Westminstenders: Charge!!!!

[RedToothBrush]

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell.
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

Most of them seem to have been pretty decent MPs who have looked after their constituents interests. I will make an exception for Kate Hoey, why on earth did a Labour party select her to represent them in the first place?

How will a GNU stop no deal?

Putting aside who would lead it for a moment...how does it play out to avert a No Deal Brexit?

It could avert “No Deal” at the end of Oct by asking for an extension to the A50 process. Following an extension its only further task would be to call for a GE, in my view anyway.

So “No Deal” could still happen if, for example the next Conservative leader advocates for it and is returned as PM at the head of a new Conservative government. BOris Johnson following a lost VONC would be gone, no question. If this occurred however, “No Deal” would essentially have been voted for by the voters returning that Government

As we sit here, the only guaranteed way to prevent “No Deal” is still that
Parliament vote for a “Deal”. Personally, the nearer we get to Oct 31st without a deal, I would hope to see a chourus of the large majority of anti-“No Deal” MPs begging the Johnson Government to return a version of the WA “Deal” to Parliament so they can vote for it.

How will a GNU stop no deal?

Putting aside who would lead it for a moment...how does it play out to avert a No Deal Brexit?

How do they not? If they can put their egos and their party politics and their love of position over their duty to their country aside for a moment and work to form a govt that has a majority to pass legislation ... they pass legislation. Which they can do because they have a majority.
They request an extension
They can spend time talking to the EU about the W.A if they want to but that's not strictly necessary. However they do have to accept that the W.A is what they're getting - there is no form of brexit, beyond no deal, that doesn't include it.
Because they are split between wanting the W.A and wanting to remain - and currently having a mandate for neither - they seek a mandate by way of referendum.
They implement the will of the referendum.

The idea that a second ref has to be remain vs leave and then if leave wins deal vs no deal is pure nonsense and fiction. There is not and never has been a mandate for no deal, they do not have to offer it as an option. They do not have to waste time and money on multiple round referendums and it would be criminally stupid to ask the same vague question that they asked in 2016 - where monumentous change being voted upon is not yet defined. There is no democratic merit or purpose in asking people to vote on something not defined. Leave must be defined in any confirmatory vote and - as a GNU would be an anti-no deal crowd, it's safe to say that definition would be the W.A
So confirmatory vote:
defined Deal vs defined remain - whichever wins they pass the necessary legislation (because they have the numbers to do it) and then dissolve parliament for a GE.

They can't stop Hard Brexit. Not unequivocally. If a ref gave the W.A the green light and the electorate gave the tories a majority then they would pursue the exit negotiations with a hard brexit in mind ... but they would have a mandate for that.

However if the W.A passes and a more remain friendly party ended up the driving seat they would pursue a softer version of brexit. But they would have the mandate for that.

And if remain wins then they revoke before election and it doesn't matter who wins, brexit is over.

The barrier is getting them working together and having the numbers. If the numbers are there the path is really simple and clear - because they can vote for any legislation they need. If they fail it will not be because there was no way to stop it, but because they wouldn't work together.

I agree with everything you say, @Icantreachthepretzels, as normal!

I also agree with @Icantreachthepretzels, but doesn’t it take a very long time to arrange a PV? What would the GNU do about day-to-day legislation, budgets etc in the meantime, if their only mandate was to stop no deal?

I'm sure it was said PV-planning can be sped up if Parliament rushes the legislation through. Which it would do.

I'd think anything already in the parliamentary timetable could be dealt with as that's already there to be debated and voted on. But no new legislation can be introduced, other than for Brexit.

And if remain wins then they revoke before election and it doesn't matter who wins, brexit is over.

For now!

Lewis Goodall@lewis_goodall

It used to be said that the Tory eurosceptics "couldn't take yes for an answer."

The remainists have gone the same way. Corbyn has offered them everything they wanted for a 4 week administration, incl. offer of a ref if they win. If they don't want to take it then...
...
Moreover this idea of getting a People's Vote instead of a general election is even more fanciful.

Even in the outlandish scenario the votes are there to form GNU - as soon as you try and legislate for a referendum, you lose a few dozen.

No majority for it.

www.economicvoice.com/breaking-are-we-about-to-see-an-early-brexit/

economicvoice.com
Breaking: Are we about to see an early Brexit!
3 minutes

Just a short audio only update to say – hold on to your hats guys we might be on the verge of an early full blown Brexit!

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VIDEO BELOW:

I've just caught a Tweet from Daddy Dragon and I'll quote it here direct:

"Wow, It is being suggested by a senior Tory that @BorisJohnson @10DowningStreet is preparing to give a "consent order" to the High Court in relation to the @RobinTilbrook case for leave. Evidently he can do this under "Crown Prerogative" as he is named as 1st respondent."

If you remember, after the first Article 50 extension, the chairman of the English Democrats, Robin Tilbrook, lodged a judicial review case with the Administrative Court arguing that the extension was unlawful.

And Theresa May's government lodged a defence to protect her decision.

What this news amounts to, is Boris Johnson pulling that government defence to the case Robin Tilbrook put into the courts in April this year.

This would mean that the government would be accepting that the first Article 50 extension was unlawfully obtained so that agreement to extend Article 50 beyond the 29th of march was null and void in domestic and international law.

The upshot would be, if this is true, that the UK left the EU on WTO terms – that is a no deal Brexit – on the 29th of March this year!

This would, as I understand it, become effective immediately Boris signed the relevant document and it was received by the court.

Now, I assume that there will be an instant court case launched by someone like Gina Miller to try and prove that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully himself by pulling the government defence to this case, but I doubt it would get very far.

Let's hope this is correct, as it would destroy any moves by Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Swinson, Ian Blackford or even Speaker Bercow, to try and stop Brexit – as it would already have happened.

Sources:

Wow #FBPE It is being suggested by a senior Tory that <strong>*@BorisJohnson</strong>* <strong>*@10DowningStreet</strong><strong> is preparing to give a "consent order" to the High Court in relation to the </strong><strong>@RobinTilbrook</strong>* case for leave. Evidently he can do this under "Crown Prerogative" as he is named as 1st respondent.

— WWG1WGA Daddy Dragon (<strong>@GrahamHmoore</strong>) August 15, 2019

I'm not sure anybody would instigate such a clusterfuck again in a hurry. Even those who profess to wanting it!

I'm sure that's been debunked by legal minds better than mine, DGR. But it doesn't become law when it's lodged at Court. A Judge still needs to approve it. You can consent to anything you like, doesn't mean a Judge will allow it.

Sorry, triple post, I don't think he'll do that as it doesn't fit the narrative he wants. Boris needs to be able to blame somebody else for the turmoil. Brexit chaos would be in full swing before parliament gets back from recess and certainly by the time a GE happens. Boris wouldn't want that!

If we've already left .... that would bugger a lot of business that has happened since 1 April
It's mad

10 Downing Street preparing to agree a consent order in the Tilbrook case

Thinking this through...this way of achieving a chaotic no deal could make complete sense:

1. Is Boris Johnson completely committed to leaving with no trading arrangement? Yes it appears he is.

1. Does he care about a disorderly Brexit? No it appears he doesn't.

The case was thought to have very low prospects of success legally. However any party in a legal action can consent to the order sought by the claimant.

So in this case the defendants can consent to an agreed decision that the extension was unlawful. However:

1. Who are the actual defendants? The government, the PM ? If one defendant agrees then that would settle the case against that party but the case would continue against the other defendants.

1. We are back to the issue of when consent for significant decisions is required from the gov/ or parliament or the PM alone.

1. There could be an appeal but by which defendant - the government ? or possibly an intervention by a pro remain group of MPs?

4.. I think ? the decision would only be valid from a U.K. national perspective. It would be up to the EU to decide if they wished to see the extension as improperly agreed -but they would probably respect a UK decision that the U.K. hadn't acted in accordance with its own requirements ?

But it doesn't become law when it's lodged at Court. A Judge still needs to approve it.

I think that only applies to things like divorce or anything involving children.

If two companies say have a contractual dispute and agree to drop the case paying the claimant the compensation sought then the court just rubber stamp the consent order.

Ok panic over- I just looked up the case. The defendants are the PM and the Secretary of State for DexEU.

The case was dismissed already. So the only thing the defendants can agree to is the application for permission to apply for judicial review of the dismissal of the case.

Application for judicial review has been refused.

The courts found the application to be totally without merit and set out the reasons for the case being refused.

However The PM and Barclay could in theory consent to an appeal of the refusal to allow the judicial review? Then consent to the order sought in the judicial review?

Is that really true, if the defendant consents?
I wouldn't expect that to automatically make something legal

e.g. Suppose a defendant brought a case demanding that the govt brought in gas chambers, then the govt dropped its opposition
Surely doesn't make gas chambers legal.

A50 is part of an international treaty, so the act of exit must follow international law
Even if the govt drops its case, this attempt at a UK stitchup is unlikely to be legally valid

However, it could put the UK in a horrendous legal limbo

Just when you thought there could be no worse outcome than No Deal .....

Warning:
totally FAKE article about Chukka & LDems, in case anyone sees it elsewhere:

Peter Walkerr@peterwalker99*

New front in fake news
- someone badly photoshopping an entirely made-up Guardian article, supposedly written by me, about invented Lib Dem splits.

Odd and alarming.

eustachy r daewo@uncoolfellazone

chuka turning on the lib dems already, not a man to be trusted at all

A no deal outcome with an ongoing legal battle attached. Joy.

Wonder what new ‘facts’ I’ll discover this weekend ? R.O.I (Republic of Iraq) not Ireland was an absolute pearler last week.

I work in civil litigation. EVERYTHING goes to a Judge. Not everything is rubber stamped. Sometimes you have to have a hearing to put your reasoning to the Judge. Sometimes your CO is outright refused.

In something this important I doubt it would just be stamped.

If a Judge has thrown a case out for no merits, consenting won't bring it back in. You can get reinstated after strike out for a rules breach, but not for no merits.

Bigchoc I agree with that analysis from Lewis Goodall, he really is worth following on twitter. In my view we are where we are because some MPs on both sides of the Brexit issue refused to compromise or even consider anything other than their preferred option. When they had a chance they voted down all those soft brexit options, Norway etc which were far from perfect but much better than no deal, they took a gamble and lost for all of us.

If we've already left .... that would bugger a lot of business that has happened since 1 April

Think of all the import / export duty that suddenly needed to be calculated retrospectively.

Anyone who started to stockpile post March would be particularly screwed.

That would include Johnson's own government and their budget plans.

Not just in the Uk, but in any country we've exported to

No, it would go to the ECJ, or maybe even the International court in the Hague, but would be thrown out
.... along with any respect for the Uk as a serious country

Surely even BJ is just posturing to the batshitters, knowing the UK courts would throw it out