Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents

One of the votes lost by the government shortly before Parliament was prorogued was in relation to a demand that it provide by Wednesday 11 September correspondence and communications (defined very widely) sent to or from 9 named people since 23 July “relating to the prorogation of Parliament”. There has been much fuss made about the demand for communications made on personal phones or via various message services as if this were an intolerable intrusion into people’s privacy and/or a breach of their human rights and/or the GDPR (a regulation which many quote and few understand). The reality is more prosaic.

Read the full story here


«13456712

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312
    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    There is a load of rubbish being spouted here.
    No one is saying you should never have another vote. What people are saying is that you implement the result of the election/referendum before you ask again.
    The Conservatives did not win in 1970, to be told by the Queen, "Hang on, I really don't like you Mr. Heath. Let's give it six months, have another vote just to check. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson is staying as Prime Minister."

    (Snip)

    Attempts have been made to implement the result. That's what we've spent the last three years doing. There were negotiations, May got a deal, and parliament has rejected it several times.

    Sadly, the referendum result has proved to be unimplementable. This was mainly because leave promised every voter everything in order to win - and those promises are utterly incompatible. They also gave Farage an almost god-like position of being able to nod his head to say whether 'Brexit', when it is delivered, is really Brexit. Hence the complicating factor of the BXP.

    Of the MPs who voted against the deal, there were remainer MPs - such as the Lib Dems and SNP - who were very unlikely to vote for any deal. Then there are the hardcore ERGers, for whom any deal appears to be betrayal. And then there are those who were persuadable, but voted against the deal because of the party whip (e.g. many in Labour).

    I have little problem with the hardcore remainers voting it down: that's their belief - even if you think they're wrong. If their constituents disagree with them, they'll suffer at the next election. You can also argue that they're speaking for the 16 million who voted remain.

    The ERGers and Brexiteers share much of the blame. They voted against a deal many of them would have accepted a few years ago, a deal that gave them leave. It's classic bait-and-switch. Worse, before the votes they were on the airwaves trashing the deal, giving others cover to vote against. Some did so not because of their belief that the deal was bad, but for their own political ends.

    Finally, there are those (e.g. in Labour) who voted against because their party told them to - and despite the various flavours of unicorn farts their leadership promises, would probably have voted for a deal identical to May's deal if it had been presented by *their* leadership.

    All in all, the 2016 referendum result appears to be unimplementable. It has caused harm to the country, our standing in the world, and our relationships with our neighbours. No-deal does not respect the referendum campaigns or result, and certainly does not respect the 2017 manifestos.

    Yet no deal appears to be the quickest way out. Bait and switch, indeed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312
    Oh, and first. ;)

    An excellent threader, Ms Free. Official business should be done on official channels, not private channels.

    A certain US politician found this to her cost.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    That is a splendid article, Cyclefree, which ought to end much of the argument in the comments section about the details around this particular issue (but probably won’t).
    Your last paragraph sums up best why conflicts over things essentially unimportant or marginal to the great arguments of policy actually matter.
  • Dan Bishop, North Carolina Republican, Wins Special Election https://nyti.ms/32AiKLm
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    Great article.

    One assumes future governments will ensure this order is complied with even if this one doesn’t.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    i think most Government organisations have rules about not using private emails for Government business (Hillary Clinton, anyone?). For good reason. Why should this not extend to other forms of Communication?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    edited September 11
    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    So be it, their choice. If it gets a majority it passes into law (boycott or no boycott). Note it’s not “deal vs no deal”. It’s “deal vs carry on arguing”

    Such a vote would be no different to the dilemma facing those in Parliament. Vote for May’s deal, or hold out for better (but risk worse).

    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum... (whether on principle, or because commits them to an unfavoured form of leave)
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    The nonsensical thing about the alleged move towards looking to revive the NI only backstop as an alternative to the U.K. backstop is that the latter is a UK requested compromise in response to what the EU wanted. So an option under May’s deal would be to abandon the U.K. backstop at the end of the transition period in favour of NI only and the EU would have no problem with that.

    Therefore May’s deal is actually Transition period with U.K. OR NI backstop (UK chooses if no trade agreement by end of transition). Alternative simply takes away the choice. Thereby weakening U.K. negotiating position in trade deal talks.

    Ridiculous.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 533
    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    So be it, their choice. If it gets a majority it passes into law. Note it’s not “deal vs no deal”. It’s “deal vs carry on arguing”

    Such a vote would be no different to the dilemma facing those in Parliament. Vote for May’s deal, or hold out for better (but risk worse).

    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
  • The legitimacy of Westminster is critical in Scotland. Unlike England there is a genuine choice as to whether we accept its governance. The last year has been a bad one for the union. I still hope that we get a reasonable coalition after the next election and make peace with the EU but I am planning for an independent Scotland.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    So be it, their choice. If it gets a majority it passes into law. Note it’s not “deal vs no deal”. It’s “deal vs carry on arguing”

    Such a vote would be no different to the dilemma facing those in Parliament. Vote for May’s deal, or hold out for better (but risk worse).

    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

  • alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

    (I think) It would have passed parliament and the country back in January if May had proposed a referendum along the lines of your suggestion, "do you prefer to leave the EU under the WA agreement negotiated by HMG, or do you prefer to extend for 12 months?"

    As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.

    The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.

    The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Good morning, everyone.

    Slightly rubbish weather, although with the sky so dark I'm surprised it isn't raining still.

    On-topic: shocked and appalled to learn some people don't trust Boris Johnson. Can't imagine why.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 196
    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    So be it, their choice. If it gets a majority it passes into law. Note it’s not “deal vs no deal”. It’s “deal vs carry on arguing”

    Such a vote would be no different to the dilemma facing those in Parliament. Vote for May’s deal, or hold out for better (but risk worse).

    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

    or give them a series of questions
    mays deal yes/no
    revoke yes/no
    no deal yes/no

    if no wins each one, then "the people" will have done the same as MPs, and everyone can stop complaining about parliament, as they will be shown to have been representing the voters pretty well. brexit won't be solved but it will be healthy for democracy
  • Excellent article.

    Not surprisingly, a government run by Boris Johnson does not believe the rules apply to it. As far as I remember, Gove and Cummings also used private emails while they were in the Education Department.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123
    If an "event" is supposed to take place in the near future and a citizen thinks that this "event" is illegal, then an injunction can be ruled to stop the event happening on the planned date, so that there is enough time to consider the legal details.

    The courts have decided in the prorogue case that parliament should be the judge. But the prorogue event is shutting down parliament, meaning that the relevant parliamentary committe cannot convene to see if the prorogue is legal in the eyes of parliament. It seems that there is no method for parliament to impose an injunction on the prorogue.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

    (I think) It would have passed parliament and the country back in January if May had proposed a referendum along the lines of your suggestion, "do you prefer to leave the EU under the WA agreement negotiated by HMG, or do you prefer to extend for 12 months?"

    As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.

    The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.

    The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.
    Slightly better expressed and formulated than me, thank you.

    Wonder if anybody thought of it at the time/it was considered?

  • On topic, another well written article, it is a shame parliament can do nothing whilst prorogued so imagine the govt will just wait it out (or possibly comply very partially in both senses of the word), particularly as there is a reasonable chance of a GE soon after parliament comes back which would both shift the focus and reduce the chance of any future scutiny.
  • alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

    (I think) It would have passed parliament and the country back in January if May had proposed a referendum along the lines of your suggestion, "do you prefer to leave the EU under the WA agreement negotiated by HMG, or do you prefer to extend for 12 months?"

    As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.

    The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.

    The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.
    Slightly better expressed and formulated than me, thank you.

    Wonder if anybody thought of it at the time/it was considered?

    My first post on here was to suggest it! I thought it strange no-one had mentioned it as a solution in the press.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    kamski said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    So be it, their choice. If it gets a majority it passes into law. Note it’s not “deal vs no deal”. It’s “deal vs carry on arguing”

    Such a vote would be no different to the dilemma facing those in Parliament. Vote for May’s deal, or hold out for better (but risk worse).

    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

    or give them a series of questions
    mays deal yes/no
    revoke yes/no
    no deal yes/no

    if no wins each one, then "the people" will have done the same as MPs, and everyone can stop complaining about parliament, as they will be shown to have been representing the voters pretty well. brexit won't be solved but it will be healthy for democracy
    With a run off vote if more than one get 50%+?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,387
    By addressing everyone in what is presumably one social media circle, it only takes one of those individuals to think, maybe I should comply, for everyone's statements to be revealed.

    Dominic Cummings seemed to be concerned about this order.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    edited September 11
    Thanks for the thread header, @Cyclefree.

    I'm just waiting for some wag to ask Dominic Cummings, 'WhatsApp, Doc?'

    Although he'll probably not get the implication that he's Wile E. Coyote...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278
    edited September 11
    A Brexit Deal based on an NI only backstop would be giving the EU exactly what it wants. It would be a total victory. I would love to see the ERG and BXP reaction to that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129

    Excellent article.

    Not surprisingly, a government run by Boris Johnson does not believe the rules apply to it. As far as I remember, Gove and Cummings also used private emails while they were in the Education Department.

    You remember correctly. This is partly because they didn't want the experts the had hired in to advise them on their changes to know what they were saying. Those pesky experts in question having pointed out the Terrible Two were talking a load of bollocks...
  • When I prorogued myself yesterday for my cruise starting on Saturday I did say I would read with interest any posts by Cyclefree and this is such an informative and interesting piece I would just like to say how much this type of information adds to this very important forum from a well respected lawyer and it is free

    Thanks Cyclefree
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,780
    As a matter of information the decision in the appeal from Lord Doherty's decision is being given in open court this morning shortly after 10. I don't think that anyone is expecting the MPs to win.

    The Court then has to consider an application to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is already assumed that the losing side, whichever one, will make that application and that this case will join the English case which has been fast tracked for a hearing on 17th September. Normally getting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a difficult hurdle but in this case it is assumed. My guess, as with Lord Doherty, the decision of the court will be pretty brief as was their hearing last Friday. The NI case was a bit behind but is apparently making substantial efforts to catch up so that it can be there too.

    As I mentioned before some of the material that the HoC was looking for was produced in the Court before Lord Doherty but I don't think that it was as extensive as is now being sought. It seemed to have very little impact on the decision.
  • Really good article CycleFree.

    What happens to Prorogation if the appeal succeeds next week?
  • When I prorogued myself yesterday for my cruise starting on Saturday I did say I would read with interest any posts by Cyclefree and this is such an informative and interesting piece I would just like to say how much this type of information adds to this very important forum from a well respected lawyer and it is free

    Thanks Cyclefree

    Well said
  • alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main c

    (I think) It would have passed parliament and the country back in January if May had proposed a referendum along the lines of your suggestion, "do you prefer to leave the EU under the WA agreement negotiated by HMG, or do you prefer to extend for 12 months?"

    As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.

    The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.

    The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.
    Slightly better expressed and formulated than me, thank you.

    Wonder if anybody thought of it at the time/it was considered?

