[TobyD]

Surely BJ will try to force an election somehow?
I can't see him resigning, and I can't see him going back on his do or die by the 31st pledge.

[TobyD]

Bet there's an interesting atmosphere in No.10 right now!

Tory party conference will be interesting.

If they go ahead with it!?

[Oldmanmatt]

Because Bozo hasn’t been challenged yet by his own back bencher, is this possibly something that his own people might be furiously writing to the 1922 committee about?

May was safe, after surviving the challenge, for a year or so, wasn’t she? Does the “safety” zone apply to a newly elected leader?

[tomtom]

I wonder if we will start to see Tory support for BJ starting to unravel now... Lying to the queen, breaking the law.... Drawing a Trump parallel there repiblicans all (sometimes unwillingly) got behind Trump - will UK Tories do the same?

Already BJ's hypocracy is being called out - As Nicola Sturgeon (and Amber Rudd) have pointed out "He can’t have it both ways - either prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit as he claimed, OR having prorogation declared unlawful frustrates Brexit. It can’t be both."

[Will Hunt]

@ Sam and Chris. The Queen will do as she is told by her ministers. If the ministers are found to be engaged in shenanigans then the courts will sort it out. If this process has taught me one thing it is that the Queen takes her constitutional role as an apolitical head of state extremely seriously.

@ Andy. Cummings has said some nasty things about Farage in the past (they were part of different Leave campaigns with different methods and agendas). There's long standing beef and Farage would love to see him toppled.

@ Tom. I don't think "breaking the law" is right, is it? I believe there's an important distinction between an illegal and an unlawful act. An illegal act is one which is expressly forbidden by law. An unlawful act is one which is not provisioned for or does not conform with the law. So as far as I'm aware he hasn't committed an offence.

I was wondering about this when they passed the Act that forces the PM to extend Article 50. The text of the act (which you can find here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/contents/enacted ) doesn't talk about the consequences of not abiding by the Act. So if Johnson decides not to do anything, I don't think it's neccesarily criminal, moreover I think it would be unlawful? Normally when we have rules which constitute an offence when broken there will be an indication of what the punishment can be - there's nothing like that in the EU Withdrawal Act that I can see.

Where's Ru (or, God forbid, Sloper) when you need him?

[GraemeA]

(or, God forbid, Sloper)

I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?

[andy popp]

Rough straw poll: is Brexit on October 31st - with or without a deal - now more or less likely than it was yesterday?



(Disclaimer: this could actually be personally pretty critical for me. Having largely viewed Brexit in relatively abstract terms, that is no longer possible).

[Oldmanmatt]

(or, God forbid, Sloper)

I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?

Tom’s Irish, isn’t he?
So possibly none.

[Oldmanmatt]

Rough straw poll: is Brexit on October 31st - with or without a deal - now more or less likely than it was yesterday?



(Disclaimer: this could actually be personally pretty critical for me. Having largely viewed Brexit in relatively abstract terms that is no longer possible).

50/50. My vote.
Extension there if we ask (I think), still massive momentum towards leaving sooner rather than later.
Genies don’t easily get put back in bottles.

Then, many years/decades of recriminations and discord during negotiations. No quick fix either way.

[mrjonathanr]

On the face of it you’d say slightly less, given it’s a setback for the current Brexit strategists in no. 10. but I think Danny Dyer got it right with his Sphinx-like riddle of a Brexit. It’s a political Schrödinger’s cat: unknowable till it’s over; simultaneously more and less likely with each random event.

There’s no meaningful answer really.

[Oldmanmatt]

@ Sam and Chris. The Queen will do as she is told by her ministers. If the ministers are found to be engaged in shenanigans then the courts will sort it out. If this process has taught me one thing it is that the Queen takes her constitutional role as an apolitical head of state extremely seriously.

@ Andy. Cummings has said some nasty things about Farage in the past (they were part of different Leave campaigns with different methods and agendas). There's long standing beef and Farage would love to see him toppled.

@ Tom. I don't think "breaking the law" is right, is it? I believe there's an important distinction between an illegal and an unlawful act. An illegal act is one which is expressly forbidden by law. An unlawful act is one which is not provisioned for or does not conform with the law. So as far as I'm aware he hasn't committed an offence.

I was wondering about this when they passed the Act that forces the PM to extend Article 50. The text of the act (which you can find here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/contents/enacted ) doesn't talk about the consequences of not abiding by the Act. So if Johnson decides not to do anything, I don't think it's neccesarily criminal, moreover I think it would be unlawful? Normally when we have rules which constitute an offence when broken there will be an indication of what the punishment can be - there's nothing like that in the EU Withdrawal Act that I can see.

Where's Ru (or, God forbid, Sloper) when you need him?

There seems to be a bewildering variety of  analyses out there (so it’s “suck it and see”, again),
but this one seems the most stark:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/supreme-court-brexit-boris-johnson-europe-eu-parliament-a9118011.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569324212

[tomtom]

(or, God forbid, Sloper)

I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?

Think I've seen Tom since Brexit and IIRC he thinks its nuts.

[GraemeA]

(or, God forbid, Sloper)

I wonder what type of Brexit (if any!) Sloper would favour?

Tom’s Irish, isn’t he?
So possibly none.

Irish, yes, but North or Republic?

[mark20]

Quite a worrying post from Leave.eu on farcebook

"Today eleven unelected lawyers have given a few hundred MPs the power to subvert the decision of 17.4m voters. As we approach Oct. 31, we will find out if Britain is still a democracy or not!"

Full link https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/photos/rpp.794492093982367/2448833518548208/?type=3&theater

[tomtom]

@ Tom. I don't think "breaking the law" is right, is it? I believe there's an important distinction between an illegal and an unlawful act. An illegal act is one which is expressly forbidden by law. An unlawful act is one which is not provisioned for or does not conform with the law. So as far as I'm aware he hasn't committed an offence.

I think someone has dug up legistlation showing that lying to the queen = treason = breaking the law.

But that aside - I was just quoting what the BBC and SkyNews were saying.... Their legal wonks are better than mine...

[Oldmanmatt]

You know, the funniest part about the LeaveEU thing?


I thought the prorogation of Parliament, was nothing  nothing to do with Brexit?

.......?

[Duma]

love a good flow chart - this is a great series

https://jonworth.eu/brexit-what-next/

Strongly disagree with his probabilities though - specifically the chance of a VONC succeeding

[Oldmanmatt]

So, has Bozo actually succeeded in reducing the power of the Executive, permanently?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/24/supreme-court-judgment-sounds-trumpet-failed-prime-minister?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569327782

[largeruk]

Even the FT, whose policy is never for call for heads to roll in editorials, have gone full 12-bore on Bojo...


https://www.ft.com/content/2b217664-deb9-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59

[Fiend]

You know, the funniest part about the LeaveEU thing?


I thought the prorogation of Parliament, was nothing  nothing to do with Brexit?

.......?

Exactly. Same with Gove's gibberish about a strong domestic agenda and a chance to deliver Brexit - surely an admission of guilt?? 

I woke up remembering that fucking Leave.eu farcebook image and was instantly angry, presumably the site is an offshoot of the Daily fucking Mail. The level of stupidity is disgusting, everyone involved in it and all of their 965k followers should be rendered down into offal and dog food.

[TobyD]

The Times investigation into Boris Johnson's  relationship with  Jennifer Acuri at any other time would be big news and a profound indictment of character and behaviour in public office:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prime-ministers-100m-plan-for-former-model-jennifer-arcuri-hk0zt7kff?shareToken=5b9718d0c67a424b0912cd2445057fcc

[Will Hunt]

I was surprised to see the headlines today. Yesterday I looked at the Mail and the Sun's coverage and it was fairly emotionless. The editorial teams have rallied overnight with the usual shameful headlines. Even the Telegraph have gone too far.

[tomtom]

What do you expect (papers)....


The irony is that Brexiteers seem to moan (on phone ins and voxpops) that all of this is slowing the process - adding to the confusion and sense of going no-where that the country is experiencing. THEY VOTED for all of this shit to happen - just didnt realise it would take so long when they ticked out on their ballot paper...

Even if. IF. a quick deal/decision had been made back in say 2018 (don't forget MayBot delayed things by calling a GE...) then we'd still be having 3, 5, 10 years of negotiations and transitions (even if we went for a 'easy' Norway package deal etc..).

FOOLS.

/rant

[Oldmanmatt]

Love that Gove has said today that “some judges” disagree with the Supreme Court ruling.

Yes Mike, but not any of the eleven that actually matter.

Every learned opinion I’ve read over the last 24 hrs since I posted my question here yesterday, agrees that the ruling sets parliament as the sovereign over the executive. That the ruling diminishes the Executive prerogative in many areas, confirms parliament’s sovereignty in matters such as declaration of war (already mostly removed from the Executive) etc etc.
All these excited Law professors and QCs etc, are saying this is going to have repercussions way beyond Brexit and the current crisis and that this event will be remembered and influential, long after Brexit is forgotten.

I think you could probably close your eyes, spin around, lob a pebble and hit two Giddy Law professionals, with similar opinions on their lips, right now.

I admit I have avoided the Telegraph, so far. I suppose I will venture there soon, but it really did stop making sense some time ago and always seems at odds with all the other broad sheets. The Times is as far right as I can stomach these days.

[Oldmanmatt]

It’s a distinguished list of Interveners, supporting the plaintiff, pretty much all the other governments of the UK, for instance.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Miller-No-FINAL-1.pdf