Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Nessie]

Sorry if the facts bother you. Hansard reflects what i said.

Unlawful actions have no effect. If someone sells you stolen goods for example the title cannot pass to you because the person never had the title to sell to you.

Equally if a PM is acting unlawfully then their actions have no effect. Parliament was never legally prorogued so it just resumed and got on with its business.

They should have done it sooner to be honest. The Scottish court decision gave them that right

I think it was wiser to wait for the SC to rule. Imagine the unrest and anger amongst English right wing brexiters if in effect Scotland alone had ruled for Parliament to return, especially since the courts in E&W and NI had ruled it was not a court matter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

legally it didn't happen. just as legally your stuff wasn't sold.

Its amazing that people will argue this stuff.

Read the decision. It was as if they had walked in with a blank piece of paper.

It would have been VERY interesting if the speaker and opposition MPs had continued to sit and pass legislation because there's every chance it would have legally stood.

Yeah. Just because the politicians acted as if it had happened doesn't mean that it legally did.

The thing is that prorogation isn't just a recess or a standing-down of parliament. It has a real impact on parliament's ability to legislate - including legislation that was being worked on before prorogation.

Therefore saying that it didn't happen is legally and importantly distinct from saying that it did but that it should resume.

One way to think about it is if there's a document on someone's computer that people are collaboratively working on. Lots of different people can access the document from their location, but they can't save it to their own devices. It exists purely on the server. It's only once the document is complete that it's uploaded to multiple servers on the web - at which point anybody can access it and save it, but it's read-only.

Proroguing parliament isn't like turning the original server off - it's like erasing it completely and turning it off. Any documents that are unfinished are erased from existence completely and anybody wanting to work on them will have to start again from a blank page, and they will have to wait until the server is turned back on.

This didn't happen, so the courts ruled.

What happened instead is like someone turned the server off, but when it was turned back on by court order, all the old documents were still there, and everybody could pick up where they left off.

I think perhaps the people arguing that the prorogation did happen, don't really understand the full implications of prorogation.

 

[McHrozni]

Meanwhile, the Labour Party is doing everything it possibly can to scupper the idea of a government of national unity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891500

This reinforces two things IMO:

1. Jeremy Corbyn, just like Boris Johnson, simply wants to be Prime Minister regardless of the national interest
2. Jeremy Corbyn is just as (more ?) enthusiastic about Brexit as Boris Johnson

I'm not sure which of the two of them would be a worse UK Prime Minister.

I'm leaning towards "Corbyn would be worse". BJ discredits Brexit itself, Corbyn might not.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

Yeah. Just because the politicians acted as if it had happened doesn't mean that it legally did.

The thing is that prorogation isn't just a recess or a standing-down of parliament. It has a real impact on parliament's ability to legislate - including legislation that was being worked on before prorogation.

Therefore saying that it didn't happen is legally and importantly distinct from saying that it did but that it should resume.

Exactly.
The domestic abuse bill being a case in point.

Had Parliament been prorogued then that bill would be dead.

Since proroguing did not happen (Parliament simply didn't sit for a week because of The Liar Johnson) that bill is not actually dead, and it continues its path through Parliament as though nothing has happened.

 

[3point14]

I'm leaning towards "Corbyn would be worse". BJ discredits Brexit itself, Corbyn might not.

McHrozni

I really struggle with the apparent acceptance by almost everyone that Boris - paid by bested interests and with the aim of enriching himself and his backers - is no worse than Corbyn - whose policies are denounced as unfeasible but whose apparent aim is to improve the lot of the worst off among us and try to level the playing field.

Why the current attitude seems to be that both are as bad as each other isbeyond me.

 

[GlennB]

I really struggle with the apparent acceptance by almost everyone that Boris - paid by bested interests and with the aim of enriching himself and his backers - is no worse than Corbyn - whose policies are denounced as unfeasible but whose apparent aim is to improve the lot of the worst off among us and try to level the playing field.

