The people have spoken

[Rob Cowell]

It's a side note in the margin to a deal we do not have , its not valid at all unless the deal is voted through , its delay for the sake of delay .

Convention is - sorry we cannot vote on supposition .

Is that a convention though? The word supposition doesn't exist in Erskine May but perhaps a similar one does?

I'm surprised you haven't picked up on Bogdanor's Telegraph piece yet. That has real references. I haven't seen much proper legal debate on it yet though. I imagine the Attorney General will have had his orders from Dom to have a good look at it.

 

[Shayne]

I can't read it the Telegraph unless i subscribe . You get what i'm saying though i think , the amendment itself might well be very practical in the future but at present it has no worth . It "might" become relevant if Doris's deal wins a majority vote but right now its the cart before the horse .

 

[Rob Cowell]

I agree that legislatively the amendment currently has no worth. But I don't think that is unconstitutional or unlawful. I can't see what grounds Bercow could have rejected it on. It got through the house because too many people don't trust the government to do what they promise. If the meaningful vote had gone through the PM wouldn't have had to send his unsigned letter, and then the government could have filibustered until October 31 and dropped out without a deal.

Bogdanor claims Letwin is unconstitutional because it contravenes two standing orders. He argues it causes new public spending because further EU membership during an extension if it is granted will cost membership fees. I would have thought that was existing rather than new spending but I'm not a lawyer, but then nor is Bogdanor, It looks like a few of his newspaper claims earlier this year were rubbished by actual lawyers. He also claims government business wasn't given priority as is required, but I don't understand that either. The government tabled a bill and it was listened to. If the order of the house had been changed on Saturday maybe he would have had a point. He doesn't really explain that in more detail.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20191020/281672551717640

 

[Shayne]

Hmmm not legal but not illegal because we don't have a constitution instead business is conducted in good faith because ultimately the will of the people prevails .

It's a crystal ball ruling and should have been denied as such , the speakers job is to keep the ball rolling , in this case the referee hid the ball because he fears the wrong side might score next . If it were a football match does anyone doubt there would be a riot in the stands and that ref would be escorted from the field never to return ?

 

[Rob Cowell]

Hmmm not legal but not illegal because we don't have a constitution instead business is conducted in good faith because ultimately the will of the people prevails .

It's a crystal ball ruling and should have been denied as such , the speakers job is to keep the ball rolling , in this case the referee hid the ball because he fears the wrong side might score next . If it were a football match does anyone doubt there would be a riot in the stands and that ref would be escorted from the field never to return ?

We do have a constitution. And nothing in it as far as I can see gave any grounds for Bercow to reject the bill. That said it is difficult to search the constitution because it exists across so many documents. If you don't realise there is a constitution it is going to be hard to argue what is or is not legal or lawful. You can think it's unfair, but I don't think that gets us very far.

 

[Shayne]

OK no right to bear arms or plead the 5th amendment American style constitution but rather an evolution of procedural norms trailing all the way back to a note written in 1215 . I don't suppose it matters much anyway because he will be gone soon regardless then followed out the door by a large number of MP's .

I think this sums up where we are at quite well https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ris-johnson-still-has-a-bazooka-in-his-locker

 

[Rob Cowell]

OK no right to bear arms or plead the 5th amendment American style constitution but rather an evolution of procedural norms trailing all the way back to a note written in 1215 . I don't suppose it matters much anyway because he will be gone soon regardless then followed out the door by a large number of MP's .

I think this sums up where we are at quite well https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ris-johnson-still-has-a-bazooka-in-his-locker

So another general election? I can't see that resolving much. But we shall see.

 

[Shayne]

I should add there is 2 stories in that link one immediately following the other . In short Remainer MP's have ran out of excuses to deny they want to ignore the referendum result , they have lost all credibility .

 

[Rob Cowell]

I should add there is 2 stories in that link one immediately following the other . In short Remainer MP's have ran out of excuses to deny they want to ignore the referendum result , they have lost all credibility .

