Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 826 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by summitclaret » Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:38 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:I had a conversation with taio about this very scenario a good few months back.

If a party stands on a manifesto in a general election, and wins enough seats to form a government, in what way would it be anti-democratic to then follow through with those manifesto commitments?

You could argue that it's less direct than a referendum, and that thanks to our FPTP system, it isn't proportionally representative, but it would not be anti-democratic.

In fact, in our Parliamentary system, this is exactly how it should work. Referendums don't really sit well within our representative democratic system, but that can of worms has been opened, and I think the only way this eventually gets resolved is with another referendum.

But until then, any party can legitimately stand on a manifesto to revoke article 50, to offer a referendum or to leave with no deal. They are all valid positions to take ahead of a general election.
That's fair enough in theory, but the LDs to me and I think most people will forever be anti-democratic as they want to overturn 1 ref without another. Are there any precedents for this? Even the EU don't do that.

Anyway they have no chance of forming a government and if Labour agree to revoke in that way as part of a coalition deal, it could backfire big style on them.

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Elizabeth » Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:43 pm

My message to Corbyn would be to allow his Labour MPs to support any deal brought back from the EU and concentrate on a General Election.
The threat of the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems will go and the Tories can be defeated by bashing them soundly over the years of austerity they have inflicted on so many people.
In my opinion that is the Labour Party's only realistic chance of gaining power

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:25 pm

Manifesto commitment after winning a majority in a GE is trumped by an advisory referendum?

You'd need a referendum that wasn't close AND a simple "yes" or "No" AND not to live in an parliamentary democracy.

But yeah, and that would be "unforgivable"?

Aye right

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Elizabeth » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:30 pm

The thought of a deal hurting you?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:31 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Do you have a link in which EU officials were directly quoted? All I’ve seen is “EU sources” which could be anyone, or just invented.
I think you are right, Andrew. I've only seen journalists reporting these comments from "sources." That can often be journalist speak for "the top person" or "a senior person" - but in all cases the agreement is "you can quote me, so long as you don't name me as the source."

There've been other reports that say that EU regrets getting too close to Labour with the idea that Brexit could be stopped/amended.

I guess we may not know the truth of these comments until Juncker/Barnier or someone similar writes their autobiography. ;)

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:36 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Manifesto commitment after winning a majority in a GE is trumped by an advisory referendum?

You'd need a referendum that wasn't close AND a simple "yes" or "No" AND not to live in an parliamentary democracy.

But yeah, and that would be "unforgivable"?

Aye right
Hi Lancs, any comments on the Philip Aldrick comment in The Times I posted earlier today on Yellowhammer and BoE predictions?

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:53 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, any comments on the Philip Aldrick comment in The Times I posted earlier today on Yellowhammer and BoE predictions?
Haven't seen it.

Will scroll back and have a look

He's just saying its "Project Fear"

He's got nothing to back it up.

I don't have a lot of faith in governmental institutions, but if they are not doing their job if they don't have a plan for all the scenarios.

Add the fact that "base scenario" has been replaced by "worst case scenario" in the released documents (but not in the leaked ones or the ones sent to the Scottish Government) by a government which has refused to acknowledge any reality for quite a while now, and I'm still worried.

The concern isn't Brexit anymore to be honest, this is now a direct attack on our democratic process (which survives only because no one challenges it) which has culminated in the "Mother of all Parliaments" being shut down in case it does what its 100% supposed to do in this situation.

I remain hopeful of a deal, but its got to be done really quickly, and we can't have another proroguing of parliament so that the extreme Brexiteers get their way, with no mandate and no majority.

That would be a disaster.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:44 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Haven't seen it.

Will scroll back and have a look

He's just saying its "Project Fear"

He's got nothing to back it up.

I don't have a lot of faith in governmental institutions, but if they are not doing their job if they don't have a plan for all the scenarios.

