Zompist Bboard Again

Brief interlude: the Extinction Rebellion trust fund people are back. Evidentally they're worried that they're not unpopular enough - boasting about causing misery for Londoners and spraying gallons of fake blood in the streets weren't enough to make themselves really obnoxious, so now they've 'branded' a local white horse landmark with their logo for a photo-op. Apparently, defacing ancient monuments is symbolic of how humanity is defacing the earth.

It's kind of like that time when Greenpeace decided to destroy those Nazca monuments for a photoshoot. Although to be fair, apparently the permanent damage this time was minimal (they basically just littered over the monument, and the issue is really more about them trampling over it than about the litter per se, which the owner has already had removed).

[white horses are gigantic pictures of horses cut into chalk uplands. They're imitations of the only prehistoric white horse, in Oxfordshire, but they are themselves in many cases two or three centuries old. They're symbols of community and continuity, because locals have to periodically 'scour' the chalk to keep them visible, so they're continually re-created, evolving artworks produced by the community as a whole. In this case, local schoolchildren had recently cleaned and scoured the horse, and were apparently left in tears when realising that a bunch of public school hooligans from nowhere nearby had come and defaced it as a branding exercise.]

Extinction Rebellion used the slogan "March for Life" at least once but they seemed to have abandoned it the last time I looked .... i wonder if they had some conflict with anti-abortion protestors.

I wouldn't have thought so - does ER even HAVE a presence in northern ireland?

Back on our main theme: Parliament's officially prorogued now.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:36 pm Back on our main theme: Parliament's officially prorogued now.

Legally, this time?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:39 pm I wouldn't have thought so - does ER even HAVE a presence in northern ireland?

Yes: https://rebellion.earth/2019/07/10/expl ... n-ireland/

This may come as a shock, but meanwhile in Britain, Brexit continues to be a knife-edge meltdown.

A new deal has been agreed with the EU. This basically leaves northern ireland in the EU and establishes a hard border down the irish sea... but says it doesn't (NI will legally be declared to 'remain in the UK customs area', but will simply, by law, act like it's part of the EU customs area)

This has two problems attached: one, the DUP have said they see through the charade and won't vote for it; and two, it would be illegal, due to a law passed by the government under pressure from the ERG earlier this year, which prohibits NI having a different customs policy than GB. Campaigners have already sued to have the courts rule such a deal illegal.

Meanwhile, as part of the deal, Juncker has declared that the UK won't be allowed a new extension under any circumstances. This is because Johnson knows that the only way he can get any deal passed is by persuading the Commons that it's a two-way no-deal vs my-deal situation, which he can't do so long as there's still a hope of an extension.

Everything is now weird. Nigel Farage has condemned Juncker, lambasting the injustice of unelected foreign bureaucrats overruling the democratically chosen Benn Act (which until last week he was denouncing as the 'surrender bill' and describing as treason). Meanwhile, campaigners against no deal are taking the government to court to prevent a deal.

It's not clear, however, whether Juncker really means it, or what it means if he does - presumably the EU leaders could simply overrule him if they wanted.

And they may have to face that dilemma. On Saturday, assuming the deal is confirmed by the EU leaders, Parliament will vote on it, in a special session (they don't normally sit on Saturdays, so this required a special motion to pass). But the Government has just lost a vote on an amendment to that motion that will allow MPs to suggest amendments to the vote on the deal. It is apparently now believed that the Remainers probably have the numbers to pass a bill bringing about a Second Referendum.

Nobody knows what that Referendum would end up saying. Remain are consistently slightly ahead in in/out polling, though they're sometimes slightly below Leave when people are given a range of Leave options to pick from. A real referendum would of course depend on what 'Leave' actually looked like meaning at the time of the referendum. And apparently Remain are only ahead because of their support from voters (i.e. young people) with a low propensity to vote, so it could all come down to turnout.

Of course, the referendum would be rather pointless if we've already crashed out with No Deal. Saturday is the deadline for the Benn Act: if Parliament doesn't agree a deal on Saturday, that triggers the legal requirement for Johnson to ask for a referendum. The government position on this continues to be that he emphatically will not ever under any circumstances do this, but also that he emphatically, without question, will. Nobody knows what this means. And then it'll come down to what the EU say. This is one reason why rebels want to hold the vote on having a referendum on Saturday - because that changes the offer to the EU from "give us an extension, so that we can do this again in three months", to "give us an extension, so that we can have a referendum to cancel all of this", which will probably be a lot more appealing.


