What's in the news?

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Have to wait for the full verdict of course but.....

 

This makes is legally and more crucially, constitutionally, possible to remove May and revoke article 50, then reinvoke it again under a new leader and start the process again with two years to go - also giving us the time to prepare properly for no deal as well if that was necessary.

 

Could all be done before the next election as well in 2022.

 

Depends how they interpret the bit about "abusive" revocation NOT being permitted. Doing that might be deemed "abusive", I should think - though I don't have the detailed knowledge of EU law to know that. Not a final verdict yet, anyway, and several stages to go through before there's any prospect of it happening. Might influence the debate/voting in parliament, though.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

And you would expect the EU to cooperate after such duplicitous behaviour?

Totally upto them. It's their court handing down this decision.

 

If they don't want any co-operation whatsoever or a new negotiation at least we have the two years to plan to no deal which had been one of the terrible failures of this government.

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Totally upto them. It's their court handing down this decision.

 

If they don't want any co-operation whatsoever or a new negotiation at least we have the two years to plan to no deal which had been one of the terrible failures of this government.

 

Like I said, I've no expert knowledge of ECJ procedures, but I'd guess that the ECJ would deem it "abusive" if we revoked Article 50 just to have an extra 2 years to try to negotiate a better deal and/or to have more time to prepare for No Deal.

That would have us in the default position of leaving with No Deal in March 2019, unless something else intervened.

 

I presume we'd need a bona fide reason for revocation: e.g. the Brexit policy had been reversed and we were choosing to stay in the EU. I presume that other potential delays (e.g. needing more time to try to negotiate a completely different deal) would require not revocation but a request to extend the Article 50 deadline.....which might or might not be agreed.

 

Interesting that you say it would be up to "them" and it's "their" court......for as long as we're still in the EU, it's up to "us" (EU28 including UK) and it's "our" court, as the UK has ECJ judges and officials like every other member state.

Just shows our different feelings about the pooling of national sovereignty, I suppose. 

[FoxNotFox]

48 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

And you would expect the EU to cooperate after such duplicitous behaviour?

Well, I suppose if A50 can be revoked unilaterally then there's little they can do about it. Unless, of course, you mean exactly that and the EU will then play even harder ball in the next round of negotiations.

 

How on earth did we get into this mess? (Rhetorical, don't answer that)

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Like I said, I've no expert knowledge of ECJ procedures, but I'd guess that the ECJ would deem it "abusive" if we revoked Article 50 just to have an extra 2 years to try to negotiate a better deal and/or to have more time to prepare for No Deal.

That would have us in the default position of leaving with No Deal in March 2019, unless something else intervened.

 

I presume we'd need a bona fide reason for revocation: e.g. the Brexit policy had been reversed and we were choosing to stay in the EU. I presume that other potential delays (e.g. needing more time to try to negotiate a completely different deal) would require not revocation but a request to extend the Article 50 deadline.....which might or might not be agreed.

 

Interesting that you say it would be up to "them" and it's "their" court......for as long as we're still in the EU, it's up to "us" (EU28 including UK) and it's "our" court, as the UK has ECJ judges and officials like every other member state.

Just shows our different feelings about the pooling of national sovereignty, I suppose. 

That is where we differ, my definition of up to "us" would be it being actually up to us - ie the British courts or the British parliament - the example of Juncker being appointed was that, we said no, we got him anyway.

 

I don't know how abusive would be defined in this case, we would obviously have to argue a change of Prime Minister would constitute a bona fide reason to do it, if not and that was the route we wanted to go down I have no idea what the situation could be, I mean if we revoke article 50 and it's accepted can they even stop us doing it again?

 

I suppose an extension of it would be more likely. I don't think it affects the vote next week anyway, she's on course to lose it and to lose it quite heavily.

Edited 4 December 2018 by MattP

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

That is where we differ, my definition of up to "us" would be it being actually up to us - ie the British courts or the British parliament - the example of Juncker being appointed was that, we said no, we got him anyway.

 

I don't know how abusive would be defined in this case, we would obviously have to argue a change of Prime Minister would constitute a bona fide reason to do it, if not and that was the route we wanted to go down I have no idea what the situation could be, I mean if we revoke article 50 and it's accepted can they even stop us doing it again?

 

I suppose an extension of it would be more likely. I don't think it affects the vote next week anyway, she's on course to lose it and to lose it quite heavily.

As much as I would have ordinarily wanted this court decision to go the other way. At least this guarantees Mays deal is killed. Remainers won’t back her and nor will Brexiteers and her threats of no deal/no brexit are empty.

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46440172

 

A Met Police officer who knocked a teenager off a moped while employing a new ramming tactic could face criminal charges.

 

The boy later pleaded guilty to five offences at the youth court, including theft, dangerous driving, and driving without a licence.

 

What a ****ed up country we live in. Boy acts like a twat. Cop uses new tactics to put him on his ass (or head in this instance). Cop potentially facing criminal charges and losing his job. 

 

We either want criminals dealt with or we don't. This middle ground bollocks gets us nowhere. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

That is where we differ, my definition of up to "us" would be it being actually up to us - ie the British courts or the British parliament - the example of Juncker being appointed was that, we said no, we got him anyway.

 

I don't know how abusive would be defined in this case, we would obviously have to argue a change of Prime Minister would constitute a bona fide reason to do it, if not and that was the route we wanted to go down I have no idea what the situation could be, I mean if we revoke article 50 and it's accepted can they even stop us doing it again?

 

I suppose an extension of it would be more likely. I don't think it affects the vote next week anyway, she's on course to lose it and to lose it quite heavily.

 

I don't imagine that they could stop us taking a democratic decision to give Article 50 notice again if they'd accepted revocation. But I reckon they'd refuse to accept revocation unless the new PM/Govt genuinely intended to stay in the EU.

 

If, say, Boris became Tory leader/PM after campaigning for a better Brexit deal, it's hard to imagine the ECJ seeing it as anything other than "abuse" if he then sought to revoke with the secret intention of improving the UK's negotiating position and preparations for No Deal. Hard to imagine, too, how he could get to be leader/PM while secretly concealing such devious plans from voters/MPs. 

 

There must be grey areas. It is theoretically possible that a genuine Remainer PM could take over, revoke Article 50 notice and then be deposed by a Brexiteer who then gave Article 50 notice a second time.....unlikely, though. 

 

I assume that any new PM with a plan for a fundamentally different sort of Brexit would have to apply for an extension, not revoke. That could happen and could be accepted by the EU27: e.g. if a new PM arrived with a mandate for a Brexit that involved staying in the SM and CU or for a Canada-type solution with an acceptable solution for the Irish border issue....difficult but not impossible, but extension not revocation would surely be the route?

 

Yes, I gathered that we differed as to whether democracy and judicial systems could validly exist beyond national boundaries and that you defined "us" in national terms. I'm no fan of either Juncker or May but accept that they were appointed by a valid majority at different institutional levels. Out of curiosity, do you accept the validity of other international institutions: e.g. International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, United Nations? Should Milosevic have been tried in Bosnia and not at The Hague? Should Bush & Blair be tried in Iraq and not at The Hague? Should the UK quit the UN (as a permanent member, we only have a national veto over security issues, I think)?

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

As much as I would have ordinarily wanted this court decision to go the other way. At least this guarantees Mays deal is killed. Remainers won’t back her and nor will Brexiteers and her threats of no deal/no brexit are empty.

That's the great thing about it.

 

May's deal is worse than everything, including remaining, less control than before and reliant on them letting us out of the contract, ironically I think it's about exactly what a pro-remain Labour party would have came back with had they won the election - it's absolutely imperative it's stopped.

 

53 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I assume that any new PM with a plan for a fundamentally different sort of Brexit would have to apply for an extension, not revoke. That could happen and could be accepted by the EU27: e.g. if a new PM arrived with a mandate for a Brexit that involved staying in the SM and CU or for a Canada-type solution with an acceptable solution for the Irish border issue....difficult but not impossible, but extension not revocation would surely be the route

 

Yes, I gathered that we differed as to whether democracy and judicial systems could validly exist beyond national boundaries and that you defined "us" in national terms. I'm no fan of either Juncker or May but accept that they were appointed by a valid majority at different institutional levels. Out of curiosity, do you accept the validity of other international institutions: e.g. International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, United Nations? Should Milosevic have been tried in Bosnia and not at The Hague? Should Bush & Blair be tried in Iraq and not at The Hague? Should the UK quit the UN (as a permanent member, we only have a national veto over security issues, I think)?

I still think that's more likely, extension rather than a revokal. The EU would surely have to be flexible in case of a new government no matter how pissed off they would be unless they want us to crash out on No Deal. The only problem I really perceive with this is surely we have to partake in the elections this year unless a new formal date of departure is agreed.

 

I'm happy with most of the International bodies mentioned as the decisions that they often take can't really be done any other way - a Serbian government could have blocked the trial of Milosevic under independent system, defence unfortunately is too important, organisations like NATO are necessary for so many countries on this continent and that's probably the best example of cooperation between European nations and the USA.

 

Completely different to an organisation that takes control of tariffs, trade etc which I've always thought should be the concerns of the individual nation state and no one else.

Edited 4 December 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

Already kicking off outside parliament

 

 

[Kopic]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46440172

 

A Met Police officer who knocked a teenager off a moped while employing a new ramming tactic could face criminal charges.

 

The boy later pleaded guilty to five offences at the youth court, including theft, dangerous driving, and driving without a licence.

 

What a ****ed up country we live in. Boy acts like a twat. Cop uses new tactics to put him on his ass (or head in this instance). Cop potentially facing criminal charges and losing his job. 

 

We either want criminals dealt with or we don't. This middle ground bollocks gets us nowhere. 

Haven't these new tactics only just come in though? The officer did that over a year ago meaning at the time it wasn't a useable tactic. I don't agree with the copper getting done, something needs to be done about these shitheads, but if at the time it wasn't a tactic then they don't have a choice.

[Alf Bentley]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I still think that's more likely, extension rather than a revokal. The EU would surely have to be flexible in case of a new government no matter how pissed off they would be unless they want us to crash out on No Deal. The only problem I really perceive with this is surely we have to partake in the elections this year unless a new formal date of departure is agreed.

 

I'm happy with most of the International bodies mentioned as the decisions that they often take can't really be done any other way - a Serbian government could have blocked the trial of Milosevic under independent system, defence unfortunately is too important, organisations like NATO are necessary for so many countries on this continent and that's probably the best example of cooperation between European nations and the USA.

 

Completely different to an organisation that takes control of tariffs, trade etc which I've always thought should be the concerns of the individual nation state and no one else.

 

I might be wrong, but I reckon the EU27 wouldn't see a new UK govt as grounds for an extension unless the new govt was seeking to negotiate a markedly different, potentially acceptable deal (e.g. Norway+ or Canada+ with Irish border resolved). If a new govt was just trying to renegotiate on the same basis as before but seeking better terms (e.g. no backstop), I can't imagine them agreeing to that.

 

Article here re. extension to/beyond European elections: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/can-the-uk-get-an-extension-on-brexit

That suggests there's a potential legal problem over extending beyond the elections without the UK taking part - UK citizens could sue the EU for denying them representation (). But some reckon that the Euro-elections could happen in the UK and an extension could be until mid-summer as the European Parliament doesn't sit before then. There'd surely have to be a new departure date if an extension were agreed.

 

The International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly make decisions beyond the limited fields of defence and criminal justice. The WTO is also an organisation that takes control of tariffs, trade etc. Would you like the UK to operate outside the WTO or to see the WTO disbanded?

 

I'm fascinated by your attachment to the nation state. Germany and Italy have only been nation states since about 1870, the UK since 1801, the USA had very different borders 150-200 years ago, not to mention all the fluctuating boundaries in the rest of Europe over the past 100 years. It's not as if the UK - or even England - are culturally homogenous entities.

 

Anyway, I'd better shut up as I'm straying well beyond "news". Maybe we need a thread on "national identity" some time, though I can't see that ending well.....arguments over May Day poles and Morris dancers would be the least of our worries. 

[Buce]

Gotta love the irony of a sovereign parliament 'taking back control'.

 

Brexit: Full legal advice to be published after contempt vote

 

The government will publish its full legal advice on Theresa May's Brexit deal after MPs found it in contempt of Parliament for not doing so.

The Commons supported a motion, backed by six opposition parties, demanding full disclosure, by 311 votes to 293.

Labour demanded the attorney general's advice should be released ahead of next Tuesday's key vote on Mrs May's deal.

In response Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom said the government "would respond" on Wednesday.

She told MPs she would refer the issue to Commons Privileges Committee to establish the decision's constitutional repercussions.

Commons Speaker John Bercow said it was "unimaginable" MPs would not now get to see the information before they decided whether to accept or reject the agreement with the EU.

• Kuenssberg: Parliament is 'taking back control'
• Parliament Live: MPs debate Brexit deal
• BBC pulls out of Brexit TV debate
• Mark D'Arcy: What contempt challenge means

An attempt by ministers to refer the whole issue, including the government's conduct, to the committee of MPs was earlier defeated by four votes.

The contempt vote move, which is believed to be unprecedented, came as Theresa May prepared to sell her Brexit agreement to MPs at the start of five days of debate on her EU agreement.

In other Brexit-related developments:

• The BBC said it had been unable to agree a format for a Brexit debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn following discussions with the parties
• The UK should be able to unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the EU, according to a top European law officer.
• MPs are now voting on a motion tabled by Tory MP Dominic Grieve which would give the Commons more of a say on what happens if Mrs May's deal is rejected

The Attorney General Geoffrey Cox published a summary of the advice on Monday and answered MPs questions for three hours - but said that full publication would not be in the national interest.

Labour had accused ministers of "wilfully refusing to comply" with a binding Commons vote last month demanding they provided the attorney general's full and final advice.

Following Tuesday's vote, the privileges committee will decide which ministers should be held accountable for this failure and what sanction to apply, with options ranging from a reprimand to a potential suspension from the House of Commons.

Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer said Tuesday's vote had "huge constitutional and political significance" and it was "unprecedented" for ministers to have been found in contempt.

Edited 4 December 2018 by Buce

[davieG]

The BBC has dropped plans to hold a Brexit debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, saying it "could not reach an agreement" on its proposal.

Both it and ITV offered to air a debate between the leaders on Sunday - two days before Parliament votes on Brexit.

But Labour had said the BBC's proposed format was a "mish-mash, with a lop-sided panel of other politicians and public figures" taking part.

No 10 said Labour's objections were "false and flimsy".

The BBC had wanted to include "a range of voices" in the programme, including members of other political parties, as well as a head-to-head between the leaders.

The Downing Street spokesman said: "We remain committed to holding a debate and will continue to press for a format that ensures a range of voices are heard alongside a substantial head to head."

[davieG]

Nigel Farage has quit UKIP, saying the party's leader Gerard Batten seems to be obsessed with Islam and ex-English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson.

Speaking on LBC radio, the former leader of the Eurosceptic party said he made the decision with a "heavy heart".

But he said he did not "recognise" the party any more and it was turning a blind eye to extremist politics.

Mr Batten survived a vote of no confidence on Monday, after he appointed Mr Robinson as an adviser.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, davieG said:

Nigel Farage has quit UKIP, saying the party's leader Gerard Batten seems to be obsessed with Islam and ex-English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson.

Speaking on LBC radio, the former leader of the Eurosceptic party said he made the decision with a "heavy heart".

But he said he did not "recognise" the party any more and it was turning a blind eye to extremist politics.

Mr Batten survived a vote of no confidence on Monday, after he appointed Mr Robinson as an adviser.

Could see this coming.

 

UKIP do now seem to be heading towards the far-right.

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

Could see this coming.

 

UKIP do now seem to be heading towards the far-right.

 

Heading? They are indistinguishable from the BNP already.

 

How much further can they go?

[bovril]

Farage has flounced more times than MattP from the politics thread. 

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

Heading? They are indistinguishable from the BNP already.

 

How much further can they go?

I can't even imagine how paranoid you would have to be to think that to be honest. 

 

The BNP had a rule outlawing non white people from its membership, it's policy on homosexuality was similar to Russia, it wanted to repeal all laws regarding hate speech and even at one point pursued the mothers cross idea that the Nazi's were so fond of. It's leader was someone convicted of denying the holocaust and it had members like David Copeland at one point.

 

If you can't see that as distinguishable from what was a right leaning Libertarian party founded on the ideas of David Nolan types I don't really know what else to say.

Edited 4 December 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I might be wrong, but I reckon the EU27 wouldn't see a new UK govt as grounds for an extension unless the new govt was seeking to negotiate a markedly different, potentially acceptable deal (e.g. Norway+ or Canada+ with Irish border resolved). If a new govt was just trying to renegotiate on the same basis as before but seeking better terms (e.g. no backstop), I can't imagine them agreeing to that.

 

Article here re. extension to/beyond European elections: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/can-the-uk-get-an-extension-on-brexit

That suggests there's a potential legal problem over extending beyond the elections without the UK taking part - UK citizens could sue the EU for denying them representation (). But some reckon that the Euro-elections could happen in the UK and an extension could be until mid-summer as the European Parliament doesn't sit before then. There'd surely have to be a new departure date if an extension were agreed.

 

The International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly make decisions beyond the limited fields of defence and criminal justice. The WTO is also an organisation that takes control of tariffs, trade etc. Would you like the UK to operate outside the WTO or to see the WTO disbanded?

 

I'm fascinated by your attachment to the nation state. Germany and Italy have only been nation states since about 1870, the UK since 1801, the USA had very different borders 150-200 years ago, not to mention all the fluctuating boundaries in the rest of Europe over the past 100 years. It's not as if the UK - or even England - are culturally homogenous entities.

 

Anyway, I'd better shut up as I'm straying well beyond "news". Maybe we need a thread on "national identity" some time, though I can't see that ending well.....arguments over May Day poles and Morris dancers would be the least of our worries. 

2

I think this comes down to the attachment to stability and the idea that tomorrow should be just like today tbh...like a lot of other parts of life. Fools errand, of course, life is change and anyone who tries to stop it usually ends up failing hard.

 

But yes, this is probably a discussion for another thread.

[urban.spaceman]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Already kicking off outside parliament

 

 

Didn’t he support an MP who threatened a journalist with a baseball bat the other day?

[Guest MattP]

Heard the "no one voted to make themselves poorer" line numerous times last night, from the usual suspects like Lucas and Soubry.

 

Again, it's just not true.

 

[Alf Bentley]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think this comes down to the attachment to stability and the idea that tomorrow should be just like today tbh...like a lot of other parts of life. Fools errand, of course, life is change and anyone who tries to stop it usually ends up failing hard.

 

But yes, this is probably a discussion for another thread.

 

Matt can speak for himself, obviously. Insofar as I understand his politics, though, I'm not sure "stability" would sum it up. He seems to favour some traditional social values (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with) and to oppose what he'd see as excessive immigration. But all the libertarian / free market values that he and others promote do not represent stability, so much as a continuation of a revolution - the laissez-faire, "markets know best" revolution that started in the 70s/80s.

 

I know what you mean - and "attachment to stability" probably applies more to some Brexit voters, mainly less political, less informed voters, I'd say. But they don't want things to be "like today", indeed they're very dissatisfied with how things are today. Some want today to be like yesterday, or even an imagined yesterday. That often doesn't apply to the more informed, political Brexit supporters, though - they foresee a bright new revolutionary post-Brexit future after their revolution has eliminated an unwanted stability. That's a heavy irony, because in practice Brexit really is a revolutionary project if the logic of a global, free-market, free-trade Britain is followed through.

 

To me, it logically leads to a Britain competing globally through low corporate taxation, low public spending, deregulation, elimination of workers' rights / environmental protection etc. I know some (including Brexiteers on the Left) believe that Britain could be successful post-Brexit through the genius of business being unchained and/or clever strategic investment by the state. I suppose that I'm just pessimistic about how clever either British business or the British state are - and they'd have to be cleverer than their competitors if, as a medium-sized nation, they want to compete successfully against major trading blocs like the EU, major economies like the USA & China, developing economies like India etc. Even if this "positive Brexit" is feasible, I'm also sceptical about the public having the patience to wait for it to come to fruition. People are already getting "bored with Brexit" after 2 years, yet such a revolutionary transformation of the UK might require 10-20 years before we saw any tangible benefits - with a lot of negatives in real lives in the meantime. Are people going to put up with that? Or are they going to vote in govts that promise instant improvements for them or that attack scapegoats, be that "benefits scroungers", "chav criminals", "illegal immigrants" etc? And how quickly could we end up with violent riots as in Paris or with someone like Tommy Robinson as a leading political figure?

 

As you can see, I'm an instinctive "reformist", as the Hard Left would spit at me, and naturally suspicious of revolutions - particularly this one, knowing that some of the leaders of Brexit are true believers in a laissez-faire, deregulated, low-tax, low-spend revolution, even if that isn't what a lot of Leave voters want....

[urban.spaceman]

 

[davieG]

28 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

They are also saying a Village called Wool should change it's name to Vegan Wool as it's detrimental to sheep yet I believe it's a derivation (?) of Well/Spring

 

https://news.sky.com/story/bah-d-idea-peta-asks-dorset-village-wool-to-change-name-to-vegan-wool-11561410