Add the fact that "base scenario" has been replaced by "worst case scenario" in the released documents (but not in the leaked ones or the ones sent to the Scottish Government) by a government which has refused to acknowledge any reality for quite a while now, and I'm still worried.

The concern isn't Brexit anymore to be honest, this is now a direct attack on our democratic process (which survives only because no one challenges it) which has culminated in the "Mother of all Parliaments" being shut down in case it does what its 100% supposed to do in this situation.

I remain hopeful of a deal, but its got to be done really quickly, and we can't have another proroguing of parliament so that the extreme Brexiteers get their way, with no mandate and no majority.

That would be a disaster.
Hi Lancs, I fear you didn't read all the article - which I posted in 4 parts, because of it's length.

Aldrick is a remain supporter - read #4. I didn't see him claim "project fear" anywhere...

I assume that he's looked at the facts for both Yellowhammer and BoE - and identified where there are flaws in their position - leading to poor predictions. He does quote facts that "backs up" his points. The things he quotes are well known.

It's the reputation for institutions to make useful predictions and the damage that will result from their failure to do so that Aldrick is commenting on.

Let's wait until the Supreme Court makes it's decision before we decide on the rights and wrongs of proroguing Parliament. We've so far had, English High Court say "not a problem" (my phrase, not their exact legal judgement), Scottish Court "it's a problem" (we all know that Scotland law differs from English law) and N.Ireland court "not a problem."

Like you I'm hoping for a deal.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:52 pm

Paul Waine wrote: Let's wait until the Supreme Court makes it's decision before we decide on the rights and wrongs of proroguing Parliament. We've so far had, English High Court say "not a problem" (my phrase, not their exact legal judgement), Scottish Court "it's a problem" (we all know that Scotland law differs from English law) and N.Ireland court "not a problem."

Like you I'm hoping for a deal.
Not even close to being right for the English and Irish courts, they both said ‘not for us to decide on’.
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Haven't seen it.

Will scroll back and have a look

He's just saying its "Project Fear"

He's got nothing to back it up.

I don't have a lot of faith in governmental institutions, but if they are not doing their job if they don't have a plan for all the scenarios.

Add the fact that "base scenario" has been replaced by "worst case scenario" in the released documents (but not in the leaked ones or the ones sent to the Scottish Government) by a government which has refused to acknowledge any reality for quite a while now, and I'm still worried.

The concern isn't Brexit anymore to be honest, this is now a direct attack on our democratic process (which survives only because no one challenges it) which has culminated in the "Mother of all Parliaments" being shut down in case it does what its 100% supposed to do in this situation.

I remain hopeful of a deal, but its got to be done really quickly, and we can't have another proroguing of parliament so that the extreme Brexiteers get their way, with no mandate and no majority.

That would be a disaster.

Where is the electoral mandate for restricting the PM to being obliged to a deal ?

Does the rabble alliance have one?

Yes or No?

The purpose of an opposition is to scrutinise the government's legislation before it becomes law. When the forces against democracy were, aided and abetted by narcissist, Bercow, allowed to seize control of parliamentary proceedings. Was there scrutiny of the Benn bill.

Yes or no?

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:57 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Where is the electoral mandate for restricting the PM to being obliged to a deal ?
The fact the Tory manifesto promised the best deal for Britain.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:59 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Was there scrutiny of the Benn bill.

Yes or no?
Yes. Two readings with debates and debate in the Lords.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:00 pm

martin_p wrote:The fact the Tory manifesto promised the best deal for Britain.

Doh!!! :lol:

The Tory manifesto said "no deal is better than a bad deal" Marty :lol:

Where is the electoral mandate for restricting the PM to being obliged to a deal ?

Does the rabble alliance have one?

Yes or No?

The purpose of an opposition is to scrutinise the government's legislation before it becomes law. When the forces against democracy were, aided and abetted by narcissist, Bercow, allowed to seize control of parliamentary proceedings. Was there scrutiny of the Benn bill.

