PM Boris forms a government

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

It's much too far. The EU are not Nazi Germany and this Parliament are not the Vichy Government. We're not occupied by EU forces. Parliament very much is NOT increasing the powers of Boris Johnson. It's not sending Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps.

In what ways does the analogy make any sense?

It's the same as people saying Boris Johnson staged a coup. The country has lost its mind.

The analogy makes sense because the anti-democratic EU, (whose laws trump ours, whose executive is unelected and misusing powers to skew things their way), is given succour by our traitorious Parliament.

Vichy had nothing to do with concentration camps - it was a pliant government doing a foreign power's bidding.

As if you din't know.

---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Well explained. I'm genuinely shocked that the events our grandparents fought a war over have been so easily forgotten and false equivalence sought from them. And like him or loath him, BoJo is currently only using the powers legally available to him.

I doubt that your shock is genuine. The analogy doesn't suit your Remainer's argument so, of course, it must be OTT and the rest of the rubbish Hugh accused me of.

The events of WW2 are far frlm forgotten in my mind - I'm closer to it than you. What I see now in the EU is a system that is rigged the way the Commission want, exercising pressure in the way that Greece was subordinated, for example. Nothing to do with Nazis and concentration camps. All to do the compliant governments whose parliaments are under the EU cosh as we can see from our simple request to leave the EU.

[jfman]

How will it be any different when Trump dictates a trade deal?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]The analogy makes sense because the anti-democratic EU, (whose laws trump ours, whose executive is unelected and misusing powers to skew things their way), is given succour by our traitorious Parliament.

Vichy had nothing to do with concentration camps - it was a pliant government doing a foreign power's bidding.

As if you din't know.[

Yes, they did. I really don't think the analogy with Nazis is helpful.

Downing Street has been signaling increasingly clearly over the last 24 hours that it is confident there’s a loophole in the Benn Bill - confident enough to continue stating unequivocally that the letter demanded by the Bill will not be sent and the UK will leave the EU on 31 October.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49625431

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Downing Street has been signaling increasingly clearly over the last 24 hours that it is confident there’s a loophole in the Benn Bill - confident enough to continue stating unequivocally that the letter demanded by the Bill will not be sent and the UK will leave the EU on 31 October.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49625431

Great, I can’t wait to see the remainer Parliament throw a hissy fit.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from Chris:

Downing Street has been signaling increasingly clearly over the last 24 hours that it is confident there’s a loophole in the Benn Bill - confident enough to continue stating unequivocally that the letter demanded by the Bill will not be sent and the UK will leave the EU on 31 October.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49625431

Presumably this is why the filibuster attempt in the Lords was stopped: To allow the remainers to think they've hamstrung Boris but no and there's no time even with the pro-remain speaker to bring in another bill. Great sleight of hand.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Bless...

The Vienna Convention provides the overarching rules for treaties - it states that treaties cannot be unilaterally revoked, only bilaterally.

Again, hope this helps.

The Vienna convention doesn’t come into it in this case. It is trumped by A.50.

Also the only person that can bless me is a Bishop or the pope, you are neither, although I do imagine you as a complete Bishop.

Originally Posted by jfman

That’s odd because you gave me a warning for swearing (in asterisks) about Jacob Rees-Mogg. Must be on the wrong side of the Brexit debate.

Firstly, you do not discuss such matters in topics.

Secondly, Rubbish. Nothing to do which side you’re on, so nothing odd at all. Stop trying to be smart. Re-read my last post. I said some forms of swearing is allowed. The form you tried, was not and you were correctly picked up on it. Using Asterisks was irrelevant as it’s still implied.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Presumably this is why the filibuster attempt in the Lords was stopped: To allow the remainers to think they've hamstrung Boris but no and there's no time even with the pro-remain speaker to bring in another bill. Great sleight of hand.

Part of the reason they don’t want an election is to ensure Parliament is sitting during October. There is an acute awareness that things can change.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Presumably this is why the filibuster attempt in the Lords was stopped: To allow the remainers to think they've hamstrung Boris but no and there's no time even with the pro-remain speaker to bring in another bill. Great sleight of hand.

I don’t think they’re that clever.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The Vienna convention doesn’t come into it in this case. It is trumped by A.50.

Also the only person that can bless me is a Bishop or the pope, you are neither, although I do imagine you as a complete Bishop.

Once again, bless*...

I was responding to this statement

Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
EU and "trust"? Simply obeying Germany and France is not the same as party politics. There still should be proper scrutiny and not just by one side. Just a few words can change everything, eg "unless and until". The backstop breaks international law which is meant to allow unilateral withdrawal from an agreement.

I pointed out the attorney General disagreed

Mr Cox said on Tuesday that if there is no solution found to stop the backstop arrangements coming into place, "the UK has no unilateral exit right to leave, unless there were a fundamental change of circumstance under Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties".

