Sorting Out the Truly Weird
Remainers are bragging tonight that the Filibuster is broken. Guess who broke it.
Via Eurointelligence
The Conservatives in the House of Lords abandoned their filibuster in the early hours of this morning. The government whip in the Lords actively encouraged members to get the Brexit-extension bill approved by Friday. The bill would then return to the Commons for a final reading on Monday morning.
This looks to us like one of three things have happened overnight. Maybe the government simply caved in as the Tory Lords realised that their filibuster would be broken eventually. Having a Brexit-supporting Lord reading the telephone book to you in order to kill time is right up there with the poetry-citing Vogons in the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy.
A second possibility is that the government may have concluded that it has other, more effective, means to frustrate the bill than an unpopular Lords filibuster. It could, for example, withhold Royal Assent. The legal expert Robert Craig recalls yet another arcane procedural requirement. It is called Queen’s Consent which – if you can believe it – is different from Royal Assent. Queen’s Consent relates to legislation that shifts the royal prerogative – in this case the right of the Crown, and the government as its agent, to conduct international negotiations. Withholding the Queen’s Consent would constitute an effective government veto. We are not in a position to offer any legal or procedural interpretation of our own, let alone to judge whether this avenue will be pursued.
A third possibility is that the government and opposition parties may have struck a deal on the next election. Yesterday, Labour abstained on the government motion under the fixed-terms parliaments act to hold early elections. There is a big debate within the Labour Party, with Keir Starmer and other pro-Remain MPs wanting to prevent Johnson from being able to trigger a no-deal Brexit even if he were to win elections.
We still believe that elections are more likely than not, simply because we don’t believe that Labour can hold its position for very long. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, also come out in favour of early elections and criticised Labour for trying to block it. The longer this stalemate goes on, the more it will reverberate against the party. As an opposition leader you don’t want to go into an election with the prime minister calling you a big girl’s blouse, as happened yesterday, or a chlorinated chicken.
Queen’s Consent
I vote for the Eurointelligence second possibility, Queen’s Consent.
Queen’s Consent is different from Royal Assent.
I never heard of QC. I suspect 99.9% have not heard of it either.
But my overriding premise has always been that the Johnson team knows what it is doing.
I have amusing comments from UK expats telling me things like a filibuster is impossible, now bragging that the filibuster is broken, no doubt without even know it was the Johnson Tories who broke it.
Queen’s Consent Legal Opinion
Let’s investigate a Legal Opinion on Queen’s Consent.
Emphasis is original, not mine.
Queen’s Consent is a procedural requirement for any Bill passing through the Commons and Lords where the terms of the Bill would ‘affect’ the exercise of any royal prerogative if it was passed. The effect on the prerogative must be more than de minimis.
Queen’s Consent is normally a formality, because the government usually proposes (or more accurately for Private Members Bills, acquiesces to) all Bills that are successfully voted through both Houses. The current scenario could see a situation where a Bill passes in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the government.
Prerogative powers are legacy powers of the Crown that are now mainly exercised by the government. Conducting foreign affairs, and in particular the power to agree treaties and operate treaty powers, is an important part of the prerogative and is the relevant power for this post. Under that power, the UK government has agreed new treaties, and particular laws, at EU level over the last 46 years (and indeed continues to do so).
The story behind the passage of Cooper-Letwin is more complex than many realise. The drafting of the original version was masterly. Cooper-Letwin mandated the then Prime Minister (PM) to seek an extension to the Article 50 process. The word ‘seek’ is crucial. The reason it is so crucial is that it allowed the argument to be made that Queen’s Consent was not necessary for the Bill. This was because to ‘seek’ an extension does not actually have any effect in terms of changing the date of exit at EU level. Seeking an extension arguably does not ‘affect’ prerogative exercise as a matter of law.
The sheer cleverness of the drafting of Cooper-Letwin rests on the fact that it left entirely open what would happen after the extension was ‘sought’. The negotiations and agreement of a new exit date were without doubt exercises of prerogative power and any Bill that sought to regulate or supplant those aspects of securing an extension would certainly have required Queen’s Consent during the passage of the Bill.
The issue of Queen’s Consent was taken very seriously during the passage of the Cooper-Letwin Bill and was so controversial it resulted in a Formal Ruling by the Speaker. That ruling made clear that the original draft of the Bill did not require Queen’s Consent.
The Benn-Burt bill
If Benn-Burt had precisely followed the format of Cooper-Letwin and only mandated that the government seek an extension, then it would have placed no obligation on the PM to agree or accept any extension. That would remain part of the prerogative power to be exercised as the PM sees fit in his negotiations with the EU27.
However, Benn-Burt goes much further than Cooper-Letwin. It mandates that the PM must not only seek but also agree to an extension, either 31 January 2020 or another date if the Commons approves a date suggested by the EU27. Mandating that the PM agrees to an extension manifestly affects the prerogative. It is difficult to see how requesting Queen’s Consent can be avoided for this Bill. If so, it follows that the government must agree to the Bill being passed during Third Reading.
What is most fascinating about this dilemma is that the Cooper-Letwin prototype gave such clear and unequivocal evidence of where the bright line on Queen’s Consent is actually drawn by the legal experts who understand, and indeed determine, these issues within the Commons. Can there be any doubt that if a stronger wording could have been secured without triggering Queen’s Consent then such a wording would have been used last time?
Conclusion
The proponents of a new Bill to prevent No Deal are caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they had drafted a Bill that only mandated the PM to seek an extension, the PM would be left free to refuse to agree or accept any extension in negotiations with the EU27.
But the actual Bill tries to impose a requirement that the PM either agrees to 31 January 2020 or agrees any new exit date suggested by the EU27 (as long as a motion approving the alternative date in the House of Commons is passed). House of Commons procedural rules mean that the government is required formally to approve the Bill by affirming ‘Queen’s Consent’ to the Bill at the Third Reading stage. This is because the power to agree or accept an extension is normally exercised using a prerogative power. If passed, this statute would have the legal effect, by whatever means, of forcing the PM to agree an extension to the Article 50 process would manifestly ‘affect’ the prerogative for the purposes of the relevant test as to whether Queen’s Consent is required.
Too Clever
The Benn Bill requires Johnson’s approval. What do you think the odds of that are?
That’s the long and short of it.
It’s unclear if Benn knew this or not. It’s possible he did and hoped Johnson would not catch it. More likely, the drafters of the Benn bill did not know.
Either way, the point is moot.
There is no way to force Johnson to approve this. And he won’t, even if Bercow demands.
Benn can take it to the courts, but the law is clear.
Benn is Dead
I was mocked this evening “So, spin this all you want. You were wrong about all the procedures in parliament. Have YOU gone back to study parliamentary rules and UK law?”
Mind you, this is from the person who told me a filibuster in the House of Lords was not even possible.
I never presume I know everything. Clearly, I don’t.
However, I have high confidence the Johnson team picked the dates very carefully and for a reason, even if I did not understand the reason.
Benn is dead unless it’s part of a deal as per Eurointelligence option three.
Respectable Opinions
I highly respect the opinions of Eurointelligence.
Q: Why?
A: Because the outfit is staunchly pro-remain.
It’s easy to find opinions supporting your view. It’s damn hard to find someone saying what you want to hear when they disagree with the outcome.
Impressions are Deceptive
Here’s another intelligent view point via Eurointelligence, but referencing a paywalled article Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings Believe Their Plan Can Still Work.
Emphasis Mine.
While no one foresaw the scale of the rebellion a showdown with parliament was long planned
Johnson and his chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, deliberately planned and engineered last night’s defeat, goading the Commons into opposing him; he was lying to his party, parliament and the country when he claimed that he was being pushed into calling an election.
An early election that he could deny seeking is exactly what he has been scheming to achieve ever since he took power.
Bingo!
Eurointelligence comments “In particular, Number 10 remains confident that they will get early elections. On balance, we agree with that assessment.”
Ignore the Nonsense
Yesterday I commented Ignore the Nonsense Reporting: Boris Johnson was Not Defeated, He Won Big Time.
Just the Facts Maam
- Johnson goaded 21 problematic Rebel Tories into voting against him. Those Tories have been removed from the party and will lose their seats in the next election. Good riddance.
- Because of foolish Remainer actions, Johnson will no longer have to go through the charades of working out a deal with the EU.
- Johnson’s hands are effectively bound and he welcomes that! He will not have to work out a deal. Instead he can lay the blame on the EU and on the Remainers for removing the option to negotiate with the EU.
- By removing the 21 rebels, Johnson won the support of Nigel Farage thereby allowing a coalition between the Brexit Party and the Tories minus the rebel problem makes.
- The Remainers are hopelessly split. Corbyn wants a referendum or the right to work out a customs deal with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to remain. Many Labour party members want Brexit.
Delusional Remainers
My 5 comments from yesterday are backed up by events and independent analysis today.
Meanwhile, delusional Remainers keep believing they have the upper hand.
In reality, the Remainers do precisely what Johnson says: strip him of any chance of working out a deal.
It’s debatable if Johnson really wants a deal. I don’t pretend to know. I do know he cannot live with the backstop.
The deal question is moot even though the result sure isn’t.
Johnson will form an alliance with the Brexit party if for no other reason than Remainers forced him into that hard stance.
Look for a big Johnson win in the next election whether or not he gives into the Benn bill to get it.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Maybe, as Mish says, BoJo really knows what he is doing. I came across this article about the Fixed Term Act (link to instituteforgovernment.org.uk) , that essentially says that when the PM loses a confidence vote, it is the DEFEATED PM, who proposes the next one to the Queen. So nothing seems to prevent BoJo, once he looses a confidence vote, to name Michael Gove, who can propose early election, lose the early election vote, lose the confidence of parliament, and then recommend… Jacob Rees-Moog as PM, who… etc, etc until the 31st of October : checkmate ?!
Man I hope you’re right Mish. If this does come to pass and we make it to the Queen’s speech Oct 14, do you honestly think there is no chance of the remain forces joining forces for a GONU? I think there is a good chance their hatred of brexit will unite them, like this past week. They may be willing to install Corbyn for a time.
Fingers crossed, this will all make a brilliant tv series in 10-20 years time.
“I don’t know if your read of the Brexit situation is correct or incorrect. I do know, however, that you indicated that Catalonia independence was a foregone conclusion. So as far as I can tell you are batting 0”
Carlos you don’t know shit.
I never made such a statement. I did want independence and I did get the election correct as well.
I never once stated that it was going to happen or it was a “foregone conclusion”
I did yet the result of the vote correct
Not sure what happened to that link but the “formal ruling” link on Cooper-Letwin is fixed.
I did not read it
Here it is again
On the machinations going on right now:
Yes, I think the Johnson government is going to take both assent paths to block the Benn bill. I think the writers of the bill did know this was a danger to their bill, but they had no choice but to directly tie the PM’s hands since not doing so would have allowed Johnson the power to simply refuse to accept an extension. The fact of the Letwin bill’s analysis had to have been known to all parties involved.
I do think Johnson did tell the Tories in the House of Lords to give way- politically, it is better to fight this out on the assent issues rather than a filibuster in the Lords. Here is the key thing- to stop Johnson, the rebels will have to now agree to new elections, or they will have to do the VONC and replace Johnson with an interim government. I think, politically, the last option isn’t realistic- who would be approved to head such a government, and how would such a government ever survive long without a vote?
Mish, no one other than Avidremoron has given you harder time on your Brexit articles over the last 18 months than I have, in my humble opinion. However, once Johson got to 10 Downing and made it publicly clear that October 31st was the date- then and only then did I concede that Brexit was a probable event, and most likely with no deal in place. My previous stance that Brexit wasn’t going to happen all depended on having a PM who didn’t really support it, like May, who would then do all in their power to frustrate the process until they could get a 2nd referendum that split the Brexit vote, not the Remain vote. Johnson has convinced me that he is authentic on this issue, so I changed my prediction.
It is always delightful to see that some people are capable of changing their stance when faced with new circumstances. I am very against EU but from reasons nothing or little to do with the UK. In my childhood the USSR was a danger, now the EU seems to adapt more and more of what made it such a monster.
“In my childhood the USSR was a danger, now the EU seems to adapt more and more of what made it such a monster.”
So I can only assume you reached that conclusion by being an scholar on both countries or by living in either one. Or did you reach that conclusion by dogma? Do tell where is the EU like the USSR…
Scholar? No, one does not need to be a scholar to visit a country or live next to it as a neighbor or fight a war with the USSR army… and as a definition USSR was not one country, neither is EU. If you like more scholarly views on the subject I recommend to read this article and get to know what this former dissident of the Soviet thinks. link to brusselsjournal.com
Also this video might help to understand where I’m coming from. People who lived next to the threat of the USSR take these questions quite seriously. link to youtube.com
In other words, Johnson (and/or his allies in the house of lords) deliberately lost (conceded?) the battle in order to win the war.
That seems to be a theme with this whole brexit nonsense. The remainers are going to put everything they have into winning a pointless battle. Tiring out their troops, running down their supplies, using up all their ammo — just to win a battle that will cost them the war.
The EU “remains” bankrupt, with or without the UK. The war for EU is lost, no matter how many women’s blouses get tossed around Parliament.
