Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:58 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
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.
I don't know if "racist," by the definition currently accepted, strictly applies -- the leavers seem to have just as big a problem with Polish immigrants as nonwhites.
  #352  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:06 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
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.
I love lawyers!

After all, isn't the Common Law the most valuable thing Britain has given to the world?
  #353  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:08 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
And the UK pretty much collapses.
You mean, Scotland and NI secede?
  #354  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:25 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I love lawyers!

After all, isn't the Common Law the most valuable thing Britain has given to the world?
The common law is English, not British. Scots law has not been nearly as influential.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #355  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:35 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,198
I wonder if the judges will take this subtle, well-reasoned jurisprudential approach: https://me.me/i/if-its-not-scottish-...4064828d410cad
  #356  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:31 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The common law is English, not British. Scots law has not been nearly as influential.
Neither is it drastically different, AFAIK. The only anomaly that comes to mind is the criminal-law third-option "Scots verdict" of "Not proven" -- which has been translated as "Not guilty and don't do it again." It has the same legal effect as "Not guilty," however; it just gives the jury the option to say he probably dunnit but there isn't enough evidence.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-15-2019 at 02:32 PM.
  #357  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:43 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
There's way more difference than that. That bastard verdict is just what has made it into the general consciousness. Scots law has strong roots in the civil law, via Dutch law. It's been influenced by the common law, but they are different systems. That's one of the reasons the U.K. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals from Scotland.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 09-15-2019 at 02:45 PM.
  #358  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:57 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
Another example of the difference is that the legal vocabulary of Scots law has influenced the English terms used in Quebec civil law. In 1866, the drafters of the Quebec Civil Code, which was bilingual, wanted to avoid using common law terminology to avoid importing the common law inadvertently into the civil law. So instead they relied on vocabulary from Scots law for the English version of the Code, since those Scots terms were based in the civil law as well
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #359  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,876
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/n...mer/index.html
What's more, an industry expert has told CNN that in terms of travel, Yellowhammer looks "surprisingly optimistic" -- and that in the event of a no-deal, people could be waiting in border queues between the UK and the EU for days on end...ellowhammer predicts "significant disruption lasting up to six months" for Channel crossings affecting food and medical supplies.
"Certain types of fresh food supply will decrease," it warns. Veterinary supplies may be interrupted, threatening outbreaks of disease among livestock, which could also affect the food chain.
Fuel supplies in London and southeast England would be disrupted, and could domino into shortages across the country.
It also warns of a "rise in public disorder," "protests and counter-protests," and road blockages.
  #360  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:52 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,179
He wants us to call him Hulk now?
Quote:
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has compared himself to the Hulk in a newspaper interview emphasizing his determination to take Britain out of the European Union next month.

Johnson faces considerable legal and political hurdles but told the Mail on Sunday he will meet the Oct. 31 deadline no matter what.

“The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets,” he told the widely read tabloid, invoking the comic book and film character known for formidable but destructive strength.
Quote:
He will have a lunchtime meeting in Luxembourg on Monday with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to try to modify the Irish backstop that has been a main sticking point, but EU leaders did not seem impressed by Johnson’s invocation of the Hulk.
Quote:
The European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, said the comments showed a lack of maturity.

“Even to Trumpian standards the Hulk comparison is infantile,” he tweeted. “Is the EU supposed to be scared by this? The British public impressed?”
Meanwhile, David Cameron continues to speak out on his book tour:
Quote:
Cameron said in an interview published Sunday that Johnson didn’t really believe in Brexit when he broke ranks and led the campaign to take Britain out of the EU. Cameron had been expecting Johnson’s help during the hard-fought campaign.

Cameron says of Johnson: “The conclusion I am left with is that he risked an outcome he didn’t believe in because it would help his political career.”
<Gasp!> Say it isn't so!
  #361  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:07 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
When the Hulk gets madder, the Hulk gets stronger -- but he does not get any smarter.
  #362  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,533
Assume a no deal Brexit with fairly immediate negative consequences experienced by many. So much so that many Brexit supporters regret the decision.

What would be the possibility and if possible method of a new referendum to rejoin and undo Brexit? Would it be impossible to rewind?
  #363  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:59 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
“The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets,” he told the widely read tabloid, invoking the comic book and film character known for formidable but destructive strength.
“Madness is Strength”

- 2019
  #364  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:06 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Assume a no deal Brexit with fairly immediate negative consequences experienced by many. So much so that many Brexit supporters regret the decision.

What would be the possibility and if possible method of a new referendum to rejoin and undo Brexit? Would it be impossible to rewind?
There is a pathway to entry for aspirant member states. In principle there is nothing to stop a former member state from following that pathway, though it has never arisen in practice.

However:

1. Currently the UK has a number of "grandfathered" rights and privileges - a budget rebate, no obligation to adopt the euro as their currency, opt-outs from various other measures - when end when it leaves the EU, and which aren't on offer to aspirant new members.

2. Of course this is a political matter; the member states could agree to offer favourable re-entry terms to the UK if they wanted to smooth its way back in. But they'd have to agree that unanimously. And before agreeing they'd have to consider the political impolications for existing member states which weren't offered such favours on their entry and don't enjoy them now, and of course the political implications for other aspirant member states.

3. In short, there are considerations which lean against offering the UK a sweet re-entry deal. The EU would have to really, really want the UK to rejoin before they would do this.

4. Which raises the question, would they want to the UK to rejoin? On the one hand for the UK to rejoin would be a triumphant vindication of the benefits of EU membership and an Awful Example of the horrors of leaving.

5. On the other hand, for many years now the UK as a member state absorbed an undue amount of political time, attention and capital - the constant whinging, the throwing of toys out of the pram, the table-thumping, the demands for rebates and concessions and exceptions, the gutless leaders who gamble with referenda about EU membership in order to avoid facing party divisions.

6. And since the 2016 referndum it has been worse: the UK has looked to the EU like a failing state, one whose institutions cannot resolve or even manage its own internal political divisions, to the extent those divisions are causing serious disruption to the UK's neighbours. They might prefer the UK to stabilise itself a bit and address some of the issues that have brought it to this pass before they welcome it back into the fold.

7. So I think the UK's readmission would be depdendent on a changed political consensus within the UK - one in which the UK political establishment is actually enthusiastic about the European project, and in which instead of trying to accommodate anti-European sentiment (e.g. by holding idiotic refererenda) they marginalise it (e.g. by slinging europhopes out of the major parties, and leaving them to the likes of Farage). As noted, acceptance of the euro and of the Schengen agreement are already standard conditions of entry. If the UK's application for re-entry were to be accompanied by demands for immediate concessions and dispensations from the rules which apply to everyone else, well, that could send send signals about the UK's attitude to the project which would make rejection of the application a racing certainty.

8. I think a more likely route to re-entry would be, well, why not enter into an association agreement with the EU as other aspirant member states do, and join the EEA as Norway, Iceland, etc have done. Demonstrate responsible, mature behaviour and a settled commitment to joining the EU for 10 years or so, and then let's talk.
  #365  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:18 AM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,655
Quote:
The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets,” he told the widely read tabloid, invoking the comic book and film character known for formidable but destructive strength.
Doesn't he also get dumber?
  #366  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:38 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Doesn't he also get dumber?
"Ignorance is Strength" - George Orwell in 1984, Brexiteers in 2019.
  #367  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:19 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
8. I think a more likely route to re-entry would be, well, why not enter into an association agreement with the EU as other aspirant member states do, and join the EEA as Norway, Iceland, etc have done. Demonstrate responsible, mature behaviour and a settled commitment to joining the EU for 10 years or so, and then let's talk.
The UK would need to be on the brink of an Argentina before they'd be allowed to rejoin the EFTA. The Norwegian political establishment had a cross-party panic at the though when it was first advanced. the phrase "national interest" showed up, and it rarely does in consensus-oriented Norway.

They've mellowed somewhat since, and one was heard to say off the record "Its not been long enough since the war (WW2) to bar them if the dumb ....s are really on the brink".

So its considered a highly undesirable outcome by Norway.

Now, the EFTA_EU agreement was originally made when the two blocks were more equal in size and economies. So if the UK wanted to rejoin the EEA not as Norway, Iceland etc have by through a separate deal, they would have a lot less bargaining power.
  #368  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:39 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,533
The potential reason for the E.U. to want it is the predicted bad economic outcomes for them too. Assuming hard Brexit and bad predictions true then a let’s pretend this never happened would be a mutual self interest.

But on the U.K. side it would be a referendum instructing Parliament to make it so?
  #369  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:18 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,198
Banksy's chimp-filled Parliament up for sale amid Brexit chaos: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/ba...ntl/index.html
  #370  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:22 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
The UK would need to be on the brink of an Argentina before they'd be allowed to rejoin the EFTA. The Norwegian political establishment had a cross-party panic at the though when it was first advanced. the phrase "national interest" showed up, and it rarely does in consensus-oriented Norway.

They've mellowed somewhat since, and one was heard to say off the record "Its not been long enough since the war (WW2) to bar them if the dumb ....s are really on the brink".

So its considered a highly undesirable outcome by Norway.

Now, the EFTA_EU agreement was originally made when the two blocks were more equal in size and economies. So if the UK wanted to rejoin the EEA not as Norway, Iceland etc have by through a separate deal, they would have a lot less bargaining power.
Just for those who may not be aware, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a parallel trading group to the former European Economic Community (EEC) which transformed into the current European Union (EU). The UK was a founding EFTA member in 1960, but left in 1973 when it joined the EEC. So any rejoining of EFTA would not be the same as rejoining the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...United_Kingdom

While the details aren’t specified, the EU is seeking a free trade agreement with the UK. From the Political Declaration, which is the parallel document to the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement:
Quote:
the Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition, as set out in Section XIV of this Part. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership.
https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Kingdom__.pdf (PDF) paragraph 17.
So it’s unlikely the EU would seek to forbid the UK from rejoining the EFTA, should the UK choose that path.

As for Norway, a current member of the EFTA, objecting to the UK from rejoining the EFTA, I don’t understand why they would. I could understand Norway objecting if the UK was seeking more favourable terms than Norway has. Likewise, I could see Norway seeking some gains in areas which interest them such as fisheries policy. However, there’s little historical animosity between Norway and the UK, and there are big differences between the two country’s economies. It seems like both countries would mutually benefit by being within a free trade agreement. So why would such an arrangement be “considered a highly undesirable outcome by Norway”?

Regarding the UK needing to be “on the brink of an Argentina”, presuming that you’re referring to currency devaluation and economic hardship, that would make the UK rejoining either the EFTA or the EU less likely, not more. Trade depends on stability and mutual beneficence. Nations aren’t likely to enter into agreements with other countries when those countries are going to be unlikely to meet their obligations.

ETA: Sorry if this is a hijack from the Boris Johnson discussion. I lost track of which thread In was in.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 09-16-2019 at 09:24 AM.
  #371  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:26 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,179
This was just posted on the AP, so I'm going to include the times each bit was posted. The current headline is "The Latest: Johnson says he can see ‘shape’ of a Brexit deal".
Quote:
5 p.m.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said after a meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker that “there is a good chance” of a Brexit deal with the European Union.

Johnson says “I can see the shape” of an agreement, but it will “require movement” from the EU.

The EU, in contrast, says Britain must move and produce concrete proposals to overcome differences over the Irish border that have so far blocked a deal. The European Commission says Britain has yet to offer any “legally operational” plans.

Johnson said he is serious about getting a deal by next month, “but if we can’t do it by then we will make sure we can come out on Oct. 31, deal or no deal.”
Quote:
4:50 p.m.

Luxembourg’s prime minister has urged British counterpart Boris Johnson to hurry up and make written proposals if he really wants to offer his country a path out of the Brexit impasse.

Xavier Bettel said after a meeting with Johnson that he told his British counterpart: “We need written proposals, so stop speaking (and) act. I hear a lot, but I don’t read a lot.”
Quote:
Bettel also insisted it was the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union, and therefore Britain couldn’t blame the EU for the situation the 2016 referendum has created.

Bettel added another delay to Britain’s planned departure from the bloc on Oct. 31 wouldn’t be ideal because Europeans citizens now seek “clarity.” He said the current situation is a “nightmare.”
I continue to think that Boris Johnson has no plans to negotiate anything and that he will defy the law requiring him to ask for another extension. I think he's prevaricating like a motherfucker and should not be trusted in any way shape or form. YMMV.
  #372  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:05 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,646
"I am confident we can learn to fly like birds but whether we do or not, we will be throwing ourselves off a cliff on 31 October."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I continue to think that Boris Johnson has no plans to negotiate anything and that he will defy the law requiring him to ask for another extension.
Yup. His billionaire buddies demand it of him.

Quote:
I think he's prevaricating like a motherfucker and should not be trusted in any way shape or form. YMMV.
Yup. That's been pretty much his whole shtick.
  #373  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:22 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So it’s unlikely the EU would seek to forbid the UK from rejoining the EFTA, should the UK choose that path.
I am not at all sure the EU have the right to veto new EFTA members. I do believe they could block entry into the EEA though, one does not automatically follow the other. Switzerland is not in the EEA, and it is unlikely that the UK would want to be, as it would have to accept free movement of people. That would move the EFTA center of gravity firmly outside the EEA, another problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
As for Norway, a current member of the EFTA, objecting to the UK from rejoining the EFTA, I don’t understand why they would. I could understand Norway objecting if the UK was seeking more favourable terms than Norway has. Likewise, I could see Norway seeking some gains in areas which interest them such as fisheries policy. However, there’s little historical animosity between Norway and the UK, and there are big differences between the two country’s economies. It seems like both countries would mutually benefit by being within a free trade agreement. So why would such an arrangement be “considered a highly undesirable outcome by Norway”?
It is not a matter of enmity, but a matter of pretty much everyone form the far left to the far right believing it will damage us. Potentially a lot. There is in fact some willingness to take damage if the UK is really on the brink of the abyss but it would have to be exceedingly severe situation for the UK.

For starters the UK has an economy tuned completely differently to ours and is 13 times as large. In fact it is five times the size of the total EFTA population. The UK operates what from the EFTA perspective is a comparatively low median wage, low skills economy, where the "Nordic model" is based on much higher wages for the basic jobs. The economic interests are highly divergent, and we are much more dependent on trade than the UK. Not to mention the issues of the size of the UK agricultural market. It would be much like Russia entering into an economic union with the Nordic nations, or Canada.

The UK could ruin us, and the rest without noticing much just based on its size. A UK in the EFTA would have to be exceptionally careful about its policies and sensitive to the vulnerabilities of the economies of other members. I don't see this generation of the UKs political establishment as remotely capable of that. Also, integrating an economy so much larger and so different would probably take a lot of time and be far more complicated than leaving the EU has been.

There is also the fact that when the original deal between the EFTA and what became the EU was made, the EFTA block included Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Finland (ass.) Austria and Portugal in addition to the current members. It was far more of a negotiation between equals. Being one of the two largest inheritors of that deal has been very good to Norway and is not a position we are eager to yield.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Regarding the UK needing to be “on the brink of an Argentina”, presuming that you’re referring to currency devaluation and economic hardship, that would make the UK rejoining either the EFTA or the EU less likely, not more. Trade depends on stability and mutual beneficence. Nations aren’t likely to enter into agreements with other countries when those countries are going to be unlikely to meet their obligations.
According to the off the record remarks of Norwegian politicians it would need to be quite a bit worse than that.

Generally, only Iceland sees benefits to having the UK join. The others are negative, with Switzerland moderatly so and Norway the most. (But still hoping someone else will veto it) Well, Carl Baudenbacher wanted the UK in, its what got him fired from his job as president of the EFTA supreme court.

Its very rare to see the entire political spectrum in Norway have such a lockstep reaction. Almost unprecedented. Now there is enough of a sense of historical close relations and debts that the establishment has moved to the understanding that UK could be admitted if it was that or the abyss (also, we don't want our biggest trading partner to collapse), but it would be an exceedingly complex negotiation.

Norway is skeptical.
  #374  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:27 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal. [...]

Last edited by Bone; 09-16-2019 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Removed for fair use
  #375  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:30 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
[...]

Last edited by Bone; 09-16-2019 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Removed for fair use
  #376  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:13 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,696

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Hacker: Europe is a community of nations , ...
Please observe fair use for copyright, and attribute the works that you are copy and pasting.

[/moderating]
  #377  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:41 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,897
Ther's a couple of issues with the UK joining EFTA:

1. UK dwarfs all the existing EFTA members put together. In a five-member EFTA, UK would represent 70% of combined GDP; the other four 30% between them. There are fears that this would lead to EFTA's positions and interests being rebalanced in a way not to the advantage of the other four members, and that EFTA could become UK-centric in much the way that the UK is England-centric.

2. UK as an EU member state has not in recent years displayed much team spirit or compehension of the nature of consensus buildiing or collaboration in the exercise of poooled sovereignty. This wouldn't exactly fill EFTA mebmers with a sense of confidence about how the UK might behave as an EFTA member state.

3. EFTA members would resent then notion that EFTA membership was seen as a kind of nursery school for states not mature enough to be trusted with grown-up EU membership.

In short, I think for existing EFTA member states to welcome the prospect of the UK joining, a necessary (thought not sufficient) condition would be a change in the UK political climate such that EFTA membership was seen as desirable in its own right, and something to which the UK would make a mature commitment, rather than a panicked response to the realities of no-deal Brexit, when experienced.

In principle, this isnt' an unattainable goal. Norway's enduring semi-detached relationship with the EU, expressed through EFTA membership, is precisely the outcome of (a) a near-even division of opinion within the country over whether to be EU members (as in the UK) coupled with (b) a recognition that this calls for the construction of a consensus in favour of a relationship with the EU which takes seriously, and addresses, the concerns of those on both sides of that split (very much as not in the UK). Until UK political culture changes to the point where building a consensus solution is seen as a positive strength and not as a weakness or, at best, a reluctant compromise with necessity, EFTA membership is going to be problematic.
  #378  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:30 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Please observe fair use for copyright, and attribute the works that you are copy and pasting.

[/moderating]
Sorry, I assumed anything C&P'd from WikiQuote would be fair use. And what Doper requires attribution to know what show Hacker and Applebee are from?

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-16-2019 at 08:31 PM.
  #379  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:51 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Sorry, I assumed anything C&P'd from WikiQuote would be fair use. And what Doper requires attribution to know what show Hacker and Applebee are from?
Appleby. As all Dopers should know.
  #380  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:11 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Sorry, I assumed anything C&P'd from WikiQuote would be fair use. And what Doper requires attribution to know what show Hacker and Applebee are from?
Who and who?
  #381  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:27 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Who and who?
The Rt Hon James Hacker MP and Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB KBE MVO. Now you remember. And, if you don't, a pleasure awaits you.
  #382  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:03 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,198
For more on the redacted quotation from Yes, Minister, see "2. Every man, woman and country for themselves," here: https://www.politico.eu/article/sir-...-about-europe/
  #383  
Old Yesterday, 12:20 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,648
Today, the Supreme Court will start hearing the claim that the suspension of parliament was unlawful. 11 judges will hear the case, which will continue on Wednesday and Thursday.

It will be live-streamed and available to view later, if anyone is interested in watching three days of legal arguments.

Links on the Supreme Court website: Brexit-related judicial review cases
  #384  
Old Yesterday, 10:36 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,648
I watched some large chunks of the supreme court hearing, and in my (unlearned) opinion, the case against prorogation is doing well so far. There are still two more days of the hearing to come, however.

Lord Pannick presented a clear, confident, logical case that the court did have jurisdiction and that prorogation was unlawful. The judges had little to say, and didn't question his major points at all.

Lord Keen for the UK government seemed to be flailing. He was hesitant, repeating himself excessively, and promising to address points at a later date. His arguments didn't seem convincing. There were a number of politely hostile questions from several of the judges.
  #385  
Old Yesterday, 11:22 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,179
Thanks for the personal take on today's proceedings, GreenWyvern; I hope others weigh in later. The AP story is very brief and avoids any editorializing (of course).
  #386  
Old Yesterday, 01:29 PM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
I watched some large chunks of the supreme court hearing, and in my (unlearned) opinion, the case against prorogation is doing well so far. There are still two more days of the hearing to come, however.

Lord Pannick presented a clear, confident, logical case that the court did have jurisdiction and that prorogation was unlawful. The judges had little to say, and didn't question his major points at all.

Lord Keen for the UK government seemed to be flailing. He was hesitant, repeating himself excessively, and promising to address points at a later date. His arguments didn't seem convincing. There were a number of politely hostile questions from several of the judges.
One of the things I love about this development is the ridiculously appropriate names of the lawyers. Pannick presenting what some detractors call "poject fear" and Keen representing those who really, really want to leave. Seriously, if two lawyers in a movie were named that people would say t was unbelievable.

I know the case isn't strictly speaking about Brexit, but it just so happens that the anti-prorogue side is also anti-Brexit and the pro-prorogue side is pro-Brexit.
  #387  
Old Yesterday, 02:03 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,648
John Crace remarks in his politics sketch that it was a 'bad day for nominative determinism'. He gives a humorous, but essentially accurate, account of the day in court:

Lord Pannick stays calm and Keen lacks interest at supreme court
  #388  
Old Yesterday, 07:55 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,179
Thanks; that was fun to read. I especially like the nickname "The Incredible Sulk".
  #389  
Old Yesterday, 08:30 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Thanks; that was fun to read. I especially like the nickname "The Incredible Sulk".
"The all-inaction superhero"
  #390  
Old Yesterday, 08:45 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
One of the most basic rules of appellate advocacy: if a judge asks you a question, ANSWER IT RIGHT AWAY! Never defer. The question is weighing in the judge's mind and failing to answer it may mean you never get back to it. The justice will remember she asked the question and you didn't have an answe for it. That's not good, when she's sitting in her chambers, working on the decision.

Appellate advocacy is jazz, not an oratorio. Doesn't matter if you have a neatly drawn out schéma for your submissions, and you plan to address issue 7 after your submissions on issue 6 and before issue 8. The judge asks the question about issue 7 while you're on issue 4, and you pitch your neat little road map out the window and answer issue 7.

Then riff on it. "If I may follow up on your question, My Lord, I would suggest it takes us to another issue, equally problematic for my learned friends's position ..." and get back to making points you want to make. But you have to answer the question and weave them into your submissions.

(And how many metaphors did I mix there? No matter, if I answered the question. )
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #391  
Old Yesterday, 09:54 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,198
I'll allow it.
  #392  
Old Yesterday, 10:08 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
Thank you, My Lord.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #393  
Old Yesterday, 10:17 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
John Crace remarks in his politics sketch that it was a 'bad day for nominative determinism'.
I'm sure the chattering class is falling all over themselves trying to make a clever turn of phrase on those guys' names but he Nailed It.
  #394  
Old Yesterday, 10:21 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Hard to follow all this from a Yank perspective, because we have no such thing as prorogation (a measure that suspends the operation of the legislature without requiring new elections to it). Though perhaps keeping Congress nominally in session for recession-appointment purposes is a kind of anti-prorogation.

Last edited by kirkrapine; Yesterday at 10:22 PM.
  #395  
Old Yesterday, 10:34 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
It's normally just a routine matter. It formally ends a session of the Parliament or a Legislature, in the expectation that the government will call a new session into place in the near future. It terminates the legislative process for that session.

In Britain, it's customary for the Crown to prorogue early in September to allow the parties to hold their annual conferences, but it's normally just for a couple of weeks. Then there's the state opening of Parliament, the Queen reads the Speech, and the new session is up and running.

What is highly suspicious here is the allegation that BoJo did it for a much longer time than normal, and to make it more difficult for Parliament to take action on Brexit (Not like the current Parliament has demonstrated any ability to do so in over two years...)

It's the argument that he perverted the normal course of parliamentary procedure and lied to the Queen that makes this so explosive. As the Supreme Court of Canada has held, in a Westminster parliamentary system, a government action can be legal and yet unconstitutional. That's sort of the flavor of this case.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; Yesterday at 10:35 PM.
  #396  
Old Yesterday, 10:40 PM
kirkrapine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Today, the Supreme Court . . .
You have one of those too, now?!

Boy, it sure makes things awkward, don't it?!
  #397  
Old Yesterday, 11:00 PM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
One of the most basic rules of appellate advocacy: if a judge asks you a question, ANSWER IT RIGHT AWAY! Never defer. The question is weighing in the judge's mind and failing to answer it may mean you never get back to it. The justice will remember she asked the question and you didn't have an answe for it. That's not good, when she's sitting in her chambers, working on the decision.

Appellate advocacy is jazz, not an oratorio. Doesn't matter if you have a neatly drawn out schéma for your submissions, and you plan to address issue 7 after your submissions on issue 6 and before issue 8. The judge asks the question about issue 7 while you're on issue 4, and you pitch your neat little road map out the window and answer issue 7.
Yes.
Of course, thats good only if you have an issue 7 at all. If it's not something you considered, well the damn rostrum can be a lonely place.
  #398  
Old Yesterday, 11:05 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,572
I once was dealing with a client who was being singularly unhelpful in providing any evidence in support of the position he wanted me to take in court.

Exasperated, I said "I can't make bricks without straw, you know. "

""I just thought you would make up some fancy lawyer bafflegab," he said, cheerily.

There aren't enough
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #399  
Old Today, 02:16 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
You have one of those too, now?!

Boy, it sure makes things awkward, don't it?!
We always did, but technically it was the House or Lords (or at least, senior lawyers specifically appointed to the Lords for that purpose).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017