I have no doubt many people share that opinion. For me that just exposes the huge weakness in the referendum. Cameron's hugely over simplistic promise to implement has caused huge divisions in the country and it's hard to see how they can be healed. Of course leave means leave but there are so many exits there was always going to be a long debate about which one is best especially when the numbers are so close.

 

[Shayne]

From the get go the EU and its employees in Westminster understood a no deal "cliff edge" Brexit would be a far reaching global economic catastrophe , something they assumed nobody would support . And so they set upon blocking every avenue until we were left with nothing but a binary choice - Surrender or Capitulate .

Their gambit failed , worse still it entrenched divisions so now we seek an amicable end in a hostile environment devoid of trust .

Must wonder how he got them to change their tune , did they accept he is bullheaded enough to crash the whole of Europe into recession , or did they accept if he walks away then the only person coming back to that table is Farage ?

If so you could almost say democracy played a part in the final act

 

[ren]

https://gist.github.com/paulmaunders/71de56b42fa470399a832ebb60bd6240/revisions?diff=split
For those interested, the above link I read last Thursday has the May deal on the left and the Bojo deal on the right. Red is removed from May's and Green added in Bojo's so you can see the differences. Often these give us significant more freedom. Debate over the NI situation aside frankly I am surprised Bojo has negotiate such a "good" deal especially in such a short a time compared with May and with his hands tied by the Benn act. Don't get me wrong I neither like nor trust Bojo (he is an MP which is not a good start). It frustrates me particularly that many of those who we are paying to represent us quite clearly have not read it or are lying about the content if they have but then should I really have expected anything better from parliament. Other key things to note are Mark Carney of the Bank of England is now backing the deal and Sinn Fein would have done if they ever came to take up their seats. It is the delaying that is the most damaging aspect of all this.

 

[Rob Cowell]

Was wondering why github was being linked, that's a good use for it!

Just to be clear around "delays" through. This isn't the document that last-night MPs voted against being able to review in 3 days.

The document that was published on Monday night and which MPs were asked to review, table amendments and debate in 3 days is here

It's quite a daunting read, so there is a helpful explanatory notes here

There is also a delegated powers memorandum, ECHR memorandum, impact assessment, and regulatory policy committee opinion.

By all means criticise further delay but do it from a point of understanding how much information MPs are being asked to read and understand, and then debate and possibly amend in 3 days. All of this was new on Monday night. The line many Tory MPs had been given by Dom that we've had 3.5 years to look at this was as accurate as any other Dom statement. 3.5 years might apply to the EU agreement in the github link. It does not apply to the wholly new withdrawal bill all the links above relate to.

 

[Rob Cowell]

https://gist.github.com/paulmaunders/71de56b42fa470399a832ebb60bd6240/revisions?diff=split

Just noticed this is just the non-legally binding political declaration, not the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is here

Any chance you've seen a similar github comparison for this?

 

[Shayne]

I just finished reading the first link only to find you decided it was the wrong one !

Oh well the first is "Hotel California" , Sovereignty (because we have a queen) which is accepted under Union autonomy .

"This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union's decision making and be consistent with the Union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom"

 

[Shayne]

I realized just before i logged out that the quoted link didn't load properly for me , ren's did but i only skipped through it because the gist of it remains the same .

The gist

You gave up the deeds to your store 40 years ago to become a franchise member of our brand name , in that time you have contributed consistently and significantly financially and otherwise . Now because you don't like the direction the franchise is taking you want the deeds back so you might continue business under your own name and determine your own direction .

What we propose is you may buy the deeds to your store back on condition you sign a legally binding document that ensures you will not and cannot compete in any way shape or form with any store included in our franchise .

 

[steverjuk]

What's behind Brexit is what's really worrying,

But like both sides of the arguments take with pinch of salt and do your own research

 

[ren]

My understanding is what I posted up that I had read last Thursday was what would have been in the meaningful vote on Saturday had it not been pulled because the Letwin amendment was approved. Of course this is not the actual legislation. My delay concern is not so much the 3 days but the over 3 years in which we should have made more progress and large delays are likely to be more damaging. A referendum takes virtually 6 months to organise and it is impractical and inappropriate to repeatedly ask for a referendum on things especially if it is just in the hope that things will go a different way.

I don't see the agreement as that you cannot compete with franchise to use Shane's worthy analogy but that you cannot compete on an uneven footing by cutting standards of quality, employee rights, safety and environmental factors which to me is a good thing. It does say we have the right to do our own deals. Under WTO's first principle"Non-Discrimination" A.K.A. "Most Favoured Nation Rule" you cannot provide a less favourable deal to another member than you provide to the most favoured nation in such a deal. This means we must be able to get the same deal as the EU between non-EU nations and likewise vice-versa. Indeed Corbin brought up the concern over employee rights as a point against the deal but in actual fact those rights would need to be changed by parliament separately in breech of the agreement for his scaremongering outcome to occur. What the EU don't want us to do is drop our standards such as food and having bleached chicken so we can sell cheap to the US and any others who would accept it but personally I would rather maintain the higher standards of food quality, environment and employee rights (Jake the Pegs scenario excepted https://www.landcruiserclub.net/community/posts/1523277 ).

The unfair corporate tax issues in the US & EU raised in video need to be dealt with by laws brought in by parliament; yes the protracted brexit situation does draw attention from it but it is not the cause. Such issues have been going on for years both inside and outside of the EU. What we need is to find honest people who also have the competence to do a decent job as MPs and will genuinely represent their constituents interests. One of the big issues is that in the party system with whips those whose constituents have different views to the leaders of the party can have their hands tied. Labour MPs for example are supported in their positions by a significant amount from both the remain and leave camps with some relying on a mix for their seat and others a large majority of either one or the other. The issue behind brexit really is that the system is broken.

 

[steverjuk]

I totally agree the system is broken and that's why I'm for proportional representation. The whole idea of a career politician drives me insane, I believe that each politician should have a fixed term as an MP. Being able to hold shares / sit on boards of companies whilst you're a politician should also be made illegal.

 

[Rob Cowell]

My understanding is what I posted up that I had read last Thursday was what would have been in the meaningful vote on Saturday had it not been pulled because the Letwin amendment was approved.

Yes. The meaningful vote did include this, but also the 540+ page Withdrawal Agreement and the Democratic Consent declaration for Northern Ireland. And I think everyone broadly knew what was in those papers and it didn't take long to agree the next steps.

My opinion, which is worth as much as you pay for it, is that just because it's taken a long time to get to where we are, it would be foolish to rush through the last, most critical steps. I don't think anyone is asking for weeks. Ken Clarke suggested additional 3 or 4 days to debate the brand new withdrawal legislation, and asked the government if they'd like to resubmit that sort of time-frame for a new vote last night. And the government declined.

 

[ren]

I agree it is not worth causing any detriment for the sake of a few days especially after 3 years. The Benn act ask was for Jan, some people want a another referendum which will be around 6 months and I suspect the EU will offer until 30th Nov now that they have delayed their new commission starting until 1st Dec (was Nov 1st) and given they don't want to be blamed for a no deal. Junker will certainly want Brexit dealt with before he leaves his post.

I like the idea of a maximum term for MPs although I suspect that they would not be too keen on voting themselves out of a job or even allowing such a motion of getting to a vote stage. Also it would be good to have a certain amount of appropriate experience in government. I don't think that they should be stopped from holding shares or sitting on boards though but this should be made completely transparent such as having a list of board memberships and significant shareholdings, funds (particularly hedge), on official documents such as letter footers, website footers etc. so people can see where their interests are. It is not unreasonable for someone to have shares but to manipulate things to their advantage is. It should be perfectly acceptable for someone to not have to relinquish a board position (which may be for a non-profit) or shares providing it is not to the detriment of their role as an MP especially if they may wish to return to that business after their term of service to the country and their constituents. One of the downsides is that often things may be in the names of close associates or family members.