Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Lowbankclaret » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:39 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Agree, but Andrew is only bothered about looking after the UK. It can then "set and example" for the rest, or something. ;)

But the EU is all about the history.

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:41 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Why? Just, why, Lancs?
Why is Johnson a liar?

Seriously?

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:44 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Why is Johnson a liar?

Seriously?
No, Lancs, that wasn't my question. But never mind, if you don't want to answer you don't want to answer. It looks like that's the realities.

Take care.

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Pstotto » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:47 pm

Since the tyre on my car was punctured by an arrow fired from a Cherokee in Cliviger Gorge, I've changed Bordeaux. I was a naive liberal type who thought everyone was nice... You see I was brought up in Padiham where it's all very nice.

Incidentally I've never seen a demographic breakdown of the Brexit vote other than by area of by age group.
Last edited by Pstotto on Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:48 pm

Did your parents smack you Psotto?

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:50 pm

Paul Waine wrote:No, Lancs, that wasn't my question. But never mind, if you don't want to answer you don't want to answer. It looks like that's the realities.

Take care.
You've lost me mate

Take care yourself!

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Pstotto » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:52 pm

Only when I ran away and got caught and brought back... I don't think it's related to the demographics of the Brexit vote, but a butterfly on the other side of the world might disagree, or pesky Buddhists who say everything is karma.

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5521 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by TheFamilyCat » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:17 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Did your parents smack you Psotto?
He's certainly been smacking himself up.

Pstotto
Posts: 6224
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:11 pm
Been Liked: 1024 times
Has Liked: 763 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Pstotto » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:24 pm

I'm mean and clean, sir.

I've even taken to shaving as well, but I hardly think it will affect the Brexit outcome.

Drugs for mugs, booze you lose (until further notice)...

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:27 pm

Well done mate, just the bigotry to overcome now

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:46 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, yes, I've asked you a serious question.

You posted:

"At one stage does the court have to intervene to guarantee that the law is obeyed?

Surely its better now to make sure that law is obeyed, rather than at a stage where the government breaking the law means it gets what it wants?

Surely you are not advocating letting law breakers get away with what they want, even if they break the law?"

Was I wrong to assume that you know what the Benn Act says when you wrote the above? My recollection is that BA refers to "if the Gov't hasn't got a deal...."

We all welcome living in a country where the "rule of law" governs. But, I can't recall the law being empowered to act before a law is (EDIT) alleged to have been broken, can you? So, does BA say something had to be done by Gov't by 4-Oct - and that hasn't been done?

EDIT: replaced "has" by is alleged to have" - I'm pretty sure the rule of law in UK still works on "innocent until proved guilty."
Paul - the basis of pretty much all terror legislation is to avoid the substantive crime taking place, rather than dealing with the consequences.

Likewise, if we want a more trivial example relevant to this forum, there's a quite a number of rules used to prevent potential football hooliganism, including preventing people from travelling to games. I can think of plenty of other examples.

There are also heaps of examples of points of reference being taken to the courts on things like tax which are designed to give a proactive steer as to how a law should be interpreted before offences would otherwise be committed.

So nothing in the courts being engaged early is necessarily new.

And whichever way you look at it, the Prime Minister saying that he won't abide by a law passed by parliament, or that he's going to try and evade its meaning unless compelled to do so by the courts - that's morally bankrupt. What sort of a message does it send to anyone who might be looking for other technical loopholes in laws - perhaps tax laws, say?

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:52 pm

summitclaret wrote:Wrong. There was no law of the land before the SC decision. They made new law and he immediately complied with it. Getting involved before a law is broken is a very dangerous principle. I really hope that the Government can get the Surrender Act overturned. Not so we can leave without a deal, but so we can get the best deal possible now.
Wrong. The Supreme Court may have clarified the law, but they did not make new law in any true sense. The judgement of the court was based on, and followed inexorably from, existing precedents.

As with any area of our law that is not codified in statute, until a court has provided a definitive judgement on a particular question, there's always - technically - a gap. That's what case law is. This judgement just joined the dots between the law as laid down by existing cases.

And before you question the fact that the lower court came to a different judgement - that's easy. It's convention on a point of such significance, where there's no direct existing judgement, to leave it to the higher court to make the significant decision.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5230
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:07 pm

I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court applying the law, as long as it was truly an issue for them to rule on (it reassures me it was unanimous). But I do have a problem with the leader of the Supreme Court attending the conference of the state girl’s school association today (my daughter goes to one) making fun of Boris and praising “girly swots”. A major lapse of judgement, so these judges do make them.

Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed. I expect a move to be made in the coming weeks. I’m a bit uncomfortable about it though, I’d like us to leave properly not via slight of hand that would leave Remainers crying foul for years, but, we’ve been forced into this corner so needs must.
This user liked this post: Damo

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Spijed » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:13 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed.
Does seem a little odd that any haven't come to light or are in the public domain (Apart from scaremongering like Civil Contingencies act etc.)

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:17 pm

claretspice wrote:Wrong. The Supreme Court may have clarified the law, but they did not make new law in any true sense. The judgement of the court was based on, and followed inexorably from, existing precedents.

As with any area of our law that is not codified in statute, until a court has provided a definitive judgement on a particular question, there's always - technically - a gap. That's what case law is. This judgement just joined the dots between the law as laid down by existing cases.

And before you question the fact that the lower court came to a different judgement - that's easy. It's convention on a point of such significance, where there's no direct existing judgement, to leave it to the higher court to make the significant decision.
So did BJ break the law as people keep saying?

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:18 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Just chasing an ideal, an ideal that didn't exist and, if you understand it, you know it can never exist and "deliver economically." The grass most definitely wasn't greener (or redder)!

Yes, there were a lot of "apologists" for the USSR in Britain. It didn't make any of them right - and it doesn't make any of the ideas based on "socialism" right today.

As I said, earlier, I'm intrigued that you say you only experienced primary education in the UK. Where did you move to?
My family moved to Canada.

With hindsight we could say people back then were being duped - although it's more difficult to see the flaws in something that hasn't been tried, but to understand the attraction you'd have to consider the conditions most people lived in during the '20s https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-s ... ection-1.2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . People like your grandfather (and mine - who joined the CPGB as a teenage miner in 1927) led hard lives. All over the industrialised world the state used armed force against people wanting positive change. It's terrible that it took a world war to bring that change.

I think you're being quite extreme in saying "it doesn't make any of the ideas based on socialism right today". We have a mixed economy, so a lot of what makes our lives good comes from socialism, or similar ideas that predate it. Just like it's wrong to blame capitalism for all the evils in the world.

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:20 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court applying the law, as long as it was truly an issue for them to rule on (it reassures me it was unanimous). But I do have a problem with the leader of the Supreme Court attending the conference of the state girl’s school association today (my daughter goes to one) making fun of Boris and praising “girly swots”. A major lapse of judgement, so these judges do make them.

Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed. I expect a move to be made in the coming weeks. I’m a bit uncomfortable about it though, I’d like us to leave properly not via slight of hand that would leave Remainers crying foul for years, but, we’ve been forced into this corner so needs must.
The idea that someone can't call the Prime Minister out for a silly, purile and just a little bit sexist comment, just because they're a judge seems just a bit precious to me.

And cornered? Come on.

Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:22 pm

summitclaret wrote:So did BJ break the law as people keep saying?
It depends what you mean by "broke the law". His government didn't act illegally. It did act unlawfully.

The fact the government failed to put forwards any case other than the matter wasn't justicable (all common sense suggested it was), suggested that the government knew it, too.

We have no respect for other countries whose leaders try and act beyond their powers.

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:23 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court applying the law, as long as it was truly an issue for them to rule on (it reassures me it was unanimous). But I do have a problem with the leader of the Supreme Court attending the conference of the state girl’s school association today (my daughter goes to one) making fun of Boris and praising “girly swots”. A major lapse of judgement, so these judges do make them.

Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed. I expect a move to be made in the coming weeks. I’m a bit uncomfortable about it though, I’d like us to leave properly not via slight of hand that would leave Remainers crying foul for years, but, we’ve been forced into this corner so needs must.
We differ here. I want the Surrender Act to be got around legally, but only to extract a deal from the EU. Upholding the referendum is more important to ne than actually leaving. By that I mean that the un democratic manifesto deniers can't be allowed to win. In particular Grieve, Soubry and Wolleston.
Last edited by summitclaret on Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Spijed » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:27 pm

Daniel Kawczynski
@DKShrewsbury
Following personal meeting with Barristers today I have shared written legal advice on loopholes in ‘Surrender Act’ with colleagues. Barristers believe we have case to take to Courts and encouraging me to pursue. Reflecting over weekend.
@StandUp4Brexit

@asabenn
#Brexit

I'm a bit puzzled by the above tweet. If he says that loopholes have been found why is he being encouraged to pursue them and not the government? Also, why has it taken a private meeting with a MP to discover such loopholes and not any meetings with government staff?

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:29 pm

claretspice wrote:It depends what you mean by "broke the law". His government didn't act illegally. It did act unlawfully.

The fact the government failed to put forwards any case other than the matter wasn't justicable (all common sense suggested it was), suggested that the government knew it, too.

We have no respect for other countries whose leaders try and act beyond their powers.
I mean a clear law. I submit that he did not break a law. However, he did test matters to the limit because he knew that opposition were trying undermine his strategy to uphold the public's decision and finally sort out something that needed bringing to a head.

Damo
Posts: 4504
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Damo » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:30 pm

claretspice wrote:Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.
There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
This user liked this post: summitclaret

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:31 pm

Spijed wrote:Does seem a little odd that any haven't come to light or are in the public domain (Apart from scaremongering like Civil Contingencies act etc.)
They will when the time is right.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:33 pm

She is the patron of the association and exclaiming "Lets hear it for girly swots" at a leadership convention which has the below mission statement doesn't seem to too controversial

The ASGS is the leading state girls' school organisation in the United Kingdom. We believe wholeheartedly in the value of a single sex education.

Our vision is to support girls' schools as they lead girls to developing the character, capabilities and connections to succeed in the international and fast changing modern world.


I think you are grasping at straws to criticise the Supreme Courts decision and defend the indefensible behaviour of our PM and Govt. Either that or you are just a little too thinly skinned for the politics Johnson is playing at the moment

Finally its becoming harder for any reasonable intelligent commentator on Brexit not to ridicule Johnson when he and his position has become ridiculous in itself

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:33 pm

claretspice wrote:The idea that someone can't call the Prime Minister out for a silly, purile and just a little bit sexist comment, just because they're a judge seems just a bit precious to me.

And cornered? Come on.

Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.
He is fully justified to find a loophole because the Act was agreed by manifesto breakers.

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:37 pm

Damo wrote:There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
I wouldn't say that the loss of perspective is limited to one corner of this particular debate.

I'm not getting drawn into the Brexit debate. I'm more concerned by the misinformation about what the courts are doing and the consequences for our constitution.

Fact is we live in a parliamentary democracy. The elected representatives of the people, in parliament, are sovereign over anything else. If you don't like how they're dealing with the referendum then I entirely respect that - although I don't necessarily agree - but it's a huge leap from that to saying we should effectively suspend parliamentary democracy so that the crown can override parliament's will, or deliberately subvert the law of the land, even in order to deliver on the referendum.

Very interesting that the government itself in its most recent Brexit proposals proposed that the Stormont assembly - Northern Ireland's parliament - should be the vehicle for deciding whether Northern Ireland consents to any customs and regulatory arrangements with the EU. Using the argument the government itself applies to the status of the referendum and parliament, you might reasonably have expected those proposals to require a referendum every four years.
These 4 users liked this post: Damo JohnMcGreal longsidepies nil_desperandum

bfcjg
Posts: 13153
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:17 pm
Been Liked: 5002 times
Has Liked: 6716 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by bfcjg » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:40 pm

The reports that the PM will seek an extension because a deal is close is identical to Jeremy Hunt who when going for the leadership said he would do that but the blue rinse brigade led by Boris said that was a stupid cowardly idea. It is just a joke

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:41 pm

summitclaret wrote:He is fully justified to find a loophole because the Act was agreed by manifesto breakers.
Well we'll agree to disagree there. Even if any of the main parties had stood on a manifesto that had a disorderly no-deal as a policy - they didn't - then I'd still be coming back to the point that the correct way to deal with MPs who break their promises, is to vote them out at the next election. It's not to break the law that they pass.
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:44 pm

Spijed wrote:Daniel Kawczynski
@DKShrewsbury
Following personal meeting with Barristers today I have shared written legal advice on loopholes in ‘Surrender Act’ with colleagues. Barristers believe we have case to take to Courts and encouraging me to pursue. Reflecting over weekend.
@StandUp4Brexit

@asabenn
#Brexit

I'm a bit puzzled by the above tweet. If he says that loopholes have been found why is he being encouraged to pursue them and not the government? Also, why has it taken a private meeting with a MP to discover such loopholes and not any meetings with government staff?
I am convinced that there will be a challenge and unless it is genius it will probably fail. However that is not what BJ wants. He is going for a GE where he can rightly say that the establishment is frustrating Brexit.

Every reference to the courts and every time someone mentions revoke/a people's vote plays into leaves hands.

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:48 pm

claretspice wrote:Well we'll agree to disagree there. Even if any of the main parties had stood on a manifesto that had a disorderly no-deal as a policy - they didn't - then I'd still be coming back to the point that the correct way to deal with MPs who break their promises, is to vote them out at the next election. It's not to break the law that they pass.
Don't disagree with the latter and it is coming soon. But I say again, BJ is trying to get a deal. He probably won't because of the Surrender Act, as predicted.

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:54 pm

Damo wrote:There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
Only one coup going on here Damo

The one that was stopped by the supreme court

Whether Brexiteer like it or not, we are a parliamentary democracy.

To get Brexit through that is a challenge no doubt, but it has to be done right.

Pretending that the ends justify the means isn't doing anyone any favours.

Now if Mr Dan "I know **** all about the Marshall Plan" kryswinksi is correct, then its done right and that is fine.

But to pretend that just because you don't like the law it can be ignored is 100% wrong.

I'm getting the distinct impression from the board that Brexiteers don't want to obey laws that they don't like.

That won't solve or sort anything
This user liked this post: JohnMcGreal

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2207
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by JohnMcGreal » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:56 pm

claretspice wrote:Fact is we live in a parliamentary democracy. The elected representatives of the people, in parliament, are sovereign over anything else. If you don't like how they're dealing with the referendum then I entirely respect that - although I don't necessarily agree - but it's a huge leap from that to saying we should effectively suspend parliamentary democracy so that the crown can override parliament's will, or deliberately subvert the law of the land, even in order to deliver on the referendum.
Unfortunately there are too many people who hold the view that the referendum result of 2016, which was first of all advisory, and second of all narrowly won by one side, gives the government a blank cheque to basically do whatever they like in order to try and deliver their particular interpretation of that result.

It's insanity. People have well and truly lost their minds over this issue, to the point where they're actually comfortable with Parliament (our democracy) being shut down, and laws being ignored to try and deliver something which is essentially undeliverable.

Edit - and the really weird thing is, the people who are comfortable about all of this tend to be the same people who were hell bent on leaving the EU in order to restore UK parliamentary sovereignty (which we always had) and the supremacy of UK law (which was already supreme in the vast majority of cases).
These 5 users liked this post: Lancasterclaret Swizzlestick LeuvenClaret longsidepies nil_desperandum

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:06 pm

Re. the Hungary veto story, there are reports of a rather large delegation of Hungarian diplomats leaving Downing Street last night, though I've no serious source I could quote on that so take it for the baseless conjecture it is. It would allow Johnson to comply with the Benn act without losing face. However, I'm almost certain their veto would be ignored. If the 26 other EU countries decide to grant us an extension, we're getting it, in spite of Hungary. I'm pro-remain but even I'm not blind to the realpolitik of the EU. That all said, it seems rather desperate for Johnson to rely on a backwater nation who are only really in the union to avoid falling into Russia's sphere of influence. This isn't going quite as well as folk might have imagined in 2016.
Last edited by Spiral on Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:07 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:Unfortunately there are too many people who hold the view that the referendum result of 2016, which was first of all advisory, and second of all narrowly won by one side, gives the government a blank cheque to basically do whatever they like in order to try and deliver their particular interpretation of that result.

It's insanity. People have well and truly lost their minds over this issue, to the point where they're actually comfortable with Parliament (our democracy) being shut down, and laws being ignored to try and deliver something which is essentially undeliverable.

Edit - and the really weird thing is, the people who are comfortable about all of this tend to be the same people who were hell bent on leaving the EU in order to restore UK parliamentary sovereignty (which we always had) and the supremacy of UK law (which was already supreme in the vast majority of cases).
What law has been broken and if you don't know please stop saying it?

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:09 pm

Spiral wrote:Re. the Hungary veto story, there are reports of a rather large delegation of Hungarian diplomats leaving Downing Street last night, though I've no serious source I could quote on that so take it for the baseless conjecture it is. It would allow Johnson to comply with the Benn act without losing face. However, I'm almost certain their veto would be ignored. If the 26 other EU countries decide to grant us an extension, we're getting it, in spite of Hungary. I'm pro-remain but even I'm not blind to the realpolitik of the EU. That all said, it seems rather desperate for Johnson to rely on a backwater nation who are only really in the union to avoid falling into Russia's sphere of influence. This isn't going quite as well as folk might have imagined in 2016.

So its ok for the EU to break it's own rules?

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:10 pm

No, of course not.
This user liked this post: summitclaret

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:11 pm

AndrewJB wrote:My family moved to Canada.

With hindsight we could say people back then were being duped - although it's more difficult to see the flaws in something that hasn't been tried, but to understand the attraction you'd have to consider the conditions most people lived in during the '20s https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-s ... ection-1.2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . People like your grandfather (and mine - who joined the CPGB as a teenage miner in 1927) led hard lives. All over the industrialised world the state used armed force against people wanting positive change. It's terrible that it took a world war to bring that change.

I think you're being quite extreme in saying "it doesn't make any of the ideas based on socialism right today". We have a mixed economy, so a lot of what makes our lives good comes from socialism, or similar ideas that predate it. Just like it's wrong to blame capitalism for all the evils in the world.
Thanks, Andrew. I expect you will have got a different perspective through secondary education and beyond in Canada. And a coal mining grandfather and member of CPGB - coal mining was a tough industry and would have been in the front of any "fight for change." It's good that there are very few down the pits (in the UK) these days. There were occasions when the troops were called out, but I don't feel that that was the standard response "against people wanting positive change." We can agree a mixed economy is the best arrangement. :)

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Colburn_Claret » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:13 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Only one coup going on here Damo

The one that was stopped by the supreme court

Whether Brexiteer like it or not, we are a parliamentary democracy.

To get Brexit through that is a challenge no doubt, but it has to be done right.

Pretending that the ends justify the means isn't doing anyone any favours.

Now if Mr Dan "I know **** all about the Marshall Plan" kryswinksi is correct, then its done right and that is fine.

But to pretend that just because you don't like the law it can be ignored is 100% wrong.

I'm getting the distinct impression from the board that Brexiteers don't want to obey laws that they don't like.

That won't solve or sort anything
That's a bit rich from someone who doesn't want to obey the result of the referendum.

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:23 pm

claretspice wrote:It depends what you mean by "broke the law". His government didn't act illegally. It did act unlawfully.

The fact the government failed to put forwards any case other than the matter wasn't justicable (all common sense suggested it was), suggested that the government knew it, too.

We have no respect for other countries whose leaders try and act beyond their powers.
He tried to stretch matters and failed then complied. Is it such a big deal given that the HOC has undermined the referendum result?

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:24 pm

Spiral wrote:Re. the Hungary veto story, there are reports of a rather large delegation of Hungarian diplomats leaving Downing Street last night, though I've no serious source I could quote on that so take it for the baseless conjecture it is. It would allow Johnson to comply with the Benn act without losing face. However, I'm almost certain their veto would be ignored. If the 26 other EU countries decide to grant us an extension, we're getting it, in spite of Hungary. I'm pro-remain but even I'm not blind to the realpolitik of the EU. That all said, it seems rather desperate for Johnson to rely on a backwater nation who are only really in the union to avoid falling into Russia's sphere of influence. This isn't going quite as well as folk might have imagined in 2016.
Video on Twitter of people leaving the cabinet office "including" Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó and Ambassador Kristóf Szalay-Bobrovniczky at the same time Johnson was in the building holding an emergency Cabinet meeting

It also shows Extinction Rebellion blocking off the back exit forcing them to leave through the front door.

I have not however seen this posted or supported by anybody credible so I wouldn't be prepared to trust this story as accurate and truthful until I had

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:27 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:That's a bit rich from someone who doesn't want to obey the result of the referendum.
Judging both yours and LC's posts on the subject there is definitely someone wishing to support the outcome of the referendum and the democratic will of the people and it most certainly is not you

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5230
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:33 pm

Spijed wrote:Does seem a little odd that any haven't come to light or are in the public domain (Apart from scaremongering like Civil Contingencies act etc.)
Just heard tonight that Tory MP Daniel Kawzynski is tweeting that he has met with barristers and is pondering a move over the weekend. I also heard similar earlier in the week. EDIT - yes, I see now you mentioned this above.

Not sure about chances of success. It will have to go the normal way. I prefer a deal but this Benn Act has really scuppered it. But we have to comply with the law even if the law is Benn-t.

My suspicion is that the EU are tempted to say “we will extend to Jan 31st but only if you hold a second referendum” and under the terms of the Benn Act Boris is (ridiculously) forced to comply.

I don’t think they will do it though.

The reason being that one of these things will then happen:

1. Boris tables a motion to test if there is still no desire for a second referendum, overturning the Benn Act. I suspect he would win but if it is no deal vs referendum it could be tight.

2. There is a referendum and Leave win again, due to the blackmail, but this time there is a public vibe to “teach the gits a lesson” and boycott Ireland goods (we may well not want to give up BMWs but we sure as heck can buy beef elsewhere). Ireland would be finished as a viable country. They need us.

3. There is a referendum and Remain win. Leave voters cry foul, there is poison in the well for 30 years. The whole EU project is consumed in bitterness. I cannot see that being the right way, just like I cannot see Boris leaving due to a loophole.

So they will simply ask us to extend and we will, then there will be an election. Corbyn wins, it is referendum time. Johnson wins, it is no deal.
Last edited by CrosspoolClarets on Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:34 pm

Damo wrote:There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
a) the government wasn’t elected, it was given a majority by the DUP
b) it is now a minority government because it withdrew the whip from over 20 of its own MPs
c) a new government being put into power by parliament is no different to how any other government is put into power, if a majority have confidence then it’s good to go.
d) suggest you look up the definition of the word ‘coup’.
This user liked this post: Greenmile

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 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:45 pm

claretspice wrote:Paul - the basis of pretty much all terror legislation is to avoid the substantive crime taking place, rather than dealing with the consequences.

Likewise, if we want a more trivial example relevant to this forum, there's a quite a number of rules used to prevent potential football hooliganism, including preventing people from travelling to games. I can think of plenty of other examples.

There are also heaps of examples of points of reference being taken to the courts on things like tax which are designed to give a proactive steer as to how a law should be interpreted before offences would otherwise be committed.

So nothing in the courts being engaged early is necessarily new.

And whichever way you look at it, the Prime Minister saying that he won't abide by a law passed by parliament, or that he's going to try and evade its meaning unless compelled to do so by the courts - that's morally bankrupt. What sort of a message does it send to anyone who might be looking for other technical loopholes in laws - perhaps tax laws, say?
Hi spice, are you sure about the examples you quote? There are laws about "planning" terrorist acts - these allow the police/security authorities to act and people breaking these laws should be charged and brought to court. Similarly, there are laws about public order and these allow the police to control football fans and the same with organised public protests/demonstrations - and, I'm guessing, police actions (warrants) require the approval of a court official. On tax, I think cases are brought to court when HMRC says "£X tax is due" and on the other hand the tax payer is arguing that "no, I don't owe that tax."

I put it in the realm of "high politics" that we have one group of politicians rushing thru a law that says you must do this (extend) and not this (leave with no deal) and on the other hand another group of politicians, led by BJ, saying "we don't like your law, we think you are wrong and it will stop us getting a deal..." and also "we will always obey the law...… but, your new, rushed, law isn't very clear..... so, we will see how that works out...."

Fascinating that the action has been taken to a Scottish Court. I know that Scottish law differs from the law of England & Wales - but, I've no experience and I don't know how it differs. Maybe the Scottish Court can "bind" the actions of BJ and provide a single interpretation of what BJ must do in order to comply with the Benn Act. I guess that's the hope of Dale Vince (the owner of Ecotricity, a one-time hippy, and now also the proud owner of Forest Green Vegans!) and the others involved.

We will see how it turns out.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:48 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi spice, are you sure about the examples you quote? There are laws about "planning" terrorist acts - these allow the police/security authorities to act and people breaking these laws should be charged and brought to court. Similarly, there are laws about public order and these allow the police to control football fans and the same with organised public protests/demonstrations - and, I'm guessing, police actions (warrants) require the approval of a court official. On tax, I think cases are brought to court when HMRC says "£X tax is due" and on the other hand the tax payer is arguing that "no, I don't owe that tax."

I put it in the realm of "high politics" that we have one group of politicians rushing thru a law that says you must do this (extend) and not this (leave with no deal) and on the other hand another group of politicians, led by BJ, saying "we don't like your law, we think you are wrong and it will stop us getting a deal..." and also "we will always obey the law...… but, your new, rushed, law isn't very clear..... so, we will see how that works out...."

Fascinating that the action has been taken to a Scottish Court. I know that Scottish law differs from the law of England & Wales - but, I've no experience and I don't know how it differs. Maybe the Scottish Court can "bind" the actions of BJ and provide a single interpretation of what BJ must do in order to comply with the Benn Act. I guess that's the hope of Dale Vince (the owner of Ecotricity, a one-time hippy, and now also the proud owner of Forest Green Vegans!) and the others involved.

We will see how it turns out.
It explains why they have gone to the Scottish courts with this in the two links Ive provided. Have a read if you're genuinely interested
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

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

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by aggi » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:53 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:Just to say, America won the Second World War, they had more troops in theatre than anyone else.

Like any winner they got to say what happened next.

That was Bretton Woods .

If you have no knowledge of it, your understanding is not complete.
Erm, I think your knowledge of the second world war may not be complete.

