|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 15:23:37 GMT
I question whether we'll be seeing a government with a healthy majority any time soon.
Interestingly, the FT's view in their Brexit Briefing is this "Whether he can bridge the gap in the Brexit negotiations within 30 days is anyone's guess. The net effect of the Supreme Court judgment is probably to make Mr Johnson try a bit harder".
If that is the case, then that is surely a good thing.
Unless you believe there is no good deal to be had with the EU.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 15:33:55 GMT
I think we could have a good deal if that's what both sides wanted. These legal and parliamentary challenges only go on to weaken our hand and make the chance of a good deal less likely. Of course that same parliament will refuse to vote for a deal, takes charge of the order paper in order to demand an extension to A50 and the can gets kicked further down the road. At the same time they say they have no confidence in the government and yet refuse to back an election.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 15:55:12 GMT
That's like saying "I am confident we could resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict if that's what both sides wanted".
An empty statement as, in each case, nobody can agree on what a mutually good deal is.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 15:59:20 GMT
It's nothing of the sort. There is always a deal to be had but they take two - that's the nature of any deal.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 16:07:33 GMT
This is quite wearisome.
Do you really think that the British government is being genuinely reasonable in its negotiating stance?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 16:11:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 16:13:05 GMT
This is quite wearisome. Do you really think that the British government is being genuinely reasonable in its negotiating stance? Yes I do.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 16:20:49 GMT
Care to elaborate on the reasons why?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 16:26:00 GMT
I don't see why negotiating to leave the EU after a free and fair election is unreasonable. They even (stupidly in my view) agreed to the EU negotiating timeline. Perhaps you should elaborate as to where you think they're being unreasonable?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 16:40:28 GMT
That is a politician's answer (i.e. no answer).
Nobody said negotiating was unreasonable. And I haven't commented on whether the EU's current negotiating position is reasonable. I simply asked whether you thought the British government's current negotiating position is a reasonable one. You said yes. I asked you for reasons why. You haven't provided any yet.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 16:45:29 GMT
Well you're asking me to prove a negative by sighting how it isn't reasonable. I've told you I think they're reasonable by virtue of the fact I haven't seen anything unreasonable; have you? I mention the agreeing to the EU timetable as an example of their generous spirit.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 16:54:20 GMT
You see the reason you are squirming is that nobody actually knows what the UK government's position is. That seems quite unreasonable to me.
The only official line from No.10 under Johnson has been that scrapping the Irish backstop is a pre-condition to any re-negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Meaning that either the UK government doesn't care about the rest of the WA provided the backstop is dealt with. Or that we still have to deal with that once we reach resolution on the backstop.
In 30 days.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 17:01:08 GMT
You see the reason you are squirming is that nobody actually knows what the UK government's position is. That seems quite unreasonable to me. The only official line from No.10 under Johnson has been that scrapping the Irish backstop is a pre-condition to any re-negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement. Meaning that either the UK government doesn't care about the rest of the WA provided the backstop is dealt with. Or that we still have to deal with that once we reach resolution on the backstop. In 30 days. I'm not squirming at all and I still haven't seen any evidence of them being unreasonable. I think you misunderstand the backstop. The negotiating position is they want it removed as with that in place we are trapped in the withdrawal agreement holding-position unless the EU agree to release us from it. Getting rid of the backstop isn't a pre-condition to re-negotiating the withdrawal agreement, it's the issue that is stopping the withdrawal agreement being taken to parliament. However, that situation is now in itself slightly fucked as without a Queens speech the withdrawal agreement cannot be tabled again.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 17:44:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 17:46:54 GMT
There’s nothing stopping Boris Johnson doing a Queen’s Speech. Apart from the need to decide what it is going to say and then write it.
He can absolutely still do that on 14 October as originally planned.
He just needs to prorogue the normal way, a couple of days beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 18:17:14 GMT
Lord Sumption writing in The Times:
“ There was a consensus that they should not abuse the power, but what amounted to abuse was itself a political question, not a legal one. What is revolutionary about the Supreme Court’s decision is that it makes the courts the ultimate arbiters of what political reasons are good enough.
Yet the Supreme Court’s judgment should be welcomed even by those who believe, as I do, that politics is not the proper business of courts of law. The objection to judicial intervention in politics is that it undermines the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making. The court’s judgment, however, is not concerned with the political issues surrounding Brexit. It is concerned with the process by which those issues are to be resolved. Its effect is to reinstate parliament at the heart of that process.
The question for the rest of us is whether we still believe in the parliamentary model that the Supreme Court has vindicated. Underlying the debate about the merits of leaving the European Union, there is an even more fundamental conflict between two opposing claims to democratic legitimacy, one based on the referendum and the other on the parliamentary process. Most of our difficulties over the past three years have arisen from the misguided attempt to insert a referendum into a fundamentally parliamentary system.
I have lost count of the number of times that prominent Brexiters have declared that by authorising the referendum Parliament delegated its sovereignty to the majority. The argument is completely untenable. Leaving the EU and creating other arrangements to replace it requires new laws. It requires complex political judgments about our future relations with the EU.
Parliament is the supreme source of law. It is also the only body to which ministers can be continually accountable for their political judgments about Brexit or anything else. It is central to our whole political system. A referendum can serve none of parliament’s functions. It is not a source of law. It is not a mechanism for holding ministers to account. It is a snapshot of public opinion, and as such an important political fact for parliamentarians to take into account. But that is all it is.
The parliamentary process is fundamental in another, even more important sense. It is a mechanism for accommodating opposing opinions and interests in our society. To gain power, political parties have to appeal to a wider base than tribal faithfuls and single-issue fanatics.
A legislature whose membership reflects the balance of political parties is therefore a natural forum for compromise. In a Brexit context this might mean membership of the customs union or the European Economic Area or something similar under a different name. These half-way houses are in many ways impure and unsatisfactory. Few people would make them their first choice. But it is probable that a larger proportion of the electorate could live with them than with any other solution.
Appeals to the referendum as an alternative source of legitimacy are really calls to reject compromise. Proroguing parliament was a method of circumventing the political process, and avoiding the pressure to compromise that is inherent in it. It is absurd to criticise the House of Commons for being just as divided as those whom it represents; and dangerous to obstruct its attempts, however laborious and accident-prone, to accommodate our divisions and avoid the aggressive extremes at either end of the Brexit spectrum.
The British constitution famously consists of offering many things that are not law but political conventions. Some of them are rules of practice. Others are attitudes of mind, part of a shared political culture that is based on respect for the centrality of the House of Commons. Political conventions are a better, more flexible and more democratic alternative to law. But if we are to avoid a wholly legal constitution, we must honour them.
The present government has taken an axe to convention. It has sought to use the awesome prerogative powers of the Crown, but without the accountability to parliament that alone makes the existence of those powers tolerable. It has been determined to disregard our only collective political forum. This is something entirely new in British politics.
The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.
The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.”
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 24, 2019 20:54:33 GMT
I haven't watched the news yet, but I think today's decision has been surprising, bold, principled, and (as I stated on page 1) based on its own special facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 8:22:40 GMT
So suggesting that Bercow has only ever defied convention against Brexiteers is simply wrong. But at that time he probably thought along the same lines as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation and David Cameron in that a remain vote was a given. He didn't walk away like Cameron, though. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 25, 2019 9:15:00 GMT
Lord Sumption writing in The Times: The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.” I'd imagine if the result had gone the other way we wouldn't have partially left the EU. We were clearly told that one vote would win it, this makes a mockery of that. In terms of engagement with the rest that cuts to the very problem, that parliament will not engage with anything to do with Brexit, they are preventing the outcome of that vote being realised and with addressing all the many reasons cast their vote that way in the first place. It seem to me these incredible efforts to resist change only make the change needed far greater.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 25, 2019 9:16:55 GMT
Lord Sumption writing in The Times: The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.” What compromise would have been offered if the result was the other way? Fuck all.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 25, 2019 9:17:26 GMT
So suggesting that Bercow has only ever defied convention against Brexiteers is simply wrong. But at that time he probably thought along the same lines as the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation and David Cameron in that a remain vote was a given. He didn't walk away like Cameron, though. Unfortunately. Or he was being true to his promise to give backbenchers a voice?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 25, 2019 9:22:52 GMT
Lord Sumption writing in The Times: The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.” I'd imagine if the result had gone the other way we wouldn't have partially left the EU. We were clearly told that one vote would win it, this makes a mockery of that. In terms of engagement with the rest that cuts to the very problem, that parliament will not engage with anything to do with Brexit, they are preventing the outcome of that vote being realised and with addressing all the many reasons cast their vote that way in the first place. It seem to me these incredible efforts to resist change only make the change needed far greater. No, but it would have strengthened Cameron and could have given him a lot of ammunition and heft in Brussels.
Because it would have been considered a very narrow squeak of a victory (which is of course not how Leave saw their victory but then hey life is unfair right?) and because Nigel Farage and others would have been hollering for a re-run (as they promised to do).
