Straight Dope Message Board

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

A couple of pieces of news:So now we get to see if BoJo is a lawful PM, a criminal or dead in a ditch.

Only the first two options are plausible. Boris has 99 problems, but a ditch ain't one. 301

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Boris has 99 problems, but a ditch ain't one.

He'd be waiting for it to be dug by the bulldozer he promised to lie down in front of to stop the Heathrow expansion. 302

[Malden Capell]

What a week it's been. I'm more confident and optimistic now than I was at the end of August. 303

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Only the first two options are plausible. Boris has 99 problems, but a ditch ain't one.

I hope you dropped your keyboard and left the room after you were finished typing that. Well done! 304

[glee]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

On what grounds do you cancel it?

How about because the people in favour of Brexit are:

- Donald Trump
- Nigel Farage
- President Putin
- Dominic Cummings (and his patsy, Boris) 305

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

That last point is the tricky thing though. On what grounds do you cancel it?

There are a lot of good reasons for this, actually!

1. On representational grounds. Sometimes, the outcome of a referendum is so horrendous that the representatives of a representational democracy must step in and put a stop to it. We now know that Brexit would be a short-term and long-term catastrophe, and the actual vote was merely advisory, with no clear promise of what would happen as a result of it. It is entirely valid to say, "No, sorry, we're not going to shoot ourselves in the head, this is stupid."
2. On democratic grounds. Recent polling has shown a steady drop in support for Brexit, to the point where it is now clearly in the minority.
3. On legitimacy grounds. The election was rife with dishonesty and outright (punishable!) electoral fraud, almost all on the winning side.
4. On technical grounds. What people voted for and what people are likely to get are two very different things. There was an advisory vote held on the question, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". This says nothing about what manner the leaving should be, and it's entirely possible that, had the actual available options been "stay or leave in a catastrophic no-deal brexit that leads to serious shortages in every industry and insane harm for countless people", the poll would have gone quite differently.
5. On the grounds that you're not actually cancelling shit! There is no reason you could not revoke article 50 now, then re-invoke it a few years down the line once the UK has figured out what it wants and how it plans to achieve those goals. Literally all it does is give the status quo more time and improve Britain's bargaining position.

So yeah. Lots of reasons.

The assumption seems to be that there is no democratic fallout from doing so. Cancelling it does not mean that those who voted for it will shut up and go home.

Obviously not. But it does mean that we avoid the immediate catastrophe, and that seems slightly more pressing than pissing off a bunch of (and let's be perfectly honest here) impressively thick and/or racist people.

If you are saying that leaving the EU is now impossible then people will quite rightly say "when did we agree to give up all possibility of leaving the EU?" To me, such a situation would have been the greatest democratic outrage.

But... nobody is saying that. Indeed, emphasis is consistently being put on how piss-poor this specific attempt is. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how the UK could have screwed the pooch any harder on this. It is absolutely possible to leave the European Union. It is not possible to do so without some fairly significant economic hardships, but in a rational world, Britain would be aware of those problems and will have prepared for the contingencies, and worked out a deal with the EU that would minimize the harm.

But we live in a shit world, where the government itself covers up papers detailing how bad things are going to get, lest people start to get cold feet. We live in a world where the government tried to hire a ferry company as a contingency plan and it turned out the company owned zero ships. Is it possible to leave the EU? Sure! But May was not up to the task, and Johnson sure as hell ain't up for the task. It's like asking whether the US can win a war against Iraq. Sure! It's just that maybe George W. Bush is the wrong man for the job, and if we're stuck with him, we'd be better off calling the whole thing off.

If it is still possible then the problem has not gone away and will resurface with renewed force whenever the E.U. program overreaches itself or stumbles......and it will.

Sure! But then what? What's the worst-case scenario then? Is it worse than "no-deal Brexit under a Johnson administration"? If so: how?! Seems to me that the worst-case scenario then is "the worst-case scenario now, but delayed substantially", and given that the best-case scenario is that Britain doesn't fuck itself sideways, I'll roll those dice any day of the week.

Regardless of any of the above, If a second referendum were held it would have to be on the basis of a remain vote representing a de-facto confirmation that the UK can never leave in the future. It is a pretty sure thing that the EU will never allow this situation to arise again. Expect a new treaty in the aftermath of this whatever happens to Brexit.

Any cite on any of that? Because this seems like senseless speculation about as reasonable as the last stupid idea Boris Johnson plastered on the side of a bus. 306

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

...Even the rusted, rotting weapons found in the desert had clearly been lost or abandoned long before HWB tried to drum up his war.

Did you mean GWB? 307

[Walken After Midnight]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Did you mean GWB?

Henry Warren Beatty. 308

[Snowboarder Bo]

By the way, did Boris Johnson get any flak for his sexist comment about Jeremy Corbyn? The one where he called him a "great big girl's blouse", I mean. 309

[Oswald Bastable]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

By the way, did Boris Johnson get any flak for his sexist comment about Jeremy Corbyn? The one where he called him a "great big girl's blouse", I mean.

Probably not enough:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49593110

OB 310

[Gyrate]

In the context of "things Boris has said recently" it's one of the least offensive ones. 311

[Steophan]

Suspension of Parliament ruled illegal.

Will be interesting to see what law(s) have been broken, and what remedy is available. 312

[Malden Capell]

This could be huge.

Although the Government are already flinging accusations of Remainer bias at the Scottish judges. 313

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Although the Government are already flinging accusations of Remainer bias at the Scottish judges.

This is a very unwise thing for them to be doing. The Lord Chancellor should have a word. 314

[Elendil's Heir]

Number 10 is already backpedaling: https://www.cnn.com/uk/live-news/bor...ntl/index.html

Does the Scottish court have national jurisdiction? Is its ruling binding on the PM and/or Parliament itself?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Session 315

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Does the Scottish court have national jurisdiction? Is its ruling binding on the PM and/or Parliament itself?

As regards the rest of the UK, technically, no, it has no jurisdiction outside Scotland, and if the matter rested there, there's another constitutional issue, given the independence debate.

But the judgement's already overtaken by events, since as I understand it, the government is appealing against the decision in the Supreme Court (and a similar case in the English High Court, which ruled for the government, is also being appealed to the Supreme Court). 316

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Oswald Bastable

Probably not enough:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49593110

OB

Excellent; thank you for the link. Glad to see that he's been called out on it. 317

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Does the Scottish court have national jurisdiction? Is its ruling binding on the PM and/or Parliament itself?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Session

As the case was against the Westminster government, on a matter concerning the whole of the UK including Scotland, then the court's decision is binding on the UK government.

Obviously the Supreme Court is involved now, and we'll see what they think. That court has to decide between two fundamentally opposed positions, held by two of the three judicial systems governing the UK:

a) the reasons for prorogation are not justiciable - it's a purely political decision (England and Wales), and

b) the reasons for prorogation are justiciable and the reasons have to be proper, and in this case they aren't (Scotland)

It's a bloody minefield... 318

[GreenWyvern]

When the Supreme Court has ruled, will the losing side then appeal the case to the European Court of Human Rights? 319

[Malden Capell]

Careful, a lot of London taxi drivers don't accept Scottish court rulings.

(stolen from Twitter) 320

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

As the case was against the Westminster government, on a matter concerning the whole of the UK including Scotland, then the court's decision is binding on the UK government.

Obviously the Supreme Court is involved now, and we'll see what they think. That court has to decide between two fundamentally opposed positions, held by two of the three judicial systems governing the UK:

a) the reasons for prorogation are not justiciable - it's a purely political decision (England and Wales), and

b) the reasons for prorogation are justiciable and the reasons have to be proper, and in this case they aren't (Scotland)

It's a bloody minefield...

Actually, there's a relatively easy reconciliation: The rule of law means that the government must comply with the law; in this context, this means that it must comply with the law of England and Wales and the law of Scotland and the law of Northern Ireland; as a matter of Scottish law, the reasons for prorogation are justiciable; as a matter of Scottish law, the reasons iin this case are improper. If the government's conduct doesn't pass muster under Scottish law then it makes no difference at all whether it passes muster under E&W or NI law. Exactly the same reasoning would apply if the Scottish courts had taken the view that the question was not justiciable and the E&W courts that it was.

What this means is that the biggest questions at the Supreme Court hearing next week will be (a) is the issue justiciable as a matter of Scottish law? and (b) were the reasons given proper as a matter of Scottish law? It is irrelevant to question (a) whether the issues is justiciable under the law of any other part of the kingom, and it is irrelevant to question (b) whether the reasons given, if they were justiciable, are or would be considered proper under the law of any other part of the kingdom.

In other words, in the events which have happened, the Scots law case is the big one.

The case will be heard by a panel of 9 judges, two of whom are Scottish judges (as in; members of the Scottish bar; practised Scottish law in the Scottish courts; were appointed to the Scottish bench and were judges in the Scottish courts before being appointed to the Supreme Court). I believe the convention in the Supreme Court is that when questions of Scottish law arise, the non-Scottish judges on the panel will normally defer to their Scottish colleagues (and correspondingly for questions of NI law and E&W law). So the opinions of these two judges may be decisive. Let's hope they don't disagree. 321

[Snowboarder Bo]

Remind me again: what would the penalty be if Boris Johnson fails to ask for an extension? 322

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Remind me again: what would the penalty be if Boris Johnson fails to ask for an extension?

Depending on what you read, anything from nothing to indefinite imprisonment. If he stays as PM, and a court orders him to follow the law, and all appeals are exhausted by 19th October, and he still refuses to request the extension, he may well then be in contempt of court. In that case, we have a constitutional crisis.

Should it happen differently, for example if he resigns as PM or if the law gets tied up in legal wrangling for long enough, the consequences to him will probably be entirely political, in that he will have to seek election when the public knows he's done these things. There's a significant amount of voters who will think he's a hero if we do leave the EU by 31st October, sadly.

The penalty for the country is that we're utterly fucked, we either leave the EU without a deal, we have a Government that's even less functional than currently, or both.

My prediction - Boris finds a way to not ask for an extension, we crash out without a deal, and there's an election where he ends up leading another minority government. And the UK pretty much collapses. 323

[UDS]

My guess, for what it's worth: If the requirement to seek an extension "bites" Johnson resigns as PM (but not as party leader), protesting volubly, rather than (a) seek an extension or (b) break the law and have to deal with the consequences of that. An interim/caretaker prime minister complies with the law and seeks an extension.

Whether or not an extension is granted, a general election follows soon after. Johnson campaigns as the man so committed to making Brexit happen that he resigned rather than request an extension, and he seeks to demonise his opponents as opponents of makign Brexit happen and, therefore, of the Will of the People. 324

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Remind me again: what would the penalty be if Boris Johnson fails to ask for an extension?

The important question is not whether, if Johnson breaks the law, he will suffer a sanction and if so what saction. That's a secondary issue. (Though it is fun to speculate about.)

The important question is, if Johnson breaks the law, what mechanisms and remedies are available to ensure that the law is nevertheless carried into effect, and the intention of the legislature realised? Can the consequences Johnson's lawbreaking be rectifed by the actiosn of others and, if so, what others and what actions? 325

[Snowboarder Bo]

Thank you both.

I'm thinking that Johnson will be coy and mostly silent, except when he's making vague promises that he's going to ask for the extension. Then he'll spend all day on 31 October out of sight and resign at 11:50pm, claiming that he just couldn't bring himself to ask for the extension, but he didn't want to break the law, so he resigned before the deadline. And it's just not his fault that a new PM couldn't be placed in time to ask for the extension before the deadline passed. He's a man of principle, you see. 326

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Thank you both.

I'm thinking that Johnson will be coy and mostly silent, except when he's making vague promises that he's going to ask for the extension. Then he'll spend all day on 31 October out of sight and resign at 11:50pm, claiming that he just couldn't bring himself to ask for the extension, but he didn't want to break the law, so he resigned before the deadline. And it's just not his fault that a new PM couldn't be placed in time to ask for the extension before the deadline passed. He's a man of principle, you see.

This won't work. They thought of that, as a result of which the obligation set out in the legislation is to ask for an extension "no later than 19 October 2019". So if his "with one bound he was free" move is going to be resignation, he has to resign before 20 October. That leaves 11 days to identify an interim PM who is willing to carry out the duties of the office; should be enough. 327

[Oswald Bastable]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Then he'll spend all day on 31 October out of sight and resign at 11:50pm, claiming that he just couldn't bring himself to ask for the extension, but he didn't want to break the law, so he resigned before the deadline.

I’m not sure of the exact process, but would he not have to tender his resignation to the Queen and she have to accept it? The old dear will be in bed by ten to midnight, surely.

OB 328

[GreenWyvern]

As a professor of law and government, I believe today's court ruling means Johnson must immediately resign

Johnson’s suspension of parliament could easily have had the effect of stopping MPs from giving the weight of law to their widely-held view. Only thanks to the efforts of Hilary Benn and others do we now have a Bill in place which demands that Johnson seek an extension of Article 50 should no-deal loom on 31 October.

If that had not come to pass, then the suspension of parliament by the Queen on the request of her prime minister would, in effect, have changed the law. On such precarious events are new precedents set.

This raises an important constitutional issue which could easily be lost in the relief that the worst outcome was averted. Boris Johnson has now unsettled the convention of the length of proroguing and its purpose. If three weeks are ok, then why not three months – or three years? What would prevent this? And if laws can effectively be changed by blocking parliament from sitting, then we really would be talking about a coup in more than name.

And that is what Scotland's highest court found. They held that the prime minister's intention to suspend parliament was to avoid its scrutiny of his government. In effect, Johnson has been found to have lied to the Queen, to our parliament and the public.

329

[GreenWyvern]

Matt cartoon 330

[glee]

Boris Johnson is a liar? Who knew? 331

[Gyrate]

I watched John Oliver's latest piece on Boris. The winning line:

Originally Posted by Last Week Tonight

If you want to make one at home the recipe is: 'simply boil one clown'.

332

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by UDS

This won't work. They thought of that, as a result of which the obligation set out in the legislation is to ask for an extension "no later than 19 October 2019". So if his "with one bound he was free" move is going to be resignation, he has to resign before 20 October. That leaves 11 days to identify an interim PM who is willing to carry out the duties of the office; should be enough.

Great to hear; thanks for the information. 333

[PatrickLondon]

I suppose it's theoretically not impossible that a failure to do what the law now requires might justify a charge of "malfeasance in public office" or at least nonfeasance - certainly the top rank civil servants are worried about the prospect that they might fall foul of the law if ministers ignore it. 334

[Elendil's Heir]

BoJo denies lying to HM - but then, he would, wouldn't he?: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/uk/bo...ntl/index.html 335

[PatrickLondon]

If he's not careful, she'll invite him back to Balmoral for a week or two.

In November. 336

[Elendil's Heir]

In a hairshirt and no shoes. 337

[ElvisL1ves]

"We have to go to a foreign country now to visit Balmoral, Boris. Are you happy?" 338

[Elendil's Heir]

"No? Good." 339

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by UDS

<snipped the long, considered and informative post UDS made>

Thanks UDS, your contributions in the various Brexit threads have been, and continue to be, invaluable to this somewhat bemused and befuddled poster. 340

[Snowboarder Bo]

Aye; add me to that compliment, please. 341

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Aye; add me to that compliment, please.

I concur.

UDS- other than racism and xenophilia, why do so many British people want to Brexit? 342

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

Thanks UDS, your contributions in the various Brexit threads have been, and continue to be, invaluable to this somewhat bemused and befuddled poster.

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Aye; add me to that compliment, please.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I concur.

I blush becomingly. Thanks, guys.

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

UDS- other than racism and xenophilia, why do so many British people want to Brexit?

In my view, a few factors. In no particular order:

Austerity: Since 2008, the UK has been a fairly depressing place for a lot of people. Not miserable; just persistently glum, real wages stagnating, low-grade employment abounding, growing inequality, public services contracting and deteriorating sense that things are getting better or are going to be. People want a change, and this looks like a change.

Rebellious gesture: Also, people want to express dissatisfaction, and this looks like an opportunity to express dissatisfaction by kicking the political and cultural establishment in the nuts. This factor probably explains why people don't feel the need to examine too closely whether the change effected by Brexit is the kind of change that is going to address the factors that make their world joyless. (Hint: it isn't.)

Nostalgia: Much Brexiter rhetoric is incredibly nostalgic, looking back to times when, they like to think, the UK was a much more signficant, and a much more confident, country than it is today. People would like to recapture some of that.

Widespread profound ignorance about what the EU is, what it does, why it does it and how it does it: Although the UK has been a member for going on 50 years now, popular culture and awareness has never really engaged with the reality of their participation in the Union, and perceptions of the EU are driven by a long-standing, deeply entrenched and frankly mendacious pejorative caricature of the EU in the popular media. This has had the effect not just of fostering antipathy to the EU but, rather seriously in the present context, giving people a wholly misleading idea of what leaving the EU will entail, and what it is or is not possible to acheive by leaving the EU.

It has often been noted that the UK decided to Brexit without any clear consensus on the reasons for doing so or the objects sought to be achieved by doing so, and that the disastrous progress of the project since that decision was taken is largely attributable to the fact that they sill haven't developed any kind of consensus about this. And the reason for this is that developing a pragmatic Brexit plan requires engagement with the reality of the EU and the UK's relationship to in it, and doing that requires letting go of the illusions and delusions they currently have about that, and it is psychologically very difficult to let go of illusions and delusions that you have already acted on, to your great cost and detriment. To be blunt, once you've sacrificed your children to Moloch, it's a very hard to admit to yourself that the whole Moloch thing is bogus. 343

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by UDS

I blush becomingly. Thanks, guys.


In my view, a few factors. In no particular order:

Austerity: Since 2008, the UK has been a fairly depressing place for a lot of people. Not miserable; just persistently glum, real wages stagnating, low-grade employment abounding, growing inequality, public services contracting and deteriorating sense that things are getting better or are going to be. People want a change, and this looks like a change.

Rebellious gesture: Also, people want to express dissatisfaction, and this looks like an opportunity to express dissatisfaction by kicking the political and cultural establishment in the nuts. This factor probably explains why people don't feel the need to examine too closely whether the change effected by Brexit is the kind of change that is going to address the factors that make their world joyless. (Hint: it isn't.)

Nostalgia: Much Brexiter rhetoric is incredibly nostalgic, looking back to times when, they like to think, the UK was a much more signficant, and a much more confident, country than it is today. People would like to recapture some of that.

Widespread profound ignorance ......
....

Hmm, in other words, why America elected trump. Makes sense. 344

[kevlaw]

I'd like to dissent a little from this.

Originally Posted by UDS

Austerity: Since 2008, the UK has been a fairly depressing place for a lot of people.

Rebellious gesture: Also, people want to express dissatisfaction

Nostalgia: Much Brexiter rhetoric is incredibly nostalgic

I live in Bristol (Bristol West voted 80-20 to remain) and I almost never encounter leavers in my neighbourhood but most of my family live in the Kent countryside which is very strongly pro-leave.

If you'd asked me a little while ago, why leavers want to leave, I would've said "Austerity. Rebellious gesture. Nostalgia" exactly as UDS has, but my Leaver relatives all fiercely deny that any of those had any impact on their thinking at all.

Now, maybe it's false consciousness or maybe they are lying and maybe those really are
the true reasons why they voted leave. But it's not useful to think that. It's a rhetorical own goal.

However, this…

Originally Posted by UDS

Widespread profound ignorance

…is dead right.

My family believe every conspiracy theory about how the EU is undemocratic and they are out to screw us over and we don't get anything for our contributions and it's all a secret plot by the Germans to achieve through soft power what they failed to achieve in two world wars.

It's really hard to even talk to them about it because we have no common understanding of the facts. It's like they have been living in an alternative timeline which, in many ways, they have.

Have a look, for example, at yesterday's headlines.

The Times — PM Blocks Key Memos on Shutting Parliament
i — Queen Dragged into Unlawful Shutdown of Commons.
Daily Mirror — Boris Lied to the Queen
The Guardian — No Deal Chaos as Secret Brexit Papers Published
Independent — Johnson Acted Illegally in Proroguing Parliament.
Metro — Another Fine Mess (Johnson broke the law)

Daily Mail: Megan Back at Work!
The Sun: Meghan Markle launches high street clothing line in first public engagement since baby Archie’s birth
Telegraph — Tories offered Olive Branch
Daily Express: Boris: I Won't Deal With Farage

Worst constitutional crisis since 1936 and they didn't think to put it on their front pages. This has been going on for the last 30 years.

My family believe that there is an overwhelming majority in the UK that supports leaving and the only reason we haven't left yet is the conspiracy between the fifth column traitors in Parliament and the dictators in Brussels because that's what their newspapers tell them every day.

Originally Posted by Billy Bragg

If this does not reflect your view you should understand
That those who own the papers also own this land
And they'd rather you believed
In Coronation Street capers
In the war of circulation, it sells newspapers
Could it be an infringement
Of the freedom of the press
To print pictures of women in states of undress
When you wake up to the fact
That your paper is Tory
Just remember, there are two sides to every story

345

[its_the_daddy]

For a proper newspaper, follow The New European.

Or, better still, take out a subscription.

It's not all remain propaganda (although that's there). It has lots of European news, comment, history, arts and literature.
And not just Brexit.

And good (if campaigning) journalism from a surprising bevy of star names. 346

[Snowboarder Bo]

I woke to find this headline from the AP: Boris Johnson to hold Brexit talks with Juncker.

Officials say British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will hold Brexit talks with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg.

The British government and the European Commission have confirmed the meeting, which will take place on Monday at lunchtime.

347

[Snowboarder Bo]

And this morning, David Cameron says he's sorry:

David Cameron said in an interview published Saturday that he thinks about the consequences of the Brexit referendum “every single day” and worries “desperately” about what will happen next.

“I deeply regret the outcome and accept that my approach failed,” he said. “The decisions I took contributed to that failure. I failed.”

He admitted that many people blame him for the Brexit divisions that have deepened since the referendum and will never forgive him, but he defended his decision to call the vote.

He spoke to The Times newspaper to promote his soon-to-be-published memoir.

Ah; there it is: he's shilling for shillings. 348

[ShadowFacts]

If you have yet to figure out that we live in a world that is deeply, deeply unjust, this should fix that for you:

Tories extend poll lead despite weeks of political chaos 349

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by glee

- President Putin

Come to think of it, why hasn't Russia joined the EU? 350