    My first post on here was to suggest it! I thought it strange no-one had mentioned it as a solution in the press.
    Any further referendum would have to include a proper Remain choice because the original vote was flawed, Leave lied and the country has clearly moved on. Apart from anything else though, democracy isn't fossilised or static. It has to be organic.

    Which is why referenda are such awful ideas. Especially the 2016 one which contained a fatally flawed binary choice without anyone working out what leave actually meant.

    It may all be resolved through the General Election. Which is much better. Like all other policies, wrap it within a manifesto. The reason Cameron didn't and couldn't is because the Conservatives are riven on Europe.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,780

    Really good article CycleFree.

    What happens to Prorogation if the appeal succeeds next week?

    That's a really good question. I think that the assumption is that Parliament would somehow be reconvened but we are in unchartered waters here and I for one have no clear idea how that would be done. Who decides? The default assumption to date has been the government but that clearly cannot be the case. Perhaps the Speaker could make some sort of declaration, he'd like that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,182

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    There is a load of rubbish being spouted here.
    No one is saying you should never have another vote. What people are saying is that you implement the result of the election/referendum before you ask again.
    The Conservatives did not win in 1970, to be told by the Queen, "Hang on, I really don't like you Mr. Heath. Let's give it six months, have another vote just to check. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson is staying as Prime Minister."

    (Snip)

    Attempts have been made to implement the result. That's what we've spent the last three years doing. There were negotiations, May got a deal, and parliament has rejected it several times.

    Sadly, the referendum result has proved to be unimplementable. This was mainly because leave promised every voter everything in order to win - and those promises are utterly incompatible. They also gave Farage an almost god-like position of being able to nod his head to say whether 'Brexit', when it is delivered, is really Brexit. Hence the complicating factor of the BXP.

    Of the MPs who voted against the deal, there were remainer MPs - such as the Lib Dems and SNP - who were very unlikely to vote for any deal. Then there are the hardcore ERGers, for whom any deal appears to be betrayal. And then there are those who were persuadable, but voted against the deal because of the party whip (e.g. many in Labour).

    I have little problem with the hardcore remainers voting it down: that's their belief - even if you think they're wrong. If their constituents disagree with them, they'll suffer at the next election. You can also argue that they're speaking for the 16 million who voted remain.

    The ERGers and Brexiteers share much of the blame. They voted against a deal many of them would have accepted a few years ago, a deal that gave them leave. It's classic bait-and-switch. Worse, before the votes they were on the airwaves trashing the deal, giving others cover to vote against. Some did so not because of their belief that the deal was bad, but for their own political ends.

    Finally, there are those (e.g. in Labour) who voted against because their party told them to - and despite the various flavours of unicorn farts their leadership promises, would probably have voted for a deal identical to May's deal if it had been presented by *their* leadership.

    All in all, the 2016 referendum result appears to be unimplementable. It has caused harm to the country, our standing in the world, and our relationships with our neighbours. No-deal does not respect the referendum campaigns or result, and certainly does not respect the 2017 manifestos.

    Yet no deal appears to be the quickest way out. Bait and switch, indeed.
    Excellent post.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    Using dubious laws to read private messages simply drives discussions to verbal - down the pub or over a coffee.

    Or onto more secure messaging systems or burner phones.

    Dominic Grieve may think he’s Robocop but I saw him and his son wearing matching tabards on the sleeper train - no doubt off to shoot some well armed what’s app using No deal Grouse.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,387
    DavidL said:

    As a matter of information the decision in the appeal from Lord Doherty's decision is being given in open court this morning shortly after 10. I don't think that anyone is expecting the MPs to win.

    The Court then has to consider an application to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is already assumed that the losing side, whichever one, will make that application and that this case will join the English case which has been fast tracked for a hearing on 17th September. Normally getting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a difficult hurdle but in this case it is assumed. My guess, as with Lord Doherty, the decision of the court will be pretty brief as was their hearing last Friday. The NI case was a bit behind but is apparently making substantial efforts to catch up so that it can be there too.

    As I mentioned before some of the material that the HoC was looking for was produced in the Court before Lord Doherty but I don't think that it was as extensive as is now being sought. It seemed to have very little impact on the decision.

    As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    As a matter of information the decision in the appeal from Lord Doherty's decision is being given in open court this morning shortly after 10. I don't think that anyone is expecting the MPs to win.

    The Court then has to consider an application to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is already assumed that the losing side, whichever one, will make that application and that this case will join the English case which has been fast tracked for a hearing on 17th September. Normally getting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a difficult hurdle but in this case it is assumed. My guess, as with Lord Doherty, the decision of the court will be pretty brief as was their hearing last Friday. The NI case was a bit behind but is apparently making substantial efforts to catch up so that it can be there too.

    As I mentioned before some of the material that the HoC was looking for was produced in the Court before Lord Doherty but I don't think that it was as extensive as is now being sought. It seemed to have very little impact on the decision.

    As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.
    At the same time, I am struggling to see how that is a legal matter. It should be enough to turf out the government, but the opposition have already failed in at least four attempts to do that and indeed actively chose not to turf it out on the two most recent occasions they had the opportunity to.

    The brute fact is whatever the facts of the matter this looks like a lot of sore losers getting hissy because they're not getting what they want and haven't a clue how to react. And it isn't a good look. They would have been much better off sticking to political routes.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    As a matter of information the decision in the appeal from Lord Doherty's decision is being given in open court this morning shortly after 10. I don't think that anyone is expecting the MPs to win.

    The Court then has to consider an application to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is already assumed that the losing side, whichever one, will make that application and that this case will join the English case which has been fast tracked for a hearing on 17th September. Normally getting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a difficult hurdle but in this case it is assumed. My guess, as with Lord Doherty, the decision of the court will be pretty brief as was their hearing last Friday. The NI case was a bit behind but is apparently making substantial efforts to catch up so that it can be there too.

    As I mentioned before some of the material that the HoC was looking for was produced in the Court before Lord Doherty but I don't think that it was as extensive as is now being sought. It seemed to have very little impact on the decision.

    As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.
    Nobody cares about prorogation - it’s just a handy stick for remainers to beat the govt with.

    That’s all.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,168
    edited September 11
    Depressing result in NC09. Even when the GOP are literally, actually caught cheating, Trump supporters still vote for them.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091
    FF43 said:

    As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    TGOHF said:

    Using dubious laws to read private messages simply drives discussions to verbal - down the pub or over a coffee.

    Matters to do with government are not private messages in any way, shape or form. They are public records. There is a time and a place to reveal them - the diplomatic cables spring to mind as an example of what can go wrong - but they can't be called 'Private' and when there is a suspicion that one of the parties involved is fluently lying on oath, then he should expect there to be demands that he provide the evidence for his claims.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Using dubious laws to read private messages simply drives discussions to verbal - down the pub or over a coffee.

    Matters to do with government are not private messages in any way, shape or form. They are public records. There is a time and a place to reveal them - the diplomatic cables spring to mind as an example of what can go wrong - but they can't be called 'Private' and when there is a suspicion that one of the parties involved is fluently lying on oath, then he should expect there to be demands that he provide the evidence for his claims.
    No govt business is discussed in the pub ?

    That’s a view.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    TGOHF said:

    Using dubious laws to read private messages simply drives discussions to verbal - down the pub or over a coffee.

    Or onto more secure messaging systems or burner phones.

    Dominic Grieve may think he’s Robocop but I saw him and his son wearing matching tabards on the sleeper train - no doubt off to shoot some well armed what’s app using No deal Grouse.

    Private in what sense? These are government messages, not Boris arranging to meet Carrie for a cheeky Nandos. Although if they were, we could always snigger ironically at the encryption banning tendencies of, erm, the government.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626

    TGOHF said:

    Using dubious laws to read private messages simply drives discussions to verbal - down the pub or over a coffee.

    Or onto more secure messaging systems or burner phones.

    Dominic Grieve may think he’s Robocop but I saw him and his son wearing matching tabards on the sleeper train - no doubt off to shoot some well armed what’s app using No deal Grouse.

    Private in what sense? These are government messages, not Boris arranging to meet Carrie for a cheeky Nandos. Although if they were, we could always snigger ironically at the encryption banning tendencies of, erm, the government.
    Senior govt ministers or advisors discussing tactics isn’t official business.

    As I said - 4 days extra of parliament next week would achieve nothing productive as we saw on Monday - it’s just a remainer bubble outrage shriek.
  • Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October

    May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit

    Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.

    The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October

    At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted

    The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join

    Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October

    Fantasy or answer to prayer

    I leave it with you folks
  • MattWMattW Posts: 2,247
    Two questions:

    1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.

    2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.

    I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,564
    edited September 11
    Surprisingly, Stephen Kinnock in conjunction with Norman Lamb, Rory Stewart and Caroline Flint are trying to resurrect the EU/May deal in the Guardian's CiF, arguing that the LD's plans are anti-democratic.

    They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy. When you have an exaggerated sense of your own superiority, democracy is unnecessary. Its the fault of fascists and communists alike.

    Personally, I think that the May deal will probably lead to us staying, but it could be a temporary fix, and would show just how little MPs actually care about voter's opinions.

    'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549
    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    I
    CD13 said:

    Surprisingly, Stephen Kinnock in conjunction with Norman Lamb, Rory Stewart and Caroline Flint are trying to resurrect the EU/May deal in the Guardian's CiF, arguing that the LD's plans are anti-democratic.

    They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy. When you have an exaggerated sense of your own superiority, democracy is unnecessary. Its the fault of fascists and communists alike.

    Personally, I think that the May deal will probably lead to us staying, but it could be a temporary fix, and would show just how little MPs actually care about voter's opinions.

    'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?

    The only thing I can’t understand is how you can apparently believe your own caricatures of the positions of others.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    Cummings didn’t go to court or waste parliamentary time on it though. He was after a leaker who was being disloyal to the team.

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,193
    The documents around the decision to prorogue is just another process story, unless there is something of Watergate scale there, I doubt normal people will care about it at all
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549
    TGOHF said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    Cummings didn’t go to court or waste parliamentary time on it though. He was after a leaker who was being disloyal to the team.

    Do you really not see the hypocrisy and sense of entitlement of Cummings? He wants access on demand to others private phones, but not to reveal his own when requested by courts and parliament.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    TGOHF said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Using dubious laws to read private messages simply drives discussions to verbal - down the pub or over a coffee.

    Matters to do with government are not private messages in any way, shape or form. They are public records. There is a time and a place to reveal them - the diplomatic cables spring to mind as an example of what can go wrong - but they can't be called 'Private' and when there is a suspicion that one of the parties involved is fluently lying on oath, then he should expect there to be demands that he provide the evidence for his claims.
    No govt business is discussed in the pub ?

    That’s a view.
    I didn't say that. I said they are not private.

    That is entirely different and I can only conclude that you didn't read my comment proeperly.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626

    The documents around the decision to prorogue is just another process story, unless there is something of Watergate scale there, I doubt normal people will care about it at all

    Especially after the epic cluster fudge that Parly was on Monday.

