UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[Helsinkian]

It's like they're trying to lose.

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1175844135582015489

[Silent Hunter]

Thomas Cook has gone bust, partly down to Brexit, although the problems had been there for years.

[CumbrianLefty]

It's like they're trying to lose.

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1175844135582015489

At the moment UK rules on eligibility to vote make little sense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thomas Cook has gone bust, partly down to Brexit, although the problems had been there for years.

Appropriate, since Brexit has been a Kook's Tour.

[CumbrianLefty]

It's like they're trying to lose.

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1175844135582015489

At the moment UK rules on eligibility to vote make little sense.

Indeed, I never quite understood why a Pakistani or Mozambique Citizen in the UK should be able to vote, while a Pole or a Frenchman should not. New Zealand allows this, and it works pretty well there.  
That said, It does rather seem to be changing the rules of the game for partisan advantage, though. Labour would clearly be the beneficiaries of this. And it disincentivizes people from Naturalising and becoming British Citizens.

Given the current situation with Brexit such a big thing, it might actually be the LibDems?

[DaWN]

It's like they're trying to lose.

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1175844135582015489

At the moment UK rules on eligibility to vote make little sense.

Indeed, I never quite understood why a Pakistani or Mozambique Citizen in the UK should be able to vote, while a Pole or a Frenchman should not. New Zealand allows this, and it works pretty well there.  
That said, It does rather seem to be changing the rules of the game for partisan advantage, though. Labour would clearly be the beneficiaries of this. And it disincentivizes people from Naturalising and becoming British Citizens.

Given the current situation with Brexit such a big thing, it might actually be the LibDems?

Either way, it certainly wouldn't be the Tories which is why it probably appeals to Labour

[Helsinkian]

The Labour Conference sides with Corbyn and votes down a motion that would have officially called for Labour to campaign for remaining in the EU in a possible second referendum. Pretty shambolic scenes as the show-of-hand vote seemed to be quite even; the chair nevertheless judged that the motion had lost and refused to have a card vote. An earlier Corbyn-backed motion passed making Labour a "Brexit neutral" party.

Edit. Reminded me of this scene from the 2012 Democratic Convention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs

[Tintrlvr]

So much for Remain strategic voting for Labour...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

It's like they're trying to lose.

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1175844135582015489

At the moment UK rules on eligibility to vote make little sense.

Indeed, I never quite understood why a Pakistani or Mozambique Citizen in the UK should be able to vote, while a Pole or a Frenchman should not. New Zealand allows this, and it works pretty well there.  
That said, It does rather seem to be changing the rules of the game for partisan advantage, though. Labour would clearly be the beneficiaries of this. And it disincentivizes people from Naturalising and becoming British Citizens.

Given the current situation with Brexit such a big thing, it might actually be the LibDems?

Either way, it certainly wouldn't be the Tories which is why it probably appeals to Labour

The Labour priority list:

1) The wrong faction of Labour must be stopped from having power.
2) The Tories must be stopped from having power.
3) Labour government.

[Farmlands]

From an outsider's perspective, I see Labour members chanting "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" enthusiastically, as the party refuses to hold a democratic card vote that could clear things up, but change the outcome to something Corbyn would disapprove of. I find it difficult to view it as anything other than cult-like.

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

Of course if Britain didn't use FPTP Labour could court a working-class "Brexit-neutral" base, the Lib Dems and Greens and so forth could court committed Europeanists across the left-right spectrum and up and down the class system, and neither would have to worry about producing an artificial Tory landslide by fishing in different pools.

Having said that, yeah, the Labour membership's leader-worship is getting seriously creepy.

[DaWN]

Of course if Britain didn't use FPTP Labour could court a working-class "Brexit-neutral" base, the Lib Dems and Greens and so forth could court committed Europeanists across the left-right spectrum and up and down the class system, and neither would have to worry about producing an artificial Tory landslide by fishing in different pools.

That's probably what's going to happen anyway. Except without the 'not worry about producing an artificial Tory landslide' bit but FPTP is what it is. It (unfortunately) may result in a Tory landslide but then again we don't know how badly the Brexit Party vote will affect them.

Having said that, yeah, the Labour membership's leader-worship is getting seriously creepy.

It'e been that way for years.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well what can you expect when certain of Corbyn's long term opponents in the party have so cynically used "remain no matter what and exile the 52% to the outer darkness" as a wedge issue?

They are too short sighted to see a full on CULTURE WAR on this will only benefit Cummings.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Breaking:

UK Supreme Court rules prorogation of parliament unlawful, upholding the earlier verdict from Scotland

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

[Silent Hunter]

That was comprehensively damning for Boris Johnson and the Government.

[Zinneke]

That was comprehensively damning for Boris Johnson and the Government.

Given the unanimous decision, how can there be such a massive chasm in judgement between the High Court in England and Supreme Court?

[Middle-aged Europe]

That was comprehensively damning for Boris Johnson and the Government.

Given the unanimous decision, how can there be such a massive chasm in judgement between the High Court in England and Supreme Court?

Quoting from today's verdict:

On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision  that  the  issue  was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose ofstymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.

...

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of  that power, within its limits, is open to legal  challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf

[Middle-aged Europe]

I suppose things will move very fast now...


https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1176433254746009601

[Middle-aged Europe]

Bercow's statement:

[Silent Hunter]

Labour are in Conference in Brighton. What on Earth this does to the Tory conference in  Manchester next week is unclear - voting by proxy is only allowed for serious illness or maternity, I believe.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Corbyn and SNP have called for Johnson's resignation.

[Zinneke]

That was comprehensively damning for Boris Johnson and the Government.

Given the unanimous decision, how can there be such a massive chasm in judgement between the High Court in England and Supreme Court?

Quoting from today's verdict:

On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision  that  the  issue  was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose ofstymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.

...

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of  that power, within its limits, is open to legal  challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf

Thanks. It still wouldn't sit easily with me if my Supreme Court had such a radically different view to my regional court of the courts power as a whole over parliamentary procedure. I know this a win for Remain but yet again I think it shows deep seated vulnerabilities in an outdated political system, that is crying out for a federal Constitution.

[DaWN]

Boris' luck is really something. The news cycle is all about Labour embarrassing themselves at Conference and then suddenly this comes along and puts all the embarrassment onto him. I'd feel sorry for him if it wasn't hilarious. And he wasn't him.

[Zinneke]

Boris' luck is really something. The news cycle is all about Labour embarrassing themselves at Conference and then suddenly this comes along and puts all the embarrassment onto him. I'd feel sorry for him if it wasn't hilarious. And he wasn't him.

This feeds into his narrative if anything. Him with the referenfum mandate Vs the Remain establishment.

[jaichind]

I think Johnson should resign. His entire strategy was to us the threat of No Deal Brexit to for the EU to compromise and to then force moderates of all sides to vote for an amended deal.  That strategy does not seem viable anymore.  He should just like someone like Corbyn take a shot at coming up with something with the EU before 10/31 or some other date.  There is going to an election soon one way or another.