Yes, the constitution will have to be reformed now and perhaps proportional representation brought in.

As I see it the UK population has become polarised following the credit crunch, austerity has angered a lot of less well off people, often who already had quite nationalistic tendencies, or quite crude/naive political understanding. This was a fertile breeding ground for the nationalist movement.

Alongside this there is a large group of middle to upper middle class mainly older conservative supporters who live in a relatively affluent bubble. They often have quite outdated Thatcherite views.

I am generalising for brevity, these two groups have been exploited by hardline Conservatives who are rabid anti EU and the right wing press, especially The Telegraph and The Daily Mail. In this new climate of 24hr news and social media, mainly Facebook. News and political ideology has become sloganised and the angry populous has lappped it up.

I will reiterate that this whole Brexit mess was conceived developed and delivered to us on a plate by the internal machinations of the Conservative party.

Here is Sir John Major's intervention in the appeal at the Supreme Court. Pretty damming stuff.
It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen.


https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-sir-john-major.pdf

The hearing is fascinating, I can now point out what I think it will hinge on. It is quite a Gordian knot for the judges to undo.

The appeal is contending that the Prime minister, acted improperly in prorouging, because his motive was to prevent (stymie) Parliament so as to avoid the risk that parliament could interfere, or stop his free reign to enact his policies.

The argument for the defence is essentially that the prime minister has free reign to proroge for whatever purpose, for as long as he likes, and whenever he wants. And that the courts can't stray into his powers to do it, because it is a political act and would breach the separation of powers.

There are serious flaws in the argument for the defence in my opinion,
Firstly, it is well established in law that no one is above the law, so if the Prime minister acts unlawfully, he can be sanctioned by the court.
Secondly, it is established that the executive(government), is accountable to parliament, as sovereignty rests in parliament and not the executive. So if the exectitive silences parliament to continue on a course for which it does not have parliamentary consent, this relationship becomes reversed. The tail is wagging the dog, rendering the constitution broken. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to maintain, or protect the constitution.
Third, if they rule in favour of the defence, the government, then the prime minister will have free reign to proroge again on the 14th of October ( when parliament is due to return) until after the 31st of October, enabling the Prime minister to take the UK out of The EU with no deal, simply by inaction and parliament and the Queen would be powerless to stop him. Well I think the Queen could refuse him, but it would compromise her impartiality. So the Supreme Court must sanction the Prime minister so as to protect the Queen and therefore the Crown.
Fourth, I think it can be argued that sanctioning the Prime minister for certain conduct is not actually becoming embroiled in politics, but rather protecting the systems and working of parliament, so as to maintain parliamentary sovereignty. And the proper working of the constitution.

So I can't see how the Supreme Court could do anything other than to find the Prime minister to have acted unlawfully and sanction his powers.

Im looking forward to the intervention of John Major tomorrow.

It is being live streamed on Sky news and BBC news.

Just watching the opening statements in the Supreme Court hearing. Looks like a slam dunk for Gina Miller.

↪Punshhh While I agree there are consequences to how the EU operates resulting from the way it is constituted I would resist the notion that flexibility is a goal in and of itself. I'm not a proponent of an EU à-la-carte, which would be optimal flexibility. In fact, I think it would be disastrous. That Cameron didn't get what he wanted was necessary to ensure no precedent was created.

Then the inevitable leaving of the UK was a fait accompli from a much earlier point in the development of the EU. Not only in regards to free movement, but in regards of other unifications on the cards.

I suspect in this case then that the inviolable nature of the four freedoms, is in a collision course with the realities of this expansion and that welcoming the UK in the the 1970's was one instance where this collision of opposing forces was going to end in the circumstances we find ourselves in. Perhaps this is the beginning of a trend.

The hulk has morphed into the invisible man, it'll be the incredible shrinking man next.

I'm not arguing, I making the point that the way the EU is set up is flawed and it's inflexibility and lack of reform is one of the reasons why the UK may leave. A analogous situation is developing in Italy with the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Fortunately an agreement has been made for other member states to take some of the migrants. But if this had not been agreed and Italy was given no choice but to accept all the migrants, a similar situation might have developed there. The point is that the EU appears blind to the demographic consequences of its expansion.

Yes I'm aware of the status of Turkey and that it is unlikely to join now. I used it as an example as it was exploited in the leave campaign.

Could you explain why that's problematic? Is it a problem with resources to accommodate the immigrants

Its problematic because, certainly in my area, a lot of people think the amount of incomers has reached saturation point.* There is some impact of resources, but this is not the main beef. In other areas such as the north of England and the south west, where lots of people have become right wing populists fuelled by the notion of foriegners coming in, even though there are none in their area, or ghettoisation and division of immigrant populations that arrived a generation ago.

* by saturation point, I mean the numbers are causing the towns, shops, businesses to change and become like the towns in the country they came from.

Agreed.

My point stands, free movement is ok in principle, but when you then invite large populations into the club without examining and mitigating the demographic consequences, you are exposed to unforeseen consequences. For example Turkey was being considered as one of the next countries to join. Indeed Michael Gove used the fear of this in the leave campaign during the referendum. The UK could quite possibly have had a million or two Turkish people coming in, with no way of controlling it.

On the freedom of movement issue, I agree, it is a good thing. There is an issue with numbers of Polish people moving into East Anglia and Lincolnshire. This is not exclusively due to their taking jobs and scrounging. It is more to do with the changing of identity of small and medium sized towns in these areas. Many of which feel more like Polish towns than English towns( ref my post a few pages back).
Also perhaps the EU should have considered such consequences when forming the union better than they did, or revised policy when enlarging the EU. I see no sign of any flexibility here.
I agree there is, or so I've heard, more the UK could have done, but didn't. But the perception was that there wasn't.

In Europe the main problem is that there hasn't been a proper way or entity to critique the flaws or the shortcomings of the EU integration

This is my perception, it appears rigid and inflexible. In a world which is changing in ways which were not foreseen when the project was conceived the EU appears to be caught in the headlights and unable to act. I am no expert on the EU, as it is perceived as a distant entity from inside the UK, indeed until the referendum was announced, it was very low on the agenda for the majority of the population. It was issues brought about by free movement of people which was causing anti EU sentiment in places like East Anglia where I live and the right wing populist movement in the north of the country.

David Cameron travelled to Europe in 2015 to explain to the leaders of the EU 27 and the commissioners that this was a serious and growing issue and that he was seeking some kind of remedy, otherwise it could result in a referendum to leave. He pressed his case hard but the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility. I can't see how they could have prevented this crisis by showing sufficient flexibility, as they are to rigid. So this outcome was inevitable and yet the EU appeared helpless to adapt to a changing world, or to have sufficient foresight when they welcomed in the Eastern European countries, to put in place rules which would enable members to mitigate issues brought about by such expansion.

It seems now, following the publication of David Cameron's memoirs, that many people did not realise the strength of the hard right within the Conservative party. Or how much leverage they would find once the referendum was announced. He was surprised how ugly the campaign became and depressed watching the groundswell of anti EU sentiment which developed. In the three areas of, right wing anti EU Conservatives, the population in East Anglia and Lincolnshire who experienced the influx of EU workers and the right wing populist movement in the north of England and the West Country.

I've seen it first hand. Older upper middle class Conservatives, became spooked by the Germans in the 70's and 80's. I don't think it was justified, I think it was an outdated wartime mind set which was becoming paranoid. It happened to my parents, who were Conservative councillors, who were involved in the twinning movement and went on many local government exchanges to German cities, and French ones too. But at some point, they became infected with this suspicion and once it had started, it became set in. This incubated under the surface for many years until the development of UKIP, which only deepened the mistrust and widened splits of opinion within the Conservative party. The rest is history.

A bumbling dictatorship.

Quite, when I think about the philosophy of this, I see populists muddying the waters and rubbishing any chance of the public considering the choices involved, or any means of determining the will of the people. All I can say is that the British parliament needs reforming now.

Breaking news, Johnson is going to re-name Great Britain the Titanic.

Yesterday he announced the commissioning of two new warships, which will be built in Belfast. More bribes to the DUP to get them onside. It's not going to work though, as it's their nature to never agree to anything.

I was watching him on the TV lastnight playing with some kids with a model container ship, he was just like a two year old toddler playing with toys.

I like the wood used to make the fire, as the Palace of Westminster is undergoing major refurbishment, it is constructed from timber taken from the Houses of Parliament.

If it's not justiciable then short of a violent rebellion, what stops a malicious government from proroguing Parliament indefinitely? For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.

It looks like this has not been tested before and so the Supreme Court will have to set precedent. I expect it will rule that the executive will have to be accountable to the judiciary, as otherwise a prime minister can silence the very parliament he or she is accountable to at will, exposing a gaping hole in our constitution. Normally the time this would take would not be at issue. But in this case, it is the longest prorogation in peacetime for hundreds of years, at the same time that the clock is running down for a massive constitutional change. I would trust that Dominic Grieve will win the day on this one. Particularly in the light of the ruling on Monday that the government must provide all the correspondence relating to prorogation by last Wednesday( now expired), which the government has failed to do.

Its not very detailed, it looks like a summary to me. I wonder what point 15 is about.

Here is a more racy cartoon from the day Rees Mogg went to Balmoral.

↪Punshhh I both love and hate your non-standard rotation."

I hadn't thought of that, in the EU they rotate in the other direction.

"One criticism though; the buses are missing the "£350 million" sign.

Yes, I try to keep the cartoons simple, I have a tendency to put to much information in them.

Hey Trump, do you want to buy this real estate? A bargain basement price.

As I thought Johnson and Rees Mogg have committed treason.

Just working out how to upload photos, this is a cartoon I did lastnight

The Boris bridge from Northern Ireland to Scotland will save the day. Maybe someone should point out to him that both ends of the bridge might soon be in the EU.

Boris is going to build a bridge betweeen Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that someone can travel between different parts of the EU without having to travel through England, when Ireland is united and Scotland leaves the UK. How thoughtful.

Or maybe he is very cunning, he will claim ownership of the bridge and charge a toll.

He's proroging at the first opportunity, while demanding an election. Both tactics which are pushing for a process leading to a Queen's speech. Ideally for Johnson, before 31st October( which is why the government had a hissy fit when The opposition didn't support an election). This exposes his position regarding a deal. He wants to bring back May's deal with ( which the speaker won't allow during this session of parliament) the backstop confined to Northern Ireland. He will then bring it back to the commons during the week before the deadline and present the MPs with a cliff edge, a deadly serious deadline this time, and try to force it through. Unfortunately in order to get it through he will need a lot of Labour votes. Something which is tragically impossible, at least with the current parliament. Also there is an open goal for a vote of confidence, which Corbyn can call at anytime, after the prorogation period, unless he sneaks it in this evening before it.

However if he gets his general election before the deadline all he has to do is agree an election pact with the Brexit party and he's laughing, or so he thinks. Because it will result in a fatal split in the Conservative party.

The opposition smells a rat and won't agree to an election until after the deadline, which fatally weakens Johnson, as the Brexit party will then demolish the Conservative party. Thus ushering in a Corbyn government.

Frankly, at this level I would like to expect EU politicians to be above such cheap tricks.

I hope you are right. I worry about president Macron, he has political tensions at home, any sign of weakness might not go down well.

Yes, I bear that in mind, and I apologise to that "third", I didn't mean them.

Thats ok, this illustrates the problem of populism, it generates divisions where is there are none, by exploiting moderate human behaviour.

For example Johnson simply needs to meet the EU leaders and insult them in person and they will find it difficult not to respond with an insult and to then grant the extension which he doesn't want.

It sounds like Johnson's plan B is to cock a snook at the EU at the summit in October and hope they take offence.

They are the people who didn't vote, either they don't know, or can't vote, or won't vote perhaps.
I expect a proportion of them are looking on in horror, and some are so bored they just want to jump of the cliff, just to end it.

Just let them sober up and then we can consider letting them in again but without all the undeserved benefits they are enjoying now

Bring it on, anything is better than this. Remember it is only about a third of the population that has been brainwashed, another third is looking on in horror and astonishment.

The only way I can see the government getting a deal is if the backstop applies only to Northern Ireland with a border down the Irish Sea. But even this is not going to be possible now for the government, as it requires throwing the DUP under the bus.

The only sensible way forward, if we are determined to leave, that I can see is if article 50 is revoked for the purposes of holding a border poll in Northern Ireland and returning to Brexit when that has been sorted out. I know how difficult and divisive this could be, but the cold hard facts are coming to the surface now and the leavers will have to face them.

Well there is another solution, which many in the Labour Party would support is remaining in the single market, so there would be no need for a backstop. But if that is the case surely it is better to remain in the EU, so as to remain a party to the legislature of the EU, rather than in a limbo where we don't have a voice in the EU.

Which everway you turn there are intractable problems like this. More cold hard facts for the leavers to chew on.

Theresa May's deal was actually a really good deal, it managed to dovetail the possibility of an independent trade policy with close alignment with the single market and customs union and with an end to free movement. Preparing the way for an almost seamless move into an implementation period. A serious document which had been hammered out in detailed and close negotiations for 18 months. If we were leaving I would have been happy with it.

There are two reasons why we have ended up in this pickle ( well apart from the failure to work cross party which I have already pointed out).
1, the impossibility of squaring the circle of the Irish border problem and squaring the circle of an independent trade policy, while retaining a close relationship with the EU. Something which has become more and more evident as time has gone by.
2, the rabid hard Brexit ambitions of the ERG, which was never going to accept any deal, while having a stranglehold on the government.

I'll let you into a secret, THE ENTIRE BREXIT PROJECT IS A TRAGIC FRACTURING AND PSYCHO DRAMA WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY. Everything else is collateral damage. This has been developing and is well documented for over 40 years.

Nice.

Yes, I was hoping for this, Amber Rudd is a fatal blow.

Nice meme lol.

It's looking as though Boris is spent, there are more Tory MPs considering their positions this weekend. Due to actions like prorogation and removing the whip from Tory MPs. As I see it if Johnson tries to pull a fast one now, then he will loose support from another group of MPs and will be so weakened that it will clear the way for a no confidence vote and an alternative government being formed. All my worries about him breaking the law or sculduggery are evaporating.

Can’t deny that. But she did negotiate a Brexit deal, agreed to by the EU.

But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.

As has been pointed out a no deal Brexit ( no idea Brexit) is not and never was a bargaining chip. The EU have always asked us what we want, but we have failed to answer the question. Once the question has been answered the EU will come to a generous accommodation, which protects the four freedoms and doesn't cherry pick benefits enjoyed by members who subscribe to the four freedoms.

The talk about a no deal was always for a domestic audience, to somehow force people to grant what Theresa May was going to present. Or more to the point to appease the rabid leavers in her own party, who were gunning for a no deal right from the beginning. And now with Johnson it is the aim, to leave with a no deal, because if we don't the Conservative party is toast.

Agreed, the hardliners will have to be pulled kicking and screaming out of office. They are like headless chickens ( no pun on Corbyn intended).

One of which is that either by breaking the Benn law or by simply not appointing a commissioner, No deal can still be possibly accomplished. Alas, the idiotic democrats refused the no-confidence motion and government of unity that could have taken control... might be too late now.

I don't think it's to late for the government of unity yet. The important thing is not to table the vote of no confidence to soon, because there is a risk in anything which dissolves Parliament and allows Johnson to squat in No 10. Parliament must be sitting until after the extension is achieved.

I have heard rumours that the EU would not automatically expel us of we fail to appoint a commissioner. Regarding the Benn law, provided parliament can sit until the extension is achieved, they should be able to check, or bypass any attempt to break the law.