RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

I'm probably being naïve here (or possibly less naïve about where things are heading), but I'm not sure the divisions can get much worse than they're currently headed for. Either No Deal or Revoke will almost certainly end with violence on the streets.
I would certainly have any 3rd referendum being required to abide by electoral commission regulations, however; which should curb some of the bullshit; and I think politicians themselves stand a much better chance at countering what bullshit there would be, now they shouldn't be caught unawares. Of course, the bullshitters are presumably more accomplished now as well.

As for what should go on the referendum - I'd favour a preferential system of some sort with the various options included; Remain, "Norway" EEA, "Swiss" EFTA, "Turkish" Customs Union, "Canadian" CETA, No Deal. All existing "off the shelf" options with known, provable costs and benefits, no imaginary "plus"s anywhere - none of this "your vote for Norway+ can only be interpreted as a vote for No Deal bollocks.
But then I also still think that, with a long enough extension, the EU would renegotiate - but only if we withdrew Theresa's personal red lines (rather than Boris's additional red lines); though I suspect that any renegotiation would be in the form of "have this existing deal that we have with another country". I know that this is not a popular opinion.

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

I've not read the bill in detail; and I'm not a legal expert of any system; but... the bill is creating a new law; surely breaking it would be a criminal offense by definition?

Mellsblue wrote:Supposedly, Macron has now poopooed the CETA (++) option due to the fact the UK is only 25 miles from Calais.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:As your point was about healing, the risk is clearly making the divisions we see worse (and accompanying disgraceful dialogue), which a narrow majority either way will likely do, though its just possible that remainers will shrug their shoulders if a narrow leave vote.

I should, though, have asked what the referendum question would be?

I'm probably being naïve here (or possibly less naïve about where things are heading), but I'm not sure the divisions can get much worse than they're currently headed for. Either No Deal or Revoke will almost certainly end with violence on the streets.
I would certainly have any 3rd referendum being required to abide by electoral commission regulations, however; which should curb some of the bullshit; and I think politicians themselves stand a much better chance at countering what bullshit there would be, now they shouldn't be caught unawares. Of course, the bullshitters are presumably more accomplished now as well.

As for what should go on the referendum - I'd favour a preferential system of some sort with the various options included; Remain, "Norway" EEA, "Swiss" EFTA, "Turkish" Customs Union, "Canadian" CETA, No Deal. All existing "off the shelf" options with known, provable costs and benefits, no imaginary "plus"s anywhere - none of this "your vote for Norway+ can only be interpreted as a vote for No Deal bollocks.
But then I also still think that, with a long enough extension, the EU would renegotiate - but only if we withdrew Theresa's personal red lines (rather than Boris's additional red lines); though I suspect that any renegotiation would be in the form of "have this existing deal that we have with another country". I know that this is not a popular opinion.

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

I've not read the bill in detail; and I'm not a legal expert of any system; but... the bill is creating a new law; surely breaking it would be a criminal offense by definition?

I think you are being over-optimistic tbh, and I think that list of stuff for the referendum is incomprehensible to Joe public- hell the MPs couldn't make any sense of it, and demonstrably didn't understand the options and ramifications. These issues are precisely why parliament exists to represent the populace; however the genie is out of the bottle, partly because parliament have proved so useless.

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Supposedly, Macron has now poopooed the CETA (++) option due to the fact the UK is only 25 miles from Calais.

It's clear from that that JRM is winning - Macron using imperial units, I mean.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: I'm probably being naïve here (or possibly less naïve about where things are heading), but I'm not sure the divisions can get much worse than they're currently headed for. Either No Deal or Revoke will almost certainly end with violence on the streets.
I would certainly have any 3rd referendum being required to abide by electoral commission regulations, however; which should curb some of the bullshit; and I think politicians themselves stand a much better chance at countering what bullshit there would be, now they shouldn't be caught unawares. Of course, the bullshitters are presumably more accomplished now as well.

As for what should go on the referendum - I'd favour a preferential system of some sort with the various options included; Remain, "Norway" EEA, "Swiss" EFTA, "Turkish" Customs Union, "Canadian" CETA, No Deal. All existing "off the shelf" options with known, provable costs and benefits, no imaginary "plus"s anywhere - none of this "your vote for Norway+ can only be interpreted as a vote for No Deal bollocks.
But then I also still think that, with a long enough extension, the EU would renegotiate - but only if we withdrew Theresa's personal red lines (rather than Boris's additional red lines); though I suspect that any renegotiation would be in the form of "have this existing deal that we have with another country". I know that this is not a popular opinion.


I've not read the bill in detail; and I'm not a legal expert of any system; but... the bill is creating a new law; surely breaking it would be a criminal offense by definition?

I think you are being over-optimistic tbh, and I think that list of stuff for the referendum is incomprehensible to Joe public- hell the MPs couldn't make any sense of it, and demonstrably didn't understand the options and ramifications. These issues are precisely why parliament exists to represent the populace; however the genie is out of the bottle, partly because parliament have proved so useless.

Let’s be honest, in any election most of the population don’t know what they’re voting for. It just needs to be a comprehensive list of options so nobody can then say we weren’t given instructions of exactly what the public so we’ll having a pissing contest for the next 5 years.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think you are being over-optimistic tbh, and I think that list of stuff for the referendum is incomprehensible to Joe public- hell the MPs couldn't make any sense of it, and demonstrably didn't understand the options and ramifications. These issues are precisely why parliament exists to represent the populace; however the genie is out of the bottle, partly because parliament have proved so useless.

Let’s be honest, in any election most of the population don’t know what they’re voting for. It just needs to be a comprehensive list of options so nobody can then say we weren’t given instructions of exactly what the public so we’ll having a pissing contest for the next 5 years.

really? You could easily end up with a load of old sh..........

as you were.

This all sound rather French to me- the process being more important than the outcome. Which is a decent point.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Lizard wrote:So I’ve read the Benn Bill. I think there’s a problem with it. Although it requires the PM to send a letter to the EU requesting an extension, there is no express consequence if that is not done. It seems to me (not a UK public law expert) that the only way to enforce it would be for someone to sue Boris for failure to discharge a statutory duty, and seek a mandatory injunction requiring him to do so, and then when he doesn’t, going back to court for an order holding him in contempt and if he doesn’t cure his contempt getting an order for his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

They should have made failure to comply a criminal offence right from the start.

Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

Who would lead this rebel govt. Swinson and Hammond have said it can’t be Corbyn, Corbyn won’t allow it to be some other Lab MP, for obvious reasons, and a majority Lab govt surely can’t be led by a Tory.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

Who would lead this rebel govt. Swinson and Hammond have said it can’t be Corbyn, Corbyn won’t allow it to be some other Lab MP, for obvious reasons, and a majority Lab govt surely can’t be led by a Tory.

Obviously it couldn't be the leader of any of the parties. But the soon to retire Vince Cable should be harmless enough to Corbyn and probably acceptable to the exiled formed Tories. Or some independent MP. Whether Corbyn could cope with Benn (et al) I'm not 100% sure. But let's face it, this would only need to be in place for a few days to implement the extension (should Corbyn, or pretty much anyone really, want to pull the plug after that).

Of course, I would prefer a more stable coalition, since with first past the post and the billionaire press and people voting for all kinds of reasons other than Brexit, I've no confidence that a BJ/Farage government wouldn't result from a GE. Calling one now (or the next few months) seems like a throw of the dice to me (actually, russian roulette with three bullets is closer), whereas (admittedly with heroic levels of cooperation) I can believe that a coalition could negotiate a soft Brexit deal and bring it to the country in a second referendum.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Let’s be honest, in any election most of the population don’t know what they’re voting for. It just needs to be a comprehensive list of options so nobody can then say we weren’t given instructions of exactly what the public so we’ll having a pissing contest for the next 5 years.

really? You could easily end up with a load of old sh..........

as you were.

This all sound rather French to me- the process being more important than the outcome. Which is a decent point.

The process needs to lead to a concrete instruction to Parliament. We can then make the best of whatever the outcome is and concentrate on trivial stuff like eduction, social care etc

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

Who would lead this rebel govt. Swinson and Hammond have said it can’t be Corbyn, Corbyn won’t allow it to be some other Lab MP, for obvious reasons, and a majority Lab govt surely can’t be led by a Tory.

Obviously it couldn't be the leader of any of the parties. But the soon to retire Vince Cable should be harmless enough to Corbyn and probably acceptable to the exiled formed Tories. Or some independent MP. Whether Corbyn could cope with Benn (et al) I'm not 100% sure. But let's face it, this would only need to be in place for a few days to implement the extension (should Corbyn, or pretty much anyone really, want to pull the plug after that).

Of course, I would prefer a more stable coalition, since with first past the post and the billionaire press and people voting for all kinds of reasons other than Brexit, I've no confidence that a BJ/Farage government wouldn't result from a GE. Calling one now (or the next few months) seems like a throw of the dice to me (actually, russian roulette with three bullets is closer), whereas (admittedly with heroic levels of cooperation) I can believe that a coalition could negotiate a soft Brexit deal and bring it to the country in a second referendum.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Hammond said the bill was designed to give time for litigation, should BJ take the despicable but entirely in character route of ignoring the law.

I suppose, also, there is the final option of the rebels forming a government following a vote of confidence.

Who would lead this rebel govt. Swinson and Hammond have said it can’t be Corbyn, Corbyn won’t allow it to be some other Lab MP, for obvious reasons, and a majority Lab govt surely can’t be led by a Tory.

Obviously it couldn't be the leader of any of the parties. But the soon to retire Vince Cable should be harmless enough to Corbyn and probably acceptable to the exiled formed Tories. Or some independent MP. Whether Corbyn could cope with Benn (et al) I'm not 100% sure. But let's face it, this would only need to be in place for a few days to implement the extension (should Corbyn, or pretty much anyone really, want to pull the plug after that).

Of course, I would prefer a more stable coalition, since with first past the post and the billionaire press and people voting for all kinds of reasons other than Brexit, I've no confidence that a BJ/Farage government wouldn't result from a GE. Calling one now (or the next few months) seems like a throw of the dice to me (actually, russian roulette with three bullets is closer), whereas (admittedly with heroic levels of cooperation) I can believe that a coalition could negotiate a soft Brexit deal and bring it to the country in a second referendum.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: really? You could easily end up with a load of old sh..........

as you were.

This all sound rather French to me- the process being more important than the outcome. Which is a decent point.

The process needs to lead to a concrete instruction to Parliament. We can then make the best of whatever the outcome is and concentrate on trivial stuff like eduction, social care etc

Highly sceptical that you can create an agreed instruction (and who would devise them and who would agree them) that would be voted for that parliament could or would be able to implement frankly. Unicorns anyone.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The process needs to lead to a concrete instruction to Parliament. We can then make the best of whatever the outcome is and concentrate on trivial stuff like eduction, social care etc

Highly sceptical that you can create an agreed instruction (and who would devise them and who would agree them) that would be voted for that parliament could or would be able to implement frankly. Unicorns anyone.

I don’t see the problem, beyond the electorate not being up to the task but therein lies the obvious faultline in democracy. You put a list of options to the electorate, they then vote using a preference system and the first over 50% is the instruction to parliament. The list would come from Parliament - they managed to get down to a shortlist during the indicative vote process so you’d hope they could achieve this without wetting the bed - and would be specific models, eg. SM, CU, that aren’t open to interpretation.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The process needs to lead to a concrete instruction to Parliament. We can then make the best of whatever the outcome is and concentrate on trivial stuff like eduction, social care etc

Highly sceptical that you can create an agreed instruction (and who would devise them and who would agree them) that would be voted for that parliament could or would be able to implement frankly. Unicorns anyone.

I don’t see the problem, beyond the electorate not being up to the task but therein lies the obvious faultline in democracy. You put a list of options to the electorate, they then vote using a preference system and the first over 50% is the instruction to parliament. The list would come from Parliament - they managed to get down to a shortlist during the indicative vote process so you’d hope they could achieve this without wetting the bed - and would be specific models, eg. SM, CU, that aren’t open to interpretation.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Highly sceptical that you can create an agreed instruction (and who would devise them and who would agree them) that would be voted for that parliament could or would be able to implement frankly. Unicorns anyone.

I don’t see the problem, beyond the electorate not being up to the task but therein lies the obvious faultline in democracy. You put a list of options to the electorate, they then vote using a preference system and the first over 50% is the instruction to parliament. The list would come from Parliament - they managed to get down to a shortlist during the indicative vote process so you’d hope they could achieve this without wetting the bed - and would be specific models, eg. SM, CU, that aren’t open to interpretation.

Lol....plus Joe Public has no idea what you mean re single market, customs union. Its a massive education exercise needed- the one that Project Fear sort of tried, but lost to simple soundbites, essentially.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Highly sceptical that you can create an agreed instruction (and who would devise them and who would agree them) that would be voted for that parliament could or would be able to implement frankly. Unicorns anyone.

I don’t see the problem, beyond the electorate not being up to the task but therein lies the obvious faultline in democracy. You put a list of options to the electorate, they then vote using a preference system and the first over 50% is the instruction to parliament. The list would come from Parliament - they managed to get down to a shortlist during the indicative vote process so you’d hope they could achieve this without wetting the bed - and would be specific models, eg. SM, CU, that aren’t open to interpretation.

You can do that, and it would be my preference.

But you'd have to ensure that the facts were reported, which we cannot have because we did not make law the Leveson inquiry. So our press are bastards in general, with only one naturally unbiased paper who just happen to be so fucking up their own arse anything they say is immediately dismissed.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Who would lead this rebel govt. Swinson and Hammond have said it can’t be Corbyn, Corbyn won’t allow it to be some other Lab MP, for obvious reasons, and a majority Lab govt surely can’t be led by a Tory.

Obviously it couldn't be the leader of any of the parties. But the soon to retire Vince Cable should be harmless enough to Corbyn and probably acceptable to the exiled formed Tories. Or some independent MP. Whether Corbyn could cope with Benn (et al) I'm not 100% sure. But let's face it, this would only need to be in place for a few days to implement the extension (should Corbyn, or pretty much anyone really, want to pull the plug after that).

Of course, I would prefer a more stable coalition, since with first past the post and the billionaire press and people voting for all kinds of reasons other than Brexit, I've no confidence that a BJ/Farage government wouldn't result from a GE. Calling one now (or the next few months) seems like a throw of the dice to me (actually, russian roulette with three bullets is closer), whereas (admittedly with heroic levels of cooperation) I can believe that a coalition could negotiate a soft Brexit deal and bring it to the country in a second referendum.

what do you mean by that?

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I don’t see the problem, beyond the electorate not being up to the task but therein lies the obvious faultline in democracy. You put a list of options to the electorate, they then vote using a preference system and the first over 50% is the instruction to parliament. The list would come from Parliament - they managed to get down to a shortlist during the indicative vote process so you’d hope they could achieve this without wetting the bed - and would be specific models, eg. SM, CU, that aren’t open to interpretation.

You can do that, and it would be my preference.

But you'd have to ensure that the facts were reported, which we cannot have because we did not make law the Leveson inquiry. So our press are bastards in general, with only one naturally unbiased paper who just happen to be so fucking up their own arse anything they say is immediately dismissed.

Interested to know which one you think is unbiased.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Obviously it couldn't be the leader of any of the parties. But the soon to retire Vince Cable should be harmless enough to Corbyn and probably acceptable to the exiled formed Tories. Or some independent MP. Whether Corbyn could cope with Benn (et al) I'm not 100% sure. But let's face it, this would only need to be in place for a few days to implement the extension (should Corbyn, or pretty much anyone really, want to pull the plug after that).

Of course, I would prefer a more stable coalition, since with first past the post and the billionaire press and people voting for all kinds of reasons other than Brexit, I've no confidence that a BJ/Farage government wouldn't result from a GE. Calling one now (or the next few months) seems like a throw of the dice to me (actually, russian roulette with three bullets is closer), whereas (admittedly with heroic levels of cooperation) I can believe that a coalition could negotiate a soft Brexit deal and bring it to the country in a second referendum.

what do you mean by that?

I mean something which closely resembles being in the EU in effect, while not being in name So, in the CU, in the SM, in any body we can still be a part of. It's also the closest thing to an average of the 52:48 views expressed in the referendum, ie just over the line out of the EU.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
You can do that, and it would be my preference.

But you'd have to ensure that the facts were reported, which we cannot have because we did not make law the Leveson inquiry. So our press are bastards in general, with only one naturally unbiased paper who just happen to be so fucking up their own arse anything they say is immediately dismissed.

Interested to know which one you think is unbiased.

By definition the Granuaid.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Interested to know which one you think is unbiased.

By definition the Granuaid.

As Banquo would say ...... lol.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I don’t see the problem, beyond the electorate not being up to the task but therein lies the obvious faultline in democracy. You put a list of options to the electorate, they then vote using a preference system and the first over 50% is the instruction to parliament. The list would come from Parliament - they managed to get down to a shortlist during the indicative vote process so you’d hope they could achieve this without wetting the bed - and would be specific models, eg. SM, CU, that aren’t open to interpretation.

Lol....plus Joe Public has no idea what you mean re single market, customs union. Its a massive education exercise needed- the one that Project Fear sort of tried, but lost to simple soundbites, essentially.

The final shortlist was down to four, three of which could go on the ballot paper - CU, Common Market 2.0 and second ref. Add on no deal and you’re there.

I need and edit to respond to your edit. As I say, a mostly naive electorate is inherent in a democracy. It ain’t perfect but what process would be?