Yes or no?

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:01 pm

martin_p wrote:Yes. Two readings with debates and debate in the Lords.

Electoral mandate? :lol: :lol:

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:05 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Electoral mandate? :lol: :lol:
You asked whether there was scrutiny on the Benn Bill, the answer is yes.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:07 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Doh!!! :lol:

The Tory manifesto said "no deal is better than a bad deal" Marty :lol:

Where is the electoral mandate for restricting the PM to being obliged to a deal ?
Ok, fair point. But the Tories didn’t win a majority so there wasn’t actually a mandate for their manifesto.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by RingoMcCartney » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:17 pm

martin_p wrote:You asked whether there was scrutiny on the Benn Bill, the answer is yes.
I also asked whether the rabble alliance had any sort or electoral mandate?

Yes or no?

You won't answer!!!

Because you know the answer!

Earlier on this week I said the 2016 referendum result was the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed.

Out you popped huffing and puffing saying it wasn't!

But you admitted that, and I quote.

"The Leave vote was (in number of votes cast) the largest mandate for something in U.K. history,"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh Marty do you provide a decent amount of light relief! You really!

God bless you Marty! Schooling you on a regular basis , on a scale of 1 to 10 , for satisfaction, is about a solid 5.75.


Not quite shelling peas, but somewhere around that mark! :lol: :lol:

Thanks for being there Marts.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:21 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I also asked whether the rabble alliance had any sort or electoral mandate?

Yes or no?

You won't answer!!!

Because you know the answer!

Earlier on this week I said the 2016 referendum result was the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed.

Out you popped huffing and puffing saying it wasn't!

But you admitted that, and I quote.

"The Leave vote was (in number of votes cast) the largest mandate for something in U.K. history,"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh Marty do you provide a decent amount of light relief! You really!

God bless you Marty! Schooling you on a regular basis , on a scale of 1 to 10 , for satisfaction, is about a solid 5.75.


Not quite shelling peas, but somewhere around that mark! :lol: :lol:

Thanks for being there Marts.
I missed the question. No they don’t have a mandate. No one has any mandate for a specific form of Brexit which is what’s causing all the issues. But under those circumstances you expect our elected politicians to work it out based on what they think is best for the country. Parliament has decided that a no deal Brexit definitely isn’t best for the country in a democratic way. Democracy, sometimes you lose!

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:23 pm

martin_p wrote:Not even close to being right for the English and Irish courts, they both said ‘not for us to decide on’.
Hi Martin, isn't that what "no problem" means - it's "not for us to decide on." I think the legal term for English high court was "non-jurisdictionable."

It's funny how you wanted to say I'm "not even close to being right" when, what you meant to say was "yes, that's exactly right, Paul."

No worries. Everyone gets another chance when the Supreme Court decides on Wed.

Which way do you think they will decide?

bobinho
Posts: 9247
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
Been Liked: 4069 times
Has Liked: 6535 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by bobinho » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:25 pm

What are “extreme brexiteers”?

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:27 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Martin, isn't that what "no problem" means - it's "not for us to decide on." I think the legal term for English high court was "non-jurisdictionable."

It's funny how you wanted to say I'm "not even close to being right" when, what you meant to say was "yes, that's exactly right, Paul."

No worries. Everyone gets another chance when the Supreme Court decides on Wed.

Which way do you think they will decide?
I’m not sure you’ll find that definition of ‘no problem’ in any dictionary! The English and Irish courts haven’t expressed whether it’s a problem or not. Johnson has made the same mistake and was criticised for claiming that the High Court has ruled prorogation legal.

