The Brexit aftermath thread

[Jessicka]

Yes, but this is one of the cases where you don't expect the best and prepare for the best outcome. France and other nations have been opposed to the current extension already. Ireland is in on it, too, apparently. Assuming the EU will extend because they want to is pretty much in the same line of "they need us more than we need them". The EU has had 3 years to prepare for a no-deal, because from the beginning that was their working assumption.

In short, the UK has no leverage over the EU any longer. None. The only threat they had after wiping those 39bn off the table and outright ignoring EU citizens' rights already was the hope for a WA. The new PM wiped that off the table, too.

What would the EU give an extension for exactly? A question nobody here has answered me in the past few weeks. The WA seems out of the question. A GE most likely wil not change anything dramatically, as the country is obviously still deeply divided. And what's worst, the Commons on three different occasions have shown that while they overwhelmingly reject no deal, they have no idea what to replace it with. And no majority whatsoever for any replacement alternative.

See, not wanting no-deal is a nice sentiment, but to avert no-deal the Commons has to implement an alternative. If they want to revoke A50, they can do it now. They don't need an extension for that.

The advantages of not granting an extension far outweigh the hypothetical possibilities that an extension may bring. It would end this farce here and now. It would enable the EU to get on and focus on the things that actually matter to the EU, the EU defense concept, more FTA's, dealing with the destructive populist forces within the EU. Getting rid of Farage in the EUP. And, because this is negotiations... put more pressure on the UK. See, the UK wants trade negotiations with the EU, but they don't seem to remember that trade negotiations are often more adversarial than they think.

From the EU's point of view, not much speaks for an extension. So argue from an assumption of there not being one. If you get it, the better, any of your plans will work with an extension. But don't let the rejection that may come catch you with your pants down, because you hoped for an extension that may not come.

No deal was never May's working assumption. She was at heart a remainer, and knew no-deal would be batshit insane as an outcome. Not so of Boris and his new Cabinet; this is a distinctly new government who are or were working to a new policy of prepare for the worst because they want the worst. That actually seems to have changed now he knows he won't get no-deal through Parliament, however.

[Jessicka]

Having more say is different than being able to dictate stuff and ignore the will/needs of minorities.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more MPs per capita than England. The problem really is just English exceptionalism. Or no, London exceptionalism. Parliament is incredibly London-centric.

[Mayhem]

... a full wraparound advert, taken out by the BXP, on the front page of the Daily Express this morning offering Boris Johnson an election pact.

Is it even established that he is able to get elected while being an EMP?

- - - Updated - - -

So you want to ignore the will of the majority then?

On certain things, of course.

That's the only way to protect minorities.

- - - Updated - - -

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more MPs per capita than England. The problem really is just English exceptionalism. Or no, London exceptionalism. Parliament is incredibly London-centric.

The number of MPs per capita has fuck all to do with this.

[draykorinee]

Boris can't catch a break can he, now he's broken the law.

[Jessicka]

The number of MPs per capita has fuck all to do with this.

It means if a Party wants to be elected to power, that they do need to pay some heed.

- - - Updated - - -

Boris can't catch a break can he, now he's broken the law.

Imagine thinking you can just go and lie to the fucking Queen.

[Pannonian]

Boris can't catch a break can he, now he's broken the law.

You mean the scottish court deeming his parliament break illegal?

[Jessicka]

You mean the scottish court deeming his parliament break illegal?

Turns out the reasons he gave was to Queen's Speech and start a new session. Then the reason he gave in the Petition was to make sure we left the EU.

Ooops. What a tangled web we weave...

[Mayhem]

It means if a Party wants to be elected to power, that they do need to pay some heed.

I know what it means, it still has fuck all to do with what I am talking about.

[Flarelaine]

That actually seems to have changed now he knows he won't get no-deal through Parliament, however.

I don't see it that way. He knows he won't get No Deal through this Parliament, certainly, but I don't see him as trying to get a deal - more like trying to find a loophole to force No Deal, such as the prorogation.

[Blur4stuff]

I think I've posted this 5 or 10 times already over the years, but I still don't understand how the UK can possibly be better off outside of the EU. Obviously everyone will survive and we won't get Atlantis 2.0 (yet), but it seems like a 100% certainty that being in the EU is better.

I've been trying to read more arguments for leaving, but they just don't seem to be based in reality. I can't see how they'll get better deals. Admittedly, I don't live there, so maybe I'm missing something.

[Flarelaine]

People can have different priorities. For some, a sacrifice in their economy and security is acceptable for parliamentary sovereignty in other areas.

Without Parliament getting too sovereign, of course.

[Blur4stuff]

Can anyone provide specific examples of what leavers want from parliament that they can't get while in the EU?

[Pann]

Can anyone provide specific examples of what leavers want from parliament that they can't get while in the EU?

Full control over immigration was a big one in the ref. campaign as well as British courts being the most senior court in the land rather that the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

[Acidbaron]

Can anyone provide specific examples of what leavers want from parliament that they can't get while in the EU?

They cannot, to quote the EU side on this;

"The tell us what they don’t want. However, they have been telling us this for the past three years. What we want to know is what would be acceptable to the British”.

The leavers, cannot mention what added benefits they will get. Other than vague statements like sovereignty and better deals, however they look at those things in a vacuum. They believe they get more sovereignty outside the EU, and while it is true to get more freedom to decide certain things they ignore that they cannot impose their sovereignty onto others so they will still be subject to more demands of others and so the influence of sovereignty of other large world powers like the US and China, the EU will simply be greater, ergo they will have even less than they do now.

