You see that Tony Blair?
Multiply his opinion by around 16m and that’s the Remain vote, that is.
That’s YOU, that is.
What, all of them? 
Why aren’t you in The Hague, Tonester? 
William? 
I’m not sure that person reads The S*n.
I’m not sure what the point of The S*n is anymore.
We’re in the smartphone age. If someone wants a tabloid, both the Mail and the Mirror are free online. If someone wants a quick wank in a van, Pornhub and 4G, init.
Couldn’t agree more, (well, not the wanking in the van bit), But we are told millions read it, although not sure how many actually buy it. This is interesting, shows the lengths the likes of Murdoch will go, actually giving it away as a loss leader to make sure people read the bile. The Blackadder clip at the end is a nice touch too.
https://dorseteye.com/would-you-like-a-free-copy-of-the-sun-this-is-what-happened-next/
Ever since the Hilary Benn Act was passed, Boris Johnson’s government has persisted in its view that the UK is leaving on October 31st. The big assumption is that in order to do that, Boris has to break the law. I don’t think that assumption holds.
Here are two possible ways I’ve gleaned from many of the videos I’ve watched that seem plausible to me.
The first is Article 51, of which Britain and many other nations are signatories, which has the effect of rendering any law made under personal duress defunct. The PM has been threatened with prison by his political opponents. It can therefore be argued that the extension request was sent under duress, and should be disregarded. That’s the domestic angle.
I actually think the next idea is more of a go-er, and it’s a bit delicious from the perspective of a Leave voter. When domestic law and EU law are in conflict, EU law prevails. The Hilary Benn Begging Bill requires that we ask for an extension. EU law does not. In this particular case, the superior law of the European Union prevails. Boris legally doesn’t have to ask for an extension.
I think this the route the government will take. Rees Mogg has already been talking about the premise of EU law being superior.
The first idea is too ridiculous and would fall at the first hurdle.
The second idea would achieve a lot of bellyaching, as soon as anyone bothered to think back a little while when the same people claimed otherwise(like parliamentary democracy and easiest deal in history).
I’d still go for the Kinnock amendment as the best way to tie everything in knots(remember what happened at the vote).
Back to your point about which law prevails, you might want to quieten down about that. It could just come back and bite you.
"The Court of Justice could become involved in a host of ways. Let me mention just a few of the more salient ones.
First, Member State courts hearing claims concerning an unconstitutional exit, could (and under Article 267 TFEU, under certain circumstances, must) send a reference to the CJEU on the consequences under EU law from such action.
Second, the Commission could sue the U.K. before the CJEU directly under Article 258 for failure to fulfill its Treaty obligations.
Whichever way these claims come to Luxembourg, the CJEU could, if necessary, as others already pointed out [e.g. Pavlos Eleftheriadis], immediately toll any upcoming Brexit deadline by interim measure under Article 279 TFEU until the matter was properly heard. Moreover, in its final judgment, the CJEU could pronounce the withdrawal period tolled until any manifest domestic constitutional violation was cured. Indeed, the CJEU may even hold that the unconstitutional action at some point has undermined exit to such an extent as to require the U.K. to start its withdrawal process all over again!
And that’s just playing nice."
That’s a decent site for the legal implications and there’s an article about the Kinnock amendment as well(good arguments for different uses/outcomes in the comments).
You do know the second reason is why we’re still legally in the EU, right?
Parliament never voted for the new dates. What happened was that the EU changed its law, it became in conflict with ours.
Because EU law is superior, we ended up changing the date by statutory instrument to solve the conflict.
Your reasoning behind this seems flawed and a case of having your cake and eating it(legally).
As said in my earlier post, you don’t want to go down that road, it’ll come back and bite you.
I don’t think this is correct. Pfeffel is obliged and that excuse won’t wash here or with the EU. It looks desperate and doomed to failure as far as i’m concerned, but in this day and age, who the fuck knows.
The Kinnock amendment looks like it muddys the water enough for some possibilities. That said i’m sure these words would come back to haunt the tories if they tied and it subsequently went to court.
“It is true that initially, during the fast-moving events at a late hour on Wednesday evening, it was our intention to ask the House to remove this amendment. However, since then we have looked at it further. My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that the Government do not support this Bill and do not favour it. We think it is flawed and that this Kinnock amendment tries, but does not succeed, to make it even worse. The amendment is confusingly drafted, is contradictory to the aims of the rest of the Bill and its deficiencies are such that its effect is rendered pointless.
“I always hesitate to disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay but my strong advice is that this amendment is legally inoperable. It appears contradictory with other parts of the Bill because it requires an extension to pass legislation to implement a deal, when, under this Bill, the extension is being sought only because no deal has been agreed.
“For all those reasons, as I have said, we think it is inoperable and largely pointless. I am happy to say that it was our original intention to take it out—we had discussions to that effect and so my noble friend Lord True is correct, as always—but since then we have looked at the matter further.”
Lord Callanan, the Minister of State for the Department for Exiting the European
Don’t know if you looked at the amendment article i mentioned, but worth a read, so here it is if you want to have a read(good arguments for both possibilities).
I’m still of the opinion that this route is far more likely to do the job(even after the admittance from Lord Callahan), but again, who knows with this bunch, that claim one thing one minute and the opposite the next (not helpful in a court).
UK law requires Boris to ask for an extension.
EU law does not.
Therefore…
- Domestic and EU law conflicts
- EU law prevails
The amendment will also be in conflict.
As I’ve said before, this very mechanism was employed to extend the deadline. I don’t know why you think it is not feasible.
I’d expect this legal position to be laid out in Saturday’s session of Parliament.
Meh.
We’ll find out Sunday morning no doubt.
Or the following Sunday Morning.
Or…
Repeat until 2026 or whenever all the stuff is finally sorted out
Very ambivalent about this.
I want out on the 31st October. However, if that doesn’t happen, Boris’ chances of staying in are reduced.
Why do they conflict and if they do, has that conflict been deliberately caused?
From the little information you’ve given i’m not understanding, so put a link to the video(s) that enlightened you on this. So far it looks a desperate grab at something that was denied not long ago, but I may be missing something(not the simplistic “prevails” argument. It’s a lot more nuanced than that).
The amendment is a different matter and could cause lots of problems, so i’ll stick with that being the potential spanner in the works, unless your link shines new light on the subject.
And this is why it’s good to be prepared for no deal.
The latest from the EU is not good.
Beyond the DUP’s issues with the deal, it is understood the talks between British and EU negotiators have run into trouble on the issue of level playing field guarantees.
The guarantees are promises to maintain EU standards in environment, tax and state aid to prevent Britain from undercutting the EU for a competitive advantage.
That’s it?
The man that flip flops on parliamentary sovereignty and which law prevails, as and when it suits and even he admits “he does not see any “easy and obvious loophole” the Government could use to get around the Benn Act.”
That’s maybe a clue to their true intent, but the reason given by Mogg won’t be the one they use. Why give the game away?
Did you read the Daniel Halberstam article?
This bit at the start, unless i’m reading it incorrectly puts paid to that idea(and there are many other reasons).
Preliminaries
Begin with basics. Article 50 TEU allows a Member State to withdraw “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” As the European Court of Justice held in Wightman, Article 50 demands that the withdrawal process be “orderly” and “democratic.” The decision to withdraw, the Court also held, was not finalized by the original notification, but an ongoing intention subject to revision and reconsideration through that state’s “democratic process in accordance with its constitutional requirements.”
Doesn’t that last bit allow for change without EU law superseding?