Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Katsumoto]

Speaking of people who don't know what they're talking about...

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.

https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-...b-77216ebe1f17

[ioannis76]

No, it's to point out your ignorance of the UK's constitutional arrangements.

Please explain to me how the UK's constitutional arrangements include reversing a perfectly legitimate referendum. I am all too eager to learn.

[TheLeft]

Please explain to me how the UK's constitutional arrangements include reversing an advisory referendum. I am all too eager to learn.

Sure thing. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

[Elmetiacos]

Please explain to me how the UK's constitutional arrangements include reversing a perfectly legitimate referendum. I am all too eager to learn.

This, or any, referendum has no special status in UK law. It was held according to an Act of Parliament which even said (as The Left says above) that it was "advisory". David Cameron or any of his successors could have said they didn't like the result and ignored it. Of coure politically that would have been madness, but constitutionally it would have been fine: the UK is not a republic and has no doctrine of popular sovereignty.

[Cope]

Speaking of people who don't know what they're talking about...


https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-...b-77216ebe1f17

This excerpt was doing the rounds in the Guardian comments section where, naturally, it was being treated as the gospel according to Mark. I was wondering how long it was going to be until it turned up here.
.

[mongrel]

I've finally seen the document, having been wondering why it was "worst case" planning. I have been curious as to what variables are in play which cause the scenario to be described as "worst case" rather than "likeliest case" or "reasonable assumption" and there are basically none. To me "worst case" would be everything in Yellowhammer and then for example, there happens to be an air traffic controllers' strike, or a major terrorist incident or something like that, happening at the same time. That's what "wost case" means to me, something horrible which is unlikely but possible being factored in. Everything which is in the document is simply the most probable scenario. All talk of "worst case" is the government lying again, as it was caught doing when the document was leaked initially.

And you would be perfectly correct. The original is already in public domain thanks to the leak, it was named as a base document and the only major difference is the redaction of point 15 , rather pointless as the original was already reported upon. Moreover we know that the port scenario is not a worst case one as further leaked papers make the presumption that at Holyhead, Liverpool, Portsmouth and Heysham, 2/3rd of lorries will be turned away for lack of proper papers ( worst case would obviously be none).At Dover they would probably waive lorries through, so if you are a drugs smuggler or trader in illegal migrants 1 November will be your birthday.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/go...-brexit-628520


https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-...b-77216ebe1f17

If Boris truly understood the situation he would have asked 'Time to scrap it and start again? '.

The Oct 31st deadline makes no policy sense, unless the real issue for him is the anti-tax avoidance directive about to land in January.

[caratacus]

This whole Supreme Court hearing is a complete fiasco. The Queen’s court adjudicating whether the Queen’s government was or was not right in the prorogation of parliament for a matter of days!

I really cannot believe what i was hearing today. The debate at one point centred around whether the Government had acted in good faith and with just intention.

Now I admittedly only have a basic understanding of English law, but this seemed utterly ridiculous to anyone who has. In law you either break a law or you don't, motive doesn't come into it. For a senior Scottish QC like Aidan O’Neil, to actually be suggesting that the court consider this as evidence against prorogation is bizarre. Truth is this is a political matter not a legal one, there are no laws that the government broke, and this whole legal challenge is a complete waste of taxpayers money.

Supreme Court: Prorogation carried out 'in bad faith', judges told
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49735947
he PM's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks was carried out "in bad faith", the Supreme Court has heard. Scottish judges ruled the move unlawful, but the government is appealing, arguing it is a political judgement, not a matter for the courts.

Defending the ruling, Aidan O'Neill QC said people expected the government to engage "solely in high politics rather than low, dishonest, dirty tricks".

Apparently all Scottish polliticians must be paragons of virtue according to the learned QC.

[Daruwind]

whether the Queen’s government was or was not right in the prorogation of parliament for a matter of days!

I really cannot believe what i was hearing today. The debate at one point centred around whether the Government had acted in good faith and with just intention.

Now I admittedly only have a basic understanding of English law, but this seemed utterly ridiculous to anyone who has. In law you either break a law or you don't, motive doesn't come into it.

Motive is often important. Google for example difference between manslaughter and murder..motive and circumstances are always important And same can be said about reason for prorogation of parliament especially before such important days as brxit date definitely is..

[caratacus]

Motive is often important. Google for example difference between manslaughter and murder..motive and circumstances are always important And same can be said about reason for prorogation of parliament especially before such important days as brxit date definitely is..

Murder is against the law, motive assists in finding who is guilty or what charge is made, not in deciding whether a crime has been committed. If you get a speeding ticket, it doesn't matter whether you were looking at the speedometer with your foot down or were distracted , you still committed an offence and are liable for punishment. An argument can be made an justified that prorogation of parliament was inproper, but the fact remains it wasn't against constitutional law solely on the basis of that alone.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Now I admittedly only have a basic understanding of English law, but this seemed utterly ridiculous to anyone who has. In law you either break a law or you don't, motive doesn't come into it. For a senior Scottish QC like Aidan O’Neil, to actually be suggesting that the court consider this as evidence against prorogation is bizarre. Truth is this is a political matter not a legal one, there are no laws that the government broke, and this whole legal challenge is a complete waste of taxpayers money.

It's Scottish law that is being used and analysed when the Scottish case is being considered (as there are essentially two concurrent cases being dealt with- One the Government appeal against Scottish High Court ruling and the other Gina Miller's appeal against the English High Court ruling). It's important to note that Scottish law is significantly different from English law (essentially it's broader, far more detailed and takes into account a lot more in laymens terms- hence in criminal court Scots have innocent, guilty and unproven as the three valid verdicts- unproven essentially leaves the person out of prison, but with a ruined life as its a 'we know you did it, but can't conclusively say'- its arguably considered far more 'unbias' than English law currently stands due to the firmer separation of the political and legal up t'North, though this is a historical argument that is essentially on-going, with much legal willy waving from both sides). With that in mind though the prorouging issue gets both far more complex and interesting.

What does seem to be happening is that the Government have shifted their expectation of the ruling according to Cabinet leaks- they now expect that while the Supreme Court (using the Scottish legal framework) will allow proroguing currently, it will also more than likely decide that yes this is a legal matter as well as political that they can rule on, and also fire a warning shot for future governments attempting to prorogue- either by a time limit, and certainly they will not allow it to happen again (As Boris seems to want to keep the option open from his interview earlier with Kunesburg). This essentially allows both sides to claim a 'victory' of sorts- as this prorouging is allowed, but doing it again will not be taken kindly by the justice system.

It also might be important to point out that essentially the proroguing issue is rather moot at this point. The Government did it to partly/mostly (depending on which side you believe) to prevent Parliament from stopping the pursuit of a no-deal, but the Opposition managed to ram through legislation to that effect far faster than Boris and co had thought possible, so essentially the proroguing battle politically is over, the Government did it, but essentially lost the key reason why they wanted to do it, and things have moved on (we're already in Conference season).


(Source for the leaks- Kunessburg- arch remainer, arch brexiteer, Labour and Conservative Shill)

1. This is all very unpredictable, but if you are following Supreme Court case the expectation in govt might be shifting a bit

2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but...

3. Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else



4. Obviously has implications for what Johnson may be able to do next - remember in our interview this week he didn’t rule out trying prorogation again

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...80844124590080

[ioannis76]

Sure thing. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

So are most countries, but referenda are the highest form of the expression of the people. They are, in fact, the only link between the original concept of democracy and the current state of, well, oligarchy.

But the way you guys are depicting it, Cameron pretty much resigned for nothing.
Amd since the referendum was merely on an advisory note, why scream for a second one?
The funny thing is, as Corbyn suggests it, the UK voters will practically have a choice between Remain and Remain. Looks like the cunning Labour Party is trying to load the dice beforehand, fearing that the outcome is going to be even more of a slap in the face than the previous one. Bah, I always knew that those sneaky socialists are truly pro-EU in all countries.

[Daruwind]

by the was MEPs voted today overwhelmingly to support article 50 extension incase Uk ask for it.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/18/...-on-article-50
Of course final saying has EU Commision but this might be good indication of mood.

plus look like UK negotiators are holding back any serious offer,draft just to keep it safe till last possible moment. That´s confidence into own work...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-sources-admit

[Elmetiacos]

So are most countries, but referenda are the highest form of the expression of the people. They are, in fact, the only link between the original concept of democracy and the current state of, well, oligarchy.

All very true, but irrelevant to questions of the British Constitution. The UK is not a republic.

But the way you guys are depicting it, Cameron pretty much resigned for nothing.
Amd since the referendum was merely on an advisory note, why scream for a second one?

For political reasons, obviously.

The funny thing is, as Corbyn suggests it, the UK voters will practically have a choice between Remain and Remain. Looks like the cunning Labour Party is trying to load the dice beforehand, fearing that the outcome is going to be even more of a slap in the face than the previous one. Bah, I always knew that those sneaky socialists are truly pro-EU in all countries.

That's sort of what would happen, but Labour Remainers are moaning at Corbyn because he isn't being Remainy enough, politically naive as they always are... if Labour won an election (they probably won't) Corbyn will be off to Brussels to negotiate some softer Brexit. Whatever he comes back with, the referendum will overwhelmingly reject it for the simple reason that Leave is still primarily the cause of the Right, who will be divided between those wanting out of the EU at all costs (even a Norway deal) and those wanting to vote against whatever a Labour government is voting for. These people will greatly outnumber Remainers on the Left who would switch to Leave out of party loyalty.

[Daruwind]

So Bojo is withholding any deal plans to keep it secret and prevent public/press/everyone from finding holes and problems...except now EU gave Bojo two weeks to come with written text. Else it is game over (at least for any deal)..So his plans to present his ofer at the last possible time are probably off table.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-checks-brexit

France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, and Finland’s prime minister, Antti Rinne, told reporters in Paris that they were both “concerned about what is happening in Britain”.

“We need to know what the UK is proposing,” said Rinne, whose country currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency. “Loose talk about proposals for negotiations is irresponsible … The UK should make its possible own proposals very soon if they would like them to be discussed.”

Rinne said: “We both agreed that it is now time for Boris Johnson to produce his own proposals in writing – if they exist. If no proposals are received by the end of September, then it’s over.”

A deadline of 30 September would be highly problematic for the prime minister as it falls on the eve of the Conservative party conference, and it remains to be seen whether the EU will stick to the threat.

[caratacus]

It's Scottish law that is being used and analysed when the Scottish case is being considered (as there are essentially two concurrent cases being dealt with- One the Government appeal against Scottish High Court ruling and the other Gina Miller's appeal against the English High Court ruling). It's important to note that Scottish law is significantly different from English law (essentially it's broader, far more detailed and takes into account a lot more in laymens terms- hence in criminal court Scots have innocent, guilty and unproven as the three valid verdicts- unproven essentially leaves the person out of prison, but with a ruined life as its a 'we know you did it, but can't conclusively say'- its arguably considered far more 'unbias' than English law currently stands due to the firmer separation of the political and legal up t'North, though this is a historical argument that is essentially on-going, with much legal willy waving from both sides). With that in mind though the prorouging issue gets both far more complex and interesting.

I'm aware that Scottish Law differs markedly from English Law, I think it is based on Roman Law. But such difference don't detract from there being no specific law on prorogation. Why should Scottish law frame constitutional precedent for a British parliament. It is a political matter not a legal one. If MPs consider the present procedures to be unsatisfactory they can legislate to change them. By dragging the courts into it, you are not only serving the purposes of destabilising government, you are undermining the Union by highlight an inherent conflict between two separate legal systems interpretation of the law.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I'm aware that Scottish Law differs markedly from English Law, I think it is based on Roman Law. But such difference don't detract from there being no specific law on prorogation. Why should Scottish law frame constitutional precedent for a British parliament. It is a political matter not a legal one. If MPs consider the present procedures to be unsatisfactory they can legislate to change them. By dragging the courts into it, you are not only serving the purposes of destabilising government, you are undermining the Union by highlight an inherent conflict between two separate legal systems interpretation of the law.

Interesting about Roman law, i didn't know that and spot on in terms of the two legal systems being in conflict currently, and moreover the political capital any ruling will generate for the SNP (as if they needed anymore, Independence alas is now firmly on the agenda again as the large swing in support for a second Scottish referendum creates new complications), but my point was more that the Supreme Court are considering it within a Scottish legal framework (as that is where the ruling was mode), not an English one as you originally said. Also i know Ep1c_Fail spoke about this, so he could probably put his argument into better words than i could, but while the Supreme Court is ruling overall- potentially considering there are two legal cases concurrently going ahead, using two different legal frameworks as i understand it- it means (that according to the FT at least) we could end up with prorogation being deemed illegal in Scotland, and legal in England- in this case the negative overrides and thus for the whole UK prorogation is illegal.

However as said, the leaks kind of show that the Government is not expecting that- instead the ruling will allow prorogation to stand for now (as its technically a non-issue, the reason mostly/partly for it of stopping Parliament passing the anti-no deal legislation totally failed), however with the warning shot that the Government cannot do it again soon, or when they feel like it without due reason essentially allowing both sides to claim victory.

So essentially Scottish law but also English law both in the current system have the potential to frame British constitutional precedent, pending reform of how the United Kingdom works. It's rather odd and dangerous to the Unions stability when the two nations and legal frameworks are at odds- but that is the wider issue when its clear Scottish interests and rUK interests (to put it generally) have been steadily drifting apart since the end of the joint imperial project, without a new constitutional structure (or the completion of Blair's currently shoddy and half done reforms to the UK constitutional structure) the drift will continue as these incidents keep cropping up. A big one brewing (though also a rather sporadic one over the past few decades) is North Sea oil and the potential to extend the shelf (Plus Arctic and Antarctic claims) as ownership of these is in conflict between Scotland and rUK and both have very different attitudes currently (and for the foreseeable future this will only get worse- The SNP, but also the Scottish Conservatives are now becoming more and more separated from Westminster in their outlooks- Scottish Labour currently are pro-Corbyn but its not exactly going well, and the Lib-dems are pretty united as a Unionist grou, but the political strains are growing.

[Ludicus]

the Supreme Court are considering it within a ...

Right, considering... it's a possibility. Nothing is immutable. Should democracy be afraid of second referendums? A second referendum on Scottish independence | The Institute for Government

The UK Government has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of authorising a second independence referendum. The Cabinet Office Minister, David Lidington, has said that the UK Government would not grant a Section 30 order, as there was “no evidence” that support for a referendum had increased.

In the UK, there is evidence that support for a second Brexit referendum has increased. Remain Would Win 55-45 In Second Referendum, Poll Shows - LBC
A second referendum wouldn't be undemocratic.The truth is, Brexiteers are terrified, truly scared of having a second referendum because better informed voters change their electoral behavior, and they know it. I quote again Rees-Mogg: "the problem with that is that would overturn the result we've already had". As someone before me has already said, that’s how democracy work.

They are, in fact, the only link between the original concept of democracy and the current state of, well, oligarchy.

Don't say... how ironic and inexplicable it is that you are a real admirer of EU's Mafia State- Orban's authoritarian illiberal democracy, the man who once said : "systems that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies, and perhaps not even democracies, can nevertheless make their nations successful".As we know, Hungary joined the EU before changing course and heading toward autocracy.
Hungarian minister grilled by EU about 'threats to rule of law' | Guardian

[Daruwind]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...oposals-secret

UK is asking Brussel to keep negotiation secret from EU27...

And one nice comment

Brussels insiders have always said there was never a 30-day deadline. “There’s only one real deadline and that’s 31 October,” one EU diplomat told the Guardian. “More worrying is that the last 30 days haven’t been put to any good use, [and neither] were the last couple of months. It doesn’t bode well about the intentions of this government for the last 30-odd days [of remaining talks]. Is the UK really happy to leave Europe without a deal?”

[ioannis76]

Don't say... how ironic and inexplicable it is that you are a real admirer of EU's Mafia State- Orban's authoritarian illiberal democracy, the man who once said : "systems that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies, and perhaps not even democracies, can nevertheless make their nations successful".As we know, Hungary joined the EU before changing course and heading toward autocracy.

To accept that Orban's policy on the refugee influx is sane policy, is not the same as being an authoritarian. For example, I would welcome referenda in all countries of the EU with the question of whether the citizens want to accept them or not. I doubt, though that the "democratic" EU would dare hold such referenda.
But it's really interesting that you chose to make a personal reference regarding my political views (mongrel touched upon the issue but avoided it quite intelligently) rather than answering. It's always so easy to say "you're a "fascist" so you have no right to make reference to anti-democratic practices of the EU". But imagine this: What sort of democratic principles does the EU uphold, when even a "fascist" can find grounds to call them antidemocratic?

[Ludicus]

It's always so easy to say "you're a "fascist" so you have no right to make reference to anti-democratic practices of the EU".

Not exactly. EU is not perfect, and the tragic Greece odyssey - long eight years of suffering- shows the flaws of the EU.But Hungary is now an autocracy, and "excels" in anti democratic practices.Guy Verhofstadt is right :"The EU is not perfect, but it's the best idea we've had so far".

What sort of democratic principles does the EU uphold, when even a "fascist" can find grounds to call them antidemocratic?

The EU values are: human dignity, freedom,democracy,equality, rule of law and human rights. A fascist hates democracy. Ask Mussolini or Hitler.According to Hitler, democracy undermined the natural selection of elites; fascist movements always criticized parliamentary democracy.Fascism always attacked cultural liberalism.

To accept that Orban's policy on the refugee influx is sane policy, is not the same as being an authoritarian.

Not exactly.As they say: "the more migrants that come, the more Christian values will be watered down".His far-right/anti-migrant rhetoric allows the control of the country in increasingly authoritarian fashion,under a Christian packaging, Pray Before You Tweet': Hungary Promotes 'Christian Communication ( pray before you tweet! ),but in the end the repression of liberalism is more important than any Christian virtues.

-------

UK is asking Brussel to keep negotiation secret from EU27...

It's a game of smoke and mirrors, isn't it, Boris?