Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Duplicity

by Frank Schnittger Sun Oct 20th, 2019 at 10:14:07 PM EST

It is difficult to imagine a more insulting act by a head of government than to send a formal letter on headed notepaper purporting to come from his office and person, but omitting to sign it as a means of authenticating it. And then to send another signed letter saying something quite different.

It is the very essence of duplicity. You are either a democrat taking full responsibility for the acts of your office as mandated by your law and parliament or you are a worthless and untrustworthy operator.

In declining to respond anytime soon, the EU is actually acting with great restraint. It could have returned the unsigned letter to sender requesting due authentication by signature.


Many people have suggested, here and elsewhere, that the EU should put this whole sorry saga to an end, refuse to extend A.50, and focus on other more urgent and productive tasks.

But there is no need for the EU to concern itself unduly with Brexit (or the UK) from here on in. There is nothing stopping it focusing on other tasks while assigning some junior official to "Brexit watch" and liaising with the UK government.

The current paralysis is preferable to a no deal Brexit and is hurting the UK far more than it is hurting the EU. Far from putting the UK out of its misery, the EU should insist on a lengthy or even indefinite A.50 extension and just keep the UK dangling on a string until such time the UK has a coherent government, policy and parliament.

Nothing would annoy Boris more, and it puts the ball back firmly in the UK court.

The EU should disband Barnier's team as there can be no further re-negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement vers. 2.0. The UK should be consigned to limbo until such time as it makes a decision, "in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements" to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement, withdraw the A.50 notification, or exit without a deal.

Any attempts at being helpful will only be misconstrued as interfering in the internal affairs of a member state.

No further time should be wasted on Brexit at EU Council meetings, and the new incoming Commission should be focused on other matters - e.g. negotiating trade deals with countries that actually know what they want. EU heads of government should refuse to return Boris' calls, and certainly not visit 10 Downing Street, as seems to be the current de facto policy in any case.

The UK has dominated the EU agenda quite enough. This may be good for boosting Brexiteer's sense of self-importance, but it is doing nothing for the EU itself.

Preparations should continue for a no deal Brexit, with particular reference to helping those member states most effected, and reducing dependency on UK imports and exports for critical goods and services.

Indulging Brexiteers only encourages them in their sense of self -infatuation, narcissism, and expectation that they can negotiate a better "have cake and eat it" deal if only they hang tough for long enough. It legitimises their policies in domestic politics.

It is not the EU's job to help the UK resolve its internal contradictions. By sending an unsigned letter to the EU, Boris is also signalling that he is no longer a good faith actor on the international stage.

The EU has little option but to wait until it does have a UK government to deal with that can deliver on its commitments and which does not resort to shenanigans with the basic protocols and courtesies of international diplomacy.

Boris assured the EU Council that he could get his Withdrawal Agreement ratified, and it is now time to hold him to his word. If he cannot do so, it is time for him to resign and make way for someone who will.

But for so long as he continues to act without good grace he should not be favoured with so much as a reply. The Council should simply offer an indefinite A.50 extension - without bothering to meet again in formal session - and sit back and wait, all the while focusing on their own agenda and priorities.

Napoleon: Never interrupt your enemy while they are busy making a mistake...

Display:
is SCHEDULE FORM LETTER itself.

That is the work product of HoC with respect to EU Council, TEU, TEU A.50(3), and the Withdrawal Agreement laid before UK parliament not once but four (4) times. I was insulted a couple of weeks ago even tho' I am not a citizen of any EU member-state. Where were you? Still working out how Section 2.3 Report on progress of negotiations on the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union "lawfully" binds the EU to the "supreme law" of the UK, while HoC neither debates how to exit the TEU nor contemplates UK "customs union" preserved by an act to revoke A.50.

The trouble isn't one man. This trash epitomizes UK politicians' historic inability to function constructively as a state in domestic or international relationships.


European Union (Withdrawal)(No. 2) Act 2019

Prime Minister's letter to President Donald Tusk: 19 October 2019
This documentary evidence is what Scottish and Westminster courts will consider along with government "pledges" published by THE PRIME MINISTER AND ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND'S FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ON RELIEF and correspondence between T. May and EU Council President Tusk, establishing the acceptable format of requests for A.50(3) period between heads of state.

archived
A few first principles, last words from SCOTUK

Was the advice lawful?

55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons -and indeed to the House  of  Lords -for its actions,  remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister's action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the  constitutional role of [the Crown in] Parliament in holding the Government to account.

58.The next question is whether there is a reasonable justification for taking action which had such an extreme effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy. Of course, the Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in making decisions of this nature. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister's motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it. It will be apparent from the documents quoted earlier that no reason was given for closing down Parliament for five weeks.

I wouldn't turn my back on a one of them in broad daylight.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sun Oct 20th, 2019 at 11:49:39 PM EST
The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Which country are you talking about? Certainly not England....

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 06:05:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My sole objection to the "form letter" is that it was sent unsigned, which throws into doubt whether it has any legal effect whatsoever. You may welcome another sojourn to the courts to determine its efficacy and legality, I doubt many others do. Honourable leaders do not act in this way. Their word is their bond.

In extremis it casts doubt on the legality of any "request" from the UK for an extension, thereby casting doubt on the validity of any extension granted, and therefore whether the UK will, in fact and in law, still be a member of the EU, in good standing, after Nov. 1st.

Both the EU and the UK deserve better than this.

As for the second letter - to Donald Tusk - do not let its "palsy-walsy" and collegial language throw you off the scent of it's real intent: It is to negate the import of the first, and contains the veiled threat that any extension would damage the relationship between the UK and its EU "partners" - an echo of Dominic Cummings' threat that all talk of "sincere cooperation" would be "down the toilet," and that those Members who vote for  an extension would be "at the back of the queue" when it comes to future beneficial relationships with the UK.

At the moment the EU and UK are not "partners". The UK is one of the 28 constituent members of the EU. Whether there will be any meaningful "partnership" between the EU and UK post Brexit remains to be seen, and it will certainly not be one of equals. Neither will the UK get to determine what order in which EU member states get to enjoy the benefits of a relationship with the UK. The EU will negotiate as a bloc.

So I do not absolve Boris' Johnson for his part in this continuing debacle. An honourable person would have resigned if they found themselves unable to reconcile themselves to the will of Parliament. Neither would they, effectively, have washed the UK's dirty laundry on the international stage and exposed their EU "partners" to the legal uncertainties now gripping the UK. It's time for a grown up to represent the UK, and that is not Boris Johnson.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 08:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padfield_v_Minister_of_Agriculture

Johnson very clearly acted contrary to Padfield. The fact that it may - arguably - have made no difference is irrelevant, and the 1968 judgement makes it clear that this is a justiciable matter.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 09:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Padfield precedent may determine that the PM should have formally requested an A.50 extension in accordance with the Benn Act, but it gives us no guidance as to whether such a request, absent a signature, is valid in law. At the very least it creates an ambiguity all parties could do without; at worst it invalidates any extension granted and could result in the UK finding itself outside the EU, without a deal, against the clear will of Parliament and the laws it enacted.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 10:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It won't invalidate the extension, because Parliament is sovereign, and I'm sure the EU leaders understand that. It doesn't matter if the letter was handwritten by a toddler and decorated with dinosaurs or crocheted into a quilt.

If Johnson hadn't sent the letter it would have been sent by another Minister of the Crown, or by judges acting as same. Leaving the letter unsigned makes no difference whatsoever to the EU. The Benn Act made Parliament's intentions absolutely clear, and the EU leaders have responded to the intent, not the material form.

But it does affect Johnson's position. Because by flouting Padfield he wilfully attempted to undermine the wishes of Parliament. The judiciary are are constitutionally empowered to rule on this and possibly punish it.

It was a typical Johnson move - petulant, stupid, ineffectual, and potentially self-harming.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 11:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact Sir Tim Barrow (UK Permanent Representative to the EU) delivered SCHEDULE FORM LETTER with a 1p cover letter.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 03:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An unsigned letter is just so much toilet paper.
When one gets a US Security Clearance, one signs a form acknowledging that they understand that failure to comply is a felony. It's a felony regardless of the signature but you don't get the clearance without the signature. Because the felony is perjury becaus3e you signed an oath.
No one is bound by an unsigned letter that anyone could have written.
by StillInTheWilderness on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 03:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no idea what relevance US security clearance - do you have that security clearance, by the way? - has to EU diplomacy.

I understand diplomatic letters are sent and delivered unsigned all the time. In this case the letter was handed over in person by the UK's diplomatic representative, and the text in the letter is part of the Benn Act, which can be read here:

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

There is absolutely no chance it could have been sent by "anyone" or that it isn't an official diplomatic communication.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 08:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I used to when I worked for the US Navy.

It was just an example. Not particularly relevant since the UK has an Official Secrets Act. The USA does not which is why they rely on perjury or espionage charges to punish breaches.

Again, I have no UK experience but in 11 years with the US Navy I never saw an unsigned comm7unication, even a memorandum.  Even telgrams had the words "Signed by" and a name and title or the words "By order of" <military rank><name><title>. i.e. "By order of Rear Admiral Hugh Pixley COMSUBPAC"

But UK may be different.

by StillInTheWilderness on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 01:02:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Adding that the letter, delivered by diplomatic channels, is on the official notepaper of the Prime Minister of the UK.


Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 08:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As is typical, this melodrama attempts to place UK parliament and government ahead of events over which it has no control. Namely determination of A.50 instruments, procedures, and status determination, recommended by the EC, decided by the EP and EU Council: HoC admits no attention to that actual business and its documents.

A.50(2) removed UK from Council deliberations.

European Union (Withdrawal)(No. 2) Act 2019 is defective as a matter of law, even in the peculiar UK sense of those authorities called jurisdiction and sovereignty. HoC "sovereignty" in diplomatic business and war are "constitutionally" limited to "government.

This Padfield case is inapplicable. Controversy in Sessions or High courts concerns international relations, conduct, and advice of government for consent of HoC to the Agreement.

Second, a Padfield pleading would claim PM frustrated  acts of HoC to INTERDICT debate and litigation to enjoin THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT itself. Those acts obstruct consideration of the EU under the TEU, only parts of which UK is party. Which parts? Who cares? Better deal. Fuck the EU.

SCHEDULE FORM LETTER: No such instrument imposed by HoC on negotiation of A.50 action existed until 9 Sep 2019.

Three (3) prior PM requests for A.50(3) extension period were delivered in correspondence, a single  multi-page letter, to the EU Council President explaining the HoC legislative "progress" toward ratification--regretful absence thereof--of the Withdrawal Agreement. This format was successful.

SCHEDULE FORM LETTER created 9 Sep 2019 plainly does not offer equivalent consideration to the EU Council. Nor do detailed instructions the act require signature of the PM affixed to SCHEDULE FORM LETTER. Why? The HoC is legally, literally, and institutionally incompetent in jurisdiction of international law.

That's how Bliar got away with murder.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 02:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent review from link in Wikipedia ...

Brexit, Padfield and the Benn Act

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 10:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One thing that has come from this is that those of us who support the UK's continued membership have grown more entrenched. As somebody pointed out over the weekend, where else in Europe right now would 1 million people march in support of the EU? We remainers are probably the most committed supporters of the EU right now.

I think Tusk could make a good fist of arguing that Parliament is not the only expression of the will of the British people and that the winds aretide is against  leavers


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 08:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, the UK also has the biggest anti-EU movement in Europe, with most committed supporters too.

One of the biggest party entirely dedicated to Brexit, the Tories being largely pro-Brexit and a non insignificant part of Labour too.

Where is the pro-EU shadow cabinet? With the Lib-Dems?

by Bernard on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 08:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And yet these people do nothing - except generate obvious troll and astroturfing posts online.

They barely turn out to events. They don't have street stalls or meetings in significant numbers. A Leave march in London would be lucky to get a few thousand people.

A handful of them own some newspapers - so there's that.

Realistically, an absolute maximum of 25% of the population is anti-EU with any real fervour. That's not a small number, but I would surprised if the percentage of dedicated Remainers wasn't very significantly higher.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 08:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We cannot know for sure. Until a still elusive second referendum, of course.

The only things we can establish at this time is that they control the executive, a (relative) majority at the Parliament, and of course the tabloids.

by Bernard on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 06:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"They barely turn out to events. They don't have street stalls or meetings in significant numbers. A Leave march in London would be lucky to get a few thousand people."

Or ... maybe they don't have the kind of middle class jobs where you can easily get away whenever you feel like it? :)

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 01:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, what studies have been done indicate that they probably do. Certainly as much as Remain do, yet remain can get reasonably large protests a couple of times a year.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 02:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The "Benn Act" --faithfully reproduced and delivered--"authenticates" the SCHEDULE FORM LETTER and so-called parliamentary sovereignty.

Demands now by MPs for the signature of the PM is ludicrous, in theory as well as practice. "Duplicitous", if you will, because MPs and the tabloids have tossed their constituents farther into a delusion of getting a better EXIT DEAL for the UK --not Ireland/NI Protocol--from the EU which will not renegotiate the WA.

You're welcome.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 12:04:50 AM EST
What is the letterhead of the Speaker of Parliament? And why hadn't the "Benn Act" supplied the PM with SCHEDULE FORM LETTER printed on it?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 12:59:48 AM EST
Because the Benn Act required the PM to send the letter, not the Speaker of the HOC, who has no executive function in this matter, and who does not expect the courts to ask him to act in this manner.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 09:00:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

furthermore


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 12:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Act clearly requires the Prime Minister to send the letter, never mind what Bercow said he might do.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tell it Cherry QC.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cherry is no more germane to the matter than Bercow.

The question is what that Act required the PM to do, and what the PM did.

And, not without interest, what the reaction of the EU will be to what the PM did.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC | Court delays decision on Boris Johnson's Brexit tactics
On Monday, those behind the petition - SNP MP Joanna Cherry, businessman Dale Vince and QC Jolyon Maugham - asked for a further extension.
(1) DALE VINCEOBE; (2)JOLYON MAUGHAM QC; and (3)JOANNA CHERRYQC MP v. BORIS JOHNSON AND THE LORD KEEN OF ELIE (7 Oct)

[22] In passing, it may be noted that the 2019 Act says nothing about how the Prime Minister or the government should conduct the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement.

[23] It is perhaps also worth recalling that the government's conduct of the negotiations with the EU with the aim of reaching a withdrawal agreement is not a matter that is justiciable in the courts (R (Webster) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2019] 1 CMLR 8 per Gross LJ at para 20;  Re McCord (Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, unreported, 27 September 2019) per Morgan LCJ at para 127).
[...]
[55] In my opinion, the terms of the interdict are not sufficiently precise and clear(c.f. Murdoch vMurdoch 1973 SLT (Notes) 13). The wording in the prayer of the petition refers to "taking any action that would undermine or frustrate the will of the Union Parliament as enacted in (the 2019 Act)". In my view, this language is too broad.

[56] The same may be said in regard to other parts of the crave for interdict: for example, the reference to "encouraging (or causing to be encouraged) any other Member State ... either directly or indirectly to disagree with any proposed extension ..."
[...]
[58] Similarly, it is unclear why the proposed order refers to the letter of request having to be sent prior to 3.00 pm on 19 October 2019. That is not a requirement of the statutory provisions.

[59] I note also that the order sought would require the first respondent to "take all steps that shall be required in order to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ..."  This goes beyond what the first respondent is obliged to do under the 2019 Act.
[...]
[60] At the hearing Mr O'Neill asked for consideration of heads (iii) and (iv) of the prayer to be "held over". I am not persuaded that this unusual step would be appropriate. I have concluded that the petitioners have not made out their case based on reasonable apprehension of breach of statutory duty.For the reasons I have set out, I am not prepared to grant either of the orders for which the petitioners moved at the hearing. Insofar as the petitioners elected not to move for any other heads of the prayer to be granted, they must be taken not to have insisted on those aspects of the petition. The court's practice isto dispose of a case brought by a petition under Chapter 14 at a hearing on the petition and answers. Such a hearing is not, in any sense, an interim one.

[61] Accordingly, I shall sustain the Advocate General's fourth and fifth pleas-in-law and refuse the petition.

Their lawyer, Aidan O'Neill QC, described the manner in which the second letter was sent by Mr Johnson as "unusual". He told the three judges that it was "not entirely in accordance with undertakings which were given to this court" and said it was "sailing close to the wind".

"Unusual" compared to what?  A letter from Prime Minister Theresa May to European Council President Donald Tusk, 20 Mar? Or A letter from Prime Minister Theresa May to European Council President Donald Tusk, 5 April?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JOLYON MAUGHAM (APPELLANT) for SUSPENSION AND INTERDICT, 18 Oct
[2] The interim orders sought by the petitioner were in the following terms: "(i)to suspend ad interim the purported agreement which is said by the United Kingdom government to have been concluded between it and the European Union and the United Kingdom government, on the basis that this agreement provides for Northern Ireland to form part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain; and

(ii)for interdict ad interim against Ministers of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom including the Prime Minster (and anybody acting on their behalf or at their request) from entering into arrangements under which Northern Ireland is to form part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain".
[...]
[8] The petitioner argue that what the Protocol seeks to do is to create what Mr O'Neill QC described as an overlapping Venn diagram in which Northern Ireland is at one and the same time both a part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and a part of the customs territory of the European Union. By contrast, the island of Great Britain will, post-Brexit, form a part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, but the island of Great Britain will no longer form a part of the customs territory of the European Union.

[9] Mr O'Neill drew attention to section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018("the 2018 Act").  This provides as follows:"55 Single United Kingdom customs territory (1)It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty's Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.(2)For the purposes of this section `customs territory' shall have the same meaning as in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947 as amended."
[...]
[14] Mr Moynihan contended that against the background of this statutory framework it was clearly a matter for Parliament to address its own mind to the terms of the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

[15] Mr Moynihan also submitted that the effect of an interim order for suspension would be to prevent the responsible minister from making to Parliament the statements required by the Withdrawal Acts. The agreement would have been declared void and there would be nothing that could lawfully be laid before Parliament. The remedies sought would amount to a manifest interference with the proper processes and procedures of Parliament and would prevent legitimate debate in Parliament about the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.
[...]
[21] The issues which the court must address at this stage are (i) whether the petitioner has a prima facie case and (ii) where the balance of convenience lies.

[22] In my opinion, the petitioner does not have a prima facie case.  In the first place, the petition is of very doubtful competency.  The orders sought would unquestionably interfere to a major extent with the proposed proceedings in Parliament.  Suspension of the draft withdrawal agreement would mean that the motion for its approval could not realistically or properly go ahead as planned. I cannot see that it would be right for Parliament to be invited to consider a draft treaty which the court had suspended on the basis that it was unlawful. It is a cardinal principle of constitutional law that the courts should not intrude on the legitimate affairs and processes of Parliament. I consider that it should be left to Parliament to proceed in relation to the draft withdrawal agreement in the manner and according to the procedures that Parliament considers most appropriate in the circumstances.  

[23] Secondly, I consider that the petitioner's legal argument as to the incompatibility of the draft withdrawal agreement with section 55 of the 2018 Act is at best a weak one. The starting point, in my opinion, is the clear declaration in article 4 of the draft Protocol. That statement is closely aligned with the definition of a "customs territory" contained in Article XXIV of GATT. The petitioner has placed nothing before the court by way of evidence, averment or oral submission to show that in future Northern Ireland's trading and customs arrangements will not qualify and fall to be treated as amounting to a "customs territory" in the manner envisaged in the draft Protocol.
[...]
[26] For all these reasons, I conclude that the petitioner's applications for interim orders are misconceived and unjustified.  They have no or at best a weak prima facie case. The balance of convenience comes down firmly on the side of refusing to make the orders. I shall accordingly refuse the petitioner's motion insofar as it seeks interim orders.

[27] I shall order intimation and service of the petition and appoint answers to be lodged within 7 days.

I suspect, Maugham and Cherry won't be flapping their lips about this calumny on behalf of a sovereign parliament this week. Maybe BLACK TUESDAY?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At one time here, Cat, someone would have asked you to rein yourself in and show some respect for other posters. Someone might have said you have hi-jacked this thread with multiple posts containing long excerpts that could very easily have been linked to instead. Someone might also have said that it is not easy to understand what you are saying.

Seriously, who the fuck wants to get into a discussion that has been wallpapered over in this fashion?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 04:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fine.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Insofar as your comment is also directed at current frontpagers/moderators, I have to say your point is well made. I am currently extremely constrained in terms of the amount of time I can devote to blogging, and so I am restricting myself to a narrow range of topics. If I cannot understand a comment, or understand how it relates to the diary or other comments, my current practice is simply to ignore it - unless I perceive it to be offensive in some way.

If someone wants to start a different conversation, fine, but I would prefer if they did so by writing their own diary - preferably with an intro/summary which gives an overview of the argument being made, and which encourages others to engage. I am not and have no ambition to be a legal scholar and confront matters of law only where they directly impinge on political developments, however there is no reason why the  European Tribune cannot support support separate legal conversations for those who wish to engage in them.


Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it wasn't aimed at current moderators/frontpagers, though I can see how it might be read that way. I don't think anyone has time these days (time's speeding up, folks!) to spend moderating. That's why it's important posters are self-disciplined, if they think the exchanges here are worthwhile.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 08:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I keep enough of an eye to make sure we're not going to be clearly sued into oblivion but beyond that ... there's little comment worth making on Brexit, which is mostly proceeding as I expected. Though I have absolutely no clue what the outcome will be.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 10:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Though I have absolutely no clue what the outcome will be.

Which proves your point that it's proceeding as expected.  A chaotic system with chaotic attractors.

by rifek on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 11:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Varadkar rules out further EU concessions to help Johnson win DUP support for deal

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 05:10:03 AM EST
Scottish judges delay ruling in Boris Johnson contempt of court case
Scottish judges have delayed a final ruling on whether Boris Johnson is in contempt of court to ensure he agrees to an extension to Brexit.

Lord Carloway, the country's most senior judge, said they needed to be sure the prime minister did not try to block or sabotage the application he was forced to make on Saturday night for an extension to Brexit until 31 January.

The court's decision, issued after a short hearing at the court of session in Edinburgh, means Johnson faces being held in contempt if judges rule he has failed to honour pledges made to court not to frustrate the extension process.

The Scottish Court retains the option to take further action. The question is how long they will wait to do so. Waiting until October 28 could risk a crash out Brexit if 'greased piglet' BoJo tries another trick. Perhaps the court feared being precipitate.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 at 03:57:55 PM EST
EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. 115 pp
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Delegated Powers Memorandum. 104 pp
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Explanatory Notes. 122 pp
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill is required to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement, as agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and implement the Agreements (EU, EEA EFTA and Swiss) in domestic law. This Bill ensures that the United Kingdom is able to fulfil its international obligations, and leave the European Union with a deal.

Explainer: what happens now in UK's parliament?
Tue, 22 Oct
  • 2nd reading
  • Programme motion
Tue - Thur, 22-24 Oct
  • Committee stage
  • Report stage
  • 3rd reading
Fri, 25 +n Oct
  • Lords, amendments
  • Commons, approval


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 08:59:32 AM EST
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:11:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The HoC seems to agree with me..

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Department for Exiting the European Union unloaded fourteen (14) more documents (supplements, reading aids, "executive summaries") overnight.

  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill ECHR Memorandum
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Impact Assessment
  • Regulatory Policy Committee opinion on the Impact Assessment of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Overview
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Citizens' rights
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Northern Ireland
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Implementation period
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Finance Authority
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - EEA EFTA Separation Agreement
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Swiss Citizens' Rights Agreement
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Workers' Rights
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Parliamentary Oversight of Withdrawal
  • EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Other Separation Issues

HoC "bluff" has been called.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 09:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have read the "EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Northern Ireland" and find it a somewhat tendentious summary of the main provisions relating to northern Ireland but providing no insight into the actual operation of the more controversial elements of it. I'm not sure if the intent is to elucidate or obscure - my suspicion is very much the former.

I also don't understand how this document calls the HoC's bluff on anything, and especially on on N. Ireland - the major point of difference between Boris' and Theresa's Withdrawal Agreements.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which version of T. May's "deal"? The bad, bad, BAD one with "bluster" or the one without?



Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am aware of only one Withdrawal Agreement negotiated between the May government and the EU. The bluster is an optional extra offered mainly by Boris...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 10:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Reality Bites
Asked what constituted a "reasoned request" he said, "I will not venture into a typology on what a reasoned request would be. I would simply state the obvious that a reasoned request is a request based on a reason."
independent.ie | BREAKING: New Brexit offer on table as EU presents Britain with unilateral way out of the backstop
"We were and remain happy to apply the backstop to Northern Ireland only if they want to go back to that," he said.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 01:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... This impasse cannot be allowed to continue. In the UK it is creating and doing damage to faith in politics, while the European Union has a legitimate desire to move on to decisions about its own future. That is why the Government has decided to take further action to seek a consensus across the House of Commons on the right way forward.

The Government's policy has always been and remains to leave the European Union in an orderly way, and without undue delay. The House of Commons has not thus far approved the deal ...

blah blah etc.

T. May, A letter from Prime Minister Theresa May to European Council President Donald Tusk, 5 April. THREE (3) PAGES

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 01:31:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
RECALLING that the Joint Report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal from the European Union of 8 December 2017 outlines three different scenarios for protecting North-South cooperation and avoiding a hard border, but that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed,


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 02:16:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Delegated Powers Memorandum, pp 14-15
  • Clause 21 (inserts new section 8C  into the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018)
  • New section 8C(1) confers a power on a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement New section 8C(6) places a duty on a Minister of the Crown to define the term 'qualifying Northern Ireland goods'
  • A  power to implement the Protocol on  Ireland/Northern Ireland. A duty to define the term 'qualifying Northern Ireland goods'
  • Draft affirmative procedure where a statutory instrument [SI] under new section 8C(1) amends, repeals or revokes primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation; [...]

Brochure
EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Fact Sheet - Northern Ireland
It replaces the ["]backstop["] provisions  in the old Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by the former Prime Minister and rejected by Parliament with a system whereby Northern Ireland remains aligned with EU regulations on goods (including certain laws for VAT on goods).

No tariffs will need to be paid on goods moving from GB to NI, which are not at risk of moving to the EU. Thus the Protocol applies EU tariffs in Northern Ireland except for movements within the single customs territory of the United Kingdom.



Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 02:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Still wallpapering I see.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 03:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 03:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Calm down everybody
by asdf on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 03:13:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 05:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Long ago on ET, recommendations for good usage were written into a document called the ETiquette.

Up above there, there's a link to something called the User Guide. Under the heading What are the rules there's a link to The ETiquette.

With your penchant for exhaustively reading legal docs, Cat, I'm sure you've studied this one. But just in case you missed it, here's a brief excerpt:

...on European Tribune, we expect to read thought-through arguments, and expect people to be ready to dig up evidence to support their claims. Doing so won't ensure agreement between opposed sides, but at least people are more likely to take each other seriously. By evidence, we don't mean linkdumps or long quotes from webpages and nothing else -- if you reference something, you are expected to at least point out how you think it is relevant and why you think the source is authoritative.

The main point is "thought-through arguments". Applies to everyone.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 08:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's that?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 05:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oui's comments on OTHER PEOPLES' DIARIES are usually quite respectful.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 01:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Johnson obtained a first-reading majority for his legislation, thanks to the DUP. Then:

All he had to do next was win approval for his accelerated timetable, one that would cram line-by-line scrutiny of a 110-page bill giving legal effect to a 585-page withdrawal agreement, into 48 hours. For a few fleeting, clammy-palmed moments, it seemed as if he might pull it off. The naysayers of the DUP remained in their seats. Did that mean they were they going to abstain, thereby handing Johnson a second win?

It did not.

The HoC refused to be railroaded into passing that legislation without effective scrutiny, as Johnson wished. The legislation is now stalled and Johnson can do nothing but wave his arms. I don't see where the bluff is.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 07:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"I will in no way allow months more of this. If parliament refuses to allow Brexit to happen and instead gets its way and decides to delay everything until January or possibly longer, in no circumstances can the government continue with this. And with great regret, I must say the bill will have to be pulled and we will have to go forward to a general election," he [Johnson]  said.

Ooh, ooh, thrilling stuff.

Except that a general election is out of his hands, so it's pure bluster.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 03:42:21 PM EST
In one way I agree with Boris - the Brexit issue has to be resolved one way or another sooner rather than later. Either the HoC approves this deal, or it votes for an election or a second referendum.

If they choose a second referendum it is up to Boris to hold it. If he refuses, or they lack confidence in his good faith ability to organise it fairly they have to vote no confidence in him and confidence in an alternative PM who will organise it.

If they don't want Corbyn they will have to find an alternative caretaker PM who will command a majority in the House. Assuming Corbyn won't support an alternative PM, they will have no option but to vote confidence in him.

It's make your mind up time. What is it they really want, and what is the least worst option they will settle for? Adults make hard choices, children whinge that they want it all, and then some. It's time for everyone concerned to grow up and earn their corn.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 at 04:15:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"It's time for everyone to..." Those always seem to me fairly incantatory grounds for making a major decision. I think there's every reason for the Opposition to bide their time and use their control of the general election agenda.

Corbyn may believe he knows how to campaign on other (vital) issues than Brexit, but the Brexit and anti-Parliamentary noise Johnson and Demonic Cummings can drum up at the moment will, I fear, drown his voice. No election should be held yet, that Johnson can come out of with a comfortable majority (and an agreement with the Brexit Party would be perfectly on the cards in order to ensure that). What we are not thinking much about is how he would use it over five years. Legislation to hobble Parliament (rather than reform it) and increase the power of the executive with plebiscitary backing would imo be the minimum.

So yes, a caretaker government is to be wished for, but the potential parties to it cannot or will not agree. Until they do, leaving the organisation and framing of an eventual referendum in Johnson & Demonic's hands would be utter folly, the result would be a greater manipulation even than 2016.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 07:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Labour frontbenchers discussed the timing of a potential election at a testy shadow cabinet meeting on Tuesday, with Corbyn loyalists Laura Pidcock and Dan Carden calling for the party to back an early poll.

Carden told colleagues the "referendum first" approach espoused by some of his colleagues was a fantasy, which wouldn't win a majority in parliament and which the government would anyway refuse to implement.

The deputy leader, Tom Watson, has argued publicly that it would be better for Labour to settle the issue of Brexit in a referendum and then contest a general election on a wider set of issues.

At the shadow cabinet meeting, the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, clashed with colleagues over Labour's stance on a second referendum.

So Corbyn wants an early election. On his head be it.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 09:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My working assumption has always been that Corbyn is calling for a general election because he has to, as Leader of the Opposition, but that his call is essentially a bluff, because, as you say, Boris would likely win it.

The bluff is directed not at Boris, but at all those Independents and rebels who, along with Jo Swinson, would probably lose their seats if an election were called now, and to force them to support him as caretaker PM in order to avoid it.

For it to be fully effective he must wait until the drama has played out and we are at the point, post extension, of where the HoC is actually due to vote for it, either by two thirds majority or approaching 14 days after a VONC in Boris.

Then the choice will be clear. Either a caretaker government is formed or we have an election that Boris is well placed to win. If it happens before a second referendum, that means a relatively hard Brexit.

Which do they hate more, a hard Brexit or Corbyn as caretaker PM for up to 6 months with the sole mandate of organising a referendum on Boris' deal versus Remain?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 09:10:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Partly that, but I think Corbyn mostly believes in his political message. Remember, he supported a new election in 2017 when everything pointed towards May winning a much bigger victory than Johnson's lead now.
by fjallstrom on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 10:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a far more dangerous game than stringing things along.  It means Corbyn believes he has the pulse of both MPs and the electorate, and that is just delusional because no one has either.  No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, but the current chaos transcends that by about three standard deviations.  Better to give this large-mouth bass all the line and let him run himself out.  If Corbyn insists on reeling in now, he's only admitting he doesn't know how to play the line or he has no line to run.  And both of those are a tacit admission he doesn't have the tools to pull off a direct confrontation such as an election either.  Proceeding straight to a direct confrontation would therefore lead to a bad end.
by rifek on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 11:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that Parliament, and by extension, Corbyn, are increasingly being blamed for the current paralysis, with Boris being given a pass for at least trying to "get Brexit done". I suspect the electorate, including many remain voters, will punish anyone deemed responsible.

Never mind that it is not the job of the Leader of the Opposition to provide a PM with a majority he doesn't otherwise have. Never mind that Corbyn is trying to straddle a Leave/Remain divide in his own party and has the petty hatred of the rest of Parliament to contend with.

Corbyn may be playing an astute game tactically, but strategically he is losing the war, unless he can change the game somehow, and in my view, that means organising a second referendum.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 08:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Seems to me that "unless he can change the game somehow" is exactly what is going on. A new election would not be the traditional Labour vs Conservative contest, it would be a Brexit vs Euro contest with crossover support from both of the traditional parties. Currently the party structures are not set up to support this new alignment (maybe LibDem is), which is why (if you ask me) an election will not solve anything.

