Brexit process

[stumuz1]

Though I wouldn't call it misspent.

Agree. I would not swap it.

It has stood me in good stead in later life.

[Little John]

Rumors circulating on social media Johnson is about to press the nuclear button vis a vis Brexit.

This relates to the case against the government brought by the leader of the Social Democratic party where his claim is that the UK left the EU on April 9th and that the extension obtained by May was illegal. May's government subsequently prepared and submitted a defense of her decision to obtain the extension. Up to now, the case has not been concluded.

The rumor is that Johnson is about to sign a withdrawal of evidence order on the government's side of that case and so no longer contest the case made against the government. In turn, leading to the claim, made by the leader of the Social Democratic Party, winning the case. In turn, meaning the UK is already out of the EU on WTO terms. This would come into effect immediately on conclusion of the court's judgement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpnUtyl ... e=youtu.be

If true, Johnson would surely then call an immediate election. My guess is he would win it.

[Little John]

Okay, so I have done a bit of digging on the European Withdrawal act 2018:

Schedule 7 (paragraph 14) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, states clearly that the power to amend ‘exit day’ can only be exercised via a statutory instrument:

"...a draft of [which] has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament..."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 14/enacted

The above unambiguously means that the Government should have laid before Parliament a draft statutory instrument, setting out the revised ‘exit day’, and secured parliamentary approval for it BEFORE seeking an Article 50 extension from the European Council. This would have ensured that Parliament was not presented with a fait accompli, which is precisely what it was presented with.

May's extension WAS illegal under the terms of the Withdrawal Act. The only question that remains is to what extent the fact of that illegality may be continued to be ignored if Johnson makes the order to no longer contest the claim made against the government - which he has the power to do.

[stumuz1]

Very interesting, if correct we will know quite soon.

I wonder if this was the reason Dominic Cummings looked so smug when he said Parliament had missed its chance to stop Brexit

[UndercoverElephant]

Rumors circulating on social media Johnson is about to press the nuclear button vis a vis Brexit.

This relates to the case against the government brought by the leader of the Social Democratic party where his claim is that the UK left the EU on April 9th and that the extension obtained by May was illegal. May's government subsequently prepared and submitted a defense of her decision to obtain the extension. Up to now, the case has not been concluded.

The rumor is that Johnson is about to sign a withdrawal of evidence order on the government's side of that case and so no longer contest the case made against the government. In turn, leading to the claim, made by the leader of the Social Democratic Party, winning the case. In turn, meaning the UK is already out of the EU on WTO terms. This would come into effect immediately on conclusion of the court's judgement.

Surely there is a major problem with that, in that it is very difficult to see how the EU can already be out of the EU if the EU doesn't agree that the UK is already out of the EU. What if the EU says it doesn't acknowledge that the UK has left the EU, and there's an election, and Labour and the anti-brexit parties campaign on accepting the EU's version of events?

I guess ultimately this comes down to a question of which court has the greater authority - the ECJ or the UK Supreme Court - which in turn comes down to whether or not we've left the EU!

[Little John]

Rumors circulating on social media Johnson is about to press the nuclear button vis a vis Brexit.

This relates to the case against the government brought by the leader of the Social Democratic party where his claim is that the UK left the EU on April 9th and that the extension obtained by May was illegal. May's government subsequently prepared and submitted a defense of her decision to obtain the extension. Up to now, the case has not been concluded.

The rumor is that Johnson is about to sign a withdrawal of evidence order on the government's side of that case and so no longer contest the case made against the government. In turn, leading to the claim, made by the leader of the Social Democratic Party, winning the case. In turn, meaning the UK is already out of the EU on WTO terms. This would come into effect immediately on conclusion of the court's judgement.

Surely there is a major problem with that, in that it is very difficult to see how the EU can already be out of the EU if the EU doesn't agree that the UK is already out of the EU. What if the EU says it doesn't acknowledge that the UK has left the EU, and there's an election, and Labour and the anti-brexit parties campaign on accepting the EU's version of events?

I guess ultimately this comes down to a question of which court has the greater authority - the ECJ or the UK Supreme Court - which in turn comes down to whether or not we've left the EU!

Nope

Given that Article 50 has been enacted -

Given that the EU Withdrawal Bill has been enacted -

Then:

The extension agreed between May and the EU in April was illegally made according to UK Law. Since a lack of an extension did not breach either UK or EU Law the UK law stands. Which is that we legally left the EU on WTO in April.

You are, as has now become your default, grasping about for any wiggle room, no matter how implausible or risible, to be able to say that black is white.

That does not mean I do not think the UK establishment will not attempt to come up with some obfuscatory nonsense far more inventive than that which you have just come up with and, in doing so, manage to ignore this illegality just as May managed to put the issue in the long grass by contesting the claim made against the government - no doubt in collusion with elements of the judiciary - sufficient that Brexit would be sorted one way or another before any judgement was made, thus rendering any judgement moot.

But, you see, I have this little thing about the truth and it being important to simply call a spade a spade.

Additionally, what has changed is that Johnson may decide to not contest the claim, in which case, the courts will:

a) have no plausible operational reason to delay judgement
b) have no plausible legal reason to not uphold the claim

[kenneal - lagger]

LJ, I can see UE's point in asking that question. He just wants to make sure that all is OK before he starts celebrating. After all we have had so many ups and downs over the last three years that he is right to be cautious.

Let's just hope we have cause to celebrate.

[UndercoverElephant]

LJ, I can see UE's point in asking that question. He just wants to make sure that all is OK before he starts celebrating. After all we have had so many ups and downs over the last three years that he is right to be cautious.

Let's just hope we have cause to celebrate.