I suspect the Supreme Court may support the High Court decision and say that it’s a political matter and they have no basis to make a ruling (which will over rule the Scottish Court judgement). I couldn’t be further than being an expert on this though.
Last edited by martin_p on Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:27 pm

bobinho wrote:What are “extreme brexiteers”?
I'm making a guess they are LibDems…. though, I'm not really sure any more (are any of us)?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:33 pm

martin_p wrote:I’m not sure you’ll find that definition of ‘no problem’ in any dictionary! The English and Irish courts haven’t expressed whether it’s a problem or not. Johnson has made the same mistake and was criticised for claiming that the High Court has ruled prorogation legal.
I'm pretty sure prorogation is legal - it's the process parliament follows before every Queen's speech, isn't it.

In what situation is something that the PM has for a long time (always?) had the power to do become "not legal?"

The simple issue is that in 2010 a "bad law" was enacted - the fixed term parliament act. OK, when Cameron and Clegg formed a coalition gov't it was a good idea to have a fixed term agreement for the period of the coalition. But, it should have a sunset clause: the act should not have had effect beyond that single 5 year parliament.
This user liked this post: CrosspoolClarets

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:40 pm

Paul Waine wrote:I'm pretty sure prorogation is legal - it's the process parliament follows before every Queen's speech, isn't it.

In what situation is something that the PM has for a long time (always?) had the power to do become "not legal?"

The simple issue is that in 2010 a "bad law" was enacted - the fixed term parliament act. OK, when Cameron and Clegg formed a coalition gov't it was a good idea to have a fixed term agreement for the period of the coalition. But, it should have a sunset clause: the act should not have had effect beyond that single 5 year parliament.
We’re talking about the specifics of this prorogation, not in general, the issue being the reasons given to the Queen for it happening versus reality (which according to the Scottish Court is the stymie parliamentary debate on Brexit).

Repealing the fixed term parliament act was actually part of the Tory manifesto at the last election; no one seems to have taken to the street over that one not being delivered though.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:12 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Martin, isn't that what "no problem" means - it's "not for us to decide on." I think the legal term for English high court was "non-jurisdictionable."

It's funny how you wanted to say I'm "not even close to being right" when, what you meant to say was "yes, that's exactly right, Paul."

No worries. Everyone gets another chance when the Supreme Court decides on Wed.

Which way do you think they will decide?
If you murdered someone a magistrates court would say "not for us to decide on" but I don't think anyone would equate that to them saying "no problem".
This user liked this post: Burnley Ace

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:14 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:I also asked whether the rabble alliance had any sort or electoral mandate?

Yes or no?
Yes.

Each of those MPs was voted for by the public. That's where their mandate comes from. That's how a representative democracy works.
This user liked this post: Greenmile

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:22 am

martin_p wrote:Well if you can point to the place where Momentum have said it’s their position to try and drown out opinions they don’t like rather than it being your determined prejudice I’ll engage with that question.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -marginals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The #stopthecoup protests have galvanised and united Labour’s base in opposition to Johnson’s anti-democratic, establishment power grab. They have already severely destabilised the Johnson premiership, culminating in his garbled speech on the steps of Downing Street drowned out by the chants of protesters. Now we must translate this anger and energy into power."

That was by Laura Parker in the link posted by Spijed earlier. If you don't think that is Momentum saying it is their position to try and drown out opinions they don't like, then what its it?

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:33 am

dsr wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -marginals

"The #stopthecoup protests have galvanised and united Labour’s base in opposition to Johnson’s anti-democratic, establishment power grab. They have already severely destabilised the Johnson premiership, culminating in his garbled speech on the steps of Downing Street drowned out by the chants of protesters. Now we must translate this anger and energy into power."

That was by Laura Parker in the link posted by Spijed earlier. If you don't think that is Momentum saying it is their position to try and drown out opinions they don't like, then what its it?
The sound of Laura Parker desperately trying to claim the credit for something organised by the Blairites?

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:34 am

If it be your will wrote:The sound of Laura Parker desperately trying to claim the credit for something organised by the Blairites?
Might be at that. But none the less, she is claiming it to be Momentum policy, regardless of whether she can actually deliver it.

