According to the BBC's Brexitcast last night, this is just a collection of ideas for the EU to mull over... presumably before they reject them!
Presumably if we were on the cusp of a deal and it was just a matter of time for the formalities etc etc then the extension would be requested and granted?
Maugham makes an obvious point, the time to revoke A50 has passed, there is no time to arrange anything in terms of a deal acceptable to parliament, delay is possible if Boris does what he's told, other than that its a 'no deal'
Say he doesn’t come up with a new WA by the 19th Oct deadline. Which is extremely doubtful as of now. The real question is: Will there be enough time for a VONC, a temp Govt, an application for extension and a ratification of it by the HoC.. before the 31st?
The suspicion is that if Boris gets away with Proroguing Parliament because the Supreme Court ruling is that the reason for proroguing is entirely the prerogative of the PM and hence is strictly a 'Political' issue, then to stop any VONC, Temp Government, application for extension/ratification, etc. he will Prorogue again and again...
If you don't comprehend what Kuenssberg was doing then you've not been paying attention to her output the last few years.
The two things, Boris lying to the Queen and this being a matter for the legal courts or not, are separate things. Boris has lied to the Queen. He has already compromised her neutrality once. There's documents that prove that, hence the courts in Scotland ruled against him. His only hope is that the Supreme Court deems it's not a matter for the legal courts to adjudicate on, like the English court decided. But if they deem it is for them to adjudicate, there's 0 doubt that he will be found guilty in weight of the evidence.
Thanks for that
I can't quite make sense of your first and last point here as they seem contradictory but i really don't think it's as simple as oh well if Barnier knows then it's fine he can pass the knowledge on. It's still the member states that vote and they'd need proper scrutiny to do that.
My point is that it's part of the "pretending to negotiate", Abizz took it a legitimate demand when it's not. It's a no deal move, there is nothing to scrutinize.
You wont be on your own with that!
I realise the left in particular has a problem with Kuenssberg and often appear to be looking for reasons to confirm it. But some group or other always has a problem with the BBC political editor, whoever they are.
That's not what needs proving though. He probably didn't even speak to her directly, she was in Balmoral at the time and I doubt he called her. The "lying to the Queen" is in essence lying to the Nation. There's no need to corroborate their private chats. His stated reason in Parliament and in the media for the prorogation, was to set out his legislative agenda in a Queens Speech. I think it's been now proven by cabinet leaked documents/discussions that the real reason for the prorogation and its long duration was to reduce governmental scrutiny by Parliament. That's why the Scottish courts ruled against him.
Could he argue that he was lying to the cabinet, not to the public?
How does that work? One is a clandestine private meeting between working colleagues the other is televised to the whole nation. What court would buy that?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
At this point there is no point being pro-leave or pro remain and in his case whatever the answer he will be on the wrong side from a political standpoint.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oooh Jeremy Corbyn
EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
Doesn’t look like he’s winning by sitting on the fence either, not based on the polls. Which by the way is totally what he’s doing, he just can’t be honest about that either.
David Miliband is starting to look like the brother who should have been chosen all that time ago. What a weird world we live in.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oooh Jeremy Corbyn
EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
It's also fecking stupid. He's on record saying several times over the past year he'd vote remain so the answer is obvious but for some reason they think this is a journalistic gotcha question to ask.
Surely being neutral is the definition of sitting on the fence?
I don't understand why his position is seen as confusing nor why it would prevent him from negotiating a deal in the highly unlikely event that he is in a position to do so. In a situation like this I actually find his nuanced position refreshing. It is, obviously, going to be electorally unpopular.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Oooh Jeremy Corbyn
EDIT: Don’t worry lads he’d be neutral in a referendum. Never mind that if we leave either on the 31st Oct or via People’s Vote, he could be the one who negotiates what our future relationship with the EU will be like. We don’t need to know his real position. He’ll negotiate for unicorns and get them, honest.
I'll be honest with you, I strongly believe that politicians are pathological liars, so this type of claims have no value to me. But if I put myself in his boots, I get why he said what he said in that interview, he isn't a labour kamikaze.
He may not be winning but he rightfully doesn't go out of his way to effectively lose.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. The tweets says: “He says he’s NOT sitting on the fence”. When his stance is the definition of fence sitting. He can’t be honest about that either.
It’s not a nuanced position, for me. It’s a dishonest position. Not only because he doesn't say what he thinks (no politician does anyway, if we're being honest) or take a strong position but because he claims he'll get his own deal, to quote Bender, with blackjack and hookers. He's claimed he'd get a Customs Union deal without freedom of movement which is despised by many Leavers, but also the UK would be able to have power of veto on future EU trade deals that might be damaging to us. That ain't happening.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
At least its British made regulations.
By our very own unelected bureaucrat, who is being challenged by our elected MP's and in court, for suspending our parlimentary democracy. In a Conservative party who only gained power in the last election due to offering £1BN investment to the DUP.
