[tomtom]

Labour seem to be holding out to get no deal, one of their policies, off the table before an election which seems sensible.

Choosing a date to try and reduce the number of people who will vote just seems entirely undemocratic for a political party.

Part of BJ’s problem is that he’s now set himself a ‘red line’ of brexit or bust, die in a ditch - whatever - for 31st Oct. So - by pushing him over that line the opposition make him look like a knob (in their eyes) for missing his own deadline and may try and force his resignation etc..

You would have thought he’d have learnt about red lines from his predecessor.... (face - palm etc..)...

Though it does make Labour look like they are playing a political game etc... I think brexiteers will be pissed off with Labour whatever though so maybe there is no real hit there....

Media reporting over 200k people have signed up to vote in Sept....

And to repeat my message from earlier - a GE will mostly be about Brexit - but not completely..... so don’t assume voters will follow their referendum votes completely....

[winhill]

In his record as a public servant, can you point to actions or statements that  might indicate extremist right wing or Islamist policies or agenda?

He was Regional Head of a Mawdudist organisation.

That'll do.

[TobyD]

I know a few leave voters who realised it was a shit idea more or less immediately (remember the vox-pop amazement when Cameron stood down "Ooh I didn't realise it was a big deal"), plus older leave voters who are very alarmed by the No Deal rhetoric. The leave vote was also bolstered by a lot of 'fuck you' austerity protest votes that will mostly not turn out this time. Plus they are genuinely dying off.

Even it swings back to remain, its still going to be a very small margin the other way. All the arguments remainers have cited over the last 3 years over the narrow margin will just get chucked straight back at them.

Surely we'll do it properly this time and require a super-majority? Hugely irritated that this point has not been done to death in the media. 1.9% is not a mandate for massive constitutional change. If no super-majority, no change. At least Parliament understands this, as we saw yesterday with an election requiring no less than 2/3 of all MPs to vote for it.

As I said above, what does worry me about any vote now is the social media illegal advertising which has not been addressed.

I totally agree. This was Theresa Mays huge mistake, to take 52/48 and trigger article 50 and go all out for pleasing the Brexit Spartans, not appreciating that they'd always want a harder Brexit than the one she offered. In reality she should have gone for something like a cross party select committee to analyse what sort of leave 52/48 could relate to.
Re future election: I'd be very concerned that an effective social media marketing campaign by vote leave / Cummings in either an election of a referendum would swing it their way, by cultivating apathy in the younger demographic and stirring as much fear and distrust to make sure enough leave voters turned up.

In reply to Andy F re the Costa Blanca elderly ex pats, the vast majority voted remain, principally and understandably, because the they were afraid they'd lose healthcare.

[tc]

Around 60% of the estimated 4.9 million British citizens living abroad could not vote in the EU referendum due to the 15 year rule.

[Oldmanmatt]

Boris is Rudderless.....



Boom Boom.

[TobyD]

Very droll Matt. This is I'm afraid more frightening than amusing:

The real reason we should fear the work of Dominic Cummings

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/smash-and-grab-dominic-cummings-democracy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[tomtom]

Yeah read that this morning. Quite scary. Though - I fear he has picked too big a beast in the civil service to slay.

There’s another cup of dystopian java brewing on the independent - talk of veto-ing the EU ratification of a new commissioner to force the EU to deal with us. A political dirty protest.

[Oldmanmatt]

Anyone been reading Amber’s denunciations?
No real cabinet?
Not sure who’s running the Government?
Etc etc.

Ken Clarke saying the same?

How is this not a coup?

[Oldmanmatt]

So, obviously, we’re a long way through the looking glass, now.

Almost impossible to comment on events, really.

However, I note an article in the Torygraph, celebrating Nigel as our best hope as Brexit leader and describing him as our Brexit Icarus.


Yep.

If you’re going to use a Greek mythological character for your lionising analogies, best to read the myth first...

[Plattsy]

That's not what it says Matt.

"Here is how Nigel Farage can avoid being the Brexit Icarus and see us fly out of the EU to freedom"

[andy popp]

Much as I was kind of enjoying the spectacle, I'm glad Parliament has been prorogued: the whole things was wreaking havoc with my productivity and work ethic.

[Oldmanmatt]

No, no.
The breakdown of the original:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/09/tortured-brexit-metaphor-alert-telegraph-thinks-icarus-flew-freedom

Edit:
I mean, they went back and revised the tweet. There are screen caps of the original, doing the rounds too.

[Teaboy]

That's not what it says Matt.

"Here is how Nigel Farage can avoid being the Brexit Icarus and see us fly out of the EU to freedom"

Wouldn't the Trojan Horse be a better use of greek mythology given his near takeover of the Tory party

[tomtom]

I think Stavros is possibly a better Greek cultural figure for Farage to be associated with.

Innit.

[Oldmanmatt]

So, the Times are calling out the Government over the newly released Yellow Hammer synopsis. They’re saying it’s not the “worst case” document at all, that it is the document the Times received over a month ago, that was titled “Base” scenario (or similar) and is, in fact the best case report, retitled.
Or, to put it another way, fake.

Numerous Times journalists tweeting the same thing.


Do you reckon they might be in possession of something meatier? 

The Times seems to have taken on a hint of an anti-Johnson stance.


Edit:

Oh yes, anyone north of the border have an opinion on the following:

Scotland’s highest court ruled against the Government, on Tuesday, Englands highest court will likely override that ruling. Effectively telling the Scots to get back in their box, because, ultimately, English law trumps Scots law.
I hadn’t thought much about it before, but we are absolutely not equal partners in this union. My idea that we were all just “British” and that clinging to old notions of nationality was, actually, a bit anachronistic, was naive, wasn’t it?
England has ultimate authority over the other British nations and however genteel our occupation may be, if we retain ultimate authority; occupation it must be.

