|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 12:37:52 GMT
We will never leave the EU, there are too many vested interests ensuring that we do not. The referendum could have been 80% in favour and we'd still be in this situation. I should be happy because I'm getting the result I voted for but I'm deeply uncomfortable at how it's been achieved and what it means for our country going forward. There's been recent talk of a coup by BoJo but I'm now convinced the coup happened a long time ago and we didn't see it. Well, back to the EU like a whipped dog we go. I really don't know what to think or believe anymore. Too many vested interests wanting to keep us in the EU but also calls that the rich, privileged classes want out of the EU to avoid new taxes being proposed by the EU (not that I know what they are). Well actually that is precisely the point. At the end of the day, as I have long pointed out, Brexit is not and never has been the People vs the Elite.
It is Elite Point of View A vs. Elite Point of View B.
And it is simply that one faction of the Elite managed to weaponise public dissatisfaction and anger over austerity and rally it to their way of thinking in an ideological battle against the other faction.
That is not to belittle the fact that the EU has underlying and unresolved problems that need addressing. We all agree that it does. We simply disagree that Brexit represents in any way the right or sensible or indeed effective way to address them.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 24, 2019 12:41:19 GMT
If Boris does call an election where does your vote go? We've seen this week that the Labour Party is completely unfit to govern and the LibDems have decided that their brand of liberalism doesn't respect democracy. Who does that leave? That was exactly the conversation I had this morning with the person I was going to see. His opinion was he would vote for whoever will do him the least harm although he thought the Monster Raving Loony Party was perhaps the best option of all.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 24, 2019 12:46:36 GMT
I don't agree about the comment on the Liberals. Simply, if they get a majority (somewhat unlikely!) then people will have voted for them in the clear knowledge of their stance on Brexit, thus it becomes a democratically achieved policy decision.
If you want Brexit to go ahead then don't vote for the Liberals.
No matter what we may wish for in terms of the next election it is going to be fought on Brexit lines, as far as I can see a lot of Tory proposals under Boris have been quite socialist on their view and if they were taken into consideration might be very popular. Whether you believe that Boris would allow them through in the event of a victory is another question altogether!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 12:47:46 GMT
Don’t forget he’s lost every vote he’s held in parliament so far. But he does now get his name on the plaque back at Eton that denotes past pupils who have risen to the heady heights of Prime Minister. Where does he go now? Surely only a general election. I’d be surprised if Labour didn’t now call for one. If Boris does call an election where does your vote go? We've seen this week that the Labour Party is completely unfit to govern and the LibDems have decided that their brand of liberalism doesn't respect democracy. Who does that leave? That is indeed a big problem. Rock hard place etc.
But I'll re-post my parliamentary arithmetic analysis from a couple of weeks ago:
"At present Labour have 247 seats and SNP has 35, putting them on a combined 282, still putting them behind the Tories who have 289 even after last night's mass expulsion.
You need to get to 326 to have a simple majority, meaning at present a Lab/SNP coalition is 44 seats short of even what would still really be a hung parliament. In that scenario, even if the SNP picked up all of the Tories' 13 seats and all of Labour's 7 seats in Scotland, that still leaves Labour needing to find at least 24 more seats compared to the last election.
In fact, in order to do anything really radical, I think Labour needs an outright majority in its own right, meaning they need to pick up 80 seats, which would be a swing of over 12%."
Since then the Labour party has had a collective melt-down. So I really think the risk of a hard Labour government is very, very low and anything to the contrary is the real Project Fear.
I will never vote for Corbyn's Labour but I will also never vote for Johnson's Tories, so LibDems it is for me.
I've never had much time for them, finding them intellectually and politically incoherent and often much too left wing, plus even I wouldn't have pinned my colours to Revoke the way Swinson did, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman is queen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 12:51:01 GMT
Perhaps leaving the eu is the best way to avoid the rubbish they bring. They are never going to change while the current mood exists over there.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 12:53:14 GMT
I will never vote for Corbyn's Labour but I will also never vote for Johnson's Tories, so LibDems it is for me.
There were calling for the EU referendum in 2008 so they're far from innocent in all of this.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 24, 2019 12:58:08 GMT
The whole situation has become a farce. The judiciary has become politicised in my view. They have pontificated on the law and set down their views from their ivory tower, utterly removed from the real situation, which is "what actually happens"? All this decision does is cause a whole new load of questions to be raised rather than solving anything. Parliament can now sit. WTF are they actually going to do? They've already tied Boris' hands re no deal. Does the Conservative party conference next week go ahead, or will MP's have to be in Parliament for some spurious reason? That would seem rather silly as MP's already voted before to hold the conference season as usual. Unless they just want to fuck over Boris again of course - which they will probably take the opportunity to do. Boris will not resign. But a vote of no confidence will lead to a general election that Boris can set the date for. So Parliament don't want that - they've rejected it twice already. What we are left with then is the situation exactly as it was before Parliament was prorogued. Stalemate. An executive unable to govern, but a Parliament unwilling to have a GE. And now that the Labour party have declared war internally as well about Brexit, they'll be even more determined to avoid a GE. Under the fixed term Parliament Act we can be stuck here until 2022. Taking on board what the judges said about the usual time for a prorogation being 4-6 days, if I was Boris I'd just wait until Parliament is sitting again (probably after the Conservative conference) and then have a 4 days proroguing to have a Queen's Speech as planned anyway. (I note that when asked - I can't remember if it was him or a spokesperson - Boris did not rule out another prorogation. He just said he's abide by the court's decision). By the time it all ends up back in court again (although how the judges could find that unlawful based on what they have said is rather difficult), the Queen's Speech will be happening. If the Queen's Speech gets voted down then Boris can demand a GE again. Which will probably get voted down again. Or is the rejection of the Queen's Speech a VONC matter under the Fixed Term act? I don't know. So we'll just go round the houses again to be back at stalemate. There was a very good article the other day about the core tenet of democracy not being one person one vote or any of that. It was what was called "loser's consent". That in a democracy, those that lose a vote - an election, referendum etc - have to consent to the result. Otherwise one does not really have a democracy at all. Bob was right. The coup happened some time ago and it was Parliament (led by our unelected new ruler, Speaker Bercow) and other parties determined to over-rule the referendum that lead the coup, not Boris. Perhaps this chart tell us exactly why we are in the situation we are in.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 12:58:20 GMT
I will never vote for Corbyn's Labour but I will also never vote for Johnson's Tories, so LibDems it is for me.
There were calling for the EU referendum in 2008 so they're far from innocent in all of this. I never said they were. Painting them as the least worst of several evils, as I do above, is hardly me issuing a ringing endorsement.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 13:04:05 GMT
There was a very good article the other day about the core tenet of democracy not being one person one vote or any of that. It was what was called "loser's consent". That in a democracy, those that lose a vote - an election, referendum etc - have to consent to the result. One of the other core tenants of democracy is the freedom to change your mind, vote again, etc, irrespective of whether the result of a first vote has yet been implemented. Denying that is textbook majoritarianism.
To pick up on a separate point, have you read the judgement, or at the very least the very clear summary. I suggest it be read before going nap on a view that the court was interfering in something that was not its business.
www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf
www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
A unanimous court decision is a very, very rare thing.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 13:19:58 GMT
The what happens next thing is what I'm interested in. I'm no Boris fan-boy which may come as a surprise but I think he's certainly the least bad option with what we're faced with. I don't think the lib dems could get close to winning an election and my biggest worry is Corbyn who I think could do enormous damage to use all.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 24, 2019 13:22:23 GMT
There were calling for the EU referendum in 2008 so they're far from innocent in all of this. I never said they were. Painting them as the least worst of several evils, as I do above, is hardly me issuing a ringing endorsement.
Based on the logic of the least worst option I'd vote Boris - he's as liberal a Conservative as you're going to get and at least he has definite plan that has a timescale (Oct 31st) that moves us on from this interminable situation we're in now. I feel like I'm in quicksand being sucked downwards and Boris offers the closest island - it's a shitty island but it's better then where I am.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 13:25:45 GMT
I just can't and won't, personally. Some sins are unforgivable.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 24, 2019 13:38:31 GMT
There was a very good article the other day about the core tenet of democracy not being one person one vote or any of that. It was what was called "loser's consent". That in a democracy, those that lose a vote - an election, referendum etc - have to consent to the result. One of the other core tenants of democracy is the freedom to change your mind, vote again, etc, irrespective of whether the result of a first vote has yet been implemented. Denying that is textbook majoritarianism.
