The UK Brexit vote to leave the EU

[Cara]

Interesting comments on Brexit and the anti-democratic response of the EU bureaucracy from the Italian MEP Marco Zanni in the EU parliament:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=v2H7I8IKpxU

Published on Sep 20, 2019
Italian MEP Marco Zanni launched a scathing attack against the European Union over the institutions' treatment of the UK during the Brexit talks, branding Brussels' attitude as deplorable.

Lega Party MEP Marco Zanni warned the European Union may soon well see the end of the European project due to the "deplorable" attitude the bloc adopted towards Britain during Brexit negotiations.

Mr Zanni insisted the British decision to quit is a "demonstration of the errors of the past" the EU committed through the years as he demanded Brussels respect British voters.

Addressing colleagues in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the Italian MEP said: "We have to look at the deep-rooted roots that have led to decisions such as this, why citizens want to leave the European Union.

[greybeard]

Andrew Marr on BBC1 9am will prove interesting as usual.
Ch

[greybeard]

General Election, a thought.
Labour in a mess--Boris likely to loose the legal judgment.
Tories elderly supporters are very Queen and country so they may be unhappy at The Queen being drawn into this.
So come the Genera Election if the Liberal Democrats continue to do well they may form the next Government
People may feel a change is due.
The SNP at the moment is a remain party so if the Liberals are short of a working majority it may well be that it would suit SNP, time being, to enter into a coalition and the other remain parties might follow suit.
Even if SNP get another referendum and Scots vote for Home Rule that cant happen over night..
All of a sudden it does not seem impassible for another Female to be PM and why not?
All this just a wild guess.

Chris

[Letty]

Hi John,

I understand why you would see Brexit as "ill-informed parochialism."

But England will do just fine without the EU.

Historically it's the financial centre of the world and every country stores its gold in the City of London.

Many people think that Wall Street holds the purse - this is not the case, it's The City of London.

The US has the might, England has the purse.

The British Empire never died.

It's a bumpy ride and it will certainly get more sinuous, but the English will quickly land on their feet.

They always do.

Cheers,

Letty

[scanner]

Posted by Letty (here)
Hi John,

I understand why you would see Brexit as "ill-informed parochialism."

But England will do just fine without the EU.

Historically it's the financial centre of the world and every country stores its gold in the City of London.

Many people think that Wall Street holds the purse - this is not the case, it's The City of London.

The US has the might, England has the purse.

The British Empire never died.

It's a bumpy ride and it will certainly get more sinuous, but the English will quickly land on their feet.

They always do.

Cheers,

Letty

Although I agree, England will be fine. I think you'll find it's Switzerland who hold the economic power. That's why, in two World wars, it was always neutral, UK is just the admin/holders. US is heading for a hard crash, Fed pumping two trillion dollars in to their banking system until 10/10/19. Not being well reported, but it's happening. Boris and all the rest are screwing us, as usual, all smoke and mirrors by the NWO elites. Crash the unsustainable banking system. Take all property and land held as securities. Move to a one World currency, one World Gov, one World religion, I'm led to believe that's their agenda, checkmate.

[greybeard]

Channel 4 Wed 25th "The Tories at war" may be worth a look.
the review below is pretty bare knuckle.
Think a lot of people are disillusioned and more will be.
No matter your choice --your screwed.
Chris


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tories-war...105440993.html

[greybeard]

I honestly cant see Jeremy Corbyn's logic.
It might have been ok before the Liberal Democrats surged but now I suspect he has given them a lot of labour remain votes.
If I was of the mind to vote the whole thing would be doing my head in.
Chris

[greybeard]

The verdict of the supreme court was clear and easily understandable.
The decision by the Government was unlawful.
Parliament will resit.
Chris

[scanner]

Posted by greybeard (here)
The verdict of the supreme court was clear and easily understandable.
The decision by the Government was unlawful.
Parliament will resit.
Chris

I note the wording is, Government was unlawful and not Boris Johnson.

[greybeard]

Posted by scanner (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
The verdict of the supreme court was clear and easily understandable.
The decision by the Government was unlawful.
Parliament will resit.
Chris

I note the wording is, Government was unlawful and not Boris Johnson.

My quick post was misleading scanner.
Parliament is all the members the government is Boris and members of the cabinet.
So action of Boris was unlawful.
Chris

[greybeard]

Boris Johnson loses historic ruling after Supreme Court finds suspension of Parliament was unlawful
Ross McGuinness

Yahoo News UK24 September 2019

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/supreme-co...094210047.html

Supreme Court judges unanimously rule Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful

Parliament will reconvene on Wednesday morning

John Bercow calls on Parliament to ‘convene without delay’

Labour MPs urge Prime Minister to resign

Pound jumps as prorogation declared void

MPs will return to Westminster tomorrow after Boris Johnson lost a historic Supreme Court case after judges unanimously ruled that his advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful.

The panel of 11 justices decided the five-week prorogation of Parliament was designed to prevent Parliament from carrying out its duties, and was therefore “void and of no effect”.

The decision is a devastating blow for the Prime Minister, who was accused in court last week of an unlawful “abuse of power”.

Mr Johnson immediately faced calls to resign from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The judges sided with a previous decision in a Scottish court that Mr Johnson’s prorogation decision was unlawful because it was “motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”.

[greybeard]

Boris Johnson Supreme Court ruling: Judgment in full
Yahoo News UK Yahoo News UK 2 hours 25 minutes ago


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/supreme-co...100348777.html

Here is a link to the judgment in full. Below is the summary provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.
Supreme Court ruling summary

In giving the judgment of the Court Lady Hale said:

We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”.

Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen’s Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked ‘yes’ to that recommendation.
Lady Hale of the Supreme Court of the UK. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Lady Hale of the Supreme Court of the UK. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet “up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.

Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.

On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.

Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that.

This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”. The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual.

This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated

legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful.

The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament.

It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next.

Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

[scanner]

Thanks for the clarification and the subsequence post with links. Does this mean BOJO will be lodging in the Tower ?

[greybeard]

If you were to write this as a play it would not be considered believable.
Boris seems to be in denial.
Certainly it may appear as film some day--twists all the way up to the end.
Whatever that is.
A liberal government--home rule for Scotland--well all thats not too far fetched now, is it????

Chris

[Cara]

Alexander Mercouris (a strong supporter of Brexit) analyses and discusses the Supreme Court decision. Its implications are vast and go beyond Brexit to the constitution of the UK.

Discussion starts a few minutes in.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=95aRljx2lnw

[greybeard]

I listened as the "verdict" was read out and cant fault the logic of how they came to that conclusion, logical and well thought out.
I can see that those who cant see past Boris would have a problem with it.
A lot of Hippocraticy If anyone else other than the golden boy had that track record--the far right Tory members would have been in "Hang them, shoot them " mode.
The end justifies the means seems to apply to that kind of thinking.
Regardless of for or against Brexit I think the verdict was fair and unbiased.
Chris

[greybeard]

Cant help but think that Michael Gove would have been a better choice to lead the Government.
He is articulate, clear and convincing.
Chris

[scanner]

Do you mean Gove, self-confessed Zionist and drug taker ?

[greybeard]

Posted by scanner (here)
Do you mean Gove, self-confessed Zionist and drug taker ?

I meant for the conservative party not me.
He is a more convincing liar than Boris Lol
Im biased but the leader of the SNP at Westminster comes across really well.

Im just watching the whole thing with amazement--do these people actually believe what they are saying or just out to score points anyway they can?
Though Im not involved--I do have concern for people who are being adversely affected now and in the future no matter which way it goes.
Chris

[scanner]

The damage, all of these politicians have done and are still doing, is irreversible. People, I talk to, say what's the point of voting, they ignored us and more importantly, our vote. It's going to be very interesting at the next general election and the turn out numbers.