UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/JudgesScotland/status/1171714194422542336



https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1171715629323366402

[Beezer]

"Rebellious Scots to crush..."

[Middle-aged Europe]

Labour and SNP demand an immediate recall of parliament, the government has issued a short statement that they're gonna appeal the decision in the supreme court.

[CumbrianLefty]

Fair to say that this was not expected, and the judgement is damning indeed.

[Silent Hunter]

Yep, first time a PM has been legally ruled to have misled the monarch. In the old days, you'd lose your head for that sort of thing...

[Middle-aged Europe]

Government seems split on whether to question the judges' impartiality.


https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553


https://twitter.com/RobertBuckland/status/1171743709148454913

[Silent Hunter]

So. Much. Winning.

[Omega21]

Don't get your hopes up people, the verdict is not really objective by any means.

He obviously had the right to prorogue it (not that I agree with it), so this is totally uncalled for, and just adds fuel to the smelly fire British Politics has become.

Plus, this doesn't change a single thing Brexit-wise, as the no-deal Law was already passed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, an expert in British Constitutional Law are we?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Boris Johnson's solution to the backstop issue: Building a bridge from Northern Ireland to Scotland.

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-johnson-considering-building-bridge-between-scotland-and-northern-ireland

[Omega21]

Ah, an expert in British Constitutional Law are we?

No, but I don't see a single reason he would have no right to prorogue when every other Prime Minister had such rights.

If anyone else does, feel free to point out some precedent.

[IceAgeComing]

Don't get your hopes up people, the verdict is not really objective by any means.

He obviously had the right to prorogue it (not that I agree with it), so this is totally uncalled for, and just adds fuel to the smelly fire British Politics has become.

Plus, this doesn't change a single thing Brexit-wise, as the no-deal Law was already passed.

The Court of Session is very conservative (small-c) which is why no one really expected this decision.  The judges in question aren't exactly mavericks doing things that they believe over anything else: they'd have not made it to the Court of Session if they did.

To my admittedly rather limited understanding and from what I've read: its a decision that makes sense when you consider the unique differences with Scots law and English law - especially when it comes to constitutional law.  The main thing that we've seen here is that the High Court in London ruled that it wasn't for the courts to determine whether or not a prorogation was justified: the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that it was for them to decide and that it wasn't.  This is broadly in line with the general differences between Scots and English law - the big example is that Parliamentary Supremecy is absolute in England and isn't in Scotland; which is believed gives the courts more of a say into constitutional matters - the traditional example is that its believed that Parliament can't amend the Act of Union 1707 to eliminate Scots Law or to fiddle with the rights of the Church of Scotland or whatever since in Scots Law parliament isn't entirely supreme over key elements of the constitution.  None of this has been tested in the courts and I guess that this is the first time that we'll see what happens.

Both cases are being examined on Tuesday - key thing to remember though is that although they deal with the same matter because one was filed in England and the other in Scotland they can't just be rolled together: and since a key element of the constitution is that Scots and English law are equal the Cherry case will be considered using Scots law which means that the Court may well find standing in that case and not in the other one.  I'm not entirely sure what happens if its found to be lawful in English law and unlawful in Scots law and I don't think anyone does - my hunch would be that its a case of if its unlawful anywhere then its unlawful across the UK so prorogation would end but we'll see.

Its more the things that the court said about the decision as well: they basically accused the government of lying to the Palace to get the Queen to do something and that puts the Palace in an awkward spot for obvious reasons: and that's the sort of thing that ordinarily would be a resignation offense but not with this government that doesn't care about thinking things like ethics.

That's about as clear as I can make it - its a fluid, confusing issue with very little precedent.

[Silent Hunter]

"Fluid, confusing issue with very little precedent" is Brexit to a tee.

[Joe Republic]

For me, 'British Constitutional Law' evokes an image of a team of dusty scholars rummaging through a pile of ancient Post It notes.

[Omega21]

For me, 'British Constitutional Law' evokes an image of a team of dusty scholars rummaging through a pile of ancient Post It notes.

No, not that one either, that's the gong scourer duty list from 1732.

[The Free North]

In some strange irony, perhaps the worst thing to happen to the eurosceptic movement in a generation was the UK voting to leave 3 years ago.

[Helsinkian]

If the opposition rams through a second referendum with the options of "Remain" and "May's Deal" before the election the brexiters could just boycott the referendum. "Remain" would then win with a 99% share and the referendum would have as much legitimacy as the Northern Ireland referendum of 1973 where the unionists won with 99%.

[Person Man]

If the opposition rams through a second referendum with the options of "Remain" and "May's Deal" before the election the brexiters could just boycott the referendum. "Remain" would then win with a 99% share and the referendum would have as much legitimacy as the Northern Ireland referendum of 1973 where the unionists won with 99%.

They should have "Revoke Article 50", "Bypass Parliament and Agree to the currently agreed on negotiated separation", and "Leave and Default".

If no one option gets 50%, they should then have third referendum with the top two choices unless parliament passes one of the top two choices.

What do you think would happen in that case?

Personally, I think there should have been a second referendum on ratifying the deal once it was struck.

[CumbrianLefty]

If the opposition rams through a second referendum with the options of "Remain" and "May's Deal" before the election the brexiters could just boycott the referendum. "Remain" would then win with a 99% share and the referendum would have as much legitimacy as the Northern Ireland referendum of 1973 where the unionists won with 99%.

Polls fairly consistently show that hardcore support for leaving without a deal (in other words, those who will settle for *only* that and see anything else as treachery) is around the 20% mark.

A fair number of even those voters might support a deal to exit were it made clear that was the only chance they were going to get of Brexit for maybe a few decades. Its all about framing.

[Zinneke]

In some strange irony, perhaps the worst thing to happen to the eurosceptic movement in a generation was the UK voting to leave 3 years ago.

It was always going to take one member to be made an example of for the rest of the eurosceptic movements to be put off by the whole process.

The sad thing is Britain, despite its difficulties, its reluctance, its rebate, was a pretty invaluable member of the Union as it was a rule follower better than most (hence why it was so tough on accepting certain rules), a fierce defender of the Single Market of equals against FrancoGerman corporatism and as a foreign policy and military power could have led the EU's new competences. I question the added value of Italy, Greece or Hungary, but make no mistake, the UK leaving is a massive blow to the EU, and a massive failure of the EU.  

I imagine a lot of euroscpetics would have much rather seen France fall first because they would have tried to renegotiate the Treaties accordingly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This isn't in response to any specific event, but I was just thinking the other day about what a long, strange trip the past ten years or so have been for the Liberal Democrats as a party. From a proto-#woke third party with a left-of-Labour image among many, to serious contenders in the 2010 election, to arch-austericrat Tory lapdogs, to a discredited rump skirting dangerously close to joke party status, to their resurrection as the party of choice for committed Europeanists across the left-right spectrum. I'd never vote for the Lib Dems if I were British (except perhaps tactically if I lived in a West Country marginal or something), but as an outside observer, I find myself becoming oddly invested in their constantly shifting fortunes.

[Pericles]

A slight worry with a second referendum is if Remain wins but gets less than 17.4 million votes that Leave got in 2016-idk how plausible that is but maybe possible if turnout is low for the referendum (even if Remain's percentage ends up higher than Leave's), this could lead to further division about which referendum is legitimate.

[Coldstream]

A slight worry with a second referendum is if Remain wins but gets less than 17.4 million votes that Leave got in 2016-idk how plausible that is but maybe possible if turnout is low for the referendum (even if Remain's percentage ends up higher than Leave's), this could lead to further division about which referendum is legitimate.

Right now I’d bet on that as the most likely outcome.

Second referendum on lower turnout (not drastically lower and I doubt there’d be a mass boycott) but say around 65-70% rather than 80%. Remain wins by a larger margin (say 54-46) but with far fewer votes (say around 14-15 million).

So no one is satisfied, and you end up with a bomb throwing nihilist contingent in Parliament that’s even more aggrieved such as Cash, Francois, Jenkin etc who probably join up with Farage and lead to something of a realignment on the right of British politics.

[CumbrianLefty]

The last referendum turnout was a bit short of 75% IIRC, never mind 80%.

(which still made it the biggest electoral event in the UK since the 1992 GE tbf)

[Blair]

Well yes even if Remain won 20 million votes the usual suspects would denounce it, and be outraged by it because there is an entire industry in outraged euroscepticism- hence why people like Bill Cash didn't vote for the deal because he couldn't bare to stop talking about how the deal was a betrayal.

The reality is that Brexit has become a cultural flash point, and whatever the result is it will significantly piss of a large segement of the political class, and the wider public.