Westminstenders: What hangs in the balance?

[RedToothBrush]

Yellow Hammer (and Black Swan if it exists) and other documents the government itself has produced are our truths and our evidence.

I look to Thomas Jefferson quotes in trying to defend liberal democracy.

His most famous of quotes is

Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Self evident truths. These are the bedrock of democracy.

There are many more quotes from Jefferson which talk about the shining beacon of truth and the threats to liberty from falsehoods and those who tell them.

He argued that when the power of the state is used to avoid scrutiny we should be worried and afraid. As a leader he should never be afraid of the truth, because the truth always exists and you can only merely hide it before it makes itself apparent anyway.

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

Today I feel the need to dust off old Jefferson for my own sanity and to remind myself of what matters. Jefferson helps me focus on dangers and how you fight back. It always comes back to exposure to the truth - how do you work to expose this (and the role of journalism in this)

Seek the truth. Talk the truth. Even if that means being self critical and humble in admitting your mistakes and errors.

It is not your identity as Leaver, Remainer, Tory, Labour, LDer, SNPer, woman, man, English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh or European right now.

These identities are harming us, by making us look at the wrong thing rather than see the real danger facing us. They divide us whilst they conquer us.

What you should be focusing on NOW is your commitment to democracy in the face of someone in power actively and explicity saying the rule of law does not matter and the courts are wrong. That is advocating mob rule.

Johnson stood and said threats to MPs were humbug. And refused to moderate his language despite so many (mainly female) MPs saying the threats they received were extremely serious (remembering we've even had a prosecution for a plot to kill Rosie Cooper as well as other successful prosecutions for threats to MPs)

This is where we are at.

Focus on it.

No Deal Brexit and the future of liberal democracy in this country are indivisible and inseparable. They are entwined by the rule of law.

Brexit is NOT in of itself a threat to liberal democracy. It is HOW we leave that is.

I wish this was being said and emphasised concisely and cleanly.

And also I really do think that the Oct 19th March is going to be crucial. We've been on the last two - and a Stop The Coup one in Bristol, and they've all been very good mannered.

I noted at the Stop the Coup march in Oxford there were quite a few people with placards saying (I paraphrase) that they voted leave for Parliamentary Sovereignty not for a dictatorship.

Lark, can they invoke the CCA for an anticipated emergency? Suspending Benn/Burt using the CCA would assume an emergency occurring at that time, surely? An anticipated emergency wouldn't fit the criteria, I wouldn't think.

Another day ... another email to my MP ... I doubt that he considers the Cummings threat to either pass Brexit or live with death threats to be unacceptable though.

Oh, just read your next post. Does intelligence qualify for it then? If so, the opposition QCs would demand disclosure, surely?

Hello, I'm further away - south of Bath but came in on the train to be counted. Need to book my London tickets today.

Also:

David Allen Green
@davidallengreen
2h
"What about this to side-step the Benn Act?

• No, Padfield, constitutional law 101, government cannot frustrate statute

"Side letter to EU?"

• No, Padfield

"Order in Council?"

• No, Padfield

"What about..."

• Still no

"Emergency powers?"

• No, for even more legal reasons

followed by

General purpose tweet

To any piece of the form "Has [x] discovered a way round the Benn Act?"

The initial answer is "No, Padfield"

Only if the piece explains how the 1968 case of Padfield is also sidestepped, then the piece is legally worthless briefed by the legally amateur

On the last big demo - the march one, I saw coaches which had come up from Cornwall and there were people who had come down from Orkney.

NoWordForFluffy

Civil Contingencies Act 2004 s21:

Conditions for making Emergency Regulations

(2) The first condition is that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur.

Easy enough to generate evidence of a threat - just encourage the usual suspects on Twitter etc.

Brexit propaganda beamed into schools:

Parents complain over pro-Boris Johnson clips played in schools
Firm that rents digital message boards removes controversial slides about Brexit
www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/26/parents-complain-over-pro-boris-johnson-clips-played-in-schools

The slides, showing a brief biography of Johnson – including one stating “He wants to unite the UK” – were raised in the House of Commons by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, in north-east London, after parents in her constituency complained on social media about seeing the images at a local primary school.

More on the same:

Boris Johnson quizzed about Brexit propaganda shown in primary schools
“A presentation about the prime minister’s proposals and Brexit that had been broadcast on what transpires to be 3,000 digital noticeboards of primary schools around this country, without the consent of the schools”
www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/boris-johnson-quizzed-about-brexit-propaganda-shown-in-primary-schools/25/09/?fbclid=IwAR1dfmmxl9bsmt9phe2cmAh25Hg_Rtr58hnBw5aDHEi1M6brZaObUNwDoX4

Ah, and I'd only read it the other day, but hadn't committed it to memory.

I wouldn't put it past them to fake intelligence either.

De-lurking again briefly with a personal anecdote.

Thanks to this thread, not only have I written to my MP, but my mother - a former Tory party member, who left when they become too socially liberal under Cameron - has written to her (loyal Tory) MP, deploring Boris Johnson's words and behaviour.

She has never written to her MP before, but responded immediately and enthusiastically to my suggestion that she should. Although she and I both voted remain, our political views more generally do not coincide. Mr Johnson has brought us together.

I think you’re all correct about the threat of widespread rioting being a pile of crap. I think the more realistic outcome of this incitement is another attack on a single MP or prominent Remain campaigner, like the one on Jo Cox

I think it is only a matter of time before there is another death, though not necessarily a deliberate one.

Brick through a window in last night (Jim Cornelius, policy/trade wonk, Lib Dem). Probably not personal but it only takes someone to be standing in the wrong place when the brick is chucked.

For some people of course the risk of personal, targeted violence is now extremely high. Did I read that Jo Maugham is concerned enough to be taking his family abroad or did I imagine that?

An anomaly indeed:
Anomaly’s websites said the displays had been “instrumental in helping schools improve their Ofsted grading”. The company lists their benefits as “engaging pupils to understand fundamental British values” and “safeguarding children from extremism and radicalisation”, two areas under scrutiny by Ofsted and the Department for Education in England.

So was this paid for by tax payers £?

While drinking my first morning cuppa today I had this (potentially completely bonkers) thought that I wanted to share with Westministenders to sense check if I am being fanciful.

We are potentially around 1 month from leaving the EU without an agreement.

On October 19th there will be a “People’s Vote” March in London, so basically Pro-Remain, and I expect not long after that we’ll have another “Leave Means Leave” type one. Someone mentioned "Stop the Coup" earlier.

I think the atmosphere surrounding Brexit is currently so toxic that any those marches will likely just be for their respective “tribe”, and I think either or both have the potential to make things worse.

Lots of our MPs say they want “a deal” even though they haven’t voted for one, but how many of us voters are saying that? Sure, we can write to them, but publicly, I’m not hearing much.

One of my huge frustrations with this is that Parliament will say what it is against but will not say what it is for. Well, if they won’t, maybe some of their voters should?

People can write to their MPs and stuff but what about a public demonstration, A march FOR a deal Could this attract some support from both “sides” do you think?

Actually, I’d rather not call it a “march” at all. A “walk” sounds far better to me, so “Walking towards a Deal” or “One Step Closer to Deal” something like that.

If I'm being barmy, feel free to tell me.

The non-explanation explanation by the Chief Exec of Anomaly, Phil Austin, raises my eyebrows even further. Feeble, with a distinct whiff of misdirection.

I smell Cummings or one of his previous collaborators Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica here.

This is the Cummings who's been trying to get his hands on the data from users of the entire gov.uk website.

Watchdog questions collection of public's Gov.uk data
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49682833

Expect a lot more of this shit bubbling up all over. Cummings lives his life in the tech channels which for trad politicians are just some poorly understood add-on.

It's well documented that he did it during the Referendum through private entities like Facebook. Now he's inside government he must be creaming himself with joy: all those networks (govt & contracted) from which to suck up user data, and on which to broadcast his message.

So was this paid for by tax payers £?

Johnson is currently running an election campaign using tax payers money and no 1 is reporting on it

This ‘there’ll be riots’ nonsense. A responsible government would be saying:

A. We’ll leave the EU within a framework allowed by our sovereign laws, which we respect and are designed to protect us.
B. We’ll try very hard to make sure nobody is put in harm’s way (food / drugs shortages etc.)
C. Anyone who riots/ causes grievous bodily harm or destruction to property will be dealt with firmly within the framework set out by our sovereign laws, which are designed to protect us. (This would deter some.)

It’s so long since we’ve heard responsible, benevolent messages from government, I think we’ve forgotten it’s possible.

An irresponsible government will be saying “bring on the riots which will prove our point”.

I've just done a bit of my Constitutional Law 101, by reading Wikipedia on Padfield.

My layman summary of a Wikipedia article so treat accordingly... This relates to a law where there was ministerial discretion set out in the Act: it said the minister could direct a committee (of the Milk Marketing Board) to investigate a complaint. The case arose because the minister refused to direct such an investigation, and in the end the House of Lords said he couldn't do that because it went against the broader purpose of the Act: "The policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole, and construction is always a matter of law for the court."

So, how does that read across to saying you can't frustrate an Act (eg the Benn Act) by using some power that is not in the Act (eg in the Privy Council, or using a different Act such as CCA)?

I'd certainly want the Supreme Court to say you can't use a ministerial power to frustrate the purpose of an Act, but I need someone to explain how Padfield ensures that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padfield_v_Minister_of_Agriculture

That was in response to interesting post of @unwravellingagain at 11:23. This thread moving fast again!