If it be your will
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
Been Liked: 500 times
Has Liked: 509 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by If it be your will » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:54 am

dsr wrote:Might be at that. But none the less, she is claiming it to be Momentum policy, regardless of whether she can actually deliver it.
It's comical watching Momentum - supposedly the insurgent socialist wing of Labour - trying to remain relevant when it's clear the centrists are back in control of Labour:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... conference" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Go Tom Watson!)

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Spiral » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:32 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Admit it, you know, virtually, nothing about me do you!

Admit it , you know the parody account known as Elizabeth, isn't me but feel its something to discredit me if you say you think it's me!

Admit it, you previously claimed you blocked my posts and your reply proves you were telling fibs and I've hit a raw nerve!
Hello Elizabeth. You'll be pleased to learn I've never personally blocked you, nor any other nutter on this forum, from having their posts displayed. You must be confusing me for someone else. That's not my jam. I'm all for free speech, and I'm not so weak as to make an effort to 'protect' and shield myself from, basically, lunacy. Speaking about which, how about this for a segue! Last week I was banned for using the n-word (tut-tut, quite naughty, *clutch pearls*, etc.) in a blatantly and obviously surrealist, ironic fashion to argue against a post which sought to legitimise and validate racism as an inevitable and, assumedly, ultimately forgivable consequence of economic strife. The poster dsr (hello!) reported this, (because he has a rock on for me), but yet, a while later, another poster, pstotto, posted that "remainers are traitors who should be shot" (paraphrase, post #13307), and, quelle surprise, nobody, not even policeman dsr, batted an eyelid; from which one can only assume that dsr must be completely and utterly passive about literal incitements to murder when it suits his politics, but surrealism? Now that must be a bridge too far.

Alexa: define crypto-fascism.
These 2 users liked this post: evensteadiereddie Lancasterclaret

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:56 am

aggi wrote:If you murdered someone a magistrates court would say "not for us to decide on" but I don't think anyone would equate that to them saying "no problem".
Not quite, aggi. If you are accused of murder, the magistrates court will say that proceedings must go to a higher court. That isn't what the High Court decided with the "Miller #2" (my shorthand - I don't know how the courts identified the English law action). As is frequently the case, and common legal procedure, the High Court also said that the case should be (was it "should" or "could?") by heard by the Supreme Court.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Paul Waine » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:59 am

martin_p wrote:We’re talking about the specifics of this prorogation, not in general, the issue being the reasons given to the Queen for it happening versus reality (which according to the Scottish Court is the stymie parliamentary debate on Brexit).

Repealing the fixed term parliament act was actually part of the Tory manifesto at the last election; no one seems to have taken to the street over that one not being delivered though.
Agree, Martin. The Supreme Court will decide on the prorogation issue.

Fixed term parliaments - I guess if you don't have a majority after 2017 election you can't pursue all your mandates. (I think there's been something else going on). Not pursuing it doesn't make it not "bad law."

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:14 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, I fear you didn't read all the article - which I posted in 4 parts, because of it's length.

Aldrick is a remain supporter - read #4. I didn't see him claim "project fear" anywhere...

I assume that he's looked at the facts for both Yellowhammer and BoE - and identified where there are flaws in their position - leading to poor predictions. He does quote facts that "backs up" his points. The things he quotes are well known.

It's the reputation for institutions to make useful predictions and the damage that will result from their failure to do so that Aldrick is commenting on.

Let's wait until the Supreme Court makes it's decision before we decide on the rights and wrongs of proroguing Parliament. We've so far had, English High Court say "not a problem" (my phrase, not their exact legal judgement), Scottish Court "it's a problem" (we all know that Scotland law differs from English law) and N.Ireland court "not a problem."

Like you I'm hoping for a deal.
Well, the only way an acceptable deal gets through is if 50+ Labour MPs back it, which is possible as they have been pretty useless at making their minds up, but yeah, still hope for a deal.

The article though is full of stuff to undermine yellowhammer, rather than accept the possibility that it is both correct and needs to be written.

But if it was "worst case scenario" (which it isn't, and its so easy to find the evidence that the authors don't think it is worst case scenario) it would still need to be written.

What worries me is that there is an "actual worst case scenario" in the files, and we haven't seen it yet, and that there isn't a "best case scenario" because its impossible to write as the effects of a "No Deal" will cause the disruption and shortages highlighted in the base report which is what Yellowhammer is.

It means nothing that he used to be a remainer btw, plenty of the more extreme members of the government used to be remainers!

Taking the point on board btw that there is a risk that this undermines the credibility of government departments if it proves to be wrong and that people will cover their arses at all times but it still needed writing and it still needed releasing to the public.

One of the main reasons it needed to be released is that the government has been ignoring the reality of the situation since 2017, and that is far more damaging to our institutions than a report on what would/might happen in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:19 am

dsr wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -marginals

"The #stopthecoup protests have galvanised and united Labour’s base in opposition to Johnson’s anti-democratic, establishment power grab. They have already severely destabilised the Johnson premiership, culminating in his garbled speech on the steps of Downing Street drowned out by the chants of protesters. Now we must translate this anger and energy into power."

That was by Laura Parker in the link posted by Spijed earlier. If you don't think that is Momentum saying it is their position to try and drown out opinions they don't like, then what its it?
If you think that someone saying the sound of a protest drowned out a speech equates to it being a policy to drown out speeches you have a very poor grasp of logic. It means exactly what it says, the chants of the protestors drowned out the speech. Although you said it didn’t which, using your logic, means their policy is not to drown out speeches.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:19 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Where is the electoral mandate for restricting the PM to being obliged to a deal ?

Does the rabble alliance have one?

Yes or No?

The purpose of an opposition is to scrutinise the government's legislation before it becomes law. When the forces against democracy were, aided and abetted by narcissist, Bercow, allowed to seize control of parliamentary proceedings. Was there scrutiny of the Benn bill.

Yes or no?
No, but the PM doesn't have one either as he's not got a majority and he wasn't PM in 2017 when that majority for the hardest Brexit possible was lost. The continuing failure of you to accept that 2017 GE should have killed a "No Deal" stone dead is very telling. You want "No Deal" at any cost, which means everytime you call anyone "anti-democratic", everyone will continue to point and laugh at you. "No Deal" has no mandate, and no democratic means of getting through using parliamentary democracy. People who want "No Deal" are ******* in the face of democracy.

That only becomes a problem if the "rebel alliance" (the good guys in Star Wars so I'm glad you are using the term) try to do anything other than stop a "No Deal" and then have an election or a referendum.

If they do anything else, they don't have a mandate. Just like the PM doesn't have one.

Someone else has already answered your 2nd question.

*Got to take youngest to school so I apologise for being a lot briefer than I wanted to be
Last edited by Lancasterclaret on Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:25 am

Paul Waine wrote:Not quite, aggi. If you are accused of murder, the magistrates court will say that proceedings must go to a higher court. That isn't what the High Court decided with the "Miller #2" (my shorthand - I don't know how the courts identified the English law action). As is frequently the case, and common legal procedure, the High Court also said that the case should be (was it "should" or "could?") by heard by the Supreme Court.
Yep, fair enough. The magistrates court wouldn't be saying we've "no problem" with this potential act of murder though which is what your original post said. That is the point.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:29 am

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status ... 40/photo/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the problem that is stopping a deal. If they can find the balance, they we can get one and get it through parliament.

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Elizabeth » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:06 am

Hello Spiral

Sorry I couldn't be up in the middle of the night to wish you hello then

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Elizabeth » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:10 am

Normally I'd have sympathy Ringo that your posts are being undermined by reference to me.
I say normally but you are as far off the mark about me as they are.

Bring on the deal, eh, Lancaster

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by dsr » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:23 am

martin_p wrote:If you think that someone saying the sound of a protest drowned out a speech equates to it being a policy to drown out speeches you have a very poor grasp of logic. It means exactly what it says, the chants of the protestors drowned out the speech. Although you said it didn’t which, using your logic, means their policy is not to drown out speeches.
You can't see any hint that she approves of their actions?

Just as a bit of potentially useful information, incidentally - if you try to do something and fail, it doesn't mean your policy is to fail. Man City didn't have a policy of losing to Norwich, Boris Johnson doesn't have a policy of losing all his votes in the Parliament, and Labour doesn't have a Brexit policy ... actually, I think I'll stop there.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:37 am

dsr wrote:You can't see any hint that she approves of their actions?

Just as a bit of potentially useful information, incidentally - if you try to do something and fail, it doesn't mean your policy is to fail. Man City didn't have a policy of losing to Norwich, Boris Johnson doesn't have a policy of losing all his votes in the Parliament, and Labour doesn't have a Brexit policy ... actually, I think I'll stop there.
You’re getting the hang of this logic thing now, well done.

I’ve no doubt she does approve of them protesting, but again that doesn’t equate to a ‘policy of drowning out things they don’t approve of’. The reason protest groups raise their voices when people are talking on the tv is that they know they’ll be heard on tv and being heard is what protest is all about. Do you think that those you can hear protesting in the background when tv news broadcasts from outside Westminster have a policy of trying to drown out the news or are taking the opportunity to be heard by as many people as possible?
Last edited by martin_p on Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by AndrewJB » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:47 am

dsr wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -marginals

"The #stopthecoup protests have galvanised and united Labour’s base in opposition to Johnson’s anti-democratic, establishment power grab. They have already severely destabilised the Johnson premiership, culminating in his garbled speech on the steps of Downing Street drowned out by the chants of protesters. Now we must translate this anger and energy into power."

That was by Laura Parker in the link posted by Spijed earlier. If you don't think that is Momentum saying it is their position to try and drown out opinions they don't like, then what its it?
Protesting and making yourself heard is not the same as trying to drown out views you don't like - especially when Johnson could have turned up the volume on the microphone. It's not whatsoever the same as preventing Johnson from airing his views (considering he's the PM, and can pen an article in one of many newspapers). Let's not forget that this is the PM who has prorogued Parliament in order to ram through his own agenda without opposition.

The whole point of Momentum is to make the Labour Party, and the country more democratic. Go on their website, look at their stated aims, and consider the actions they have taken - all of which are consistent.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5227
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:07 am

aggi wrote:Yes.

Each of those MPs was voted for by the public. That's where their mandate comes from. That's how a representative democracy works.
Apologies aggi, but no, it isn’t.

We have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, and the executive power that the Queen would normally wield is delegated to her Government, “the Executive”. That is the way our constitution works.

Our elected representatives have legislative power, but not executive power. This is where Bercow and the rebels are twisting things to get their own way. A new law should not be passed without the approval of the government, although the legislature normally have the rights to amend. That’s why I don’t think the rebels have a democratic mandate. That, and the moral view that they are working with all of the losers in the last election so how can that be a mandate to do anything because the public have already rejected those parties (other than the SNP which is a minority country rather than gaining a minority vote)?

Compare and contrast to the US, where Congress can provisionally pass a law but Trump (the Executive) has to sign it for it to become law. There is complete separation of powers - in the UK that is getting muddied.

I read Prof Vernon Bogdaner talking about this. If my memory is right he is a Lib Dem supporter normally who taught Cameron politics at Oxford. I don’t think he approves of what Bercow has done and he also said prorogation is perfectly constitutional even if done for opportunistic reasons.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:10 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Apologies aggi, but no, it isn’t.

We have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, and the executive power that the Queen would normally wield is delegated to her Government, “the Executive”. That is the way our constitution works.

