Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 24, 2019

Court Reopens Parliament For Further (Useless?) Brexit Discussions

On August 28 MoA headlined: Boris Johnson Seizes Power:

The Johnson government, only inaugurated weeks ago, asked the Queen to announce its legislative program, a ceremonial event known as the Queen's Speech. Custom demands that Parliament is shut down for several weeks before the Queen's Speech is held. Parliament will thus have little chance to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

We thought that there was little chance that the courts would overturn Johnson's move:

Many members of Parliament will, like Dominic Grieve, be against this power grab.

Unfortunately there is little they can do:

A number of high profile figures, including former Prime Minister John Major, have threatened to go to the courts to stop it, and a legal challenge led by the SNP's justice spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry, is already working its way through the Scottish courts.

Britain has no written constitution. The courts rule along precedence and the government would thereby likely win the case ...

To our great surprise the court ruled against the long standing practice, the government and the Queen:

Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".

The House of Commons will reconvene tomorrow and give me additional opportunities to admire Speaker John Bercow's colorful language and ties (vid).

The last time parliament met it made a law that prohibits the government to leave the EU without a specific agreement that regulates the various details. The law also directed the government to ask the EU to move the Brexit date from October 31 further into the future.

Johnson wants a Brexit without a deal. He can easily sabotage the new law's intent by adding conditions or asking the EU for a time frame it would not be willing to concede.

The court's judgment gives parliament a few more days to put additional obstacles into Johnson's way out of the EU. But as both main parties are internally divided about the issue it is likely that only little will be done.

Parliament should also not count on an endless willingness by the EU to move the Brexit date further and further. The EU no longer cares about Britain. It wants the whole Brexit issue to come to an end, either way, as soon as possible.

The people of Britain may well have a similar feeling.

Posted by b on September 24, 2019 at 16:47 UTC | Permalink


"The last time parliament met it made a law that prohibits the government to leave the EU without a specific agreement that regulates the various details. The law also directed the government to ask the EU to move the Brexit date from October 31 further into the future."
Please be aware Parliament cannot force BoJo to do anything.
They can have a vote of no confidence, and adopt a PM who is willing to go to Brussels, but they cannot the sitting PM to act (neither can Justice, separation of powers and all that stuff). But they weren't willing to withhold confidence back in July, so anything can happen.

Posted by: marcel | Sep 24 2019 16:54 utc | 1

Apparently the British haven't had enough of what Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence from their own government to do what he counseled Americans to do.
It is little consolation that our own government is treating us worse than King George's did.
It will probably take the full force of the approaching Great Correction to wake the sleeping American sheeple.

Posted by: Vonu | Sep 24 2019 16:58 utc | 2

Corbyn speaking at Labour Party Congress calls for BoJo to resign and for an immediate as possible General Election. I expect more video to be tweeted as he wasn't near done speaking.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 17:03 utc | 3

AFAIK EU has said that they would be willing to extend the date but only if there was a good reason. And extension just for delay without purpose seems to be a nonstarter.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 24 2019 17:13 utc | 4

There is a very concerted attempt to force the government into cancelling Brexit. Whilst the remainers want to stay in the EU, the remainers are unwilling to let a general election take place because they fear that leavers might achieve a majority government. The fixed term parliament law means that a general election can be held off by the remainers until the fixed term is up in 2021. We're screwed basically.

Posted by: Kaiama | Sep 24 2019 17:22 utc | 5

thanks b.. it is a conflictual issue with bojo a conflictual guy in a position of power.... i am sure the uk folks and europe want it to end soon... as a canuck, i would like to see it over too... more important issues face the planet today then this circus..

Posted by: james | Sep 24 2019 17:30 utc | 6

The problem is the peculiar law passed by the Cameron coalition government to gibe governments a 'fixed term.'
This is a law that makes nonsense of the basic, foundational, constitutional convention that the Minister has to enjoy the confidence of the Commons.
Clearly Johnson does not have that confidence and ought to resign. Or does he?
It might well be that between the Tory dissenters, the Liberals, the Blairites and the SNP, all of whom fear a Corbyn government almost as much as they fear a General Election, Johnson would be able to survive a vote of Confidence.
There has never been a clearer case for an immediate General Election call. These are difficult days for Britain's Establishment which has lived in fear of socialism since the 1790s.
Watch as all stops are pulled on that mighty wurlitzer of propaganda the media in an effort to establish that the elites and the cliques, the aristocracy and the financiers, the pundits and the intelligentsia are worthy of every one of their privileges, for which the death of a hundred thousand a year of poverty and malnutrition is a small price. It says much of the lack of patriotism among the poor and the sick, the children and the elderly, that they do not sacrifice themselves more cheerfully for their betters.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 24 2019 17:31 utc | 7

Interesting ruling, voiding government decision on parliamentary rules.

The verdict which by itself is simply illegal as it found that purely political reasons for prorogation (namely last chance for Negotiation without Parliament interference and inquiries until two weeks before deadline) is insufficient to justify it and hence by such purely political in merit judgment (that is clearly out of legal jurisdiction of the court) they concocted theory of following: if not stated by PM reason for prorogation then it must be reason of obstruction of parliament debate prerogatives, knowing well that UK parliament that had two and half years to debate Brexit, refused any alternative plans posed by government or MPs themselves and then refused to withdraw support via non confidence vote against government which PM pledged to stick to lawful deadline to follow the law established by invoking Article 50 of legally still superior UK EU treaty, that requires no negotiations of leaving EU whatsoever but simply settling the bills.

Not only UK Supreme court and Parliament infringed upon supremacy of national referendum, but later internally conflicted after two years refused to refer the issue to the people in parliamentary elections motivated by disgusting political maneuvering reasons and elbowing for power not to lose their seats for Brexit party, the court that took upon itself role of political judge, did not even consider as infringing on rights of UK citizen.

UK supreme court in fact infringed also upon prerogatives of parliament itself and government not to mention the sovereign of the United Kingdom as it is QEII was who actually made decision of prorogation, court baselessly claims to have power to nullify, formulated in a form of order to parliament to operate, not a legal opinion to consider by the Queen and PM to withdraw prorogation.

All of it is meaningless spectacle when gangs of oligarchic stooges fight for better place at post Brexit oligarchic table.nothing else.

Posted by: Kalen | Sep 24 2019 17:34 utc | 8

The spectacle of the Queens representatives striding into Parliament like they owned the place was rather disquieting.

Thankfully, the UK Supreme Court made it clear who is sovereign.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 24 2019 17:53 utc | 9

The unanimous ruling of the UK Supreme Court is such an obvious piece of fraud that even a lobotomized English mastiff can see through it. Since Britain has no written constitution, the court is suppose to rule on the basis of precedent. There is absolutely no precedent in English history to support their ruling. As to the world getting on with more pressing matters, the truth is that there are fewer matters more pressing. The EU is the agenda template of the Sabbatai-Frank death cult (SFDC) currently running our planet to move toward a one world government and destroy the sovereignty of nations. A UK no-deal departure would be a mortal sword in its side. That is why the SFDC, which includes the thoroughly debauched English aristocracy, is pulling out all its stops to eviscerate it and is exposing its hypocrisy of pseudo democratic rule.

Posted by: el Gallinazo | Sep 24 2019 17:56 utc | 10

The Supreme Court just made up the law which they claim was broken.

And, given the way that British courts have allowed rampant illegality and unlawfulness in the case of Julian Assange, I would take any argument that British judges make about "lawfulness" with a huge barrel of salt.

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas | Sep 24 2019 18:47 utc | 11

I came to this MOA post immediately after posting a sympathetic reply to a UK commenter at Craig Murray's site, prompted by his plaintive but accurate closing line (the italicized bit); I think it's fitting to re-post it here:

It seems the whole Establishment is against the people, they will not let us go.

As a mere observer and geopolitical dilettante in the US, I know better than to rush in where angels fear to tread.

But to me, this is the obvious nub of it. I am no fan of the über-bumptious Boorish Johnson, and have referred to him as England’s “Village Idiot Laureate”.

Be that as it may, I find it fatuous to equate thwarting Johnson’s executive overreach with “restoring democracy” in the UK. Brexit has become a Gordian Knot, and Parliament has done nothing but enthusiastically feed the Knot more string (or rope), and pull loose threads tight. This is patently not “democracy in action”.

