Could be both, you think, one and the same?
The Foreign Secretary suggests that Boris Johnson will be able to defy the ‘Surrender Act’ stipulating that he must ask for a delay to Brexit if he can’t secure a deal. Describing it as an Act ‘which requires us basically to roll over to the most punitive conditions that Brussels could inflict on us’, he says ‘It is a shoddy bit of legislation. The way it was put together was pretty ramshackle. It didn’t have the scrutiny that you have with a Government Bill’.
Johnson also refuses to recant his use of the “surrender act”, insisting “I won’t be bullied off use of that term. It seems to me a perfectly humdrum political metaphor.” In comments likely to cause further consternation among MPs, he adds “Actually, when you read the text of the Benn Act, the ‘abject capitulation act’ might be just as good a term for it, because it would attempt to force the prime minister of the UK to write a letter requesting to stay in the EU, and it would…allow the EU to decide how long we would stay on in the EU. If that isn’t an attempt of the wholesale destruction of a country’s negotiating position, I don’t know what is”.
But the odious interfering EU halfwit Michel Barnier has told the British government that he “fears Boris Johnson’s polarising behaviour has effectively blown any chance of finding a majority for a Brexit deal in the Commons. In private discussions with the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, the EU’s chief negotiator said that developments in Westminster had damaged the already slim hope of winning MPs over”. As you see quite clearly, it’s not a case of delivering the wishes of 17.4million leavers, just a case of “winning MPs over”. Democracy, EU empire building version!
Still on the subject of odious halfwits, I see John Major
is still mouthing off as he “Feared Boris Johnson’s Government would try to bypass legislation requiring a Brexit extension by using an order of the Privy Council. In a speech critical of the Government, the former prime minister said the move, which could be accomplished without the Queen’s consent, would be a “piece of political chicanery that no one would forgive or forget”. He said “My fear is that the Government will seek to bypass Statute Law by passing an Order of Council to suspend the Act until after 31 October,” adding that such a move would be “in flagrant defiance” of Parliament and “utterly disrespectful” to the Supreme Court”.
Perhaps I missed a new ruling by the 11 Supremes, that of “they shall be respected regardless of their collective stupidity”. It’s democracy that should reign supreme. As has been stated “The British electorate’s decision to leave the European Union is the pivot around which contemporary politics revolves”. The political fundamentals against which the Miller-Cherry case fell to be decided are as follows: (1) a majority of those voting in the EU referendum voted to leave; (2) a parliament was subsequently elected in which 85 per cent of MPs won their seats on the promise to respect the referendum result; and (3) in the event most of those MPs reneged on that promise and obstructed the country’s departure from the EU both with a deal (31 March) and now without one (31 October)”.
“The justices of the Supreme Court are well-to-do. They have the same class interest in continued EU membership as do Britain’s upper-middle class generally. But they have additional compelling reasons to frustrate Brexit, above and beyond their membership of the privileged social class. European integration has meant “plain and simple judicial empowerment”. And “By taking a decision which hampers Britain’s departure they acted as judges in their own cause”. QED!