FWIW, given that the EU may reject an extension and that, if so, we'll have No Deal if MPs don't accept the new deal, it's not impossible that Johnson may get his deal passed. However, the DUP are against, allegedly, and ten of the remainer Independent Conservatives voted for the Letwin Amendment (to allow amendments on the vote, which probably, though not necessarily, means support for a second refeendum). So it'll take a lot of Labour defectors. Corbyn says he'll imitate Johnson and throw anyone who votes for the deal out of Labour forever. But will he? It wouldn't be the first time he's changed his mind (or had it changed for him) on a question of party discipline, and do Labour really want to be the guys who voted for No Deal?

However, since this vote is on the 19th, and No Deal isn't until the 31st, I think the deal is dead for now - rebels will probably vote it down, ask for an extension, and then if that's refused, they still have the safety cushion of being able to agree to the deal later on. So does Johnson need to persuade the EU to make this, in some way, a one-time offer? A radical option would be proroguing parliament yet again - it would be obviously illegal and certain to be annulled by the courts, but that might take long enough that it's all a fait accompli by then? I don't think so, though - proroguing works best as a threat, and a threat lets the courts see it coming and stop it.

It's all very unclear.

My instinct is still that it'll be No Deal. But this new deal and No Brexit still seem like live possibilities...


(leaked election campaign materials, FWIW, show that the Tories are planning for an extension, though we don't know how seriously)



EDIT: oh, and that court case to have the courts take over our foreign policy? That's still happening. The judges, however, have said that given the PM's absolute assurances that he will beg for an extension, they'll wait to see whether he does or not before overruling him. So... that's still hanging over us, too.


EDIT EDIT: oh, there's another complication! The government says that Saturday's vote will be on a double-edged motion to EITHER accept the deal, OR have a No Deal.

Three problems with this: such a vote (which effectively rules out the 'neither' option by fiat) may be illegal; this vote fails to meet the demands of the Benn Act, which specifies what the vote must be on, word by word; and such a vote wouldn't count as a 'withdrawal agreement bill' as previously defined, so the government admits they'll have that separately next week... so that could in turn be voted against. Campaigners, you will not be stunned to learn, have already promised to take the government to court if it tries any of this.

I just read up on Wikipedia on the Brexit timeline so far, and - do I understand it correctly that the currently running extension was granted two days before there would have been a no-deal Brexit without it?

EDIT: Checking old pages of this thread, it was apparently more like one day.

Yes.

Anyway, some more complications: Corbyn's now reportedly backed down, and there'll be no penalty at all for any Labour MPs who want to vote for the Deal. However, reportedly, the National Executive are now saying that even if Corbyn doesn't withdraw the whip, they'll exclude any rebel MPs from standing for reelection.

The SNP, meanwhile, have tabled their own amendment for Saturday, but this one demands a general election instead of a referendum.Technically, it's possible we could end up with a referendum, an election AND a no deal brexit...

Meanwhile, the vice-president of the european parliament and the leaders of half a dozen eu countries have lined up to say that, pace Junker, they'd be happy to give a further extension if asked.

In further 'everything is weird now' news: the DUP have condemned the deal for 'driving a coach and horses' through the Good Friday Agreement, which must be preserved at all costs. Meanwhile: the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement, and have never stopped opposing it, and have refused to sign it. Everything is weird now.

Oh, and the government's now saying that the migration and settlement status of Irish citizens will be "clarified", but only after the deal/brexit. That... sounds ominous. It seems hard to imagine they'd change the status quo (Irish citizens have freedom of movement and can settle at will without needing to apply for paperwork to do so), since it would be suicidal. But why mention it at all, if everything will stay the same? And of course, conceptually there is a giganti loophole there: any EU citizen can settle in Ireland, any EU citizen who settles in Ireland can get Irish citizenship, and any Irish citizen is immediately free to permanently settle in the UK, which basically means no way to prevent immigration, only to slow it down...


Meanwhile! This deal doesn't actually prevent no deal! This deal takes us into a transition period, but it only gives us two years to agree a comprehensive trade deal with the EU (compared to 7 years for the Canada-EU deal). If no deal is agreed by then, then there's a possible one-year extension, after which by law no more extensions will be possible and we'll drop out without a deal.


Meanwhile! I think Tuesday is when we'll get the final vote on the Queen's Speech. Johnson looks set to be the first PM since the 1920s to lose the vote on the Queen's Speech, and possibly the first in history to lose the vote and continue to try to be PM.




In July, incidentally, Johnson described his current deal as "a constitutional abomination", "a monstrosity" that "no British Conservative government could or should sign up to". It would be, he said, "damaging to the fabric of the union", and therefore "under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish sea".

MEANWHILE!

Over in Northern Ireland, there's actually another deadline coming up: October 21st. That's the day when armageddon happens, gay marriage is allowed and the abortion ban is massively relaxed.... unless the DUP is able to restore devolved power by then.

This crisis has finally kickstarted NI politics, with 1/3rd of the suspended Assembly voting to reconvene (the votes were organised by a pressure group called Both Lives Matter, and I can't believe the Americans didn't claim that name already...). This means the Assembly, which hasn't met in nearly three years, will finally sit on Monday 20th. However, the new laws take effect unless the Assembly can actually elect an Executive. Which will probably be impossible, since Sinn Fein have already said they'll be boycotting the session. Indeed, even having a vote on the new laws, or the Executive, may not be possible, since it would require electing a Speaker...

I havent kept up lately. I just wanted to post that I hadnt known until now that the verb "table" has two almost completely opposite definitions, apparently divided between US and Commonwealth speech. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/table#Verb

I realise, however, that I forgot to mention a major landmark:

two days ago, after three months, the government won a vote!


Yes, it succesfully passed the "Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives)" regulations of 2019 - an administrative law that returns legislative and administrative responsibility for air and water quality regulations from the EU to the UK in the event of Brexit. Even this success was only possible because the SNP abstained.

I was surprised Johnson even managed to get a new deal but remains to be seen what will become of it. It seems things can become better just by being your own...

And now for something completely different: Who's ready for the UK's season finale?https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0_6issy3oo

The Mash Report also has videos on Eextinciton Rebellion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE8bhL-u7no and Guide to reducing immigration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTKAP-HOwbE

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:53 pm Oh, and the government's now saying that the migration and settlement status of Irish citizens will be "clarified", but only after the deal/brexit. That... sounds ominous. It seems hard to imagine they'd change the status quo (Irish citizens have freedom of movement and can settle at will without needing to apply for paperwork to do so), since it would be suicidal. But why mention it at all, if everything will stay the same? And of course, conceptually there is a giganti loophole there: any EU citizen can settle in Ireland, any EU citizen who settles in Ireland can get Irish citizenship, and any Irish citizen is immediately free to permanently settle in the UK, which basically means no way to prevent immigration, only to slow it down...

Irish citizens as Irish citizens rather than Maltese citizens only have freedom of movement and instant settled status if they last entered the UK and British islands from the Republic. (Under the British Nationality Act 1981. they get a 'qualifying CTA exemption'.) They have no more rights than the Maltese if they last enter from Spain (e.g. after a package holiday; the example given when defining this status was arriving via Eurostar). The lost Immigration Bill would have 'clarified' the situation by giving them the CTA rights regardless of where they arrive from. At present, this free movement can be suspended by Statutory Instrument, for example if the Republic adopts too liberal an immigration policy (Immigration Act 1971). Under the Immigration Bill, the UK government would lose the power to limit Irish immigration.

I chose the Maltese as an example because they are also EU citizens who are not foreigners. (Once established in the UK, they have a very slightly greater right as Commonwealth citizens.)

The Letwin Amendment just passed, 322 to 306.

Johnson says he won't ask for a delay, and claims he's not required to do so by law.

Jo Swinson proposed interrupting the sitting so that Johnson has time to send his letter asking for a delay.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:54 am Johnson says he won't ask for a delay, and claims he's not required to do so by law.

The word he used was 'negotiate', which is subtly different. In law, all he has to do is ask.

In fact, the line seems to be that he won't even ask - rather, he will merely send the letter in which Parliament asks. He's referring to it as 'Parliament's letter', rather than his own - although I think in reality he'll have to sign it.

Raphael's not alone, though - not only a bunch of news people but also the Tory Party's own twitter happily exclaimed that Johnson wouldn't send the letter... leading to some enjoyable corrections for those of us who understand that the standards of accuracy required by modern journalists and twitter wars are not quite up to the levels required for understanding legally-important distinctions...

Anyway:

- there were two motions. One to accept the Deal, one to vote for No Deal. The idea was that if the first failed, they'd have the second.

- the Deal motion had the Letwin amendment attached. The amendment was approved, effectively negating the effect of the motion itself. As a result, both sides let the motion itself go through without a vote - it was passed, but neutered by the amendment. [the amendment accepts the "here's a new deal" bit of the motion, but replaces "and the house approves of it" with "and the house has read it but will not approve it until the appropriate legislation has been passed"].

- the No Deal motion had the Kyle amendment attached, which would have triggered a second referendum. Because the first motion went through, the government didn't move the second motion, so the amendment wasn't voted on.

The Letwin amendment basically fixes a loophole in the Benn Act. The Benn Act required the PM to ask for an extension if Parliament didn't vote for his deal. However! The PM tried to get Parliament to vote for his deal as a simple motion of approval, and there was concern that, even if this passed, it wouldn't guarantee that the deal actually became law. That requires the passage of an actual bill, the Withdrawal Bill, with all the legal footnotes put in place and everything. So it was possible that Parliament would vote on approving the theory of the deal (so no extension required under the Benn Act), but then fail to actually agree to pass the text of the deal into law - by which time it might be too late to ask for an extension and we'd accidentally have No Deal. So the Letwin amendment basically says that Parliament won't approve the deal officially until Parliament has actually passed the legislation that the deal requires.

[Deal = agreement between the two countries to do such-and-such. Act = actually, legally, doing such-and-such. Worryingly, the EU Parliament won't actually bother legislating its side of the deal until after Brexit has happened, so they might still reject it and we'd suddenly have No Deal out of the blue... although that's not considered likely.]

The problem with that from Johnson's point of view is that this means that the Benn Act has been triggered.

Which may be ironic. Because commentators have done their counting and their interviews and their extrapolations, and they think that, actually, Johnson might well have enough votes for the deal! [ironically, Letwin himself says he supports the deal] So it may be that the PM agrees to a deal, and the EU agrees to a deal, and Parliament would agree to a deal, but the PM has to ask for an extension anyway... alternatively, the EU might actually agree an extension BEFORE the vote on the deal, which would kind of remove a lot of the urgency that's driving some people to vote for the deal...

We don't know, though - both sides avoided a symbolic vote today. The necessary Act will arrive on Tuesday, and could be passed Tuesday in a really accelerated process. However, it's possible that, as happened with May, some people who agree to the theory cavill at actually agreeing to the legal document - so even if the government could have won today, they might not win on Tuesday or Wednesday.

On Monday, meanwhile, the government is planning a(nother) "Meaningful Vote", essentially a re-run of today's vote but without the amendment. However, the Speaker is likely to prohibit this on the grounds that you can't just keep voting on the same thing.



After the vote today, police had to escort MPs from Parliament, as both sides were heckled by an angry mob with cries of "shame! shame! shame!" and "traitor!", as well as the more pleasantly English "you're really not a good person!" and "it's about time we stopped all this!"...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:51 pm [Deal = agreement between the two countries to do such-and-such. Act = actually, legally, doing such-and-such. Worryingly, the EU Parliament won't actually bother legislating its side of the deal until after Brexit has happened, so they might still reject it and we'd suddenly have No Deal out of the blue... although that's not considered likely.]

Without the approval of the EU Parliament, don't we effectively enter a 'no deal' situation as far as matters go outside the UK?

It seems that the UK by default has 14 months from the current exit date to get various UK certification authorities up to the standard required by the EU; EU assessments won't start until the UK has left. Is that going to be enough? The original plan called for 21 months.