Indeed, it appears that further indefinite delay and dilation is in the offing now that the PM has been properly put in his place. I can’t resist making the cynical observation that in supposedly enlightened Western countries, where government officials rhetorically champion the “rule of law”, that courts only occasionally dispense justice or right political wrongs; instead, they are mostly concerned with Keeping Up Appearances and assuring the persistence of Business as Usual.

Good luck!

Posted by: Ort | Sep 24 2019 18:47 utc | 12

Not only UK Supreme court and Parliament infringed upon supremacy of national referendum... : Kalen | Sep 24 2019 17:34 utc

AFAIK, the referendum was "non-binding" and thus without any "supremacy" over courts and Parliament. UK has three options: accept agreement negotiated by May, with tiny tweaks perhaps, "no agreement exit" and remain. Unfortunately, none of the options got the majority in Parliamentary votes. Having three choices makes it awkward for a referendum as well.

I guess the people on the Continent were happy and making all those plans what to do when EU is liberated of the whiniest member member, now a specter of UK "coming back", of course under a government promising more effective whining than ever before, is rising again.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 24 2019 18:48 utc | 13

MoA ...""...

MoA ..."That's all."... Bugs Bunny ...""...

Oh, and screw the Rothschilds also.

Posted by: Taffyboy | Sep 24 2019 18:49 utc | 14

@ el Gallinazo 10
Since Britain has no written constitution, the court is suppose to rule on the basis of precedent. There is absolutely no precedent. . .
There are half a dozen elements to the unwritten constitution here.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 24 2019 18:55 utc | 15

I am not sure that "The EU no longer cares about Britain."
In fact, now that all the EU ruling elite (politicians, civil servants, lobbyists, scientists, academics, big pharma + medics) speak and think in English what do you think would happen if the sole English speaking country (ok it is also one of the languages of ... Luxemburg, 600,000 inhabitants) was leaving? Would they be obliged to return to their own languages and have super-teams of translators? I doubt it unfortunately.

Posted by: Mina | Sep 24 2019 19:01 utc | 16

Was there any precedent to this case. If not, a precedent has now been made. Reading a number of court cases in Australia that also went into constitution (aboriginal land title and so forth), the judges also look to what they consider the national interests of the state, what they consider the intention of the constitution and so forth. Becomes laws made by judges.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 19:18 utc | 17

Manoeuvering to avoid a Brexit before the incoming election is a risky move. If that is seen as some kind of dirty trick (notwithstanding the fact Johnson relied on dirty tricks as well) might push people to vote for a pure Brexit Party. We'll see.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Sep 24 2019 19:22 utc | 18

Today the Supreme Court ruled - that no man is above the law ! ( in the U.K. )
That’s a good thing.
Parlement is the highest court in the land ! Not the prime minister.
Boris Johnson illegally suspended that parlement.
Since taking office as prime minister Boris Johnson has won not a single vote.
His position is now untenable !
Today he stated that he will not resign, he’l resign within one week ! ( he lie’s )
Boris Johnson neither know’s or cares about Brixit ! Take a look at his filmed interviews, the mans a usefull fool !
So who is pulling his strings ? - - -
Firstly, Jacob Rees mog - an elite deep state pseudo interlectual throw back from 200 years ago who wishes to return there !
Secoundly, Trump has ‘owened’ Boris Johnson for his and America’s benifit not the U.K. benefit think about it the trump brand is all over this. With similar disarsterous results.
Thirdly - - - The Israel lobby groups (say no more )

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 24 2019 19:26 utc | 19

Well said above, that the EU is a template for anti-democratic global government. All should leave and let Germany be the EU by itself.

Posted by: paul | Sep 24 2019 20:02 utc | 20

People here are wasting their time focusing on legal technicalities of the British system.

The real battle that is happening is between classes: the faction of the Conservative and Unionist Party that represents small and medium businesses took power after the fall of Theresa May and is now trying to viabilize Brexit and is led by Boris Johnson. Meanwhile, the faction of the Labour Party that represents the interests of big British capital (specially in the financial sector) is trying to defeat the socialist faction, led by Jeremy Corbyn. In the Commons, the faction that represents big British capital of the Conservative and Unionist Party -- led today by speaker John Bercow -- is maneuvering with the Liberal Democratic Party and its analogous in Labour Party to block Brexit by any means necessary.

The Gordian Knot here is that big business still has very powerful factions of the two main parties (Labour and Conservative & Unionist) plus the absolute control of the unelected portion of the British State (the Monarchy + Judiciary + Lords) but lost their legitimacy after June 2016. So they can stall the popular will, but not stop and overrule it. The working class, on its side, is weak and had to make an unholy alliance with the petit bourgeoisie in order to inflict a historical defeat to the dominant classes in June 2016, but still cannot do the final blow. Between these two flanks, the bourgeoisie, in a desperate move, sought the support and got it, of the upper middle class (the "metropolitan elites") and the MSM is burning whatever is left of its credibility in order to implode Brexit.

There are two other problems with this unusual alliance on both sides: the working class had to give in to far-right ideologies and narratives in order to cater to the petit bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie has to tolerate the liberal rhetoric of the upper middle class. The upper-middle class is not really a class, but a mass of meneuver, and cannot, alone, decide any election because it is concentrated in London, Manchester and Liverpool: it has a subordinate role in British society and its members know it, that's why they play the game along with their eloquent and elitist rhetoric on the internet and the streets. These weird alliances are only possible for one reason: socialism is the absolute limit, the absolute red line for the British as a whole. Anti-socialism is the only ideology that could unite all British classes right now. But why doesn't this alliance happen? Because anti-socialism implies the continuity of capitalism, and it is capitalism, not socialism, that destroyed the British social contract in the aftermath of 2008.

So, the British don't want Corbyn -- but Corbyn is necessary in order for the working class/petit bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie/upper middle class to do their game within the Conservative and Unionist Party. That's why neither side want a GE before this whole Brexit imbroglio is solved: Corbyn may and must dispute a GE, but he must lose and not by much. However, the longer this game is played, the longer this stasis continues, which further erodes the British economy.

Brexit represents the absolute failure of capitalism in the UK. But it also represents the absolute limits of social-democracy ("center-left"): it doesn't want to achieve socialism through revolution but through reforms, but the system they sworn to reform self-destructed.

Posted by: vk | Sep 24 2019 20:03 utc | 21

What you say is truism that there is no democracy in UK. I stated in my last sentence exactly that. If there was democracy, constituent referendum will be supreme over any government institutions.

I did not argue within current UK law but from standpoint of democratic system UK does not have.

Posted by: Kalen | Sep 24 2019 20:04 utc | 22

Echoing Mina at #16, the EU surely has never stopped caring a lot about Britain's remaining a member. With its vast maze of vested interests and obscure €0.5trn budget, Brussels has just got itself a fresh horse after May foundered.

And Project Fear remains ramped up to 11 - haven't you heard that Thomas Cook and its 650,000 stranded customers fell victim to "Brexit Uncertainty"? It's all over the news here.

Posted by: Leser | Sep 24 2019 20:12 utc | 23

all the EU ruling elite (politicians, civil servants, lobbyists, scientists, academics, big pharma + medics) speak and think in English what do you think would happen if the sole English speaking country (ok it is also one of the languages of ... Luxemburg, 600,000 inhabitants) was leaving?

It took me a while to get the point of Mina @16. EU translates documents into languages of member countries, so there will be Erse translations but not English. But I think that besides Erse, English is also an official language of Ireland. Perhaps Continentals will need to include more Irish-specific vocabulary in the translations? Like coleen walking on a boreen...

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 24 2019 20:25 utc | 24

Leser | Sep 24 2019 20:12 utc | 22

Just to clarify, there are around 150,000 customers who are stranded with another 500,000 who are no longer having a Thomas Cook holiday, so I suppose they could be called stranded without a holiday, but at home. Those 150,000 are not actually stranded as the UK taxpayers are paying for them to get back to the UK.

I have not heard it claimed to be a victim of Brexit.

Posted by: JohninMK | Sep 24 2019 20:31 utc | 25

As was pointed out abaove, the purpose of the Supreme Court is exactly to set the precedents which then become l think there is a consensus that the S.C made the correct decision and set the correct precedent for the long term interests of democracy, without reference to the short term issue of Bexit. (ie, the PM cannot just decide to shut down parliament when he / she feels like it).

I don't think the law compelling Boris to ask for an extension is easily circumvented - everyone knew that Boris would try to wriggle out of it, and they tried to close all loopholes. I understand that Boris is obliged to accept whatever delay is offered by the EU, and conditions cannot easily be attached. I believe the EU recently decided that preventing no deal brexit was sufficient cause to accept a request for delay...

Posted by: Tim Glover | Sep 24 2019 20:41 utc | 26

Mina | Sep 24 2019 19:01 utc | 16:

Would they be obliged to return to their own languages and have super-teams of translators? I doubt it unfortunately.

It depends on the economic situation.   IF China becomes that economic powerhouse many economists believe, then maybe Mandarin would be the language of business.   But, it'll take several decades to switch over.   IMO, it'll be a mix of many languages.

Posted by: Ian2 | Sep 24 2019 20:47 utc | 27

English will most likely remain the main international language for quite some time, no matter whether five-eyes dissapears into the dust.

The reason why...
"By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area.[4] As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread."

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 20:56 utc | 28

Many thanks vk #20

A mighty clear analysis. I am uncertain of your words Corbyn may and must dispute a GE general election. Corbyn and the socialist momentum may not be confronted with the best timing but tactically they must seize this time to secure as much control within their party as possible. Prevaricating now will terminally weaken their progress and gut their energy to reform.

A GE now will see the old Tories routed and Brexit party perhaps achieve a majority (but likely need a coalition). The Labour Party of socialist brexit supporters (maybe) could be part of such a coalition. Not that I am any supporter of Farage. Politics is the art of the possible and my experience has necessitated strange partnerships to achieve the possible against extreme odds.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 24 2019 20:56 utc | 29

So far, I've only heard a truncated press-release version of the Supreme Court's ruling. There is/ will be a written version which would articulate all of the factors which led to the unanimous final judgement. Unanimity is often a relevant factor in a court case.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 24 2019 20:58 utc | 30

@ Piotr Berman 23 : Why limit vocabulary to Irish ? Add aslso Scott & Wales to Eu vocabulary.

Posted by: murgen23 | Sep 24 2019 21:21 utc | 31

they do translate some documents...mainly to keep an army of translators busy and well paid... in addition to developing tools such as linguee (who got the jackpot? no idea but i m pretty sure some people made money with the corpus they offered to automatic translations tools)

but in fact english rules. if you apply for funding you d better do it in english or be very patient (i guess if you try in latvian five years in a row...).

check their websites more closely... where do you see calls(for funding.. for jobs) in another language than english?

Posted by: mina | Sep 24 2019 21:31 utc | 32

" The EU no longer cares about Britain. It wants the whole Brexit issue to come to an end, either way, as soon as possible."

I'm afraid that's Brussels PR. This is about as edgy as it gets for Brussels.

What we are watching is a massive gamble the outcome of which will affect livelihoods all over the European continent and could well cost more lives in Northern Ireland.

Brussels is attempting to force through a treaty, the "Withdrawal Agreement". In an impressive display of chutzpah it's claiming the treaty has already been "negotiated". That is Brussels talk for a treaty that, far from being agreed, has been decisively rejected three times by the British Parliament. Brussels is hoping fourth time lucky.

But what is making it nerve-wracking for them is that to force this treaty through they are dependent entirely on the majority group of "remainer" MP's in the British Parliament. And this group may or may not get its act together either to stop Brexit or to accede to Brussels' demands.

The group can't, at least so far, get its act together because most of the remainer MP's in the House of Commons were elected on a manifesto commitment to carry Brexit through. To turn round and renege on that commitment requires a little more nerve than the remainer MP's have been able to summon up, at least to date.

So Brussels' gamble depends on the unpredictable actions of a House of Commons in disarray.

The stakes are high. Brussels has consistently pursued a risky policy of threatening to disrupt cross-channel trade if Britain leaves on terms it doesn't like. If the remainer MP's fail Brussels then Brussels will either have to lose face and hastily make arrangements not to disrupt trade, or it will have to allow trade to be disrupted.

On the Irish border the stakes are even higher. Obviously there must be a full customs border between the EU and the UK in Ireland. It's not possible for the UK to become independent without diverging from EU regulations and therefore for its own protection the EU must install customs posts. The Single Market is at risk if it doesn't.

Because of the tense security situation those customs posts should be set back from the border and the whole monitored through close liaison between the British and Irish authorities. That Brussels has been refusing to countenance. It wants parts of the UK, or even the entire UK, to effectively remain within the Single Market. The Irish border is therefore the EU's lever to keep the UK in or very close.

But should the UK reject the WA and leave anyway, Brussels is going to have to set up customs posts for its own protection. Further loss of face and, because of the way the problem has been handled, inevitably a worsening of the security position. That could well lead to more deaths.

Under Mrs May the EU had the situation well in hand. The UK negotiators were compliant and fell in with the EU's wish to keep the UK close, and therefore still effectively under EU control. That's not so certain with Mr Johnson. He might try to get a cosmeticised version of the WA through. He may consider that electorally risky and attempt to simply take the UK out.

So all that at risk and the EU can do nothing but wait it out until the House of Commons manages to work out what it wants to do.

A failure of statesmanship all round. If I had to allocate blame I'd allocate the bulk of it to the House of Commons. They daren't stay in and won't allow leave.

It was always going to be difficult for us getting out of what Mr Verhofstadt terms the EU "Empire". Empire's don't usually let bits go willingly. But to get out with the House of Commons wanting to stay in or close means another hoop to jump through before we get our independence.

But "b" - yours is a site that remorselessly calls errant governments to account. Given the UK government's dismal performance so far you are right to call HMG to account. But why does Brussels, similarly incompetent and similarly heedless of the welfare of those under its control, get a free pass?

Posted by: English Outsider | Sep 24 2019 21:31 utc | 33

but you re right i forgot about ireland
as to wales and scotland they are supposed to leave on 31/10 according to Bojo arent they?

Posted by: mina | Sep 24 2019 21:33 utc | 34

JohninMK @24

The company blamed the £1.5bn loss that preceded the forced liquidation (over which it then didn't have a say anymore) on Brexit Uncertainty. I saw that picked up again in several news places over the collapse - indeed not as the one and only reason, rather mentioned en passant, echoed. Steady repetition for propaganda value, not necessarily always front and centre. You're also right on the 150/500k.

The current direction of Project Fear is "Every day the uncertainty continues, it erodes the economy further. The Brexiters have made their point very clear and perhaps they aren't all wrong, but for the greater good this must stop now."

Thomas Cook and its 650,000 "every-day British" victims makes this abstract danger that much more tangible.

Posted by: Leser | Sep 24 2019 21:40 utc | 35

@vk #20 you make some interesting points about small and medium business, but I am not sure that is it accurate to say that all classes reject socialism, represented by Corbyn. Corbyn's election to leadership created a huge wave of popular support for Labour (which had dwindled unde Blair), and I suspect the majority of British would support his policies; but he has been pesonally destroyed by relentless attacks by the Blairites in his own party and by both the conservative and liberal press.

Posted by: Tim Glover | Sep 24 2019 21:41 utc | 36

Postmodernism becomes reality: Brexit season 3

Season three got off to a good start with the appointment of Bojo as PM. After the sickly May with her chain-smoking face and fancy shoes this lying, conniving, incompetent lazy toff now has the reins. Just when viewers were beginning to get sick and tired of the series the scriptwriters bring in the explosive Bojo. And they’ve given Bojo a real head case of a henchman, in comparison with whom moderate Tories seem almost saint-like. Last weeks episoide ended with the cliffhanger of the imminent Supreme Court ruling and today we have the decision. Boris has been trashed and even Farage is calling for his henchman’s head. Surely Bojo cannot survive this? How can the writers spin this one out? Can he really bluff his way through?

Posted by: Lochearn | Sep 24 2019 21:50 utc | 37

A pro po "relentless attacks by the Blairites in his own party and by both the conservative and liberal press.

Posted by: Tim Glover | Sep 24 2019 21:41 utc | 35

Today's The Guardian "The Trump administration's crackdown on campus criticism of Israel is Orwellian" Joshua Leifer

My reaction was that Trump administration is indeed despicable. In UK, the worst that could happen to those who criticize Israel is expelling from Labour Party caused by relentless harangues, The Guardian being the leader, and softness of Corbynites. But when Trump does it, it is bad, even for The Guardian.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 24 2019 22:16 utc | 38

Well done Lochearn #36, sometimes I see it all as a Herge cartoon with Boris as Captain Haddock, Farage as Jolyon Wagg and Corbyn as Tintin?. Feel free to juxtapose according to prejudice.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 24 2019 22:17 utc | 39

The EU will allow a further delay because they are terrified of a 'no-deal' Brexit. The EU hopes that the 'deal' they get is -for all intents and purposes- a form of 'Remain', i.e. Brexit in name only. Brexit was not a narrow verdict by any means - when we look at the breakdown of the vote it comes as no surprise as to why the parliamentary farce continues, and why 'Remain' is the ongoing objective of the UK & EU political elite:

17.4 Mln referendum 16.1 Mln
406 constituencies 242
148 Labour constituencies 84
247 Tory constituencies 80
9 Region 3
160 MPs 486

Posted by: TEP | Sep 24 2019 22:40 utc | 40

Bercow is a Ziocon turd.

His colourful language disguises his manoeuvres in favour of the unelected European aristocracy of money.

Posted by: Cortes | Sep 24 2019 23:12 utc | 41

The decision was neither illegal nor fraudulent. There are two legal systems in the UK. The Supreme Court in this case was following Scots law. The Claim of Right 1689 (Scottish Parliament) made it explicit not only that Parliaments were to be frequently called but once called were not to be impeded by the Crown from continuing to sit in order to carry out their business of redressing all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws. To quote from the final submission from Joanna Cherry's team

Under this fundamental right preserved within the Scottish constitutional tradition, any advice tendered by the Prime Minister to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, with a view to denying before exit day proper Parliamentary consideration of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, is both unconstitutional and unlawful. Parliament exercises authority on behalf of the people. The United Kingdom Government is subject to Parliament. It is well established that it is, therefore, unlawful for the executive branch to take an action that would frustrate an Act of Parliament... It is equally unlawful for the executive to prevent Parliament from acting on an issue of national and/or constitutional importance. The harm in both sets of circumstances is the same: the executive has usurped authority that properly belongs to the people and is properly exercised by parliament.

To purport to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament in advance of exit day, with a view to denying before exit day any further Parliamentary consideration of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, would prevent Parliament from carrying out its proper constitutional function in relation to the terms of exit. The terms of exit are a question of national and constitutional importance. It matters not how Parliament may choose to act in relation to those questions. What is important is that Parliament not be prevented from acting. An executive that prevents Parliament from acting in relation to a matter of national or constitutional importance acts itself without regard for the fundamental basis of authority in the constitution. It is excluding the electorate from control over the government. This cannot be lawful or constitutional.

Posted by: cirsium | Sep 24 2019 23:13 utc | 42

Brexit Queen:

There's some interesting points raised over on in both the article and the comments. The one that grabbed me is how the Queen gets a free pass in letting the Prime Minister waltz in and ask to suspend parliament which then turns out to be an illegal move, the queen who signed off on this move is legally protected by royal prerogative and immune, yet is paid GDP 83 Million to be the protector of the constitution - which was just legally proven that she just failed to do. Its the most expensive and worst form of consultant that I'm aware of, and one that's - apparently impossible to fire.

She also, I would guess signed off on waterboarding and renditions, which is a family tradition just relocated from the dungeons? Whatever next, it's getting more Falcon Crest everyday.

PS What Century is this?

Posted by: dennis | Sep 24 2019 23:33 utc | 43

dennis @42

Murray believed that the prorogue was unconstitutional right from the start.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 24 2019 23:48 utc | 44

Thanks all, but, quite frankly, all this makes my head spin. I get the distinct impression
this Brexit discussion is nothing more, nothing less, than another class struggle between the working classes and the entitlement class.

Too simplistic? Maybe, but, it seems this struggle is global.

Posted by: ben | Sep 24 2019 23:52 utc | 45

Jackrabbit @ 43

Yes, Murray is quite entertaining in his contempt and attacks on the Monarch of the Scottish Glens.

What I was getting at was the dereliction of duty of QEII in her signing off the process. As a constitutional backstop, I was wondering in this instance what value the British Citizens were getting for their GBP 83 million per year?

Posted by: dennis | Sep 25 2019 0:28 utc | 46

Johnson and the tories gaud Corbyn for not agreeing Johnsons general election proposal some weeks ago. "Youre running scared because you'll lose" they say. That may be the case IF the general election had been BEFORE Brexit day (which is what Johnson wanted). The reason is that brexit party voters would switch to the tories in such an election, believing johnson would deliver on Oct 31st, thus ensuring a tory victory. The opposition, however, sussed this out via polling which showed tory voters switching to the Brexit party in an election AFTER Brexit day if Johnson had failed to leave...thereby ensuring a split right wing vote and a likely LABOUR victory. So, far from running scared from an election, the opposition leader has forced a date on his choosing when he is most likely to split johnsons vote and sail into number 10. Quite canny manouvering by mr corbyn.

Posted by: Hermius | Sep 25 2019 0:49 utc | 47

Interesting discussion. The UK is getting kindof screwed by the peculiarities of their electoral system.

I'm surprised, per @3, that Corbyn would have a GE now. After wisely rejecting it earlier. It would be a 4 or 5 way result, Corbyn would be forced into a coalition of "Leave + Repeat-referendum", i.e. LibDem + Labour. His LD coalition partners will totally screw him on economic issues, he must know this. And they still won't be able to agree on a course of action regarding Brexit. I like Corbyn and what he stands for, this is a crap situation from that point of view. It may save the UK though - if brexit happens, Scots leave, what's left is even more of a political mess.

A "soft brexit" which noone wanted would've avoided all this. Oh well.

Posted by: Ptb | Sep 25 2019 0:57 utc | 48

errr, I should have written "coalition of Remain + Repeat Referendum", obviously not Leave+RepeatRef. long day...

Posted by: ptb | Sep 25 2019 1:04 utc | 49

Craig Murray site is always interesting and I like his style. I am quizzical about his theory that Scottish independence from the UK is absolutely vital for their survival (to which I agree) but his insistence on remaining in the EU appears to me to be just as dire as remaining in the UK union.

Swapping the prison wardens doth still a prison make.

I trust Corbyn and his team have shucked off the blairite traitors for good and can take England to a practical and equitable sociallism.

That is what much of the posturing has been about and Hermius #46 got it in a nutshell.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 25 2019 1:46 utc | 50

@42 dennis.. when this first happened a few of us at moa - the poster BM and myself anyway - wanted the queens ass for her act condoning bojos bullshite... so, it isn't only now that some are picking up on the queens malfeasance...

Posted by: james | Sep 25 2019 1:57 utc | 51

Yes gossip is a waste of time but sometimes the peons need a little entertainment. The best entertainment is watching Dear Leaders form a circular firing squad, although it does pay to beware of ricochets. It's certainly more interesting gossip than a phone call that Trump The Moron made to some other Dear Leader, or how many parties Trudope attended while wearing way too much makeup.

I've seen this story before. Quebec wanted to leave the Canadian confederation, but of course self-determination can not really be allowed except when it benefits elites. The struggle to leave-or-not played out over decades, as I recall. In the end the campaign for independence just sort of faded away, along with the political parties promoting independence. I'm pretty sure there was even a referendum or two, but I'm too lazy to check.

I predict a similar outcome for UK independence and the yellow vest campaign in France. They will drag on and on until people can't take it anymore. The daily struggle for survival takes too much effort and there's not much left over for political struggle. Eventually, problems like, "how am I going to pay the rent?" and "who's gonna take Johnny to the dentist?" have to take precedence.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Sep 25 2019 3:25 utc | 52

The main issue that needs solving is the "hard border" required by the EU. Perhaps not many people will remember, but decades ago with a "soft border", there was a thriving market in the northern part in smuggling pigs over the border to sell at the higher EU prices. No wonder they want a hard border now.

The fact is, the United Kingdom isn't all that united, and is in danger of falling apart. So why not go with the flow and let it? Northern Ireland could stay in the EU if they don't want a hard border, and Scotland could stay in too, as they voted to. England and Wales want to brexit, and they can, as long as they realise there will be hard borders between them and Scotland and Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. New referendum, done.

Posted by: Palloy | Sep 25 2019 4:42 utc | 53

It matters not how Parliament may choose to act in relation to those questions. What is important is that Parliament not be prevented from acting. An executive that prevents Parliament from acting in relation to a matter of national or constitutional importance acts itself without regard for the fundamental basis of authority in the constitution. It is excluding the electorate from control over the government. This cannot be lawful or constitutional.
Posted by: cirsium | Sep 24 2019 23:13 utc | 41

Thanks for looking it up.
As I suspected the court had no realistic alternative.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2019 5:47 utc | 54

This was interesting also "There are two legal systems in the UK. The Supreme Court in this case was following Scots law."

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 5:53 utc | 55

I find it that a lot in the comment who I’m assuming have no real legal training in British law can suddenly tell us what is right or wrong about a decision.

I once respected the comment section here, but B has given free reign to a lot of unintelligent commentaries. I only come here to read your posts, the scholarship that was here even 18 months ago. I will no longer donate if you do not set up rules for commentary.

People, stop making wild comments that have no basis in reality. And you B, you are to blame. You had no idea how the Supreme Court would rule but let your bias speak. I don’t know what’s happening to you.

Posted by: A | Sep 25 2019 6:23 utc | 56

The verdict came at a convenient time for Corbyn. He had just won the brexit policy vote - that if in government the party will negotiate the 'best possible" deal - this is likely to be different from the May deal in that it will include england staying in at least part of the single market, but Corbyn will argue for and probably get the right to nationalise railways and energy reticulation (currently not allowed by the EU - unless like France you already have it) and restrictions on freedom of movement.
The 'new deal' and a "remain as we are" option will then be put to a referendum according to Labour Policy.

That is as Corbyn wanted but the lawyers and london bourgeoisie portion of the party wanted a simple 'remain only' ticket which was madness since they would have lost about 60 constituencies in the Midlands and further North and that was the basis Corbyn got it thru on - that there is not much point in any policy if it means being kept outta government for a generation.
After the verdict Corbyn grabbed the slot which had been reserved for the slug Tom Watson to speak that afternoon. Now the conference will be deprived of MP's from wednesday, Watson will not get to speak and the remainers plan to spend the conference pushing remain has been totally disrupted.

Although the anti-semite nonsense has had little effect on Labour viability among voters, it did prevent the left from deselecting many of those zionists who didn't jump ship a few months back, so if Corbyn can win a GE, he is in for a tough time from the blatantly tory-remainer section of the party which needless to say is mainly old NuLabour zionists.

They are all greed heads - many likely only jumped into the friends of israel thing for the quids on offer, so if Corbyn is PM, he is in a position to out-bid the israelis if he chooses to.

The dodgy polls give Corbyn no chance but they did that last time too, before the tories fell completely apart.
The tory campaign will be so riven with feuding from the last 18 months of brexit coshing the media won't be able to hush it. Sure labour remainers will try to do the same but most of them need their seat to eat, where-as the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Dominic Grieves do not and will claw each other's lungs out with scant regard for their polling.

Corbyn can sell leave as being a process rather than something instant to those who want to leave, by saying this is just the first step then many remainers will like the idea of a second referendum which it must be said remain won't get up in if the alternative is 'leaving' albeit only half way out the door.

The bulk of pols understand (despite refusing to admit this) there can be no complete turn back to pre the first referendum, that unless england does leave in some shape or form civil unrest would not be containable.

No deal at all, would be a disaster under a tory government who would use it to destroy Jo/Joe Blow's income even worse than they already have, let alone all the stuff no one has really thought through properly which would make it hard for any party in government.

Johnson has done one good turn for leavers in that he got euro car manufacturers, big pharma etc, to sh1t their pants, they in turn have been pressuring EU pols both MEP & national governments, to give the english a better deal and Corbyn can pick up on that.

I don't believe a no confidence vote that doesn't make Labour plus some others, a caretaker government has a sh1t show of getting up before Oct 31st cos that would cause there to be a no deal brexit by default.

Jezza can win this - the big polls esp YouGov have done nothing to improve their processes since the last election which they screwed up bad.
When it gets down to a campaign and the media are forced to give space to Corbyn, he will win votes especially potential lib dem votes by pointing out that Lib Dem have no chance of winning government outright and they have an awful history of joining with tories to install austerity.

Farage's party is devoting it's time to attacking the tory party, and the conservatives will get bogged down fighting off the right in the form of Farage. A well planned Labour campaign can win in spite of the media.

Posted by: A User | Sep 25 2019 6:26 utc | 57

"Parliament should also not count on an endless willingness by the EU to move the Brexit date further and further. The EU no longer cares about Britain. It wants the whole Brexit issue to come to an end, either way, as soon as possible."
Up to a point. The EU are in a dilemma. They want the UK to look stupid and go on paying so as to discourage other potential leavers. For the EU, the UK Remainers are useful idiots. But they realise that a large chunk of the population want to leave and by now detest the EU and so the UK cannot be a reliable member. So they would like to do what they usually do with difficult questions like Greek or Italian debt or Turkish membership, they dither. Sure they will go along with a delay.

Posted by: Robert Harneis | Sep 25 2019 6:37 utc | 58

Call me a dumb,thick, stupid Brexiteer but isn't the whole Brexit issue actually really, really simple. Cupla facts - there was a democratic vote to leave the EU (Remoaners can whinge about it being 'advisory' but nobody told the voters that at the time and in the government's own communications on the subject they said 'your government will ensure your decision is acted on, whatever it is')....that should be upheld because if you start picking and choosing what votes are valid or not valid, then that way lies fascism (the EU loves making decisions about valid/not valid votes and getting people to vote again, it being a fascist organisation an' all...).

Next, the whole 'we can't make a trade agreement' bollox.'s bollox. The UK purchased last year about 380 billion euros worth of goods and services from other EU's a prosperous nation of 60 million + consumers, the fifth largest economy in the world and the second largest in the EU. The EU can't afford NOT to do a trade deal with the UK - the Halle Institute in Dusseldorf posits that 22,000 jobs would be lost in the UK as a result of a no deal Brexit, but 470,000 would be lost in the EU - including 100,000 in Germany. Germany is already sliding into recession and if you really, really think that on day 1 of a mythical 'no deal' Brexit German car manufacturers, appalled at the thought of their second largest export market going up in smoke, aren't going to pick up the phone to Angela Merkel and say 'Angela, sort it out or your out..' then you completely do not understand that politicians represent big business, not you, you don't matter...oh, and you probably have a pet unicorn.

One last point - if you're going to mention the 'backstop', don't....the words mountains, molehills and fairy stories come to mind. Underneath all the layers and layers of nonsense, middle class prejudice and bigotry against the working class, the pathetic bleatings of privilege and the propaganda of the BBC et al, Brexit is, and always, just do it because it's all about money and money rules politics and if the UK did 'just do it' EU governments (kicked up the ass by their corporate/bankster owneres) would negotiate a deal with the UK quicker than a rat up a drain pipe. Deal with it, that's the truth.

Posted by: Richard | Sep 25 2019 6:38 utc | 59

The reason Brenda hasn't copped a pasting for agreeing to the prorogue is because she can claim 'convention' forces her to sign up for whatever a government said. Now a halfway decent media would then ask her what convention set by precedent gave her the power to ride roughshod over the elected government of Australia in 1974.

None will and in fact the english do not realise that they would have copped the same in '74 but the englander coup had been plotted by Louis Mounbatten and brenda's husband Phillip. Brenda had been kept well informed of the going's on by MI5 and she decided to put the kybosh on it. Not because it was undemocratic or unconstitutional, but because Mountbatten was going to make himself head of state and she saw it as a blatant attempt by Uncle by marriage Louis to have another go at making Mounbatten the royal lineage name rather than her own, Windsor which up until the Great War was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Uncle Lou had allegedly already tried to change the name to Mountbatten when Charlie big ears was born, but Brenda put her foot down.
This is simple when the Conservative Party is government Brenda agrees to anything they ask and calls it convention, but when those 'dreadful oicks' are government all bets are off and the intelligence 'services' plus a handful of unelected 'courtiers' hold sway & bugger convention.

People can whine all they want but it won't do any good. Just as amerikans have been indoctrinated to kiss any rich arse, englanders have been indoctrinated to kiss royal arse.

Posted by: A User | Sep 25 2019 6:57 utc | 60

A #56, demanding satisfaction for your narcissistic tendencies I see. Or was your entire rant just sarcasm?

I share the blame for not knowing how the Supreme Court would judge the issue along with millions. So b is not blameworthy really, just a mere journalist.

I guess you would blame Julian Assange for murdering all those civilians in Iraq that got filmed and leaked.

I would send a bouquet to the Supreme Court if I could afford it.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 25 2019 7:56 utc | 61

France wants to get rid of Britain, same for probably the whole of southern Europe.

Germany et al don't. Britain is a voice for austerity, neoliberalism and big farming. Without it French statism and cheap money has a majority and atlanticism has a problem.

Boris Johnson is out of options. The EU cannot kick Britain out if Britain does not want to. Britain can simply repeal their decision to leave. Should Boris Johnson defy the law and do a no deal Brexit this will be the next constitutional crisis that will not go well for Boris Johnson nor his party. British military is abroad and the last coup leader was Oliver Cromwell.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2019 8:24 utc | 62

Maybe a UK referendum should ask the people if they prefer to pay for their Queen or for the technocrat army in Brussels? Since the one percent is too costly to afford for a society, some drastic measures have to be taken!

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 8:51 utc | 63

Things are hotting up as the neolibs are forced to confront two nemesises simultaneously. They thought yesterday's decision by the supremes (Poms have always had a thing about 60's Tamla Motown even as they bashed humans from the Caribbean at Notting Hill. The two are connected, if you dig Baby Love you cannot be a racist - can you?) that Johnson had done wrong was certain to get england on 'the right track'.

Then Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford pipes up and says the SNP might support putting Corbyn into Downing Street. "We’re only talking about putting somebody in place in order to call an election, and on that basis I wouldn’t be opposed to that."

SHOCK! Quelle horreur! The southern neolib rump of the labour party would really have no choice but to support that since not doing so would have them pretty much automatically thrown outta the party - yet the plan has always been "bugger Breshit Corbyn must never become PM".

So about 5 minutes later came this in the sleazy graun. A statement from a journo, not a Labour MP, yet it is copping far more emphasis "On the subject of who might head an interim government, if Boris Johnson were to lose a confidence vote and if the opposition parties were to unite behind someone else who could take over solely to negotiate a Brexit delay with the EU and then hold a general election, Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt says Margaret Beckett is a possible candidate."

This reeks of desperation.
IMO the neolibs have lost it. - Hubris has allowed them to take too much for granted. They are disorganised and leaderless, since no Labour Party member still remaining in the party wants to run the risk of becoming the next Chucka Umana - disappearing up his/her own arsehole in the dim light of irrelevancy.

Posted by: A User | Sep 25 2019 9:06 utc | 64

People, stop making wild comments that have no basis in reality. And you B, you are to blame. You had no idea how the Supreme Court would rule but let your bias speak. I don’t know what’s happening to you.
Posted by: A | Sep 25 2019 6:23 utc | 56

One suspects that you've overlooked a couple of factors.
1. UK law arrives at decisions based on what is perceived as "fair and reasonable" and includes such oddities as "benefit of the doubt".
2. UK law advocates for certain classes of crime to be tried by a judge and a jury of Common Folk i.e. legal ignoramuses capable of evaluating evidence and arriving at a conclusion. If the Defense Lawyer doesn't ask the right questions morons get onto juries. The existence of a jury system entitles any citizen to form an opinion about a particular case and to express it. That's not b's fault.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2019 9:12 utc | 65

Weirdest speech (in the current circumstances) by BoJo

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 9:22 utc | 66

> to prorogue Parliament for five weeks

i would say, that i'd side with Court this time. 5 freaking weeks, really? why not 5 months or 5 years then? There will always be some future governments and some next Queen Speech some day, so why not stop Parliament once and forever?

Posted by: Arioch | Sep 25 2019 9:41 utc | 67

> Not only UK Supreme court and Parliament infringed upon supremacy of national referendum

Posted by: Kalen | Sep 24 2019 17:34 utc

By which UK law does national referendum have a supremacy?

Posted by: Arioch | Sep 25 2019 9:54 utc | 68

Mina @ 67

Our Eton groomed PM is spooked at the UN and so he should be!!!

Bojo: “...You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google.

And if that is true today, in future there may be nowhere to hide.

Smart cities will pullulate with sensors, all joined together by the “internet of things”, bollards communing invisibly with lamp posts

So there is always a parking space for your electric car,
so that no bin goes unemptied, no street unswept, and the urban environment is as antiseptic as a Zurich pharmacy.

But this technology could also be used to keep every citizen under round-the-clock surveillance.

A future Alexa will pretend to take orders.

But this Alexa will be watching you...”

Reminded me of your Eisenhower moment when he warned us about the Military Industrial Complex...? We obviously didn't listen. Might be about time to Wake Up...

Posted by: Jayne | Sep 25 2019 10:33 utc | 69

el Gallinazo @ 10

"...Britain has no written constitution..'" Yep... The 'Death Cult' has always been in power it seems -- we just got the Smoke and Mirrors illusion. Adam Green is an interesting investigator that 'seems' to be tackling the topic head-on. He's accepted we have the current Frankist Cultists that have kept their breathen in line with $$$, Sex, Moral Sewer-Blackmail activity. Adam also is now mentioning "Freemasonry" . Connecting the dots certainly brings in the light on how our World has been 'managed' -- with disturbed supremacy ideology, their constant introduction of their 'War Toys' and 'Cannon-Fodder' to feed -- well -- to feed what?

Posted by: Jayne | Sep 25 2019 10:48 utc | 70

Let's stop pussyfooting around. There are two salient issues emerging from this gigantic kerfuffle.

A) Boris is proving to be a devious and stealth autocrat.

B) The Zionist wings of both parties will eat shet if necessary to keep Jeremy Corbyn from becoming the next Prime Minister.

If Brits don't react against these two undemocratic elements in their government, then they deserve an even bigger mess just like Amerikkkans are sinking into.

Posted by: Circe | Sep 25 2019 11:16 utc | 71

I suggest he was not inspired and had to read some Snowden/Assange writings to find some ideas. If only he could exchange his place with them!

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 11:40 utc | 72

An interesting development of the Brexit (or the BoJo?) crisis
is that a lot of MPs are asking for a written constitution

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 11:44 utc | 73

Standing and back and reviewing what Snowden/Assange brought to light -- they were 'only' messengers -- conduits -- and have always been restrained in what they cold reveal. Plus, all our MSM outlets are filtered as to what goes out to the masses and tend to be aligned with some faction wanting to control the narrative -- our reality basically.

Posted by: Jayne | Sep 25 2019 12:10 utc | 74

Posted by: Jayne | Sep 25 2019 10:33 utc | 70

Boris Johnson's speech is rambling idiocy. In the triangle of the French revolution, freedom, equality, solidarity, he opted for emphasising freedom (why do you think that is). His speech writer had the problem to make a speech out of it.

A few years ago they all - Merkel included - would have talked about the shared values of the western world, Boris Johnson would have talked about Hongkong, Iran etc.

This year, he could not. Maybe he planned to, but after the Saudi oil fire the speech had to be rewritten.

So Boris Johnson invents "free" British state of the art technology. As a matter of fact Britain plans to have a center for "data ethics" - all Western countries have, it is the new craze.

They try to set it up as a differential from China who have the leading edge in artificial intelligence.

It all depends on consumers being takers. It is very easy to get off the grid if you intend to.

I am slightly cynical about placing the freedom to starve over the right to eat.
China has made huge progress fighting starvation while Britain is top of food insecurity in Europe.

MPs call for 'minister for hunger' while charities urge Government to end benefits freeze One-in-five children aged under 15 live with an adult who was 'moderately or severely food insecure' MPs are urging the Government to appoint a "minister for hunger" to address the issue of one in five children in the UK facing hunger and malnutrition.

Some human rights advocates conveniently forget that life is the most basic human right of all.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2019 12:13 utc | 75

(posted on the wrong thread before, sorry)
I think we now get a hint at who wrote the speech! He must have had it in his archieved emails and pulled it out when the ground beneath his feet opened yesterday.
MPs now discussing PM's links with US businesswoman
The Commons is now moving on to a second Urgent Question - one which is potentially no less problematic for the prime minister.

Lib Dem Layla Moran says there has been a "misuse of funds and conflict of interest" in relation to a £100,000 cyber security grant given to Hacker House - a tech recruitment firm run by US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri.

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 12:40 utc | 76

somebody @ 76

Bojo: "...To persevering in the vital task of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East." - Admittedly Boris' speech writer came up with some hand-slap idiocy there, but truth is always mixed in with falsehoods 'smoke and mirrors' tactics in the art of politics eh! What Boris says if you observe 'patterns' you cannot deny.

" for Data Ethics..." -- a prominent joke? when governments have already handed over the 'back-door' to those companies that have created our supposed 'free' technology. I think Boris' speech in the end crushed that delusion. Plus, Google going to Sicily for their secret Cult-Fest with elite attendees brings to light even more of the lack of transparency and immoral direction they are creating with vested interests and $$$ behind closed doors.

With regards to the Saudi oil 'play' -- it maybe a bit off-topic, but I smiled when I read this little piece from Robert Fisk... Yep, some of us wonder why Israel and Saudi have a love of Black Cubes... Recently I've see Saudi Arabia in a whole different Light.

Robert Fisk: "...One option for Trump, now he knows Netanyahu’s fate, would be to turn on the Saudis, whose intelligence men chopped off poor Jamal Khashoggi’s head a year ago and did other unmentionable things to him before – let us speak frankly – disposing of him down a consulate drain, fountain or sink. Just what did the Saudi crown prince know about this abysmal, disgraceful affair? And let me add another question: was Khashoggi’s face turned towards Mecca when he was buried? Perhaps Mike Pompeo could actually ask Mohamed bin Salman, smiling broadly when he met him on Wednesday, what he knows about this gruesome killing of a very old friend of mine?

But that’s unkind. The Saudis are our allies – the Brits, remember, are still sponsoring them – and they tell us that the drone strikes by the Houthis/Iranians were “a test of global will”. And was our response to Khashoggi’s murder also a test of global will?..."

To shift and hopefully balance our collective consciousness to some kind of sane level of future humanity will require some changes and it won't be cannabalism... I can assure you of that. Although, checking the integrity our food supply as well as our personal data security might be required.

Posted by: Jayne | Sep 25 2019 12:46 utc | 77

I am of the opinion that the will of the majority of the British voters expressed by referendum to leave the EU should have been inplemented. It wasn't because the overwhelming power of capital, media and the political elite are for EU neoliberalism and Remain. This includes Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn no matter the optics and pretense they are something other. The remarks of ex Syriza MP and academic Costas Lapavitsas may be helpful:

Lexit Reloaded

Posted by: John Gilberts | Sep 25 2019 12:58 utc | 78

Nobody says it won't be implemented, but as made clear from two documentaries linked by Noirette a while ago, the Brits did not prepare any deal. They prefer to let the city lawyers deal with real problems usually.

Now, if the UK voters were asked, do they really want to end up a US colony (more than they are already)?
And why would the fate of the Scots and North-Irish be decided by Welsh and Brits?

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 13:33 utc | 79

Of course people on both sides of this issue are desperate to have it resolved! But both sides consider this paramount to the future of the United Kingdom and their children's futures. When Brexit was voted on it was presented on the ballot as a simple binary decision on the part of the voter - do you want to remain in the EU or not. After the vote, people suddenly realised that leaving the EU could be done in many ways - from a deal with the EU that envisioned Britain being almost completely part of the EU (customs union, single market member) to the extreme of an outright clean break - no deal. Parliament was amenable to leaving with a deal of some kind, but could not agree on what kind of deal would be acceptable- as with any democratic house there were many opposing views - and still are! As a result, because no one could agree what 'leaving the EU meant', Parliament became hung, not able to agree anything but ONE thing - it could not possibly accept a no deal exit from the EU which they consider to be economically catastrophic for the country and would likely lead to the breakup of the Union. The country is split as well - the general population holding many views. And then there are those who feel that the intervening years since the referendum have disclosed many of the serious economic and political problems the country would be faced with in ANY exit, and so have staunchly refused to consider leaving the EU at all (the Remainers).

It is now apparent that there will be no deal agreed with the EU that could possibly pass Parliament, regardless of what Boris Johnson claims. This places the country at a very uncomfortable position of either accepting the deal already agreed with the EU by the May government before (which almost everyone hated), leaving without a deal or revoking our decision to leave and thus remain in the EU. Normally, after such detailed analysis over the years, one would think that the logical solution would be to put the decision back to the voters in another referendum. But this is abjectly resisted by most in Parliament today as they feel it would deny the first referendum vote and discredit the entire process.

So you can begin to see the complexity of the issue. Many (most?) who voted in the 2016 referendum for Leaving the EU did so with the idea that a reasonable deal could be done with the EU - indeed, they were pointedly promised this be the Leave Campaign. When that did not happen, it opened the floodgates to all sorts of dissent, denial, obfuscation, accusations, and outright anger on both sides. We have received extensions twice now, but at some point the EU will have to stop giving us extensions and force us to make up our minds. At that point, I see us being forced to decide once and for all to remain with the EU or leave without a deal. It's like a gigantic soap opera nightmare that no one can escape and no matter how hard we pinch ourselves, we can't wake up.

Posted by: Victor | Sep 25 2019 13:34 utc | 80

Posted by: Jayne | Sep 25 2019 12:46 utc | 79

There seems to have been a European, Israeli, Trump alignment versus Iran.

What I see from Germany, they talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Maybe they are trying to help Trump to climb down, no sanctions versus an Iran deal and maybe the Nobel peace price.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2019 13:51 utc | 81

Call it British dialectic or U-turn:
"Cabinet Minister Michael Gove, who has responsibility for preparing for no-deal, has begun his statement in the Commons.

He tells MPs that he "commends the prime minister and colleagues for progress in negotiations".

"It's better for all of us if we can leave with a withdrawal agreement in place," he said."

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 14:29 utc | 82

The result of the ‘supreme GB’ court surprised me. The issue was a pol. matter, and not a judiciary one, imho, ergo, the court would render some kind of fudge. Motive and intent count in everyday life, and in criminal, plus civil/other rules/law (ex. manslaughter vs. homicide..) but for the performance of an official act, e.g. baptising a ship, marrying a sweet couple, declaring war, motive does not, or should not/cannot, count as the act is sufficient to itself!

The sentiment .. By golly gosh we can’t possibly countenance this something must bloody well be done.. is understandable - imagining a PM who prorogues Parliament for 4 months because his daughter is marrying a guitarist in Hawaii and he wants time off. Yet, going the judiciary route seems really askew to me, if Bojo is a scoundrel, a vote of no-confidence takes place, basta.

I wondered about these August Authorities, found that John W. at The Slog (pro-Brexit) gives a brief slanted acerbic portrait for each. (link)

Two weeks ago or so, Bojo was calling for a new general election but Labour refused, none other than Tony B-liar had publically advised not falling into that trap — but now Corbyn is agitating FOR a general election! Crikey. (> several other posters above who make a similar point ..)

All of the turmoil, hysteria, false news and declarations.. Moves (e.g. the Benn Act, link) which reportedly prevents a ‘no deal’ outcome (or at least goes a good ways..), are just deceptive fluff, as one cannot prevent ‘no deal’ by controlling, if that is even possible, one party to the deal. Sparkly floss so that MPs can wide-eyed stutter to their constituents they “voted to stop no-deal!”

