WHats the strategy in calling an election for BJ?


You'd have to think through the numbers carefully. He'd lose the ERG (probably) and DUP (definitely). He'd lose any remain votes. He'd gain back some Labour leave and some of the Tory soft Brexit MP's he expelled. It runs the risk of opening a huge door to the Brexit Party Ltd at the following election - which seems throughout all of this to be the real target. He himself said he'd never accept it - which would be a big U turn.

I think I'd want more than 5/2
 
peemac said:
The EU will agree it, BJ will agree it, Ireland will agree it. UK will be out with no "British" backstop and frankly no-one in Britain (except those from NI) gives a second thought about NI.
Click to expand...

Agreed - but there will be some finessing of the details (and maybe some sort of sweetener) and it will be called something else. The term "Backstop" is toxic from a face-saving viewpoint.
 

There could be some sort of sweetener to bring enough of the opposition on board. I saw a suggestion yesterday that the EU might give an agreement that should the UK decide at a future date to re-apply for membership they could be accepted on their existing terms. This might be tempting as it would make it easier for any future re-application referendum to pass. Not having to adopt the Euro, keeping the budget rebate, opt out of Schengen, etc. Perhaps this concession won't come to pass but it would be very tempting for opposition members positively disposed towards the EU.
 

Yeah possible. Still leaves Boris vulnerable to the Brexit Party in the election afterwards. And, as I understand it, Cummings is out to destroy them as much as anything else. It also sounds (almost) too "normal, conciliatory politics" for Cummings.

If I had to try to guess what "dastardly, system-breaking" scheme Cummings could try, it wouldn't surprise me to start hearing about (a) extending Porougation (sp?) or (b) coming back to Parliament with a deal (thus meeting the criteria of the new law) but the deal being so toxic that it could never pass Parliament. My quick read of the law doesn't seem to address what would happen in that case - I think it meets the criteria of the law and leaves them back where they were i.e. a crash out being the default.

The problems are obviously (a) a legal challenge to an extension and (b) whether the EU would agree a revised deal that they knew wouldn't pass Parliament - I think they would spot this one and just not agree a deal.
 
EmmDee said:
Yeah possible. Still leaves Boris vulnerable to the Brexit Party in the election afterwards.
Click to expand...

I think once Brexit is passed the Brexit Party's ship will have sailed. The NI only backstop will mean Britain leaving the Customs Union and Single Market (and ECJ - and Freedom of Movement) - once the transition period has passed. They will be free to pursue US and other trade deals as they wish. The Brexit Party will have very little concrete left to campaign on.
 

They have said they'll come after the Tories if they sign up to any withdrawal bill. You can almost see Farage at it - "Traitor Johnson", "Remain by the backdoor" etc etc.

They'll run - on the basis of probably ending the WA early or withdrawing from it all together to try to remove an easier option back into the EU. That's the only reason he is talking up the "no deal" bluster. It's not for the sake of the EU - it's a domestic audience he is talking to
 
The center will hold. I believe that at some point the politic's in Britain will swing back to the center. Could be awhile though.
 
Sophrosyne said:
More of it!

The Scottish court of appeal has ruled the prorogation of parliament unlawful.
Click to expand...

Importantly it ruled that BJ lied to the Queen about the reason for it. Honestly - every "wheeze" Cummings comes up with falls apart under process and procedure.

It will probably be reversed at Supreme Court but it just adds a ton more negative news and puts further pressure on the Parliamentary Party

Edit - watch out for a couple more legal moves. Specifically the release of documentation. There's a time bomb there as well
 

Hi EmmDee,

Why do you think that it will probably be reversed by the SC?

Any chance that you can elaborate on your tantalising edit please?!
 
elacsaplau said:
Hi EmmDee,

Why do you think that it will probably be reversed by the SC?

Any chance that you can elaborate on your tantalising edit please?!
Click to expand...

Hi,

So - to start with (apologies if you are already aware of all of this), there are significant differences between English and Scottish law; both in terms of the whole basis of the law but also in terms of the conventions around the legal system's interaction with the executive and vice versa. English law has long standing conventions that the courts shouldn't stray into matters for the executive and vice versa. Scottish courts don't place such tight restrictions on themselves. In both cases (and Northern Ireland), the Queen and decisions made by her are not subject to judicial review - though the Queen acts on the advice of her PM

The first case brought to the English High Court last week tried to claim the 5 week shutting down of parliament was unprecedented and illegal. The court ruled, not that the action was legal, but rather that the length of the prorogation was a political decision and therefore not a matter for the court ("non justiciable" is the phrase). That case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Scottish case was slightly different. The case here was not to do with the length of prorogation but rather it questioned the validity of the advice. Essentially the case was that the PM was not honest about the reason for the prorogation - rather than the stated case of being to prepare for a new Parliament, it was actually done to stifle Parliament's oversight of the executive. Crucially, the Government failed to lodge a sworn statement to justify the decision. David Allen Green (follow him on twitter if you like this sort of stuff) spotted this during the case - he likened it to the Sherlock Holmes case where the biggest piece of evidence was actually the lack of what should be there - "The dog that never barked". The Scottish judges took an inference from this that because the Government couldn't provide (or wasn't willing to) a sworn statement that they did indeed have a reason for the advice other than the one publically stated.

Both of these case are now going to the Supreme Court. Up to a couple of weeks ago, any legal commentators I have read in the UK, gave little hope to an appeal to the Supreme Court i.e. after the English High Court case. The thinking being that the Supreme Court would take a similar "non-justiciable" view. The Scottish case raises the chances from 0% to something else but who knows what. It is still an act of the executive being challenged in a UK court which historically is slow to interefere in the executive. It is complicated by the fact that the Scottish case also used civil law standards which would be valid in England and was brought on a different basis to the English case. So while I say the balance of probabilities is that it won't succeed, it is certainly not zero. And in fact - given the track record - I wonder if it brings a significant risk of unintended disclosures during the case i.e. another "dog that won't bark" - or an order to provide documentation. So even if it doesn't succeed, it has the potential to backfire on BJ

As to my edit - I was referring to the Dominic Grieve "Humble Address" that he got through Parliament on Monday before it closed. It essentially required the Government to publish the advice about a no deal exit (Project Yellowhammer) and to publish all correspondence between Ministers and named advisors relating to the decision to Porogue - both on official communication channels AND private/personal. You may have seen a lot of noise last night about the publication of the Yellowhammer document (essentially confirming the leaked document published by the Sunday Times) but the Government refused to publish any internal communications (citing privacy).

The latter is the bit, I think, Grieve was really after. The rumour / suspicion is that there were explicit discussion about using Porogation as a tactic for Brexit. Which would both confirm the judgement in the Scottish courts AND explain why no Minister or Civil Servant was willing to swear evidence into the court. There is also rumour / suspicion that Cummings and others are avoiding formal Government channels such as email and instead using burner phones, encrypted messaging etc to avoid leaving discoverable evidence.

I think the release last night was really just a distraction - though politically terrible for the Government. The real jeopardy for BJ is if, as I suspect will be the next step, a case is brought to attempt an injunction to force the Government to comply with the release of communications. That has the potential to be open up a can of worms

Apologies for that - bit long. I would definitely follow David Allen Green on twitter (also in the FT and has blogs) if you're into this type of thing - there are a number of other UK QC's also commentating on twitter - legal Twitter is pretty active these days!!!
 
I don’t think prorogation was dreamed up by Dominic Cummings though of course, he may have ran with it.

On 14 June last, Gerald Warner, wrote an article for Reaction.life, an online magazine for extremists that “Proroguing parliament is legal and should be on the table”.

Warner or James Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie to give him his full title, was a journalist and in the 1990s became Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

He detested David Cameron and what he perceived as the left-leaning direction of the Conservative Party.

At the time, senior Tories spoke out against prorogation to force through Brexit.

The English and now the Belfast courts dismissed the cases on the basis that it was none of their business. The Supreme Court may do the same.

That would leave the Scottish Court of Session as the only court to give a ruling having examined the facts.

So on the one hand the prorogation is unlawful but on the other hand it doesn’t matter!

I don’t think this will go away.
 

The idea of shutting down parliament to get over the exit date was one that was raised even earlier than that. I think I recall Rees-Mogg suggesting early this year. It was a topic during the Tory leadership contest


Important to remember a few things. The English, Scottish and Northern Irish High Courts hold equal legal weight - three high courts from three jurisdictions. A Supreme Court decision is binding on all jurisdictions but it isn't like a game where best of 3 wins. I also believe the appeal is judged under the law of the jurisdiction i.e. the Scottish appeal is judged on Scottish law.

Interesting (well to me anyway) fact - the UK Supreme Court was established 10 years ago. Before that, the appeal court was a committee of the House of Lords. Which - in this case - would have been porogued
 
elacsaplau said:
EmmDee,

I gave your post a like. However, I feel a mere like is not a sufficiently adequate way of recording my gratitude for taking the time to make such an informative and well-written post. Bualadh bos, bualadh bos croíléiseach.
Click to expand...

Gosh thanks. And - you're welcome
 
EmmDee said:
there are significant differences between English and Scottish law; both in terms of the whole basis of the law but also in terms of the conventions around the legal system's interaction with the executive and vice versa.
Click to expand...

You mean to say, that there is divergence within the UK legal system itself, from one country to another?
Kind of puts a gaping hole in the DUP hoax that there cannot be divergence from laws, rules and regulations.

*excellent post by the way.
 
WolfeTone said:
You mean to say, that there is divergence within the UK legal system itself, from one country to another?
Kind of puts a gaping hole in the DUP hoax that there cannot be divergence from laws, rules and regulations.

*excellent post by the way.
Click to expand...

Lol.

It's a (geeky) interesting history. They are three "nations" legally. And while I'm no expert, the Scottish legal system has a lot of continental influence - more so than English. Apparently Irish and English law are a lot closer than English and Scottish.

It's not the only divergence - There are no university fees in Scotland where there are in England. Which, because of reciprocity in the EU, means a Scottish citizen gets free Uni here while an English person would have to pay (likewise an Irish person pays fees in England but not in Scotland). The NHS is different (e.g. yesterday NHS Scotland announced it was making a cystic fibrosis drug available free which is not available in England). Contract law is very different.

There is already divergence in NI - the obvious gay marriage and abortion laws for example. There are also separation on animal and food checks (all Ireland as opposed to all UK).

The history of what is now the UK is actually really interesting and, just as we criticise our neighbours for not being au fait with our history, I don't think we learn enough of the nuances of theirs
 
WolfeTone said:
You mean to say, that there is divergence within the UK legal system itself, from one country to another?
Kind of puts a gaping hole in the DUP hoax that there cannot be divergence from laws, rules and regulations.

*excellent post by the way.
Click to expand...
Scottish Law is quite distinct from English Law in both its origins, structures and common law precedents. If anything they are more closely aligned now than at any time in history.
Northern Ireland Law is also different from English and Welsh Law in that it has its origins in Irish Common Law but it is far less distinctive than Scottish Law in both its structures, application and case law precedents. The Northern Ireland Act of 1998 established the Northern Irish Assembly and gave it Legislative Powers (and therefore in effect acts as a Northern Irish Constitution), before that (post 1972) the courts effectively acted as the legislature. Weird, them Nordies.
 
EmmDee said:
The history of what is now the UK is actually really interesting and, just as we criticise our neighbours for not being au fait with our history, I don't think we learn enough of the nuances of theirs
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. On the flip side, I would imagine that there are a lot people in the UK who don't understand it. Try spending Scottish and NI Sterling in London is always good for a laugh. I know people in England who can't understand why the Welsh and Scottish would cheer against England since they are the same Country....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register