Better deals are based on WTO laws that are often misquoted and based on hope that others will give them extra benefits at the cost of their own expense, what would go in against every government their own nature.

The only people better off, will be people that are better off. You have to understand places like London are criminal top places for laundering money into the financial sector and the EU keeps a tight watch on this. There are also people who want to slowly but surely dismantle the NHS and replace it with the american system of insurers, and those insurers are lobbying heavily to achieve that. Same with the medical aid sector and the pharma industry.

- - - Updated - - -

Full control over immigration was a big one in the ref. campaign as well as British courts being the most senior court in the land rather that the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Yet implementing basic identification methods and making them mandatory to discourage immigration streams from certain parts of the world is a bridge too far. Yet, it is the EU left picking up the tab for transmigration, something you have to hope France, Belgium and others will continue to do as i personally say, don't want to contribute, why not just even supply them with boats to reach the UK. What is extreme but highlights the same level of solidarity displayed by those for the brexit for that reason.

There also has been no EU immigration policy that forces any nation to take in anyone and this is disconnected from the Brexit.

And last but not least, the UK is actually becoming a far less desirable place for immigrations the UK wants and needs.

[mojojojo202]

Can anyone provide specific examples of what leavers want from parliament that they can't get while in the EU?

Amongst other things setting far looser environmental (and other regulations). The UK has consistently failed to meet EU standards and has constantly complained about being told to do what they agreed to even to the point the government has bent taken to court multiple times to try to force them to make more of an effort.

[Pann]

Amongst other things setting far looser environmental (and other regulations). The UK has consistently failed to meet EU standards and has constantly complained about being told to do what they agreed to even to the point the government has bent taken to court multiple times to try to force them to make more of an effort.

The UK is far from alone in being involved with EU environment infringements nor is it even close to being the worst offender.

[Jessicka]

Full control over immigration was a big one in the ref. campaign as well as British courts being the most senior court in the land rather that the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

We literally opted out of heavier controls that the EU would allow, and are in place in other EU states.

[Breccia]

Scottish court says U.K. Parliament's suspension is unlawful

Is Scotland eyeing the door?

Scotland's Court of Session, its highest civil court, ruled Wednesday that the ongoing suspension — or "prorogation" — of the U.K. Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government is unlawful, per the BBC.

What's next: The court's ruling did not include an order to cancel the prorogation, so Parliament will remain out of session. The case now heads to the U.K.'s Supreme Court next week.

It puts Queen Elizabeth II in an awkward place as she approved the order to suspend Parliament based on advice from Johnson's administration.

Dr. Catherine Haddon, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government, tweets that "for a court to rule that advice was unlawful, even if the ruling is later rejected, opens up [questions] about how that advice is given. She has to be able to trust [10 Downing Street]."

10 Downing Street issued a statement in response to the ruling:

"We are disappointed by today’s decision, and will appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court. The U.K. Government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this."

Johnson's controversial move to suspend Parliament until Oct. 14 was originally designed to thwart rebel attempts to block a no-deal Brexit, but it may end up weakening his own bargaining position.

Rebels got the no-deal legislation, which requires him to extend Brexit beyond Oct. 31 by Oct.19 if no deal is in place, passed anyway. Johnson also failed in his two attempts to call a snap election, leaving him only a few days to figure out a solution once Parliament returns.

It's unclear what comes next. A wild showdown in October could see Johnson refuse to abide by the opposition's law — with consequences as severe as jail — or choose to resign rather than break his promise to deliver Brexit on Halloween, "do or die."

[Jessicka]

I know what it means, it still has fuck all to do with what I am talking about.

Coming back to this, it has a lot to do with it. In spite of the overrepresentation to prevent it, since MPs are supposed to represent their constituencies; a lot of the higher ranked party members come from the same schools and universities as each other and develop the same London-centric view of the UK. That view is self reinforcing and it becomes self fulfilling.

It’s not just Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales that suffer. It’s exactly why the rest of the UK resents London and feels abandoned; and why those self same people enforcing London-centrism have spent 30 years blaming the EU for it.

Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham haven’t failed to notice the billions ploughed into them from the European Regional Development Scheme however, nor have Northern Ireland and Scotland; and that’s why they voted Remain. Sadly other parts of the UK haven’t benefited quite as much or as obviously.

[Pann]

Scottish court says U.K. Parliament's suspension is unlawful

Is Scotland eyeing the door?

It is going to appeal in the Supreme Court and it is possible that they could overturn the Scottish ruling, it is also important to remember that Scottish law and English law, although similar, are not the same and it is possible that Johnson's actions could be illegal in Scotland whilst remaining legal in England.

It is not looking good for Johnson but we will not know for sure until the appeal hearing next week.

- - - Updated - - -

Slightly worrying for people of the non-leave persuasion.

'General Election Nowcast:

CON: 326 (+9), 32.1% (-11.4)
LAB: 211 (-51), 25.6% (-15.4)
SNP: 51 (+16), 3.6% (+0.5)
LDM: 39 (+27), 18.1% (+10.5)

CON Majority of 10.

See graphics for full results.
Changes w/ GE2017.'


https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/s...39696589340673

I wonder what affect today's ruling will have?

- - - Updated - - -

To go back to the court cases regarding prorogation of parliament it would appear from the ruling on Gina Miller's case that the appeal might not be as clear cut as some would like.

'An eye-opening passage from the High Court judgment in Miller on prorogation. Claimants' case in London and Edinburgh was that Johnson had an ulterior motive ie Brexit.

Court says even if that's true, it's out of their hands: prorogation can be used for "political advantage"'



https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/st...63083586523136