Why the current attitude seems to be that both are as bad as each other isbeyond me.

I totally agree. At the very least he won't be selling off chunks of the NHS and pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy. That the rest of any Labour policies could possibly be as bad as recent Tory efforts is truly hard to imagine.

Meanwhile - Johnson's latest offer has been met with little more than derision. Undoubtedly that was his plan.

 

[The Don]

I really struggle with the apparent acceptance by almost everyone that Boris - paid by bested interests and with the aim of enriching himself and his backers - is no worse than Corbyn - whose policies are denounced as unfeasible but whose apparent aim is to improve the lot of the worst off among us and try to level the playing field.

Why the current attitude seems to be that both are as bad as each other isbeyond me.

Well both have worked tirelessly in their own ways to make sure that any attempt to stop a no-deal Brexit founders. If Jeremy Corbyn would accept an alternative leader for a government of national unity then it could possibly happen, but he won't, so it won't.

Jeremy may claim to be working for the benefit of the worst off among us, but the EU has been responsible for many of the initiatives that have benefited the less well off and protected them from the ravages of BJ and his cronies.

Jeremy Corbyn seems determined to re-fight the lost battles of the 1970s (like privatisation) rather than address current concerns. Reminds me of the SWSS in Uni. They wouldn't fight to protect students' rights to claim housing benefit because they were too busy trying to get Fruit Pastilles banned from university shops because of Rowntree's links to South Africa.

 

[3point14]

Well both have worked tirelessly in their own ways to make sure that any attempt to stop a no-deal Brexit founders. If Jeremy Corbyn would accept an alternative leader for a government of national unity then it could possibly happen, but he won't, so it won't.

Jeremy may claim to be working for the benefit of the worst off among us, but the EU has been responsible for many of the initiatives that have benefited the less well off and protected them from the ravages of BJ and his cronies.

Jeremy Corbyn seems determined to re-fight the lost battles of the 1970s (like privatisation) rather than address current concerns. Reminds me of the SWSS in Uni. They wouldn't fight to protect students' rights to claim housing benefit because they were too busy trying to get Fruit Pastilles banned from university shops because of Rowntree's links to South Africa.

Yes, but even accepting all of that (which I doin't, but let's say I do) do you really think they're both as bad as each other? Which seems to be the general feeling. I think it's a triumph of the tax-exile newspaper owners

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179145982161780736

Johnson’s ‘final warning’ to the EU: accept my Brexit deal or it’s no deal

Article embedded in tweet.

 

[The Don]

Yes, but even accepting all of that (which I doin't, but let's say I do) do you really think they're both as bad as each other? Which seems to be the general feeling. I think it's a triumph of the tax-exile newspaper owners

If the outcome's the same, why does the motivation make a difference ?

If you run me down and kill me with your car, does it matter to me whether you did it on purpose or by accident ?

Both of these loons have set out to destroy the UK economy, that one does it because of lunatic aspirations of forming a workers' utopia whilst the other is doing it to please shadowy backers doesn't make a lot of difference from where I stand.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Corbyn would be better than Johnson as PM, and is better than Johnson as is - but that's an incredibly low bar to clear. Theresa May was better than Johnson. So was Margaret Thatcher.

 

[3point14]

If the outcome's the same, why does the motivation make a difference ?

Because those whose motivation is to change the country for the better are likely to be more pragmatic when it doesn't work.

Because I'd rather go down in flames trying to make the country better for everyone than go down inflames enriching vested interests.

Because between the active evil and the potentially less competent good, I'll take the latter.

I think motivation matters. Others may not.

If you run me down and kill me with your car, does it matter to me whether you did it on purpose or by accident ?

Not after you're hit. Before you're hit there's a chance the accidental drive will swerve to miss you. The deliberate one will swerve to hit you. I'll take the former.