The remainers can call a general election — and Johnson wins big time. Or Johnson can say this bill violates queens assent — the matter might or might not go to court, but either way it triggers a vote of confidence (aka a general election which Johnson wins) or it runs out the October 31st clock. Which is door #3: remainers can just dither around until October 31st — then the UK is out of the EU by default and Johnson wins big time.
Why anyone would expend so much political capital on a lost cause escapes me. Clearly the remainers did not think this through.
Theresa May already tried to sabotage Brexit, and if the remainers had an effective alternative to brexit she would have done so instead of failing as PM. The political class benefits from remaining, the taxpayers do not. That is the theme all over Europe, not just in the UK.
Reading that article, it now looks 100% like it is in Boris’s hands to deliver Brexit. So we find out what side he is on when he makes the decision about Queen’s assent. He has to reveal his hand at that point.
If he is really pro-Brexit, then he will make Brexit happen by not giving asset. The clock has run down at the point. There will no longer be any point delaying a GE either, so he gets that as well, plus of course he gets a massive majority in that election as a reward.
But if he accepts the bill and delays Brexit again, we know he is in the tank for remain. There is no other reason for him to allow this bill to pass.
Brexit is boring. I suspect if Brexit ever does occur, not much will change.
I think Brexit WAS boring till Johnson became PM, now we are watching political theater that is arguably the most dramatic since Henry VIII was ditching the Catholic church, and the impacts are going to be just as far reaching. I really expect a successful exercise of Article 50 by the UK may well mean a collapse of the EU itself, it will engender other succession movements, but at the very least the UK is one of the wealthiest contributors to the EU and without them the EU which is already financially running on hope and wishes, will take a very different approach. It also could mean the breakup of the UK itself with that die hard witch Sturgeon making her impotent threats in Edinburgh. It will have a big impact on the republic of Ireland and Ulster as well. The assumption that there will be no changes is based upon the vote to leave being annulled somehow, and that in itself would be newsworthy since it means the EU is indeed a totalitarian structure that only pretends to be democratic. And that may be right since “democratic socialism” is a scam, all socialism = coercion all the way up to totalitarianism. Which is why I have concluded that after a lifetime of being a party line democrat I will be unable to vote with my party in 2020, unless someone comes forth to campaign on centrist ideals. Every democrat running now (all of them even Biden) support socialist change.
The EU was doomed from the start. You can’t merge countries without merging their finances. It would be analogous to sharing a checking account with your neighbors.
I’m a democrat too, but I voted for Trump because Hillary was awful. I vote for whoever the best candidate is regardless of party. I’m a democrat because all of our local elections are decided in the democratic primaries.
I’m batting 1.000 in presidential elections. Everyone I voted for has won. Going back to Reagan. I thought for sure my streak would end in 2016. But it didn’t.
I agree that the EUSSR was doomed from the beginning, but, as with the Russians that doom could well take 74 years as long as they are manipulating elections and promising free stuff to the unwashed who judge their situation by material well being rather than by the respect government has for them as persons.
Before anyone takes me to task (Carlos) for having an opinion I want to remind them that I am an EUSSR citizen and think your socialist empire is garbage.
I predicted wrongly all elections from Nixon/Humphrey up to Obama 08. I got Obama 08 correct from before the primaries because Obama sounded presidential and the others did not. I got Trump/Hillary right because I decided around 2000 that Hillary would never be president. She just could not sufficiently hide her overwhelming, all-consuming lust for the office’s power. Yeah, I personally liked Reagan but predicted Mondale. And picked McGovern. A track record like that can’t be replicated by mortal man.
So, we just set the odds to your-pick * 60 + my-non-pick * 40 and bask in the glow of being true wizards of prediction.
Carlos, Catalonia deemed it’s independence a foregone conclusion, I was there at the time (leaving the morning before the vote) the overwhelming majority were for independence. In law and by their rights under the EU they should have had a proper vote without intimidation from the federal government and that vote counted fairly and then respected as the will of the people. Instead Madrid had thousands of para military police all up and down the Ramblas toting machine guns and never seen to smile. Their presence was a blunt tactic of intervention and intimidation. As the people went to vote the polling places were raided and the government houses in Barcelona were locked and left in shambles. And it is exactly for reasons like this that the EU is an evil construct that basically has well earned the moniker of the EUSSR. Don’t tell me I am wrong about what I saw with my own eyes.
Mish I think your conclusions are exactly right, every move and counter move so far since May resigned has been made to look like a humiliation of Johnson (who I had no respect for as London mayor but now see in a different light). And every so called humiliation actually turned out to be remainers working against themselves once they realized that Johnson had outsmarted them.
Those that believe that Jo Johnson quit politics to make a point are just wrong, and worse than wrong being dense, intentionally or not, I do not know, but if he and the remainers had not been utterly boxed in and unable to proceed he would have stayed in order to further their cause. Instead he up and quit so WHY? Because he just realized they have LOST, they were outsmarted, and by his own brother no less. This looks to any thinking adult more like frustration and sibling rivalry not political point making. Just quitting his office is a LAST option, if he had any others he would have been more than glad to hand his brother a defeat.
Benn may have believed his bill did not need QC and that is why he wrote it the way he did, and others (such as the people that claimed a filibuster in Lords could not happen) were either wishful in their thinking or just did not do their homework. It assumed no need for QC and you can’t find the original article because it was withdrawn or edited once they realized Benn had played into Johnson’s hands.
The more I think about it the more I believe the Queen agrees with Johnson and is actively participating for Brexit behind the scenes. After all it is her throne that the EUSSR seeks to usurp. She royal houses are allowed to stay in name only but as pure figureheads with zero power in their own nations, nothing more than photo ops as chamber of commerce tools.
“the overwhelming majority were for independence.”
False: %50 is not “the overwhelming majority
” In law and by their rights under the EU they should have had a proper vote”
False again: The Spanish constitution is clear on this. The vote is by all Spanish citizens not just Catalonia
” Don’t tell me I am wrong about what I saw with my own eyes.”
Yes you are wrong. I spend more than a month each year every year in Spain and know the constitution well – you don’t. Catalonias were lied by the separatist (they still are). The independentistas were told that after seceding from Spain they would be welcome to the EU which the EU said it was false. Just like the Brits were lied to when Brexiters blame all the ills to the EU (I guess MUKGA?). Let me refresh your memory. The UK, USA and France are the countries that created the migration crisis we see fro the middle east. The UK in particular is a “colony” of the US and will go to any war the US demands.
Would care to provide links to support your claims that the popularity of Catalonian independence was only at 50%? I am reporting what I saw in the week prior to the vote that was shut down by Madrid, it is an eyewitness account. As to rights under the EU, it is true that every member state would have to ratify the application to become an independent state of the union, but the EU federal government has no right to interfere with succession movements within member states, yet they do it all the time, take Scotland for example, they held a vote to leave the UK and join the EU as an independent nation, the ruling party claimed “The Scottish National Party, which already runs an elected majority government with a great deal of autonomy, has said that an independent Scotland should automatically become an EU member since it would be seceding from an existing EU state.” They are still the ruling party and it is Nicola Sturgeon that is making all that noise up in Edinburgh. That party was rebuffed at the time by the EU which downplayed the likelihood of admission.
The US constitution also had a specific set of procedures for succeeding from the Union, but when a region believes as strongly as the then slave states did that they had a right to leave the result was one of the bloodiest wars in human history to that date. When it comes to adherence to a constitution such as Spain’s or America’s which are designed to invest all power in an overarching federal government to the detriment of sub regions it will matter not to those that wish to break away what that constitution says, if it’s terms are used to deny those people the right to leave. Sure they might try to go the road that the constitution lays down till they realize they have no power at all, then they just roll over and play dead, succumb to the whims of the rulers in the capital? LOL is all I have to say about that! Oh, and since you spend a month per year in Spain then what I saw with my own eyes in the week before the October independence vote is therefore not valid, thank you for pointing that out to me Carlos.
Your claims that the UK is a colony of the US are absurd on their face and do not deserve comment. But, the migration crisis blame you place entirely fails in that it leaves out Germany and the real rulers of the EUSSR, Mario Draghi at the ECB.
As to the interrupted vote in Catalonia: The referendum question, which voters answered with “Yes” or “No”, was “Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic?”. The “Yes” side won, with 2,044,038 (92.01%) voting for independence and 177,547 (7.99%) voting against, on a turnout of 43.03%. link to en.wikipedia.org
Of course most remainers decided to boycott so it is not a true picture, but they only decided to boycott because A) they knew they would lose and B) the central government threatened the state with violence and annulment anyway. It is telling that the central government ruled the vote illegal and sent in machine gun toting goons to disrupt the vote, the government suspended Catalan autonomy and scheduled a vote for a new parliament to replace the pro independence legislature that the people had elected.
