EU-BREXIT - Page 286 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Atlantis
#15043444
So, Boris suffered another defeat in the Commons and probably will have to ask for an extension. Did he decide where to dig his ditch yet?

Brexit always was a neoliberal project. It's impossible to understand why leftists support Brexit. Are they stuck in history?

Anyways, the bulk of Labour is solidly Remain. They just have to come into the open.

Brexit march: Labour's most senior figures break with Jeremy Corbyn to declare it is now a Remain party

Jeremy Corbyn’s three most senior colleagues broke with their leader to declare Labour a Remain party, as they were cheered at the giant Westminster rally for a Final Say referendum on Brexit.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, and Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, all made clear Labour’s determination to keep the UK in the European Union.

The speeches prompted chants of ‘Where’s Jeremy Corbyn?’ – to the tune of The White Stripes’ Seven Nation Army, the very chant that symbolised his shock resurgence at the 2017 general election.

The Labour leader, who has suggested he will sit on the fence if the referendum is held, chose not to walk the few yards from the Houses of Parliament to address the rally.

Meanwhile, former Conservative Antoinette Sandbach, whom Boris Johnson would have hoped to woo to back his deal in next week’s vote, declared her continued support for a fresh public vote.

“When the time comes to support a People’s Vote amendment, I can walk through that lobby with my head held high,” said the MP, currently sitting as an independent.

The speeches were put on hold for the dramatic moment when the result of the Letwin amendment was declared – frustrating Boris Johnson’s hopes of passing his deal – which was greeted with huge cheers.

Labour’s big-hitters arrived soon afterwards, Ms Abbott telling the gathering in parliament square: “I’m a Remainer.”

Ms Thornberry said: “We are internationalists, we are Europeans and we want to stay that way,” adding: “Labour is a Remain party and later we will prove that this is a Remain country.

And Mr McDonnell, Mr Corbyn’s closest ally, told the crowd that Labour was now committed to staying in the EU, saying: “We believe that our future best lies within the European Union itself.”

Keir Starmer, Labour’s Brexit spokesman, said the only way to break the impasse was a referendum on the deal now on the table, adding: “When we get to that vote, we need to fight for Remain.”

A year ago, it would have been unthinkable for Labour’s top team to declare their support for EU membership at a Final Say rally, reflecting the huge shift in the party’s thinking.

They now believe the only way for Mr Corbyn now to win an election is by settling the Brexit issue first, at a referendum when Labour will fight for Remain.

Earlier, Star Trek actor Patrick Stewart praised the crowd for proving a second referendum was not the “pipe dream” or “moon shot” that it was seen as when the campaign began.

He remembered how it had begun for him in “an old night club in Camden”, in North London, saying: “You haven't just filled a nice bar in north London, you have taken over an entire city.

“You haven't just impacted the Brexit debate, you have transformed British politics.”

And Great British Bake Off presenter Sandi Toksvig likened the Brexit no on offer to a rickety old car, with the door missing entirely on the passenger’s side.

“I’m not buying a car that puts my family in danger,” she vowed – before leading the crowd on a chant of ‘Hear us’ directed at the politicians across the square.
User avatar
By Kirillov
#15043465
As you will see in the Guardian article below, Boris has confirmed he will send a letter to Brussels asking for an extension. As I write, the Independent reports that Boris has sent an unsigned letter to Brussels asking for an extension and a second one arguing that an extension will be a mistake.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 63356.html

The Guardian wrote:Boris Johnson confirms he will seek Brexit delay, says Brussels

Donald Tusk says he is ‘waiting for letter’ that PM promised in phone call after Commons vote


Boris Johnson has confirmed in a phone call with the European council president Donald Tusk that he is sending a letter requesting a further Brexit delay beyond 31 October.

Despite the prime minister’s insistence that he would not “negotiate” a further extension of the UK’s membership of the EU, he confirmed on Saturday evening that he would be seeking such an extension.

“Waiting for the letter,” Tusk tweeted. “I just talked to PM Boris Johnson about the situation after the vote in the House of Commons.”

Tusk is expected to consult EU leaders on how to react. “This may take a few days,” the source said.

Officials in Brussels said there was no doubt that an extension request would be granted, despite the prime minister’s attempts to throw doubt on such a decision. A decision on the terms could be taken later in October to allow for events to unfold in London.

The EU is waiting on the government to make the first move after the Commons put Johnson under a legal obligation to seek an extension.

A spokeswoman said: “The European commission takes note of the vote in the House of Commons today on the so-called Letwin amendment, meaning that the withdrawal agreement itself was not put to [the] vote today.

It will be up to the heads of state and government to approve any request, a process that will be organised by Tusk.

A spokesman for Tusk declined to comment further. Ambassadors for the EU27 will meet on Sunday morning to discuss the latest developments.

Speaking in the Commons, Johnson told MPs he did not believe the EU would be minded to offer a further extension and that he would not negotiate one.

But senior EU officials said it was clear during the discussions among the leaders at a summit on Thursday that “they would grant an extension”. “Even [the French president Emmanuel] Macron in the room didn’t suggest otherwise,” the source said.

The chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, Norbert Röttgen, who is a senior member of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, said he had “no doubt” an extension would be granted.

A consequence of the delay to the Brexit deal being approved in parliament is that the European parliament’s plans to ratify the withdrawal agreement next week have also been left in doubt.

The European parliament will only ratify the deal after the Commons has approved it. MEPs next sit on 14 November, making 30 November a potential new Brexit day if the Commons approves the deal by then.

Guy Verhofstadt, the coordinator of the European parliament’s Brexit steering group, said his committee would “consider the outcome of today’s vote for the Letwin amendment on Monday”.

He added: “Whatever happens next, the marches outside the parliament show just how important a close EU-UK future relationship is.”

The Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, tweeted: “The EU & UK agreed a withdrawal agreement on Thursday that defends Ireland’s interests. The Commons voted today to defer a decision on whether or not to ratify that agreement.

“To date, no request for an extension has been made by the UK government. Should that happen, president Tusk will consult all 27 heads of state & govt on whether or not we will grant one. Extension can only be granted by unanimity.”

Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the EU council legal service, told the Guardian that Brussels would not “wait and see” but that “if asked” the leaders would “say yes”.

The Commons voted on Saturday that it would not approve the Brexit deal until all related legislation was passed. MPs were concerned that the legislation would not be passed by 31 October, leaving open the possibility of the UK accidentally crashing out.

That decision triggered the Benn act which placed the prime minister under a legal obligation to request an extension unless a deal had been approved by 11pm UK time on Saturday.

The prime minister said he would not negotiate a further delay, and hinted that a request could be rejected in Brussels.

On Friday, Macron had tried to help Johnson cajole MPs into backing his deal by suggesting that he was opposed to a delay. “I am not trying to read into the future but I do not think we shall grant any further delay,” he had said.

A spokesman for the Élysée Palace said that any further delay “was not in anyone’s interest”.

But EU sources said the private comments of Merkel better represented the leaders’ position.

She had told EU leaders that a Brexit extension would be unavoidable if British MPs vote down the new deal. Merkel said leaders had a responsibility not to push the UK out without a deal.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-brussels

EDIT. My two cents on today's vote. It doesn't really matter. The ploy was to stop a no-deal Brexit from occurring either by mistake or through the design of the ERG/Cummings, which I am not entirely sure was on the cards. I am reasonably confident the government will win the vote on the deal when it comes down to it, even if it is a narrow win. They have the ERG, the ex-Tory rebels, and a score of Labour rebels behind them.
By Atlantis
#15043476
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Always when you think it can't get worse ....

This one has me rolling on the floor.

He really did it. He pretends to respect the law by sending the formal request for an extension, and then by not signing it and by sending a second letter he makes sure the dumb Europeans get his meaning.

But does he get the meaning of the law? Just pretending to respect the law while violating it didn't work when he suspended parliament. He is now an unrepentant repeat offender.

For Boris, nothing less than the Tower will do.

In Brexit Britain politics has become a farce.
By SolarCross
#15043480
Atlantis wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Always when you think it can't get worse ....

This one has me rolling on the floor.

He really did it. He pretends to respect the law by sending the formal request for an extension, and then by not signing it and by sending a second letter he makes sure the dumb Europeans get his meaning.

But does he get the meaning of the law? Just pretending to respect the law while violating it didn't work when he suspended parliament. He is now an unrepentant repeat offender.

For Boris, nothing less than the Tower will do.

In Brexit Britain politics has become a farce.


It is not a real law.
By Atlantis
#15043481
SolarCross wrote:It is not a real law.


Boris is a law unto himself ...

I think the EU could now suspend the UK's membership under Art. 7 because the rule of law in the UK is no longer guaranteed.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043488
ingliz wrote:Technically, it has.

The Commons voted today to defer a decision on whether or not to ratify that agreement.


:lol:


Well,no, it hasn't as yet, depending on what amendment motions are allowed, it could be anytime next week, or even later.

The only way to stop this nonsense in parliament, is for the E.U27 to respond to any extension request,by saying, "if you, the U.K parliament do not pass the W.A, then we, the E.U27, will not allow any extension at all".

if they did that, they would have no option but to pass the W.A, or to leave without a deal.

The ball would be in parliament's court & not in the E.U's.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043489
late wrote:That didn't make sense.



It would if you were 'English', perhaps you were born 'late'., if you know what I mean. :hmm:
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043491
SolarCross wrote:It is not a real law.


That is a very pertinent point SC, I know of no instance, where parliament has ever passed an Act, that has ever been directed at one person to perform an act that parliament has decided should be done at it's behest,by one individual,who happens to be the P.M.

If that sounds 'sensible' in a 'democratic' system, then I am Dutch.

It's funny how parliament whinges about the need for time to scrutinise the legislation,but, when it suits them, as in the current situation, to initiate a law, there was no time set aside for proper scrutiny & that in a nutshell is why today in parliament was more wasted time.

One of the Bills was even nodded through the House of Lords, with the help of John BERCOW, who, like many of MP's that are a waste of space, will not be standing for election again, or if they do, will not get elected.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043494
Atlantis wrote:Boris is a law unto himself ...

I think the EU could now suspend the UK's membership under Art. 7 because the rule of law in the UK is no longer guaranteed.



The 'flaw' in your reasoning, is that the U.K has served notice under Article 50 in 2017 to withdraw from the E.U.

Therefore, the U.K is no longer subject to the E.U's Treaty of the European Union,even though, in a sense it is, through the applicable rules on a member that has served notice under A50,but, it explains why the U.K has no unilateral say on the question of a decision on an extension.

Saying that BoJo is a 'law unto himself' is not true, all things being equal though, you could say that what you allege, is applicable to parliament itself.

In fact, Lord HAILSHAM(Quintin HOGG)recognised that parliament is an 'elective dictatorship', one that has(you shouldn't be surprised to learn)unlimited powers over everything that is within the state itself.

To name a current example, the Act to instruct BoJo to write an 'extension' letter to the E.U,which, considering the limitless powers that it(parliament) posesses, should BoJo not carry out that order,contrary to CORBYN's demands that he be subject to the Courts over it, that parliament could itself summon BoJo to appear before parliament to explain himself.
Were they then not satisfied, they could, simply by show of hands, order his immediate execution,ignoring the courts of law & that is because parliament is the supreme law-making body in the land.
That position enables parliament itself, but not Ministers, to overide any law of the land, by invoking it's own law with immediate effect, that is what Lord HAILSHAM was refering to in effect.

Having said that, provided the actors involved were aware of the consequences of not succeeding in their endeavours, could rise up against that tyrany & put it (parliament)down by revolt or revolution.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043496
Kirillov wrote:As you will see in the Guardian article below, Boris has confirmed he will send a letter to Brussels asking for an extension. As I write, the Independent reports that Boris has sent an unsigned letter to Brussels asking for an extension and a second one arguing that an extension will be a mistake.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 63356.html



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-brussels

EDIT. My two cents on today's vote. It doesn't really matter. The ploy was to stop a no-deal Brexit from occurring either by mistake or through the design of the ERG/Cummings, which I am not entirely sure was on the cards. I am reasonably confident the government will win the vote on the deal when it comes down to it, even if it is a narrow win. They have the ERG, the ex-Tory rebels, and a score of Labour rebels behind them.



I tend to agree with your conclusion about the government winning the vote when it comes, in fact, the rebels own acts have ensured that is the case, such is the irony of those half-wits efforts to thwart our leaving the E.U.

Not only has CORBYN shot himself in the head over his position on the matter in question, he has destroyed all hope of 'his' party winning the election.

The 'consolation' of course, is that he will surely gain the distinction of being the longest serving leader of the opposition, if he is not jettisoned by party members first, along with McDonnell.
User avatar
By marlon
#15043595
Never in all this is there mention of the substantive act of the referendum having taken place and the vote was to get out of the EU. This is contempt for democracy and there will be serious civil unrest in Britain if the leave voters are shoved aside. We will not accept this bullshit, con trick by Johnson - Farage and the MSM.
By Rich
#15043597
Rest in Peace Boris Johnson!

So Boris took his own life just before midnight, rather than ask the EU for an extension. Clever in death as in life, he chose a ditch in the very path of the third runway Heathrow expansion. His resting place will become a shrine for both ardent Brexiteers and environmental campaigners. Eulogies will be led by Nigel Farage and Greta Thunberg.
Last edited by Rich on 20 Oct 2019 09:34, edited 1 time in total.
By B0ycey
#15043601
SolarCross wrote:It is not a real law.


It is a real law and Johnson has just broken it. Sub section 4 of the Benn act specifically says that the PM must seek an extention. It is the very first line. By sending the second letter he undermines the first letter that is law. In other words, he isn't seeking an extention.

He will be in court by the end of the week and lose.

Although I do hope that the EU takes the letter from parliament seriously, signature or no signature. It is parliament that is sovereign and the PM is merely its figure head. So it is parliament not Johnson that the EU should work with and let the Clown pass the letters over. I knew this snake was not to be trusted. Someone should have forced him out of office by bringing forward a no confidence bill against him. But because they couldn't agree an intern leader we now have this clusterfuck. Lib Dems and Labour need to work together if the aim is to stop 'No Deal' Brexit and who cares who is leader for a month or two?
By B0ycey
#15043605
Nonsense wrote:The only way to stop this nonsense in parliament, is for the E.U27 to respond to any extension request,by saying, [b]"if you, the U.K parliament do not pass the W.A, then we, the E.U27, will not allow any extension at all".


What is the point of an extention if the WA passes? :roll:

The EU27 should allow the extention if they believe the impasse can be broken in the future. And it can. By a second referendum or a General election. BoJo the Clown can be the hand that passes requests. The EU should only deal with parliament now.
By B0ycey
#15043606
Nonsense wrote:Therefore, the U.K is no longer subject to the E.U's Treaty of the European Union,even though, in a sense it is, through the applicable rules on a member that has served notice under A50,but, it explains why the U.K has no unilateral say on the question of a decision on an extension.


What are you talking about. Until the UK leave the EU they are subject to their laws. Article 50 is merely a process to leave the EU not an exclusion of their laws until they do.

Although I should add that Johnson has broken UK law not European law when sending the second (third) letter(s).

Nonetheless I suspect Atlantis was being flippant when calling for article 7. But it is clear that Johnson is a law to himself and has broken it twice in as many months so was right to address it. He isn't PM material and personally I think a spell in Wandsworth is the only way to get the message across that deliberately breaking the law should not be tolerated regardless of who the individual is.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15043607
Johnson hasn't broken the law, Tusk has accepted the extension request and therefore it's done.

Labour have just announced they are tabling three amendments. Referendum on the deal, clause to enter customs Union and one to close loophole of no deal at end of transition.

All sounds sensible to me
By B0ycey
#15043608
BeesKnee5 wrote:Johnson hasn't broken the law, Tusk has accepted the extension request and therefore it's done.


The Benn act doesn't require for Tusk to accept the extention, it asks for Johnson to seek one. :roll:

By sending a letter saying he doesn't agree that an extention is the right thing to do, he isn't seeking an extention is he. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. But it will go to court. So let them decide if Johnson has complied with the law.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15043609
B0ycey wrote:
The Benn act doesn't require for Tusk to accept the extention, it asks for Johnson to seek one. :roll:

By sending a letter saying he doesn't agree that an extention is the right thing to do, he isn't seeking an extention is he. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. But it will go to court. So let them decide if Johnson has complied with the law.


It's not difficult to understand, he tried to undermine the law and failed.
The legal and political commentators I follow are all saying the same thing, they expect the court to shrug it's shoulders. If he had explicitly said in the second letter to ignore the first then it would've been a different matter.
By B0ycey
#15043610
BeesKnee5 wrote:It's not difficult to understand, he tried to undermine the law and failed.
The legal and political commentators I follow are all saying the same thing, they expect the court to shrug it's shoulders. If he had explicitly said in the second letter to ignore the first then it would've been a different matter.


Funny. Not the ones I read. Although I will say that none have outright said that the law has been broken because they haven't had time to analyse it properly yet. But I cannot see how the second letter is anything other than a ploy to undermine the first letter and that isn't legal. Johnson must seek an extention. If the EU offer the extention and that is given to parliament then perhaps the courts might shrug it shoulders because ultimately the law has been upheld. If they don't or Johnson doesn't let parliament vote on it, then no doubt they will take this seriously because Johnson himself (which has a legal obligation to seek an extention) clearly didn't seek the extention by sending the second letter and ultimately broke the law which is what I wrote. :roll:
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15043611
The legal obligation was to seek an extension using the wording supplied in the act, this was done. Nothing says it has to be signed, just that it must come from the government.

The issue is padfield which says a minister cannot frustrate the statue. As Tusk has accepted the request then clearly the statute has not been frustrated.

I think we will agree to disagree on this, whilst accepting Johnson and his cronies are devious and nasty pieces of work.
  • 1
  • 284
  • 285
  • 286
  • 287
  • 288
  • 305

Another last thing (sorry) is that if there is a […]

Another school shooting

You are trying to compare completely different th[…]

What is happening in Iran?

Iran threatens protesters, kills at least 251 in[…]

November 21, Thursday Judah P. Benjamin is name[…]