Err, why?

Come on Tim, to ask the question is to answer it 🙂

Professional cvnt.

Be funny if he was made the subject of a civil restraint order*.

*Basically means he’s a vexatious litigant allowed nowhere near the court.

It does hearten me that this is not the behaviour of the side thats winning.

@Rob

See also “we must stop Boris forcing us to leave with No Deal”… “oh no, there’s a Deal now, we must stop Boris giving Parliament the chance for us you leave with one!” There’s a logical consistency though, it’s the leaving that upsets them. The No Deal stuff being a convenient bogeyman.

On the night that Parliament rejected May’s Deal for the first time, I was nearby enough that I could hear the protestors going wild with joy the moment the result came in. The small hard-core group of Brexiteers were deliriously celebrating that we would be out of the EU with No Deal in a matter of months and there was d nothing the Remainers could do about it. They had a “Brexit’s on fire, Remainers are terrified” march/conga through the street. They were delusional. The Remainers, tens of thousands of them, were chanting for a People’s Vote (not sure why the last one didn’t count, except I suppose for the inconvenience that they lost it) and saw May’s huge defeat as a sign that Brexit would have to be abandoned as Parliament would not back leaving the EU. We may shortly see whether they were delusional too. But at least they’re no longer being afforded the camouflage of “Anti-No Deal” activists. From this point on they’re pretty clearly Anti-Brexit.

Mug-funded

Big “new” shiny deal done.

Obviously it’s May’s deal warmed up.

Happy days.

@MyBurningEars – We all have our delusions, mostly about how “It will be different this time”, but it never is. For all of the yarking and shouting about “This is the deal”, but it still gives too much to the EU and similarly, but for different reasons the EU thinks it is giving too much away to the UK. In a sense, they are both right.

So, I’m still expecting this “deal” to get derailed as well, partly by the likes of Jolyon Maugham who just wants to make a quick buck and virtue signal about how pro-EU they are. No doubt the DUP and at least some of the Brexiteers will find it unacceptable for reasons of diluting the Union.

I’m not expecting this deal to pass any more than I was expecting Treason May’s deal to pass, since the fundamental problem remains a Parliament which would really like to repudiate BRExit in it’s entirety, but can’t actually come out and say that because they would lose their seats.

Just because the deadline is looming and people are animated about “Getting a deal”, I still think the chances of leaving the EU on 31st October without a deal are slightly better than evens at 13-to-12.

Drunker now says no extension. So they have to revoke/attempt a coup or pass the deal..

No Deal is the only other choice.

I don’t think they have the balls for one and two. And I don’t think the majority would be too upset about emergency powers being used to stop them.

A VONC needs 14 days tho’ some say they can form a govt on day one. But it would be a Govt with “Fuck Democracy” as its first policy and “We are the masters cos we know best” as its second. Nor do they have the Project-Fear-No-Deal-means-the-end-of-the-World routine to fall back on any longer. No one believed it–not even them–but it was a fig leaf for their evil. Now it has gone.

Being against the deal before you know what’s in it is comparable to being in favor of the impeachment of Trump though we are well into our third year of trying to figure out what the High Crimes were.

Anyone who believes that the EU wouldn’t pass another extension if it suited them, no matter what Junker says, is a fool.

The EU lies and deceives all the time. Taking what they say at face value is criminally stupid.

MPs (those that haven’t already given up hope of hanging on to their seats, anyway) suddenly become democrats when an election looms. Those who reject the Boris deal in the hope of leaving without a deal should be concerned that there is only a small minority of public support for this position (I wish this weren’t the case, but it is). Similarly those who reject the deal in the hope that we will remain (or at least get a second referendum) are aware that this is also a minority position with the public.

So I expect to see a lot of MPs resiling from their previously held positions and voting in favour (or, at least, abstaining).

It will be if the EU says no more extensions – this deal or no deal.

BiND, I was being sarcastic with my “happy days”. This “deal” is just Brexit in name only. The EU is properly delighted with it. They’re saying no more extensions with the purpose of bouncing enough MPs into voting for it.

Still hoping for an accident to let us slip out unhindered on the 31st, but worry this steaming turd might actually get the votes on Saturday.

Surely, the best outcome would be to accept whatever deal the fat boy’s negotiated. Sign the treaty & leave. Election. New government resiles on the treaty & we’ve got no deal. Then negotiate a new one from the position of being in the driving seat. Great thing about international law is, precedent shows you only have to abide by it if it suits you.

@Jim

Surely this now means that we either get the Boris deal or No deal? If Parliament votes down the Boris deal on Saturday, then thats up to them, but Boris has complied with the Benn Act. The UK has negotiated a deal with the EU before the 19th, ergo no letter of extension is needed. The Remainers were so sure he wouldn’t get one, they forgot to state what should happen if he did get a deal.

Don’t think this is correct. If parliament votes down the deal then to comply with the Benn Act, the PM still ostensibly needs to send an extension letter. Your mistake is “The Remainers were so sure he wouldn’t get one, they forgot to state what should happen if he did get a deal.” There is no such hole. The Benn Act says that a deal is passed then the job’s done and obviously no extension letter is required, but if there isn’t (and that could be either because no deal between the government and EU could be agreed in time, or because it failed to get parliamentary approval) then the PM needs to reach for his fountain pen.