I concede the point though that about 50% of the people in Barcelona want independence, however in the rest of Catalonia that number is a lot higher with a solid majority, Barcelona is actually the more moderate city in the state.
That’s not what happened. Some parties did gain or lose votes. But strikingly, overall support for pro-independence parties has remained surprisingly stable. The total vote for pro-independence parties went from 47.8 percent in the previous 2015 election to 47.6 percent in 2017.
link to washingtonpost.com
Another thing the fact that you think the south had the right to succeed because the Union would not let them keep their slave is really sad about the way you think
Actually, the South had every Constitutional right to secede. The war was initiated to preserve the Union, NOT to free the slaves. The main contention when the South seceded was how new States would be admitted to the Union; alternately free or slave, or overwhelmingly free. The Confederacy had feared that they would be overruled in Congress if most new States were free states, as the sentiment for abolition was growing. There were many Southerners who disliked slavery as much as many Northerners. At the time of Secession, the Northern States offered to guarantee the rights of current slave owners. from “The Fall of the House of Dixie” (pp118-119): On July 25th,1861,more than 3 months into the war, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution flatly denying any intention “of overthrowing or interfering with the rights of established institutions of those States” then in rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered those States and areas not already in Northern control at first, and the North refused to officially muster Blacks into the military until late in 1862/early 1863.
I also think you misread Herkie’s comment. I don’t see it as being supportive of slavery, but rather assessing the constitutionality of secession in general.
You are entitle to that opinion. However, here is another that seems to me carries more weight since it was written by the Georgia as to why they wanted to seceded.
link to battlefields.org
Long read but here is the jest of it
“The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.”
“I also think you misread Herkie’s comment.”
And you may be correct on that
Actually, I think you misread me, as well. The Territories were not yet admitted as States to the Union. I’m not arguing that slavery wasn’t the cause of the South seceding; I’m saying slavery, per se, isn’t why the North went to war; but rather to keep the South from seceding. My quote above was from a history of the Civil War, and shows that the southern STATES were to be permitted to keep their slaves. It was the loss of additional slave states that worried the South, as it would affect the balance of power. I honestly don’t think we disagree that much. To my mind, the only disagreement we have is whether or not secession was constitutionally permissible. Hmmm– we fought a war on it, I guess I’m on the losing opinion. Please don’t take that remark as supportive of slavery, BTW. 🙂
Point taken. Thanks
The constitution set out the procedure for leaving. But it was rigged so heavily against leaving that for all practical purposes it can’t to this day be done without war. In the EU a region of a country can succeed from it’s parent and only that region can vote on that. In the US a state can’t leave without the consent of by far most other states.
Another thing most people do not understand, they say it was slavery, or they say it was the south that decided to leave without permission. In fact the first state to say it was leaving the Union was South Carolina in December of 1860, it unilaterally left the US because of the election of Lincoln, and for no other reason. Lincoln was not even president yet. Back then the new president did not take office till April and there was no confederacy yet. A few oligarchic hotheads declared themselves to be traitors and told the USA they were at war well before Lincoln took office.
The slave trade was started by the Portuguese when the pope allowed slavery in their papal designated part of the new world (basically Brazil) they already had ports in Africa, forts, commerce. And they did not go hunting black people and enslaving them, they bought their cargo from Africans. There was a trade in people, but most of that trade was in African tribal greed. The Spanish took over that trade in about the 1540’s. Still with papal permission. And it continued till the 1610’s or so till England took it over. England had slavery too you know, but outlawed it in 1803. By then everyone in the English speaking world knew slavery was at an end. Only the very rich landholding oligarchs in US southern states fought against that.
What pisses me off is that I know and agree with history about the wrongs that were done then, but I am expected to pay huge amounts of money for something other people’s ancestors did hundreds of year before I was born. I am not going to allow that. I do not comply. I refuse to be judged by the standards of some Portuguese slaver of 1500. You will not find a way to tax me for what was done 500 years ago. And I have lived in urban America, I have seen with my own eyes the refusal of black people to do as I do and let go of the past. They do in other nations and get along well, here it is hate and crime and a refusal to ever accept what happened hundreds of years ago. Too bad because refusing to live in the real world here and now only makes real life a shitstorm.
It guarantees we fail.
I made no comment about the positive or negative aspects of slavery in the US in the 1800’s nor were any implied, it was not about slavery but rather about our constitution and the laws regarding states leaving the union that were germane in context to this discussion. And you know it which makes you a pretty major butt hole. If your really want to get down and dirty Carlos I will remind you that the USA inherited slavery from the English colonial times in which Britain ruled and made the laws not America because America did not exist when the institution of slavery was imposed upon North America by mostly Spanish slave traders! British law just made that trade legal. There were slaves in North America for almost 300 years before there even was a United States and not long after the revolution slavery was ended at a great cost in blood – the greatest cost of men and wealth the planet had ever seen at that time. People like you who seek to lay blame on modern white Americans for the Spanish and Portuguese slavers that traded in humans disgust me. YOU disgust me. You are part of the politically correct Nazi socialist left that claim I am responsible for the plight of blacks in America today when I was not even born till 1958. I have always been a democrat, I have always supported equality in US citizenship, I have always condemned racism and injustice. Yet you who has no idea of my character judges me because you take for granted an attitude of privilege and wealth my words are assumed to contain because I am an older white male in the USA and my response to you is you are an idiot in real life, you cannot judge me by an internet post where you are making assumptions based upon your own prejudices. And I will not be judged by your ignorant beliefs that just because I am a white male in North America I must therefor be a racist and evil man.
Carlos, if we are going to go down that road then it is a fair assumption that the name Carlos means you are of Spanish decent. That means your ancestors were the ones that supplied the human slaves to the US south. Maybe it is you who owe an apology to the world and reparations to American blacks? I know it is not I since my father was an Irish immigrant to the US in 1949 and Ireland never had slaves, they were slaves!
Perhaps you should consider not to follow your comment on slavery with this “When it comes to adherence to a constitution such as Spain’s or America’s which are designed to invest all power in an overarching federal government to the detriment of sub regions it will matter not to those that wish to break away what that constitution says, if it’s terms are used to deny those people the right to leave.”
Because let me tell you it seems that you think that the proclamation was “overarching federal government to the detriment of sub regions” to quote you. And BTW I fail to see where I ask for reparation to the descendants of the slaves but whatever…
Can’t find link now but I understand Speaker Bercow ruled on Wed 4th that Benn’s Bill did NOT need Queen’s Consent. Not a clue how he came to that conclusion after reading above.
If he did ‘say’ that then it is because he is not unbiased as he is supposed to be, but a remainer through and through. The bill itself is ridiculous. How can you create a law saying that a Prime Minister has to to a, b and c? How about a law saying that the Chancellor has to tighten his shoelaces every hour? If the legislation is allowed to pass it will make a mockery of good laws everywhere.
Remain will go to any lengths to overturn the referendum result sadly.
Agreed. Maybe Boris will challenge Speaker’s ruling on Monday. Don’t know if he can or how but I am confident he still has some aces left – well I hope he has!
In any case, it is not a law without, at the very minimum, Royal Assent, and there is nothing to stop BoJo and the Privy Council from advising the Crown to not give Assent. People seem to keep confusing Westminster Palace with the Crown in Parliament. The point of Queen’s Counsel is that by tying the government’s hands, this bill intrudes on Royal Prerogative, and the custom to date has been to seek Queen’s Consent on legislation that does so.
Sorry, I meant Queen’s Consent. Queen’s Counsel is what automatically springs to mind when I see QC.
I don’t know if your read of the Brexit situation is correct or incorrect. I do know, however, that you indicated that Catalonia independence was a foregone conclusion. So as far as I can tell you are batting 0
The opposition position has moved again. They intend to make Johnson apply for the extension. As soon as they have humiliated him enough they will consign him to the dustbin of history. There is no disguising the fact that 20% of the current Conservative parliamentary party loathe and detest the liar-even his own brother and sister do not support him. As ye sow so shall ye reap and that lying charlatan is going to get everything he deserves.
You keep pushing these democratic legalities and platitudes on every Brexit post, yet you ignore the one democratic process that has given us Brexit- the original referendum. Why do you think it’s okay to ignore the will of the people?
“ignore the will of the people”
Simple because is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. The “will of the people” is wrong more often than not. An example: The “will of the people” of the South was to keep slavery. Good thing we have a representative democracy that felt otherwise at the time
A referendum is legal and binding. Therefore the government must follow it. If a government of the people chooses to remove the referendum process, then it can. Until then, it must obey the law.
I agree that a representational republic is superior to a democracy. Many times a referendum has been wrong. So get rid of them. But until then, obey them.
“A referendum is legal and binding.”
May be so but I don’t recall a vote for hard Brexit.
An I don’t remember a vote for a back stop, nor a customs union, nor…
well then the matter is not settled…
You are wrong. The Brexit referendum was advisory. That is a matter of fact.
“You are wrong. The Brexit referendum was advisory. That is a matter of fact.”
Because 1 Parliament can’t bind another, we aren’t able to hold legally binding referendums in the UK. That isn’t to say they can be ignored. The House of Lords. Supreme Court and various constitutional experts, including Vernon Bogdanor, have confirmed this.
Regardless, the Withdrawal Act made it legal.
“The “will of the people” is wrong more often than not. An example: The “will of the people” of the South was to keep slavery. Good thing we have a representative democracy that felt otherwise at the time.”
The southern STATES seceded. The state representative governments chose to leave.
Representative governments are subject to be wrong, as much as the people are. Politicians can have ulterior motives that harm the people.
anachronistic comparison…..got nothing to to with being a member state or not of a totally superfluous, clueless, worthless, patronising would be dictatorship created for its parasitic nomenklatura and (corporate) cronies….
The “will of the people” is wrong more often than not.——————————-
Who decides if it is wrong?
The justification for using a referendum is the science of the crowd. There was a famous experiment where the average weight of the cow as guessed by an uninformed crowd was able to beat individual experts the vast majority of the time. The theory is proven in cases where the answer can be known precisely.
The reasoning should also apply to situations that cannot be measured. Leave or to Not Leave is impossible to measure as to which is the best, so no one can say 100% that they are wrong or right. What we do know though, is that the crowd is going to be right much more often than any individual, and that it is better than a big group gets it way than a smaller group. On that basis leaving is the right thing to do.
Incidentally, the remainers who are calling people “stupid” for wanting to leave need to think about the science of the crowd, because it shows that the crowd makes the more intelligent decision.
Lincoln was elected in 1860 with less than 40% of the vote. That’s “representative democracy”?
“Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative government or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[2] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, France is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the United States is a federal presidential republic.[3] ”
It has nothing to do with how many votes you get. Once you are elected you “represent” the people. You know just like Trump represents the people and should do what is best for the people even if sometimes that goes against what he promised. A candidate does not have all the information that a president has. Therefore, a president may want to diverge from whatever he promise or from whatever the “will of the people – direct democracy” want
Your arguments fail on a number of points.
EU law has primacy across the EU, whether the elected ‘representatives’ like it or not. The Acquis communautaire is king. EU exclusive and shared competences make up the bulk of EU law, again which has primacy.
Elected MEPs cannot introduce legislation, only the unelected EU commission can.
A 3-line whipping system isn’t compatible with ‘representative democracy’. Nor is a legal system outside the control of the apparent law makers/representatives.
EU law only trumps local governments laws as they relate to the EU treaty. This is no different that here in the US where the federal government laws trump the state say for interstate commerce laws. It is absurd to think that a functioning union will not require that. The supporters of Brexit just don’t like it because they now have negotiate changes in the UK with other countries (yes I can see that to be a valid reason to want to leave). BTW last time I check the EU parliament is via direct election and the rest of the EU institutions indirectly. The result of this is similar to that of the US where Alabama representatives need to work with other states to pass laws that benefit Alabama (horse trading). Now I don’t see Mish or any other demanding or forecasting the end of US
“Simple because is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy.”
First of all I do not understand your use of the word platitude. You seem to think that I should just shut up. Why? Bill Cash banged on about Europe for decades, should he have shut up? Of course not. It was his democratic right to campaign against the EU, as it is mine to campaign against Brexit.
how much more does johnson lie than the others who are also liars?
Oh so much more than can be believed. I am not naive enough to accept that politicians are truthful. They usually use weasel words that enable them to wriggle on the point and say things like “If you consult the record that is not what I said…” It leaves you screaming at them in frustration. Johnson the liar is in a league of his own. The then leader of the Conservative party whether the rumours of him having an affair with an employee of his were true.” No ” said the liar to both his party leader and journalists who were asking about the “affair”. Lo and behold his mistress is all over the press and television calling the liar out for what he is and furthermore revealing that she had aborted his child. His party leader sacked him on the spot. There are several more proven instances of his heinous behaviour. The man is obscene.
This whole sorry brexit tale is just a story of government selfishness and greed — not unlike the US congress (both parties here too) putting themselves first and the needs of the country second
The 2016 EU Referendum was NOT binding. Cameron said at the time the gov would honour it but it wasn’t binding.
Thanks, Bagger. I didn’t know that. But it seems to me if the gov’t says it would honor it, that makes it binding, doesn’t it? But I see what you mean, it wasn’t legally binding.