I suppose there is some subtle legal niceties that mean, technically, the above isn’t “true”, for a given value of true, but if I was “British, other than English” I’d be watching what happens next with a great deal of side eye...

[Will Hunt]

I'm not aware that English law is different from Scottish law on this matter - it's not a devolved issue (sorry my understanding of the legal specifics is near non-existant)? I think the reason the case was heard in a Scottish court is because the relevant court in England is on its hols.

Most of the rest of your post is dressing up an assertion that the judiciary is not independent, for which I see you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I am not a legal expert but even I can see that some of it is factually incorrect or misleading. i.e. you say that England's highest court will likely (is it likely? What makes you think that?) overrule Scotland's highest court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for civil matters is the United Kingdom, so the Scottish Court of Session is not the highest authority on this matter, and the supreme court is not an English court, it is a court in England.

You're letting your own desire to see injustice (and, sure, there's plenty of it about) get in the way of interpreting the facts again.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm not aware that English law is different from Scottish law on this matter - it's not a devolved issue (sorry my understanding of the legal specifics is near non-existant)? I think the reason the case was heard in a Scottish court is because the relevant court in England is on its hols.

Most of the rest of your post is dressing up an assertion that the judiciary is not independent, for which I see you have provided no evidence whatsoever. I am not a legal expert but even I can see that some of it is factually incorrect or misleading. i.e. you say that England's highest court will likely (is it likely? What makes you think that?) overrule Scotland's highest court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for civil matters is the United Kingdom, so the Scottish Court of Session is not the highest authority on this matter, and the supreme court is not an English court, it is a court in England.

You're letting your own desire to see injustice (and, sure, there's plenty of it about) get in the way of interpreting the facts again.

Will.

Mate.

I was taking the piss.


It’s about perception, innit...


Also, I see you’re being a humourless muppet.


Again.



To be clear, I saw a very similar opinion expressed by a poster in the comments section of one of the articles I read yesterday and a few others, here and there. I suppose I should have phrased the question to end “following view” or “following view, that I saw expressed in X comment section (paraphrased here), partly for entertainment and party because I actually do wonder how wide spread this type of view is”.

But, I didn’t think all that was needed.

My mistake.


(Insert side eye, in Will’s direction).

Edit:

Sorry, I forgot.

Another bit of context, which gave rise (I guess, it was mentioned elsewhere in that comment thread) was that our dear Government had implied (flatly stated?) that the Scottish court was biased. I’m drinking coffee, do I have to trawl back through the overwhelming number of stories from the past week, to find the link, Will? I can, but it will have to wait.

[Nigel]

link=topic=29545.msg589803#msg589803 date=1568244472]
I'm not aware that English law is different from Scottish law on this matter - it's not a devolved issue (sorry my understanding of the legal specifics is near non-existant)?

So is mine, I have no knowledge of the law. However I do have a hazy notion that Scottish law is very different to English law. Different origins.

Devolution probably has nothing to do with it either way as that relates to government / politics rather than the law doesn't it?

Hopefully someone knowledgeable (ru?), or who can be arsed to Google it will clear it up.

The rest of your post seems unnecessarily harsh.

[Oldmanmatt]

Fuck.

I should have put it in quotes!

No wonder you got so stressed Will!

It must have been impossible for you to grasp.

You should calm down and have a cup of tea, dear. I’m not sure your face should be quite so purple. Camomile is your friend here, I think.

[dunnyg]

To be fair to young Will, it wasn't overly obvious OMM.

[Oldmanmatt]

To be fair to young Will, it wasn't overly obvious OMM.

Fair?

This is Britain in 2019, mate.

Take your foreign “fair” muck back to your socialist superstate, we’ll only have good old fashioned authoritarian social structures here and a lose association with facts and reality, when it suits our political prejudices (and tug your forelock on your way out).



(I really hope that was obviously and clearly meant to be both humorous and mocking of my own apparent tone).

[teestub]

So is mine, I have no knowledge of the law. However I do have a hazy notion that Scottish law is very different to English law. Different origins.

This thread from legal commentator David Allen Green touches on this, he’s done various interviews including one on LBC going into a bit of detail https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717055911014400?s=21

[Oldmanmatt]

So is mine, I have no knowledge of the law. However I do have a hazy notion that Scottish law is very different to English law. Different origins.

This thread from legal commentator David Allen Green touches on this, he’s done various interviews including one on LBC going into a bit of detail https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717055911014400?s=21

Forgive me, but...

Isn’t that entire thread and the subsequent comments/replies, eerily similar to my satirical earlier post?

I did say/ask if this was a widely held view in Scotland.

It will be, won’t it?

If this is shrugged off, by Government and “English” Jurisprudence; regardless of the technical legality of such a decision; it will result in a further, deep, crisis of belief in the validity of the union.


I’m not kidding about being slightly less than semi-serious     in the initial post. 

[tomtom]

From what I’ve read on this - the Scottish Judges ruling has the same weight as the English. As in - subject to appeal - BJ lied about reasons for progradation.

But the judiciary seem to be waiting until the English Supreme Court makes a ruling....

The interesting thing is that the English lower courts rejected saying it was a political not a legal issue - but Scottish disagreed. Maybe they saw different evidence - but several things I’ve read make it clear that the Scottish judges (unanimous) arguments are pretty darned solid. I guess the Supreme Court won’t be swayed by the Scottish judgement - but will revisit their ruling and the reasons behind their judgement that may well be compelling.

[tomtom]

Meanwhile BJ had just denied lying to the queen.

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-denies-lying-to-queen-over-suspension-of-parliament-11807566

I wonder if the bigger scandal may be in the covering up rather than the act here... although the act seems pretty bad