Exactly. All I can see is an increasing level of chaos, with the entire political system splintering, and making all sorts of claims and counter-claims. It is getting harder and harder to figure out what is actually going to happen.

[Little John]

LJ, I can see UE's point in asking that question. He just wants to make sure that all is OK before he starts celebrating. After all we have had so many ups and downs over the last three years that he is right to be cautious.

Let's just hope we have cause to celebrate.

I am not celebrating and certainly do not think there is anything to celebrate yet Ken. Everything I have seen over the last three years tell me the currently dominant, neo-liberal globalist flank of the establishment in this country are prepared to do and will do literally anything to stop Brexit if they can.

Legalities... rules.... None of these, in the end, have any relevance at all. This is all political and is all about what can be gotten away just short of triggering civil insurrection. Though, I would not even put that past them.

But, what I will not do is pretend black is white. What I will not do is go back on what I know to be true just because the alternative is less expedient. Simply put, I have a visceral love of both the truth and of democracy.

Don't get me wrong, people can have different political views and neither can be said to be "correct" or "incorrect". But, the foul lies and bullshit that have been put about since the referendum, particularly about leavers, in order to obfuscate this country into subverting a democratic decision simply sticks in my craw.

This really is a hill worth dying on.

[UndercoverElephant]

Legalities... rules.... None of these, in the end, have any relevance at all.

They are massively relevant. Gina Miller's case totally changed the course of brexit. Rules are everything. Without them there is only chaos. Without rules, there isn't any EU to leave, isn't any way of leaving it, and isn't anything to leave it to.

But, what I will not do is pretend black is white.

So stop pretending what I am posting is either. You are still misinterpreting my attempts to figure out what is going to happen, with what I want to happen. I realise for some people they are hopelessly mixed up, but for me they are very different things.

You are much more emotionally involved with brexit than I am. I feel that level of emotion about the disempowerment of the tory party, but not about brexit. Regardless, I have been completely open about this. I want to see the tories destroyed, and brexit done, in that order. For me, the perfect result would be both.

[Little John]

Okay. If they are massively relevant, then we legally left the EU on April 9th. The terms of the EU withdrawal act could not be clearer. Any extension required being put to both houses and required being ratified by both houses BEFORE that extension was obtained. Since it was not, the extension is illegal on the express terms of the Withdrawal Act. That is, literally, the law of this land in black and white.

Do you need me to link to the relevant section of the act again?

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps there is a new path to no deal opening up. I just posted this elsewhere, so cut and paste:

I'm seeing a lot of deluded thinking both on social and mainsteam media. There is no way the Labour Party is going to agree to anyone becoming a temporary prime minister apart from Corbyn. I just saw Ken Clarke on C4 calmly explaining that Corbyn couldn't possibly be the leader of a "Government of National Unity", because he was "too divisive and couldn't unite the house". Swinson said the same thing yesterday. These people have lost the plot if they think Labour will back anybody else.

Ever since Corbyn became leader of the opposition, there has been a very dirty conspiracy to undermine and delegitimise him, in any way possible. He has been treated with utter disrespect, because the political establishment views him as a huge threat, because the idea he could become Prime Minister shifts the Overton Window in a way that terrifies them. This is just more of the same. What is being suggested would give Corbyn no power to enact any policy other than getting an article 50 extension and calling a general election - so when Grant Schapps said yesterday "he would wreck the economy", he was talking utter bollocks. No...this is about refusing to allow Corbyn a modicum of legitimacy as the rightful leader of the opposition, elected fair and square. What they are scared of is Corbyn looking Prime-ministerial, and a few more people taking him seriously.

But what they have failed to understand is that the rump of voters who still back Corbyn are not going to allow this conspiracy to succeed. They are not going to allow Clarke, Swinson and Grieve to get what they want on brexit (which is to stop it) and continue the dirty anti-Corbyn strategy. Labour is by far the largest opposition party, and Corbyn is the only person who could lead a temporary government (NOT a government of national unity, since nearly half the country wants no deal). He's the only person because without the co-operation of the Labour leadership, nobody apart from the government has got anything close to a majority. Corbyn has therefore got nothing to lose by standing his ground. He'll let no deal happen, not least because that is even more likely to propel him into Downing Street, especially if he can blame the Liberal Democrats for letting it happen.

So suck it up, people who fear both Prime Minister Corbyn and No Deal Brexit, because you're getting at least one of them.

[UndercoverElephant]

Okay. If they are massively relevant, , then we legally left the EU on April 9th. The terms of the EU withdrawal act could not be clearer. Any extension required being put to both houses and required being ratified by both houses BEFORE that extension was obtained. Since, it was not, the extension is illegal on the express terms of the Withdrawal Act. That is, literally, the law of this land, in black and white.

Do you need me to link to the relevant section of the act again?

I'm not seeing anybody take this theory seriously on social media.

[Vortex2]

Washed salad leaves may also be chlorinated.
However, they're only exposed to a few bugs from the soil - nowhere near as bad
Still good practice to rinse them though.

Err ... in reality in the UK salads can be (illegally?) double washed in chlorine.
This is due to the field workers pooing in the fields whilst working.

[adam2]

Washed salad leaves may also be chlorinated.
However, they're only exposed to a few bugs from the soil - nowhere near as bad
Still good practice to rinse them though.

Err ... in reality in the UK salads can be (illegally?) double washed in chlorine.
This is due to the field workers pooing in the fields whilst working.

Most prepared salads are washed in chlorinated water, possibly more than one such washing.
This is a sensible hygiene procedure and not illegal.

And as for washing chicken in chlorinated water, that is also a sensible way to kill bacteria that cause food poisoning, the only sensible objection to the procedure is that it might well be used to cover up earlier lapses in hygienic food handling.