Our elected representatives have legislative power, but not executive power. This is where Bercow and the rebels are twisting things to get their own way. A new law should not be passed without the approval of the government, although the legislature normally have the rights to amend. That’s why I don’t think the rebels have a democratic mandate. That, and the moral view that they are working with all of the losers in the last election so how can that be a mandate to do anything because the public have already rejected those parties (other than the SNP which is a minority country rather than gaining a minority vote)?

Compare and contrast to the US, where Congress can provisionally pass a law but Trump (the Executive) has to sign it for it to become law. There is complete separation of powers - in the UK that is getting muddied.

I read Prof Vernon Bogdaner talking about this. If my memory is right he is a Lib Dem supporter normally who taught Cameron politics at Oxford. I don’t think he approves of what Bercow has done and he also said prorogation is perfectly constitutional even if done for opportunistic reasons.
Right. So you back an executive with unchecked power, even if the parliamentary majority is against it?

Why even bother having a parliament?

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:16 am

Great thread from PM Foster of the Telegraph of the various options and likelihood of them being done in the "Deal".

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 3861768192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:17 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Apologies aggi, but no, it isn’t.

We have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, and the executive power that the Queen would normally wield is delegated to her Government, “the Executive”. That is the way our constitution works.

Our elected representatives have legislative power, but not executive power. This is where Bercow and the rebels are twisting things to get their own way. A new law should not be passed without the approval of the government, although the legislature normally have the rights to amend. That’s why I don’t think the rebels have a democratic mandate. That, and the moral view that they are working with all of the losers in the last election so how can that be a mandate to do anything because the public have already rejected those parties (other than the SNP which is a minority country rather than gaining a minority vote)?

Compare and contrast to the US, where Congress can provisionally pass a law but Trump (the Executive) has to sign it for it to become law. There is complete separation of powers - in the UK that is getting muddied.

I read Prof Vernon Bogdaner talking about this. If my memory is right he is a Lib Dem supporter normally who taught Cameron politics at Oxford. I don’t think he approves of what Bercow has done and he also said prorogation is perfectly constitutional even if done for opportunistic reasons.

Why are the ‘losers’ who have been ‘rejected by the public’ sat in parliament? Are you saying constituencies that return MPs not voting in candidates that form part of the government should have no say? By the way, the ‘losers’ outnumber the ‘winners’ at the moment.
Last edited by martin_p on Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

martin_p
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by martin_p » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:26 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Great thread from PM Foster of the Telegraph of the various options and likelihood of them being done in the "Deal".

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 3861768192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Worryingly there is a stream of thought that means a loophole in the no deal bill means that Johnson can get no deal by getting a deal through parliament!

The thinking goes that the Benn bill only requires parliament to agree a withdrawal agreement for a Johnson not to have to ask for an extension. But what it doesn’t say is that he then has to pass a bill to make the WA law. So in theory he could negotiate an NI only backstop that he knows the EU will agree to, make sure he has full support from the ERG and DUP by telling them he has no intention of making it law, get it through the commons with that support and the Labour rebels, then just sit on his hands until 31st October having met the conditions of the Benn bill but with no intention of putting a WA bill through parliament. There’s even a thought he may prorogue again after the WA has received commons support to avoid them forcing a WA bill. 31st October comes, no WA bill agreed, no deal Brexit.
Last edited by martin_p on Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Darthlaw
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:08 pm
Been Liked: 1177 times
Has Liked: 414 times
Location: Death Star, Dark Side Row S Seat 666

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Darthlaw » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:26 am

Lancasterclaret wrote: the "rebel alliance" (the good guys in Star Wars)
Objection!

:lol:
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:29 am

Darthlaw wrote:Objection!

:lol:
I've never forgiven that Imperial gunner on the Imperial Star Destroyer for not firing at the escape pod containing the droids and the plans for blowing up the death star.

Locked