Skip to main content

Poll

Should the UK be In or Out of Europe?

In
Out
Shake it all about
d)
Topic: This Europe Stuff (Read 259833 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10065
If I add "for now" at the end, does that help M'lud?

No, I mean the full judgment of today's decision (not the summary) That's an interpretation of it - I think I recognise the tweet on which it's based - may or may not be accurate, depending on what we read in due course.

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10066
Yellowhammer released, as leaked a month ago, but with the heading changed from "BASE SCENARIO" to "HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions".

Meanwhile the cuddlyken parody account on twitter is in assured form.


I see the Operation 'hit yourself with a hammer' thoughts on the impact of no deal Brexit have been officially published.

Brexit reminds me of the time I did Dry January with Michael Heseltine and after a few days in we pondered "why are we doing this again?"
 
 

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10067
Let's put the inexplicably redacted bits to one side for now.

This is the government's own assessment of the problem of the Irish land border. Anyone want to explain why it is wrong?

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1171864632581152768?s=09

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10068
Let's be clear.  They are not inflicting this massive harm on the people, and the country, lasting, irreparable harm, because they believe it's in any way a good idea.  Nor are they doing it because they believe in the dumbed down populist "will of the people" nonsense that they have drummed up through lying, propoganda, and inciting a radicalised support for their agenda.

They are doing it for other reasons.  Reasons they know would not be in any way popular.

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10069
Redacted point 15 is, according to the journo who gained the leaked earlier version, that fuel refineries will be unable to export their products to EU, because of the EU tariffs, leading to 2-3 shutting down, with resultant fuel shortages in the areas they serve. One can only guess which areas these are: Scot central belt; NW England; Essex and Greater London (I bet that one is one of them).


Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10071
I think it has been mentioned on here previously but isn't it that a lot of politicians don't want the EU bill investigating dark money and shell companies and tax loopholes and whatnot to come into effect.  I think in January 2020?. (or sometime soon..)  The bloke behind this whole mess was in the Panama papers wasn't he?  Cameron.  Didn't he have money in Panama and Iceland amongst a few things and some (if not all) of the Brexiteers run shell companies that is used to funnel money from unknown foreign states.  It might even have been in the Guardian. 

That also seems logical too.  I hope that we are still in the Union in January because I would love to see what crawls out of the gutter in those investigations. 

None of the motivations for Brexit are for the people.  That much is certain.  I would love Parliament to call Boris's bluff and say if you don't extend we revoke.  And Revoke when the dim witted tw@t tries to pull a fast one.   The HBO drama Brexit stars Benedict Cumbersnatch as Dominic Cummings is on demand here.  I think I shall give it a gander.

I feel helpless watching this sh!t show.  I really hope the courts hold true and democracy is given a chance.  It's very stressful over here reading about this stuff I can't imagine how it is for a lot of you.  Tricky is obviously losing it a little bit but I totally understand it.  Maybe we can ask Brid to procure us some spare Novichok from Canterbury and send it back to Vlad with interest.

Chicago: Combing the papers. 
If running is bad for your knees try hanging out with Russ and Tricky for a night.

 

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10072
I think it has been mentioned on here previously but isn't it that a lot of politicians don't want the EU bill investigating dark money and shell companies and tax loopholes and whatnot to come into effect.  I think in January 2020?. (or sometime soon..)  The bloke behind this whole mess was in the Panama papers wasn't he?  Cameron.  Didn't he have money in Panama and Iceland amongst a few things and some (if not all) of the Brexiteers run shell companies that is used to funnel money from unknown foreign states.  It might even have been in the Guardian. 

That also seems logical too.  I hope that we are still in the Union in January because I would love to see what crawls out of the gutter in those investigations. 

None of the motivations for Brexit are for the people.  That much is certain.  I would love Parliament to call Boris's bluff and say if you don't extend we revoke.  And Revoke when the dim witted tw@t tries to pull a fast one.   The HBO drama Brexit stars Benedict Cumbersnatch as Dominic Cummings is on demand here.  I think I shall give it a gander.

I feel helpless watching this sh!t show.  I really hope the courts hold true and democracy is given a chance.  It's very stressful over here reading about this stuff I can't imagine how it is for a lot of you.  Tricky is obviously losing it a little bit but I totally understand it.  Maybe we can ask Brid to procure us some spare Novichok from Canterbury and send it back to Vlad with interest.

Chicago: Combing the papers.

That is one of the sweetest, most personal things you've ever posted on here A, and it's appreciated.

We really are in Germany circa 1933 at the moment. I hope, and think, that our institutions are strong enough to deal with it. But they've never been tested like this before, in modern history*.

*For any tedious nobheads out there, a defensive war against an acknowledged enemy (say WW2) is very different from an internal coup against the very democracy of your country itself. For all that Johnson is a narcissistic chancer, I did not think he would risk going down in history as some sort of Mussolini - lite.

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10073
That is one of the sweetest, most personal things you've ever posted on here A, and it's appreciated.

We really are in Germany circa 1933 at the moment. I hope, and think, that our institutions are strong enough to deal with it. But they've never been tested like this before, in modern history*.

*For any tedious nobheads out there, a defensive war against an acknowledged enemy (say WW2) is very different from an internal coup against the very democracy of your country itself. For all that Johnson is a narcissistic chancer, I did not think he would risk going down in history as some sort of Mussolini - lite.

I agree with all you say and maintain that we are facing a form of civil war, for that is what it is. Maybe not pikes and muskets, but we do have a country split down the middle, parliament arguing about the foundations of the unwritten constitution and, within the Union, different countries disagreeing vehemently and, in one case violently, with the direction being taken.

The time for arguing over forms of Brexit and other sh!te is past. It now comes down to whether you believe the executive has the right to silence Parliament.

Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10074
I heard something about government lawyers working towards using the Cooper-Letwin bill in reverse to push through no-deal.

I'm not sure what that bill did/said to even try and work out how that could be reversed.



Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10077
Finally had the chance to pick my way through the Scottish Court of Appeal's judgment.

At first reading I found the reasoning of the senior judge (Carloway) a little too brief.

The second most senior judge (Brodie) seems more persuasive. On the second main question - whether the use of the power to suspend Parlt in these circumstances was unlawful, he says this, which I think is very interesting and very perceptive as to the essential divide between politics and law (day to day government cannot be carried out by the courts, so the government requires considerable leeway in the exercise of its powers):

"I can see that just because a government has resorted to a procedural manoeuvre in
order to achieve its purpose does not mean that there is necessarily scope for judicial review.
Procedural manoeuvres are the stuff of politics, whether conducted in Parliament or in
lesser bodies. However, when the manoeuvre is quite so blatantly designed “to frustrate
Parliament” at such a critical juncture in the history of the United Kingdom I consider that
the court may legitimately find it to be unlawful. There are undoubted difficulties in the
courts applying its supervisory jurisdiction to an exercise of the royal prerogative [powers held by the Crown' exercised by government; not requiring approval of parliament] within the
political sphere, but Mr Johnston for the respondent [the PM] did not go the distance of saying that
there could never be a case which would justify intervention. He accepted that a two year
prorogation of Parliament might be amenable to review. Here, the prorogation is only five
weeks (and it is to be borne in mind that in practice the reduction of sitting days will be less
because of the traditional adjournment of Parliament during the political party conference
season). However, it is a lengthy prorogation at a particularly sensitive moment when time
would seem to be of the essence. In my opinion Mr Mure QC for the Lord Advocate (whose
analysis I accept) was right to point to the dictum of Lord Sumption in Pham v Secretary of
State [2015] UKSC 19 at paras 105-106:
“in reality [there is] a sliding scale, in which the cogency of the justification required
for interfering with a right will be proportionate to its perceived importance and the
extent of the interference”.

[Observation - Lord Sumption, who is retired but still available to sit in the Supreme Court on an ad hoc basis, has said in public on at least two occasions that he thinks the decision of the PM cannot be reviewed by the courts. Here is one of his own decisions being cited, in effect, against his public pronouncements. Salty.
He will not be one of the judges hearing the case next Tuesday.


"Here there has been interference with Parliament’s right to sit, should it wish to. The
petitioners want to protect that right. If Parliament does not wish to be so protected it can
decide accordingly but the petitioners want to give it the opportunity to determine whether
and when it is to sit between now and 31 October. The petitioners submit that as yet
Parliament has not had that opportunity, notwithstanding the legislative activity that was
going on during the hearing of the reclaiming motion. What has led me to conclude that the
court is entitled to find the making of the Order unlawful is the extreme nature of the case.
A formulation to which I have been attracted is found in chapter 14, Crown Powers, the Royal
Prerogative and Fundamental Rights, in Wilberg & Elliott, The Scope and Intensity of Substantive
Review (Hart, 2015) at p 374 where the author of the chapter, Sales LJ, as he then was [he is now the most junior member of the Supreme Court, and will be sitting next Tuesday, refers to a group of authorities where the courts had been prepared to review exercises of the Crown’s common law and prerogative powers. The formulation is: “these are egregious
cases where there is a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour
of public authorities”.

I see this as an egregious case."

So there you go. That is how the Scottish judiciary think that the exercise of prerogative powers (those inherent in the Crown, and therefore the government) should not be exercised. Reminder: these men are deeply (small c) conservative. They rarely find that a public body, let alone a government, has acted unlawfully.

The outcome of next Tuesday's hearing will be fascinating. The President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, is sitting, as you would expect. As are the other two female SC judges.  I suspect they will have read the PM's comments about David Cameron being a "girly swot" with great interest. They would I imagine regard themselves, with some justifiable pride, as girly swots.

Finally, and sorry to be boring, a little anecdote.
I appeared only once in the appeal committee of the House of Lords, before it was replaced by the Supreme Court. One of our opponents was a wonderful man and pre-eminent QC from my own set, who is also a friend of mine. During the hearing there was some discussion of a map of Oxford, showing where the bit of land we were arguing about was sited. It was in north Oxford, and our opponent said, as something of an aside, "oh you can see it there, just above the girls' colleges' (in what appeared to be a slightly dismissive tone). Lady Hale, who was one of the judges, is one of the most distinguished graduates of one of those 'girls' colleges'. The temperature in the committee room instantly plunged. She hadn't said much before that, but gave him an almighty kicking for the rest of the hearing.

Good luck Boris!


Re: This Europe Stuff

Reply #10079
I was on that there tv channel earlier in the year.

Warning: you probably won't find it fascinating.  It will be very dry, and contain lots of passages you may not follow. But give a try for sure.