Ergo Cameron could have been empowered to go back to Brussels and say look "I won that one, I might not win the next one, this is that whites-of-the-eyes moment and let's talk properly".
I am of course speculating, but equally so are you.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 25, 2019 9:31:25 GMT
I'd imagine if the result had gone the other way we wouldn't have partially left the EU. We were clearly told that one vote would win it, this makes a mockery of that. In terms of engagement with the rest that cuts to the very problem, that parliament will not engage with anything to do with Brexit, they are preventing the outcome of that vote being realised and with addressing all the many reasons cast their vote that way in the first place. It seem to me these incredible efforts to resist change only make the change needed far greater. No, but it would have strengthened Cameron and could have given him a lot of ammunition and heft in Brussels.
Because it would have been considered a very narrow squeak of a victory (which is of course not how Leave saw their victory but then hey life is unfair right?) and because Nigel Farage and others would have been hollering for a re-run (as they promised to do).
Ergo Cameron could have been empowered to go back to Brussels and say look "I won that one, I might not win the next one, this is that whites-of-the-eyes moment and let's talk properly".
I am of course speculating, but equally so are you.
I'm only speculating in so much as what has not happened. In terms of what has happened is clear that leave won and their result is being obstructed.
I'd also suggest that the EU, based on their recent behaviour, wouldn't have moved an inch. They're hopelessly resistant to change and eventually it'll be their undoing. That is speculation but if they had moved sufficiently we wouldn't be here and it wouldn't have only been the UK to benefit from that.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 25, 2019 9:34:40 GMT
Lord Sumption writing in The Times: The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.” What compromise would have been offered if the result was the other way? Fuck all. Hang on, there's a massive mistake being made in all the reporting (and discussion) of this. The prorogation of Parliament was intended to avoid scrutiny on Boris' charge along the 'No Deal' path. The reporting is now all focused on the choice between remaining and leaving with that no deal but the compromise is that there should be a decision made to leave with a deal that causes as little harm as possible to the wider public of the UK. Where is that being discussed at all? As someone who voted to remain I accepted that we would leave and that the government would negotiate a deal that kept trade, etc continuing as fluently as possible. I think the majority of people are in that position and not frothing about revocation or cliff edges.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 25, 2019 10:16:34 GMT
As someone who voted to remain I accepted that we would leave and that the government would negotiate a deal that kept trade, etc continuing as fluently as possible. I think the majority of people are in that position and not frothing about revocation or cliff edges. I think most people agree we need a deal but the idea of a no-deal rule is madness as it prevents us getting the best possible deal.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Sept 25, 2019 10:41:09 GMT
As someone who voted to remain I accepted that we would leave and that the government would negotiate a deal that kept trade, etc continuing as fluently as possible. I think the majority of people are in that position and not frothing about revocation or cliff edges. I think most people agree we need a deal but the idea of a no-deal rule is madness as it prevents us getting the best possible deal. Because like everything governments touch, the negotiation has become bloated and overcomplicated.
Maybe we send off to Brussels Mike Brewer shouting "old out yer hand" to get a deal done
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 25, 2019 12:23:01 GMT
As someone who voted to remain I accepted that we would leave and that the government would negotiate a deal that kept trade, etc continuing as fluently as possible. I think the majority of people are in that position and not frothing about revocation or cliff edges. I think most people agree we need a deal but the idea of a no-deal rule is madness as it prevents us getting the best possible deal. Yes in principle but I think the EU would assume from day 1 that it was a bluff because the predictions for a no deal are just so bad - what responsible government would foist that on their own people? Plus by the time our lot got to talking about that the opposition to it was so blatant that it was clear parliament would almost certainly not let it happen.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 25, 2019 12:36:18 GMT
Also the whole publically-stated "we need to keep no deal on the table so that they think we are serious" line kind of gives away the game. I.e. that the UK government isn't serious but wants the EU to think it is.
That's the only possible genius to the BoJo/Cummings approach, which is to be so batshit-crazy and bull-in-a-chinashop about everything that the EU thinks that maybe, just maybe, they would be mad enough to do it.
But that is as high-stakes an approach as they come, and it has one potentially fatal flaw, which is that it doesn't take account of the possibility of the EU just deciding to shrug its shoulders and let us go, accepting that there are costs to that.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 25, 2019 12:47:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 25, 2019 13:27:23 GMT
That is Jonathan Sumption, whose reasoned views on the matters are set out in my earlier post above and which we have been discussing.
|
|