British lawmakers prepare court action to enforce Brexit delay

[neverceasetobeamazed]

This Saga is far from over if you believe a report carried by many National newspapers today.

 

Government will refuse to nominate a UK commissioner which will mean that:

 

'Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union will be activated and  means the EU will “not be legally constituted on 1 November” – the date the new European Commission takes office – without a UK commissioner, it says.

 

Brussels could try to reduce the number of commissioners from 28, one for each state, but the UK would have a veto which it would use unless the EU bent to its will.'

 

Not quite 'game, set and match' yet for the Pro EU lobby

[SheungWan]

And British Lawmakers seek the EUs approval for an extension before passing the bill in Parliament, anybody living in the real world would be able to see that these MPs are more accountable to Brussels than their own country or citizens. It stinks high heaven. 
And remainers would have us believe that the EU has no influence over our parliament when we have to confide in them before we pass a bill in our own parliament.

Hard Brexiteers living in the real world? That will be the day.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sawadee1947]

6 hours ago, pegman said:

Well Boris, it looks like you've run out of options. Best resign and be done with it. Just can't see you lasting more than a couple days in lockup.

You wish..... As an selfish egocentric narzist ego-maniac he will not give up. You have to kick him out of No 10????

[SheungWan]

This Saga is far from over if you believe a report carried by many National newspapers today.
 
Government will refuse to nominate a UK commissioner which will mean that:
 
'Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union will be activated and  means the EU will “not be legally constituted on 1 November” – the date the new European Commission takes office – without a UK commissioner, it says.
 

Brussels could try to reduce the number of commissioners from 28, one for each state, but the UK would have a veto which it would use unless the EU bent to its will.'

 

Not quite 'game, set and match' yet for the Pro EU lobby

The Boris Team continuing to look for some way to push their no-deal Kamikaze agenda. All strapped in and looking for takeoff.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

I see the misconduct in the fact that a clear decision according to the referendum has been ignored and that this is going to destroy the belief of many people in the democratic process.
The alternative to no deal is abject surrender and a further strengthening of the non-democratic bureaucracy that is trying to rule Europe. EU army anyone? The EU empire will not last a thousand years, it is already now sowing chaos and ignoring the clearly expressed will of the peoples of Europe.

No clear decision in the referendum for no-deal Brexit.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You can repeat the same mantra over and over again, but that won't change reality.

Reality is that the people you choose to represent you, parliament, think a no deal is a bad idea. So much so they have enacted laws to prevent it. Don't like that, vote them out at the next election.

 

And no, that election should not be about one topic like brexit.

Remainers don't seem to have a problem "repeating the same mantra over again" om.

 

Maybe the election should not be about one topic, but surely you must have noticed that people are more concerned about it than the colour of park benches, Brexit needs resolving before anyone can move on.

 

I'm sure that the electorate would like to rid parliament of the the rebel MPs and replace them with MPs who will represent them, our country and not the EU. The opposition have been offered a chance of a GE, they might regret not accepting that offer.

[sawadee1947]

6 hours ago, Loiner said:

Why does the Reuter’s headline say “Lawmakers prepare court action...” when its actually the anti-democratic treasonous forces which are usurping the existing law passed for us to Leave the EU?
MSM Remainerism at work again.
The whole thing has been a Remainer tantrum for the past three years. They are still trying to overthrow the law we have to Leave the EU. They are not Lawmakers, the are Lawbreakers.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

The problem for UK is that a lot of people live not in real world believing that "Alice in wonderland " is a real story. They are dreaming with musty brains like the 3 "wise" monkeys following the lemming's path... ????

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Empty meandering from beginning to end. Just a long-winded attempt to normalise no-deal (not mentioned) or the failed orchestrated nasty bullying from Number 10. Hard Brexiteers hard at work. Pull the other one.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Arch remainers seem more bothered about the risks of a no deal, than the risks of no democracy.

[evadgib]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

Arch remainers seem more bothered about the risks of a no deal, than the risks of no democracy.

