Begs the question “what are you reading?” - considering the EU Court ruled we could remain with no alterations to our existing relationship and terms…
Fixed it for you.
You mean like the payments our farmers receive?
Making payments to our farmers using our money is always a laugh. It’s like those who didn’t get why Cornwall which gets hugs subsidies voted leave. (Hint they aren’t huge fans of the common fisheries policy).
Not so much debating that bit, just pointing out that our farmers were some of those being referred to.
The subsidies are more for small scale farmers who couldn’t make any money if large scale farmers were allowed to operate in a free market without quotas. Also the practice of storing or destroying “over production” is abhorrent.
I go back the small scale farmer who gets £1.50/kg subsidy for the sheep(?) he keeps and the dairy farmer having to destroy perfectly good milk at his expense, because his cows made too much. This is madness supported and actively encouraged by the eu ergo CAP and quotas are in effect restrictive practices.
I read that in the guardian at work and I don’t regard it as hive of leave supporters.
@ThatDrummerBoy We elect MEPs because we have to, not because they have any use. Because the Govt was forced to not leave we had to waste money and go through the charade of electing these in May. The eu didn’t want it as they knew it would result in anti-eu meps being elected.
Milk quotas were scrapped in 2015 and our farmers weren’t happy about it over fears of downward price pressure as a result…
It made me smile watching BBC Business Briefing this morning. They had a bloke called Alpesh Patel and he is by far and away the best guest they have as I have observed he doesn’t get sucked into or suck up to the BBCs rhetoric. This morning in it was the BBC’s anti-leave the eu stance, Sally Bundock bless her socks was trying get him to say Boris Johnson was wrong yesterday to walk away from the press conference. He said, like I thought, Boris Johnson did the decent thing and not stand there while the pro-eu rent-a-mob, no doubt selected, harangued him during the press conference in Luxembourg. The little man the PM of Luxembourg wasn’t able to do the decent thing and support Boris Johnson a fellow PM and not appear. To be honest I got the feeling this mob was paid to be there. Let’s hope he’s true to his word and vetos the extension request, so we can get out of their silly little club. Luxembourg is one of those little countries punching far, far above its weight, as part of this club. They need to be part of this club but I would say many eu nations don’t. Why France and Germany especially stay as members baffles me, they are economically strong enough to go it alone. Well except Germany is likely to go into recession and IIRC France has quite high unemployment.
The thought of what Boris’ face must have looked like when the UKSC handed down the judgment earlier. 
5 Likes
Government: Prorogation was never about Brexit, it’s about a Queens Speech.
UKSC: Prorogation was unlawful.
Government: this is an attack on Brexit by the establishment!
6 Likes
I can see this having a backlash against the referendum spoilers. Lots of soundbites from mainly Labour seats which voted Leave and they seemed more resolute.
I would not laugh too hard if they made Boris Johnson resign, we had a GE and returned a Conservative govt with the BP in coalition with more than a working majority.
Corbyn can’t make up his mind and Swinson’s comments about revoking Article 50 shows she’d be out of her depth in the condensation on a window and her intention smacks of the eu’s MO not allowing the democratic process of referenda across all member states when it comes to treaties and acts which significantly alter the relationship between “Brussels” and member state parliaments. I think history shows that saying it’s ok for governments just to OK things like SEA and Maastricht is poor democracy.
It made me laugh when the judge woman said prorogation prevented parliament debating leaving the eu. not sure which planet she’s been on for the last 3¼ years, but parliament have done nothing else, so god knows what they were going to achieve in 4 weeks except stall and baulk it even more.
I do wonder where this leaves future governments now that it seems the judiciary has overturned a political matter declaring it illegal on the whim of a businesswoman. Although I’ve not seen anything which says which law has been broken. Maybe someone could challenge parliaments blocking the result of a referendum because it didn’t suit some MPs.
You mean “the President of the Supreme Court”.
Baroness Hale is one of the finest jurists of the land and deserves sone respect from a chauvinist pig like you.
5 Likes
They could bring a challenge yes, though it would be unlikely to succeed. The way our constitution works is that anyone has access to the courts to challenge the government, usually the government win, but where they have not followed the law the court will call them out.
Try here https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html
Cases brought by a large number of people. Businesswomen, politicians from all sides, a former PM. And not sure it’s a whim. There has been a large amount of highly intelligent, well argued legal debate in the highest courts of the land before intelligent, experienced and unbiased judges.
Of course none of this will matter to you, you’re clearly too obstinate to consider facts. And ironically, considering your comments on the electric car thread, you rely solely on emotions here.
3 Likes
The fact is that for 3¼ years MPs have sought to twist and defy the result of a referendum aide and abetted by Brussels, as the latter do not want their little club broken up.
So when she said they were denied 3/4 weeks to do more of the same and when you look into the background of the judges - a mate of Blair’s and 2 who have sat on eu courts, no bias there. Yesterday the judiciary showed their contempt for the British electorate. By their complicit action I sense it will not bid well for the opposition in a GE. Corbyn and Swinson must realise they will lose, they do not have the courage of their political conviction that the people will vote them in and bin leaving the eu, otherwise they would have gone for a GE. It might be a cliché but the comments about judgement pitching the people against the establishment only strengthens that feeling since June 23rd 2016, when as soon as the result came out leave voters were derided by the establishment, which had completely misread people’s feelings after Cameron didn’t get the concessions he asked for. Cameron one of the only PMs to actually do something stated in an election manifesto … hold a referendum on being in the eu. Now we have another PM trying to do what he said and being thwarted by people who are scared by the idea.
Even rank remainers I know respect Boris Johnson for trying to get this finished. I live in the only place in our borough that voted to remain and here people like Boris Johnson.
I saw a comment which compared the eu to the Hotel California.
You really are a deluded old fool.
You see a situation where the Prime Minister shuts down the elected Parliament (denying the entire time that this act has ANYTHING to do with Brexit) then fails to sign even a one line witness statement for the courts explaining the real reason why he did it.
Then when the courts declare that he acted unlawfully, shutting down parliament to avoid democratic scrutiny you think THEY are the ones who are contemptuous of the electorate?
If you think that’s fine, what about this situation. What if Corbyn got in, narrowly, decided to use that mandate to do something terrifyingly socialist, then closed down Parliament to avoid scrutiny, would you be happy with that?
If the answer, is in any way no. Then you know the judgment of the Supreme Court was entirely politically neutral. And, as BoJo repeatedly claimed until Tuesday NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT!
4 Likes
THIS. I’ve been following David Allen Green’s commentary and he’s quite right when he says that constitutional law shouldn’t be exciting!
But, if the government was confident in their originally declared motives, and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, then why would nobody involved sign a legal statement?
The government lied.
The government cheated.
That cannot be allowed.
During prorogation, Yellow Hammer was released - trying to avoid awkward questions.
The EU said “stop pretending to negotiate”.
This is not a government or a PM that can be trusted.
1 Like
But…
Shuffles notes
Something something it’s all the unelected lawyers!
2 Likes
Do you mean unelected judges?
(Also, elected judges are a BAD idea!)
2 Likes
To be fair i do not trust a single MP currently. I really do not know if i will vote at the next general election as i wouldn’t trust any of them to lead this country currently.
I’m just parroting what I’ve seen the crazies on Twitter yelling.
1 Like
I guessed, but it’s always worth calling out the particularly idiotic idea that EU or ECtHR judges are illegitimate because they are ‘unelected’.
We don’t even elect our own judges!
(And, to an extent, EU judges ironically are??)
It is the same process to prorogue as John Major (cash for questions 1997) and Clement Attlee (nationalisation 1948) except they deliberately prorogued to avoid scrutiny / delay implementation, I can’t imagine they went to the Monarch and said we are doing this to avoid scrutiny / avoid delaying implementation, they would have said something else. No one with personal gain (Millar) in mind, with the money or inclination took them to task over it. The one glaring difference was what Attlee and Major closed parliament down for, hadn’t been scrutinised and debated to death and gone over time and time and time again for 3¼ years, nor were they new PMs looking to prepare for a Queen’s Speech. I saw this and thought thank God a break from it.
I fail to see what those opposing leaving the eu will achieve in 3-4 weeks that they wouldn’t, couldn’t, don’t want to in the previous 3¼ years. It’s a pity our learned friends didn’t ask that question, but that would have gone against the agenda invoked by this. You saw this yesterday, the shortening of prorogation has done nothing, no further forward and no intent to do be, just more whingeing and whining from the opposition benches. The opposition will continue the fiasco of blocking tactics and going for a an extension, to go over the same old ground blocking all and any attempts to get this done, and in 3 months or so looking for another extension, just to repeat ad infinitum. You get a very real sense their thinking is do this enough and people will crumble and give into their will. They are being aided and abetted by Brussels are not willing to do anything without the sham in Ireland and is their one red flag. So unless a British parliament subjugates itself to essentially a foreign parliament (the eu) a deal won’t happen. The eu’s intent is to diminish the role of national govts to little more than puppet governments. The notion that the Irish farce can be removed in 2 years or whatever is nonsense, because if the solution was that apparent implement it now, get out and we can leave the eu dystopian empire to stew in its own juices.
I hope and pray that we have Conservative majority or a Conservative/Brexit Party coalition with an absolute majority at the next GE, who can go to Brussels and say we have the mandate to just leave, so start coming across. The won’t like this in Brussels and the clowns who’ve been preventing this happening in Parliament, will realise how childish they have been since 2016.