A no-deal crash-out is baked in - i’m repeatin’ since a year or so…

Short extensions (of art. 50 end-date) change nothing in the pol. landscape in the UK - it is more than 3 years now and no compromise position can be found. Long extensions imho are no longer possible, not from the UK side or the EU, though the EU will bend over backwards, will grant extensions, etc. to mitigate as best as it can all the negative effects, and of course to escape blame for the debacle, to not ‘own’ it. But their patience is wearing thin, and a ‘long extension’ doesn’t serve them.

Remainers are crowing Victory as > prorog. parl. = ‘unlawful’ - which has no effect on the big picture, it is pathetic.

Britannia no longer rules the waves and soon won’t rule N. Ireland either. (Scotland more complicated.) The ultimate splintering, break-up, of a mighty empire. Its future is as a vassal to the US, as is already clear. Ex. Bojo blaming Iran for attack on KSA and sucking up to Trump. The last dregs, territorially v. small areas, will be extorted and manipulated by the US.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 25 2019 15:26 utc | 83

The House of Commons had three years to do this. Why does anyone imagine the next couple of weeks will be different? There is no sign of a breakthrough. They are mired exactly where they were years ago.

This accomplishes nothing. They can't do it, with or without a few weeks more time.

Posted by: Mark Thomason | Sep 25 2019 16:03 utc | 84

Mina #32
"in addition to developing tools such as linguee

Is the Linguee site a project of the EU?
I use it all the time. It is really excellent!
I just assumed it was another free translation site.

Posted by: Really?? | Sep 25 2019 16:23 utc | 85

Mina @81

As ever, when not a Brit, the mistake is made that posits the ENGLISH as THE British (the Brits) and the Scots, Welsh etc., as well, Welsh and Scots - but not Brits. The Irish are the Irish and the Northern Irish an admixture of all parts of the BRITISH Isles.

The United Kingdom as a term for the British Isles (referring to the Britons, early inhabitants of the islands and obliquely to Bretagne, a part of France)arose fairly late in the history of the islands following the 1707 Union of Scotland with England and Wales (not a union favored by the vox populi of both sides of the border, by the way, but desired by the ruling elites and engineered by the English aristocracy's need for a monarch). Prior to the United Kingdom it had been known as Britain, Great Britain (from Grande Bretagne).

The British (Brits) refers to all inhabitants of the islands, willy nilly of their locus or ancestors background.

Posted by: AnneR | Sep 25 2019 16:26 utc | 86

@86 kc... nice comments @54... regarding ot stuff - many here do read the open thread that is still running... go check it out and see for yourself... open threads only happen when b doesn't have anything, otherwise they seem to happen once a week..

@a user - i had to look up your use of 'brenda' for the queen... you bring a lot of humour to moa!

i agree with galloway here --From now on, many, maybe most things, will be ultimately decided not in parliament by elected MPs but in courts by unelected judges..

Posted by: james | Sep 25 2019 16:29 utc | 87

BoJo breaks the law yet again as he "Enters Neocon Heaven" according to Craig Murray. In the process of revealing BoJo's latest transgression, Murray takes apart the "reasoning" used in the lame attempt to blame Iran for Ansarullah's legitimate attack on Saudi oil infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Corbyn promises to attack a key pillar in the private property regime--patents on medicines.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 25 2019 16:36 utc | 88

If you notice, it is mainly a collection of EU texts; I doubt the person who had access to all the data simply woke up with a good idea.

here you go
here presented as neutral, independent,
and here it seems more like home-cooked

I wonder if Leonard Fink is a real name.. I find not much about him in relation to such a project/field.

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 17:28 utc | 89

Dear AnneR, Thanks! What a headache. Indeed, i thought they were just the inhabitants of Britain/Britanny being the other side of the channel.

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2019 17:30 utc | 90

Whether in or out of the EU doesn't matter one jot. The place will still be run by and for the globalist banking cartel. The super rich will keep on getting richer while everybody else treads water at best.

Posted by: Thomas | Sep 25 2019 18:10 utc | 91

re Victor | Sep 25 2019 13:34 utc | 82
Most of the three years was taken up with May's unworkable red lines. She stuck to those lines all 12 of 'em are listed here through all negotiations in england with other parties and with the EU in Brussels.
Leavers believed they were too soft and remainers found 'em too strict on things like freedom of movement, so she could never get sufficient support in parliament, even after that camel of a deal she eventually reached with the EU.
IOW for 33 of the 36 months that Brexit was meant to be planned, nothing useful happened.
Historians may well see May who was largely a ventriloquist doll for her 'city' finance hubby, as being a remainer deliberately blocking brexit and the fault for that lies entirely with the tories as they should have dumped her long before.
Substantial and irrevocable movement on worker's rights and organisation would have got the Labour Party onside, but May wouldn't offer anything more than flimsy easily revocable tosh. Boris & co making a big deal outta the Irish backstop is pretty much the same. If england wants brexit more than anything else, they are going to have to accept a single state Ireland, if they don't, they will not get brexit, no matter how hard Germany & France are pressured. The reason is simple, like any union, such a public failure to defend a member against an outsider destroys the purpose of the union.

Posted by: A User | Sep 25 2019 18:32 utc | 92

Boris Johnson just attacked Monarchy, but did not get away with it.

Asking Queen for prorogation was asking the Monarch to essentially give
endorsement to Brexit. And drag Queen into divisive politics.
A big no no.
The unelected step in — and smack back the arrogant power grabber.
He latched onto Brexit, knowing full well that today more people would vote
for Brexit then before. All he has to do is grandstand.
Feel bad for people. Politicians are not up to the task.
Thus, remain — high finance wins.
No deal Brexit — US wins.

Posted by: Bianca | Sep 26 2019 6:04 utc | 93

Is Trump being impeached now to clear the way for Pence, who is already on board to start the War on IRAN, a war Trump has refused to launch?

Why now, and why on such a weak case, unless both sides, Dems and Reps, are ready to frame Trump and drown out the narrative? Is Bolton behind this?

Posted by: EtTuBrute | Sep 26 2019 19:30 utc | 94

Let's clear a few things up:

Only the people are sovereign. Parliament is acting against the people and for the EU, globalists and anybody else who will serve their interests

There is no doubt the EU is an anti-democratic organisation that now talks of 'empires' ruling the world

The Blairite 'Supreme Court' has made an opinion not a legal reqirement - it is stuffed full of EU acolytes

A majority of British people see this and have voted, in a binding election, to leave the EU

Tell me, after three years who exactly is acting illegally?

Posted by: bob | Sep 27 2019 14:29 utc | 95

Taking a break from impeachment matters, I see there's plenty similar lawbreaking going on in the UK Supreme Court as thanks to James, is expressed by Galloway thusly:

"...It is true that the prime minister set out to frustrate the ability of the parliament to "stymie" him. But it is also true that the parliament itself has set out to frustrate the decision of the British people to leave the EU. And not for a week but for three long years..."

Now, we the general public don't like this state of affairs - either one! I don't consider myself a rabble rouser, but as far as I can see in both cases laws or nonlaws are being stretched into 'it is what I say it is' and that can't be right!

I guess I am no longer a British subject in some eyes, but native born antipodally I was such, and to me you don't upstage the Queen, so I'm guessing no one of my heritage is very happy with what their Court has done. Especially, as b states in his headline, because if they didn't get it sorted in three years, how can doing a further stretch of weeks or days help. I think the Brits want a resolution, and Johnson had provided a simple path forward, with the Queen's accord as is proper. So people could go back to their fish'n chips, or tea and crumpets, and welcome visitors and set up probably returns to trade with the Commonwealth as in earlier times - maybe even get the trains doing what they are supposed to do, as British trains.

I remember being very upset with the US Supreme Court when they upturned US citizens rights to have their votes counted and recounted if necessary and made the decision themselves. That was our Rubicon; now the Brits have theirs.

And I thought I was coming here for a bit of straight talk about hearts of oak. Back to impeachment I go.

Posted by: juliania | Sep 29 2019 0:29 utc | 96

The comments to this entry are closed.