Meat Wad

Brexit, WTF

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Trouble is it seems the AG advised it was legal. 

 

 

His judgment was questioned at the time. 

See @BarristerSecret on Twitter as well as others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Upp3 said:

I thought Brexit was ok, just that the no-deal variant was off the table?

So you wanted half a divorce? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IPLore said:

I don't think that the advice given by the attorney general or the decision by BJ to act on the advice of NC is cause for either the AG or prime minister to resign. After all, the English court of appeal initially agreed with them.

However their legal advisors should probably tell BJ not to publicly state that they will continue to proceed with Brexit despite the setback in the supreme court, because that would suggest that the decision to prorogue parliament was part of a plan to force through Brexit, which would mean that either or both the prime minister and the head of the privy council deliberately misled her majesty.....which might have constitutional consequences.   I dont think those consequences benefit the opposition at the moment because they dont want a general election.  This whole situation is so weird and happening on ground that has never been trodden on before........if this was a film script, it would be rejected as too far fetched,

They should have foreseen they were about to set a legal precedent based on dodgy grounds and on a game plan that everybody had figured out. 

That’s definitely grounds for sacking your advisors!!  As they’ve just found out by an 11-0 judgement! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Someone at Downing Street disagrees with you about Geoffrey Cox. They leaked his legal advice (that was previously redacted) that prorogation was OK, not for his wellbeing, but to put him under the bus, and give Boris another life.

He’s lucky, he’s only getting thrown off the moving bus, those that stay are going over the cliff still onboard. 

A9BC76D5-6495-4EFC-8485-99B83FA1E776.thumb.jpeg.757143bdc151bc280d5541d22c4adb87.jpeg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Financial Times:
New: Boris Johnson has been given two weeks by London’s assembly to explain his relationship with an American entrepreneur who received up to £126,000 in public funds during the prime minister’s eight-year tenure as mayor of the UK capital.

Some days just do not get better.

Without a doubt the most enjoyable day since this whole fuckup started.......but there’s no way anybody could have foreseen it happening this way. Especially as Trump appears to have some big issues starting, is that really one of our friends we want to trust on doing a deal with??  

Only these idiots could have chosen this path. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LeoV said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg told this evening’s Cabinet call that the Supreme Court judgment amounted to a ‘constitutional coup’. He also described it as ‘the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution’. Daily Mail. No denial from him.

And read his sisters tweets, accusing the judges of being all leavers.
Nice family.



The Edwardian Pencil Rees-Smugg siblings, where his qualifications is a lonely BA in history, know as much about constitutional law as Bum Head Johnson knows about honesty and fidelity.

He asserts a populist and Brexiteer view of the constitution that MP's are "representatives" of the people. He is wrong. MP's are "delegates" of the people where the people's standing "ceases" at the ballot box and then where MP's are entrusted to act in the "best interest of the nation as a whole".

Maybe he should dwell on his own words in the HOC about his expertise on the Constitution is limited to bluffing. 

By the way he is lying low after that Cabinet phone call leak but his poxy sister as his proxy is letting forth a Twitter storm. For instance.

The straight up and down simple is the Supreme Court (to the power of 11) in unequivocal language simply ruled the bleeding obvious that the Executive is answerable to the Parliament. The detail in this case was again simply that the decision to parogue frustrated and prevented that Parliament from carrying out its functions. 

The only people tearing riding roughshod over democracy and the constitution to suit their own ends has been the Government, no one else. The only ones tying the Courts decision to Brexit is them, yet they told the Court proroguing had nothing to do with Brexit, it was solely about the Queens speech. The silly cunts in Govt and at #10 can't even get their stories straight.

The appalling thing about these two entitled cockroaches from the Edwardian Pencil family is their audience is not greater Britain, but barely half the country who have taken the "democracy under threat bait", hook line and sinker. That is the British constitution and democracy has changed from one of MP's being "delegates" to "representatives" to give credence to a 52/48 non-binding vote.

With history being Jacobs only forte then jumping out of the pages of the Supreme Court's decision was a reference to the Bill of Rights in 1689 and a finding that the King had no prerogative power over Parliament. 

In 1628 King Charles prorogued Parliament which led to the Civil War and then he lost his head.

Instead of opening their grubby mouths for the sole purpose of inciting already widespread community division, this entitled family who are also living off the public purse should give that serious thought.

Or is it going to take rioting, street battles and civilian deaths for that concept to sink in and Pencil Dick Rees Smug to get his arse off the couch and to shut his trap with this inflammatory crap?

EFQZo1gXsAAQKij.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeoV said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg told this evening’s Cabinet call that the Supreme Court judgment amounted to a ‘constitutional coup’. He also described it as ‘the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution’. Daily Mail. No denial from him.

Still no denial from the Edwardian Pencil so those comments appear to stand. The Daily Mail's article here in full on him slagging off at the Supreme Court in full, including him accusing 11 Supreme Court judges of making errors. Bizzare coming from someone barely qualified to be a history teacher.

Jacob-Rees Mogg accuses Supreme Court of Constitutional Coup

Maybe more today. You would think he is going to be forced to make a statement to the HOC today, regardless whether he or anyone in Downing St thinks otherwise, on the Courts ruling.

This is in his capacity as Lord President of the Privy Council (formal body of advisers to the Queen) and one of three Privy Council members who travelled to Balmoral to advise the Queen to prorogue. 

There is also his position as Leader of the House of Commons to factor in regarding his responsibilities on advising the House on this matter. That responsibility as Leader also includes keeping the HOC advised on the precise timing of Parliament Recesses bearing in mind that has now been turned on its head with Prorogation declared null and void and this return to Parliament. Therefore you would expect the Government to table a recess motion today to allow the Tory conference to occur early next week.

Would be funny if that motion was blocked and killed off the Tory party conference, by those having regard for Cummings promise to destroy opposition party conferences. No mercy: Dominic Cummings drops conference truce.

The Edwardian Pencil will be front and centre today in the HOC and won't have the luxury of catching 40 winks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IPLore said:

One gets the impression that JRM's favored form of government would be a benevolent aristocracy. In his heart he doesn't really believe believe in a representative democracy or the separation of powers.

I would suggest he has a hard on for "autocracy" not "aristocracy".

Pgwzo37.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not disclosed in Yellow Hammer details released by the Govt are concerns about HMRC's new Customs Declaration System (CDS), that is still in Beta stage (and with issues) shitting itself come 1 November with the deluge of additional traffic.

This occurrence over the weekend doesn't exactly engender confidence.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/23/hmrc_childcare_tax_site_https_cert_expired/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mad said:

So you wanted half a divorce? 

It is not what I want. It is what options, as far as I see, are on the table. Extend, revoke and May's deal, if the no deal is off the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at some misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court did yesterday including the usual suspects the polarised UK press, you'd think half of those commenting haven't read the judgment... For the time-constrained this is pretty good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Upp3 said:

It is not what I want. It is what options, as far as I see, are on the table. Extend, revoke and May's deal, if the no deal is off the table.

Boris has nothing "on the table" he can unilaterally trigger legally. The only one without Westminister consent is extend A.50 but that requires 100% EU27 consent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BJ ;
- a deal the EU and parliament can consent to, impossible due to his remarks about undemocratic backstop. Eu wants backstop, he can not backtrack.
- ask for extension
- brake the law and do nothing, he will be sued and can end up in jail.

Or admit defeat and resign, but that is not his style I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^ Or leadership spill and he gets tipped out (& they put in Jeremy Hunt LOL). Boris post 31 Oct with UK still in the EU is probably fucked electorally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atty Gen Cox tells MPs he would have left Govt if Parliament had been prorogued from beginning of Sept until Brexit.... Utter silence in Chamber.....

So that was the plan initially I reckon, question is will the relevant papers be published ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So proroguing had nothing to do with Brexit, but by finding against prorogation Supreme Court has intervened in Brexit? Square that bullshit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rgeek said:

So proroguing had nothing to do with Brexit, but by finding against prorogation Supreme Court has intervened in Brexit? Square that bullshit.

No, the court ruling has nothing to do with Brexit, it’s stop a new precedent being set. 

Scroll up, Jack has posted the reasoning for the judgement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mad said:

No, the court ruling has nothing to do with Brexit, it’s stop a new precedent being set. 

I think @rgeek is commenting on the chatter from the Con party, they claimed proroguing had nothing to do with Brexit, then claimed that the Supreme Court judgement was intervening in Brexit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really a government asking to be VONC, how weird the UK politics are. And BJ is not even been in the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LeoV said:

And BJ is not even been in the House.

Give him a break. He is currently advising a stewardess from the RAF VIP wing on the status of her government grant for funding her flat around the corner from #10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox announces a motion calling for an election will be coming to the Commons “shortly”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Minister responsible for department handing £100K grant to Hacker House (Boris's blonde friend) this year contrary to grant rules (UK location, employees & size etc) being grilled.

1122203209_images-2019-09-23T213541_353.jpeg.c9625f285b082f4833a598d6d2926f1d.jpeg

They are setting Boris up for a slow burn on question of character and probabity. Minister promises departmental enquiry to be completed by end of October. Funny about that. 

Opposition parties have introduced a new term..."Funding with benefits" LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeoV said:

 

Really a government asking to be VONC, how weird the UK politics are. 

Interesting Geoffrey Cox said parliament being a “disgrace” with “no moral right to sit” Yet until yesterday he helped ensure it wasn't due to sit until 14 October.

So isn't parliamentary time between now and then like a mystery bonus that the government shouldn't really worry too much about???

Like what harm could possibly come from it?....LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All was only said to draw attention away from the fact he cocked up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I would suggest he has a hard on for "autocracy" not "aristocracy".

Pgwzo37.jpg

Holy shit, that's brilliant, right down to the burning city in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LeoV said:

All was only said to draw attention away from the fact he cocked up.

Boris's cock up is being described as "technology lessons"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be five more oral statements today:

1) Thomas Cook update - Grant Shapps (up now)

2) Brexit readiness and operation Yellow Hammer - Michael Gove

3) Iran Update - Dominic Raab

4) Update to Parliament - Boris

5) Business Statement - Leader of the House Rees Smugg 

Awaiting news on Urgent Questions where there are over 30 applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

This is in his capacity as Lord President of the Privy Council (formal body of advisers to the Queen) and one of three Privy Council members who travelled to Balmoral to advise the Queen to prorogue. 

There is also his position as Leader of the House of Commons to factor in regarding his responsibilities on advising the House on this matter. That responsibility as Leader also includes keeping the HOC advised on the precise timing of Parliament Recesses bearing in mind that has now been turned on its head with Prorogation declared null and void and this return to Parliament. Therefore you would expect the Government to table a recess motion today to allow the Tory conference to occur early next week.

Hmm. Grandma Buckingham can remove members from the Privy Council and has done so before.
Was the advice Rees Moog gave to her flawed enough and can she do it fast enough that he has no time to resign before it happens?

That would be fun. Extra points for doing it during his statement to the HoC today. :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

per wikipedia

The sovereign, however, may remove an individual from the Privy Council. Former MP Elliot Morley was expelled on 8 June 2011, following his conviction on charges of false accounting in connection with the British parliamentary expenses scandal. Before this, the last individual to be expelled from the Council against his will was Sir Edgar Speyer, Bt., who was removed on 13 December 1921 for collaborating with the enemy German Empire, during the First World War.

Individuals can choose to resign, sometimes to avoid expulsion. Three members voluntarily left the Privy Council in the 20th century: John Profumo, who resigned on 26 June 1963; John Stonehouse, who resigned on 17 August 1976 and Jonathan Aitken, who resigned on 25 June 1997 following allegations of perjury.

So far, three Privy Counsellors have resigned in the 21st century, coincidentally all in the same year. On 4 February 2013, Chris Huhne announced that he would voluntarily leave the Privy Council after pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice. Lord Prescott stood down on 6 July 2013, in protest against delays in the introduction of press regulation, expecting others to follow. Denis MacShane resigned on 9 October 2013, before a High Court hearing at which he pleaded guilty of false accounting and was subsequently imprisoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

2) Brexit readiness and operation Yellow Hammer - Michael Gov

Just listened Gove on import export readiness for a No Deal.

This is a generalisation but of the measures he spoke of 90% were already put in place by the Govt in Feb March and or already flagged by EU states, the French in particular with relation to RoO traffic through their ports, Calais in particular. The 10% is largely things relating to a wider desemination of information only. As for NI border the same old gobblygook.

In short the bullshit continues. Opposition parties now making him look like a goose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Just listened Gove on import export readiness for a No Deal.

This is a generalisation but of the measures he spoke of 90% were already put in place by the Govt in Feb March and or already flagged by EU states, the French in particular with relation to RoO traffic through their ports, Calais in particular. The 10% is largely things relating to a wider desemination of information only.

In short the bullshit continues.

This is a sailing site. Have you talked to anyone about getting some sort of hobby. Bingo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gove the Minister for Brexit Planning finished.

Was asked by over half a dozen MP's for the date when, firstly the Yellow Hammer Report on No Deal Impacts dated 2 August was re-labelled from "Base Case' to "Reasonable Worse Case" scenario, and secondly who authorised that re-labelling?

Gove treated ignoring this ongoing question as a badge of honour. This joined 80 odd questions on him to detail mitigation measures for those impacts where likewise he refused.

This lying prick needs to get fitted up for being in contempt of Parliament.

IMG_20190926_015021.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tories are now surpassing TBP on fascist ways to do politics. BJ standing with The People, my ass. They go now in full Cummings mode of attack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Gove the Minister for Brexit Planning finished.

Was asked by over half a dozen MP's for the date when, firstly the Yellow Hammer Report on No Deal Impacts dated 2 August was re-labelled from "Base Case' to "Reasonable Worse Case" scenario, and secondly who authorised that re-labelling?

Gove treated ignoring this ongoing question as a badge of honour. This joined 80 odd questions on him to detail mitigation measures for those impacts where likewise he refused.

This lying prick needs to get fitted up for being in contempt of Parliament.

IMG_20190926_015021.jpg

I find it unbelievable that you can asked repeatedly for answers and not provide them?!! 

How the fuck is this possible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, the press.broadcasters and social media junkies feed the beast by publicizing the inflammatory speeches and not circulating the intelligent questions and sensible replies.

A-G Cox explained that although disappointed by the decision, the govt accepted the court decision and accepted it as an impartial interpretation and development of constitutional law.

Repeatedly asked about his legal advice to the cabinet and the PM.  He explained that the law convention was that he could not comment on that advice, neither whether he had given advice nor what the content of that advice was. 

He was backed up on this by at least two former AGs who explained that this was similar to attorney-client privilege. If legal advice is not private......then the AG will be more equivocal in their advice and the govt less willing to ask for advice. Good government everywhere depends on the law convention.  

Clearly, everyone is aware that somebody leaked to sky news that AG Cox had advised the PM that prorogation was legal.  This was hardly insightful. Cox could not comment on the advice but he pointed out that he had coordinated the government case and the public record states the reasons why the government believed they had the legal right to prorogate parliament (thus I think we can deduce what Cox's advice was).  Cox pointed out that the government accepted the supreme court's decision but believed in the merits of their case before the decision.....and carefully pointed out that so did the master of the rolls and the other law lords of the English court that rules in their favor.

In answer to a reasonable question from a Scottish MP, AG Cox replied that a client can choose to waive attorney-client privilege and the gov't is considering whether to release further information about the legal advice it received regarding prorogation.

There was a host of bullshit and bluster from the Labor front bench.....that effectively wasted time.    

In objective terms, here is the bottom line.   The UK constitution had a grey area around using the royal prerogative to close parliament.  The government felt it could use the prerogative to reduce but not eliminate parliamentary time prior to Brexit.  Expert legal opinions were clearly divided around this . The government decided to try it. The supreme court clarified the law and removed much of the grey. The government were wrong....but more importantly, the principle of parliamentary democracy was strengthened going forward and as Cox cleverly pointed out in one answer, even the most ardent Conservative might be glad of this when another government is in power. 

Two interesting lines of question;

One from the conservative backbench ;  Reaffirmed that the AG was perfectly correct to respect the law convention when it came to any LEGAL advice but quoted him from several months earlier when he had said that prorogation to prevent parliament discussing Brexit would have been "unconstitutional"  would he comment whether his advice regarding whether the prorogation was constitutional.  Cox gave the clever reply that again he was not going to comment on any advice he gave but stated that if the proposal had been to prorogue parliament from Sept 4 to Oct 31, thus prevent parliament sitting at all during Brexit negotiations with the new government .."Then I would not have been a member of the cabinet".

Another from the labor back benches about whether he agreed with the statement that the court decision had been a "constitutional coup"  (words of rees mogg). Cox replied that it had not been a "coup" and that words used like that were in the heat of the moment and merely expressed opinion that disagreed with the reasoning of the judgement.

Cox did well. He acknowledged defeat of the government case but explained that the government had not acted immorally in pursuing it.  He pushed back on Labor criticism of the government AND he pushed back on his own right wingers criticism of the judges.  IMHO, he came across as a principled AG and skillful debater.  

Then he loosened off the oratory that he so enjoys, accused parliament of being a dead parliament and a disgrace, unable to take decisions , twice rejecting Brexit (interestingly aimed at both sides because he of course he was referring to the May deals) and one that should disband and ask the voters for a new parliament.   Clearly intended to provoke and wind up MPs ahead of the motion for a general election. He lit the fuse and sat down.

I bet that it is the last bit that gets the press coverage.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BJ needs now a deal, but EU is not giving him one he will like or can pass in parliament.
So he lets Cox and IDS etc insult parliament, as he does not need them any more.
BJ will call VONC tonight, we will see all Tories vote that they have no confidence in this government.
If he is still head of the government tonight, he will decide this night if he will resign tomorrow.
He has no friends in this government, only Patel. The rest is ready to stab him in his back, Gove first (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris is up...apparently the opposition parties have been stopping funding the NHS..more police etc while parliament prorogued. Fuck mate call for another another VONC and stop the shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IPLore said:

He acknowledged defeat of the government case but explained that the government had not acted immorally in pursuing it.

Of course trying to hinder the opposition days in parliament can be seen as immoral. His advice lost from 11 judges of 11.
Problem is a government is accountable, so giving advice to a government is probably not under the same rules as client attorney.
And when he decided that the May deal was not unilateral he published his thinking; see letter halfway.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/12/brexit-cox-revised-deal-reduces-risks-of-being-trapped-in-backstocox-risk-of-remaining-in-backstop-reduced-but-not-eliminated

So it could be seen as hypocritical if government now decides not to publish his paper.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Cox pointed out that the government accepted the supreme court's decision but believed in the merits of their case before the decision.....and carefully pointed out that so did the master of the rolls and the other law lords of the English court that rules in their favor.

The man in the street language counter as someone pointed out resonated with many. Said Cox was looking for comfort from lower court decisions to his opinion was like saying he could have won the grand final but not having progressed past the semi final, noting the grand final result was 11 nil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Boris is babbling drivel. Says his compliance with 30 day (now overdue) promise to HOC to table Irish border arrangements was frustrated by the Benn Act as it scared off the EU. WTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Boris is up...apparently the opposition parties have been stopping funding the NHS..more police etc while parliament prorogued. Fuck mate call for another another VONC and stop the shit.

From my understanding, nothing can happen whilst the government is prorogued. That was also part of the argument, everything stops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. @BorisJohnson responds to emotional plea by @paulasherriff to stop using perjorative and 'dangerous' language like 'Surrender Act' (citing memory of Jo Cox and referring to new death threats to MPs), by saying her remarks are mere "Humbug". Total fury on Labour benches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Wow. @BorisJohnson responds to emotional plea by @paulasherriff to stop using perjorative and 'dangerous' language like 'Surrender Act' (citing memory of Jo Cox and referring to new death threats to MPs), by saying her remarks are mere "Humbug". Total fury on Labour benches.

If Boris can't show due respect and humility with respect to Jo Cox, he might want to reflect on Ian Gow. BJ's direspect for the Good Friday Agreement might just draw to him the same outcome as Gow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Wow. @BorisJohnson responds to emotional plea by @paulasherriff to stop using perjorative and 'dangerous' language like 'Surrender Act' (citing memory of Jo Cox and referring to new death threats to MPs), by saying her remarks are mere "Humbug". Total fury on Labour benches.

He is completely devoid of any understanding, empathy or sympathy.......so I’m not surprised in the slightest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon)

As of tonight, there’s a gaping moral vacuum where the office of Prime Minister used to be. I didn’t know Jo Cox but I’m certain this man is not fit to speak her name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jess Phillips Esq., M.P. (@jessphillips)

I get death threats and still I stand up, I don't surrender to fear & aggression. I don't surrender to lowest common denominator of fear to votes. I don't surrender to bullies who call me names. It is not I who have surrendered it is Boris Johnson he has surrendered his dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to wonder what the slogans will be in a GE.

BTW if you believe government facebook ads UK has never done better, so the UK should never leave or remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LeoV said:

You have to wonder what the slogans will be in a GE.

BTW if you believe government facebook ads UK has never done better, so the UK should never leave or remain.

That’s yet another bonus of not having Facebook, there’s enough puerile shit as it is, I don’t need any more propaganda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour shadow cabinet minister quits to spend more time campaigning for Remain

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"and the other law lords of the English court that rules in their favor" Did they? Or did they duck the question by saying it was not something they had the right to consider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, rgeek said:

"and the other law lords of the English court that rules in their favor" Did they? Or did they duck the question by saying it was not something they had the right to consider?

IP gave a good description of privilege.  The cabinet is the mind of the Government and so is entitled to accessing the law in confidence.  Cox's legal analysis is privileged for a very good reason, and Gov't has the right to the same level of confidentiality that any of us is in respect of how we come to decisions.  That Cox did not adequately predict what the Supreme Court might decide in this case speaks more to his abilities than it does to anything else.  We have seen the results of this, ahem, capacity before and so it is not a surprise. 

He is a blustery fellow, though, would be quite exciting to watch a television show about such a character...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mad said:

He is completely devoid of any understanding, empathy or sympathy.......so I’m not surprised in the slightest. 

He doesn't even have a half a political brain with his People versus the Parliament strategy and claims he represents the thoughts of the British public (based on no community compromise where 52% are entitled to 100%) and they are supportive of shit like this.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LeoV said:

He has no friends in this government, only Patel. The rest is ready to stab him in his back, Gove first (again).

Goves stonewalling smelt very much of electioneering prior to a leadership spill down the track when Boris's support from the far right inside and outside parliament evaporates when he has to seek an extension.

How long can Boris keep this fairytale going of both abiding by the law and leaving come what may on 31 October? Two completely incompatible statements.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

He doesn't even have a half a political brain with his People versus the Parliament strategy and claims he represents the thoughts of the British public (based on no community compromise where 52% are entitled to 100%) and they are supportive of shit like this.

52% entitled to 100%. That is excellent way to say why no-deal shouldn't be in the discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Upp3 said:

52% entitled to 100%. That is excellent way to say why no-deal shouldn't be in the discussion.

Was used by a judge explaining the Supreme Court decision. Funny that BJ has a minority government. So he should not complain.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Alternative Arrangements, watch this vid were the MP working on that plan, travelling all over EU and even the US to explain his miracle cure to the problems get served by BJ. It is not enough. BJ is learning the difficulty of it all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday around 80 MP's on the Tory bench did not go with the applaud our leader in parliament. They applauded long enough to make a good count...
Of them 20 or so already had withdrawn the whip (if all were present) so at least 60 are now branded disloyal.
In good style a purge is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, IPLore said:

...In objective terms, here is the bottom  line.  The UK constitution had a grey area around using the royal prerogative to close parliament.  The government felt it could use the prerogative to reduce but not eliminate parliamentary time prior to Brexit.  Expert legal opinions were clearly divided around this...

..Then he loosened off the oratory that he so enjoys, accused parliament of being a dead parliament and a disgrace, unable to take decisions , twice rejecting Brexit (interestingly aimed at both sides because he of course he was referring to the May deals) and one that should disband and ask the voters for a new parliament.   Clearly intended to provoke and wind up MPs ahead of the motion for a general election. He lit the fuse and sat down.

I bet that it is the last bit that gets the press coverage.

I  took most of Cox's statement as doubling down on Boris's stupid. For instance how do you square what he said with this.

 

He didn't dare venture into that space where the convention and golden rule is the Executive do not under any circumstances ask the Queen to make a political decision or put her into a political corner. His legal advice did exactly that which indicates he is incompetent.

As for his "a dead parliament and shouldn't be occupying the green leather seats" opinion he appears to have forgotton the maxim is it is the public which determine that and it is the public that put them there and it is they who take that away. He opinion is irrelevant so why utter it other than for self serving reasons.

He is a dud like most of the front bench.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mad said:

I find it unbelievable that you can asked repeatedly for answers and not provide them?!! 

How the fuck is this possible? 

Industry are asking the same question. The meeting was with numerous industry reps who all claim they did not say they are ready.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michel Barnier briefing EU Brexit Coord Committee. Statement expecting shortly in addition to UK 3 non-papers received last week another received yesterday and to date nothing legal to act on presented by UK. - from rolling banner on Sky News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, crashdog said:

He is a blustery fellow, though, would be quite exciting to watch a television show about such a character...

Not judging on right or wrong but I thought his performance was rather enjoyable to watch.  Rather than being defensive or cornered he came out fighting and knocked the opposition for six with his flamboyant oratory skills.  With his volume (bark) nobody can complain they didn't hear him as opposed to Boris' squeak. Parliament is still a circus but the show was good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

 Parliament is still a circus but the show was good.

watched if for a while too, couldn't help thinking that if this is supposed to be the mother of all parliaments, the mother is dementing and becoming an advocate for euthanasia to avoid other parliaments to follow suit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I  took most of Cox's statement as doubling down on Boris's stupid. For instance how do you square what he said with this.

 

He didn't dare venture into that space where the convention and golden rule is the Executive do not under any circumstances ask the Queen to make a political decision or put her into a political corner. His legal advice did exactly that which indicates he is incompetent.

As for his "a dead parliament and shouldn't be occupying the green leather seats" opinion he appears to have forgotton the maxim is it is the public which determine that and it is the public that put them there and it is they who take that away. He opinion is irrelevant so why utter it other than for self serving reasons.

He is a dud like most of the front bench.

I thought that Question and that Answer was one of the highlights of the debate, which is why I mentioned it in my previous post summarizing Cox's performance.

In essence, Cox carefully (avoiding transgressing the law convention on legal advice) makes it clear that if Boris and the cabinet had attempted to prorogue Parliament so that Parliament had been unable to discuss Brexit at all from the moment Boris took over until October 31st, then he would have resigned.

Cox is not allowed to say what legal advice he offered to Boris and the cabinet but he used Grieve's question to convey to Parliament that if Boris had tried to close Parliament entirely, he had advised the cabinet that he would have resigned on principle.  t Parliament stayed open and the Benn bill was passed, supposedly preventing the UK leaving without a deal. 

Reading between the lines, Cox acting in an honorable way and one can guess that he advised the cabinet NOT to prorogue parliament in its entirety in the run up to Brexit.  He conveyed that without saying what his legal advice to the cabinet was.  It was a very clever question by a former AG to the current AG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting elements I took away from the PMs answers to questions were:

1. Boris is increasingly emphatic that he wants a deal with the EU  (file that under the "good" column of the good news/ bad news that emerged yesterday)

2. He knows he needs a measure of cross party support for such a deal to be approved by Parliament and he responded eagerly to any compromise olive branches offered to him (good) but undermined most cross-party compromise sentiment with inflammatory oratory aimed at his electoral base (bad).  TV coverage of parliament probably does more damage to reasoned debate than any other single factor (sad but true)

But the single most telling exchanges left us with this confusing message

3. (i)   The British government will comply with the law , including the Benn Bill.

    (ii)  The UK will leave the EU on October 31st, with or without a deal.

Since the Benn Bill requires that if the UK does not have a deal , then the UK government MUST ask for an extension to article 50 to prevent the UK leaving without a deal then statements (i) and (ii) seem incompatible.........unless........:either

  • Boris and his advisors think they have found a loophole in the Benn Bill that allows them to leave without a deal or
  • The PM is going to ask for an extension that will be denied

or.

  • The PM knows that his comments are incompatible and that what he says about leaving on October 31st without a deal is impossible, but he wants the EU negotiators to think he has a loophole or that he is so crazy he will leave without a deal despite the Benn bill.......because it is all about strengthening his negotiating position. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The most interesting elements I took away from the PMs answers to questions were:

1. Boris is increasingly emphatic that he wants a deal with the EU  (file that under the "good" column of the good news/ bad news that emerged yesterday)

2. He knows he needs a measure of cross party support for such a deal to be approved by Parliament and he responded eagerly to any compromise olive branches offered to him (good) but undermined most cross-party compromise sentiment with inflammatory oratory aimed at his electoral base (bad).  TV coverage of parliament probably does more damage to reasoned debate than any other single factor (sad but true)

But the single most telling exchanges left us with this confusing message

3. (i)   The British government will comply with the law , including the Benn Bill.

    (ii)  The UK will leave the EU on October 31st, with or without a deal.

Since the Benn Bill requires that if the UK does not have a deal , then the UK government MUST ask for an extension to article 50 to prevent the UK leaving without a deal then statements (i) and (ii) seem incompatible.........unless........:either

  • Boris and his advisors think they have found a loophole in the Benn Bill that allows them to leave without a deal or
  • The PM is going to ask for an extension that will be denied

or.

  • The PM knows that his comments are incompatible and that what he says about leaving on October 31st without a deal is impossible, but he wants the EU negotiators to think he has a loophole or that he is so crazy he will leave without a deal despite the Benn bill.......because it is all about strengthening his negotiating position. 

 

Or 3 (iii) BJ is so used to telling one group what they want to hear and then another group the opposite if that is what they want to hear, and getting away with it, that he doesn’t believe he needs a plan. He will just charm, lie, obfuscate and bumble forward until someone or thing proves that approach does not work.

What part of Boris’ past would suggest that won’t work? His behaviour is learned behaviour. As a journalist he competed with serious people doing serious work. His alternative approach of making up sensational lies about the EU sold papers and served him well. His repeated deceitfulness/unfaithfulness to the women in his life hasn’t left him a lonely man. His choice of Brexit not out of policy preference but political opportunism has left him PM. Why would he believe he should change his MO?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Cummings threat of abandoning convention and terrorising opposition party conferences??

Well Boris's party annual piss-up just got prorogued.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The international trade secretary, Liz Truss, admitted that the UK had again breached a court order banning the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia for fear they could be used in the conflict in Yemen.

 

And she’s hit the news again. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/26/truss-admits-uk-breached-court-order-banning-arm-sales-to-saudis-again?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good legal thread from QC that was part of Supreme Court Appeal on the means Boris could try and bypass the Benn Act.

The good lady might have to go looking through her broach drawer again.

 

The full list of possible escape routes for Boris here.

 Looking for loopholes: How could UK PM Johnson avoid delaying Brexit?

It is not just Boris...the party is rotton from the head down.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Dilyn the new Downing Street dog picked up the phone and called the RSPCA. “The owner’s abusive and out of control,” he barked. “Either re-home me or put me down.”

He is not alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK leaving the EU but being in the EU Single Market (as an EEC country like Norway, Switzerland etc) was once regarded as essential by many.

So what in the fuck happened????

My guess is someone from outta space hypnotised them all.

So it seems....

1. Boris, Farage and Co are the only ones in the UK who are allowed to change their minds; and 

2. Their grounds now for not only exiting the Single Market but exiting uncontrolled the EU with No Deal is from following the advise of an extraterrestrial and pushed along by someone with a bowl shaped orange head. 

IMG_20190922_183909.jpg.0831c65f9a943de908c07dc86b14ed65.jpg

Should it be any surprise now where things have ended up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Upp3 said:

52% entitled to 100%. That is excellent way to say why no-deal shouldn't be in the discussion.

Also like for a family with four children calling one child the "children."

Then again Boris probably has trouble keeping track of how many kids he has sired and their names.

"We will not betray the people the who sent us here." That was 42% of the popular vote in 2017 and he sits there as an unelected PM with the lowest personal electoral margin of any sitting PM since the 1920's (was halved to a waffer thin 5K).

Actually Boris is pretty cunning in the "art of  distraction" like this language stunt, be it away from Supreme Court rulings, funding grants with benefits and other staggeringly inept moments of public humiliation.

When will his genius take a break? When will Tory MP's wake up and see the blood in the water is also theirs?

So many questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

When will Tory MP's wake up and see the blood in the water is also theirs?

After the fact. Many still think BJ is going for a deal.

Lies keep flying from the Government, looks like they want to compete with Trump.
One of them is that even if BJ got a VONC yesterday, the election would have taken place beyond 1Nov by UK laws. So the whole shtick of needing an election to let the people decide before 1 Nov is a blatant lie.
Saying parliament has no morality.
Calling the Benn act surrender Bill and saying that then EU has all the power is again a lie.

Oh and all that talk about miracle ways to bypass the Benn bill in a legal way, is as much BS as his miracle plan for the backstop.
He can only do that if he breaks the law.

Tories are fully planning for an election. Under command of Cummings, 50% attacking opposition- 50% focus on all the good stuff the T will do.
And lying is approved. Many Vote leave campaign leaders (Cummings, Gove, BJ) are now the Tory party tactical deciders. What can go wrong.
Vote leave won by not defining what a Brexit would be, that is different now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_Leave

Tory party with all the attacks lately looks like an attempt to attract male Brexit voters. Many woman will be disgusted. And Tory voters that are still for a soft Brexit. And older T voters who think that lying tot he Queen is to much. Labour voters that want hard Brexit looks like more likely to vote TBP.
It will for many be a tough decision in the voting booth, so polls can go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And about promises from BJ while in Vote Leave campaign;
Get the easiest trade deals in history, a free-trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey.
No damage to EU trade
No short term economic disruption
Put in law an extra £350m a week for the NHS
Increase funding for science and agriculture
Scrap VAT on fuel and sanitary products
Releasing businesses from unnecessary and meddlesome red tape
No problems with NI/Ireland border.

Can he deliver on his 2016 promises. As important as the promise to the 17.4 M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From one of my suppliers - more & more orders now come with the below foot note :

Special Note

With the current uncertainty the UK faces with Brexit and future trade relations with the EU ..... Industries Ltd will endeavour to maintain price and lead times but this may not be possible where the product or material is sourced from the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury is still out on whether all the supporting noise coming from the government benches was either support to Johnson's appalling behaviour or they were whipped to support an "attack is best form of defence" strategy.

However this Tory MP and tight wing fucktard doesn't get the luxury of that defence, hence why they let him front the media.

Pretty strange strategy where you allienate those whose vote you need in the HOC to get a Deal passed and also the electorate, particularly the 50%, who are women.

Makes you think a Deal is never going to surface and so next step is break the law again and become a Brexit martyr to bury your failed 31 October promise.

 

 

EFV7rGuW4AEirGa.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeoV said:

After the fact. Many still think BJ is going for a deal.

Like this genius.

Interestingly his response was framed in the "future tense", not "past tense" of surrendering negotiations that have been underway for 2 months.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share o