To pick up on a separate point, have you read the judgement, or at the very least the very clear summary. I suggest it be read before going nap on a view that the court was interfering in something that was not its business.
www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf
A unanimous court decision is a very, very rare thing. I fully agree that loser's consent is also backed by the right to campaign for a change to a vote. In this situation I see this as meaning either a second referendum (leave having won the first one), or a GE (as MP's passed article 50 and a clear majority stood at the last 2017 GE on manifestos to respect the referendum result). Neither of which are about to happen. So we all end up in court. I have read the judgement. That leads me to my view that it is a political decision. Others will draw different conclusions. Which rather proves the point that we are in highly subjective areas of legal activity. As Jonathan Sumption argued in his recent Reith Lectures, judges are increasingly straying into areas that really ought to be the preserve of politicians (who are accountable for their decisions). For me the key section is this in the judgement - "It [the memo setting out the dates for prorogation] does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification." The judges have ignored the facts that offset that paragraph. That Parliament was not sitting anyway as it was conference season. That the days lost of active Parliamentary time were 5-7 days, not 5 weeks. There does not need to be any Parliamentary time to prepare for no deal as Parliament have already ruled that out and demanded an extension. Nobody knows what Parliamentary time may be needed to do any of the things mentioned re a Withdrawal Agreement as at the moment the only withdrawal agreement we have has been rejected there times and we don't yet have another one. If there was a new WA and then Parliament was prorogued I'd agree with them. But there is not and so I don't. In fact one could argue that if a new WA is to be introduced, then that is new legislation by a new government and so a Queen's speech to introduce that is required. And to do that you do need a prorogation.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 13:44:32 GMT
They have not:
"Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual.
During conference season, Parliament traditionally goes into recess.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 24, 2019 13:46:33 GMT
Many judges like to play politicians (without the low pay and accountability of course).
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 13:55:20 GMT
Many judges like to play politicians (without the low pay and accountability of course). But effectively the entire Supreme Court? I do not think so.
The judgment makes it abundantly clear this is not about the rights or wrongs of Brexit.
It is about not setting very bad precedent by allowing the executive to assert a sovereignty over parliament that it does not possess.
I think the judges were much persuaded by, among other things, Lord Pannick's argument that if Government can prorogue Parliament effectively at will, then what is to stop this or a future Prime Minister simply proroguing Parliament indefinitely?
That way lies dictatorship.
We are not here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933.
Nor close at present.
But what has happened once can happen again. And last time it happened remarkably quickly and with the general public's support.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 14:02:21 GMT
I'd say the system is very fucked and this ruling highlights it. That the same people who are taking control of the order paper, only thanks to a biased speaker, are also able to block an election is an utter disgrace. A lot needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 24, 2019 14:06:49 GMT
They have not: " Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. During conference season, Parliament traditionally goes into recess. I contend therefore that a conference season recess, then a 4-6 day proroguing would be perfectly legal. Yes the proroguing was longer, but the net effect is the same. The court have decided to make a big deal of what in practical terms is exactly the same outcome. Perhaps that is the fudge we all expected, cleverly hidden in the verbiage? If Boris goes ahead and re-prorogues Parliament for 4-6 days after the conference season, they is nothing the court can do.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 24, 2019 14:07:34 GMT
I'd say the system is very fucked and this ruling highlights it. That the same people who are taking control of the order paper, only thanks to a biased speaker, are also able to block an election is an utter disgrace. A lot needs to change. +1
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 14:20:45 GMT
They have not: " Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. During conference season, Parliament traditionally goes into recess. I contend therefore that a conference season recess, then a 4-6 day proroguing would be perfectly legal. Yes the proroguing was longer, but the net effect is the same. The court have decided to make a big deal of what in practical terms is exactly the same outcome. Perhaps that is the fudge we all expected, cleverly hidden in the verbiage? If Boris goes ahead and re-prorogues Parliament for 4-6 days after the conference season, they is nothing the court can do. Ignoring the bit I've struck through, in general that is absolutely fine.
I note that conference season is over for the main parties except for the Tories, which starts on Saturday and is due to end next Wednesday 2 October, and may possibly get curtailed. That then leaves rather more than six days until the day he wanted Parliament back. I can't remember if Parliament has to vote to go into recess. I think it does. In which case, I suspect there's fat chance of that passing.
But anyway. If Boris prorogues Parliament at any point for a normal length of time at the end of which we get a new Queens Speech, then indeed there is nothing the Court could do about, but (and it's a critical but) there is also nothing the Court would want to do about it.
As the Court pointed out in the clearest way possible: it is not seeking to frustrate Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 14:23:42 GMT
I'd say the system is very fucked and this ruling highlights it. That the same people who are taking control of the order paper, only thanks to a biased speaker, are also able to block an election is an utter disgrace. A lot needs to change. How would you have it work?
And would you think the same way if it was Mr Corbyn at the helm of a minority socialist government trying to ram through mass nationalisation of private property three years after a referendum where a quarter of the UK population had voted to do so on the promise that they got manna from heaven in return?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 14:26:09 GMT
That the fixed term parliament act allows the incumbent PM to call the election. That in the case of the speaker it's easier to remove the individual and limit their influence. You'd be up in arms if the speaker was pro-Brexit so there needs to be some mechanism by which they can be held to account.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 24, 2019 14:38:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 14:47:55 GMT
I'd say the system is very fucked and this ruling highlights it. That the same people who are taking control of the order paper, only thanks to a biased speaker, are also able to block an election is an utter disgrace. A lot needs to change. How would you have it work?
And would you think the same way if it was Mr Corbyn at the helm of a minority socialist government trying to ram through mass nationalisation of private property three years after a referendum where a quarter of the UK population had voted to do so on the promise that they got manna from heaven in return?
Yes I would accept that. In the same way I accept that leave won despite voting remain, I'd accept that it was Corbyn's decision if he had also won a free and fair vote. That's the version of democracy I buy into, I don't think it should be reserved to those who can afford the best legal team.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 14:49:16 GMT
Charles Day is a pseudonym. And given the legal gibberish he/she writes, that is probably the best for their reputation.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 14:51:02 GMT
How would you have it work?
And would you think the same way if it was Mr Corbyn at the helm of a minority socialist government trying to ram through mass nationalisation of private property three years after a referendum where a quarter of the UK population had voted to do so on the promise that they got manna from heaven in return?
Yes I would accept that. In the same way I accept that leave won despite voting remain, I'd accept that it was Corbyn's decision if he had also won a free and fair vote. That's the version of democracy I buy into, I don't think it should be reserved to those who can afford the best legal team. So your position is that the end justifies the means. The court, which has a duty to uphold the law, unsurprisingly begs to differ.
And being a lawyer, so do I.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 14:52:22 GMT
No, my position is that votes count.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 15:01:43 GMT
That the fixed term parliament act allows the incumbent PM to call the election. That in the case of the speaker it's easier to remove the individual and limit their influence. You'd be up in arms if the speaker was pro-Brexit so there needs to be some mechanism by which they can be held to account. I agree on the FTPA. I don't agree on the Speaker. The Speaker's duty is to enforce the rights and privileges of Parliament versus the Executive. Bercow might be an rather odious individual but that is assuredly besides the point.
Plus, on a (ahem) point of order, those who shriek that he is an Evil Remain Agent conveniently overlook the fact that he was the one who enabled the referendum in the first place by allowing a debate on an amendment to the 2013 Queen's Speech by Eurosceptic Tory MPs calling for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. Moreover that decision by Bercow in itself defied a convention that only two amendments to a Queen's Speech are ever permitted.
So suggesting that Bercow has only ever defied convention against Brexiteers is simply wrong.
As to whether they can be held to account, the Commons is able to hold a vote of no confidence in the Speaker. After all, Bercow's immediate predecessor resigned after a motion of no confidence was tabled by Douglas Carswell.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 15:03:37 GMT
No, my position is that votes count. But that is not the point under discussion. The point under discussion is whether, en route to ensuring that votes count, the law can be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 15:11:27 GMT
No, my position is that votes count. But that is not the point under discussion. The point under discussion is whether, en route to ensuring that votes count, the law can be ignored. The legal aspects only come into it because parliament is more remain than the country. The promise was that the vote would be enacted and all the legal efforts are to overturn the result, I don't know if anybody out there genuinely believes otherwise.
I disagree we the speaker. I think his performance has eroded trust in the position to the extent in future any government with a health majority will curtail the authority of the role to the extent it can no longer be a force for good. All these actions have longer terms consequences to the institutions that are being manipulated against the leave vote.
|
|