Oops...
 

Oops indeed!

When I can muster enough detachment, I can sit back and enjoy the chaos that is Brexit as if it were a soap opera overloaded with plot twist after plot twist.

This is a lot of fun. Someone must have been working on it in advance, surely.

Ah, I see in the U.K. you actually have a functioning democracy. Very nice. The video reminds me a bit of the old one for Blair to the tune of “Should I Stay or Should I Go,” also a lot of fun. I enjoyed HM’s part here.

Cheers,
John

Here's Tony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1vwKZiDsY4

Ha! How exciting! Like Matt, I look forward to a time when I can look back on these bizarre three years that should never have happened with some sort of hindsight. A period when your stance on whether to remain in a bureaucratic economic and political trade organisation (I voted Remain fwiw) forced the populous into having to accept default membership of one of two cartoon camps: racist bigot or freedom fighter (with the awkward exception of the most refreshingly left-wing Labour leader in over 30 years who, inconveniently for that narrative, also happens to want to leave).

The breathless tone of the BBC legal correspondent this morning…

put me in mind of the historian/"crisis correspondent" in this old 'The Day Today' gem:

https://youtu.be/JZEXyzBdtGg

https://youtu.be/7Fjv5JJbjvw

Oops? Not necessarily. One school of thought is that this is exactly what Johnson wants: his goal is to be known as the guy who did everything possible to achieve Brexit, which could be a powerful position once the dust settles on the whole fiasco and, as is inevitable, many are dissatisfied with the result. If that's his goal, getting his way and having to own the result would be the worst possible outcome.

Max,

I think Boris is going to do his best to shift the blame and twist the narrative whatever happens. He's not going to own anything.

He's already blaming the EU for not making concessions that they'd already made it very clear they wouldn't make when he claimed he could get those concessions from them. He's blaming his opponents for, well, opposing him, which he says is weakening his hand in negotiations with the EU that, according to the EU, he's only pretending to be engaged in anyway. Now he's blaming the Supreme Court for doing the same. So yes he'll spin it. But sitting back and not challenging him would only lead to him leading us into crashing out without a deal. He'd still blame that on everyone other that himself. And a significant portion of the UK press will back whatever story he tells. And we'd have crashed out without a deal. So, opposing him seems like the better option for those who don't want us to leave without a deal.

-Matt

He's trying to implement the nation's vote in the referendum.

Was there ever a vote on a no-deal Brexit? Or did the electorate and everyone assume that there would be a negotiated Brexit?

At any rate, I presume that the MPs in Parliament were also elected by a democratic vote, and a more recent one, so there's nothing undemocratic about any lawful steps they take, though there's certainly something undemocratic about trying to shut down Parliament in a manner that a unanimous Supreme Court found to be illegal.

No, the vote was simply whether to leave or remain. It was up to the government to negotiate the terms of departure, which would be bound to be very detailed and take a number of years following any withdrawal agreement.
The MPs were elected by a democratic vote, but if they are Labour or Conservative they subscribed to their party manifestos to honour the referendum result; so it's surprising how many are now declining to honour it, and in so doing losing their democratic legitimacy.
The government's decision to prorogue (which was based on advice by the attorney general) was upheld by the high court, led by the highest judge in the land, but was held illegal by the supreme court in a decision which does not follow but makes new law.

An opinion piece in the New York Times.