Both of these loons have set out to destroy the UK economy,

No. One of these loons has set out to deliberately destroy the UK economy to enrich his mates. You believe the other might do it by accident. Even if that's the case I don't believe they're even approaching equivalent.

that one does it because of lunatic aspirations of forming a workers' utopia whilst the other is doing it to please shadowy backers doesn't make a lot of difference from where I stand.

I think you're wrong by bloody miles. I think motivation matters. I think the well intentioned are willing to change course when disaster is imminent. Disaster is what disaster capitalists want.

I think they're polls apart. That people like you think they're as bad as each other is very concerning. It can be proven that Corbyn attracts more undeserving bad press than Boris (I wonder why) and I think that's the reason we're at what I consider to be a really, really weird equivalence.

 

[The Don]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179145982161780736



Article embedded in tweet.

The deal apparently is avoiding having customs checks on the border by having them near the border and using technology that doesn't exist

IMO a deliberate attempt to offer a deal that is unacceptable to the other party in an attempt to transfer blame for the inevitable no-deal. If the EU do bite then they are mugs because Boris Johnson and his cronies will renege on any agreement at the first opportunity IMO.

 

[Tolls]

I think the well intentioned are willing to change course when disaster is imminent.

Corbyn has never given much indication of changing his mind on, well, much at all. In his case it's ideological blindness. His backbench career was pretty much built on it.

Having said that, yes. He would be better than Johnson. However, there is precious little chance of him managing to convince enough MPs of that. Which is why he ought to show some actual leadership and agree with a caretaker until an election.

 

[3point14]

Corbyn has never given much indication of changing his mind on, well, much at all. In his case it's ideological blindness. His backbench career was pretty much built on it.

At no point has he had the opportunity to implement his plans and change his mind. He's never been in power, so I don't see how the above argument is valid.

Having said that, yes. He would be better than Johnson. However, there is precious little chance of him managing to convince enough MPs of that. Which is why he ought to show some actual leadership and agree with a caretaker until an election.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just concerned at this false equivalence that seems to have been tacitly agreed.

 

[The Don]

Because those whose motivation is to change the country for the better are likely to be more pragmatic when it doesn't work.

Because I'd rather go down in flames trying to make the country better for everyone than go down inflames enriching vested interests.

Because between the active evil and the potentially less competent good, I'll take the latter.

I think motivation matters. Others may not.

IMO, if the result's the same then the motivation doesn't really matter.

Not after you're hit. Before you're hit there's a chance the accidental drive will swerve to miss you. The deliberate one will swerve to hit you. I'll take the former.

Jeremy Corbyn has been offered many opportunities to steer the car away from the collision but has either refused to do so, or has placed preconditions which prevent the collision from being averted.

No. One of these loons has set out to deliberately destroy the UK economy to enrich his mates. You believe the other might do it by accident. Even if that's the case I don't believe they're even approaching equivalent.

Jeremy Corbyn will just as assuredly destroy the UK economy as Boris Johnson because he too is pro-Brexit.

I haven't even considered any additional damage he might wreak through large scale re-nationalisation or enforced transfer of ownership of businesses to the workers, propping up failed industries through subsidy or any of his other proposals resurrected from the 1970s because they're small beer by comparison to the impact of Brexit.

I think you're wrong by bloody miles. I think motivation matters. I think the well intentioned are willing to change course when disaster is imminent. Disaster is what disaster capitalists want.

Jeremy Corbyn has shown no willingness to change his mind at any point in his long career as a backbencher or during his time as Labour leader, I don't see why he would suddenly be prepared to do so as PM.

I also note that, like Boris Johnson, he's perfectly happy to eject dissenting voices from the party.

I think they're polls apart. That people like you think they're as bad as each other is very concerning. It can be proven that Corbyn attracts more undeserving bad press than Boris (I wonder why) and I think that's the reason we're at what I consider to be a really, really weird equivalence.

As human beings you're right, Jeremy Corbyn is a finer person with good intentions and an honestly held (to the extent of being dogmatic) set of beliefs.

