Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
P.J. Denyer said:
I disagree, if a salesman or advertiser deliberately misleads you and you buy a product based on features you were assured it had, but mislead you have cause for redress. We have advertising standards for a reason. It's shocking that politicians who will run the country are held to a lower standard than car salesmen.
Click to expand...
Given that Bobby suffers from libertarianism he'll likely say it was your fault for believing the claims.
:rolleyes:
 
Andrea Leadsom this morning: "The worst thing that could happen to me is I could walk out of here and get run over..."

The worst thing for her, yes.

It was also hilarious seeing her try to twist around the suggestion of a border in the Irish Sea by saying that we shouldn't do anything to jeopardise the UK's own internal market. Not like risking the Union breaking up, then?
 
The Don said:
One of the key drivers for Brexit was opposition to (non-white) immigration.

One of the things that inflated non-EU immigration was non-EU students staying after their course was complete. To counter this Theresa May's government introduced rules to prevent this.

The current government is proposing to reverse this (though that's probably a moot point given prorogation) and allow students to stay on for up to two years to find a job.

Personally I don't have a problem with this, but it's interesting that we;re taking control of our borders and non-EU immigration by proposing to open things up:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49655719

If Migration Watch aren't keen then I'd think it's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
ohms said:
Breaking news: In Scotland, the Court of Session rules proroguing Parliament was unlawful. Now it goes to the UK Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Now that's interesting. :thumbsup::)

ETA: I see BoJo is refusing to recall parliament to debate the decision.
UKSC hearing is on Tuesday next, decision probably in about two weeks.

Decision based not on usual judicial review but because the prorogation was intended to "stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive".

Lord Drummond Young's comments, that "the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised" is interesting.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Andrea Leadsom this morning: "The worst thing that could happen to me is I could walk out of here and get run over..."

The worst thing for her, yes.

It was also hilarious seeing her try to twist around the suggestion of a border in the Irish Sea by saying that we shouldn't do anything to jeopardise the UK's own internal market. Not like risking the Union breaking up, then?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute,.... does this mean leaving the EU could be bad for trade?

Has Boris been informed of this???!?!? :O
 
Number 10 has refused to enter an election pact with the Brexit Party

Boris Johnson will not make an election pact with Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, Downing Street has said.

Mr Farage said his party and the Conservatives should make a deal and "together we would be unstoppable".

Two newspaper adverts set out his offer to help "secure a big Brexit majority" and to "destroy Corbyn's Labour".

But a senior Conservative source said Mr Farage was "not a fit and proper person" and "should never be allowed anywhere near government".
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49665789

Given how truthful Boris Johnson has been throughout his entire career, I think this means they are actively pursuing an electoral pact with the Brexit Party. :rolleyes:
 
Darat said:
Very surprised if this isn't rejected by the Supreme Court, prorogation is a matter for parliament not the judiciary.
Click to expand...
The grounds for granting the review specifically state that it is not based on usual judicial review (which would have failed) but because the prorogation was intended to "stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive". It has good legal lineage.

ETA: The English courts decision has been released in full (24 pages, link). That court ruled that the prorogation was "non justiciable", i.e. outside the purview of the courts. Basically this placed the matter in the separation of power arena, political decisions or "matters of high policy".
The Scottish court actually agreed with this, but decided that this prorogation was an attempt to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.

ETA2: Here's the interesting bit in the Scottish decision:
It was incumbent on the government to show a valid reason for prorogation, having regard to the constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well well, Benn is calling for the invocation of the Meeting of Parliament Act of 1797 and a Royal Proclamation to summon parliament.

Even Dominic Grieve (former Conservative AG) has called on BoJo to drop the SC appeal and recall parliament immediately.

Two others (former Conservative AGs, David Gauke and David Lidington) are hitting out at BoJo's accusations of political bias by the Scottish judges.
Expect frantic back-peddling and denials soonest...
 
Apparently BoJo is going to stage one of his "People’s PMQs" on Facebook later today. Having managed to avoid the real thing by the prorogation.
This should be interesting...
@PeoplesPMQs
 
Tolls said:
Facebook?
How on earth are they planning on controlling that?
Click to expand...
Well last time the "questions" were carefully selected, some were dodged and the farce lasted ten minutes (which was pushing BoJo's attention span). DoCu was just off camera to prompt his master when needed. Though they still misquoted Pericles...
 
Yeah, the first one was all about selecting questions that allowed Johnson to parrot his usual talking points. So I'd imagine this one will be all about getting Brexit done, respecting the will of the people, etc. They'll probably throw in Cummings' line about the media only talking to the wealthy elite and ignoring the 'real people' who wants Brexit.
 
catsmate said:
The grounds for granting the review specifically state that it is not based on usual judicial review (which would have failed) but because the prorogation was intended to "stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive". It has good legal lineage.

ETA: The English courts decision has been released in full (24 pages, link). That court ruled that the prorogation was "non justiciable", i.e. outside the purview of the courts. Basically this placed the matter in the separation of power arena, political decisions or "matters of high policy".
The Scottish court actually agreed with this, but decided that this prorogation was an attempt to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.

ETA2: Here's the interesting bit in the Scottish decision:
Click to expand...
Alas, I am certain the matter dies not fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ but the irony of an appeal there by Boris would be wonderful.
 
Per the Guardian's live politics blog, the "People's PMQ" are more of the same, a chance for Johnson to repeat his usual talking points.

Edit: Some of the softballs being served up for him:
Q: How will you restore faith in politics?
Q: Can you confirm we will leave the EU on 31 October?
Q: Can you confirm the extra money for the NHS will involve real, extra spending?
Q: Are you planning to leave without a deal?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom