• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the Johnson deal and the May deal before that have rather little worked out on post 2020 UK-EU trade the forecasts to GDP should probably be paid less attention to than other forecasts, which is probably not much.

Certainly any brexit deal is less negative than no deal, which the IMF and OECD predicted would be a -3 to -3.5% hit, and the latest from the Bank of England says is about -5%. (And those are not "per year" they are all-in total)
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I think he is breaking the law personally.

The Act requires him to seek an extension. By doing it as he has done it he is clearly not looking to seek an extension, but rather simply looking to thwart the intent of the Act while still following the letter of it.

I believe the courts already indicated that sending a second letter would be contrary to the law.

The signature is possibly a bit of a red herring. If an unsigned letter carries the same legal weight as a signed one then he has probably complied with the law in that respect although again one could argue that by not signing it he was demonstrating that he was not genuinely seeking an extension.

It's just an incredibly childish Trump-esque response but not one that should be surprising.
Click to expand...

The relevant case law is Padfield apparently. The question would be, did he seek to frustrate a court order (the Benn Act)? The letter he sent was in accordance with the Act (as per schedule in the court order). His other two letters will have been carefully lawyered to make sure it can't be said to be a 'Padfield'.

Having a hissy fit and a ginormous sulk wouldn't qualify as one. The law cannot make you smile whilst carrying out its orders.
 
Vixen said:
The relevant case law is Padfield apparently. The question would be, did he seek to frustrate a court order (the Benn Act)? The letter he sent was in accordance with the Act (as per schedule in the court order). His other two letters will have been carefully lawyered to make sure it can't be said to be a 'Padfield'.

Having a hissy fit and a ginormous sulk wouldn't qualify as one. The law cannot make you smile whilst carrying out its orders.
Click to expand...
What court order are you talking about?
 
Nessie said:
The letter is a means of notification requesting an extension. The Benn Act has been complied with and there is now a request for an extension until the 31st Jan 2020. Just because it was unsigned and a photocopy does not mean the request has not been sent. The not signing and sending a photocopy is Johnson's childish way of showing he does not want the extension. He has made that clear with his other letter.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50114538

"Regrettably, Parliament missed the opportunity to inject momentum into the ratification process for the new Withdrawal Agreement. The UK Parliament Representative will therefore submit the request mandated by the EU (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 later today.
It is, of course, for the European Council to decide when to consider the request and whether to grant it. In view of the unique circumstances, while I regret causing my fellow leaders to devote more of their time and energy to a question I had hoped we had resolved last week, I recognise that you may need to convene a European Council.

If it would be helpful to you, I would of course be happy to attend the start of any A50 Council so that I could answer properly any question on the position of HM Government and progress in the ratification process at that time.
Meanwhile, although I would have preferred a different result today, the Government will press ahead with ratification and introduce the necessary legislation early next week. I remain confident that we will complete that process by 31 October."
Click to expand...
Were I the EU I would respond that we have no problem and will instigate that immediately. Unfortunately, it will take 3 months to convene....
 
Francesca R said:
Since the Johnson deal and the May deal before that have rather little worked out on post 2020 UK-EU trade the forecasts to GDP should probably be paid less attention to than other forecasts, which is probably not much.

Certainly any brexit deal is less negative than no deal, which the IMF and OECD predicted would be a -3 to -3.5% hit, and the latest from the Bank of England says is about -5%. (And those are not "per year" they are all-in total)
Click to expand...

The point is less about whether the figures are accurate, and more about the fact that she accepts that they are yet still insists that it's a good thing for the country.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The point is less about whether the figures are accurate, and more about the fact that she accepts that they are yet still insists that it's a good thing for the country.
Click to expand...
I also don't think everything should be about the impact it has on GDP. So I don't see that acknowledging Brexit will negatively impact GDP but still think it should happen is necessarily a weird position to take.
 
Darat said:
But which court order?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but was it not an order he send that letter as per the Benn Act?

ETA OK so it was an Act of Parliament, not the Supreme Court. Padfield refers to constitutional law that establishes one cannot atempt to frustrate an Act of Parliament.

Instead of a riddle-me-ree, why not just say so?
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Your argument is that Johnson wants his deal to fail and if it passes he loses.

Yeah, not really. But if that's what you believe sure.
Click to expand...

He wants a no deal Brexit and nothing less, you really need to grasp this fact. There is no other reason why he prorogued parliament and refused to put his deal to a vote after the Letwin amendment passed. The deal he has proposed is worse than May's deal that he refused to support. He only wants his deal to pass if he can then use it to engineer a crash out no deal Brexit. Since he can't he chose not to put his deal to a vote and avoid the amendment.
 
Darat said:
I also don't think everything should be about the impact it has on GDP. So I don't see that acknowledging Brexit will negatively impact GDP but still think it should happen is necessarily a weird position to take.
Click to expand...

I've not seen anybody from the government articulate anything positive from Brexit that isn't ultimately concerned with GDP. Even "there's too much immigration" ultimately comes down to "how do immigrants affect the GDP".
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I've not seen anybody from the government articulate anything positive from Brexit that isn't ultimately concerned with GDP. Even "there's too much immigration" ultimately comes down to "how do immigrants affect the GDP".
Click to expand...

And during the referendum campaign the focus was very much on how much better off we would be and immigration. Now it turns out we will be worse off and immigration will simply shift from the EU to elsewhere because it turns out we need those immigrants. Not one benefit claimed by the leavers has turned out to have any basis in reality.
 
Francesca R said:
Bit daft to accidentally get a deal from Brussels then. What a buffoon.



Or--your opinion does not stack against the evidence.
Click to expand...
I really dont think there is any clear plan, strategy or tactics behind anything Johnson has done.

My personal view before his old fag* put the amendment down was that we would be leaving 31/10 without any deal. I now think it is much more likely we will be leaving with a deal before the end of the year.


*no idea just like the play on words
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom