unlawful insofar as by his behaviour he has "fettered his discretion" or "surrendered his decision making responsibility".

Anyone else know/remember anything about Judicial Review?   

Oh, I also see Corbyn reckons he might squeeze some legislating in on Tuesday. That'd require significant help from both the Speaker and remain-minded politicians of all parties.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, murphaph said:

The speaker would surely be minded to assist given his comments yesterday.

We were supposed to have a second referendum but due to BoJos incompetence, the courts will probably revoke Article50.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RenegadeFurther said:

We were supposed to have a second referendum but due to BoJos incompetence, the courts will probably revoke Article50.

2nd referendum when? I don't think the courts can revoke article 50, that has to be done through Parliament.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now