EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Wow. Only 89% of Express readers are ignorant of constitutional law.

That's exactly what I expected from people reading the Express.

tbh I hadn't really followed the arguments put fwd before watching and reading the judgement. So I was surprised that (as I understand it) the Govt's case was that prorogation was a decision taken by parliament rather than the executive.

Not that I know anything, but on the face of it, it didn't seem like a very strong argument.

I agree, it didn't seem like a strong argument to my uneducated ears either - coupled with the lack of witness statements submitted - it's almost as if they knew it themselves and thought it was worth the punt, as they were already pot-committed.

Tongue firmly in cheek also with the above comment, as many, many others far better versed in legalese (not difficult) didn't know which way it would go.

Well, don't expect Johnson to resign now, as it would be the honourable thing to do. The absolute minimum is that Cummings needs to be sacked. I only hope the judgement doesn't become a touchstone for further divisions in the country.

The absolute minimum is that Cummings needs to be sacked.

It would be opportune for BoJo to scapegoat him now, wouldn't it?

The Attorney General seems to be the first under the bus.

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1176515691127685122?s=21

Cummings leaking before he is pushed?

Don't think he's going to be pushed, he knows where all the bodies are buried, and appears to be the type of person who would cause maximum collateral damage on the way out. Most likely he's going to turn into a giant millstone hanging round the neck of BoJo slowly pulling him down into the abyss.

I doubt he will do that; there seems to be some kind of rift between Farage and co. and Cummings and Johnson. I remember reading a while ago that Cummings resented the publicity given to Farage because he (Cummings) saw himself as the mastermind of why 'Leave' won.

It ain't right, innit. Me mate down at the 'spoons is jurisprudence expert, and he says it's all bollocks.

John Crace
‏Verified account @JohnJCrace

Amazed that so many Brexiters who insisted the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit are now adamant prorogation being declared unlawful is an attempt to stop Brexit

https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/status/1176445945220927488

there seems to be some kind of rift between Farage and co. and Cummings and Johnson.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1176436372045029376

Yes, I saw that earlier, too.

Two weeks is a long time in Farageland

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1171758506845884416?s=19

Oh dear.

and appears to be the type of person who would cause maximum collateral damage on the way out

He seems to be doing quite well with that while he's still in, to be fair.

But yes, he would probably be too dangerous for them to be scapegoated just yet.

it is (1) so they do not alienate parts of their electoral coalition (primarily ‘leavers’ in CON/LAB marginals in the midlands) and (2) a reflection of the broad spectrum of opinion within the party (which is a function of 1). you can argue its merits but that’s the rationale

personally I feel like we’re all in this mess because the tories wouldn’t face down the headbangers on their own side. I don’t want labour to make the same mistake

I think all of that is true, but I still think (as I've posted before) the main reason why Labour 'respects the result of the referendum' is because it is impossible for a prospective party of government not to do that. While, as we know, the referendum was flawed in a number of ways and its status is still unclear, any party that said it didn't respect the outcome would immediately disqualify itself from being trusted. If you're a minor party like the Lib Dems, you can come at it from a protest angle, but when you get into government, you inherit a lot of things that even if you don't agree with them you have to deal with in a way that does not outrage democracy.

Now, if you merely rescind or counteract policies that may have been enacted by a previous government, that is all fine and dandy, because you would have been elected on a manifesto promising to do that, and the previous government's policies would just have been in their manifesto, too. However, a referendum is a different process, so that a party can't just make it undone via a manifesto promise à la Lib Dems. I mean, I have no idea if Corbyn's approach will work electorally, but I certainly can't see any better way for Labour of dealing with this.

Here are some stats that I think I hadn't seen before:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research

The comments on that are unbelievable

However, a referendum is a different process, so that a party can't just make it undone via a manifesto promise à la Lib Dems.

They absolutely can. In the extremely unlikely circumstance of them getting a majority, they can just revoke.

No, they can't make the referendum undone. Of course they can just revoke the A50 notification, but that doesn't 'revoke' the referendum.

but that doesn't 'revoke' the referendum.

It does in the sense that the referendum was advisory and that advice is being rejected. What reasons are given for that rejection are up to them, but the first one would be "Our recent victory in the GE shows that the will of the people is clearly to remain in the EU."

and appears to be the type of person who would cause maximum collateral damage on the way out

He seems to be doing quite well with that while he's still in, to be fair.

So far he's been trying to help and look what he's managed to achieve, he's the Frank Spencer of politics. Imagine what he'd do if he actually wanted to cause damage.

No, I really don't think it does. Sure, the referendum was advisory, but that has not stopped it from being used as a powerful political football with which to sow divisions, with due apologies for mixing metaphors. I'm well aware that one can stand on the legal situation, but as you can see in perceptions of the Supreme Court judgement mentioned above, that fails to convince many people. What is needed is indeed a second referendum that either confirms or denies the previous referendum outcome, whatever the legal status of such a referendum might be. Even were a new referendum to deny the previous outcome, there would still be serious and meaningful work needed to address the perceptions of many that 'Europe' is the cause of much misery to many. I personally don't care too much about instinctive anti-Europeans, but rather about people who voted for 'Leave' out of a sense of grievance or believing false information that was spread.