Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it was mitigation of your point.

i.e. In spite of all you say, even if it's true, he's still not as bad as Boris. So why is he being painted as such?

You're literally quoting a post in which I said that my opinion, which I voiced just a couple of posts ago, is that Corbyn would be better than Johnson. Yet you're claiming that my point was that they would be equally bad.

That's three times I've voiced that opinion in this thread within the last 7 hours, now. Hopefully third time's the charm.
 
The proposal;

https://assets.publishing.service.g...a/file/836116/Explanatory_Note_Accessible.pdf

"Building on the existing practice established to maintain the Single Epidemiological Unit (SEU) on the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland would align with EU SPS rules, including those relating to the placing on the market of agri-food goods."

That in effect leaves NI under EU rules.

"Agri-food goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain would do so via a Border Inspection Post or Designated Point of Entry as required by EU law, building on the provisions that already exist to support the SEU. They would be subject to identity and documentary checks and physical examination by UK authorities as required by the relevant EU rules."

"To support this system of controls at the boundary of the zone, traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would need to notify the relevant authorities before entering Northern Ireland..."

That is just like the backstop.

"In addition, Northern Ireland would also align with all relevant EU rules relating to the placing on the market of manufactured goods."

So again, NI is virtually being handed over to the EU to save the rest of the UK from its pesky rules and threat to sovereignty. Then;

"The regulatory checks and controls taking place on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain would not apply when goods enter Ireland from Northern Ireland. The UK would not apply corresponding checks or controls on goods entering Northern Ireland from Ireland."

NI is being more closely aligned with the Republic.

Johnson's plan is to give NI away.
 
You're literally quoting a post in which I said that my opinion, which I voiced just a couple of posts ago, is that Corbyn would be better than Johnson. Yet you're claiming that my point was that they would be equally bad.

That's three times I've voiced that opinion in this thread within the last 7 hours, now. Hopefully third time's the charm.

Fair enough
 
Its ridiculous how Johnson is still trying to act like he's holding all the cards in negotiating with the EU even when everyone can see his hand is actually just pages torn from a notebook with the word 'ace' scrawled on them.

So he is basically bluffing with a busted flush;too bad the EU will call him on it.
 
I do not get why the DUP are happy with this latest plan. It still treats NI differently from the rest of the UK.
 
They simply have less influence over Johnson than they did over May. At some point you need someone more than they need you that point may have been approached if not crossed
 
Last edited:
If you are going to link to a wall of text then at least quote or point to the part you want me to pay attention to.

The title is COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS AND OTHERS APPELLANTS AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE RESPONDENT from which I would never have guessed that it had anything to do with recommendations made by the PM to the Queen.


Well, you could try reading it. If you get as far as the third paragraph you might find out who the Minister for the Civil Service is.

But, basically, it’s what you’ve been asking for: a precedent for an order made under royal prerogative (i.e. by the crown on the recommendation of a minister) being subject to judicial review.
 
Last edited:
so it was a masterplan to lose so much support that even the DUP cant help him, therefore rendering them useless. And the self appointed minister of the union throws the union under the bus the first chance he gets.

And some people still think he is better than Corbyn.
 
Alternatively, what existing law said he could do what he did?

As we have tried to explain to you repeatedly that was the question put to the court. Does the existing law allow him to do this? and the answer came back, no it doesn't.

Thats the job of the SC to interpret and clarify the law.
So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?

Well, you could try reading it. If you get as far as the third paragraph you might find out who the Minister for the Civil Service is.

But, basically, it’s what you’ve been asking for: a precedent for an order made under royal prerogative (i.e. by the crown on the recommendation of a minister) being subject to judicial review.
Yet again, that is not the question.

I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.
 
They simply have less influence over Johnson than they did over May. At some point you need someone more than they need you that point may have been approached if not crossed
Yep, they no longer can deliver him a majority so I'd say they now have zero influence.
 
So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?





Yet again, that is not the question.



I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.
For goodness sake give it a rest.
 
So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?


Yet again, that is not the question.

I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.


Nonsense. Your question has always been "what existing law or precedent limits the advice the PM can give the Queen?" The judgment I linked to does just that.
 
But his language on Britain's broader relationship with Europe was markedly softer. "This is not an anti-European party and it is not an anti-European country. We love Europe," he sad. The response from the conference hall was decidedly muted. "Well, I do, anyway," he muttered.


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/...to-make-a-choice-analysis-intl-gbr/index.html



Come on Boris. You know what **** you have been stirring up to get elected. It's definitely not "This is not an anti-European party and it is not an anti-European country. We love Europe". It's the exact opposite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom