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

[Dave Rogers]

A) how long would it take them if they tried to pass something as fast as possible?

A few days. The recent passing of the law requiring Boris to request an extension is an example of legislation passed as quickly as possible. The drawback, of course, is that laws passed in this much haste tend to be riddled with loopholes, which is why that law was so specific as to situations, dates and the exact wording of the letter that must be sent. Drafting a law for fundamental constitutional reform in such haste could be disastrous.

B) it would be a strategy sustainable only for 5 years? Then there would be an election?

It would be a strategy which might allow a hypothetical despotic government five years in which to dismantle the structures of democracy and engineer suitable circumstances in which to prevent an election indefinitely. A simple study of 20th century history shows that five years is more than enough to do all that.

C) we have the same inference. That is probability what happened. what you describe sounds like the will of parliament. Their prioritization and interpretation is on them.

Redefining concepts as their complete opposite is, of course, an option here; but if I hold a gun to your head and offer you the alternative of giving me all your possessions or shooting you dead, your choice to prioritise your survival over your possessions does not make it your will that I should have them.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Now it's straightforward taking the piss:

"Downing Street’s secrecy over its “underwhelming” Brexit proposals has caused a fresh rupture in the negotiations in Brussels.

The row centres on a demand that the EU’s negotiating team treat a long-awaited cache of documents outlining the UK’s latest ideas as “Her Majesty’s government property”.

The European commission team was told by Whitehall that the three “confidential” papers it had sent on Thursday evening should not be distributed to Brexit delegates representing the EU’s 27 other member states.

Sources in Brussels said that in response the point was being made forcefully to the British negotiating team that all proposals would need to be made available for the EU’s capitals to analyse for talks to progress." link

 

[Mojo]

Now it's straightforward taking the piss:

"Downing Street’s secrecy over its “underwhelming” Brexit proposals has caused a fresh rupture in the negotiations in Brussels.

The row centres on a demand that the EU’s negotiating team treat a long-awaited cache of documents outlining the UK’s latest ideas as “Her Majesty’s government property”.

The European commission team was told by Whitehall that the three “confidential” papers it had sent on Thursday evening should not be distributed to Brexit delegates representing the EU’s 27 other member states.

Sources in Brussels said that in response the point was being made forcefully to the British negotiating team that all proposals would need to be made available for the EU’s capitals to analyse for talks to progress." link

The proposals must be really embarrassingly pathetic.

 

[Nessie]

The proposals must be really embarrassingly pathetic.

Or, it is May's deal with a few word changes.

 

[Wudang]

Or, it is May's deal with a few word changes.

Or a massive misunderstanding of the phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Or a massive misunderstanding of the phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Or it contains so many schoolboy insults directed at previous Prime Ministers that publication would be libellous.

Dave

 

[Nessie]

Or it contains so many schoolboy insults directed at previous Prime Ministers that publication would be libellous.

Dave

Or it was written in crayon and the EU want it typed.

 

[Tolls]

Or all of the above...

 

[BobTheCoward]

Redefining concepts as their complete opposite is, of course, an option here; but if I hold a gun to your head and offer you the alternative of giving me all your possessions or shooting you dead, your choice to prioritise your survival over your possessions does not make it your will that I should have them.

Dave

Except parliament decided to let the person have the gun, and the decision making power to put the gun up to the head, and the procedure on what to say.

If parliament is supreme, then they can legislate their own suicide pact. They may have done so, but that is their choice.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except parliament decided to let the person have the gun, and the decision making power to put the gun up to the head, and the procedure on what to say.

Except parliament recognised that in certain circumstances the gun was needed, and had to be used in a particular way, and didn't think they'd ever end up giving the gun to someone who might abuse it until they didn't have enough time left to do anything about it. Yes, it was a failure of imagination, but it wasn't a spoecific choice of parliament that there should be a loophole by which their will could be over-ridden whenever the government felt like it. Nobody expected a government that devious. If it were the will of parliament to be prorogued this way in these corcumstances, there wouldn't be a problem. But what you're doing is saying that parliament's will must include any unintended consequences of them enacting the laws they actually wanted. The case being brought before the Supreme Court is based, as I see it, on the principle that the will of parliament cannot be over-ridden by any previous act of parliament, which I believe is itself a well-established principle in the constitution.

If parliament is supreme, then they can legislate their own suicide pact. They may have done so, but that is their choice.

