Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[Top Cats Hat 10]

28 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

it would be very irresponsible for a government not to prepare for that scenario.  

Nonsense.

 

This is not a natural disaster. It is completely avoidable and can be stopped in an instant by an extension to Article 50 or indeed by revoking Article 50 altogether. The risk of no-deal is purely a result of the political ambitions of the current government. Spending billions of our money to mitigate the effects is a massive rip off of UK citizens.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point in the future, an audit of this spending showed it to be unlawful given that the need for the spending was political expediency rather than genuine emergency planning.

 

 

[RJRB 688]

It would be great if the government would publish a parallel document to Yellowhammer,perhaps it could be Ostrich,and list all the benefits that we will enjoy outside of the EU.

I understand that Yellowhammer runs to only 5 pages and I am sure Ostrich would require much less.

[ads36 214]

20 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

The long term aim has always been to agree to a punitive deal

More or less immediately after the referendum result, the EU were offering talks based on a Canada, and or Norway (our choice) trade deal.

 

A Canada style deal would be ok, not great, but if we're leaving we have to accept a compromise. The EU did everything they could and we buggered it up.

Edited September 12, 2019 by ads36

[Robin-H 11]

40 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Nonsense.

 

This is not a natural disaster. It is completely avoidable and can be stopped in an instant by an extension to Article 50 or indeed by revoking Article 50 altogether. The risk of no-deal is purely a result of the political ambitions of the current government. Spending billions of our money to mitigate the effects is a massive rip off of UK citizens.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point in the future, an audit of this spending showed it to be unlawful given that the need for the spending was political expediency rather than genuine emergency planning.

 

 

I don't believe it is nonsense.  The only way to legally stop leaving without a deal is to a) agree to a deal or b) revoke article 50. Extending article 50 does not stop no deal happening, it just kicks the can down the road. 

 

Parliament has failed to agree to a deal multiple times. They would also not agree to revoking  article 50. That means a no deal scenario is still a very likely scenario, and should be prepared for. 

[alchresearch 214]

46 minutes ago, RJRB said:

It would be great if the government would publish a parallel document to Yellowhammer,perhaps it could be Ostrich,and list all the benefits that we will enjoy outside of the EU.

I understand that Yellowhammer runs to only 5 pages and I am sure Ostrich would require much less.

Cheap booze and that's about it.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/11/no-deal-brexit-duty-free-alcohol-misleading-10723651/

[Robin-H 11]

I have a question. 

 

Prorogation has found to be lawful by the English and Northern Irish Courts, and unlawful by the Scottish Courts. All courts have come to their decision by (I assume) correctly interpreting the legal precedents that form part of the body of evidence that they can look at. This differs in Scotland than it does in England. 

 

When the case is looked at by the Supreme Court, how will they decide which laws take precedence? 

[RJRB 688]

7 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I have a question. 

 

Prorogation has found to be lawful by the English and Northern Irish Courts, and unlawful by the Scottish Courts. All courts have come to their decision by (I assume) correctly interpreting the legal precedents that form part of the body of evidence that they can look at. This differs in Scotland than it does in England. 

 

When the case is looked at by the Supreme Court, how will they decide which laws take precedence? 

Who knows but I suspect they will uphold the right of Boris.

However legality and what is right do not go hand in hand.

To suspend Parliament in the current crisis is a total dereliction of duty.

We might live in a democracy,but it is being severely damaged by an autocratic P.M.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

15 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

When the case is looked at by the Supreme Court, how will they decide which laws take precedence? 

None of them. The Supreme Court is senior to all those courts and will take a view independant of other courts in the UK.

 

Despite people getting excited about different courts and courts of appeal giving ‘contradictory’ judgements they are actually saying the same thing. London and Belfast both said that prorogation in itself was legal and a political matter. Edinburgh agreed with that but went further and ruled that gaining royal assent for prorogation by misrepresenting the reasons for that prorogation to the monarch, was unlawful.

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will either agree with that interpretation or not.

[Robin-H 11]

15 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

None of them. The Supreme Court is senior to all those courts and will take a view independant of other courts in the UK.

 

Despite people getting excited about different courts and courts of appeal giving ‘contradictory’ judgements they are actually saying the same thing. London and Belfast both said that prorogation in itself was legal and a political matter. Edinburgh agreed with that but went further and ruled that gaining royal assent for prorogation by misrepresenting the reasons for that prorogation to the monarch, was unlawful.

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will either agree with that interpretation or not.

I wouldn't exactly say they were all saying the same thing.

 

The English and Northern Irish Courts said that it was an area where the courts should not intervene. The Scottish Courts did not agree. 

[apelike 10]

9 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

...London and Belfast both said that prorogation in itself was legal and a political matter. Edinburgh agreed with that but went further and ruled that gaining royal assent for prorogation by misrepresenting the reasons for that prorogation to the monarch, was unlawful.

But the Scottish court have not yet published full details for their reasoning only a summary and the full wording of the decision will be released tomorrow. Notice that despite this they never issued an  an interdict, or injunction, ordering the UK government to reconvene parliament. At the moment we do not know what Boris actually said in advice to Her Maj as to why he did this.

[Penistone999 10]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

Cheap booze and that's about it.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/11/no-deal-brexit-duty-free-alcohol-misleading-10723651/

We are all up for cheaper booze .

[Top Cats Hat 10]

42 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

The English and Northern Irish Courts said that it was an area where the courts should not intervene. The Scottish Courts did not agree. 

No, it’s more nuanced than that.

 

All three courts agreed that the ability to prorogue was an entirely political decision for the Prime Minister.

 

The Scottish Court of Appeal however, went further and stated that the reason for prorogation must be given to the monarch as part of the assent procedure. The court ruled that in this case, the government had hidden the real reasons for prorogation from the monarch in order to get that consent.

 

It is this misrepresentation which the court ruled made the act unlawful. We shall see if the Supreme Court agrees with them.

48 minutes ago, apelike said:

At the moment we do not know what Boris actually said in advice to Her Maj as to why he did this.

 We don’t, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t tell her that he had promised his party that he would be taking the UK out of the EU by October 31st, but given that he didn’t have the numbers the only way he could ensure this was to stop Parliament sitting.

 

It’s not as if he hadn’t publicly threatened to do this months previously.