As Prime Ministers, I'm not so sure. They both want to lead us to Brexit and the manner in which they propose to do it is likely to result in no-deal. Beyond that, any other damage they wreak is just a rounding error by comparison.

 

[Darat]

Well both have worked tirelessly in their own ways to make sure that any attempt to stop a no-deal Brexit founders. If Jeremy Corbyn would accept an alternative leader for a government of national unity then it could possibly happen, but he won't, so it won't.



Jeremy may claim to be working for the benefit of the worst off among us, but the EU has been responsible for many of the initiatives that have benefited the less well off and protected them from the ravages of BJ and his cronies.



Jeremy Corbyn seems determined to re-fight the lost battles of the 1970s (like privatisation) rather than address current concerns. Reminds me of the SWSS in Uni. They wouldn't fight to protect students' rights to claim housing benefit because they were too busy trying to get Fruit Pastilles banned from university shops because of Rowntree's links to South Africa.

Not seeing how that makes him as bad as Johnson and a majority tory government.

Indeed if you think about it your worries in regards to workers rights and so on being lost once we leave the EU, do you really think both Johnson and Corbyn are as likely to legislate to remove the current rights?

 

[Arcade22]

Hauliers have to finance their trucks and pay for them. That means the wheels have to keep turning. Ferry companies have to finance their ferries. The ferries keep flowing. The ports employ people. They need the income from traffic going through the ports. This idea everything is going to seize up, and there’s going to be a disaster, especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit, I think is absolute nonsense. Business will find a way through.

The Scottish Secretary, of all people in the government, gives his opinion on why no-deal Brexit won't cause any disruption to shipping. Apparently everything is going to continue on the way it used to because workers need their daily bread and would starve to death if they were caught in a bottleneck at the border because of customs.

Can you notice the critical problem with his reasoning?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because those whose motivation is to change the country for the better are likely to be more pragmatic when it doesn't work.

[...]

I think the well intentioned are willing to change course when disaster is imminent.

Maybe in the general sense. In Corbyn's case specifically, don't forget that this particular tangent arose because of Labour ruling out an interim government led by anybody other than Corbyn, despite the fact that we already know that Corbyn wouldn't be an acceptable caretaker to the other parties in the potential coalition, and the fact that him being PM in this manner would be handing the opposition all the ammunition they need to paint it as an undemocratic coup, driven by ideology.

What's really needed is a trustworthy Tory or recently-ex-Tory. Form a caretaker government around them, negotiate a real deal in good faith with the EU (one like the deal that was promised by the Leave campaign), have a second referendum, and then call a general election. That's not going to happen with Corbyn.

So we are heading for disaster, and Corbyn is proving that he's unwilling to play with others in order to avoid it.

 

[3point14]

Maybe in the general sense. In Corbyn's case specifically, don't forget that this particular tangent arose because of Labour ruling out an interim government led by anybody other than Corbyn, despite the fact that we already know that Corbyn wouldn't be an acceptable caretaker to the other parties in the potential coalition, and the fact that him being PM in this manner would be handing the opposition all the ammunition they need to paint it as an undemocratic coup, driven by ideology.

What's really needed is a trustworthy Tory or recently-ex-Tory. Form a caretaker government around them, negotiate a real deal in good faith with the EU (one like the deal that was promised by the Leave campaign), have a second referendum, and then call a general election. That's not going to happen with Corbyn.

So we are heading for disaster, and Corbyn is proving that he's unwilling to play with others in order to avoid it.

No, he just wants to do things, for the benefit of the least well off among us, that the EU won't let him do. His reasons are there for all to see and clearly stated.

That some (most of whom havn't actually read a labour manifesto, er, ever) think his pan is unfeasible is not, in any way at all, the equivalent of a disaster capitalist backed tory trying to make money for his mates by ******* us all over.


They are not the same. Why they are talked of and treated as if they are both as disastrous as each other is, as I say, a triumph of the tax-exiled newspaper owners.