But if you know better than the AG, fair enough..

*anyone can bless, it just depends what you’re blessing...

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think they’re that clever.

I don’t think they’re unendingly clever (who is), but look at the evidence in this case. The filibuster was lined up and underway. There were 102 amendments on the order paper; under Lords’ rules, enough to keep them discussing the business motion, required prior to putting the Bill to the house, until Saturday afternoon. Yet despite the preparation and the execution of it being commenced, it stopped abruptly at 1.30am, the wee small hours of Thursday morning, at least 60 hours early.

Now *something* must have changed to cause that sudden reversal. At first I assumed a date for an election had been agreed; it soon became clear that wasn’t the case. So something else then. They didn’t simply get bored, or lobbied to death, and give up. That would surely have taken at least another 24 hours. So what changed? On the basis of what Boris Johnson, and today Sajid Javid has said, it seems now that by 1.30am on Thursday morning, their lawyers were confident that they had identified a weakness in the bill as worded, and at that point their priority would have been to get the bill passed into law with as little further scrutiny as possible, so to prevent anyone else spotting and amending it.

Remember Boris has quite deliberately used phrases like “in theory” when discussing what the Bill would require a Prime Minister to do. He understands what the Bill is designed to achieve, but doesn’t think in practice that it does.

Based on what we know so far, I think we can expect to wait until after prorogation before el gov begins to indicate what its tactics are. The Bill’s supporters will have to wait, however, until Boris fails to send the letter before they can invoke the Act and ask a judge to direct him to send it. Whoever loses that hearing will appeal it to the Supreme Court and there, according to Javid’s interview with Marr this evening, the government is surprisingly confident of victory. At that point we will most likely be mere days away from Brexit day.

[jfman]

I just think they saw it as futile. I think the air of confidence is simply to avoid saying they will break the law.

For the, very likely, people Vs Parliament election it's better to have Ministers out using air time to say "we will deliver Brexit" than Peers dragging out proceedings all weekend.

Although I agree with a lot of your post - it's likely to end up in the supreme court on the point of can Parliament compel the executive in this way, regardless of how well or badly the Bill is drafted.

Originally Posted by jfman

I just think they saw it as futile. I think the air of confidence is simply to avoid saying they will break the law.

For the, very likely, people Vs Parliament election it's better to have Ministers out using air time to say "we will deliver Brexit" than Peers dragging out proceedings all weekend.

Although I agree with a lot of your post - it's likely to end up in the supreme court on the point of can Parliament compel the executive in this way, regardless of how well or badly the Bill is drafted.

We will never know either way, unless at some point someone publishes their memoirs.

The constitutional question that is put to the Supreme Court is going to be momentous. We have all been bandying around the phrase “parliamentary sovereignty” in this discussion without ever really questioning the source or the limitations of that sovereignty (if any). If their lordships did, for example, rule that centuries of convention in which Parliament has allowed the government to govern means one perfunctory Act designed to force a sitting Prime Minister to write a letter is unconstitutional, there and then it will have ruled that there is something Parliament cannot do (other than bind itself).

Alternatively, there may be sufficient statute law already in existence which is not effectively repealed or temporarily set aside by the Benn Act that renders it ineffective. That would not drive a coach and horses through the principle of parliamentary sovereignty but it will render it extremely difficult for a future “rebel alliance” to do what they did last week. Who would pin their career on something so easily picked apart in court?

My feeling about this is towards the latter. A high debate about the ancient conventions surrounding the roles of legislature and executive, which in all likelihood would end up uncomfortably close to considering the outcome of the English civil war and the basis upon which the monarchy was restored, would be interesting but esoteric and difficult to do quickly and its outcome too hard to predict. Invalidating the Benn Act on the basis that it’s bad law that violates something else parliament has already enacted, and with all its usual scrutiny (whereas the Benn Act is manifestly a rush job and therefore inferior), is a more likely approach.

But then here I am making predictions again, and that’s a very silly thing to do right now...

[Sephiroth]

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...90202_en_2.htm

2 Report on progress of negotiations on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union

(1) In the event that an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 is agreed with the European Council, the Secretary of State must, by 30 November 2019, publish a report explaining what progress has been made in negotiations on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved the
report, to be moved in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report, to be moved in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown.

(3) The motions required under subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) must be moved in the relevant House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the report is published.

(4) If the motion tabled in the House of Commons is rejected or amended, the Secretary of State must, by 10 January 2020, publish a further report under subsection (1) setting out a plan for further negotiations on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.

(5) The Secretary of State shall make a further report under subsection (1) at least every 28 calendar days starting on 7 February 2020 either until an agreement with the European Union is reached or until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House of Commons.

What have I misunderstood? 7-Feb-2020?