Brexit

[DrPatrickBarry]

"cynical"

[Witton Park]

No they didn't, becasue the opposion could have added all sorts of amendents to it such as reducng the voting age to 16.

I've quoted you from Hansard above! Streuth Pat.

[Oracle]

25/9 Hansard

The Attorney General

If the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) is so confident that his electorate will consider that his moral right to sit here is so strong, ​why does he not submit it to them now? All we need—I offer this to the Labour Front Bench—is a one-line Bill, which we could put through with Mr Speaker’s help, to fix the date of a general election by a simple majority, and we could have the election. Why does he not tell his Front Bench to put his confidence in his constituents to the test?

At this time it was still possible to have a General Election prior to 31/10 and allow a new PM then to decide whether or not to seek to extend, revoke, or just leave.

Now it isn't.

Which is particularly pertinent considering Hanson consistently votes remain in a constituency that voted 56 percent leave. The reason parliament wont disband is they KNOW they do not reflect their constituents, in whic most constituencies voted to leave, by a far bigger margin than total votes.

For any who think that the ( now gloating) lady hale - which is a offence to her position- was other than a political interference ( not least because of personal views of judges conflicted by EU stipend they will losw when we leave)
the Supreme Court itself viewed royal assent as a proceeding of parliament so off limits under separation of powers. So The Supreme Court acted ultra vires to create a new law and then found boris guilty of breaking it.


in a 2014 judgement Barclay v the Lord Chancellor held that the granting of a Royal Assent was a proceeding of parliament. In that judgement the Supreme Court held that the Queen was sovereign in parliament and its (ie parliament’s) proceedings cannot be questioned.

It is also true that the Supreme Court nullified an act of the queen. It should at very least have respected protocol to suggest her majesty revoke it.

Remainers will stop at nothing. Sadly the way they have destroyed our comstitution to create an anarchic free for all, will reverberate long into the future. It is at treasonable disgrace that those demanding parliament sovereignty are hell bent on passing those powers to Brussels.

[Dave_Mole]

https://fullfact.org/online/supreme-...no-EU-stipend/

[Oracle]

https://fullfact.org/online/supreme-...no-EU-stipend/

So that is seemingly true. But The more or less universal opposition to brexit of the judges is not invented. And I will wager on history most are in Masonic lodges, the proceedings of those conversations would make interesting reading.

What is also true is that the court has contradicted itself on whether queens actions are a proceeding of parliament, and not withstanding that , it Has a duty only to interpret not to make law.

By adding the need for a "reason " to justify length of prorogue it created new law, then determined boris was guilty retrospectively . As I showed elsewhere the concept of reasonableness does not exist by default in law generally unless expressed, the Supreme Court put it there.

The Supreme Court did not do itself any favours. If it wants to be political it must also be accountable and appointed.

Worse:
Bercow tearing up the rule book handing control of primary legislation to back benches has destroyed our democracy and what it means to govern. If as is likely a sequence of coalitions follow this, he has handed authority to parliament where accountability and responsibility lies with government. Bercow has created a disaster for the future. Bot the deputy and previous speakers are rightly appalled at his behaviour.

The benn act should have been challenged as a product of ultra vires by speaker , but no doubt the Supreme Court would decide it was unable to rule on it.

Another legal principle was just destroyed in Scotland, time and again courts have refused to judge on cases purely hypothetical, like what would happen if boris didn't send the letter without any reference to circumstance or intention after the fact. Not any more.

It seems no legal principle is sacrosanct if it comes to destroying brexit,

[Stagger]

Will we be out on 1st November?

[MattPo]

I really hope not!

[Muddy Retriever]

Will we be out on 1st November?

I hope so but I doubt it.

[Witton Park]

I had an exchange today (and he seems a nice bloke, very polite in his writing) with Bertie Ahern.

He was on Sky with Adam Boutlon.

Boulton asked him to identify why the new UK proposal was unworkable.

He gave the example of a Fermanagh farmer having to ship cattle South and how they would be subject to tariffs.

The plan was for an FTA ie no tariffs. In fact Johnson in his Commons Statement explicitely said no tariffs and n quotas.

so I contact Mr Ahern via his website and asked why he felt tariffs would be in place.

I was surprised to receive a prompt reply but he still wrote:
"The most difficult issue is the UK proposal keeps Northern Ireland in the UK Customs and outside EU Customs. So a customs border on the island with tariffs on goods moving North/South."

I pointed out that having traded goods for 30 years, that in a FTA tariffs were zero, unless linked to a Quota and that as there was no suggestion of quotas in the Johnson plan, tariffs should not be a problem.

I advised that I sell in to Ireland and if an FTA was to be agreed, I would not expect any tariffs.

I advised that whilst there might be other issues, such as customs declarations, I could not see why the issue of tariffs was being raised.

He is now passing on my comments to "the relevant department".

Has he been badly briefed, or is he just mistaken? Is he getting mixed up with a WTO Brexit?

It's quite concerning, because he's going around giving interviews criticising the current UK proposals on the basis of an argument that seems highly suspect, and clearly his views carry some weight.

[Muddy Retriever]

I do accept the result. People voted for Brexit. This was based on the clearly stated pledges by lots of leading brexiteer politicians that this would mean leaving with a deal. If the UK can achieve this, I will accept democracy (despite thinking we're better off in the EU).

I presume you're on board now Noel?