British lawmakers prepare court action to enforce Brexit delay

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Sticky Wicket said:

I'm sure a few of those treacherous MPs are enjoying their offshore accounts being filled up

Tch Tch "Sticky Wicket", such things do not happen in our urbane civilised European Community - nothing as vulgar as cash will change hands!

 

The stakes, and benefits are however high, as you suggest. For those who may play a part in frustrating Brexit, whether the UK remains a member of the EU, or ends up shackled like some pitiful vassal, the future will look bright. Maybe appointments to various advisory panels, or even executive organs within the EU administration, or maybe only a less formal status, retained to consult, advise and influence. Flights in the sharp end of the aeroplane, chauffeur driven limousines, wined dined and accommodated as befits their status. Business interests, whether direct or through more opaque consultancies ("I have influence in Brussels as you know") will prosper, pet projects will be pushed up the list, so whilst cash will not feature, you can be sure that they will be well rewarded. Nothing as unsubtle as cash though - why, that would be corruption!

 

They would of course vehemently deny it was treachery - more a higher loyalty to a noble cause...

 

And nothing can be proven - after all, how long has it been since the EU accounts were audited?

Edited September 8, 2019 by JAG

[welovesundaysatspace]

22 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

and then

passed legislation to enact it!

And now are passing legislation against a no-deal. 

[ThaiBunny]

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

And now are passing legislation against a no-deal. 

Excellent news. Has anyone told the EU they're not allowed to say "no" to an extension request?

[welovesundaysatspace]

11 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Excellent news. Has anyone told the EU they're not allowed to say "no" to an extension request?

Why would anyone? 

[vogie]

15 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Yes, October 31 at the latest, as promised.
Or organize a second referendum, but out of pity, let's stop this indecision.
Uncertainty is bad for the EU and killer for the UK.

Yes, October 31 at the latest, as promised.

1. Our duplicitous MPs have already agreed to an extension with the EU, they are infact in collusion.

 

Or organize a second referendum, but out of pity, let's stop this indecision.

2. We have already had a referendum, they are not honouring that, they have already said that they would not honour another.

 

Uncertainty is bad for the EU and killer for the UK.

3. I refer you to my answer number 1.

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by vogie

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes, October 31 at the latest, as promised.

1. Our duplicitous MPs have already agreed to an extension with the EU, they are infact in collusion.

Complete nonsense; again, brexiteers fascinate with their blatant ignorance of the laws. 

 

 

[JoePai]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Complete nonsense; again, brexiteers fascinate with their blatant ignorance of the laws. 

 

 

This is about Parliament versus the people. Boris is on the side of the people, who voted to leave the EU. The people are sovereign because they elect Parliament. But Parliament wants to stop the will of the people

 

[ThaiBunny]

6 minutes ago, JoePai said:

This is about Parliament versus the people. Boris is on the side of the people, who voted to leave the EU. The people are sovereign because they elect Parliament. But Parliament wants to stop the will of the people

It's the role of parliament to scrutinise the government; it's not parliament's role to be the government

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, JoePai said:

This is about Parliament versus the people. Boris is on the side of the people, who voted to leave the EU. The people are sovereign because they elect Parliament. But Parliament wants to stop the will of the people

Even if you try to hide your ignorance of UK constitutional laws and how representative democracies work under some divisive slogan you’re still wrong. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

It's the role of parliament to scrutinise the government; it's not parliament's role to be the government

What law exactly is parliament breaking and why don’t you go to court? 

[JoePai]

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

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, JoePai said:

Parliament’s duty is to “respect the will of the voters” 

Can you find a substantial authority for that - Bagehot for example?

[cleopatra2]

2 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!

 

 

Once the legal peril is explained to B Johnson I think we will see his u turn in a similiar fashion about bulldozers and heathrow expansion.

[cooked]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Once the legal peril is explained to B Johnson I think we will see his u turn in a similiar fashion about bulldozers and heathrow expansion.

So you admit that this has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with pettifogging lawyers, turncoats and people in the pay (or promises of future pay) of the EU. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

14 minutes 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 mean the voters who elected them in the last election on manifestos that either excluded no-deal or were even pro-Remain? 

 

- “a smooth, orderly Brexit” (the Conservative manifesto);

- to block no deal (Labour manifesto);

- “to get the best deal for Northern Ireland, recognising that we share a land frontier with the Republic” (the DUP);

- to remain in the EU (other parties). 

[ThaiBunny]

21 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

What law exactly is parliament breaking and why don’t you go to court? 

Because I'm having much more fun watching the complete clusterf**k both on television and on TV

[cleopatra2]

13 minutes ago, cooked said:

So you admit that this has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with pettifogging lawyers, turncoats and people in the pay (or promises of future pay) of the EU. 

No

it is about not commiting mis conduct in a Public Office.

like i said B Johnson will be advised to comply and once he realises the consequences of not doing so . The u turn will appear.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Victornoir said:

Yes, October 31 at the latest, as promised.
Or organize a second referendum, but out of pity, let's stop this indecision.
Uncertainty is bad for the EU and killer for the UK.

[cooked]

13 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

No

it is about not commiting mis conduct in a Public Office.

like i said B Johnson will be advised to comply and once he realises the consequences of not doing so . The u turn will appear.

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.

[Basil B]

As I see it if Boris does not seek "with meaningful intent" an extension of Article 50 as instructed by Parliament as detailed in the Benn bill that is to receive Royal Accent tomorrow,  he would be in contempt of Parliament, and could be arrested by the Sargent at Arms and locked in St Stephens Tower.

 

Things are not looking good for Boris as another senior Tory quits...

 

 

[Basil B]

 

58 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

No

it is about not commiting mis conduct in a Public Office.

like i said B Johnson will be advised to comply and once he realises the consequences of not doing so . The u turn will appear.

When will Boris get it into his thick scull that he is in an untenable position???

[welovesundaysatspace]

42 minutes ago, cooked said:

I see the misconduct in the fact that a clear decision according to the referendum has been ignored

It hasn’t. 

 

42 minutes ago, cooked said:

and that this is going to destroy the belief of many people in the democratic process.

Of some losers maybe. 

 

42 minutes ago, cooked said:

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?

Nonsense. 

 

42 minutes ago, cooked said:

The EU empire will not last a thousand years,

How do you know what will be in a thousand years? 

 

42 minutes ago, cooked said:

it is already now sowing chaos and ignoring the clearly expressed will of the peoples of Europe.

Nonsense. 

[silver sea]

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson may have lost his brother, Jo’s, support, but he must be reassured, after a disastrous week, that Piers Corbyn still thinks he’s the dog’s boll**ks!

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7439149/Jeremy-Corbyn-gets-Brexit-broadside-brother-Piers-Corbyn-launches-attack-Labour-leader.html

[Thingamabob]

4 hours ago, JAG said:

If one strips away the commentary from the likes of Dominic Grieve and David Liddington - who were we must remember opponents of Johnson's candidacy to lead the Conservative Party, and lost in both the Parliamentary Party selection and the vote amongst the membership (a familiar theme there?) -  one is left with a rather simple situation.

 

The UK has voted to leave the EU, in a referendum confirmed (please note those who dismiss it as "only advisory") by a subsequent General Election. The parliament produced by that election has voted on, and passed into law an act which says that the UK will leave them EU, the date fixed (after one fruitless delay) is the 31st of October.

 

There is no deal to leave, because although Mrs May and the EU came up with a deal, it was rejected three times by parliament. The current Prime Minister has said that he intends therefore to take us out on the 31st. Parliament has said no. Mr Johnson therefore proposes a general election, to be held before the 31st of October. That election will either give him a mandate to take us out of the EU or will give those who wish to remain (under the guise of further extensions of the leaving date) a mandate to do so.  

 

However it would appear that parliament is essentially unwilling to allow this general election. Preferring instead to leave the government in place, yet prevent them from governing. The opposition don't want an election because they think they will lose it. Having called almost weekly for an election they now want to delay one! The Tory rebels (Grieve, Liddington and others) don't want an election because they know that they will lose their seats if there is one. Neither party has given any thought to what the people want. If they had they would ask them as soon as possible. The whole situation is being propped up by a deliberate misuse of The Fixed Term Parliament Act. An appropriate analogy would be a bank saying they will lend money to you to buy a car, but only if you buy a blue saloon rather than a white SUV!

 

The EU of course is quite happy, one of their biggest contributing nation's, having decided to leave, I'd being kept in, arguably against the will of it's people, by it's parliament. Meanwhile they continue to pay in, but conveniently no longer have any influence upon its decisions and policies.

 

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."

 

This is what happens when a parliament, or elements within it, choose to ignore the expressed intentions of their electorate, and manipulate parliamentary processes to allow them to do so.

 

Incidentally, Mr Speaker Bercow, a man so self obsessed that it has been suggested that he would have been in the first lifeboat off the Titanic, has deliberately been party to that manipulation.

Excellent piece.

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, JoePai said:

This is about Parliament versus the people. Boris is on the side of the people, who voted to leave the EU. The people are sovereign because they elect Parliament. But Parliament wants to stop the will of the people

 

That would be just 25% of ‘the people’ from 3 years ago - relevant now how ? right now parliament is doing a fantastic job for all sane British people - we’re on the same side. There is no conflict. 

 

With every day day that passes Bojo’s mandate for Brexit shrinks which is why I just can’t find a brexiteer calling for a second referendum no matter how hard I look. 

 

Strange eh ? 

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

That would be just 25% of ‘the people’ from 3 years ago - relevant now how ? right now parliament is doing a fantastic job for all sane British people - we’re on the same side. There is no conflict. 

 

With every day day that passes Bojo’s mandate for Brexit shrinks which is why I just can’t find a brexiteer calling for a second referendum no matter how hard I look. 

 

Strange eh ? 

Again you saying it will not make it come true as much as you would like it to.

 

And any sane person would not agree to a second referendum when MPs have said that they would not honour it.

 

Strange eh?

 

[flossie35]

4 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!

 

 

You are asking the wrong questions. The question is whether we are better off in or out of the EU, and in particular would we be better of with a no deal exit. The evidence suggests that no deal would be a disaster, and that other brexit options would be of no benefit economically, politically or socially. And you forget (a) MPs duty to serve the national interest; (b) MPs' right to repeal or amend earlier legislation; and (c) the Speaker's duty to preserve the supereminence of Parliament.

[ThaiBunny]

Just now, Basil B said:

to receive Royal Accent tomorrow

Received pronunciation? Cut-glass accent?

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Yes, October 31 at the latest, as promised.

1. Our duplicitous MPs have already agreed to an extension with the EU, they are infact in collusion.

 

Or organize a second referendum, but out of pity, let's stop this indecision.

2. We have already had a referendum, they are not honouring that, they have already said that they would not honour another.

 

Uncertainty is bad for the EU and killer for the UK.

3. I refer you to my answer number 1.

 

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.

[SheungWan]

If one strips away the commentary from the likes of Dominic Grieve and David Liddington - who were we must remember opponents of Johnson's candidacy to lead the Conservative Party, and lost in both the Parliamentary Party selection and the vote amongst the membership (a familiar theme there?) -  one is left with a rather simple situation.
 
The UK has voted to leave the EU, in a referendum confirmed (please note those who dismiss it as "only advisory") by a subsequent General Election. The parliament produced by that election has voted on, and passed into law an act which says that the UK will leave them EU, the date fixed (after one fruitless delay) is the 31st of October.
 
There is no deal to leave, because although Mrs May and the EU came up with a deal, it was rejected three times by parliament. The current Prime Minister has said that he intends therefore to take us out on the 31st. Parliament has said no. Mr Johnson therefore proposes a general election, to be held before the 31st of October. That election will either give him a mandate to take us out of the EU or will give those who wish to remain (under the guise of further extensions of the leaving date) a mandate to do so.  
 
However it would appear that parliament is essentially unwilling to allow this general election. Preferring instead to leave the government in place, yet prevent them from governing. The opposition don't want an election because they think they will lose it. Having called almost weekly for an election they now want to delay one! The Tory rebels (Grieve, Liddington and others) don't want an election because they know that they will lose their seats if there is one. Neither party has given any thought to what the people want. If they had they would ask them as soon as possible. The whole situation is being propped up by a deliberate misuse of The Fixed Term Parliament Act. An appropriate analogy would be a bank saying they will lend money to you to buy a car, but only if you buy a blue saloon rather than a white SUV!
 
The EU of course is quite happy, one of their biggest contributing nation's, having decided to leave, I'd being kept in, arguably against the will of it's people, by it's parliament. Meanwhile they continue to pay in, but conveniently no longer have any influence upon its decisions and policies.
 
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."
 
This is what happens when a parliament, or elements within it, choose to ignore the expressed intentions of their electorate, and manipulate parliamentary processes to allow them to do so.
 
Incidentally, Mr Speaker Bercow, a man so self obsessed that it has been suggested that he would have been in the first lifeboat off the Titanic, has deliberately been party to that manipulation.

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