Corbyn wants to leave the EU, and nothing in your link, or anything else he’s said shows otherwise.
Yes, those are some of the many reasons that the opposition should have called a vote of no confidence in him, or allowed an election. Corbyn is effectively allowing Johnson to remain as PM. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but if you think it’s about preventing Brexit you are wrong. Because Corbyn wants to leave.
I’m a little puzzled by that one. Was he drunk or high? It reminds me of people you try to have a conversation with and they’re half responding to you and half to whatever maelstrom is in their head.
I swear to God, if I’d ever seen that before, I’d forgotten it.
From my link:
Please post your cite for your repeated assertion that Corbyn wants to leave the EU.
Read your own cite, where it says that he intends to attempt to make a Brexit deal with the EU. Corbyn might not want a no-deal Brexit (but to be honest, he’s so unclear about things it’s hard to tell, and his actions are certainly showing that he’s willing to let Boris get on with ensuring it happens), but he wants to negotiate his own deal to leave.
Perhaps fortunately, there’s plenty of Labour MPs and members who realise this is unrealistic, but while they continue to back him as leader, the threat of leaving the EU will remain.
What is urgently needed is a leader (from any side, but the most realistic is Labour) who will campaign strongly against Brexit, and win an election on that campaign. Swinson has the first part down, but I sadly doubt that the LDs can win. If Labour, with someone like Starmer as leader, did so they would presumably be able to form a government that could prevent Brexit.
Corbyn will not do this. Regardless of what else you think of the man, that makes him unfit to lead the country. The biggest threat to this country at the moment is Brexit, and the priority needs to be ensuring that it doesn’t happen. Corbyn wants an extension and further negotiation, and for anyone who actually gives a fuck about this country that should be unacceptable.
Johnson wants to prorogue parliament again. :smack:
He intends to prorogue parliament from Tue 8th, ahead of a Queen’s Speech on the 14th.
If the opposition parties are going to get rid of him and install a temporary unity government, now is the time to do it.
Well, prorogation worked so well for him last time, after all…
This short bit of news seems to say Johnson intends to follow the Benn Act: Court documents say Johnson to ask EU for Brexit delay if no deal reached: reports
Surprisingly there now seems to be a plan, but it’s not quite clear to me right now exactly what’s in it or whether it’s “real”.
BBC: What is in Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan?
BBC: Europe newspapers scorn Johnson’s ‘unrealistic’ Brexit plans
BBC: Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan: EU ‘open but unconvinced’
Let’s say Johnson overtly fails to follow the Benn Act or follows it in name only by negotiating in bad faith with the EU so that the UK exits with no deal, what are the recourse(s)? Can the PM be compelled to negotiate in good faith to gain an extension? If the UK exits with No Deal, there might be a legal case to compel the PM using the Benn Act but won’t the point be moot by then?
The Benn Act compels the PM to ask for an extension if no deal has been done by October 19th, so before the original exit date of the 31st.
Ignorant American here who can barely follow this.
What are the chances another extension is granted? Also, what is the nutshell version of events to follow if no extension is granted?
I’m not the expert but AIUI there’s a court case going on where this matter might be decided.
Court considers if PM can be jailed over no-deal
Latest news (AIUI) is that the Gov’t intends to follow the Benn Act to the question might be moot.
Pretty good I think, particularly as it looks like there’s going to be a general election soon.
It’s possible that, say, Hungary vetoes it. If that happens then no-one knows. It’s possible that Parliament could attempt to force a revocation.
Longer Guardian article
Johnson says one thing in court but another thing in public.
Via Twitter, it seems a “Number 10” source is arguing that the Benn Act simply requires the PM to send a letter asking for extension. The implication being that the PM is also free to undercut that request through other channels, and generally act to ensure there is no extension despite the letter. Hence the promise to court to obey the law, and to Parliament to leave on Oct 31.
The Number 10 view is not widely shared. The analysis I’ve seen is very much of the view that the Benn Act requires the PM to honestly and actively work towards getting an extension, and certainly doesn’t permit any attempts to procure a denial of the request for one - by this view, such attempts would be not just unlawful but criminal.
We are way past the point where I am going to even begin to speculate on how courts would rule on this, but the Number 10 view does smack of the kind of wizard wheeze which seems like a good idea in the 2am brainstorming session. The last such bright idea fared badly in court - one presumes a better class of legal advice has since been sought.
The actual text of the bill seems not to place any requirements on the PM regarding an extension beyond sending the letter, and all the other requirements assume that the extension will be granted. Perhaps the courts will look beyond just the text, they certainly did with the reversed prorogation.
(re: chances for another extension)
This seems to be the consensus, but I don’t see it. Surely an extension is predicated on the fact that the British will either shit or get off the pot, but
In the meantime, they’ve had elections and leadership changes.
So how many more extensions are available? One? Two? Ten? Fifty? It strikes me as likely that ONE of the 27 is going to prefer the short, sharp shock of No Deal to the endless annoyance of the status quo. Particularly as, less than four weeks out, the British are still making stupid proposals and infighting.
In the absence of an agreement approved at the European Council (i.e., all member state governments) on 17 October, or an extension (which requires the approval of all 27 member states of the EU), the legal default is that we are out at 11pm on 31 October, and revert to trading under general WTO rules with the EU and with all other countries with whom the EU has trade agreements. Extra tariffs all round, and no guarantee that our goods would be regarded as meeting required regulatory standards.
The Benn Act requires the government to submit a request for an extension if they can’t come back to parliament with an agreement by 19 October.
Not a lot of time for EU member states to confer and decide, and who knows how sympathetic they would be and/or whether they would judge a no-deal to be too harmful to them or something to bear in the name of deciding something at least.
It’s relevant to that last point that the agreement we still haven’t reached is not the final settlement of whatever future relationship we have with the EU: it simply settles the terms of divorce and starts the process of negotiation for that final relationship (originally envisaged to be settled by the end of 2020, since that is the end of the current EU budget, to which we are legally and morally committed). So they might agree to soldier on with an extension, since crashing out without a deal doesn’t really settle the question of the final future relationship either.
What a world we live in!
A spectacular combination of technology, modern media processes and short-sightedness there, bringing you the best in politico-legal drama.
I think the relevant text is here:
The question of interpretation seems to be around the extent to which the first part “the PM must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension…” is constrained by the following: “by sending to the President of the European Council a letter…”
The “Number 10” reading is that this requires the PM to send a letter, which will seek to obtain an extension.
The alternate reading is that this requires the PM to seek an extension, and that sending a letter happens to be the mechanism by which he will do this.
Under the first reading, all that is mandated is the sending of one letter. Any further letters, or muttered asides, or text messages reading “Lol jk, ignore ltr” are at the PM’s discretion. Under the second reading, the PM is required to seek an extension. Any attempts at undercutting the formal request will amount to deliberate failure to fulfill legally mandated public duties.
I think it can be read both ways. I don’t know what principles of legal interpretation might lead one towards one reading or another. Would be interested to hear from lawyers…