Berk-offed?

[beautifulthailand99]

5 hours ago, cooked said:

This parliament passed legislation that clearly permitted a referendum (Cameron: "said he wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and then give people the "simple choice" between staying in under those new terms, or leaving the EU". 

This parliament (including many that have no turned into Remainers) also agreed to European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. 

There was no "with or without a deal" clause, either in the referendum or in the act of parliament, and voters knew very well what they were voting for.

I think Boris would be ready to go to jail rather than ask the EU for something neither he nor the UK (outside of London and Scotland) doesn't want. 

The EU refuses to negotiate, Merkel and Makron have said no more extensions, remaining under the Tersa May deal would make the UK worse off than before.

 

Oliver Cromwell: 'In the name of God, go!' speech dismissing Rump Parliament - 1653

20 April 1653, London, England

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,

which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

 

 

I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

 

What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry, careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed, but for the fact that the great republic across the Atlantic realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. They may still return.

 

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as by a miracle transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and happy as Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.

 

Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”

 

September 19, 1946. University of Zurich

Winston Churchill 

[beautifulthailand99]

6 hours ago, cooked said:

Oliver Cromwell: 'In the name of God, go!' speech dismissing Rump Parliament - 1653

20 April 1653, London, England

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,

which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

 

 

Not forgetting of course that Cromwell was the head of Britain's very own Taliban , bringing in misery, banning plays and music and merriment and was hated by the mass of the British people so much so after his death his body was dug up and hanged drawn and quartered and the people rejoiced.  

 

Over in Ireland they will never forget his slaughter at Drogheda which was without parallel. 

 

“This is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood….”

Oliver Cromwell after the storming of Drogheda. 1649.

 

According to John Morrill, the massacre at Drogheda, "was without straightforward parallel in 17th century British or Irish history". "So the Drogheda massacre does stand out for its mercilessness, for its combination of ruthlessness and calculation, for its combination of hot- and cold-bloodiness".

 

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'

Edited September 8, 2019 by beautifulthailand99

[Forethat]

32 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

No clear decision in the referendum for no-deal Brexit.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

...but given what you perceive as a "clear decision in the referendum for remaining in the EU" you've decided to pursue exactly that idea?

[TKDfella]

In my opinion once the referendum was done, one way or the other, all politicians should have backed that decision and got on with whatever was necessary to steer the country through whatever problems emerged. But no, out came the 'political knives' to assassinate the decision and bring about chaos. Now it seems one PM is replacing another only to get stabbed with no backing...yeah, okay, I'm exaggerating but how can one claim Democracy when the winning majority (no matter how slim)...oh why do I bother. I bet King Arthur isn't proud of it all, metaphorically speaking.

[Laughing Gravy]

3 hours ago, JoePai said:

Oh dear you poor lost souls, remember Parliament’s duty is to “respect the will of the voters” who had chosen to leave the EU - period

 

You are right but these threads are full of non Brits who just don't understand and their own countries are so dominated by the EU they have lost their own identity.

 

There are of course the few Brits who are the remainers who are happy to ignore democracy and frankly are the type that I wouldn't want in my trench, as they would be the ones stabbing you in the back.

 

For those genuine Brits who voted remain but respect the will of the democratic referendum, the former does not apply to you. You can share my trench anytime. Figuratively speaking.

 

[beautifulthailand99]

13 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You are right but these threads are full of non Brits who just don't understand and their own countries are so dominated by the EU they have lost their own identity.

 

There are of course the few Brits who are the remainers who are happy to ignore democracy and frankly are the type that I wouldn't want in my trench, as they would be the ones stabbing you in the back.

 

For those genuine Brits who voted remain but respect the will of the democratic referendum, the former does not apply to you. You can share my trench anytime. Figuratively speaking.

 

It's not a trench but a ditch - I hope you enjoy sharing it with Johnson when he shortly falls in. ????????????

Edited September 8, 2019 by beautifulthailand99

[Monomial]

6 hours ago, JAG said:

...

Now some of these "parliamentarians" are suggesting using the courts to back up what they are trying to do (frustrate an election). A by product is some licking of the lips by those whom he has upset at the thought being able to arrange for the upstart Boris being hauled off to Jail!

 

Well further delay is inevitable. Boris Johnson has no choice, and he can truthfully say it was not of his making. There will have to be an election, and as I said, it will give one side or another a mandate. The courts, if they are dragged into it ( I would bet they don't want to be) might just say to the complainants "go away and have an election to settle the matter."

...

 

As a non UK/non EU national, I find the legal aspects of this fascinating. I asked about this exact situation previously on this forum (Re: forcing Boris to ask for an extension), and the general response seemed to be that you could not pass a law to compel a government official to do something against his will.  Apparently though, this is exactly what parliament did.

 

I have to agree with the above comment. I bet the courts absolutely do not want to be involved in this, because it could set a very, very bad precedent. Even if the judges agree with stopping Boris Johnson in this case, can you really afford to allow this kind of action to become legal? At what point do you draw the line? Can you also pass a law that compels the government to terminate one of his ministers? How about a law that makes it illegal to vote NO on a bill?  These sound ridiculous of course, but in the absence of Brexit I think many would also have said that any law compelling action by a government official is a bridge too far. It really goes to the core of what is considered a responsibility to obey a law, and what is considered infringing on a right to govern...

 

There are really only two ways to resolve the current impasse. One, let the courts decide Brexit, or two, let the electorate decide Brexit via an election. Wouldn't it be better, given all the options, to let the election go ahead and give the people the chance to voice their opinion, rather than forcing a group of judges to decide the future of the country? Why or why not? This is purely an academic question for me. I have no stake in the outcome.

 

50 years from now, when all the emotion is gone, this is going to be a really interesting educational study. If this were Thailand, I am sure we would have street protests and a coup by now...

 

[Nigel Garvie]

10 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

It's not a trench but a ditch - I hope you enjoy sharing it with Johnson when he shortly falls in. ????????????

Preparatory work may already be underway! 

[Laughing Gravy]

12 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

It's not a trench but a ditch - I hope you enjoy sharing it with Johnson when he shortly falls in. ????????????

The only ditch are swamp filled with anti democratic people. I guess you are one of these who doesn't respect the will of the people.

[Scot123]

8 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Here, have some. 

Finally a poster on here saying it as it is. Thank you. 

[Nigel Garvie]

7 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

As a non UK/non EU national, I find the legal aspects of this fascinating. I asked about this exact situation previously on this forum (Re: forcing Boris to ask for an extension), and the general response seemed to be that you could not pass a law to compel a government official to do something against his will.  Apparently though, this is exactly what parliament did.

 

There are really only two ways to resolve the current impasse. One, let the courts decide Brexit, or two, let the electorate decide Brexit via an election. Wouldn't it be better, given all the options, to let the election go ahead and give the people the chance to voice their opinion, rather than forcing a group of judges to decide the future of the country? Why or why not? This is purely an academic question for me. I have no stake in the outcome.

 

50 years from now, when all the emotion is gone, this is going to be a really interesting educational study. If this were Thailand, I am sure we would have street protests and a coup by now...

 

and the general response seemed to be that you could not pass a law to compel a government official to do something against his will.......................Parliament could pass a law to tell us all to drive on the RHside. In this case BJ is not "An official" he is an MP. It's simple, Parliament - entirely within their rights- requires that the PM does this. He has an alternative, he can resign.

 

There are really only two ways to resolve the current impasse. One, let the courts decide Brexit, or two, let the electorate decide Brexit via an election. Wouldn't it be better, given all the options, to let the election go ahead and give the people the chance to voice their opinion, rather than forcing a group of judges to decide the future of the country? Why or why not? This is purely an academic question for me. I have no stake in the outcome.......................Sorry, incorrect, I don't think the courts can "Decide Brexit". Secondly why an election? If you want to know what the people think about Brexit NOW ask them in a referendum. A general election, will focus on many other topics as well, the NHS, Schools, Police etc etc, for many people it won't be just about Brexit at all.

 

I am sure we would have street protests and a coup by now.......I'm not sure that the coup isn't organized before the excuse for it is made by the protests in some cases.

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

16 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The only ditch are swamp filled with anti democratic people. I guess you are one of these who doesn't respect the will of the people.

Don't worry an election is coming you can have your vote. Just make sure you're registered.

 

So we may well now have either a No-Deal Brexit of a Corbyn government - god help the pound she will be battered mercilessly into the ground by forex speculators. Meanwhile the baht is becoming a flight to safety for the world's money looking for a 'safe haven' - the Asian's own very Swiss Franc. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad

[juice777]

So if Boris breaks the law and don't ask for a extension and Yellow Hammer and Dr David Nicholl are right and people Die is that manslaughter?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Laughing Gravy]

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Don't worry an election is coming you can have your vote. Just make sure you're registered.

 

So we may well now have either a No-Deal Brexit of a Corbyn government - god help the pound she will be battered mercilessly into the ground by forex speculators. Meanwhile the baht is becoming a flight to safety for the world's money looking for a 'safe haven' - the Asian's own very Swiss Franc. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad

Yes a GE and then the people can decide. Whatever happens I will say that's it. But you only like democratic results that agree with you. Sadly I wont be voting as I have been away over 15 years.

 

The Dollar, the Aus dollar and many other currencies are also down on the baht. Whats their excuse they have nothing to do with Brexit.

[Monomial]

20 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

and the general response seemed to be that you could not pass a law to compel a government official to do something against his will.......................Parliament could pass a law to tell us all to drive on the RHside. In this case BJ is not "An official" he is an MP. It's simple, Parliament - entirely within their rights- requires that the PM does this. He has an alternative, he can resign.

 

There are really only two ways to resolve the current impasse. One, let the courts decide Brexit, or two, let the electorate decide Brexit via an election. Wouldn't it be better, given all the options, to let the election go ahead and give the people the chance to voice their opinion, rather than forcing a group of judges to decide the future of the country? Why or why not? This is purely an academic question for me. I have no stake in the outcome.......................Sorry, incorrect, I don't think the courts can "Decide Brexit". Secondly why an election? If you want to know what the people think about Brexit NOW ask them in a referendum. A general election, will focus on many other topics as well, the NHS, Schools, Police etc etc, for many people it won't be just about Brexit at all.

 

I am sure we would have street protests and a coup by now.......I'm not sure that the coup isn't organized before the excuse for it is made by the protests in some cases.

 

 

 

So would it be possible to have a binding referendum where each district voted on whether they agreed or disagreed with the vote their representative cast on the brexit extension bill, and then required the MP to change his vote if his district disagreed with the MP's position?  Would something like that be allowed under UK law?  That would hold the existing structure in place exactly, not disrupt anything that came before or in the future, but target this one specific issue without requiring the courts to rule on something that could set very messy precedents.

 

Just thinking out loud. Honestly, what is the best way to resolve a situation like this without requiring it to go to court?

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Monomial

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes a GE and then the people can decide. Whatever happens I will say that's it. But you only like democratic results that agree with you. Sadly I wont be voting as I have been away over 15 years.

 

The Dollar, the Aus dollar and many other currencies are also down on the baht. Whats their excuse they have nothing to do with Brexit.

But British pound is down on dollar, aus dollar and nearly all other currencies.

[stevenl]

Just now, Monomial said:

 

So would it be possible to have a binding referendum where each district voted on whether they agreed or disagreed with the vote their representative cast on the brexit extension bill, and then required the MP to change his vote if his district disagreed with his position?  Would something like that be allowed under UK law?  That would hold the existing structure in place exactly, not disrupt anything that came before or in the future, but target this one specific issue without requiring the courts to rule on something that could set very messy precedents.

 

Just thinking out loud. Honestly, what is the best way to resolve a situation like this without requiring it to go to court?

 

No, people can not require their representatives to vote a certain way. 

[beautifulthailand99]

12 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes a GE and then the people can decide. Whatever happens I will say that's it. But you only like democratic results that agree with you. Sadly I wont be voting as I have been away over 15 years.

 

The Dollar, the Aus dollar and many other currencies are also down on the baht. Whats their excuse they have nothing to do with Brexit.

The pound will be battred on two fronts - god help those on fixed incomes trying to look after a family in Thailand.

 

Brand new poll.

 

http://britainelects.com/2019/09/07/poll-tories-will-struggle-in-an-election-if-brexit-delayed/

 

Methodology Note: ComRes surveyed 2,009 British adults on 4th – 6th September 2019. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all GB adults. All questions were also weighted by 2017 past vote recall and EU Referendum past vote. Voting Intention is also weighted by likelihood to vote. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables at www.comresglobal.com

 

Westminster voting intention: "A General Election is held after extending the Brexit deadline beyond the 31st of October 2019":

LAB: 28% CON: 26% LDEM: 20% BREX: 17% GRN: 4%

via @ComRes

, 04 - 06 Sep http://britainelects.com/2019/09/07/poll-tories-will-struggle-in-an-election-if-brexit-delayed/

Edited September 8, 2019 by beautifulthailand99

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

it is not game over yet

You are right, it isn't.  And this is sounding more like a game everyday with members here resembling the rabble in the stands.  One side screaming penalty and the other side claiming a dive!  Unfortunately there is no VAR and if there was then it would be dismissed because neither side will admit when they got it wrong.

 

Amber Rudd went yesterday because she says that Johnson is vandalising the Tory Party. Another blow for Boris but I am sure all his defenders will just bang on about what a rubbish player she was!  I would applaud her for what she did but listening to her on The Andrew Marr Show this morning you realise she is no better than the rest of the cretins who fell in line behind Johnson.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

You are right, it isn't.  And this is sounding more like a game everyday with members here resembling the rabble in the stands.  One side screaming penalty and the other side claiming a dive!  Unfortunately there is no VAR and if there was then it would be dismissed because neither side will admit when they got it wrong.

 

Amber Rudd went yesterday because she says that Johnson is vandalising the Tory Party. Another blow for Boris but I am sure all his defenders will just bang on about what a rubbish player she was!  I would applaud her for what she did but listening to her on The Andrew Marr Show this morning you realise she is no better than the rest of the cretins who fell in line behind Johnson.

But it could be argued DR that the leavers are shouting for the side that voted to leave the EU and won the vote, whilst the remainers are tripping our players up just to have their own way.????

 

You will have heard Amber Rudd say that Boris is striving for a deal, and under the circumstances that is a very candid comment to make.

[placnx]

The comment by JAG (#7) seems well reasoned.

 

I think that the PM has a duty to the people to see Brexit through. I find that the strategy adopted by his opponents, i.e. drafting a law to command the PM to do a specific action in a unique situation, to be a circuitous, if not cynical, avoidance of procedure.

 

Meanwhile, the PM may have further options not discussed here yet, namely to thwart the Royal Assent by either the Government refusing to present the bill or by the PM advising the Queen not to sign the bill. (This is discussed in an article entitled "Brexit Spat Tests Tacit Dictum: Never Put the Queen on the Spot" in Saturday's Wall Street Journal). While this has apparently not happened since 1708, we are living in tumultuous times.

 

The suggestion that the PM resign, if he cannot or will not execute such a command of Parliament, seems more like an act that a minister or bureaucrat would do in the face of a policy of the PM or the Government.

 

Rather, if the PM somehow goes against the will of Parliament, the Tories could through the 1922 Committee replace the PM or the Parliament could take a no-confidence vote.