Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[drdel]

Much is written about who said what to the Queen these days and it has now been claimed in the Supreme Court that the PM misled HM.

Surely HM could issue (or be asked) to provide an in-confidence note as to whether she felt misled or not - it a matter of fact not partisan.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Much is written about who said what to the Queen these days and it has now been claimed in the Supreme Court that the PM misled HM.

Surely HM could issue (or be asked) to provide an in-confidence note as to whether she felt misled or not - it a matter of fact not partisan.

Alternatively, and so keeping Madge out of it, Johnson could have submitted a signed affidavit stating that the sole rationale for the prorogation was as he and his buddies are claiming about the Queens Speech and nothing at all to do with Brexit. Easy Peasy. Why has he not done that?

 

[spongebob59]

Spoiler alert: substance of what
@JunckerEU
said last night in Sky interview was NOT new (will explain below). Irish backstop remains main sticking point in renegotiations. EU, UK positions remain far apart ALTHOUGH EU keen to avoid another Brexit extension find a deal asap /1 1)Juncker said we want a deal: we know that 2)Juncker said EU is ready to replace the backstop: He said this on Weds at the European parliament. The EU has said this to Boris Johnson since he became PM. The Withdrawal Agreement itself has provisions for replacing the backstop /2 3) Juncker said a deal is possible by 31 Oct: EU has said that before too with the qualification that UK must come up with “realistic, legally operable solutions on how to replace the backstop”. EU doesnt view UK current position ticking that box /3
4)
@JunckerEU
said UK governments ideas are “basis” for agreement on the backstop but that –and this is key-“the replacement must be as robust as the current backstop”. EU encouraged by no10's proposal of NI aligning with EU regulations on agrifoods but what about the rest? /4 The 3 UK "non-papers" (ie informal documents) handed to EU on all-Ireland agrizone, customs and manufacturing described to me as upsum of last 2 weeks of talks with UK envoy to EU David Frost. Described to me in EU as 'more piecemeal + aspirational than concrete + realistic' /5
Main goals of backstop for EU: Protect NIreland peace process+ protect single market. On
@BBCr4today
Deputy Irish PM Coveney said UK suggestion to have customs checks away from border still interrupts all-Ireland economy and North-South co-o protected in Good Friday Agreement /6 Frustration in EU too at Brexit Secretary Barclay suggestion yesterday (remember the Malthouse Compromise floated during Theresa May’s time and rejected by the EU?) that a Brexit deal minus backstop be signed now and backstop replacement sorted out after, during transition /7 To EU this is Johnson government saying “trust us” . My EU sources don’t trust. There’s a fear if backstop replacement discussed AFTER Brexit, the UK would use N Ireland as bargaining chip in future trade negotiations (to cherry pick access to single market etc) /8 UK papers also don’t adequately protect single market in EU eyes. All-Ireland agrizone = 30% of trade only (though most trade volume) +there’s no talk of governance: ECJ or UK law? Level playing field? EU thinks current proposals could give unfair competitive advantage to UK /9 Big difference (again) in EU/UK approach. EU based on rules and principles within which there’s wiggle room. Uk wants to start from scratch bottom up. One EU diplomat “There’s a huge difference between working 5mm within the perimeter fence and 5mm on the outside” /10 CONCLUSION: EU keen to find a deal. No one wants another leading-nowhere Brexit extension if possible. EU sources say they’re ready to look again at (ie find compromise on) current backstop but don’t accept binning it unless more watertight UK alternative on table than now /11

 

[SocketRocket]

Alternatively, and so keeping Madge out of it, Johnson could have submitted a signed affidavit stating that the sole rationale for the prorogation was as he and his buddies are claiming about the Queens Speech and nothing at all to do with Brexit. Easy Peasy. Why has he not done that?

Why should he, his use of prorogatory powers dont need him to swear affidavits. Are you suggesting that if these powers that can be used for much more than suspending parliament are used they should be proceeded by the PM swearing an oath that he is acting honestly. really! Where would that end. every time a minister made a statement of policy they would have to do it
This is just getting ridiculous.

 

[Slime]

Why should he, his use of prorogatory powers dont need him to swear affidavits. Are you suggesting that if these powers that can be used for much more than suspending parliamemt are used they should be proceeded by the PM swearing an oath that he is acting honestly. really! Where would that end. every time a minister made a statement of policy they would have to do it
This is just getting ridiculous.

Totally agree.
In fact, it started getting ridiculous about 13,000 posts ago!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Why should he, his use of prorogatory powers dont need him to swear affidavits. Are you suggesting that if these powers that can be used for much more than suspending parliamemt are used they should be proceeded by the PM swearing an oath that he is acting honestly. really! Where would that end. every time a minister made a statement of policy they would have to do it
This is just getting ridiculous.

I'm simply responding to @drdel's suggestion...I quote...

Surely HM could issue (or be asked) to provide an in-confidence note as to whether she felt misled or not - it a matter of fact not partisan.

This is an extraordinary situation - a decision of the Prime Minister is being examined in the Supreme Court, and - yes - in this very important instance the PMs word is very much in doubt - his honesty is being questioned - and not for the first time given that some say that he has 'dishonesty-form'.

The simplest way to do what we as kids would do when accused by a parent of something - Cross my heart, hope to die, right hand up to God - is for Johnson to simply make a sworn statement on the rationale behind the prorogation. If he is the honest chap we know he is, and what he says is true - he would have no qualms in doing that. That he doesn't points to his guilt.

Johnson has brought all of this on himself.

No need to do as @drdel suggests and involve madge.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm simply responding to @drdel's suggestion...I quote...

Surely HM could issue (or be asked) to provide an in-confidence note as to whether she felt misled or not - it a matter of fact not partisan.

This is an extraordinary situation - a decision of the Prime Minister is being examined in the Supreme Court, and - yes - in this very important instance the PMs word is very much in doubt - his honesty is being questioned - and not for the first time given that some say that he has 'dishonesty-form'.

The simplest way to do what we as kids would do when accused by a parent of something - Cross my heart, hope to die, right hand up to God - is for Johnson to simply make a sworn statement on the rationale behind the prorogation. If he is the honest chap we know he is, and what he says is true - he would have no qualms in doing that. That he doesn't points to his guilt.

Johnson has brought all of this on himself.

No need to do as @drdel suggests and involve madge.

I guess its a little bit more complex than that otherwise Johnsn could have been called in first thing on Monday. "Yes, I prorogued Parliament to allow a new Queen's speech and to set out a new session of Parliament."

Everyone would have been home by lunchtime.

Imagine the outcry if that had been the case. Imagine Gina Millar giving interviews about her not having her day in court. Nice idea but everyone would have kicked off big style, and there would have been cries of, "fix, fix."

And hasn't the govt's own solicitor already given the court the reason for proroguing?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Spoiler alert: substance of what
@JunckerEU
said last night in Sky interview was NOT new (will explain below). Irish backstop remains main sticking point in renegotiations. EU, UK positions remain far apart ALTHOUGH EU keen to avoid another Brexit extension find a deal asap /1 1)Juncker said we want a deal: we know that 2)Juncker said EU is ready to replace the backstop: He said this on Weds at the European parliament. The EU has said this to Boris Johnson since he became PM. The Withdrawal Agreement itself has provisions for replacing the backstop /2 3) Juncker said a deal is possible by 31 Oct: EU has said that before too with the qualification that UK must come up with “realistic, legally operable solutions on how to replace the backstop”. EU doesnt view UK current position ticking that box /3
4)
@JunckerEU
said UK governments ideas are “basis” for agreement on the backstop but that –and this is key-“the replacement must be as robust as the current backstop”. EU encouraged by no10's proposal of NI aligning with EU regulations on agrifoods but what about the rest? /4 The 3 UK "non-papers" (ie informal documents) handed to EU on all-Ireland agrizone, customs and manufacturing described to me as upsum of last 2 weeks of talks with UK envoy to EU David Frost. Described to me in EU as 'more piecemeal + aspirational than concrete + realistic' /5
Main goals of backstop for EU: Protect NIreland peace process+ protect single market. On
@BBCr4today
Deputy Irish PM Coveney said UK suggestion to have customs checks away from border still interrupts all-Ireland economy and North-South co-o protected in Good Friday Agreement /6 Frustration in EU too at Brexit Secretary Barclay suggestion yesterday (remember the Malthouse Compromise floated during Theresa May’s time and rejected by the EU?) that a Brexit deal minus backstop be signed now and backstop replacement sorted out after, during transition /7 To EU this is Johnson government saying “trust us” . My EU sources don’t trust. There’s a fear if backstop replacement discussed AFTER Brexit, the UK would use N Ireland as bargaining chip in future trade negotiations (to cherry pick access to single market etc) /8 UK papers also don’t adequately protect single market in EU eyes. All-Ireland agrizone = 30% of trade only (though most trade volume) +there’s no talk of governance: ECJ or UK law? Level playing field? EU thinks current proposals could give unfair competitive advantage to UK /9 Big difference (again) in EU/UK approach. EU based on rules and principles within which there’s wiggle room. Uk wants to start from scratch bottom up. One EU diplomat “There’s a huge difference between working 5mm within the perimeter fence and 5mm on the outside” /10 CONCLUSION: EU keen to find a deal. No one wants another leading-nowhere Brexit extension if possible. EU sources say they’re ready to look again at (ie find compromise on) current backstop but don’t accept binning it unless more watertight UK alternative on table than now /11

I listened to Coveney this morning. And I still just do not get why the backstop is such an issue if there are solutions in existence - suggested and promoted by some on this forum - that will solve the border issue - solutions that enable so many leave supporters to claim that the Border Issue is a confected issue - it is not real.

If the solutions are known and already being used elsewhere, then two years should be plenty of time to scale them up and roll them out.

And if a little more time were required to complete towards the end of the roll-out - then there should be no issue requesting a short extension and the EU agreeing to it.

Of course the way that such as DRaab talk about the 'non-democratic backstop' as if to suggest that it is going to coming into operation as soon as we leave - leads me to think that that is what they want the electorate to think - and so the backstop HAS to go before we leave. It is disingenuous.

So for all those who promote the existence of ready-made solutions to the border - I would not even bother asking what they are - rather I'd ask for an estimate of timescales to roll them out? Because leaving with a deal we'd have at least two years.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I guess its a little bit more complex than that otherwise Johnsn could have been called in first thing on Monday. "Yes, I prorogued Parliament to allow a new Queen's speech and to set out a new session of Parliament."

Everyone would have been home by lunchtime.

Imagine the outcry if that had been the case. Imagine Gina Millar giving interviews about her not having her day in court. Nice idea but everyone would have kicked off big style, and there would have been cries of, "fix, fix."

And hasn't the govt's own solicitor already given the court the reason for proroguing?

Would he have had to swear 'truth and whole truth'? Just sign a bleedin' affidavit stating the reasons for proroguing parliament. Done.

But you are right - I think - in it's complexity. What the Supreme Court is looking at is most likely much more subtle an issue than Johnson proroguing parliament for reasons political. I think they are looking at the fact that parliament has been silenced and currently has no voice on a very significant matter for the country.

 

[Hobbit]

I listened to Coveney this morning. And I still just do not get why the backstop is such an issue if there are solutions in existence - suggested and promoted by some on this forum - that will solve the border issue - solutions that enable so many leave supporters to claim that the Border Issue is a confected issue - it is not real.

If the solutions are known and already being used elsewhere, then two years should be plenty of time to scale them up and roll them out.

And if a little more time were required to complete towards the end of the roll-out - then there should be no issue requesting a short extension and the EU agreeing to it.

Of course the way that such as DRaab talk about the 'non-democratic backstop' as if to suggest that it is going to coming into operation as soon as we leave - leads me to think that that is what they want the electorate to think - and so the backstop HAS to go before we leave. It is disingenuous.

So for all those who promote the existence of ready-made solutions to the border - I would not even bother asking what they are - rather I'd ask for an estimate of timescales to roll them out? Because leaving with a deal we'd have at least two years.

Maybe its because the EU were saying there is nothing in existence that fits the NI/reland border. If the EU came out and said we accept the solutions already in place for Norway and Estonia would work in Ireland and that both sides are committed to installing them within 2 years I can't see why something couldn't be signed.

I firmly believe it is the EU that has been disingenuous about the border issue, using it to try and tie the UK in permanently, otherwise why haven't they acknowledged that the technology is already out there on EU borders.

 

[Hobbit]

Would he have had to swear 'truth and whole truth'? Just sign a bleedin' affidavit stating the reasons for proroguing parliament. Done.

But you are right - I think - in it's complexity. What the Supreme Court is looking at is most likely much more subtle an issue than Johnson proroguing parliament for reasons political. I think they are looking at the fact that parliament has been silenced and currently has no voice on a very significant matter for the country.

He doesn't have to swear to "tell the truth etc" because he's not witness. Its not that sort of trial.

 

[spongebob59]

So all the political twitter experts are predicting the ruling will go against the government, so with it being party conference for Labour and the Torys, will the other mps be recalled ?
Guess it'll be the only time the Lib dums amd the Krankies get to run the place

 

[Beezerk]

This is an extraordinary situation - a decision of the Prime Minister is being examined in the Supreme Court

Well yes, but over simplifying it quite a lot here. Is it not just another sideshow tactic by remainers to get Brexit cancelled?
Boris is a liar, yes maybe but the real root cause of this trial is being overlooked imo. Effectively Gina Miller is doing exactly what BJ allegedly did, lied about the reason for X happening.

 

[Beezerk]

And I've managed to make a right mess of those quotes on my phone 🤣

 

[SocketRocket]

Would he have had to swear 'truth and whole truth'? Just sign a bleedin' affidavit stating the reasons for proroguing parliament. Done.

But you are right - I think - in it's complexity. What the Supreme Court is looking at is most likely much more subtle an issue than Johnson proroguing parliament for reasons political. I think they are looking at the fact that parliament has been silenced and currently has no voice on a very significant matter for the country.

But they do have a voice and have been agressively using it and still have time to say some more, come to think of it they had years to express their views.

 

[chrisd]

But they do have a voice and have been agressively using it and still have time to say some more, come to think of it they had years to express their views.

They didnt seem too keen to cancel their summer holidays to come to work 😉

 

[Deleted member 18121]

They didnt seem too keen to cancel their summer holidays to come to work 😉

And let's be honest.... All they've used the last 3.5 years for is to scupper and prolong the process making it so much worse.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

They didnt seem too keen to cancel their summer holidays to come to work 😉

I can see the emoji mate, just hoping all those liking the post is because they get the joke.

 

[Hobbit]

I can see the emoji mate, just hoping all those liking the post is because they get the joke.

With a wry smile...

 

[clubchamp98]

Maybe its because the EU were saying there is nothing in existence that fits the NI/reland border. If the EU came out and said we accept the solutions already in place for Norway and Estonia would work in Ireland and that both sides are committed to installing them within 2 years I can't see why something couldn't be signed.

I firmly believe it is the EU that has been disingenuous about the border issue, using it to try and tie the UK in permanently, otherwise why haven't they acknowledged that the technology is already out there on EU borders.

Yes and let’s be honest here
It’s their border as well as ours.
They have used this to muddy the waters.