Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
they were in error. parliament didnt need to be recalled and the speaker didnt recall it. it simply resumed.
Click to expand...

That is some real 1984 garbage right there.


Please ignore your own eyes and ears where everyone acted and talked about how they were prorogued illegally and took their normal prorogration actions. Your eyes are deceiving you.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is some real 1984 garbage right there.

Please ignore your own eyes and ears where everyone acted and talked about how they were prorogued illegally and took their normal prorogration actions. Your eyes are deceiving you.
Click to expand...

Hey! Good to see you get all fired up and opinionated for once :)

Go Bob!
Go Bob!
Go Bob!
 
We certainly don't want anyone in government appearing to respect lawful procedures even as they object to them through other channels.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is some real 1984 garbage right there.


Please ignore your own eyes and ears where everyone acted and talked about how they were prorogued illegally and took their normal prorogration actions. Your eyes are deceiving you.
Click to expand...

Sorry if the facts bother you. Hansard reflects what i said.

Unlawful actions have no effect. If someone sells you stolen goods for example the title cannot pass to you because the person never had the title to sell to you.

Equally if a PM is acting unlawfully then their actions have no effect. Parliament was never legally prorogued so it just resumed and got on with its business.

They should have done it sooner to be honest. The Scottish court decision gave them that right
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
Toby "Daddy Got me into Oxford but I don't think poor people have a right to go to University however talented they are" Young.


I have a general rule that whenever I'm not sure which way to jump on a controversial subject, say "should established adults in the media make personal attacks on a teenager" I look at what Toby "son of Baron" Young says on the issue and do the opposite. It's never let me down so far.
Click to expand...

Did you see Johnson's denial on ITV?

"How do you know it didn't happen if you can't remember the meal and she can?"
"It didn't happen"
"But how can you be sure?"
I think he said there were lots of personal reasons he wasn't going to go into but it didn't happen.

It was quite telling about his behaviour. A normal, non-assaulty bloke could just say, "because I've never done anything like that in my life"
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Sorry if the facts bother you. Hansard reflects what i said.

Unlawful actions have no effect. If someone sells you stolen goods for example the title cannot pass to you because the person never had the title to sell to you.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between saying it doesn't have an effect and it didn't happen. People would say my stuff was illegally sold. People would say my stuff was never sold in the first place.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is a difference between saying it doesn't have an effect and it didn't happen. People would say my stuff was illegally sold. People would say my stuff was never sold in the first place.
Click to expand...

legally it didn't happen. just as legally your stuff wasn't sold.

Its amazing that people will argue this stuff.

Read the decision. It was as if they had walked in with a blank piece of paper.

It would have been VERY interesting if the speaker and opposition MPs had continued to sit and pass legislation because there's every chance it would have legally stood.
 
jimbob said:
Did you see Johnson's denial on ITV?

"How do you know it didn't happen if you can't remember the meal and she can?"
"It didn't happen"
"But how can you be sure?"
I think he said there were lots of personal reasons he wasn't going to go into but it didn't happen.

It was quite telling about his behaviour. A normal, non-assaulty bloke could just say, "because I've never done anything like that in my life"
Click to expand...


I've found the people queuing to defend him quite disgusting, I've repeatedly heard 'it was different in offices then', we're talking about around the millennium not the 1950's ffs. I was working in offices then and no-one I worked with would have considered it normal behaviour.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
legally it didn't happen. just as legally your stuff wasn't sold.

Its amazing that people will argue this stuff.

Read the decision. It was as if they had walked in with a blank piece of paper.

It would have been VERY interesting if the speaker and opposition MPs had continued to sit and pass legislation because there's every chance it would have legally stood.
Click to expand...

"Legally, it didn't happen."

No, it didn't happen legally. It did happen.

Just as someone takes the life of another when they were not legally permitted so, the person still died.
 
An almost sensible proposal from the 'government'!

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...o-the-eu-accept-my-brexit-deal-or-its-no-deal

Details have emerged of the prime minister’s final Brexit offer that he will lay out on Wednesday, with Northern Ireland staying under EU single market regulations for agri-food and manufactured goods until at least 2025, at which point its assembly in Stormont will decide whether to continue alignment with EU or UK standards.

With a few modifications this can maybe replace the backstop. All it needs is to be inclusive enough to work at all, have permanent continuation of the arrangement as the legal default and demand any change is subject to a referendum in NI, perhaps with a 60% treshold.

This would make it a backstop with a guaranteed way to remove it that doesn't rely on passing legislation with 50%+1 vote.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
An almost sensible proposal from the 'government'!

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...o-the-eu-accept-my-brexit-deal-or-its-no-deal

Details have emerged of the prime minister’s final Brexit offer that he will lay out on Wednesday, with Northern Ireland staying under EU single market regulations for agri-food and manufactured goods until at least 2025, at which point its assembly in Stormont will decide whether to continue alignment with EU or UK standards.

With a few modifications this can maybe replace the backstop. All it needs is to be inclusive enough to work at all, have permanent continuation of the arrangement as the legal default and demand any change is subject to a referendum in NI, perhaps with a 60% treshold.

This would make it a backstop with a guaranteed way to remove it that doesn't rely on passing legislation with 50%+1 vote.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Well there's all kinds of rumours flying around but if this one is true, what about the 79% of the economy which isn't "agri-food and manufactured goods" ? Is the EU supposed to ignore that ?
 
The Don said:
Well there's all kinds of rumours flying around but if this one is true, what about the 79% of the economy which isn't "agri-food and manufactured goods" ? Is the EU supposed to ignore that ?
Click to expand...

Well, customs union would cover mostly "agri-foods and manufactured goods" and not services anyway. Presumably this proposal wouldn't need significant changes to make this a customs union by another name.

Give it no default expiry date and require a positive action to change the status quo with a referendum and it might work.

In that scenario it's really just the original backstop with a minor addition that allows Northern Ireland to choose who it wants to be more closely tied to. By itself this shouldn't be a problem. The only necessary modifications are that it's not Stormont that decides but the NI populace on a referendum, that the treshold to change status quo of the referendum is 60%+1 vote and unless something else gets over the treshold, things stay as they are. Another necessary modification may be to include something that would be a part of the customs union but is not "agri-foods and manufactured goods", I guess raw materials might qualify.

These modifications seem doable, even in the two weeks that remain. What you're left with is a slightly modified original backstop.

This just goes to show what a trainwreck Brexit has been.

McHrozni
 
Meanwhile, the Labour Party is doing everything it possibly can to scupper the idea of a government of national unity :mad:

Labour has rejected the idea of a "government of national unity" - headed by a figure like Ken Clarke or Margaret Beckett - to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said any interim government - formed after the removal of Boris Johnson - must be headed by Jeremy Corbyn.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891500

This reinforces two things IMO:

  1. Jeremy Corbyn, just like Boris Johnson, simply wants to be Prime Minister regardless of the national interest
  2. Jeremy Corbyn is just as (more ?) enthusiastic about Brexit as Boris Johnson

I'm not sure which of the two of them would be a worse UK Prime Minister.
 
The Don said:
Meanwhile, the Labour Party is doing everything it possibly can to scupper the idea of a government of national unity :mad:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891500

This reinforces two things IMO:

  1. Jeremy Corbyn, just like Boris Johnson, simply wants to be Prime Minister regardless of the national interest
  2. Jeremy Corbyn is just as (more ?) enthusiastic about Brexit as Boris Johnson

I'm not sure which of the two of them would be a worse UK Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

I think Corbyn could be the next circle of Hell after Johnson. But if you think that’s bad, wait until it’s Farage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom