Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

I have to ask you RandBlade; do you like being responsible for destroying the United Kingdom? How does it feel to be the Jacobin whose only reaction to getting things his way is moving the goal posts? I mean, where does this lust for destruction come from?

Not that I expect the UK to break up anytime soon, but I'll just leave this thread here from 2013 for you to refresh your memory: http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...nce+referendum

[Hazir]

Most of the things I said then about Scottish nationalists back then are true about Brexitards today.

Thank God Barnier shot a big hole in the EU softening nonsense today by the way. The bullshit was getting too much.

[RandBlade]

MRDA.

Parliament is desperately trying to take No Deal off the table this week, what was he going to say "Boris is right, leave us no other choice and we'll back down"?

Let's see what he says this time next week if Parliament doesn't take No Deal off the table and gets prorogued with it being the default alternative having had an extension rejected.

[Hazir]

MRDA.

Parliament is desperately trying to take No Deal off the table this week, what was he going to say "Boris is right, leave us no other choice and we'll back down"?

Let's see what he says this time next week if Parliament doesn't take No Deal off the table and gets prorogued with it being the default alternative having had an extension rejected.

You really don't get it do you? Your internal politics no longer change the position taken by us.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...-stop-no-deal-

"sovereignty"

[RandBlade]

You really don't get it do you? Your internal politics no longer change the position taken by us.

No I don't get that. I don't believe it.

[RandBlade]

Twitter Link

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...-stop-no-deal-

"sovereignty"

Damn right

[Aimless]

Damn right

Now that you've shown your pleasure at the thought of the executive outright ignoring laws passed by parliament, I reckon we're just a few months away from you railing against the lügenpresse. You are just so very predictable, and so very pathetic.

[Aimless]

"The very idea that Parliament can be swept aside because its view does not cohere with the executive is to stand principle on its head. We are constitutionally impoverished if we regard this as the new constitutional norm."

http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/prorogation...and-causation/

[Aimless]

As you know I am in Turkey regularly and I have followed its politics closely for well over 2 decades. For the last decade or so about half of Turks don't want to be ruled by the AKP or more specifically Erdogan. Yet, they are ruled by the AKP and Erdogan, with all their attempts to change that remaining fruitless. And untill recently they really really never got it; how was it possible that Turks wouldn't elect their most eligible candidates over Erdogan. And there really were some people amongs those alternatives who could have been good presidents. But all these great people fighting eachother without any fail ended in Erdogan coming out on top. That is, untill the opposition realized that they stood no chance of winning before they agreed upon a common candidate. Do I need to remind you what happened at the municipal elections recently?

The current situation in the UK is equivalent to the situation before Erdogan wins for the first time due to a fractured opposition.

I used Remainers as a shorthand for everybody not dead set on Brexit regardless of damage done. It is not important what every faction in that group individually wants. It only is relevant if they unite on a common goal. When they don't it will be whatever the present occupant of 10DS wants it to be.

You can call them !Xorblians for all that I care; it would be a more accurate and informative a label, given you're conflating both Remainers and Brexiters but only choosing one of those labels, even though it has a specific meaning. There are many who profess to actively want Brexit, but their own specific version of it that is substantially different from the govt's, or the ERG's. That is not the same as being a "Remainer", except in extremist discourse.

Finally I would like to remind you that it's not the UK that has a problem with the EU and the way it's political class tells crass lies about it. Your country has had a referendum on the EURO which beats the Brexit referendum hands down. Boris may have lied through his teeth during the campaing, but Brexit at least was a choice that could be delivered. Your EURO referendum was a referendum that actually legally can not deliver on the decision of your voters without leaving the EU.

You can certainly make a fair argument that Sweden's current status constitutes a latent infringement of its treaty obligations according to a strict reading, and several jurists have indeed sought to make that case. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you of the reality that you yourself acknowledged in the thread RB linked to just now:

As for the euro; yes it's true in essence. However the Swedish example shows that the rule is not set in stone even though it's written in the treaties.

A decade and a half after Sweden's Euro referendum, the Commission continues to accept Sweden's rationale for not joining the Eurozone due to not fulfilling the ERM2 convergence criterion. Swedish politicians appear to have upheld their promise to Swedish voters, with the EU's blessing. So I contend that they were right, and will continue to be right until the matter is put to a more substantial legal and/or political test.

[RandBlade]

Now that you've shown your pleasure at the thought of the executive outright ignoring laws passed by parliament, I reckon we're just a few months away from you railing against the lügenpresse. You are just so very predictable, and so very pathetic.

Wait, where did I show pleasure at the thought of the exectuive outright ignoring laws? That wasn't on the list. Why are you projecting?

There were 3 things quoted.
1: Rejecting royal assent - This is the most extreme option which is akin to a Presidential Veto. Last time this occured was in Queen Anne's day, but then forcing a law past the executive like this is also unprecedented. Parliament will retain the right to remove the PM and replace the executive.
2: Refusing to resign if a VoNC passes. This isn't at all extreme, this is the law and precedence. The law and precedence is that if Parliament has no confidence in a PM then there must be an election to find a new Parliament that can hold confidence in a PM. If Parliament can have confidence in a new PM then they become PM. Unless and until a new PM is found that Parliament has confidence in, the old PM remains in office. See 1979 and 2010 for example, both after a defeated VONC in 79 and after a lost GE in 2010 the Labour PM remained in Downing Street until it was confirmed the LOTO could command a majority [in 1979 by the election, in 2010 by the coalition agreement being agreed].
3: Filibustering - You think filibustering a proposed law is ignoring a law?

If Parliament wants the executive to be different then the solution is for Parliament to remove the executive, not to do an end-run around them.

[Aimless]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...-stop-no-deal-

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

This sets a whole new standard for lying, and that takes some doing. Tories love to misuse WW2 parallels, but this sort of overt contempt for the truth is a hallmark of fascism.

[gogobongopop]

Twitter Link

This sets a whole new standard for lying, and that takes some doing. Tories love to misuse WW2 parallels, but this sort of overt contempt for the truth is a hallmark of fascism.

He's an odious man.

[RandBlade]

Wait, where did I show pleasure at the thought of the exectuive outright ignoring laws? That wasn't on the list. Why are you projecting?

There were 3 things quoted.
1: Rejecting royal assent - This is the most extreme option which is akin to a Presidential Veto. Last time this occured was in Queen Anne's day, but then forcing a law past the executive like this is also unprecedented. Parliament will retain the right to remove the PM and replace the executive.
2: Refusing to resign if a VoNC passes. This isn't at all extreme, this is the law and precedence. The law and precedence is that if Parliament has no confidence in a PM then there must be an election to find a new Parliament that can hold confidence in a PM. If Parliament can have confidence in a new PM then they become PM. Unless and until a new PM is found that Parliament has confidence in, the old PM remains in office. See 1979 and 2010 for example, both after a defeated VONC in 79 and after a lost GE in 2010 the Labour PM remained in Downing Street until it was confirmed the LOTO could command a majority [in 1979 by the election, in 2010 by the coalition agreement being agreed].
3: Filibustering - You think filibustering a proposed law is ignoring a law?

If Parliament wants the executive to be different then the solution is for Parliament to remove the executive, not to do an end-run around them.

I made a mistake in this post. Vetoing legistlation by witholding royal assent didn't last occur in Queen Anne's day, it was a technique Tony Blair used. Much more recent precedence.

[Aimless]

I made a mistake in this post. Vetoing legistlation by witholding royal assent didn't last occur in Queen Anne's day, it was a technique Tony Blair used. Much more recent precedence.

Royal consent is not the same as Royal assent. Meanwhile, Gove refused to rule out not following a law passed by parliament, and you applauded it.

[RandBlade]

Royal consent is not the same as Royal assent. Meanwhile, Gove refused to rule out not following a law passed by parliament, and you applauded it.

No I did not! That wasn't in the Tweet I applauded.

I applauded the government saying they would resist a law they opposed being passed within Parliament, that's a completely different matter!

[Aimless]

No I did not! That wasn't in the Tweet I applauded.

I applauded the government saying they would resist a law they opposed being passed within Parliament, that's a completely different matter!

And as for the other point, royal consent ≠ royal assent.

[Steely Glint]

Calling another election.

[Unheard Of]

Watching live, he sounds rattled.

[Hazir]

The Buffoon is just Theresa May mark 2.0

[Steely Glint]

I still can't decide if he actually just wants no deal or if he genuinely thinks his 'play chicken with the EU' plan has a chance of working.

[RandBlade]

And as for the other point, royal consent ≠ royal assent.

Where did I applaud that?

[Aimless]

Where did I applaud that?

You applauded Gove for refusing to rule out ignoring a law passed by parliament.

You also, falsely, accused Blair of using the tactic of getting the Queen to withhold royal assent in order to veto a law that had been passed by parliament.

[Aimless]

I still can't decide if he actually just wants no deal or if he genuinely thinks his 'play chicken with the EU' plan has a chance of working.

Category error. This is all just internal party politics and manipulation.

[gogobongopop]

God, what a mess. What a truly awful desperate mess.

And we've barely scratched the service of the long, laborious journey we've started.

I can't see how the Tory party will survive this. Any remotely centralist politicians will be forced out and replaced with Brexit Party and UKIP fuckwits.

In the mean time Labour continue to squander the easiest opportunity they've ever had.

Just imagine if we'd voted to remain. Just imagine all the good things we could be doing. Just imagine how much money and opportunity cost we could have saved.

[RandBlade]

You applauded Gove for refusing to rule out ignoring a law passed by parliament.

You also, falsely, accused Blair of using the tactic of getting the Queen to withhold royal assent in order to veto a law that had been passed by parliament.

No I did not applaud Gove for that. I applauded the words you actually posted.

Twitter Link

Sorry if you expect me to read every link you post without quoting any words, especially when had quoted a separate link with different words

You also, falsely, accused Blair of using the tactic of getting the Queen to withhold royal assent in order to veto a law that had been passed by parliament.

Blair used the tactic of getting the Queen involved to withhold royal consent with regards to the invasion of Iraq. Boris could arguably use the same tactic for the proposed extension delay request since the proposed bill requires the PM not just to request an extension but to accept it - which is a prerogative power. May accepted both previous extensions under prerogative powers, Parliament hadn't instructed her to accept a revised date.

[RandBlade]

Clever politics by Boris. May was running 20+ points leads in the polls and threw it away by calling a needless election and then running scared, which created this mess we are in now. Brenda from Bristol represented much of the nation in her pithy remark to the election being called.

Boris is saying he doesn't want an election to the camera while its patently clear he's been planning one since day one. He is simultaneously backing Parliament into a corner, while keeping his hands clean and claiming with some justification that he is being backed into a corner.

Now Parliament faces a choice - back down and let the PM do his job [unlikely], or force through an election which will see many MPs lose their seats. Will the turkeys vote for Christmas? Either way with the polls pointing to the largest Tory victory since 1987 at the moment it is win/win for Boris so long as he doesn't screw this up. And Brenda shouldn't be pissed off at him.

[Aimless]

No I did not applaud Gove for that. I applauded the words you actually posted.

Twitter Link

Sorry if you expect me to read every link you post without quoting any words, especially when had quoted a separate link with different words

I know you have problems with reading, so I even provided screenshots of the salient parts of the article I linked to in addition to the article summarized in the tweet. Do you see those screenshots on your screen? Do you need them to be posted again?

Blair used the tactic of getting the Queen involved to withhold royal consent with regards to the invasion of Iraq. Boris could arguably use the same tactic for the proposed extension delay request since the proposed bill requires the PM not just to request an extension but to accept it - which is a prerogative power. May accepted both previous extensions under prerogative powers, Parliament hadn't instructed her to accept a revised date.

The point here is that the reports indicate Johnson is considering trying to withhold royal assent for a bill that has been successfully passed by Parliament. You tried to justify this utterly fucked-up anti-democratic tactic by lying about Blair doing the same thing, in order to trivialize what would in reality be an extraordinary and extremely questionable measure. Blair did no such thing. What he did do may certainly be regarded as being politically suspect, but it isn't even remotely in the same league as trying to get the queen to withhold royal assent for a bill that has been passed.

[Aimless]

Now Parliament faces a choice - back down and let the PM do his job [unlikely], or force through an election which will see many MPs lose their seats. Will the turkeys vote for Christmas? Either way with the polls pointing to the largest Tory victory since 1987 at the moment it is win/win for Boris so long as he doesn't screw this up. And Brenda shouldn't be pissed off at him.

And there it is: political nihilism, right on cue.