International Brexit Discussion v9: The Last Extension

[Arkain2K]

What ever this circus comes down to, perhaps Britain should consider drafting an actual Constitution to establish a real legal framework for their government to operate on, rather than a hodgepodge of contradicting political traditions that apparently are now all "unlawful" and "undemocratic".

MPs to vote again on early election motion next week
05 September 2019

MPs will get another chance to vote for an early election on Monday, the government has announced.

It comes after the House of Commons rejected Boris Johnson's plan for a snap election on 15 October in a vote on Wednesday.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said Labour wanted an election, but its priority was stopping a no-deal Brexit.

The PM later said he would rather be "dead in a ditch" than go to Brussels to ask for a further delay to Brexit.

He added that he wanted to give the country a choice.

"We either go forward with our plan to get a deal, take the country out on 31 October which we can or else somebody else should be allowed to see if they can keep us in beyond 31 October," Mr Johnson said.

Meanwhile, the prime minister's brother Jo Johnson - who backed Remain in the 2016 EU referendum - has quit as Tory MP and minister, saying he is "torn between family and national interest".

And independent MP Luciana Berger, who left the Labour Party for Change UK earlier this year, has joined the Liberal Democrats , saying she is acting "in the national interest, to offer a vital, positive alternative to Johnson and Corbyn".

The fresh vote on an early election is scheduled just before Parliament is due to be prorogued - or suspended - from next week until 14 October.

Announcing the vote, Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg said the suspension would begin on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday but did not say precisely when.

The government-controlled commission responsible for setting the date has not yet made a decision, he added.

Opposition parties are holding talks about how to respond to the prime minister's call for a mid-October election, amid concern over whether it should be delayed until after an extension has been agreed to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.

A bill aimed at preventing a no-deal Brexit was approved by the Commons on Wednesday and a deal was agreed in the early hours of Thursday that Tory peers would not attempt to filibuster - talk it out - in the Lords.

The government says this bill will now complete its passage through the Lords on Friday.

Number 10 said the bill "would in essence overturn the biggest democratic vote in our history - the 2016 referendum". It added: "The PM will not do this."

Labour and other opposition MPs say they will not back the prime minister's call to have a general election while the option of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October remains open to Mr Johnson.

Mr McDonnell told the BBC that Labour would only agree once it had ensured the legislation to protect against a no-deal Brexit, but he would prefer to have an election "later rather than sooner".

He said Labour was "consulting" with other opposition parties "to determine the date" of a general election.

"The problem that we've got is that we cannot at the moment have any confidence in Boris Johnson abiding by any commitment or deal that we could construct," he said. "So we are now consulting on whether it's better to go long, therefore, rather than to go short."

He acknowledged there were splits in Labour about the timing of a general election, saying the leadership was in contact with legal experts and other opposition parties about what to do.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson said she believed Mr Johnson could try to press ahead with a no-deal Brexit, despite the legislation.

"I do have confidence that the bill will get through the House of Lords," she said.

"But in the current circumstances where we find ourselves, where we've got a prime minister seemingly prepared to do anything to rip up the traditions of parliamentary democracy, then I also think that we need to be very aware of the risks."

Meanwhile, Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has warned Mr Johnson that he "cannot win an election, whenever it comes, if the Brexit Party stands against him".

However, if they were to make a pact during a general election "with a clear policy, we'd be unstoppable", he told BBC Breakfast.

Elsewhere, legal challenges against Mr Johnson's plan to shut down Parliament next week are taking place.

The High Court in England will consider a judicial review request from Gina Miller , the businesswoman who successfully challenged the government over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start the Brexit countdown. She will be joined by former Prime Minister Sir John Major.

In Scotland, there is an appeal against a ruling that said the prime minister had not broken any laws by asking the Queen to suspend Parliament.

And in Belfast, a judicial review against the government by a campaigner arguing that no deal could jeopardise the Northern Ireland peace process, has been fast-tracked and will be heard later.

What has happened to the bill?

In the Lords, peers sat until 01:30 BST, holding a series of amendment votes that appeared to support predictions of a marathon filibuster session - designed to derail the bill.

But then Lord Ashton of Hyde announced that all stages of the bill would be completed in the Lords by 17:00 BST on Friday.

The proposed legislation was passed by MPs on Wednesday, inflicting a defeat on Mr Johnson.

The bill says the prime minister will have until 19 October to either pass a deal in Parliament or get MPs to approve a no-deal Brexit - and after that he will have to request an extension to the UK's departure date to 31 January 2020.

However, an extension would require the agreement of the EU, a point which Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming says is being made "quite strenuously" by EU officials.

And Michel Barnier, the chief European Brexit negotiator, is reported to have told European diplomats that negotiations with London over the terms of Britain's withdrawal from the EU are in a state of paralysis.

He also advised that the UK appeared intent on reducing the level of ambition in the political declaration that will steer the next stage of the negotiations.

Responding to the comments, Downing Street said it rejected Mr Barnier's assessment.

The PM's official spokesman said: "Both sides agree to continue talks tomorrow after constructive discussions yesterday and we have seen from EU leaders that there is a willingness to find and agree solutions to the problems we have with the old deal."

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-49591630

 

[Rod1]

The reverse is also true: it's a referendum, not a foreverendum.

Thats the point i was making

They can GTFO now, then apply to rejoin, then hold another referendum to see if they want to stay or leave again. Following the process is the only way no one can whine about Democracy being subverted.

Why though? it wasnt a binding referendum, it was carried by a particular parliament that its no longer in power.

Same thing with elections. It doesn't matter what you base your vote on, or how much you actually know, once the results are in and the voting process is declared by the court as legitimate and legal, the outcome must be followed through until the process plays itself out, then you can vote again.

Nope, in parliamentary systems a motion of no confidence can be called at any time.

Had the British court declared the referendum as fraudulent and charge some politicians behind it for outright fraud, then it could be trashed immediately.

A non-binding referendum carried by a parliament that its no longer in power. Why would a new parliament be forced to carry out the will of a previous parliament?

Trump had no issue scrapping the TPP and i didnt saw anyone bitching about being undemocratic.

On the other hand, if there are British who pushes for the idea of simply ignoring the first vote and have a complete do-over now, base on no legal basis other than "people might have changed their minds", they better damn well accept that precedent for all general votes going forward.

There is no legal basis on the first vote either. There is a reason why dictators love referendums it allows them to bypass all checks and balances on democracy while wrapping themselves in a shroud of democracy and self-righteousness.

Didn't get the result I wanted? Let's vote again. Best out of three. Unless I lose again, then best out of five.

Sure, if you have the parliamentary majority to do so, how many times did the house voted to repeal Obamacare?

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing that either, for the entertainments it brings would lasts for centuries to come.

It would certainly teach politicians to not subvert democracy with demagogy.

 

[Rod1]

Referendum is the most democratic tool you have in a democracy, its the direct word of the people and beyond any party preference.

Um no? direct democracy is shit.

 

[curryjunkie]

You made no questions to me you duffus.

Not being legally binding just shows how undemocratic UK has become. Switzerland is a prime example of a democratic country that uses referendums to hear their voters directly and its legally binding, guess where most people would rather live? There is nothing more democratic than a referendum, common people deciding directly their fate.

But you are here trying to play like you know more, saying all the voters who choose to leave are idiots, I´m saying direct votes should be respected independent of the outcome if it pleases you or not, thats DEMOCRACY.

I´m from Portugal and prefer that my country stays in UE, its beneficial, we are a small country, without a lot of resources, being part of EU helps us, even though Lisboa and Porto have changed a lot after 1999 in terms of immigration. But if I was from UK I would definitely think twice about staying in UE.

 

[curryjunkie]

What you calls "pure coincident" or "hissy fit", the rest of the forum simply refers to as "news updates".

It's kinda my thing in this neighborhood, and I'm pretty damn good at it.

Beside the international threads on Brexit and France's digital tax, there's also new updates on the latest happenings in Cuba, Venezuela, Canada, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and the Bahamas in the same month. (The Ireland's taxes and Apple thread was actually maintained by @JDragon , though I think he might have abandoned it.)

If you have anything of substance on those subject matters, you are welcome to participate with the others, as long as you learn how to keep the right topic in the right thread.

This one here is about Brexit, for example.

 

[Teen Wolf]

 

[Arkain2K]

Hmmm...I wonder who that could be.

 

[Arkain2K]

The Johnson family drama recap:

 

[JDragon]

Members of the EP who have been briefed by Barnier have made it clear the UK government isn't actually trying to negotiate anything.

It's pretty clear what's going on: Boris Johnson wants an election, and he wants to make sure Brexit party sides with him. If that happens, he can win and consolidate his power. This is something I called quite some time ago.

I doubt he actually cares about Brexit too much.

Furthermore, I wonder what if...

...Boris Johnson would be forced by law to ask the EU for an extension, but refuses (i.e. breaks the law)?

Is there any mechanism in British law to challenge him in such a situation, aside from a no-confidence vote?

 

[Gl0kta]

Furthermore, I wonder what if...

...Boris Johnson would be forced by law to ask the EU for an extension, but refuses (i.e. breaks the law)?

Is there any mechanism in British law to challenge him in such a situation, aside from a no-confidence vote?

Would have to go to the courts.

The last guy to do that got his head chopped off.

 

[Arkain2K]

There is no legal basis on the first vote either. There is a reason why dictators love referendums it allows them to bypass all checks and balances on democracy while wrapping themselves in a shroud of democracy and self-righteousness.

Yikes, I don't think even the most ardent Remain crowd in Britain are making that sort of claim, Rod.

As we all remember from the news & discussion in V1, the European Union Referendum Act of 2015 - which provided the legal basis for the vote the following year - was approved overwhelmingly by both the House of Commons as well as the House of Lords, received the necessary Royal Assent, and became law well before the vote takes place.

There were a handful of Britons who quickly challenged the referendum's legality in court after the vote when the result didn't go their way, but every single attempt to nullify the vote was quickly tossed when the courts consistently affirmed that it was those outrageous claims that had no legal basis, not the vote.

Since you disagreed with the British court's findings that the E.U Referendum Act of 2015 had all those required checkboxes ticked according to known British laws and procedures, what else do you think is required to give proper legal basis to that referendum?

 

[Barteh]

It's insane how the vote of the people are getting blatantly ignored. You want to get out of the EU? Well fuck that we're staying.

Similar thing happened to us in the Netherlands? Oh, you vote against a European constitution? Well let us just sign the treaty of Lisbon which is basically the same thing. Fuck all these unelected EU bureaucrats I hope the EU dies soon.

 

[JDragon]

@Arkain2K

I really have been wondering. The referendum of 1975 clearly affirmed the British people's will to remain. Apparently there is no problem overturning this vote via the 2016 referendum from your pont of view. But what leads to this conclusion? Is this about years that must have passed since the last referendum? If so, how many years are required? 4? 5? 10? 40?

Because your recent post about how the UK should leave and then re-apply did not make any sense. Brexit is permanent, it cannot be healed realistically. Why is it that you (and so many others) insist that the consultative referendum must be adhered to when it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that

• there was no legal mechanism to force the government to act on this glorified opinion poll
• voters were blatantly lied to by the leave campaign
• voters did not know what leaving even means because the referendum was unspecific and key politicians told them it would be easy to get a deal with the EU

There is a negotiated deal with the EU. A two questions referendum can break the deadlock.

Why do you insist, given all of this, that a democracy cannot reverse course given new information and on the brink of a national disaster? You have outlined yourself what an incredible stupidity Brexit is.

 

[Arkain2K]

@Arkain2K

I really have been wondering. The referendum of 1975 clearly affirmed the British people's will to remain. Apparently there is no problem overturning this vote via the 2016 referendum from your pont of view. But what leads to thia conclusion? Is this about years that must have passed since the last referendum? If so, how many years are required? 4? 5? 10? 40?

I don't think new decision to overturn previous decisions is ever measure in years, but it's a matter of procedure. That's the only way no one can whine about anything being "undemoractic".

In 1975, Britons finally got a say in their country's ECC membership that the Tories government entered two years prior. It was Britain's first nation-wide referendum ever, and 2/3 of the country said they support the U.K's membership in the ECC. Now I wasn't around at that time, but I would have said the same thing that I'm saying now, if any Labour government then ignore that referendum result and try to unliterally take the country out of the ECC, because they think the ECC a terrible idea, and because the ECC referendum was non-binding.

The people had decided that the U.K should be in the ECC, and so parliament must operate on that "advisory". The anti-ECC dissents in Parliament can argue about leaving all they want, but first they would have to gathered enough MPs to approve yet another referendum, then see if the people actually vote to leave.

As we all know, that argument to leave did dragged on for fourty years, with various parties flip-flopping their positions between then and now, but it very much remained a minority opinion in the previous decades. It took the dissenters a long while, but they did finally manage to gather enough supporters in 2015 to rally for a second vote in 2016, thanks to the Tories and Labour (much to the chagrin of the SNP), long after the ECC ceased to exists.

Yes, Brexit was stupid, but I think the precendent of ignoring vote results that we don't like is a lot worse.

Once the U.K is out of the E.U, I would look forward to see if and when their Parliament would finally vote Yes to have a third referendum (something they expressed rejected earlier this year, among with 7 other things), and to see how many Brits then want to rejoin the E.U when that third referendum is held.

I think my consistency in these things is the reason why the Remainers called me a Brexiteers, and Brexiteers called me a Remainer, hahaha.

 

[JDragon]

I don't think new decision to overturn previous decisions is ever measure in years, but it's a matter of procedure. That's the only way no one can whine about anything being "undemoractic".

In 1975, two-thirds of Britons voted to join the ECC. Now I wasn't around at that time, but I would have said the same thing that I'm saying now if the other 1/3 then ignore that recerendum result and try to delay or derail Britain from ever becoming a member of the ECC.

The people had decided that the U.K should join the ECC, and so the government must carry that out first. Once the U.K has officially become a member of the ECC, THEN the dissents can argue about holding another referendum to leave.

As we all know, it did take the dissenters a while, but they did manage to gather enough supporters to rally for a second vote, long after the will of the people to have the U.K joining the ECC was achieved.

I think my consistency in these things is the reason why the Remainers called me a Brexiteers, and Brexiteers called me a Remainer, hahaha.

Bolded underlined part is factually wrong. The UK joined the ECC in 1973, this (non-binding and consultative) referendum asked:

Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

Therefore this was about leave or remain.

I also want to challenge your point regarding procedure. I would compare this to the case of a murderer sentenced to death, with all legal remedies exhausted, when new evidence emerges clearly proving the innocence of the accused. Would you execute him for the sake of procedure?

There was also a second part to my question, I am also interested in your answer to that part.

 

[JDragon]

I don't think new decision to overturn previous decisions is ever measure in years, but it's a matter of procedure. That's the only way no one can whine about anything being "undemoractic".

Maybe I misunderstood? If this is about procedure, then a second referendum would be the solution and could overrule the original result (or confirm it)

 

[Arkain2K]

Bolded underlined part is factually wrong. The UK joined the ECC in 1973, this non-binding and consultative referendum asked:

Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

Therefore this was about leave or remain.

I also want to challenge your point regarding procedure. I would compare this to the case of a murderer sentenced to death, with all legal remedies exhausted, when new evidence emerges clearly proving the innocence of the accused. Would you execute him for the sake of procedure?

There was also a second part to my question, I am also interested in your answer to that part.

You are correct, the British government applied to join the European Community in 1973 without ever consulting their people. The 1975 referendum was the first time ever that they allowed their voters to have a say in this sort of things. For a moment there, I forgot how backward they were in term of democracy 50 years ago. Thank you for the reminder, I will adjust my post accordingly.

As to your question about murderers who are found innocent after their conviction and have exhausted all their avenues for remedy. This is actually a real-life scenario that happens quite often with the introduction of DNA evidents, and hundreds of people have been exonerated that way.

The law varies from state to state, but the general post-conviction procedure we have here is that they are immediately released and become millionaires, compensation paid for by the authorities when the court determines that their wrongful arrest and conviction was illegal in the first place.

Here are just a few of those cases:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jailed-16-years-for-murder-he-didnt-commit-greg-taylor-tastes-freedom/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jailed-16-years-for-murder-he-didnt-commit-greg-taylor-tastes-freedom/

 

[Rod1]

Yikes, I don't think even the most ardent Remain crowd in Britain are making that sort of claim, Rod.

Yet reality is that Brexit is yet to materialize, are lawmakers in contempt?

As we all remember from the news & discussion in V1, the European Union Referendum Act of 2015 - which provided the legal basis for the vote the following year - was approved overwhelmingly by both the House of Commons as well as the House of Lords, received the necessary Royal Assent, and became law well before the vote takes place.

For a consultative referendum, not binding.

Its not like they didnt had until 2020 before the next general election to carry it out, they chickened out, called for anticipated general elections in 2017 and they lost even more seats.

If you want to blame people for not being democratic, then blame those who threw a referendum when they didnt had the balls to carry it out, the new Parliament of 2017 isnt legally or even morally bound to follow through with Brexit.

There were a handful of Britons who quickly challenged the referendum's legality in court after the vote when the result didn't go their way, but every single attempt to nullify the vote was quickly tossed when the courts consistently affirmed that it was those outrageous claims that had no legal basis, not the vote.

Why dont Britons challenged the legality of not following through then? seems like if Brexit is law then it would happen with or without parliament approval.

Since you disagreed with the British court's findings that the E.U Referendum Act of 2015 had all those required checkboxes ticked according to known British laws and procedures, what else do you think is required to give proper legal basis to that referendum?

Legal basis to carry the referendum is not the same as legal basis to carry out Brexit.

 

[Arkain2K]

Maybe I misunderstood? If this is about procedure, then a second referendum would be the solution and could overrule the original result (or confirm it)

Correct.

As I understand it, the procedure that the British government is operating on is this:

1) Parliament must vote and approve of a future referendum.

2) Both houses of Parliament then pass an Act of Parliament to authorize and establish the framework on which that particular referendum will be carried out, which then receive Royal Assent to becomes law.

3) The referendum is held according to the framework specified by the aforementioned Act.

4) The government is expected to comply with Referendum results because it is the will of the people, even though they're all technically non-binding.

If anyone want to have another vote, it's rince and repeat, starting from step 1.

The idea of authorizing yet another referendum before the previous one can be carried out was put to a vote earlier this year, and it failed miserably. 301 Tories voted No, while 201 cowardly Labour MPs chose to sat on their hands instead of making an actual opinion, for the idea of simply ignoring the first vote is too toxic for them to swallow:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-47576813

...and that is why Remainers and Leavers can curse at each others all they want in the WR, but another referendum just isn't happening, not in this dumpster fire of a Parliament anyway.

It's practically career-suicide for the two major parties - who worked together to make the previous referendum happen - to just disregard the result before acting on it, so in reality there are only two major camps at play here in the British parliament: Brexit Now Even With No Deal (And May Be We'll Get Another Deal), and Delay Brexit and Trust Us To Get A Better Deal Than No Deal.

I'm sure there is a handful of MPs who are still hoping that there would be another referendum before Brexit, but we have been watching this trainwreck long enough to be able to separate dreams (and imagined cakes) from reality.

I know there are people here (those who are decidedly in the Remain side, and especially a contingent of very angry Irish who kept repeating the same thing over and over about how everything is the Brit's fault) are pissed at me for saying that you guys should stop arguing about a do-over referendum that's not gonna happen with only 15% of Parliamental support, but that's like getting pissed at me for pointing out that the ocean is wet, though some hope it would be dry.

It simply is what it is, and I don't see any signs that any of the things I pointed out above would change any time soon.

 

[deise69]

For anyone who thinks the border issue is some sort of trap to keep the UK in the EU.