The more interesting question is what will the party lineup be after the Brexit or non-Brexit decision is finally taken (if we are still alive to see it). The Workers do not seem to be very enthusiastic about taking on The City at this point, so maybe the new alignment, or maybe even a third alignment, might persist--and the Labour and Conservative parties thrown onto the ash heap permanently.

by asdf on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 02:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason for my use of an "incantatory" phrase is my perception that the argument for Brexit is gaining ground not for any intrinsic merit, but because even many Remain voters are so fed up with it they just want it done and dusted. It's sad that this should become a winning argument and I have no difficulty with Corbyn frustrating it. But either way it could well drive a Boris victory unless a second referendum provides a means of ending the paralysis. It is also a dreadful precedent for all kinds of fascist policies in the future - "the people are fed up with immigrants taking their jobs"...etc.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 09:39:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Based on the observation that Remain Conservatives seem willing to do literally anything except let Corbyn be PM--which makes zero sense because he would be temporary in any case--it seems to me that if there is an election and the choices are Labour/Corbyn or Conservative/Johnson (or LibDem/useless-person-why-don't-they-get-how-third-parties-screw-things-up) then Johnson would win, probably with an actual majority.

If things seem bad now, imagine five years of Johnson running a party with a majority in Parliament.

by asdf on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 02:23:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still have the feeling that the LibDems are Remain's worst enemies. If they don't manage to coup Corbyn or keep brexit going they end up with nothing to offer. I'd imagine the ex-Tories are more likely to spite-vote Corbyn in(since politics is anyway an extension to Eton games to them).
by generic on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 03:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The danger is that a stint in power would make Corbyn look like a potential PM. The entire strategy against him has been to make him look unacceptable, which he is useless at countering. When he's been PM for  a few weeks without the world ending that strategy may fail.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 07:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A request for information. Did Boris get something passed in parliament yesterday? And if so, what?

I know UK can't leave with a deal until the EP has voted on it, so extension or crash out it still is, but what did parliament approve?

by fjallstrom on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 06:01:44 AM EST
Follow the link in my comment above for a good discussion.

Takeaway: Johnson didn't get much. The legislation is stalled.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 07:49:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They moved it on far enough to start making amendments to it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 08:00:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
lords eu exit regs

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 04:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why troll-rate?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 08:00:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
henry viii clauses identified in EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill Delegated Powers Memorandum

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 04:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why troll-rate?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 08:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ET User Guide
What are comment ratings and how should I use them?
...

2 is rarely used. It may be used as a warning for comments that are unnecessarily aggressive, personal or disruptive in their tone.

1 is used to rate a comment "trollish", i.e. appears calculated to provoke angry reactions, is grossly aggressive or insulting, or really inappropriate. Even more rarely used than 2.

"Down" ratings should never be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment.

by Bernard on Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 07:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by generic on Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 11:40:59 AM EST
This is all getting a bit circular

A change from the usual pear shape I suppose

The EU will delay its decision on the length of the Brexit extension until next Monday or Tuesday after France piled pressure on MPs ahead of a vote on Boris Johnson's demand for a pre-Christmas general election.
During a meeting of EU diplomats, the French ambassador stood alone in arguing that it was not the right time to agree a three-month delay, in a move that will be welcomed in Downing Street.
Only after the vote on Monday should the EU decide to "go short, to push for ratification, or long to privilege a general election", the ambassador told the other member states, according to a diplomatic note.

So...
Parliament gets to decide between :

  • Boris's election before Christmas
  • Hard Brexit at Halloween

Looks like Macron's got Boris's back.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 02:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Somebody's got to be the bad guy"
~ my Robert, when I chastised him for disciplining the four-year-old who wouldn't talk to her grandfather over the phone.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 03:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Bernard on Sat Oct 26th, 2019 at 09:32:26 AM EST
Does that mean Leavers leave England if they lose a second referendum?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Oct 26th, 2019 at 12:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They could go to Saint Helena.
by Bernard on Sat Oct 26th, 2019 at 05:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Oct 26th, 2019 at 06:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe NI.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Oct 26th, 2019 at 10:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I doubt they will be very welcome there after the way they were betrayed by Boris and his Brexiteers...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Oct 27th, 2019 at 02:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Voters' disillusionment renders expected election tough to call  Guardian
Sitting around a table in a community centre 15 miles north of London, the leave group went first and showed sheer fatigue at the thought of another election as well as disdain for the two main political parties....One woman rushed to say: "Because Labour and the Conservatives are so split, I would find anybody who feels passionately about Brexit - and most people do - would feel themselves drawn to vote Liberal Democrat, or the Brexit party."She said that would create a situation of people backing political parties they know very little about in terms of their domestic policies. "This is why we've got to get this issue out the way before we go to an election," she added. (My bold)
This from a Leave supporter.

While being downbeat about an election, participants of the leave group were surprisingly tolerant of a second referendum - normally the preserve of a remain voter.

On whether there should be a public vote with Johnson's deal or remain on the ballot paper, three of the eight said they wouldn't mind that as an option.

The bleak outlook on another election did not improve in the remain group either. A young man said: "If you want another vote it's the lesser of two evils [compared to a second referendum] but it's a waste of time."

If Leave voters are resigned to a 2nd Referendum Labour should give them that option. It seems likely that Remain would win.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Oct 26th, 2019 at 06:26:06 PM EST
"Remain" wins nothing unless the HoC first legal binds the outcome of the plebicite to an act of parliament.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Oct 29th, 2019 at 06:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries