Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

Brexit

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

What makes it so much worse is that the next time he has a reusable mug, people will just think he is only doing it for the photo, which he will be.  I doubt the press would care if he had just used the disposable one.  This could be his bacon sandwich moment

That's what it feels like with all politicians. None of them are genuine, they're all opportunistic pricks looking to keep an easy job and the chance to control something. They'll change stances with the wind and lie outright about their beliefs. If just one of them got up there and went "yeah, I did x" and was actually honest with people, they'd get a massive amount of support just because it would be a change from the constant conniving.

Also, I think I fixed your pic, it wasn't showing for me properly to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49917877

Bojo partially reveals his plan, at least involving the Ireland situation.

I've suspected since he took over as PM that his tactic has been to make the EU sweat by withholding information, running down the clock, and bolstering rhetoric that no deal is completely on the table, but the opposition here has constantly undermined this negotiating position in their attempts to prevent Brexit altogether. Had everything gone to plan, his full deal offer wouldn't have been handed over for a couple more weeks to really get things panicky, but I suppose he couldn't achieve that when members of our own government keep taking away his ability to bluff successfully. If they'd just stopped betraying the referendum result and let the PM do his job, we would've been in a much stronger position than we are now. Then again, going along with his gambit would've run counter to their desire to stop Brexit in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think politicians not doing what the people that elected them wanted has been a very large source of problems in both of our countries, especially if said politicians are actually corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, and their is no solution to this situation;

The internal market is one of the 4 pillars of the European Union, it's the core and non-negotiable; 

So having no border between the EU and UKundermines that, thus the core of the EU; I also think having no border, which essentially allows tariff-free trade, is against WTO-rules and forces both the EU and GB to apply those rates to all other countries they don't have an trade-agreement with.

So there are 4 options:

1. Have the border between Ireland and North Ireland - The default option
2. Have the border around Ireland ánd UK thus include Ireland in the GB/ kick them out of the EU. Ireland don't want this, so it is only a theoretical option
3. Keep GB in the common market - then why Brexit? You still have all the good and bad of the EU, still have to pay for almost everything, but can't decide anymore about it; So if you want a real Brexit only a theoretical option
4. Have the border around UK, thus exclude Northern Ireland from Brexit/ UK

Of those 4 options 2 ánd 3 are not a real option,

option 1 has a lot of disadvantages because of GFA ánd I read that a lot of USA politicians with Irish background/ those with Irish background in their voters group don't like it and will try to block any trade deal between UK and USA - so not very good for UK I guess

option 4 had the risk of the government losing it's majority because of DUP and has the risk of the UK falling appart because it essentially 'throws' Northern-Ireland away. But since Johnson lost it's majority already I'd say this one makes the most sense. If May didn't thought elections are a good idea (or first thought, what to do with Brexit...) it wouldn't be the mess it is today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Thrabath said:

1. Have the border between Ireland and North Ireland - The default option

This will likely be the end result, but something softer, after the initial special regulation zone has ended. At the end of the day, they're two separate nations, so they shouldn't be surprised that leaving the EU means they have to act like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but I somehow have the idea that a lot of policitians didn't think about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Thrabath said:

True, but I somehow have the idea that a lot of policitians didn't think about that

Quite probably. Most politicians aren't exactly voted in based on their mental prowess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the worst outcome though. Unless we want the Troubles back..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 7:02 AM, Doro said:

Quite probably. Most politicians aren't exactly voted in based on their mental prowess.

.... isn't the lack of those a prereq for candidacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 2:13 AM, MueR said:

A border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the worst outcome though. Unless we want the Troubles back..

True, but capitulations to terrorists shouldn't be the reason the majority is ignored.

9 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

.... isn't the lack of those a prereq for candidacy?

Pretty much, considering people like Diane Abbott have been in politics for 4 decades.

 

Some slight movement on a deal, despite Fuhrer Merkel's suggestion that there can be no deal without the UK handing over Northern Ireland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50007206

I've been watching currency conversion rates for a while now, waiting for the perfect moment to cash in, but it's so damn unstable because of all this Brexit speculation that it's near impossible to predict. Every time a story like this breaks, it starts a steady increase, but then it can get wiped out a couple of days later just by a single EU member saying something negative. It's amazing seeing in real time how fickle economies are. It doesn't help that some of the currencies I've been aiming for are also getting hit on their end by Trump's ongoing tariff war with China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO Gove has confirmed that the Government is planning to break the law

The Benn Act states that the Government must ask for an extension if a deal or no deal is not agreed by Parliament by 19/10/2019.

The Padfield Principle means a minister can do or not do something that would frustrate an act of Parliament

 https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/brexit-padfield-and-the-benn-act/

Time to arrest those in charge of the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Time to arrest those in charge of the country

There's a loophole, though. The surrender bill only states that the government must ask for an extension in the exact wording of the letter, not that it must secure an extension. There's nothing that says there can't be an accompanying text stating that this letter needs to be accepted under specific grounds, and those grounds could easily be termed as unacceptable in some form to the EU in order to prevent them accepting an extension. The government could just outright say "this is a letter we have to send because of the surrender bill, but in all honesty we don't actually want it" and it would still be following what was put into place to try to overturn democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Doro said:

There's a loophole, though. The surrender bill only states that the government must ask for an extension in the exact wording of the letter, not that it must secure an extension. There's nothing that says there can't be an accompanying text stating that this letter needs to be accepted under specific grounds, and those grounds could easily be termed as unacceptable in some form to the EU in order to prevent them accepting an extension. The government could just outright say "this is a letter we have to send because of the surrender bill, but in all honesty we don't actually want it" and it would still be following what was put into place to try to overturn democracy.

Actually the Padfield Principle does not allow ministers to do someone or not do something that frustrates and act of Parliament.  Writing the letter and then saying to ignore the letter frustrates the Benn act .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cossieuk said:

Actually the Padfield Principle does not allow ministers to do someone or not do something that frustrates and act of Parliament.  Writing the letter and then saying to ignore the letter frustrates the Benn act .

No, because the surrender bill doesn't specify succeeding in getting an extension. It just says that the letter must be sent as written. Asking outside of that letter to not get an extension doesn't frustrate that the letter was sent as the surrender bill demands. That's the loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doro said:

No, because the surrender bill doesn't specify succeeding in getting an extension. It just says that the letter must be sent as written. Asking outside of that letter to not get an extension doesn't frustrate that the letter was sent as the surrender bill demands. That's the loophole.

The Benn act is to ensure that we dont leave on the 31st unless Parliament votes to do so

From the article I linked

So, in the context of Brexit, where there is now the Benn Act obliging the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period so as to avoid a No Deal Brexit, this principle means:

a minister cannot send a side letter to the European Union saying that the UK does not really want an extension and asking EU to reject the application

the government cannot use delegated or secondary legislation (or Orders in/of Council) to rob the Benn Act of effect

 

There is no way this is not going back in front a the courts on Monday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The Benn act is to ensure that we dont leave on the 31st unless Parliament votes to do so

From the article I linked

So, in the context of Brexit, where there is now the Benn Act obliging the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Article 50 period so as to avoid a No Deal Brexit, this principle means:

a minister cannot send a side letter to the European Union saying that the UK does not really want an extension and asking EU to reject the application

the government cannot use delegated or secondary legislation (or Orders in/of Council) to rob the Benn Act of effect

 

There is no way this is not going back in front a the courts on Monday

It wasn't worded correctly enough for that to be the case and the article you linked is wrong because it's based on the same mistake of thinking it's about getting an extension, not sending a letter requesting one. Here's the relevant wording from the surrender bill itself.

"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks."

Here's the chiselled bit to make it easier to read because it's full of bullshit political speak.

"The Prime Minister must seek to obtain... an extension... by sending... a letter in the form set out... requesting an extension..."

Effectively, Bojo has to send the letter they wrote for him, and that's all the surrender bill asks for. However, it doesn't stipulate that this can't be preceded, accompanied, or followed up by another letter. As long as that main letter is sent, there's a hell of a lot of wiggle room before we even get to the part where the EU has to agree to the extension in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will take the word of a lawyer, in this case.  
Anyway I suspect that there will be a legal challenge next week if the Government does this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

I think I will take the word of a lawyer, in this case.

As opposed to the actual wording of the surrender bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Doro said:

As opposed to the actual wording of the surrender bill.

I am sure that the lawyer has read the whole bill before coming to the conclusion he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

I am sure that the lawyer has read the whole bill before coming to the conclusion he did.

And I'm sure the lawyers on the pro-Brexit side did the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Doro said:

And I'm sure the lawyers on the pro-Brexit side did the same.

The same lawyers that thought that proroguing parliament was legal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The same lawyers that thought that proroguing parliament was legal

They didn't bet on the Supreme Court being so pro-EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think it matters, because I don't see the EU give an extension if there isn't a good reason for it; Because if there is an extension for 3 months, we will have the same shit all over again the last 3 weeks of january.

I can see the EU agree with an extension if there will be a public election or referendum about the current deal, but just saying "parliament couldn't agree with the boris-deal, so please extend" won't be a good enough reason I'd guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Thrabath said:

Well, I don't think it matters, because I don't see the EU give an extension if there isn't a good reason for it; Because if there is an extension for 3 months, we will have the same shit all over again the last 3 weeks of january.

I can see the EU agree with an extension if there will be a public election or referendum about the current deal, but just saying "parliament couldn't agree with the boris-deal, so please extend" won't be a good enough reason I'd guess

Exactly. There's no reason to delay it any more, other than for the opposition to attempt to overturn the result yet again. They won't call a GE before Halloween because they're worried they'd lose and Bojo would be in the clear to give no deal if they keep opposing his deal. But if they call a GE after a new delay, they'll definitely lose because they would've once again stood in the way of a democratic vote. All a delay would do is give more of the same bullshit, while continuing to damage the economy and prop up the Tories. In the list of outcomes, a no deal scenario with the proposed buffers in place is better than another delay.

What frustrates me the most is that the DUP don't like the new "backstop". If I recall correctly, it puts the decision to create a hard border in their hands every 4 years, and until then it lets them do mostly what they were already doing before, just with checks on goods. So they'll oppose it... and end up with a hard border anyway due to a no deal, which is even worse. Or, if democracy gets stood against the wall and shot, they'll get a return to EU rules anyway, so not much different than the current backstop proposal. They're making a fuss over nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Doro said:

Exactly. There's no reason to delay it any more, other than for the opposition to attempt to overturn the result yet again. They won't call a GE before Halloween because they're worried they'd lose and Bojo would be in the clear to give no deal if they keep opposing his deal. But if they call a GE after a new delay, they'll definitely lose because they would've once again stood in the way of a democratic vote. All a delay would do is give more of the same bullshit, while continuing to damage the economy and prop up the Tories. In the list of outcomes, a no deal scenario with the proposed buffers in place is better than another delay.

What frustrates me the most is that the DUP don't like the new "backstop". If I recall correctly, it puts the decision to create a hard border in their hands every 4 years, and until then it lets them do mostly what they were already doing before, just with checks on goods. So they'll oppose it... and end up with a hard border anyway due to a no deal, which is even worse. Or, if democracy gets stood against the wall and shot, they'll get a return to EU rules anyway, so not much different than the current backstop proposal. They're making a fuss over nothing.

Well, they fear it's the start of the reunification of Ireland - which I do understand because there will be some sort of difference between NI and the rest of the UK; And yeah, they have that decision, but as I understand it, Sinn Fein must also agree or something like that; Though I've seen a lot of different versions, so not totally sure what the current idea is. There is a huge chance that this solution will prove to be eternal in practice, a.k.a. the backstop just renamed.

 

And it could also just be a way to get more UK-money to NI ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×