|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
1st July 2019, 02:06 AM | #3001 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
Boris has one powerful ace in his sleeve: allow a vote in HoC asking the house between another extension and a no-deal Brexit. He would best do so by making sure he tried to prorogue Parliament but was blocked by it's sheer illegality and have the Speaker force the vote upon him.
After that is done and Parliament ordered BJ to go to EU and beg for more time, he goes to Brussels and asks for more time, in order to renegotiate the WA but rule out an early election or a referendum. EU would probably say you can have more time if you use it for a referendum, BJ says no and that is that. Parliament can prevent that by telling him to agree to a referendum in exchange for an extension, but referendums are notoriously difficult in UK and this is a difficult referendum to begin with. Legislating and holding one takes six months on average, BJ can tell the EU he needs a year to hold one. This isn't even false: it took over three years to hold the EU membership referedum, it took 10 months from when the Tories had the majority in HoC to hold it and Parliament rejected the option of a second referendum in the two indicative votes. Even BJ can claim he can't promise what he can't deliver. Irony aside, it is a reasonable thing of a politician to say in his situation. If EU gets him a two tiered deadline again (i.e. two weeks to pass basic legislation for another referendum, six months to hold it) all BJ needs to do is hold off for those two weeks. There would be a vote, but if the vote fails to pass he gets his no deal Brexit - legally. I imagine there are quite a few things PM can do to frustrate debate and fail to pass something he doesn't want to pass. Offering a choice between ratifying WA and no deal Brexit, but not Bremain, is one. Besides, Parliament is against everything, including another referendum. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
1st July 2019, 02:24 AM | #3002 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
By the way, despite the above (which is any case not my own opinion, but just giving the opinion of legal and constitutional political experts ... I gave several more such links in the other thread), I would not personally rule out the possibility of the HoC voting to allow a No Deal exit.
That is – in a vote that asked MPs to rule out a No Deal exit on 31st Oct., I think there is actually a reasonable chance that MPs might reject that motion (ie failing to vote against a No Deal exit). So that would be one way in which PM Boris (or PM Hunt) could indeed cause the UK to leave the EU with No Deal. |
1st July 2019, 02:48 AM | #3003 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
That's true. Parliament rejected No Deal Brexit under any circumstance amendment by a narrow margin: 312-308.
https://www.dw.com/en/british-lawmak...278/a-47895802 It could be that in a vote actually bringing about something, anything, that would prevent it Parliament will come short. Is there a way to frame a British Parliamentary question in a way different than "Yes or No"? Example: Referendum to the left, No Deal Brexit to the right? That would give some clarity. MPs can vote against everything with little consequence, but if the question is framed between two positives their ground for constructive ambiguity shrinks to zero. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
1st July 2019, 02:49 AM | #3004 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
None of that is changing or disputing anything I said in the above post, though. Point is - it's extremely unlikely that the PM could circumvent the democratic will of parliament to force the UK to leave with No Deal. Whether or not we end up with a vote in the HoC that forces either a new referendum, or that forces a General Election, is another matter entirely. But the point is – much as a pro-Brexit Tory PM might wish to prevent the HoC voting on various options, the PM almost certainly could not in the end prevent such democratic votes in the HoC. What the result might be in a new referendum, heaven only knows (though afaik the opinion polls have suggested a win for Remain by perhaps 6% or more … but polls like that have been shown to be seriously wrong in recent years). The result of a General Election is now also very hard to guess, imho. Mainly because Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party has thrown a huge spanner into the works. If Farage and his party contest seats nationwide, then it's certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that his party could actually end up with the most seats (though probably not enough to form a government). But if that happens then I would expect Labour and Lib Dem to pool their seats together to agree an emergency coalition government. I think the Conservatives would probably be decimated in a GE that was held either now, or else held in the wake of the new Conservative PM leading the country into an even bigger and more incompetent looking mess than we have already had over the last 12 months. See the latest Poll figures from YouGov 24th-25th June - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...20-lib-dem-19- Brexit Party 22% Conservatives 22% Labour 20% Lib Dem 19% |
1st July 2019, 02:53 AM | #3005 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
post deleted ... wrong thread lol!
|
1st July 2019, 03:01 AM | #3006 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
He doesn't have to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. All he must do is ensure the option he doesn't want to pass doesn't pass. I'll explain what I mean below.
Quote:
Should the UK: 1. Ratify the WA or 2. Leave EU with no deal? If BJ gets this referendum question through he's in home stretch. Ratifying the WA has half the support of a no deal Brexit, all he needs to do is promise even more unicorns and calls out anyone who campaigns for the ratification a hypocrite and he just might get the 51-49 victory that is a clear mandate for a hard Brexit and deregulation and privatization of everything. Alternatively the question could be Should UK revoke article 50 and remain in EU? 1. Yes. 2. No. Since yes is the current legal default and it's a significant constitutional question that's at stake, he could also demand a 60% quorum for yes, or else the legal default remains. Hypocritical sure, but he held another referendum and fulfilled the will of Parliament and requirement of the EU. Given the divisions in Parliament, agreeing to the referendum is trivially easy compared to deciding what to ask in the referendum. It's quite possible to run down the clock with proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out. On the other hand, I'm still of the opinion another referendum will be held, somehow. But it's getting ever weirder. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
1st July 2019, 03:33 AM | #3007 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
Nigel Farage has hit out at Channel 4 over an episode of a comedy show in which satirical character Neil Fromage is shot dead while giving a speech on immigration.
The leader of the Brexit Party described the scene in the fourth episode of Victorian-era sitcom Year of the Rabbit as “sick and frankly irresponsible”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...81281.html?amp |
1st July 2019, 04:13 AM | #3008 | |||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,606
|
Says the man who said he would pick up a rifle and join the front line if he doesn't get Brexit. What a hypocrite!
|
|||
__________________
Long time lurker |
||||
1st July 2019, 06:06 AM | #3009 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
The plan that was published in 2014 included 2 frigates I believe as well as anti mine vessels and offshore patrols vehicles and other support ships.
I don't believe they wanted to have any destroyers nor do they wish to maintain nuclear submarines. Of course the other thing to remember is that SNP white papers do not in fact tie the hands of future Scottish Governments who may decide they have other strategic aims. |
1st July 2019, 11:16 AM | #3010 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
On the basis of the legal analysis and other links that I gave previously - I don't think it's possible for the next Tory PM to run down the clock with a succession of "proposals and counter-proposals, stall and stall again until the time runs out". The legal point is that an attempted subterfuge such as that, would now be instantly recognised as an illegal way to prevent the democratic will of parliament from being heard. And that would be ruled illegal. Nor do I think the next PM could just choose any deliberately exclusive and deliberately fraudulent or misleading options on a referendum ballot paper. That would again be a clear attempt by the PM to rig the result of a referendum. Again, restrictive and divisive options like that (as the only options on a referendum ballot paper) would be ruled illegal. The options have to be fair, honest and genuinely representative of the preferences debated & expressed by elected MPs in the HoC. More simply – I think we are very far past the stage where a rouge pro-Brexit PM could deliberately mislead both the HoC and the electorate over Brexit. The options must be honest and fair, and must be seen to be honest and fair (otherwise they will be subject to legal challange & ruled illegal). Of course it would be another matter entirely if opposition MPs decided not to bother opposing whatever the Tory PM wanted to do, and decided not to bother with any legal objections or any requests to vote in the HoC against whatever the pro-Brexit PM proposes. But it seems very unlikley indeed that opposition MPs will allow PM-Boris or PM-Hunt a fee hand to act like that to do whatever they want. |
1st July 2019, 12:23 PM | #3011 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
|
Why the assumption they wouldn't? Oh, and you mean "England, Wales, and NI," surely?
Quote:
|
1st July 2019, 12:40 PM | #3012 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Quite possibly, but when? The legal wheels grind exceeding slow, and it would undoubtedly be 'ruled illegal' well after Halloween. Even if before Halloween then decisive Parliamentary action would need to be taken pdq...
eta which might well also lead to legal proceedings taking us beyond Halloween |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
1st July 2019, 12:47 PM | #3013 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
1st July 2019, 01:13 PM | #3014 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
|
Unlikely. There are currently assets in Scotland which it suits wider UK purposes to be there, and that isn't just HMNB Clyde, either. In addition, there is some stuff that was proposed in the Scotland's Future paper that an independent Scotland wanted that are not currently located in Scotland.
Quote:
Quote:
|
1st July 2019, 01:51 PM | #3015 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 10,099
|
They also stated they wanted a "command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities" from the current RN fleet. They weren't more specific, but this was interpreted to mean a Landing Platform Dock or Bay class RFA, neither of which is going to happen.
|
1st July 2019, 02:32 PM | #3016 |
JREF Kid
Tagger
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,782
|
|
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan |
|
1st July 2019, 03:30 PM | #3017 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,097
|
|
1st July 2019, 07:08 PM | #3018 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
deleted wrong thread.
|
1st July 2019, 10:51 PM | #3019 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
Democratic will of Parliament is being heard in this case. He's just making sure the democratic will of all PMs is being considered.
Quote:
No Brexit and No Deal? No Brexit and WA? WA and No Deal? WA and Unicorn Deal? No Brexit and Unicorn Deal? Unicorn Deal and No Deal? Clearly this won't work. At a minimum you need three options. Parliament already rejected all of them, except the Unicorn deal, so it can be argued that should be on the ballot, although it's the one option that will solve nothing.
Quote:
Second if there is a legal challenge and the referendum is ruled illegal, BJ still "wins" of sorts. There must be new legislation for another referendum. These things take time and EU won't give BJ unlimited time to come up with an answer. Options must be honest and fair, true. But a good portion of the electorate considers "no deal Brexit ASAP" as "honest and fair".
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Swiss_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Swiss_referendums McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
2nd July 2019, 12:01 AM | #3020 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
Well you would have to ask the person that made the assumption. And no I mean England. Our future PM has already said Westminster is England's parliament.
Quote:
A hypothetical was put forward in which England simply said 'we are keeping the lot, screw you' and I was pointing out why this won't happen. |
2nd July 2019, 12:02 AM | #3021 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd July 2019, 12:07 AM | #3022 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
The question was what it would be capable of sustaining. Not what it would WANT to sustain
Quote:
Quote:
|
2nd July 2019, 12:11 AM | #3023 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd July 2019, 12:13 AM | #3024 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
|
2nd July 2019, 12:44 AM | #3025 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
Well we are not talking about the sort of legal cases where a member of the public might have to wait years before a case is heard. Afaik, this would be decided by the relevant "court" immediately, so that any such action by the PM was ruled illegal before any deadline expired. However ... ... even if that were not the case, and where the ruling comes after the expired deadline, the ruling would cancel the PM's result. That is - the exit from the EU would have been illegal, and it could not stand. How the UK would work that out with the EU, and what the EU would do about something like that, is perhaps less clear. Also less clear is what would happen to the PM in a situation like that, where he had been found guilty in law of such massive abuse of power … it would presumably be a very serious offence indeed. |
2nd July 2019, 12:55 AM | #3026 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
The problem is a No Deal doesn't require any action on behalf of anyone. It's the legal default, what happens if no action is taken. Parliament can order PM to "take action", but how would that work? The only measures UK can take are ratifying the WA or revoking article 50. Revoking article 50 is illegal without a new vote, Parliament already rejected it in indicative votes. It also rejected ratifying the WA three times.
Demand from Parliament to PM to "stop No Deal Brexit" is impossible. Parliament can instruct the PM to revoke article 50, it can ratify the deal or it can instruct the PM to go to Brussels and beg for more time. This last option means there will be a referendum on the question, or else a No Deal Brexit. My point is Parliament will have to grow some testicles and instruct BJ to do one of the above three. It can't prohibit a No Deal Brexit and do reject everything that is needed to prevent one. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
2nd July 2019, 01:08 AM | #3027 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
OK, well without going through the above in detail again (because it's essentially what we already discussed before) - if you read that link to the legal analysis that I gave earlier, you will see why the legal opinion is that a pro-Brexit PM such as Boris, probably could not succeed with any of the methods that you are proposing. If you have not read that legal link, then please read it, because it explains why opposition MP's could, and almost certainly would, use the law to stop any of the attempts that you describe. And where, in fact, opposition MPs already took that legal recourse to stop Mrs May on at least two occasions when she tried to bounce the UK out of the EU by excluding a parliamentary vote (inc. trying to run down the clock); so those legal rulings and that recourse to law is already established and in place as the method being used by MPs if the prime Minister tries any of the illegal deceptions that you suggest. That doesn't mean it's impossible for Boris or Hunt to succeed with such tactics. That might happen. But it's unlikely to succeed if opposition MPs object in law to a PM trying any deceptions such as that. |
2nd July 2019, 01:22 AM | #3028 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
Re. the highlight - the answer to that question is given in that legal link. It's what I explained before. And Mrs May already tried that, and where the legal link says she was in effect "forced" to go back to the EU and request an extension. The PM also cannot, in that circumstance, stop opposition MP's again taking a vote on ruling out such a No Deal exit from the EU. That is - if Boris tried to run out of time in that way by excluding MPs from taking a vote to stop that No Deal Exit, then he would be forced by law to allow that vote in the HoC ... it would then be a question of whether or not a majority voted to rule out any such No Deal exit (which is what we discussed before … again, see that legal link). |
2nd July 2019, 01:28 AM | #3029 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
|
So far Parliament haven't been able to agree on a way forward for Brexit. They've had various votes, both binding and indicative to reject certain courses of action, including Theresa May's deal and a no-deal but they have never been able to agree on a positive course of action whether that is acceptance of a deal, revocation of Article 50 or leaving the EU with no deal in place.
So far the EU have been understanding of/complicit in (depending on your point of view) in this indecision by allowing the UK to kick the can down the road but there will likely come a point when the EU is unwilling to delay Brexit any longer and/or will impose conditions that are unacceptable to a Conservative PM and so there will be no further extensions to the Brexit deadline. At that point in time, Parliament will have to decide what they want to do. Just saying that they don't want Option X or Option Y is no longer good enough. So far, they haven't been able to agree - I don't see that changing.
Which means that the default outcome - leave with no deal - comes about. Even if Parliament votes to reject that outcome, in order to stop it they need to come up with an alternative plan of action - which seems beyond them. |
2nd July 2019, 01:44 AM | #3030 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
The only legal link that you gave and I found answered the question "Can the PM prorogue Parliament to force a no deal Brexit". None of the scenarios I present involve proroguing Parliament. BJ must prevent Parliament from passing a Brexit resolution that will be viable with the EU. Proroguing is just one of the possibilities here, I discussed the others, all of whom include Parliamentary votes. It's not enough to hold a vote, Parliament must vote affirmative to an action.
Quote:
The fact is Parliament must vote for something if it is to prevent a No Deal Brexit. For a Brexitard PM all he must do is ensure all votes are negative, or else positive but pass something unacceptable to the EU. With a different leader of the opposition that would be impossible to do, a competent Labour party would have dealt with the issue twice over by now and probably run the show for a decade. Alas, Corbyn and his clique are no better than BJ. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
2nd July 2019, 01:47 AM | #3031 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
My prediction is there will be another extension. Either Parliament will send BJ to beg for another extension, ordering him to offer another referendum in exchange for mercy. EU will accept, then Parliament will face the difficult legislating for said referendum. There are three options: No Deal Brexit, WA and Bremain, it is possible to hold a fair referendum with three options in several ways which I described before.
Alternatively Parliament will not confirm BJ as PM or BJ will be removed in a vote of no confidence before Haloween, triggering an early election. EU will agree to an extension in order to hold it. The result of that election will decide the fate of Brexit and indeed the UK. I've been wrong before on these issues, lots of times. Let's see how this prediction holds. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
2nd July 2019, 02:05 AM | #3032 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
|
I cannot see this getting support in parliament given that the Conservatives and a sizeable minority of Labour MPs (including the leader) are against a second referendum.
I can see them asking him to go back to ask for an extension (which he may or may not do - it would after all give the Brexit Party a stick to beat him with if he does agree to an extension) but not with anything tangible to offer in exchange. After all, Brexiteers (especially those of a no-deal persuasion) want the EU to deny the extension so that it's the EU's fault when it all goes to rodent poop. There's no confirmation process for the PM, as the leader of the party in government Boris or Jeremy would automatically get to be PM. The only way to remove them would be either for them to be deposed as Conservative Party leader (unlikely given that they have just been appointed) or for a no confidence vote to be successfully passed. As disfunctional as the Conservatives are, a confidence vote will IMO be unsuccessful because the DUP won't support it (because there isn't an outcome which would increase their influence), there will be very few Tory rebels (because they don't want to be savaged by the Brexit Party) and they will likely be offset by pro-Brexit Labour MPs supporting the goverment. |
2nd July 2019, 02:33 AM | #3033 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
If the alternatives were No Deal Brexit and Second Referendum, the latter may yet win out in the vote. Thus far alternatives were Bright Sunlands with Unicorns to a Second Referendum. This is different.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course I could be wrong, but who do you hope to be right on the matter? McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
2nd July 2019, 03:18 AM | #3034 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd July 2019, 03:19 AM | #3035 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
|
The Conservatives would not vote in favour of a pro-referendum motion because they (rightly IMO) fear that it would imperil Brexit and any Conservative who voted to prevent a no deal Brexit would face a motion of no confidence from their local constituency (which would likely have them out on their ear), would likely be deselected at the next election or be beaten by the Brexit Party.
There may be a handful of retiring MPs who may be willing to take one for the nation but they will be offset buy the 20-50 Labour MPs who don't want a second referendum. I'm not so sure what it outdated about this arrangement. The Prime Minister is just the (current) leader of the governing party or coalition. I think you're underestimating politicians ability to delude themselves that adopting any position that has a whiff of not being pro-Brexit if they represent a constituency that voted Leave will automatically result in them losing their seat to the Brexit Party at the next election. The confidence vote will also be a three line whip so voting against the party will get the MP kicked out of the party so they're balancing losing their job against their perception that they will keep it. |
2nd July 2019, 03:29 AM | #3036 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
|
|
2nd July 2019, 03:46 AM | #3037 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Today marked the first sitting of the newly elected European Parliament, and the Brexit Party contingency spent little time before showing what a charming lot they are, by turning their backs to the performance of the Anthem of Europe (aka Ode to Joy).
|
2nd July 2019, 04:02 AM | #3038 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
2nd July 2019, 04:03 AM | #3039 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
They can also abstain en masse, which is why I think this is still within the realm of possibility.
Quote:
It's to prevent this exact situation from arising.
Quote:
A few Tory MPs represent Bremain constituencies. BJ is one of them. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
2nd July 2019, 04:04 AM | #3040 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Openly copying the early Nazi party. Why are we not surprised.
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|