That’s my understanding of the Benn Act at least, and is explicitly supported by this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50084090

“This “deal” is just Brexit in name only.”

Why do you say that? We are out of the Customs union, out of the Single market (except for NI in certain items). There is no mention of being under the ECJ, and an explicit undertaking to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement by end of next year. And no backstop either, so if the EU won’t give us the FTA then we’re already out and fall back on No deal terms. The only way this becomes BRINO is if the next election puts a BRINO Parliament in. And if that happens then we’ll have voted for it so we can’t complain. If this was BRINO why are all the Remainers so set against it?

17 October 2019

New Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and Political Declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU.
Three Documents

.
Box Episode 11: the darkest day for our democracy
43 minutes ago

Boris Johnson’s Brexit address in Brussels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7644yI7VM

Donald Tusk on how new Brexit deal helps to ‘avoid chaos’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoNWS8VRkvU

imo if Tusk likes it, it’s a Bad Deal for UK – the search for poison pills begins

I expect there is a lot of ambiguity/word-play where ECJ will rule in favour of EU

.
One positive:

Juncker told BBC and Sky this morning – Deal agreed, no further prolongation

He wants Brexit finished with or without deal before he stands down

@Tim W

“Err, Why?”

To prevent Brexit

.
@MBE October 17, 2019 at 4:53 pm

Para 2 +1

@Jim October 17, 2019 at 5:43 pm

Benn Act: “if no deal agreed by Parliament, then…”

@bis October 17, 2019 at 5:52 pm

A future Gov’t could unilaterally rescind an International Treaty, but then international trust damaged

@Gamecock October 17, 2019 at 6:53 pm

Agree – a “deal” is not required to leave

Would be interesting to Boris declare this a free vote for conservatives, no whips and ask the other parties to do the same.
Seems after all the hand wringing over the 21 sacked Tory rebels the idea that Labour MPs might rebel and support the deal has already lead to deselection threats

Whilst I’d be happy with no deal that really isn’t going to happen this year, if ever, and the disruption and uncertainty is getting very expensive. Do you want to push for Brexit purity and risk no Brexit?

There’s a good leader in the Spectator:

Boris Johnson’s deal is the opposite to that struck by Theresa May in that the more you look at it, the better it seems. Legally, we would leave the European Union at the end of this month. There follows a transition period: 14 months, rather than 21 months (ie, until the end of next year). Thereafter, the UK would have control over its borders, its waters, its farms and more. You can search in vain in the pages of the agreement for hidden nasties. There had been talk that France wanted access to British fish: there is no such concession. There are others, but not new ones. We continue to pay quite a lot of money, but the sum goes down quickly and we should save at least £70 billion over the next decade. Money that could be put to better use redressing the effects of a globalisation that has made London too powerful relative to the rest of the country.

The biggest concession, on our part, is that Northern Ireland can stay in an all-Ireland economy and would follow EU regulations on agriculture and industrial goods. But it also stays part of the UK Customs Union, meaning a two-border system with the UK/Northern Ireland regulatory border fairly lightly patrolled. Crucially, it can opt out of the all-Ireland system by means a simple majority vote in Stormont. So the backstop has gone: the Prime Minister has executed the “backstop-ectomy” that he promised. Democratic control stays in the UK, albeit under our devolved system. There is no unionist veto on the Stormont vote, to the dismay of the DUP. But to agree to Belfast’s control took a big concession from Leo Varadkar, the Taoiseach, who deserves credit in moving so quickly in the end. The deal was made possible by genuine and significant compromise, from all sides.

As for the DUP, their staunch unionists while it suits them but want their own rules when it doesn’t eg gay marriage and abortion.

Unless Parliament takes over and passes another surrender act.

Back to title subject

“…Mr Maugham claims that if the court finds the proposed agreement is unlawful the government would be obliged to request an extension to Brexit negotiations, under the terms of the Benn Act.

…”We believe the government’s proposed withdrawal agreement is contrary to Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.”

That part of the act states: “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.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50076186

Looks reasonable challenge to me – if he/BBC correct. Gov’t shoots foot again by allowing RemoanerAnti-Brexit MPs’ Law

Was case heard today and judgement given?

Recent Brexit Interviews:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl6dwDYMqMjnHQ-hmJoWp8A/videos

I was wondering what happened to the latest crackpot case brought before the Scottish Courts, in which anti-Brexit campaigners now try to stop Parliament debating Brexit, having previously gone to Court to stop Parliament being prevented from debating Brexit. I heard nothing on the BBC Radio 4 news (I may have missed it) so scoured the BBC website, and on digging down, I’ve found it. It’s almost as if they didn’t want us to know:

“Court of Session dismisses bid to stop ‘illegal’ Brexit deal”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50088993

“Scotland’s highest civil court has dismissed a legal bid to stop the UK government from passing its proposed EU withdrawal agreement.

Anti-Brexit campaigners had argued the deal contravened legislation preventing Northern Ireland from forming part of a separate customs territory.

However, Lord Pentland ruled the application was “misconceived and unjustified”.

Campaigner Jo Maugham QC said the case was now unlikely to proceed further.

In his written opinion, the judge described the petition “of very doubtful competency” and concluded the petitioner had at best a “weak” case.”

@BiW

Agree. Use of “Jo”:

1. Not elitist toff, but “Joe” public
2. Downtrodden woman denied justice by Lord Pentland of Patriarchy