Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders. Boris, May and Judgement Day

990 replies

RedToothBrush · 20/01/2017 13:49

Well its finally here. The day America changes forever. Good luck planet earth.

Our day of reckoning is beckoning too.

Tuesday is Supreme Court Judgement Day.

At 9.30 Lord Nueberger and the other ten justices will convene and he will read out their judgement.

Contrary to some suggestions this does not mean the decision is necessarily unanimous. It is normal for the Supreme Court to do this.

Nueberger will read any disagreements out as part of the judgment.
Their ruling will be far reaching in its importance however it goes.

A victory for the government will mean a50 can be triggered as and when Theresa May likes. That could be Tuesday afternoon in theory.

If it’s a victory for the claimants then things get much more complicated. It depends on how far the justices go.

It could rule that parliament need to vote on a50.

It could rule that the Great Repeal Act must be passed before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that the Scottish and NI Assemblies must agree to a50 being invoked.

It could rule that the Good Friday Agreement must be resolved before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that issues over acquired rights must be resolved before invoking a50.

It could draw other conclusions that we have not thought of.

A strong victory for the claimants could seriously hamper May’s plans for Brexit. Which is exactly why she has laid out her vision and has prepared the battle lines ready for her next round of blame laying.

None of this will be because the government has been short sighted.

If there is a strong victory, remember that May could have avoided the situation by accepting the High Court’s ruling in December that she needed Parliament’s consent to trigger a50. Anything more that makes triggering a50 more difficult is her sole responsibility and she had the power to avoid. Much of the right wing press will tell you differently.

We've heard so much about Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit. We should also talk of Democratic and Undemocratic Brexit. How Brexit is managed and how we conduct ourselves is arguably as important to the future as economics. It is right to oppose Undemocratic Brexit. It is important to make that distinction and all the principles that fall under that concept. What opposition there is need to get their shit together on this principle. Using patriotism to stifle this wholly wrong and unhealthy. Saying Brexit must happen no matter what, regardless of how bad it is and regardless of the cost is wrong.

Make the case for democracy. Keep talking about it. Talk about where it is failing and what we must do to strengthen it, not undermine it.

Here lies Labour's policy on Brexit. "We support Democratic Brexit which is the will of the people. This is how we define this. This is what is needed economic and socially." You can find the necessary slogans from this and start defining it outward from that. So far they have failed to capture this sentiment concisely into a soundbite that people can start to develop and push a left wing liberal agenda on their own terms from. Their PR is shocking and they are incoherent. May owned Corbyn at PMQ earlier this week on these grounds. This is not because they have been misrepresented by the press or been the victim of biased media. Its because they have been shit and have failed to set their own agenda and instead are dancing to everyone else's.

Here’s hoping that democracy will win through the challenges of the next few years. Democracy is about elections and referendums, but it is also so much more. It is about on going debate and the freedom of this debate, freedom of the press, a range of political parties and points of view, the independent judiciary, the right to oppose the state, freedom to exercise your legal rights, freedom of speech, an understanding of equality and an understanding and above all else - respect for of all of the above. It does not bode well that much of the right wing press and right wing politicians are telling us differently.

So much hope about our futures now rests with Angela Merkel one way or another.

Meanwhile Corbyn could face a major rebellion over a50 if he pursues a three line whip rather than a free vote. 60 - 80 Labour MPs are threatening not to tow the party line with shadow cabinet resignations potentially also on the cards.

Brace yourselves the roller coaster is just about to hit a one big drop.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Peregrina · 24/01/2017 13:29

Now that we have had the Supreme Court decision I think David Davis's 'No White Paper' line will be difficult to hold. We shall see - I hope his intransigence will prompt some Tory rebellions on the issue.

Bobochic · 24/01/2017 13:30

The more TM tries to bulldoze ahead with her personal vision of Brexit, the more I think that by doing so she creates the opposition that creates the framework within which a realistic Brexit can be negotiated. It's tactical by TM and it was the only course of action available to her.

TatianaLarina · 24/01/2017 13:31

Not so much mad as utterly unaccountable.

Peregrina · 24/01/2017 13:35

I don't think tactics come into May's decisions - I think she's just pig headed.

woman12345 · 24/01/2017 13:36

Is this all nutty conspiracy theory territory?
And I'm loathe to bring it up on such an erudite thread, but there were great problems with that book when it came out, and all sorts of things happened as a result.
I want to think that it's nutty, but what's happening is either mad or very systematic.
And hoping we can look back on this and laugh.

Bobochic · 24/01/2017 13:37

I don't agree - anymore. Pigheaded is what she looked like at first but actually all these Supreme Court shenanigans are greatly to her advantage, which would explain why the Government spent money on the Appeal.

Peregrina · 24/01/2017 13:43

In what way are the Supreme Court shenanigans to her advantage? A win outright would have been good for her, but there was a possibility that she might have had to consult the Devolved Governments and then she would have been scuppered. I think she's just been a bit lucky, if anything. Still Napoleon wanted his General's to be lucky.

Her performance on Sunday's Andrew Marr show was not that of a tactician - it was of someone who made herself look sly. Someone who has also fed into the public mind that the missiles fail, whereas in fact, they don't normally.

lurkinghusband · 24/01/2017 13:45

Starmer has asked how much the case cost the taxpayer. Davis refused to say. (Watch out for the FOI request on this. They will be forced to disclose I'm sure).

Especially given the cuts in legal aid the proles have had to suck up ....

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2017 13:47

Davies says he's going to say something nice about European Commission. They support the GFA and Barnier himself was directly involved in its creation. (Has a personal and professional interest in maintaining it).

OP posts:
Lico · 24/01/2017 13:50

I love Chuka too! This will be very interesting indeed for Johnson and co to back out of this lie.
Plus the Trudent issue..

Peregrina · 24/01/2017 13:53

Generals - ugh rogue apostrophe. I do know better.

Davies says he's going to say something nice about European Commission. They support the GFA and Barnier himself was directly involved in its creation. (Has a personal and professional interest in maintaining it).

Not before time. Davies may be the most reasonable of the three stooges - Fox appears to be an idiot, and Johnson chooses to behave like one.

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2017 13:58

Matthew Holehouse ‏*@mattholehouse*

David Davis says he hopes a comprehensive FTA and customs agreement will deliver "the exact same benefits" as single market membership.

What like FoM?!

OP posts:
Peregrina · 24/01/2017 14:00

a comprehensive FTA and customs agreement will deliver "the exact same benefits" as single market membership

Are we back to cherry picking again? I take back the words about him being reasonable.

Bobochic · 24/01/2017 14:07

Peregrina - absolutely any outcome of the Supreme Court ruling would have provided a framework for moving forward. It actually doesn't matter what the ruling was provided some sort of clarity emerged from it as to the rules going forward.

After the referendum TM found herself playing a new game with no rule book. Her aggressive tactics create reactions that gradually write the rule book.

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2017 14:08

Matthew Pennycook MP @mtpennycook
As expected, Supreme Court upholds High Court's ruling – confirming that only Parliament can trigger the start of the EU exit process.
Onus now on Govt to confirm that legislation to trigger Article 50 will not be designed to try to prevent MPs from tabling amendments.
Labour will not seek to block the triggering of Article 50 out of hand but that doesn't mean that we intend to give the Govt a blank cheque.
We therefore plan to table amendments to the Article 50 Bill in order to significantly increase Parliament's grip on the Brexit process.
These amendments will seek to ensure:

  1. That a detailed Government plan for Brexit is published before Article 50 is triggered, along with robust impact assessments.
  2. That the Govt stick to a number of key principles throughout negotiations, including securing barrier-free access to the single market.
  3. That the legal status of EU citizens in the UK is resolved before negotiations begin.
  4. That there is robust and regular Parliamentary scrutiny throughout the Brexit negotiations.
  5. That there is a meaningful vote in Parliament on the exit settlement – to be held before Govt agrees the final deal with the Commission.

Nicholas Watt ‏*@nicholaswatt*

Govt source tells me: wrong to phrase article 50 bill in way that would prevent amendments. 'You can't stop people amending bill' 1/3
Govt source: 50 amendments by @theSNP - one for each article in Lisbon treaty leading up to article 50 2/3
Govt source: @thesnp will look like a roadblock on A50. Danger for @UKLabour is they could look like they are joining the roadblock 3/3

www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2017/01/brexit-and-parliament?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
A court ruling on Article 50 hints at Britain’s coming constitutional storm

OP posts:
Bobochic · 24/01/2017 14:11

TM is, gradually, explaining to deluded Leavers that they will only get Brexit within a framework. But her actions ensure other people take the flak for highlighting the rules.

BigChocFrenzy · 24/01/2017 14:14

imo:

  • Davies is honest & principled, but thick
  • Boris is clever but has no principles except helping his career
  • Fox is both thick and sleazy

Boris is the most likely successor to May, some time after the next GE - the Tories will put the blame for any downsides of Brexit onto her, change leaders and win the following GE

EurusHolmesViolin · 24/01/2017 14:25

The more TM tries to bulldoze ahead with her personal vision of Brexit, the more I think that by doing so she creates the opposition that creates the framework within which a realistic Brexit can be negotiated. It's tactical by TM and it was the only course of action available to her.

I have wondered. Especially as this has also given her the opportunity to shit stir about an independent judiciary, which she has historically not been a fan of because this is not the first bloody nose they've given her. On the other hand, maybe it's all wishful thinking and she's really that venal and stupid.

BigChocFrenzy · 24/01/2017 14:28

Political winners / losers from Brexit:

. SNP are positioning themselves cleverly to be able to say they tried hard to protect Scotland from a hard Brexit, but were outvoted at Westminster.
Sturgeon is the only major politician whose reputation has been enhanced so far. None of the others look like they have a clue

. Labour are in chaotic meltdown, with no end in sight. Voters see they are ineffective and useless as an opposition. That memory will linger
Corbyn's image of total incompetence has been confirmed. Labour are dead so long as he is there and probably for years afterwards too.

. The Tories should win the next GE and - even if Brexit causes economic problems - under fptp can only be punished by voters if there is a single organised party / alliance that is a credible alternative government

HashiAsLarry · 24/01/2017 14:31

I was thinking the same as Ian Dunt Confused

TheSmurfsAreHere · 24/01/2017 14:34

Now that we have the ruling from the Courts, the more it goes, the more I think we will just end up with free trade with the eu, free movement of people and paying a hell of a lot of money for that.
Swiss or Norwegian type of agreement (but not one of those, it will be one created ESPECIALLY for the Britain) which will give the impression that we have something better.
They might even agree to have a quota on immigration, the one that was OFFERED to the uk when eastern countries joined and that the uk REFUSED if we have a good enough negociator not TM.
Win win. The eu would have a sort of FOM and the uk would be able to say they have limited immigration and have taken control again.

Whilst still having close co-operation with the army, intelligence agency, police etc... and being more or less part of a possible European army, but we won't be in there because we aren't in the eu

Playing in words, going for the least disruptive option and changing things slowly.
Now that would be much much more in accordance to the British ways, which is one of the reasons I think it will end up like this. Out of the eu but actually we are still in iyswim.

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2017 14:38

I have wondered. Especially as this has also given her the opportunity to shit stir about an independent judiciary, which she has historically not been a fan of because this is not the first bloody nose they've given her. On the other hand, maybe it's all wishful thinking and she's really that venal and stupid.

Who is the constitutional expert and has always had a bee in his bonnet about restricting the scope of the Royal Prerogative for many, many years?

If there are/were tactics over the court case, they didn't come from May herself.

OP posts:
BigChocFrenzy · 24/01/2017 14:46

I know it's a big Brexit day, but this is very grim news:

Trump hammers vulnerable women again

Yes, he's doing what he promised the religious right (who delivered their vote)

He has signed an executive order - so it applies right away, no going through Congress - that will strip funding from any international NGO that provides abortions services, or even discusses abortion with patients seeking educational materials or referrals.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/trump-once-said-women-should-be-punished-for-abortion-t

"Trump is removing US funding to any overseas organisation that offers abortions, even if the organisation provides those specific services with their own funds.
It means that doctors, midwives, nurses and volunteers cannot so much as mention the word “abortion” to their patients and service users without risking the loss of the US funding they receive for services including the supply of contraceptives."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/photo-trump-womens-rights-protest-reproductive-abortion-developing-contries

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2017 14:53

BigChoc that wasn't unexpected.

Every Republican since Regan has done the same after its been reversed by every Democrat.

atill awful. de

OP posts:
RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 24/01/2017 15:02

bigchoc

I am being really thick today

Could you explain in words of one syllable please

So america gives money to to health organisations all over the world

And the health organisations can include contraceptive advice which might mention abortion

So trump has signed to say that if you mention the abortion word we will take away your funding

Have i got that right?

Do we pay into those organisations as well?

Do most countries do it?

Why do we do it? Is it to help out, stop deaths and overpopulation?

I have tried reading a few articles but nothing is sinking in today

Swipe left for the next trending thread