Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?

Parliament sets the rules, the courts enforce them.

Governments often end up being accused of breaking the law and it ends up in court. Other examples of the courts ruling that a government has broken the law include Gurkha residency rights and police pensions. The courts have also previously ruled on Brexit;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

"Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own."
 
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.

Dave
 
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.

Dave

It rather sums up the Brexiteers, never mind the cost or consequences so long as they get what they want now.
 
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.

Ken Clarke's awesome. He'd get my vote as an interim PM in a government of national unity.
 
Parliament sets the rules, the courts enforce them.

Governments often end up being accused of breaking the law and it ends up in court. Other examples of the courts ruling that a government has broken the law include Gurkha residency rights and police pensions. The courts have also previously ruled on Brexit;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

"Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own."
What has any of that got to do with the post you quoted? Parliament didn't set any rules for prorogation.
 
What has any of that got to do with the post you quoted? Parliament didn't set any rules for prorogation.

Prorogation is common law, which developed from the Monarchy and the first Parliaments and the government needs to obey common law.

Parliament has developed proroguing into a primarily ceremonial act, with occasional exceptions, such as John Major in 1997. But his proroguing was not challenged. If it had, it may have been ruled unlawful.
 
Last edited:
+1. It would be the one thing that would give me a shred of hope that this all might turn out reasonably OK. I've never voted Conservative in my life, but I'd trust Clarke to do what's right.

Dave

Far as I can see, Ken Clarke is the last voice of reason in the Tory party. There may be others, but they are rather quiet.
 
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?
The courts rule on law.
 
But there is well established precedent from the courts that administrative actions must be done for valid reasons. Parliament hasn’t overruled this, so it stands.

Exactly her execution was a victory for brexit over remain. Other remainers need to get with the program if they know what is good for keeping their blood on the inside.
 
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177147467160281088

1/ EU officials and diplomats were dismayed by last night's furore in Parliament, and events in general over the past few weeks. They have left them questioning how they will deal for years - even decades - to come with a Britain that looks increasingly divided and dysfunctional.

2/ The 'acrimony' in Parliament last night and the hostile line taken by PM Johnson has shocked some. They are worried by how much he alienated even moderate MPs on all sides of the House, without whom he can't get a majority for a deal.

3/ This follows the prorogation debacle and comments No 10 and ministers made about judges, which were clocked with concern here. A large part of the UK's plan involves the EU trusting its 'world class' institutions. 'But now we're no longer sure the institutions are holding.'

4/ Combined with the UK's alternative backstop plan, which the EU sees as unworkable and unserious, it's a bleak outlook. 'We're changing our focus from getting a deal to how to manage the potential fallout of enduring instability in the UK. We’re waking up to that reality now.'

5/ The EU side can take no comfort in looking to the Opposition as it equally unimpressed with Jeremy Corbyn's approach to Brexit. They have no desire to negotiate a new deal with Labour that it may very well then disown. And they think it's 'nowhere near' winning an election.

6/ 'The combined effect of the Labour conference, the court verdict and last night's session has done nothing to stem our concern. How are we ever going to come to a deal with this arithmetic?' They now think it's highly likely PM Johnson will walk out of the Oct 17 summit.

7/ But the Benn Act provides scant comfort either. Most here don't believe PM Johnson will break the law, and say they'll grant an extension if the UK asks. The EU will always do everything it can to avoid any blame for No Deal. Officials laugh off the idea any leader would veto.

8/ But they believe another delay will only increase the chances of No Deal down the line. Their calculation is the UK is now so riven with division that the next General Election will result in a hung parliament which will have a majority for nothing, including a further delay.

9/ And this is where PM Johnson maybe has a glimmer. The EU is tired of Brexit and wants to move on. 'If indeed there’s a small window to make a deal we should absolutely seize it, because the prospect of the UK in an extension is simply carrying over the abyss for three months.'

10/ So the outlook from Brussels' perspective this morning is pretty grim. A huge amount of the lingering hope rests on the idea PM Johnson is playing tough before the Tory conference so he can pull a rabbit out of the hat after it. But not even the optimists are that convinced.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1177157530948182016

If there was any shred of doubt on the EU side about what @BorisJohnson tactics are here ahead of #euco it seems to have evaporated after last night.

Not seen EU sources so animated for a while... despair on several levels 1/thread

First despair at the whole Boris 'Trumpson' routine and what it says about sincerity of any attempts to strike a deal which Parliament will back with help of Labour MPs.

"A new low" as one official put it. /2

Second, despair at the pitiful 'non-papers' that have been presented...the fourth one this week (on goods from GB-NI) was by all accounts barely even connected to the others. Clearly not a serious basis for a border solution /3

Third, despair - or rather a weary assumption - that Mr Trumpson will continue this grandstanding and outrage-stoking right up to an including the European Council #euco on October 17.

Understand meets with EU leaders at #UNGA19 in New York did nothing to suggest otherwise /4

Fourth, and last, and most genuinely I think despairing (since all of the above had been long expected) was the feeling that the UK really is about to go the full Trump.

A new politics based on division and unilateralism - and what that means for EU-UK in long term. /5

Where does this lead? Does it belatedly bring Parliament to its senses?

Is there a majority for May's deal, which protects trade and the Union? Perhaps allied to a second confirmatory referendum?

That's the closest thing that's ever shown a majority. Might it yet? 6/ENDS

Article embedded in first tweet, quotes embedded in subsequent tweets.
 
James Cleverly in BBC interview “he [Johnson] did not use the word “betrayal.”

Martha Kearney: “we will not betray the people who sent us here”

Cleverly: “you‘re saying he said ‘betrayal’, he said ‘we will not betray’” !!!

Saw that. Sickening. Right down to him effectively saying that the best way to deal with the debate over whether or not to throw the baby out with the bathwater is the throw the baby out with the bathwater. The only good thing about that interview was Naga Munchetty.
 
Last edited:
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.



Dave
And for as long as he wanted to.
 
I find it amazing that so many people are still onboard with the Tories. What causes this apparent disconnect from reality? I have a feeling that in a hundred years, vast new areas of Psychology as a subject will be studies based on Trumpists and Brexiteers.
 
I find it amazing that so many people are still onboard with the Tories. What causes this apparent disconnect from reality?

Many of them may consider alternatives as worse. Labour for obvious reasons, LibDems because their main selling point is "not as bad as the big two". They simply disagree slightly with LibDems, fear Corbyn and take what's left.

That's what you get with FPTP system.

McHrozni
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom