Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
lomiller said:
This is what the courts do. It's been what courts do for centuries. It's built into every case that has gone before the courts for hundreds of years.

There is no such thing as “straightforward questions of law” without legal precedent.

There is no precedent for this specific situation, but the general principle established over the last 500 years is that it is not legal to bypass the will of Parliament, or prevent Parliament from sitting in order to prevent them from making decisions you don’t like. The law and precedent is clear on this in regards to the Crown, it’s now up to the courts to decide whether this applies to the PM as well.
Click to expand...
John Marshall would be very upset at the level of legal ignorance on show in this thread.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Does it matter if parliament opposed it or not?
Click to expand...

Why would that matter? The question before the courts is whether it’s legal to bypass Parliaments ability to decide. The actual decision Parliament comes to is irrelevant.
 
mkg said:
From the horse's mouth ...“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week."

It's in the article I posted which you didn't read.
Click to expand...

Misleading. WTO rules require that customs be applied. If this can be achieved without border checkpoints the WTO rules are satisfied. At present, the UK cannot present a viable alternative to checkpoints.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It doesn't seem fairly clear that parliament objected. It seems the only way to determine if parliament objected is with a vote.
Click to expand...

The courts have decided that the PM tried to use prorogation as a means to prevent Parliament from voting and that this is not legal. The outcome of a vote in parliament is irrelevant to this decision.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't know why it would matter. That is why I am asking.
Click to expand...


No one else thinks the outcome of an actual vote matters to the case and you claim to have no opinion on why we should reconsider this opinion so it appears we have nothing left to discuss and can proceed under the assumption that it does not matter.
 
lomiller said:
No one else thinks the outcome of an actual vote matters to the case and you claim to have no opinion on why we should reconsider this opinion so it appears we have nothing left to discuss and can proceed under the assumption that it does not matter.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask anyone to reconsider.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Let me be clear, I wasn't talking about resolving the backstop. I'm talking about making it better such that if the UK changed their mind and decided to go with the backstop, then they have an even better agreement to sign on to.
Click to expand...

There are 3 options available, customs checkpoints at the border, a common customs zone or an internal border (aka the backstop). Brexiters are fundamentally opposed to all three. There is no way to “improve” them to make them more attractive because they are rejecting the whole principle they are based on.
 
lomiller said:
There are 3 options available, customs checkpoints at the border, a common customs zone or an internal border (aka the backstop). Brexiters are fundamentally opposed to all three. There is no way to “improve” them to make them more attractive because they are rejecting the whole principle they are based on.
Click to expand...

I explicitly said it wouldn't be for purposes of making them more attractive.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I explicitly said it wouldn't be for purposes of making them more attractive.
Click to expand...

The only reason to change it would be to make it more attractive because what exists is fine and also has been agreed to by 27 member states. Changing something your client is already happy with simply because you have time to do so is stupid a waste of time and potentially counterproductive.

The purpose of the extension was for the UK to work out a solution to the intractable issues within its own parliament. They were given 3 months which they predictably spaffed up the wall with a leadership election, a recess and a record length prorogation.

When dealing with that kind of *********** its a wonder the EU even bother coming to the meetings.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Please do not use swear words as part of larger strings of text. The Autocensor cannot detect them. Further use of swear words written in a manner that defeats the autocensor will lead to infractions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom