The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[TonyClifton]

I'm not sure you fully grasp the issue Blueangle when you refer to Supreme Court judgment as "simply a matter of constitutional law". When you have have both legal and political commentators unable to agree on the outcome of the judgement apart from its significance, then it is clear that the country is moving into uncharted territory. To quote constitutional historian, Lord Peter Hennessy, "The constitution really did shift... the architecture of the British constitution will never be the same again' because 'the Supreme Court's reach… now penetrates the most intimate relationship in the British state, that between the head of government, the prime minister, and the head of state, Her Majesty the Queen.'".

There are numerous examples of parliament being prorogued for political reasons, and this was done without the courts being called upon to interfere. Whilst the ruling by the supreme court was not specifically about Brexit, it is clear that the case was brought by those wanting to frustrate Brexit, and the celebration of its result by Remainers only further supports this argument. By making the ruling on a political controversy, the law, rightly or wrongly, indirectly becomes politically controversial, as is clear by the backlash from Brexiteers.

Simply put, what Brexiteers want is to leave the EU and that time is coming. Whilst the Remainers can enjoy their victories in the courts or in parliament, they are yet to win a round where the people are actually consulted. An election cannot be put off forever and very soon they maybe wishing they hadn't trampled all over political convention.

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	To quote constitutional historian, Lord Peter Hennessy, "The constitution really did shift... the architecture of the British constitution will never be the same again' because 'the Supreme Court's reach… now penetrates the most intimate relationship in the British state, that between the head of government, the prime minister, and the head of state, Her Majesty the Queen.'".

Did you invent this quote??

What he actually said on World at One on BBC Radio 4.

	Quote:
	Lord Peter Hennessy of Nympsfield said that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had “acted with immense insensitivity as well as illegality in advising the Queen to approve an order in council proroguing parliament”. “One of those key lines is that you do not put the monarch in an embarrassing position, where she may appear to be acting politically. Mr. Johnson certainly did that.” Lord Hennessy predicted that the court decision would scupper any move by the government to suspend parliament again. “This ruling should put an end to that dreadful talk that has been coming out of No 10 that they may ask for another prorogation and make sure it is lawful this time,” he said. “If there is one corpuscle of shame in the Prime Minister’s bloodstream, surely even he could not contemplate that now.”

[Blueangel]

I couldn't give a fig for what commentators opine. The law is the law!

As a matter of etiquette, perhaps you could reference your quotes in future rather than butcher them to fit your personal narrative.

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I couldn't give a fig for what commentators opine. The law is the law! As a matter of etiquette, perhaps you could reference your quotes in future rather than butcher them to fit your personal narrative.

How can he reference his quotes in the future if they are invented

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	marton
	How can he reference his quotes in the future if they are invented

I saw them in a DM Peter Hitchin article, but I hate to see people quoted incorrectly and/or out of context.

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I saw them in a DM Peter Hitchin article, but I hate to see people quoted incorrectly and/or out of context.

You are claiming Peter Hitchin quotes people correctly and in context?

I only value original sources, quotes of quotes are not helpful.

I would like to see Lord Peter Hennessy's original words because he is known to be supportive of the Supreme Court and these quotes imply the opposite.

So far my google searches have not found the original; strangely Thomas Clough Daffern said something similar but before the Supreme Court decision.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I couldn't give a fig for what commentators opine. The law is the law!

It's the interpretation of the law is what is about, interestingly the judgement gives Boris a way to leave at the end of the month as planned, guess you have missed that.

[YuropFlyer]

When did they moved the Brexit 1.0 date to 31st October? Guess we still have some days to make it even more exciting this time

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	It's the interpretation of the law is what is about, interestingly the judgement gives Boris a way to leave at the end of the month as planned, guess you have missed that.

Ooo I like a challenge.

Would you care to enlighten us using only text quoted from the SC judgement as evidence of this?

[Blueangel]

Details of the PM's new deal proposals revealed in part tonight by the Telegraph, which is behind a paywall, but will be announced later today. Two borders until 2025.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...send-brussels/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...kdown-section/

This is the response from Ireland...

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/s...53001505800192

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Ooo I like a challenge. Would you care to enlighten us using only text quoted from the SC judgement as evidence of this?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...-escape-route/

[keyboardandmouse]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Details of the PM's new deal proposals revealed in part tonight by the Telegraph, which is behind a paywall, but will be announced later today. Two borders until 2025. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...send-brussels/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...kdown-section/ This is the response from Ireland... https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/s...53001505800192

But they have to accept it or its no deal which is even worse ? It's forced the EU into accepting it surely.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...-escape-route/

Written by a political researcher and not a lawyer. Wouldn't get your hopes up for that particular route.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	keyboardandmouse
	But they have to accept it or its no deal which is even worse ? It's forced the EU into accepting it surely.

Or would it be a cheap trick to blame Ireland in case the deal fails?

	Quote:	keyboardandmouse
	But they have to accept it or its no deal which is even worse ? It's forced the EU into accepting it surely.

No. Why?

[keyboardandmouse]

	Quote:
	No. Why?

I thought it was crashing out at the end of october if they dont agree to it ? the UK PM has said its definitely 31 october i saw it on TV.

	Quote:	keyboardandmouse
	I thought it was crashing out at the end of october if they dont agree to it ? the UK PM has said its definitely 31 october i saw it on TV.

You don't read the news very much then?

Why do you think it forces the EU to accept it?

[keyboardandmouse]

	Quote:
	You don't read the news very much then? Why do you think it forces the EU to accept it?

Because having no deal would be worse for everyone I thought ? plus the British wont pay the 39 billion he already said so.

	Quote:	keyboardandmouse
	Because having no deal would be worse for everyone I thought ? plus the British wont pay the 39 billion he already said so.

Significantly worse for the UK (48% of exports go to the EU) than the EU (13% of exports go to the UK). Plus the EU cannot compromise on questions of the integrity of the single market or EU unity. Also the EU (and Ireland within it) will not be the party breaching the GFA.

FWIW the settlement bill is already down to €32 billion due to the extensions.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	keyboardandmouse
	Because having no deal would be worse for everyone I thought ?

That's why BoJo is ordered to get an extension if no agreement has been reached by October 19.