If parliament cannot be bound by previous acts of parliament, then they can nullify their own suicide pact; but the prorogation at present prevents them from doing that. The argument is that it is therefore incompatible with the supremacy of parliament.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

Except parliament recognised that in certain circumstances the gun was needed, and had to be used in a particular way, and didn't think they'd ever end up giving the gun to someone who might abuse it until they didn't have enough time left to do anything about it. Yes, it was a failure of imagination, but it wasn't a spoecific choice of parliament that there should be a loophole by which their will could be over-ridden whenever the government felt like it. Nobody expected a government that devious. If it were the will of parliament to be prorogued this way in these corcumstances, there wouldn't be a problem. But what you're doing is saying that parliament's will must include any unintended consequences of them enacting the laws they actually wanted. The case being brought before the Supreme Court is based, as I see it, on the principle that the will of parliament cannot be over-ridden by any previous act of parliament, which I believe is itself a well-established principle in the constitution.



If parliament cannot be bound by previous acts of parliament, then they can nullify their own suicide pact; but the prorogation at present prevents them from doing that. The argument is that it is therefore incompatible with the supremacy of parliament.

Dave

How do you know it is the will of parliament to not be in this situation?


Note to Archie....see... someone that thinks the will of parliament is a factor. This is why I ask.

 

[Darat]

I think any ruling on this will be based on the supremacy of Parliament. And I suspect that the ruling will not be in favour of the applicants, the judgement will be if Parliament wanted it could have at any time set conditions on the prorogation of parliament but it didn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How do you know it is the will of parliament to not be in this situation?

I would think the principle is that parliament can act according to its will, and this situation prevents it from doing so. The actual will of parliament doesn't have to be established for that to be the case.

However, I can see your and Darat's point, and as a ruling that would make sense. The counter-argument would be that parliament failed to envisage this situation until it was too late to respond to it, which I think would also make sense. It's a tough decision either way.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would think the principle is that parliament can act according to its will, and this situation prevents it from doing so. The actual will of parliament doesn't have to be established for that to be the case.

If true, doesn't every prorogration ever limit that parliaments ability to act according to it's will?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If true, doesn't every prorogration ever limit that parliaments ability to act according to it's will?

Trivially, yes, but parliament accepts brief prorogations as a part of normal operation. It seems fairly clear that parliament objected to being prorogued at this time and in these circumstances, and it's been very strongly argued that the aim of this prorogation was to frustrate the will of parliament to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Trying to view this situation in the absence of the details of the situation won't yield useful results.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

Trivially, yes, but parliament accepts brief prorogations as a part of normal operation. It seems fairly clear that parliament objected to being prorogued at this time and in these circumstances, and it's been very strongly argued that the aim of this prorogation was to frustrate the will of parliament to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Trying to view this situation in the absence of the details of the situation won't yield useful results.

Dave

It doesn't seem fairly clear that parliament objected. It seems the only way to determine if parliament objected is with a vote.

Individual members expressed opposition.

Without a vote, how do we determine which prorogues are objected to by parliament and which are not?

 

[lomiller]

What has the EU been doing to come up with something better than the current backstop?

This isn’t an EU responsibility. If the UK wants to leave the EU it needs to start taking some responsibility for it’s own affairs instead of insisting the EU keep looking after it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This isn’t an EU responsibility. If the UK wants to leave the EU it needs to start taking some responsibility for it’s own affairs instead of insisting the EU keep looking after it.

Let me be clear, I wasn't talking about resolving the backstop. I'm talking about making it better such that if the UK changed their mind and decided to go with the backstop, then they have an even better agreement to sign on to.

Of course it isn't their responsibility. Better service to the citizens requires going above and beyond.

 

[timhau]

Or it was written in crayon and the EU want it typed.

That was my guess as well.

 

[lomiller]

What is the case history on courts being allowed to impute the intent of parliament from things other than votes?

This is what the courts do. It's been what courts do for centuries. It's built into every case that has gone before the courts for hundreds of years.

These seem like straightforward questions of law.

There is no such thing as “straightforward questions of law” without legal precedent.

There is no precedent for this specific situation, but the general principle established over the last 500 years is that it is not legal to bypass the will of Parliament, or prevent Parliament from sitting in order to prevent them from making decisions you don’t like. The law and precedent is clear on this in regards to the Crown, it’s now up to the courts to decide whether this applies to the PM as well.