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5230
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:05 am

claretspice wrote:The idea that someone can't call the Prime Minister out for a silly, purile and just a little bit sexist comment, just because they're a judge seems just a bit precious to me.

And cornered? Come on.

Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.
Surely you can see that it makes her look biased?

In the current climate, even if she isn’t biased, that seems thick as mince. It comes across as everyone in her circle is a Remainer so she can get away with making those jokes, which then reinforces the people vs establishment viewpoint. It’s desperately sad given that she obviously isn’t thick but very clever.

Actually, I have a great respect for Brenda Hale. She has made a lot of rulings that have affected me personally, she is from a girl’s school in Yorkshire, as is my daughter, as a whole her career has set a great example.

Your other point has also suffered from a bit of Remainiacness. As I have put in my above post, I have no desire for Boris to circumvent the Remainers (not the law, if he does it he will do it legally). I do feel he has been left with little option though, the tactics against him are so underhand. I would prefer an election first to test the mood of the public. I suspect it would be overwhelming.

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 » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:09 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:It explains why they have gone to the Scottish courts with this in the two links Ive provided. Have a read if you're genuinely interested
Thanks, DA, I can sleep easy tonight now I have learnt that the Inner House of the Court of Session – Scotland’s Highest Court – is the only court that has nobile officium jurisdiction.

Two great links you put up.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:37 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Why is Johnson a liar?

Seriously?
If you provided factual evidence to substantiate that impression/opinion it would assist without information obtained from any pro or anti media outlet, basically I’m asking as boris Johnson lied to you on a face to face basis? if the answer to that question is no it’s absolutely impossible to formulate 100% with any degree of certainty that BJ is indeed a liar.

claretspice
Posts: 5660
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
Been Liked: 2801 times
Has Liked: 138 times

Re: Brexit: The Naked Truth

Post by claretspice » Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:57 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Surely you can see that it makes her look biased?

In the current climate, even if she isn’t biased, that seems thick as mince. It comes across as everyone in her circle is a Remainer so she can get away with making those jokes, which then reinforces the people vs establishment viewpoint. It’s desperately sad given that she obviously isn’t thick but very clever.

Actually, I have a great respect for Brenda Hale. She has made a lot of rulings that have affected me personally, she is from a girl’s school in Yorkshire, as is my daughter, as a whole her career has set a great example.

Your other point has also suffered from a bit of Remainiacness. As I have put in my above post, I have no desire for Boris to circumvent the Remainers (not the law, if he does it he will do it legally). I do feel he has been left with little option though, the tactics against him are so underhand. I would prefer an election first to test the mood of the public. I suspect it would be overwhelming.
The entirety of your post is written through the prism of a so-called remainder establishment plot. This is a bogeyman which does not exist. I can't see anything in Hale's lighthearted encouragement to female students that study is a good thing which can be seen as 'remain biased'. Likewise the judgement last week went to careful pains to be clear the question was a narrow one and nothing to do with the merits or otherwise if the EU. To conflate a judge doing her job with 'a plot' is divisive and deeply dangerous in my opinion.

As to the second point - if you are correct about the outcome of an election then a Johnson should aimply accept the Benn Act, and secure the extension with the express intention of a general election to finally obtain a clear mandate on how to interpret the referendum. He shouldn't be abusing the office of state to try and subvert the law - even if he thinks that is the best way to get a deal (which I understand).

Paul Waine - you originally implied there was no precedent for the courts to intervene to prospectively take steps to avoid the law being breached. I gave examples to demonstrate this is not the case. I don't disagree that they may differ from this example and it may well be that they decide they don't have to power to grant the outcome sought. But either way they'll reach judgement by reference to all the laws that define the court's jurisdiction. They aren't in the business of power grabs, and they aren't bending the law as part of a plot.

The inference that the rule of law is being threatened by the courts is wrong and again, a dangerous distortion. They're an independent judiciary doing what the judiciary does
This user liked this post: longsidepies

Locked