It's been rumoured that the EU is inclined to offer a two-year extension, but only on the condition that there's significant change in the UK political situation - e.g. a new government or a commitment to a referendum.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bantamzen
Established Member
Who was it that mentioned a being face-down in a ditch again?
That reminds me, we need to nip out to B&Q...…
Common sense would be today say that he would be returning to the UK to make an announcement in the House as soon as his UN engagements were complete in new York. On his return, announce his immediate resignation.
Reality will be somewhere between that, and the PM's team taking to Twitter in a some of blaming tweets, blaming remainers, media, the courts, the BBC, the cast of a popular sitcom, to Larry the No10 cat. Then the PM returns to the House, rants insanely for a couple of hours at the despatch box, literally throwing toys out of a pram brought in for him whilst Ress-Mogg lies in various provocative positions on every bench, calling a vote of no confidence in himself, losing, triggering a new General election where all parties so incapable of agreeing on any kind of manifesto that the vote is split so thinly that The Monster Raving Loony party wins by a landslide, immediately holding a séance to bring back the ghost of Screaming Lord Sutch to take his place as the leader of the party and Prime Minister. Then we all go to a giant tea party, where we constantly swap places and...….
<phew>
<wibble>
Seriously though, I think its time for us all to go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint or three and wait for this all to blow over. We may need more peanuts.....
krus_aragon
Established Member
I don't see any issue for them in this specific case, the question is whether the inner mechanisms of royal prerogative will be examined more closely or revised for the future.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Right at this point, we should snatch their hand off if this is true. Its by far and away the best option and frankly our only hope of taking a deep breath & restarting the whole thing, this time with the benefit of hindsight, something that is rarer than rocking horse stuff in politics.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
the problem is that the prerogative has been challenged and then voided. What point in the constitutional Monarch now?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think strictly speaking it's the advice that was given that has been ruled void. As I understand it the Queen's action isn't of itself challengeable in the courts, but she is obliged to follow the advice given and if that advice is illegal then the resulting action is invalid.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There are a whole host of constitutional conventions that have turned out not to be worth the paper they aren't written on. In a rational world (some hope!) there would be a thorough review leading to a written constitution setting out exactly who is allowed to do what. But getting the Brexit quandry resolved has got to be the immediate priority.
I'm starting to wonder if we should just abolish Parliament. The PM has been blocked from implementing or even negotiating the democratic decision of the people, parliament additionally prevents him going back to the people for a mandate (because the speaker thinks he'd get one, I don't know if he's right though, but the speaker won't risk it), and now we have to watch the remainers force us to take whatever ****ty deal - and yet another pointless wasted 2 years of nonsense - the EU throw us.
I think perhaps Fawkes had a point.
I think perhaps Fawkes had a point.
krus_aragon
Established Member
One could have raised the same question a month ago, and it would have been an equally valid debate then. The trouble is that now a lot more people will be paying attention to such a conversation. Again, I say that this legal case is of no direct concern (she did nothing improper, from all accounts), but it has future implications, as the pandora's box has now been opened for more people to ask the kind of question you raise.
In other news, given how one of the main arguments in favour of this prorogation was that "five weeks is only a little longer than the conference season would be anyway", it's interesting to note that the Lib Dem conference was last week, and the Labour conference finishes tomorrow, while the Conservative conference is due to be held next week (when Parliament will, as it stands, still be sitting).
krus_aragon
Established Member
Abolish, and replace it with what? That's the question.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
the problem with that is that she has now been drawn in to the operation of the constitution which is exactly what she is supposed to be above. She, the advice given and the operation of her prerogative powers have been discussed in Court which must be unprecedented.
I think, perhaps, you have missed the point of this court case. Sadly, that is typical of Brexit.
The Queen is, in relatively, bound to follow the advice of her ministers. However you are right this now places under greater scrutiny the operation and basis of our Constitution AND by extension the future of the monarchy
Might I remind you that had Tory MPs (Boris J included!) not voted against May's deal we would have left the EU in April.
Killingworth
Established Member
So, if Boris resigned, who would the Queen summon to form a government? What value could she put on any advice, and who would it be from? Ree-sMogg, Gove, Patel? Much as I liked Ken Clarke a decade ago it really would be a turn up if he got the call, but Corbyn it must not be.
I can imagine Philip saying to her, "it's time to call it a day, let's have a few years of retirement together and let Charles sort it out" - but doubt he'd dare.
I can imagine Philip saying to her, "it's time to call it a day, let's have a few years of retirement together and let Charles sort it out" - but doubt he'd dare.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Oh dear. This was not about blocking Brexit, or about going against the "will of the people". There are now 680 pages of debate on this subject on this forum alone, and thousands of other debates elsewhere around the net that have covered this time and again. It really is time to stop with simplistic "will of the people" argument, try to get a grasp as to why the "will of the people" has proven so difficult to achieve, and engage in a deeper debate as to what realistic options there are that don't involve tanking the economy.
Brexit can still be achieved, nothing has changed by this or any other ruling. What has changed is that the current and future Prime Ministers cannot use proroguing to shut down debate on what is a very critical, and very important decision. Brexit does not mean Brexit as many leavers have tried to claim. It means a complex process of removing ourselves from one of the world's most powerful economic & political unions in the world, in a staged manner than cannot be done in days, weeks, months or even years without serious consequences. Its time leavers woke up to this reality, and allowed the process to go through it's motions slowly and carefully, because the best case scenario is a similar deal to what we have as a member, whereas the worst case scenario is effectively rendering ourselves a third rate nation.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It is worth noting that this is what sovereignty looks like. Today our Democratic and legal institutions have asserted their sovereignty. If you voted for Brexit this is what you voted for. This is what taking back control looks like. Did you not understand this?
Whilst one does not seek high office....................
Whilst one does not seek high office....................
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Very sensible. Perhaps @Nagora might like to look at the judgement of the Supreme Court. They very clearly said:
“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 27 or 28 August, that parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9 and 12 September until 14 October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not.”
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,152
They are all - including Farage, blaming Cummings. Now I don't remember voting anyone called Cummings into power, did you? And to think the EU is being run by "unelected bureaucrats". And I don't see why Brexiters are so upset about the court's ruling, after all we were told proroguing parliament had NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT.
Now, have they been telling us porkies?
Now, have they been telling us porkies?
Bantamzen
Established Member
Yeah Cummings has been neatly lined up by the Brexiteers as the scapegoat. But it does beautifully illustrate the sheer hypocrisy that exists within the Breixteer circles of power. They want out of the "undemocratic EU", whilst appointing non-elected officials to make critical decisions, trying to shut down elected officials, before throwing them under a bus when it blows up in their faces. I'm starting to think they taught themselves politics by binge-watching EastEnders....
Geezertronic
Established Member
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,686
Boris claiming supreme court wants to frustrate brexit.
Hold on, proroguing wasn't anything to do with brexit? So why would this frustrate brexit?
Hold on, proroguing wasn't anything to do with brexit? So why would this frustrate brexit?
Bantamzen
Established Member
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
What utter rubbish! Do you get your News from the Beano or somewhere, because you may as well do if you have such a poor understanding of what's happened!
1. What the PM has been blocked from is taking us out of the EU on 31 October, unless Parliament approves of the terms of the exit. Since the PM had clearly been manoeuvring to leave with No Deal, in practice, No Deal is what he's (probably) been blocked from. There is no grounds for claiming that 'no deal' is the will of the people because the referendum never offered a specific 'no-deal' option and 'no deal' was discounted as a plausible outcome by the Leave camp at the time of the referendum. Your claim that 'The PM has been blocked from implementing or even negotiating the democratic decision of the people' is therefore absolutely not true.
2. Parliament has not blocked a general election because anyone thinks Johnson will win. They've blocked an election for the time being because of widespread fears that Johnson will manipulate the election date to force an (undemocratic) no-deal. Many of those MPs who voted against an immediate election were pretty clear that they would vote for an election once we are in a situation where Johnson can't do that. Your claim that 'parliament additionally prevents him going back to the people for a mandate (because the speaker thinks he'd get one' is therefore also completely false.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Has he? I can't corroborate that anywhere. And it would be a pretty astonishing thing for him to say.
This is what he said, reported by a number of sources:
"But the interesting thing, the exciting thing for us now, is to get a good deal. And that’s what we’re working on.
I’ll be honest with you, it’s not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament, or in the courts. "
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,686
I'm trying to find the quote but bbc have removed it so it might have been posted in error.
It wasn't me that said it, but I'll meet you there. The first round is on me!And pig snacks
edwin_m
Veteran Member
You've just advocated abolishing Parliament, following up with a suggestion to blow it up. All because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the "will of the people". Since you're clearly not listening to anyone who disagrees with you then I'm not going to repeat all the reasons why the will of the people is quite likely to be something entirely different and Brexiteers appear to be terrified of finding out the truth.
Would that be flying pig snacks?And pig snacks
Geezertronic
Established Member
Geezertronic
Established Member
It's interesting that those leavers well experienced in posting in this forum are keeping clear of it at the moment. Most of the hackneyed and knee-jerk arguments (on both sides) have been talked out.
- Status