PM Boris forms a government

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what is supposed to be the alternative of not having a "no deal"? There isn't a deal on the table, so the objective of opposing "no deal" must be "Remain". All without the niceties of Parliament being explicitly asked that question. That is abuse of power and subverting Parliament and the electorate.

Not this again.

In this context 'Deal' mean 'Withdrawal agreement'

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<SNIP>.
Ah yes, the old

"Democratic - using Parliamentary procedure and conventions to suspend Parliament to prevent discussion and oversight of Government work

Anti-Democratic - using Parliamentary procedure and conventions to hold Government to account"

approach...

Must be a new definition of "moving forward" I hadn't seen before - not allowing Parliament to do anything for five weeks...

Dear oh dear. That should have read - and you know it:

Democratic - using Parliamentary procedure and conventions to suspend Parliament to prevent the undemocratic activities of those who wish to undermine the Referendum result.

Anti-Democratic - using Parliamentary procedure and conventions to defeat the result of the direct democracy referendum previously authorised by Parliament.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not this again.

In this context 'Deal' mean 'Withdrawal agreement'

Deal means anything that is place in 2 years time and afterwards, otherwise "deal" could refer to absolutely anything. Parliament has already said no to the withdrawal agreement on 3 occasions. Have the proponents of "no to no deal", ever explicitly said it means a yes to the WA? Only the phrase "no to no deal" is ever used. Have the EU given any indication of their terms for an ongoing deal that is remotely acceptable and doesn't break many of the principles behind the Leave vote?

Lord Sumption (Former UK Supreme Court Justice) on Newsnight tonight makes extraordinary intervention by claiming Boris Johnson’s request to The Queen to suspend Parliament is lawful. Gina Miller might wanna take note as she is about to mount a legal challenge against prorogation.

[jfman]

The legal gravy train is full of people who will take contradictory opinions because there’s money in it. I’m sure Gina will find someone with a contrary opinion.

Gina Miller’s most important contribution may yet be the forcing of Theresa May’s government to present an EU withdrawal bill to Parliament that contained a default exit date.

[jfman]

There's an argument though that it doesn't actually end EU membership, hypothetically (and very unlikely) if the Government and EU agreed we would remain in with our laws incompatible with EU laws and at risk of legal action. However we'd still be in.

I'm not being deliberately argumentative - just pointing out where legal eagles could earn a fortune debating semantics.

Unlike the wonderful membership of Cable Forum where we don't earn a penny for it.

No, we mince words for the sheer hell of it

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

There's an argument though that it doesn't actually end EU membership, hypothetically (and very unlikely) if the Government and EU agreed we would remain in with our laws incompatible with EU laws and at risk of legal action. However we'd still be in.

I'm not being deliberately argumentative - just pointing out where legal eagles could earn a fortune debating semantics.

Unlike the wonderful membership of Cable Forum where we don't earn a penny for it.

The laws in the US, China etc are incompatible with the EU. Just that any goods they market in the EU have to comply with EU rules. Nothing inherently wrong with that. A central issue is whether after Brexit, goods marketed in the UK have to still submit to EU rules and the ECJ. Especially without having a say in what those rules are. That would be undemocratic and a coup by the EU.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Dear oh dear. That should have read - and you know it:

Democratic - using Parliamentary procedure and conventions to suspend Parliament to prevent the undemocratic activities of those who wish to undermine the Referendum result.

Anti-Democratic - using Parliamentary procedure and conventions to defeat the result of the direct democracy referendum previously authorised by Parliament.

As has been explained many times on this forum by Chris and others, a Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, and decisions of Parliament can be overturned by Parliament.

MPs doing their jobs (oversight of and holding to account the Executive) is not "anti-democratic" - it is the very basis of our Parliamentary Democracy.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The laws in the US, China etc are incompatible with the EU. Just that any goods they market in the EU have to comply with EU rules. Nothing inherently wrong with that. A central issue is whether after Brexit, goods marketed in the UK have to still submit to EU rules and the ECJ. Especially without having a say in what those rules are. That would be undemocratic and a coup by the EU.

The role of the ECJ within domestic UK affairs was a key sticking point in the WA negotiations. IIRC they did find a workaround, but if we leave without a WA in place it’s moot.

The ECJ has no jurisdiction in the UK unless our domestic law gives it. Products sold within the UK will continue to comply with EU directives where those directives have been translated into UK law, but if a member state of the EU has a complaint about the way our domestic market is regulated they will not be able to ask the ECJ to handle it.

This is a key area where red tape can be cut. In my own line of business, for example, changes in EU law around 10 years ago compelled anyone offering Bed and Breakfast services, no matter how small the scale, to register as a “food business” with their local council, which is then obliged to perform random food hygiene inspections. You can imagine, with the explosion of services like Airbnb, what an impossible burden for councils this is. Previously, this was covered under domestic legislation that exempted anyone hosting in fewer than four rooms (generally 4 rooms plus is a guest house, and is subject to much more stringent requirements, for example with regards to fire safety).

As someone running a B&B by definition can’t be exporting to the EU, or anywhere else, there is no reason for us to continue to suffer the interference of EU regulations, and no reason for the EU to complain about it.

---------- Post added at 08:13 ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

As has been explained many times on this forum by Chris and others, a Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, and decisions of Parliament can be overturned by Parliament.

MPs doing their jobs (oversight of and holding to account the Executive) is not "anti-democratic" - it is the very basis of our Parliamentary Democracy.

While this is absolutely true, the spice in the recipe in this case is the exercise in direct democracy that gave rise to the decision to leave the EU. Parliament is sovereign but it is politically very difficult for parliament to exercise that sovereignty however it pleases when it is manifestly contrary to the will of the people.

Of course there are many arguments about precisely what the will of the people is; what sort of Brexit the referendum mandated, whether people have changed their minds, etc, but much of this is dissembling and obfuscation by those whose genuine interest is in overturning the referendum result and halting our exit from the EU.

The results of Parliament’s shenanigans over the last few months have been a train wreck of a Strasbourg election and opinion polls that began putting our oldest and most successful political party in the teens, often in third place, until they elected a leader who looked like he was actually serious about leaving the EU. Again, none of this has any legal effect on parliamentary sovereignty but it does begin to indicate how murky our unwritten constitution can become when people try innovating with it. The prospect of a battle between parliament and the electorate over which body is sovereign could get ugly.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The laws in the US, China etc are incompatible with the EU. Just that any goods they market in the EU have to comply with EU rules. Nothing inherently wrong with that. A central issue is whether after Brexit, goods marketed in the UK have to still submit to EU rules and the ECJ. Especially without having a say in what those rules are. That would be undemocratic and a coup by the EU.

Yes, obviously the hypothetical Government that wanted to remain would have to legislate back into line at some point, but arguably the Withdrawal Act isn't the cliff edge some think it is.

As it'd be the action of a Government that had the confidence of Parliament it'd be a stretch to call it undemocratic.

[nomadking]

The Withdrawal Agreement constantly refers to having to follow EU rules and the ECJ. 186 references to "Union law" and 77 to "Court of Justice".

ARTICLE 4
Methods and principles relating to the effect,
the implementation and the application of this Agreement
1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this
Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those
which they produce within the Union and its Member States.
Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions
contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union
law.

The word deal is only referenced once.

(i) requests in accordance with Article 39 of the Schengen Implementing Convention that
are received before the end of the transition period by the central body responsible in
the Contracting Party for international police cooperation or by competent authorities of
the requested Party, or by requested police authorities which do not have the power to
deal with the request, but which forward the request to the competent authorities;

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, obviously the hypothetical Government that wanted to remain would have to legislate back into line at some point, but arguably the Withdrawal Act isn't the cliff edge some think it is.

As it'd be the action of a Government that had the confidence of Parliament it'd be a stretch to call it undemocratic.

An "action" that that can never be overturned and hands power and control to another country/group of countries is undemocratic and a coup. It is one thing to be part of a group and (allegedly) having a say, it is another to be completely subservient and not having a say.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what is supposed to be the alternative of not having a "no deal"? There isn't a deal on the table, so the objective of opposing "no deal" must be "Remain". All without the niceties of Parliament being explicitly asked that question. That is abuse of power and subverting Parliament and the electorate.

Precisely! The outrage we are hearing from the staunch remain side should be seen for what it is. They have been debating Brexit for months now and they have rejected all solutions put to them to date. What on Earth do they think another few days debating this in Parliament will achieve that will take us out of the EU? The answer is none, because they don't actually want us to take any notice of what the electorate has voted for.

They have no solutions that would be acceptable to the electorate and they should now be comforting each other in defeat and have a nice rest.

[1andrew1]

I think that come mid-October, Boris will have negotiated something very close to Theresa May's deal. Faced with no way of extending Article 50, the Remainers in his party will support it. That was the objective of yesterday's action.