OV9

GG. wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:03 am @Rev - I think you're getting confused. I'm not challenging what she said (indeed I predicted it). I'm noting you end up in the same place if he re-prorogues, i.e. no bills will have been saved and no parliamentary sitting re-gained.

But they don’t end up in the same place. At worst, they go into recess, but things can still go on whereas before today they couldn’t.

Any argument that says the length of prorogation was “normal”, when taking the conference season recess into account, is patently wrong, and that is something you have argued in the past.

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:17 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:13 am The only way to move forward is a confirmatory referendum. Leave/Remain, and in the event of Leave, WA or No Deal.

unless they can get a leave deal before 31st Oct?

If Maddie McCann rides in on Shergar, clutching a deal signed by Lord Lucan, yes, Parliament could vote for what Johnson has negotiated with the EU.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:19 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:17 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:13 am The only way to move forward is a confirmatory referendum. Leave/Remain, and in the event of Leave, WA or No Deal.

unless they can get a leave deal before 31st Oct?

If Maddie McCann rides in on Shergar, clutching a deal signed by Lord Lucan, yes, Parliament could vote for what Johnson has negotiated with the EU.

A simple yes would have sufficed (but less funny!)

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:05 am There is no difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal' either - the two are synonymous.

The fact that Boris misled the Queen is not an offence which is set out in statute, but it's a very obvious breach of duty and is manifestly misfeasance in public office, which is a specific criminal offence.

first lawyer makes his statement, second lawyer contradicts and makes Argumentum a contrario

Rev's suggested formulation of the question is the only one that I think is reasonable. Thing is - to organise that, we would need an extension from the EU to allow us time. Query if the EU thinks that extension is to potentially come back in (or at least to make no progress on agreeing a deal until we know what the outcome of the 2nd ref is), whether it will get vetoed. There are members that certainly do not want us to continue now in an unwilling capacity and don't want this to drag on further. The second ref is a harder ask of the EU than a further three months in which they hope parliament will accept the WA, in my opinion.

dinny_g wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:21 am

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:05 am There is no difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal' either - the two are synonymous.

The fact that Boris misled the Queen is not an offence which is set out in statute, but it's a very obvious breach of duty and is manifestly misfeasance in public office, which is a specific criminal offence.

first lawyer makes his statement, second lawyer contradicts and makes Argumentum a contrario

The only evidence you need that they are not entirely synonymous in meaning is the fact they are not used interchangeably by the courts.

GG, perhaps you could comment on Boris's criminal act of misfeasance in a public office? That act would be unlawful, would it not?

ETA: Dinny, GG gives you no grounds to make that inference. The two words mean the same thing: not in accordance with the law.

GG. wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:22 am Rev's suggested formulation of the question is the only one that I think is reasonable. Thing is - to organise that, we would need an extension from the EU to allow us time. Query if the EU thinks that extension is to potentially come back in (or at least to make no progress on agreeing a deal until we know what the outcome of the 2nd ref is), whether it will get vetoed. There are members that certainly do not want us to continue now in an unwilling capacity and don't want this to drag on further. The second ref is a harder ask of the EU than a further three months in which they hope parliament will accept the WA, in my opinion.

I believe the EU has already said it will agree to an extension with no terms attached, if asked for one.

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:08 am

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:07 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:02 am What does everyone actually want to happen next? Obviously revoke A50, but what for the government?

JC Labour?
Conservative with another leader?
Lib Dem’s?

I think there are two outcomes possible, assuming Boris does step down:
- General election. Ridiculously risky for every party.
- A Government of National Unity. Clearly the Tories can elect a new leader but without a majority he or she will not automatically become PM. Someone with cross-party support would be the solution but who?

yes, but it asking what YOU want to happen. Everyone seems very happy with Boris failing, so I presume everyone also has a solution in mind for what they want to happen instead.

You asked the question; what do YOU want to happen?

To answer Rich's question, I'd like to see Article 50 revoked and Labour with a different leader as I don't think the Lib Dems are capable enough to govern. It doesn't matter who leads the tories, there are too many people working the strings in the background.

Revocation of A50 is not going to put this whole shitshow to bed.

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:26 am ETA: Dinny, GG gives you no grounds to make that inference. The two words mean the same thing: not in accordance with the law.

Noted - I'm keeping score. Although I'm not sure I'm qualified. At the moment I have Jobbo 2 goals ahead with a point bonus try and 50 overs left...

Interesting that Farage has said prorogation should never have happened and that Dominic Cummings must resign (presumably from his role as de facto Prime Minister)

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:28 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:08 am

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:07 am

I think there are two outcomes possible, assuming Boris does step down:
- General election. Ridiculously risky for every party.
- A Government of National Unity. Clearly the Tories can elect a new leader but without a majority he or she will not automatically become PM. Someone with cross-party support would be the solution but who?

yes, but it asking what YOU want to happen. Everyone seems very happy with Boris failing, so I presume everyone also has a solution in mind for what they want to happen instead.

You asked the question; what do YOU want to happen?

Tbh, I want Maddie and Shergar to rock up and put an end to it.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:29 am Revocation of A50 is not going to put this whole shitshow to bed.

As much as I want that to happen, I agree. That’s why we need to have a 2nd referendum. I would suggest, as well as the structure I laid out earlier, it should also be made a legally binding referendum with an appropriate threshold for constitutional change and strict campaign rules.

dinny_g wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:29 am

Jobbo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:26 am ETA: Dinny, GG gives you no grounds to make that inference. The two words mean the same thing: not in accordance with the law.

Noted - I'm keeping score. Although I'm not sure I'm qualified. At the moment I have Jobbo 2 goals ahead with a point bonus try and 50 overs left...

So if Jobbo got done for drink driving he would say im driving "not in accordance with the law"? No, you would be committing a specific offence of driving under the influence and no person in reality would say I was driving unlawfully rather than "I committed an illegal act".

I guess you can think of it as 'positive' versus 'negative' legality. The consequences which flow from it are generally different. An unlawful act can be quashed or set aside (hence why it is used in the area of administrative law and judicial review) and an illegal act will generally have a prescribed punishment as a result of committing it.

You can conflate the two but in front of a court, you'd just look like a fool.

OK, I'll add a Touchdown to your score...

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:32 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:29 am Revocation of A50 is not going to put this whole shitshow to bed.

As much as I want that to happen, I agree. That’s why we need to have a 2nd referendum. I would suggest, as well as the structure I laid out earlier, it should also be made a legally binding referendum with an appropriate threshold for constitutional change and strict campaign rules.

That won't work in practice as your referendum will likely end up 48:52 one way or the other and be null and void, with the political mandate from the original one not being superseded.

GG. wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:39 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:32 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:29 am Revocation of A50 is not going to put this whole shitshow to bed.

As much as I want that to happen, I agree. That’s why we need to have a 2nd referendum. I would suggest, as well as the structure I laid out earlier, it should also be made a legally binding referendum with an appropriate threshold for constitutional change and strict campaign rules.

That won't work in practice as your referendum will likely end up 48:52 one way or the other and be null and void, with the political mandate from the original one not being superseded.

No. The status quo is Remain, not the previous result of an advisory referendum.