Brexit Encore

[Jeremy Roussak]

Can you explain, please? Preferably without condescension. We are here to help each other understand. If I said something incorrectly, you could simply correct it, so that we can all learn.

Slobodan, there's a great deal of misinformation around, not only here but in our national media, who spout nonsense such as "parliament voted to outlaw no deal". The position, somewhat (but not hugely) simplifed, is this.

1. In March 2017 we gave notice, pursuant to Article 50 of the relevant treaty, that we intend to leave the EU. This followed the coming into force of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, permitting the PM to give it.
2. That notice has effect two years after it was given, unless we request, and all the other 27 countries unanimously agree, to defer the date of leaving.
3. We made such a request, and it was agreed, earlier this year. That is why the date, which was the end of March, is now the end of October.
4. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, known colloquially as the Benn Act after its originator, mandates the Prime Minister to request a further extension if no deal has been agreed.
5. It does not, and cannot, mandate a further extension, since such an extension requires the unanimous consent of the other 27.
6. Although the wording of Article 50 contains no such provision, the European Court of Justice has decided that a member state which has given notice to leave may withdraw that notice, provided it does so in good faith.
7. The only way in which Parliament can actually prevent our leaving on 31st October without a deal is to decide to revoke the notice given under Article 50 (a procedure almost universally, and wrongly, described as "revoking Article 50").
8. If nothing further is done, however, the default position is that we leave on 31st October.

That is why an election, which (depending on the way in which it was triggered) probably could not now take place before 31st October, would accomplish nothing much; we would probably have left by the time it took place.

"Probably"? Yes; because even if parliament is dissolved (which is wholly different from prorogued), the ministers of the Crown, including the PM, remain in office; and the obligation on the PM to request a further extension remains in force. There are various mutterings about mechanisms he might use to avoid the obligation, but none seems to have much validity.

I hope that clarifies matters a little.

Jeremy

[Manoli]

4. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, known colloquially as the Benn Act after its originator, mandates the Prime Minister to request a further extension if no deal has been agreed.

... and a further discussion can be found here:
https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/
and here:
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1177268281239097344?s=19

6. Although the wording of Article 50 contains no such provision, the European Court of Justice has decided that a member state which has given notice to leave may withdraw that notice, provided it does so in good faith.

The member state may unilaterally revoke its notice under Art50 to depart the EU following

“ ... a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council. Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.”

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf

[Rob C]

... and a further discussion can be found here:
https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/
and here:
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1177268281239097344?s=19


The member state may unilaterally revoke its notice under Art50 to depart the EU following

“ ... a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council. Such a revocation confirms the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State and brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.”

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf

"Good faith" brings up an interesting question: were BoJo to make such a withdrawal request, would - could - it be granted under such a concept as good faith?

I hope very much it comes to such a decision.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

If there won't be elections, and parliament won't vote to end Brexit, of what value was the SC's decision?  What is parliament going to do in the interim? 

Assuming Brexit goes through, what is the EU and Britain doing to assure trade and other important cross-channel relationships continue uninterrupted?

[Manoli]

Can Johnson bypass the Benn Act?
James Blitz for the FT today, September 27, 2019

Can Boris Johnson get around the Benn Act? This is a question much under discussion at Westminster today, with some MPs wondering whether the UK might still end up plunging into a no-deal Brexit on October 31.

A reminder: the Benn Act is the anti-no deal legislation that compels the prime minister to seek a three-month extension to Article 50 if he cannot get a Brexit deal agreed by the end of the European Council on October 17-18.

Tabled by Labour MP Hilary Benn, it was passed by a Rebel Alliance of opposition MPs and Conservative rebels earlier this month. It basically means that if the PM cannot get a Brexit deal in three weeks’ time, the UK won’t crash out on October 31.

John Major, the former prime minister, caused a stir last night when he said in a speech that he thought the Act could be bypassed.

He said: “My fear is that the government will seek to bypass Statute Law, by passing an Order of Council to suspend the Act until after 31 October. It is important to note that an Order of Council can be passed by Privy Councillors — that is government ministers — without involving HM The Queen.”

I asked Jo Maugham QC, one of the main campaigners behind this week’s Supreme Court victory, whether he thought Sir John’s fears were well founded. He said not.

Mr Maugham said: “The notion that this legislation can be suppressed by a government in such a way unilaterally defies everything we understand about the primacy of parliament.”

Mr Maugham thinks an alternative course of action for the government could be to disapply the Benn Act by recourse to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. This allows existing legislation to be suspended in the event of a national emergency.

But Mr Maugham said: “This isn’t applicable in circumstances like these. There is no likely emergency that could possibly require the Benn Act to be suspended.”

Professor Mark Elliott of Cambridge university is of a similar view. He tweeted today: “An ‘emergency’ means threats of serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security. No emergency exists or is imminent that would justify suspension of the Benn . . . Act.”

For Mr Maugham, the Benn Act looks watertight. The one area of uncertainty is what Mr Johnson will do when the moment comes to apply for an Article 50 extension — something he has said he would never do.

One could imagine a situation in which he refuses to apply for an extension, saying this has been imposed on him by parliament and in defiance of the will of the people. As a result, the extension might be formally applied for by a Whitehall official such as the Cabinet Secretary or by a court clerk.

One Downing Street figure told me this morning that he genuinely doesn’t know what Mr Johnson will do in these circumstances. My guess is that the Benn Act will be applied. But Mr Johnson will go out of his way to demonstrate, ahead of an election, that the “Surrender Act” was imposed on him against his will.

[Manoli]

"Good faith" brings up an interesting question: were BoJo to make such a withdrawal request, would - could - it be granted under such a concept as good faith?

I hope very much it comes to such a decision.

I’m not sure I’ve correctly understood your question, but ‘good faith” was Jeremy’s wording. It doesn't appear in the ECJ’s decision of Dec last year.

The ECJ affirmed the UK’s right to simply rescind notification under Art50 as long as it’s in accordance with UK constitutional obligations. It’s not a request, simply a written notification. If Parliament decides to stay in EU, all they’ve got to do is say “forget it boys, stuff it, we’re staying” and that is that.

Or, as the LibDems are wont to say “Bollocks to Brexit”

[faberryman]

PS:  I often ask a question not to get an answer that I already know,  It's a rhetorical question just to stir debate.

In other words, trolling.

[Alan Klein]

In other words, trolling.

Asking a rhetorical question to make a point whose answer is already understood is a higher level of debate.  I suppose you're not familiar with its principle.   On the other hand,  calling someone a troll is just a personal attack not requiring much knowledge or thought.   You seem to be more comfortable with the latter.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I hope that clarifies matters a little.

Perhaps, but it still doesn't answer the question why would elections mean a no-deal brexit under all and any circumstances. Boris has been a PM since July, plenty of time to call for a vote of no confidence and new elections. Under at least one scenario, Remainers get a majority and simply say "Bollocks to Brexit." What am I missing?

[Alan Klein]

The remainders are afraid of losing.

[Alan Klein]

Ps. Was that a rhetorical question?  Or were you just trolling? 😏

[Rob C]

Perhaps, but it still doesn't answer the question why would elections mean a no-deal brexit under all and any circumstances. Boris has been a PM since July, plenty of time to call for a vote of no confidence and new elections. Under at least one scenario, Remainers get a majority and simply say "Bollocks to Brexit." What am I missing?

Chance, Slobodan, chance.

Nobody but the BoJo Conspiracy wants an election because nobody knows how it would turn out, and the main event on the show is doing all that can be done to prevent a Brexit without a deal tied into it. BoJo wants it (an election) because he would use the time required to set up an election etc. to stall and thus evade the moment for going to Europe to ask for an extension, leaving the clock running down right past the last minute when Britain would, by default, find itself outside the door, wondering what had hit it, and would kind Mr Trump please turn it into star #51, sir?

Whether he won or lost the election wouldn't matter much to him because the grand exit would have been achieved, along with his single line in the famous history books. You do realise, of course, that BoJo does not want a deal? That's what all the trouble is about. None of his blood brothers wants one; they belong in another world of fantasy and easy living where it matters not a jot what happens to Britain or Ireland because they are all right, Jack, the money's both safely invested and banked abroad. The buzz is in the naked exercise of power and thumbing the collective nose at everyone else. There is not a little pleasure in knowing that his brand has been able to sway so many uninformed people his way. How they may react when the cars stop being made, the prices of everything in the shops go up, holidays in Spain become unaffordable, the remaining cheap airlines fold (two went today in Germany), the foreign nurses and doctors desert the hospitals and local medical practices, and the social security can't keep pace with unemployment benefits and pension payments is another matter. He and his cohorts may find themselves virtual prisoners in their homes. Maybe they can get helicoptered safely away like at the fall of Vietnam.

It's a one-item matter insofar as Parliament is concerned: prevent the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Nobody ... wants an election because nobody knows how it would turn out...

And that is the crux of the matter. One would think that, by now, the public is fully aware of all the lies and false arguments, nefarious motives, diabolical politicians, and the horrific consequence of Brexit, let alone the no-deal one. If so, the public would overwhelmingly vote for Remain parties, no? Or vote to remain in the second referendum, if it comes to that.

But you are not sure of that. Which means that the sentiment of the majority of the population, as well as the members of the parliament, is, still in favor of leave. Which means that it was not the lies during the first campaign that mattered, because those have been exposed as such in the last two years, but a deeper sentiment.

[jeremyrh]

Perhaps, but it still doesn't answer the question why would elections mean a no-deal brexit under all and any circumstances. Boris has been a PM since July, plenty of time to call for a vote of no confidence and new elections. Under at least one scenario, Remainers get a majority and simply say "Bollocks to Brexit." What am I missing?

Leave with no deal on 31st Oct is the default situation. The moment an election is called, Parliament is suspended and nobody can do anything to stop it.

Boris has been PM since July but Parliament has been on holiday for most of that, and the Conservatives have (had) a majority so it's by no means certain that a vote of NC would succeed.

[jeremyrh]

The remainders are afraid of losing.

The election is not leave vs remain.

[Rob C]

And that is the crux of the matter. One would think that, by now, the public is fully aware of all the lies and false arguments, nefarious motives, diabolical politicians, and the horrific consequence of Brexit, let alone the no-deal one. If so, the public would overwhelmingly vote for Remain parties, no? Or vote to remain in the second referendum, if it comes to that.

1. But you are not sure of that.

2. Which means that the sentiment of the majority of the population, as well as the members of the parliament, is, still in favor of leave. Which means that it was not the lies during the first campaign that mattered, because those have been exposed as such in the last two years, but a deeper sentiment.

1. Nobody is sure of anything.

2.  That does not follow; that is merely your own political slant being expressed, which as you are now an American, I understand.

As I also understand from today's morning news, BoJo, disciple of Trump, is now possibly about to be investigated by the police on suspicion that he misused his position as Mayor, along with funds, to favour a brassy American woman whom he promoted beyond her rightful level of business project value, and on whose part he intervened to get her onto several foreign business trips. I wonder what her side of the bargain was, or whether it was just another example of Johnsonia altruism? ;-)

Believe it or not, the "government" is now calling that investigation political action, which indicates to me that not only has UK already been sold forward to the US, but current US political diversionary tactics have been enshrined into the New Conservative party doctrine. How effin' ugly.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/boris-johnson-referred-to-police-watchdog-over-potential-misconduct

Again, I feel robbed of my party.

[Manoli]

The moment an election is called, Parliament is suspended and nobody can do anything to stop it.

Hate to be so punctilious but some here obsess over such ...

Parliament is dissolved, not suspended. Though the PM and ministers retain their positions and titles, MP’s do not. Nor, in the interim, are MP’s allowed to use the ‘MP’ suffix after their name , pending re-election.

Apologies.

[jeremyrh]

Hate to be so punctilious but some here obsess over such ...

Parliament is dissolved, not suspended. Though the PM and ministers retain their positions and titles, MP’s do not. Nor, in the interim, are MP’s allowed to use the ‘MP’ suffix after their name , pending re-election.

Apologies.

:-)

[Manoli]

Philip Hammond, today in The Times.

Philip Hammond: I no longer recognise this party of radicals
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-no-longer-recognise-this-party-of-radicals-cpdmxcxwf

also,
recent tweet by Mary Creagh, MP

The Cabinet Office has been asked to investigate whether Boris Johnson could be in breach of the ministerial code by not declaring any financial connection to hedge fund donors who contributed substantially to his leadership election campaign.

A complaint was lodged in August with Helen MacNamara, director-general of the Propriety and Ethics Team, about Johnson’s financial connections to the bankrollers of his leadership campaign. This was before the extent of Johnson’s reliance on hedge fund donors, many of whom funded the Vote Leave campaign in 2016 which Boris Johnson paid (*) a prominent role was revealed.

* edit : pretty sure she meant ‘played’.

Details and charts:
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

[Rob C]

Watch this for more insight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zAkMhEqWFF0#fauxfullscreen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksLySMWRwLs#fauxfullscreen


Particularly interesting, if you know who be the players in the current Conservative nest of:

https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/rees-mogg-set-for-1m-golden-goodbye-as-he-bows-out-of-boutique/a1258155

https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/jacob-rees-mogg-s-firm-distributes-over-25-million-to-partners/a1142453?section=wealth-manager


From the last one, you will note the faith they have in a post-Brexit Britain... and unbelievably, the lemmings still follow. One assumes, therefore, they (the lemmings) cannot, or more likely, will not read because it could dent their "patriotic" position.