    How will the nation cope for 4 days without sing songs, the worshipping of bullying dwarves and the waving of pieces of A4 etc etc ?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    TGOHF said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    Cummings didn’t go to court or waste parliamentary time on it though. He was after a leaker who was being disloyal to the team.

    I think you'll find he did waste legal resources on it by having her ejected from the building by police.

    And since he is himself a fluent, serial leaker and disloyal backstabbing liar, forger and loser, he is also a hypocrite for doing that.

    It's more than a bit worrying to see so many Tories become also Corbynista in their tribalism.

    See you this evening.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    edited September 11
    DavidL said:

    Really good article CycleFree.

    What happens to Prorogation if the appeal succeeds next week?

    That's a really good question. I think that the assumption is that Parliament would somehow be reconvened but we are in unchartered waters here and I for one have no clear idea how that would be done. Who decides? The default assumption to date has been the government but that clearly cannot be the case. Perhaps the Speaker could make some sort of declaration, he'd like that.
    Parliament reconvenes, and then voted itself into recess, probably ;)

    I don’t see why the govt communications make any difference to the court cases. The courts have (so far) said that it is not a matter for them. The reasons for the prorogation are irrelevant. It’s not even clear if legally there have to be any reasons for prorogation.

    That is not to say that Parliament, for its purposes, cannot require their release.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549

    The documents around the decision to prorogue is just another process story, unless there is something of Watergate scale there, I doubt normal people will care about it at all

    Alleged systematic lying by the government to courts and queen is indeed of interest to normal people.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    Cummings didn’t go to court or waste parliamentary time on it though. He was after a leaker who was being disloyal to the team.

    And since he is himself a fluent, serial leaker and disloyal backstabbing liar, forger and loser, he is also a hypocrite for doing that.

    Always good to get a balanced view from a neutral observer.
  • Frankly this is just another attempt to circumvent the Brexit referendum decision and it simply annoys the electorate as they can see through it. Everything that was said by the leave campaigns about the establishment is being proven to be true.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,377
    Thanks for a very good header.

    It would appear that a lie was propagated - that the motive for shutting down parliament was for a Queen's Speech rather than to avoid scrutiny of the government's Brexit plans.

    With this at risk of being exposed beyond all doubt one wonders if an attempt is now underway to destroy the key evidence?

    If so, the people involved may live to regret their actions. Consulting my book of what They Say, one of the entries is -

    "The cover up is what gets them, not the crime."

    Untrue, as always, but not entirely false either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October

    May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit

    Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.

    The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October

    At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted

    The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join

    Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October

    Fantasy or answer to prayer

    I leave it with you folks

    I still doubt a rehashed Withdrawal Agreement would pass absent a Tory majority, as ERG hardliners and the DUP would still vote against.

    It would need about 30 Labour and Independent MPs to commit to vote for it to pass
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626

    Frankly this is just another attempt to circumvent the Brexit referendum decision and it simply annoys the electorate as they can see through it. Everything that was said by the leave campaigns about the establishment is being proven to be true.

    Well of course it is. But Remainers are too far up their own fundament to care.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    The legitimacy of Westminster is critical in Scotland. Unlike England there is a genuine choice as to whether we accept its governance. The last year has been a bad one for the union. I still hope that we get a reasonable coalition after the next election and make peace with the EU but I am planning for an independent Scotland.

    Yet still 51% of Scots back the Union in the latest poll
  • CD13 said:

    Surprisingly, Stephen Kinnock in conjunction with Norman Lamb, Rory Stewart and Caroline Flint are trying to resurrect the EU/May deal in the Guardian's CiF, arguing that the LD's plans are anti-democratic.

    They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy. When you have an exaggerated sense of your own superiority, democracy is unnecessary. Its the fault of fascists and communists alike.

    Personally, I think that the May deal will probably lead to us staying, but it could be a temporary fix, and would show just how little MPs actually care about voter's opinions.

    'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?

    Well, I am not a LD, but I will be voting for them next time, so I will attempt to explain. First, I must admit, I am not in favour of revoke. I will be voting LD as their position is closest now to my own since my old party, the one that used to be called Conservative, was taken over by revolutionaries.

    So, in answer to your question. If 52% of the public vote for something, (a very small majority) it does not mean that individuals, or parties, who opposed that position should suddenly drop all opposition. Such individuals have a moral and democratic responsibility to continue to oppose, and if necessary reverse the position. It is up to those that persuaded the 52% to continue to represent the views of the 52% (this is extremely arguable in the case of Brexit) and then fight for the decision to be upheld.

    Leavers seem fond of war analogies, so here is one. Imagine there was a referendum in war time to persuade the public that the Geneva Convention should be ignored, that it was a foreign device, and our soldiers should be allowed to use their discretion on how to treat prisioners. If 52% voted in favour I think it would be a moral and democratic duty to persuade them of their error.

    Therefore in summary, the LDs position is not in any way undemocratic. they have a right to represent a view that seeks to correct what they consider a gross error by an electorate that was misled. To oppose that right is very undemocratic
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,387
    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    That probably was a beach of human rights. Cummings didn't follow a process or limit his enquiry to a specific issue material to Khan's dismissal.

    The point with all this stuff is that Cummings is running a massively despotic government with Johnson only as its figurehead. People who think the UK deserves better governance than Dagistan should resist.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,564
    Mr Meeks,

    As a lawyer, I expected a more nuanced argument from you. How is the LD view for revocation democratic?
  • Amazing how some people now get upset about the veracity of government.

    Where were they when we were told that net annual immigration was being reduced to the 'tens of thousands' ?

    Or when we were told that the government was 'paying down Britain's debts' ?

    Or when we were told that the government had 'halved the bill' ?

    Or when we were told there was a '70,000 strong' moderate army in Syria ?

    Or when we were told that a year long recession would immediately follow a Leave vote ?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,404
    A question re: govt/non govt business.

    We often hear about Cabinet meetings, which are then followed by “political cabinets”. I’m guessing that civil servants aren’t present at the latter and they probably aren’t minuted? Specifically because they are NOT Govt business.

    If correct, a thought for those arguing all business is Govt business.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    A Brexit Deal based on an NI only backstop would be giving the EU exactly what it wants. It would be a total victory. I would love to see the ERG and BXP reaction to that.

    It would take GB out of the single market and customs union and once a technical solution for the Irish border is found would no longer apply but yes it is unlikely to pass absent a clear Tory majority
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    As a lawyer, I expected a more nuanced argument from you. How is the LD view for revocation democratic?

    The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    Caroline Flint talking a lot of sense on R5 - difficult to trust Hilary Benn - his extension is purely to stop Brexit not to get a deal.
  • TGOHF said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    Cummings didn’t go to court or waste parliamentary time on it though. He was after a leaker who was being disloyal to the team.

    Absolutely. No due process is applied by Cummy. "Burn the witch" would be his idea of justice.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,564
    edited September 11
    Mr Meeks,

    "The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side."

    Your personal view, I believe. That encapsulates the whole problem. Do you not think that fascists/communists use personal opinion as fact and therefore it excuses their actions.

    Fact … we voted to leave
    Opinion … I don't like the decision, therefore it's wrong.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 2,247
    edited September 11
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    That probably was a beach of human rights. Cummings didn't follow a process or limit his enquiry to a specific issue material to Khan's dismissal.

    The point with all this stuff is that Cummings is running a massively despotic government with Johnson only as its figurehead. People who think the UK deserves better governance than Dagistan should resist.
    As reported, Khan invited him to look at her phone.

    The Unfair Dismissal thing is a personnel matter, and may well be a beach :-) of something, possibly a political whale that has lost its sense of direction.
  • TGOHF said:
    Stage 3 in the reverse takeover of a once great, broad church party by a crypto -fascist organisation. Putin must be laughing his head off.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    "The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side."


    Your personal view, I believe.

    You asked how it can be explained. It can be explained in two sentences. You don’t have to agree with it (I don’t, not completely) but don’t feign incomprehension at the argument. It’s a very simple one.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    The fundamental issue is that rules and protections that exist for a reason are being overturned by obsessively thinking only of their short term objective

    Governments need to be able to operate in private, otherwise they will not have frank discussions. There is a role for disclosure to aid accountability, but this measure has been rushed through without care or thought

    The abuse of SO24 to prevent the executive setting the agenda. This about the only power the executive has vis a vis the legislature (whipping being a party arrangement not an executive power)

    Bercow’s debasement of the role of the Speaker to aid one side in a political dispute

    I am sure there are others (prorogation is not one of them - it was aggressive but in line with constitutional rights).

    I am reminded of Robert Bolt’s wonderful play

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-now-you-give-the-devil-the-benefit
  • CD13 said:


    They're correct of course, but they fail to understand that the extremist Remainers care nothing for democracy.

    Referendums are undemocratic.

    How so?

    Democracy is organic. It needs to test and re-test the ever shifting sands of public opinion so that they can judge how well a party is delivering on promises, and amend their decision accordingly. Parties stand by manifestos and are elected and judged on them.

    The problem with a referendum is that it seeks to establish a decision in a fixed point in time. When you throw into that mix the exacerbations of the 2016 poll and you have a recipe for a clusterfuck. There was, literally, no preparation for Leave winning. I know because I had contacts inside No.10. Cameron thought he would pull off an essay-crisis victory like he had with Scottish indyref. That's the first flaw. The second is that the referendum presented a simplistic binary choice on what is actually a very complex issue. There are, for instance, as many varieties of 'Leave' as the fingers with which I'm typing this. They're all significantly different from one another. No one actually worked out what Leave meant. Thirdly I don't think anyone can seriously keep a straight face whilst arguing that No Deal was part of the referendum decision. Fourth there were obviously unregulated shenanigans by both sides in the build up. Fifth the final result was close. Yes, Leave 'won' but the narrowness should have led Theresa May to reach out and include the reality of the nearly half of the country who didn't want to Leave. A compromise Brexit was required, perhaps along the Ken Clarke lines. She was manifestly unsuited to the job with her jarring school ma'am approach.

    I'd be happy never to see another referendum again in our lives. Let's take this to a General Election. There's a national party with a clear policy to remain in the EU.

    If you want us to Remain, vote LibDem.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,089
    What about a bridge to the Isle of Wight? It can't be more than half a kilometre from the mainland.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074

    Frankly this is just another attempt to circumvent the Brexit referendum decision and it simply annoys the electorate as they can see through it. Everything that was said by the leave campaigns about the establishment is being proven to be true.

    It annoys a lot of the electorate. It pleases a different lot of the electorate. That's the problem.

    Given BXP and Boris at least seem to believe he won't win an election without their help, and all other parties of note will overwhelmingly seek to remain, it is far from clear that the electorate as an amorphous mass are sufficiently annoyed as claimed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,566
    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of private phones being scrutinised, Cummings has recent form:

    That probably was a beach of human rights. Cummings didn't follow a process or limit his enquiry to a specific issue material to Khan's dismissal.

    The point with all this stuff is that Cummings is running a massively despotic government with Johnson only as its figurehead. People who think the UK deserves better governance than Dagistan should resist.
    As reported, Khan invited him to look at her phone...
    The reported details are somewhat opaque. It is not exactly implausible to believe she was intimidated into doing so.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786

    Frankly this is just another attempt to circumvent the Brexit referendum decision and it simply annoys the electorate as they can see through it. Everything that was said by the leave campaigns about the establishment is being proven to be true.

    The Leave campaign *is* the establishment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074
    HYUFD said:

    The legitimacy of Westminster is critical in Scotland. Unlike England there is a genuine choice as to whether we accept its governance. The last year has been a bad one for the union. I still hope that we get a reasonable coalition after the next election and make peace with the EU but I am planning for an independent Scotland.

    Yet still 51% of Scots back the Union in the latest poll
    Piece of cake then, nothing to worry about
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    "The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side."


    Your personal view, I believe.

    You asked how it can be explained. It can be explained in two sentences. You don’t have to agree with it (I don’t, not completely) but don’t feign incomprehension at the argument. It’s a very simple one.
    You beat me to it! Not a view I would share, but it is perfectly rational. I also point to my post below. Just because 52% were duped doesn't mean the 48% should suddenly say, "oh OK, you guys must be right. We will stop opposing"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Meeks, the retort(s) to that would be that if it's unimplementable, why did MPs back both holding the referendum and endorsing the result?

    Furthermore, why wasn't the country asked about apparently becoming so integrated into an extra-national political organisation we cannot be extricated?

    And, last but not least, those who have determined leaving is too difficult are also those who did not and do not want us to leave. A cynic might suggest that MPs would say that, wouldn't they?
  • HYUFD said:

    Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October

    May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit

    Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.

    The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October

    At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted

    The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join

    Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October

    Fantasy or answer to prayer

    I leave it with you folks

    I still doubt a rehashed Withdrawal Agreement would pass absent a Tory majority, as ERG hardliners and the DUP would still vote against.

    It would need about 30 Labour and Independent MPs to commit to vote for it to pass
    There are 24 already declared and of course Rory Stewart and Norman Lamb are sponsoring it as well
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    TGOHF said:

    Caroline Flint talking a lot of sense on R5 - difficult to trust Hilary Benn - his extension is purely to stop Brexit not to get a deal.

    Greatly respect Flint, a true democrat, would happily swap Grieve for Flint
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074
    Scott_P said:
    Thing with the DUP is I dont get the impression they do gratitude. Even if a bridge was built next year, cheaply, rather than likely 30 years if ever for massive cost, theyd still do whatever they wanted.
  • And then there are other things we have been told:

    Saddam Hussein has WMD.
    There will be no more than 13,000 migrants annually from Eastern Europe.
    Nothing is happening in Rotherham (ditto others).
    Stafford hospital is safe (ditto others).
    Jimmy Saville is a wonderful person (ditto others).
    HS2 will cost about X and be running by Y (ditto others).
    The banks are safe.
    Politicians expenses are honest.
    Elections in Tower Hamlets are fair.
    Kids Company is a deserving charity.

    I'm sure the list can be added to.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    HYUFD said:

    A Brexit Deal based on an NI only backstop would be giving the EU exactly what it wants. It would be a total victory. I would love to see the ERG and BXP reaction to that.

    It would take GB out of the single market and customs union and once a technical solution for the Irish border is found would no longer apply but yes it is unlikely to pass absent a clear Tory majority
    How do you feel Leadsom advocating more immigration from around the world on the radio this morning will help win over Brexit Party supporters?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    alex. said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Streeter said:

    alex. said:

    Re: another referendum.

    Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”

    Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
    I don’t see “people’s vote” advocates expressing any concern that Leavers might boycott their preferred referendum...
    Because it would contain a Leave option...
    And my referendum contains a (potential) Remain option. One of the main criticism of the original referendum, and current Govt policy is that it sets a hard dividing line between leave and remain. If you supported leave then you must support no deal in the absence of a deal. If you voted Remain then you must oppose all forms of leave.

    Suppose your preference is 1) deal 2) remain 3) no deal. Are you pro leave or pro remain? Should you have voted Leave because you wanted 1) or Remain because your feared 2)?

    My referendum simply gives the public a chance to vote for a compromise that Parliament can’t agree on. If they reject it then they might get a future Remain majority govt committing to revoke, or a future leave majority govt committing to no deal. But they would have a chance to END IT!

    (I think) It would have passed parliament and the country back in January if May had proposed a referendum along the lines of your suggestion, "do you prefer to leave the EU under the WA agreement negotiated by HMG, or do you prefer to extend for 12 months?"

    As no-one likes the idea of extension it makes people reflect on the value of compromise, without removing any options from them. It also would have helped deliver govt policy with legitimacy so is hard for parliament to justify blocking.

    The problem with it now is that the govt is against the WA, and we would be in the same situation as when Cameron did the first ref.

    The equivalent for this govt would be "Do you prefer to leave the EU with no deal on 31 Jan (assuming extension granted, not time to do it before) or extend for 12 months?". Even as very much anti no deal myself, this would be far more legitimate than crashing out based on a 1.8% support at the last GE.
    Slightly better expressed and formulated than me, thank you.

    Wonder if anybody thought of it at the time/it was considered?

    They considered it but the Remainers threatened to amend it so it was deal vs revoke
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,387
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    As a matter of information the decision in the appeal from Lord Doherty's decision is being given in open court this morning shortly after 10. I don't think that anyone is expecting the MPs to win.

    The Court then has to consider an application to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is already assumed that the losing side, whichever one, will make that application and that this case will join the English case which has been fast tracked for a hearing on 17th September. Normally getting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is a difficult hurdle but in this case it is assumed. My guess, as with Lord Doherty, the decision of the court will be pretty brief as was their hearing last Friday. The NI case was a bit behind but is apparently making substantial efforts to catch up so that it can be there too.

    As I mentioned before some of the material that the HoC was looking for was produced in the Court before Lord Doherty but I don't think that it was as extensive as is now being sought. It seemed to have very little impact on the decision.

    As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.
    At the same time, I am struggling to see how that is a legal matter. It should be enough to turf out the government, but the opposition have already failed in at least four attempts to do that and indeed actively chose not to turf it out on the two most recent occasions they had the opportunity to.

    The brute fact is whatever the facts of the matter this looks like a lot of sore losers getting hissy because they're not getting what they want and haven't a clue how to react. And it isn't a good look. They would have been much better off sticking to political routes.
    I think there is a huge constitutional principle at stake here. The constitution and the monarchy herself act substantially by convention. The Queen conventionally does what she is told by the government by the government of the day; the government makes sure any requests to the monarch stay within conventional norms. In this case the Queen kept her side of that bargain; the government didn't.

    The legal cases air the issue. The key point though is that if the parties won't keep within conventions, the current constitution doesn't work and we will need to move to a formalised written one.
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    "The Leave prospectus has been shown to be unimplementable. So the advice in the advisory referendum should be set to one side."

    Your personal view, I believe. That encapsulates the whole problem. Do you not think that fascists/communists use personal opinion as fact and therefore it excuses their actions.

    Fact … we voted to leave
    Opinion … I don't like the decision, therefore it's wrong.

    "we" didn't vote for a No-deal. Only 33ish % are happy with that lunatic prospect. No-deal was mission creep by the extreme fringe. If they are certain of the support of the electorate for what is a completely different position to what they argued for in the referendum then they need to put it back to the people. Otherwise find a compromise that reflects the very small majority.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074

    HYUFD said:

    Overnight there is talk of Boris moving towards an all Ireland solution and seeking to heal wounds with the mps he sacked indicating he expects it will be the ERG coming for him when he agrees the deal in mid October

    May I take this opportunity of painting a scenario before I go and leave it there to see if this develops and finally resolves the 31st October exit

    Boris agrees a superficial change with the EU over the Irish backstop and then declares the agreement in a joint UK-EU conference at the summit alongside Tusk and Junckers/ Von der Leyen. Lots of congratulations and declarations of relief from Merkel, Macron and others.

    The agreement is based on the 'Kinnock' amendment and the adjustments to Ireland and Boris declares he will put it to a vote in the HOC on Friday 18th October

    At the EU press conference the EU state that the WDA has to pass by the 31st October with this new deal or it will be no deal as the commission will not allow any futher extensions, as all discussions and possible solutions have been exhausted

    The HOC then have their choice and remainers are able to stand at the next GE campaigning to re-join

    Of course in all of this time will be needed to pass the legislation but hopefully Boris and the EU will address this with a technical extension whilst we still leave on the 31st October

    Fantasy or answer to prayer

    I leave it with you folks

    I still doubt a rehashed Withdrawal Agreement would pass absent a Tory majority, as ERG hardliners and the DUP would still vote against.

    It would need about 30 Labour and Independent MPs to commit to vote for it to pass
    There are 24 already declared and of course Rory Stewart and Norman Lamb are sponsoring it as well
    Proof of their intent will be in the delivery. Some of them would back a Boris deal when they didnt the May deal.

    Not that the proposer should matter, its about the merits, butvuts how some acted before.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    HYUFD said:
    54% now want to see the Leave vote respected and Brexit delivered ie more than the 52% who actually voted Leave
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,074
    HYUFD said:
    Yes, wonderful. But present public with options on how to respect and they splinter, as your own poll quoting has shown. So the theoretical number who want to respect it is less than the number in practice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387

    HYUFD said:

    A Brexit Deal based on an NI only backstop would be giving the EU exactly what it wants. It would be a total victory. I would love to see the ERG and BXP reaction to that.

    It would take GB out of the single market and customs union and once a technical solution for the Irish border is found would no longer apply but yes it is unlikely to pass absent a clear Tory majority
    How do you feel Leadsom advocating more immigration from around the world on the radio this morning will help win over Brexit Party supporters?
    Immigrants from around the world will only be admitted on merit via a points system, not through open door free movement as is the case with EEA migrants now
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    Scott_P said:

    FF43 said:

    As far as I understand it, no-one much disputes the Queen nominally having the legal right to derogate parliament as she wills. The implication, I think, is that the government and her privy councillors lied to the Queen about the purpose of the derogation. This would be a constitutional breach, and if it comes out into the open a political issue.

    So something he said 9 months ago is ironclad evidence of his motives for actions last month?

    And she calls herself a QC?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    54% now want to see the Leave vote respected and Brexit delivered ie more than the 52% who actually voted Leave
    That figure was way higher previously. The legitimacy of the referendum result is leaking away.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,013
    CD13 said:

    'We can't leave, it's too complicated' also applies to the Scottish independence aspirations. After all, we've been entangled for 300 years not less than fifty. But this is about democracy now. As an ex-LD voter, I can't understand how this "I know better than you, so you don't count,' came from. Perhaps a current LD voter can explain?

    It's very very simple.

    Swinson's quote is "A majority Liberal Democrat government would not renegotiate Brexit, we would cancel it by revoking article 50 and remaining in the European Union."

    Note the word "majority". A majority LD government would have a mandate to do whatever was in its manifesto. If "we will revoke A50 and stay in the EU" was in its manifesto, a majority would enable them to do that.

    The 2016 referendum did not void all future mandates. It can be superseded, and the LD policy is to seek a mandate to do just that.
This discussion has been closed.