Cable Forum
Page 10 of 56 « First 6789 10 1112131420 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708171)

Sephiroth 03-10-2019 23:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012694)
He also said he would remain at Downing Street regardless of the result of the EU referendum.
Missing my point again.

jfman 04-10-2019 05:21
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012707)
If the EU can cope with a newly created 900+km border, then they can cope with a smaller NI one. It's for THEM to deal with. We can ship out whatever we want, whether the EU accepts something is up to them.
Denmark has to accept products with lower standards from WITHIN the EU.

The Withdrawal Agreement has NOTHING to do with "long term" or the future. That is the subject for a potential FUTURE agreement, which has not been set out and negotiations cannot even start until after we've left the EU.

Article 50.2

The WA is optional.

A "Withdrawal" cannot have any ongoing conditions. That goes with the definition of the term. Be interesting to be able point all this out to certain quarters, so they can use it. Not likely to be that many of them around here. The problem is that there is no Leave equivalent of Gina Miller.
I’m still lost as to the point you are making. Nobody disputes that the EU can operate borders with countries adhering to their legal obligations around it.

What the UK is essentially proposing is that the UK partition of the island of Ireland doesn’t need a robust one, or any at all, which is where the hole in the Single Market comes from.

I ask again would you be happy if unlimited illegal immigration crossed from France to England because nobody bothered to make any attempt to control the border?

The same applies to uncontrolled movement of goods. No established standards, no tariffs or duties paid etc.

Again it’s good that Denmark holds goods to higher standards than the EU. You cannot say with any certainty that’s what the UK intend to do.

Hugh 04-10-2019 08:23
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012712)
Missing my point again.
Not at all - you seem to be saying we have to stick by what he said, but he didn’t stick by what he said - you focus on one point, not his lack of consistency.

Sephiroth 04-10-2019 09:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012715)
Not at all - you seem to be saying we have to stick by what he said, but he didn’t stick by what he said - you focus on one point, not his lack of consistency.
My somewhat subtle point was that with Cameron saying the choice was between remaining and "leaving altogether", those Remainers saying that "No Deal" was not on the ballot paper are clutching at straws.
"leaving altogether" means LEAVE and that was on the ballot paper.

Cameron's lack of consistency has nothing to do with the Leave/Remain argument.

spiderplant 04-10-2019 10:56
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Here's the official government advice from the time.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160622...s-if-we-leave/

Talk of Norway or Canada-style options, but no suggestion of Mauritania.

ianch99 04-10-2019 11:08
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012718)
My somewhat subtle point was that with Cameron saying the choice was between remaining and "leaving altogether", those Remainers saying that "No Deal" was not on the ballot paper are clutching at straws.
"leaving altogether" means LEAVE and that was on the ballot paper.

Cameron's lack of consistency has nothing to do with the Leave/Remain argument.
You are just rehashing old news here. It is clear to any reasonable person that there is not, and never has been, a mandate for No Deal.

What we need to focus on now is why the once cautious and prudent Conservative Party is hellbent on playing fast & loose with the economic future of the country when most of the country is against it.

Carth 04-10-2019 11:24
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012731)
What we need to focus on now is why the once cautious and prudent Conservative Party is hellbent on playing fast & loose with the economic future of the country when most of the country is against it.

Quite possibly they've woken to the fact that the only way out is a no deal.

Hugh 04-10-2019 11:42
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
I thought the only way is up?

Carth 04-10-2019 11:55
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012736)
I thought the only way is up?

Only if digital, analogue has more oomph :D

Hugh 04-10-2019 12:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012718)
My somewhat subtle point was that with Cameron saying the choice was between remaining and "leaving altogether", those Remainers saying that "No Deal" was not on the ballot paper are clutching at straws.
"leaving altogether" means LEAVE and that was on the ballot paper.

Cameron's lack of consistency has nothing to do with the Leave/Remain argument.
OK - so only his statements that support what you want count? Very "well balanced" view... ;)

Dave42 04-10-2019 12:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
PM 'will seek Brexit extension if no deal agreed by 19 October

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-will-s...tober-11827149

papa smurf 04-10-2019 13:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012739)
PM 'will seek Brexit extension if no deal agreed by 19 October

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-will-s...tober-11827149
I'm just popping down to hell for a bag of party ice.

nomadking 04-10-2019 13:34
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012714)
I’m still lost as to the point you are making. Nobody disputes that the EU can operate borders with countries adhering to their legal obligations around it.

What the UK is essentially proposing is that the UK partition of the island of Ireland doesn’t need a robust one, or any at all, which is where the hole in the Single Market comes from.

I ask again would you be happy if unlimited illegal immigration crossed from France to England because nobody bothered to make any attempt to control the border?

The same applies to uncontrolled movement of goods. No established standards, no tariffs or duties paid etc.

Again it’s good that Denmark holds goods to higher standards than the EU. You cannot say with any certainty that’s what the UK intend to do.
The simple answer to those is SO WHAT.
The external EU borders are NOT currently robust, so it's a complete and utter irrelevance to NI.

If the EU are that bothered they can put up a form of border between Ireland and the rest of the EU, The Irish are (unsurprisingly) more than happy to put up a border between NI and GB.

The question over differences in standards was over examples of where different EU countries had differing standards. Question answered. Other examples of differences out there.

The UK-France border isn't comparable, as in case you haven't noticed, we are an island. That gives limited routes into the UK, but somehow a huge number of illegals still get in. How did they get into the EU(mainly France)? How many non-EU borders does France have? Are they all coming through Switzerland? But then again Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries which they would have to get into beforehand.

If post-Brexit, somebody in NI wants to supply to a customer in Ireland, something that doesn't meet EU rules, but does meet UK ones, then the supplier is OUTSIDE of EU jurisdiction.

The real central issue is that the backstop can ONLY be the subject of any 2nd agreement. The WA is a TRANSITIONAL one, UNAMBIGUOUSLY LIMITED IN TIME, according to the EU.
Link(Again)

Quote:
Any transitional agreement must unambiguously be limited in time;
Something can only be "transitional", if there is a defined end point of the transition. Something open-ended as the backstop, is not a transition to anywhere, other than to infinity and beyond.
Quote:
The withdrawal agreement will cover issues such as:
The rights of EU citizens in the UK
  • The rights of UK citizens living in other parts of the EU
  • The UK’s financial commitments undertaken as member state
  • Border issues (especially the one between the UK and the Republic of Ireland)
  • The seat of EU agencies
  • International commitments undertaken by UK as member state (for example the Paris agreement)
No WA = no money for the EU.


Quote:
What the agreement on the future framework could cover
The agreement on the future framework would set out to describe the conditions for cooperation on a variety of issues, ranging from defence, the fight against terrorism, the environment, research, education and so on.

One of the key sections would be to agree the basis for future trade. It could also describe possible tariffs, product standards, and how to resolve disputes.
Has the EU and Remain side redefined the meaning of the word "future"? If they have, what is in this mythical future agreement?

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012731)
You are just rehashing old news here. It is clear to any reasonable person that there is not, and never has been, a mandate for No Deal.

What we need to focus on now is why the once cautious and prudent Conservative Party is hellbent on playing fast & loose with the economic future of the country when most of the country is against it.
The "deal"/WA is an OPTIONAL(on the UKs part, the EU is obliged to seek one) step, on the path to Leave. Even a vote FOR the WA is a vote for Leave. The WA just means LEAVING later. NOTHING ELSE. It does NOT(or isn't meant to) mean Remain. Either way, Deal and no deal both lead to LEAVING.

Pierre 04-10-2019 13:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012739)
PM 'will seek Brexit extension if no deal agreed by 19 October

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-will-s...tober-11827149
Of course he will, that’s the law.

He may well “seek” it, if he get’s one. We’ll see if he decides to use it.

Dave42 04-10-2019 13:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012748)
Of course he will, that’s the law.

He may well “seek” it, if he get’s one. We’ll see if he decides to use it.
if EU agree a extension it will become law like last time

OLD BOY 04-10-2019 13:48
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012731)
You are just rehashing old news here. It is clear to any reasonable person that there is not, and never has been, a mandate for No Deal.

What we need to focus on now is why the once cautious and prudent Conservative Party is hellbent on playing fast & loose with the economic future of the country when most of the country is against it.
For God's sake! The vote was to leave the EU.

How that is achieved is for the politicians, whenever they get their acts together.

The 'how we leave' issue is just the spanner in the works thrown in by Luddite remainers.

Dave42 04-10-2019 14:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
oh dear Nigel not happy


Nigel Farage
‏
Verified account

@Nigel_Farage
Follow Follow @Nigel_Farage
More
Boris said we would leave by October 31st “do or die”.

Why does he keep saying things that are not true?

nomadking 04-10-2019 14:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012748)
Of course he will, that’s the law.

He may well “seek” it, if he get’s one. We’ll see if he decides to use it.
How can something that specifies, if Parliament doesn't agree or the EU Parliament doesn't agree, then X has to be done, be legal? Parliament won't specify what they would agree to, and the EU Parliament have only said what they would agree to. How can a 3rd party(ie Boris) be held responsible or accountable for any of that?


Anyway you look at it, that limb of the legislation can only be reached if any proposals have been put to both Parliaments. The "question" hasn't been asked, never mind answered.


Another aspect of this ILLEGAL law(eg rushed through and has debating time limits specified) is that the "no to no deal" means both Leave and Remain. Some of Leave side voted for it to have a TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL deal, but the Remain side are using it to FORCE A COUP of never ending delays to leaving. How would the logic of that "law" be legal in any other context? Imagine if it was used for a Benefits related law, and it was something any claimant could never ever achieve. Imagine if the Scots voted for independence, and these tactics were used.

denphone 04-10-2019 14:22
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012751)
oh dear Nigel not happy


Nigel Farage
‏
Verified account

@Nigel_Farage
Follow Follow @Nigel_Farage
More
Boris said we would leave by October 31st “do or die”.

Why does he keep saying things that are not true?
Obviously we have a prime minister who is saying two contradictory things which is one to parliament and one to the courts.

Dave42 04-10-2019 14:23
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36012753)
Obviously we have a prime minister who is saying two contradictory things which is one to parliament and one to the courts.
yes he biggest liar in uk Den telling lies in Parliament where he can get away with it and telling court the truth where he cant get away with lies

nomadking 04-10-2019 14:27
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
And the Remain side aren't telling lies when they say they want a deal? They just want to block leaving in the first place, with or without a deal.

Sephiroth 04-10-2019 14:39
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012738)
OK - so only his statements that support what you want count? Very "well balanced" view... ;)
Are you deliberately missing the point? Many Remainers make much of the mantra that “no deal” was not on the ballot paper. But if the voters took “leave altogether” as an understanding from the PM’s lips, then “no deal” is an implicit possible outcome.

denphone 04-10-2019 14:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012756)
And the Remain side aren't telling lies when they say they want a deal? They just want to block leaving in the first place, with or without a deal.
Truth is always the first casualty when there are opposing sides...

Sephiroth 04-10-2019 14:44
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012752)
How can something that specifies, if Parliament doesn't agree or the EU Parliament doesn't agree, then X has to be done, be legal? Parliament won't specify what they would agree to, and the EU Parliament have only said what they would agree to. How can a 3rd party(ie Boris) be held responsible or accountable for any of that?


Anyway you look at it, that limb of the legislation can only be reached if any proposals have been put to both Parliaments. The "question" hasn't been asked, never mind answered.


Another aspect of this ILLEGAL law(eg rushed through and has debating time limits specified) is that the "no to no deal" means both Leave and Remain. Some of Leave side voted for it to have a TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL deal, but the Remain side are using it to FORCE A COUP of never ending delays to leaving. How would the logic of that "law" be legal in any other context? Imagine if it was used for a Benefits related law, and it was something any claimant could never ever achieve. Imagine if the Scots voted for independence, and these tactics were used.
This is what could happen. At the next EU Council meeting on 17-Oct, they could have made sufficient progress to continue negotiations but they would have to last beyond 31-Oct.

Since the Benn Act requires the PM to accept whatever the EU offers, that could be just one month, which would let Boris off the do-or-die pledge.

Could it happen, really?

Dave42 04-10-2019 14:45
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012756)
And the Remain side aren't telling lies when they say they want a deal? They just want to block leaving in the first place, with or without a deal.
both sides have told lies as everyone knows the problem is the nothing but remain lot and the nothing but no deal lot it not the majority like that

there is a sensible deal out there to be had no one is gonna get everything they want

Sephiroth 04-10-2019 14:56
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36012760)
both sides have told lies as everyone knows the problem is the nothing but remain lot and the nothing but no deal lot it not the majority like that

there is a sensible deal out there to be had no one is gonna get everything they want
At last - something from you with which I can agree.

Damien 04-10-2019 14:59
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012756)
And the Remain side aren't telling lies when they say they want a deal? They just want to block leaving in the first place, with or without a deal.
Yes, some are.

There are others within the Tory Party rebels who just want to avoid No Deal (Rory Stewart voted for May's deal three times) and there are some Labour MPs, maybe only a handful, who'll vote for a deal too.

nomadking 04-10-2019 15:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012759)
This is what could happen. At the next EU Council meeting on 17-Oct, they could have made sufficient progress to continue negotiations but they would have to last beyond 31-Oct.

Since the Benn Act requires the PM to accept whatever the EU offers, that could be just one month, which would let Boris off the do-or-die pledge.

Could it happen, really?
The EU Parliament has to agree.
Quote:
If negotiations are successful, the withdrawal agreement would need to be ratified by the UK, approved by the European Parliament, as well as by at least 20 out of 27 member states represented in the Council.

The agreement on the future framework would need to be approved by all member states and the European Parliament.
The EU Parliament is only meeting on pm 9th and am 10th Oct, and not again till pm 20th. It's goes to the EU council after the EU Parliament.

Quote:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and
conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking
account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be
negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified
majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Chris 04-10-2019 15:04
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
It is becoming clearer what el gov intends to do in order to circumvent the Surrender Act without breaking the law.

Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49936352
A senior Downing Street source said: "The government will comply with the Benn Act, which only imposes a very specific narrow duty concerning Parliament's letter requesting a delay - drafted by an unknown subset of MPs and pro-EU campaigners - and which can be interpreted in different ways.
"But the government is not prevented by the Act from doing other things that cause no delay, including other communications, private and public.
"People will have to wait to see how this is reconciled. The government is making its true position on delay known privately in Europe and this will become public soon."

Hugh 04-10-2019 15:20
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012752)
How can something that specifies, if Parliament doesn't agree or the EU Parliament doesn't agree, then X has to be done, be legal? Parliament won't specify what they would agree to, and the EU Parliament have only said what they would agree to. How can a 3rd party(ie Boris) be held responsible or accountable for any of that?


Anyway you look at it, that limb of the legislation can only be reached if any proposals have been put to both Parliaments. The "question" hasn't been asked, never mind answered.


Another aspect of this ILLEGAL law(eg rushed through and has debating time limits specified) is that the "no to no deal" means both Leave and Remain. Some of Leave side voted for it to have a TEMPORARY TRANSITIONAL deal, but the Remain side are using it to FORCE A COUP of never ending delays to leaving. How would the logic of that "law" be legal in any other context? Imagine if it was used for a Benefits related law, and it was something any claimant could never ever achieve. Imagine if the Scots voted for independence, and these tactics were used.
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team. ;)

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012757)
Are you deliberately missing the point? Many Remainers make much of the mantra that “no deal” was not on the ballot paper. But if the voters took “leave altogether” as an understanding from the PM’s lips, then “no deal” is an implicit possible outcome.
Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36012764)
It is becoming clearer what el gov intends to do in order to circumvent the Surrender Act without breaking the law.
Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49936352
A senior Downing Street source said: "The government will comply with the Benn Act, which only imposes a very specific narrow duty concerning Parliament's letter requesting a delay - drafted by an unknown subset of MPs and pro-EU campaigners - and which can be interpreted in different ways.
"But the government is not prevented by the Act from doing other things that cause no delay, including other communications, private and public.
"People will have to wait to see how this is reconciled. The government is making its true position on delay known privately in Europe and this will become public soon.
From a barrister...
Quote:
This familiar “Senior No 10 source” presumably thinks that if you point a gun at someone, grab their wallet and shout “this is NOT a robbery!” then you have ingeniously thwarted the statutory prohibition against robbery.

This is the same legal genius who floated the idea of sending a second letter asking the EU to ignore the first letter requesting an extension, until he was temporarily put back in his box by everyone who had ever had any dealings with any court ever.

jfman 04-10-2019 15:44
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012750)
For God's sake! The vote was to leave the EU.

How that is achieved is for the politicians, whenever they get their acts together.

The 'how we leave' issue is just the spanner in the works thrown in by Luddite remainers.
Our future trading arrangements with our largest trading partner - and indeed the possibility of the UK being flooded by tariff free goods from around the world as WTO countries claim their right to the same "no tariffs" we offer the UK, is hardly a "spanner in the works".

British jobs are at risk.

Chris 04-10-2019 16:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012765)
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team. ;)

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...
Oh, Twitter. Well that’s alright then.

I wonder exactly what it is the secret barrister is getting so angry about, seeing as the “Downing Street source” has pointedly not said exactly what is being done, other than to confirm they will send the letter as required, but they believe they have a way round the Surrender Act and have been privately briefing EU governments about it.

It seems to me that a number of options are open to the government, one of them being a warning that if the UK continues in membership beyond 31 October it will begin to obstruct the orderly running of the EU by, for example, refusing to agree the budget or to appoint its EU Commissioner.

The Surrender Act may force the Prime Minister to do one specific thing but it does not prohibit him doing anything else. And at the end of the day an extension beyond 31 October requires the unanimous agreement of the EU27. No amount of squealing from the Opposition benches can change that. If BoJo is to comply with British law yet also ensure there is no extension beyond 31 October, then that has to be fought for and gained in Brussels, not Westminster.

Our excitable barrister’s robbery illustration is great satire, but Twitter remains a poor forum for legal debate, even after they lifted the 140 character limit.

nomadking 04-10-2019 16:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012765)
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team. ;)

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...
In what other context could X be held accountable for Y & Z not coming to an agreement, where Y won't say what they would agree to, other than saying(3 times) that they refuse to accept the only thing Z is prepared to offer? Even if Y or Z agree to a particular plan, it still takes BOTH of them to have to agree. The onus is on Y & Z, not X. How can something that is LEGALLY described as being a transitional phase, unambiguously limited in time, have something that is not limited in time?
Examples please of where those things would and have been, allowed legally?


In a trade union dispute, would a trade union leader be held legally responsible for 2 sides(employer and union members) not reaching an agreement? Would the trade union leader be forced to accept whatever the employer proposed, if no agreement was reached within a certain time? Would the trade union leader have to go into negotiations with no threats of strikes or other disruptions allowed? Not sure all that would be in the negotiating handbook for trade unions(or any other organisation). It certainly wouldn't be allowed in any contract or Law.

Sephiroth 04-10-2019 16:32
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012765)
<SNIP>

]Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...[COLOR="Silver"]


<SNIP>
No I didn't. I said in different words that if the voters heard Cameron say that one of the choices was "leave altogether" then you can't claim that "nobody voted for no deal". The English language, in this case, is quite plain.

The then PM did not say we must leave altogether - he was merely offering the choice. What you've opined has nothing to with my point.

nomadking 04-10-2019 16:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012775)
No I didn't. I said in different words that if the voters heard Cameron say that one of the choices was "leave altogether" then you can't claim that "nobody voted for no deal". The English language, in this case, is quite plain.

The then PM did not say we must leave altogether - he was merely offering the choice. What you've opined has nothing to with my point.
How many more times?:mad: Deal still means leave, or is meant to.
Any 2nd referendum could only ask "Leave with a delay" or "Leave without any delay". That is what "deal or no deal" entails.

ianch99 04-10-2019 16:53
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012745)
The "deal"/WA is an OPTIONAL(on the UKs part, the EU is obliged to seek one) step, on the path to Leave. Even a vote FOR the WA is a vote for Leave. The WA just means LEAVING later. NOTHING ELSE. It does NOT(or isn't meant to) mean Remain. Either way, Deal and no deal both lead to LEAVING.
Your posts are starting to read like Daily Express articles :) The use of block capitals is unnecessary ..

To be honest, I do not really understand your reply ... too many words in uppercase :)

pip08456 04-10-2019 17:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012765)
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team. ;)

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...
Is it the same legal source that created a letter to the EU not to accept an agreement offered by the government on behalf or the LibDems?

nomadking 04-10-2019 17:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012778)
Your posts are starting to read like Daily Express articles :) The use of block capitals is unnecessary ..

To be honest, I do not really understand your reply ... too many words in uppercase :)
You don't understand words such as "leaving"? There's a surprise.:rolleyes:

jfman 04-10-2019 17:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012778)
Your posts are starting to read like Daily Express articles :) The use of block capitals is unnecessary ..

To be honest, I do not really understand your reply ... too many words in uppercase :)
At least he’s gave up on giving me hysterical and irrelevant replies.

Damien 04-10-2019 17:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36012771)
Oh, Twitter. Well that’s alright then.

I wonder exactly what it is the secret barrister is getting so angry about, seeing as the “Downing Street source” has pointedly not said exactly what is being done, other than to confirm they will send the letter as required, but they believe they have a way round the Surrender Act and have been privately briefing EU governments about it.
Or they're making as much as noise as possible to provoke the opposition into doing the VoNC thing and getting them to do it, along with the electoral benefits that'll give em.

Or just as much noise so that when he does extend he can say he did all he could.

pip08456 04-10-2019 17:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012765)
You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team. ;)

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...
"I have been instructed to send this request to you on behalf of our lily livered members of parliament who have decided they want me to beg for an extention."

I don't want one and it is me and my team you have to deal with.

Hugh 04-10-2019 18:27
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36012785)
"I have been instructed to send this request to you on behalf of our lily livered members of parliament who have decided they want me to beg for an extention."

I don't want one and it is me and my team you have to deal with.
You appear to have mis-remembered it...

Quote:
Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

Pierre 04-10-2019 19:07
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012786)
You appear to have mis-remembered it...
Only has to be “ in the form” of that example, not a replica of it.

Hugh 04-10-2019 19:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012789)
Only has to be “ in the form” of that example, not a replica of it.
Once again, your expert legal advice is much appreciated - you and nomadking should get together and provide BJ/Cummings with legal support, to avoid further fiascos like Prorogation being declared null and void.

Pierre 04-10-2019 19:54
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012791)
Once again, your expert legal advice is much appreciated - you and nomadking should get together and provide BJ/Cummings with legal support, to avoid further fiascos like Prorogation being declared null and void.
Woooo, hoooo. ( lifts up imaginary skirt)

I’ll take no direction from a person that gets their legal advice from twitter thank you.

OLD BOY 04-10-2019 20:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012770)
Our future trading arrangements with our largest trading partner - and indeed the possibility of the UK being flooded by tariff free goods from around the world as WTO countries claim their right to the same "no tariffs" we offer the UK, is hardly a "spanner in the works".

British jobs are at risk.
The 'spanner in the works' is the attempt made by those stubborn remainers to thwart Brexit.

I don't buy your doom-laden views about a no-deal Brexit, which would free us from the sticky web of the EU. As has been pointed out before, there is the rest of the world to trade with. Many of these countries have more rapidly-growing GDPs than the EU.

We do not have to be flooded with tariff-free goods. We could apply quotas if supply exceeded demand.

Anyhow, it is pretty obvious to me that if we cannot secure a deal, we simply agree with the EU to set out how far we've got in our thinking about a trade deal and apply Article 24 of GATT. Given the EU's public declarations that they want a deal, I see no reason why that would be refused. It takes away the time pressure and we can forget the withdrawal agreement completely and just go straight into discussions about a trade agreement. Backstop issues disappear overnight.

---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012789)
Only has to be “ in the form” of that example, not a replica of it.
Nice try, but I don't think those tactics would stand up in a court of law, particularly with the astounding judgements they seem to be coming to these days about all things Brexit.

Hugh 04-10-2019 22:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012793)
Woooo, hoooo. ( lifts up imaginary skirt)

I’ll take no direction from a person that gets their legal advice from twitter thank you.
<snigger>

The twitter poster is a qualified barrister - the method of information is irrelevant, it’s the information that’s important.

The Supreme Court has a Twitter account - I suppose that invalidates its recent ruling on Prorogation? ;)

jfman 04-10-2019 22:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012794)
The 'spanner in the works' is the attempt made by those stubborn remainers to thwart Brexit.
This is your claim - however it doesn't stand up. Labour, for instance, are committed to negotiating a deal to leave the EU.

Quote:
I don't buy your doom-laden views about a no-deal Brexit, which would free us from the sticky web of the EU. As has been pointed out before, there is the rest of the world to trade with. Many of these countries have more rapidly-growing GDPs than the EU.

We do not have to be flooded with tariff-free goods. We could apply quotas if supply exceeded demand.

Anyhow, it is pretty obvious to me that if we cannot secure a deal, we simply agree with the EU to set out how far we've got in our thinking about a trade deal and apply Article 24 of GATT. Given the EU's public declarations that they want a deal, I see no reason why that would be refused. It takes away the time pressure and we can forget the withdrawal agreement completely and just go straight into discussions about a trade agreement. Backstop issues disappear overnight.
Nor do I buy your absolutely baseless claims about how good Brexit will be. Article 24 of GATT doesn't work - that's been disproven time and again. WTO terms mean we need to offer the rest of the world trade terms we offer the EU until we reach an agreement. That's at the absolute core of the WTO that trading terms cannot be discriminatory.

As soon as something is 'obvious to you' in this space it's immediately discredited to be honest.

The rest of the world may have more rapidly growing GDP but there's absolutely no guarantee that means anything positive for us, it's not clear what we have to offer these countries at all? A 20% drop in the value of the pound hasn't improved our exports - what tariffs will be removed that improves trade? With who? In what sector?

All unknown.

Chris 04-10-2019 23:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012799)
<snigger>

The twitter poster is a qualified barrister - the method of information is irrelevant, it’s the information that’s important.

The Supreme Court has a Twitter account - I suppose that invalidates its recent ruling on Ororogation? ;)
On the contrary, the mode of any communication is an integral component of that communication and it is entirely fair to take it into account. A great many otherwise serious and thoughtful people have communicated frivolous, libellous, hate-filled or just plain boneheaded nonsense when presented with 280 characters, a send button and the prospect of instant adulation from thousands of “followers”.

Barristers have opinions; only those presented in court are tested, and then 50% of them are proven wrong.

OLD BOY 05-10-2019 01:49
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012800)
This is your claim - however it doesn't stand up. Labour, for instance, are committed to negotiating a deal to leave the EU.
That's what they say. But who believes them?

jfman 05-10-2019 07:48
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36012803)
That's what they say. But who believes them?
Well we know for a fact Boris is lying.

ianch99 05-10-2019 08:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36012801)
On the contrary, the mode of any communication is an integral component of that communication and it is entirely fair to take it into account. A great many otherwise serious and thoughtful people have communicated frivolous, libellous, hate-filled or just plain boneheaded nonsense when presented with 280 characters, a send button and the prospect of instant adulation from thousands of “followers”.

Barristers have opinions; only those presented in court are tested, and then 50% of them are proven wrong.
What a load of twaddle. He has an informed opinion and seem perfectly able to express it succinctly via social media.

I suspect it more a case of you not liking the opinion rather than the medium over which he expresses it.

denphone 05-10-2019 08:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012805)
Well we know for a fact Boris is lying.
That is no doubt about that but he does have previous history as one knows...

Maggy 05-10-2019 08:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Let's keep it civil please and discuss and debate.

Chris 05-10-2019 09:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36012807)
What a load of twaddle. He has an informed opinion and seem perfectly able to express it succinctly via social media.

I suspect it more a case of you not liking the opinion rather than the medium over which he expresses it.
Of course I don’t like it ... but then you don’t like the contrary, do you.

Liking or not liking is besides the point anyway. The danger lies in uncritical acceptance of opinions we happen to agree with, regardless of how well informed they appear to be. Twitter as a medium is the ultimate echo chamber for the reinforcement of comforting points of view. The ability to instantly retweet, coupled with the prohibition on any significant critical engagement inherent in the character limit, ensures that it has little more intellectual credence than an internet meme, regardless of who is doing the tweeting.

There are legal opinions on both sides of any legal debate. At the end of the day one opinion is accepted and the other is rejected, or perhaps aspects of both are upheld. “Informed opinion” is not congruent with “correct”. There are informed opinions on both sides, both informed by a trained ability to assess relevant information, yet they are never both fully validated in the final judgment.

As things stand, the “secret barrister” has nothing more than a contested legal opinion, that cannot be properly evaluated until it is tested in court against contrary legal opinions. Everybody with multiple brain cells should dislike the tendency to assume (s)he is correct just because (s)he is a barrister.

Pierre 05-10-2019 10:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012805)
Well we know for a fact Boris is lying.
About what?

1andrew1 05-10-2019 10:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
interesting thought piece. I would have thought Boris's position is safe in the Party but an extension could play into the hands of Farage who could claim he's the only one who can carry out Brexit.

Quote:
A Brexit extension could be just what Boris Johnson wants

An extension would destroy any remaining excuse for Mr Corbyn and the opposition parties not to acquiesce to an election (though there might still be some resistance). After that, Number 10 strategists think they will finally be able to go to the country, argue that they were made to extend, that the cost of not doing so would have been a Corbyn government and that if Mr Johnson is given the majority he so craves there will be no more extensions and the EU will have to deal with him without one hand tied behind his back.

He knows he can afford to do this in party terms because, unlike for Theresa May, there is no Brexiter king over the water to challenge his position. He is safe internally. But with the country, it is a riskier proposition. The force he continues to employ could generate an enormous backlash. Most people don't pay attention to daily events in politics but they do notice big moments, especially when they involve a politician's personal integrity or when a politician has pinned all to a certain issue or principle only to resile from it later: John Major never recovered from Britain falling out of the ERM, Tony Blair from WMD, Gordon Brown from the election that never was, Nick Clegg from tuition fees, and Theresa May from the first Brexit extension. It is possible that a second extension would similarly damn Mr Johnson: a million split-screen moments in which he said one thing but did another which shatter his reputation.
https://news.sky.com/story/a-brexit-...wants-11827675

jfman 05-10-2019 11:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012815)
About what?
Not asking for an extension. While simultaneously telling the court that he will. Both can’t be true.

Plus many others.

1andrew1 05-10-2019 11:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012820)
Not asking for an extension. While simultaneously telling the court that he will. Both can’t be true.

Plus many others.
For those still clinging bravely on to a belief that Boris can do both, this snippet from the article I posted may be of interest:
Quote:
In response, Downing Street hinted that it might withhold royal assent from the bill, precluding it from becoming law: it didn't. It hinted that Mr Johnson might disobey the law, before saying that he wouldn't. Then they said there were ways around it, loopholes to exploit and, if necessary, they would take it to the courts.

Reader, let me let you into a little secret: there isn't and they probably won't. The truth is that for all Downing Street's bluster, it has already, in the brief period since Mr Johnson entered Number 10, amassed quite the history of flirtation with constitutional cataclysm, only to never quite follow through.
https://news.sky.com/story/a-brexit-...wants-11827675

Hugh 05-10-2019 12:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36012801)
On the contrary, the mode of any communication is an integral component of that communication and it is entirely fair to take it into account. A great many otherwise serious and thoughtful people have communicated frivolous, libellous, hate-filled or just plain boneheaded nonsense when presented with 280 characters, a send button and the prospect of instant adulation from thousands of “followers”.

Barristers have opinions; only those presented in court are tested, and then 50% of them are proven wrong.
Or...

It’s an attempt to provide evaluations based on information from an award winning legal blogger and Sunday Times best selling author who has decades of legal experience, rather than from a couple of randos with little, if any, practical formal knowledge of the law, on a forum (or an "unnamed senior source in No. 10 who has been found repeatedly to be wrong in legal matters around this subject before, as opposed to the barrister quoted).

You say "potato", I say "Marshall McLuhan" ;)

jfman 05-10-2019 14:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012824)
For those still clinging bravely on to a belief that Boris can do both, this snippet from the article I posted may be of interest:

https://news.sky.com/story/a-brexit-...wants-11827675
Which brings us back to why he isn’t being honest.

He’s trying to stoke divisions because it’s to his electoral advantage.

nomadking 05-10-2019 14:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012791)
Once again, your expert legal advice is much appreciated - you and nomadking should get together and provide BJ/Cummings with legal support, to avoid further fiascos like Prorogation being declared null and void.
It is completely undeniable that the WA, as the EU specifies that it is be transitional(check your dictionaries) and unambiguously limited in time.
Link
Quote:
In his presentations to the European Parliament, Barnier has stressed a number of principles for the negotiations: the four freedoms must be indivisible; any transitional agreement must unambiguously be limited in time;
It also refers to a 2nd future(check your dictionaries again) agreement. Any contract or agreement anywhere else in the World that contained something of the nature of the backstop, ie not transitional, and unambiguously not limited in time, would be ruled invalid and illegal. It is also undeniable that the Irish intention of the backstop is impose it in one way or another outside of any future 2nd agreement. It is all incompatible with the EU treaty.
Link about Article 50.
Quote:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
The onus is on the EU to reach an agreement that is transitional and unambiguously limited in time.

The backstop could validly be part of the framework of the future relationship(ie the political declaration), but that political declaration is not legally binding on the UK and probably not on the EU. Although I'm not quite sure what, if anything, is ever legally binding on the EU.
Link
Quote:
The draft political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, after Brexit, is out. Theresa May describes it as the right deal for the UK.
A few points to remember…
This is not a legally binding document.
It's not very long either, but it has grown from last week's seven-page outline to 26 pages. It sits alongside the 585-page Draft Withdrawal Agreement (which will be legally binding if it gets ratified).
What is deniable about any of that? A contract that is legally declared to have to be temporary and limited in time, cannot be legally valid to have a condition, that is not temporary or limited in time? Be interesting to know about the vast number of legal agreements, that certain people seem to think exist, that have a permanent condition applied in a temporary arrangement.
Link
Quote:
Assuming then that transition can be achieved on the basis of Article 50 TEU, does the transition have to be time-limited? It would seem clear from the wording of Article 50 that it is confined to agreeing the terms of withdrawal and cannot serve as a basis for a (permanent) future relationship. This would suggest that a time limit must be included and indeed, the Commission’s draft provides that the transition period ends on 31 December 2020.
Regardless of whether the backstop is in the WA(ie Transitional agreement), the conditions set out(eg the backstop) cease to apply.

Looks like any WA has to presented to Parliament more than 3 weeks before any debate and vote.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010(under Gordon Brown)
Quote:
20Treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification
(1)Subject to what follows, a treaty is not to be ratified unless—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the treaty,
(b)the treaty has been published in a way that a Minister of the Crown thinks appropriate, and
(c)period A has expired without either House having resolved, within period A, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(2)Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met.
(3)Subsections (4) to (6) apply if the House of Commons resolved as mentioned in subsection (1)(c) (whether or not the House of Lords also did so).
(4)The treaty may be ratified if—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why, and
(b)period B has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period B, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(5)Period B is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (4)(a) is met.
Quote:
25Meaning of “treaty” and “ratification”
(1)In this Part “treaty” means a written agreement—
(a)between States or between States and international organisations, and
(b)binding under international law.
From transcript of Santos & Miller case
Quote:
SANTOS & MILLER
Applicants
-v-
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION
Respondent
...

18 MR EADIE: But if there was an Article 50(2) withdrawal
19 agreement, that would be a treaty between the
20 United Kingdom and the EU.
21 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes.
22 MR EADIE: As such, it is likely that it will come within
23 the procedures in CRAG. You have CRAG behind tab 29 in
24 bundle C.
25 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Yes.
Official government Explainer on the WA
Quote:
16. The Withdrawal Agreement will also be subject to the provisions of the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRaG) 2010. Following this, the treaty
will be ratified, and can enter into force.

Pierre 05-10-2019 15:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012820)
Not asking for an extension. While simultaneously telling the court that he will. Both can’t be true.

Plus many others.
He has to seek an extension, it’s the law.

papa smurf 05-10-2019 16:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012829)
He has to seek an extension, it’s the law.
And what if one of the EU 27 says no?

jfman 05-10-2019 16:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012830)
And what if one of the EU 27 says no?
Why would they do that? Crumbling Empire, need our £1bn a month, etc etc.

1andrew1 05-10-2019 16:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012830)
And what if one of the EU 27 says no?
We would have to strike a deal or leave by 31/10. It's in every member country's interests for us to remain so that would be a strange decision to make. Hungary won't upset the applecart.

papa smurf 05-10-2019 16:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012831)
Why would they do that? Crumbling Empire, need our £1bn a month, etc etc.
Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012832)
We would have to strike a deal or leave by 31/10. It's in every member country's interests for us to remain so that would be a strange decision to make. Hungary won't upset the applecart.
Why do you single out Hungary ?

jfman 05-10-2019 16:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012833)
Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.
Couple of maybes there. Maybe not.

1andrew1 05-10-2019 16:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012833)
Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.
They're probably sick of us but they're stronger with us in the tent and we have our reputation to uphold so wouldn't want to stand in the way of future plans.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012833)

Why do you single out Hungary ?
It was mentioned in an Express article at some stage when they were looking for a Brexit good news story to fit in between a Diana conspiracy story and a worst-weather-ever coming story. ;)

papa smurf 05-10-2019 16:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012836)
They're probably sick of us but they're stronger with us in the tent and we have our reputation to uphold so wouldn't want to stand in the way of future plans.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------


It was mentioned in an Express article at some stage when they were looking for a Brexit good news story to fit in between a Diana conspiracy story and a worst-weather-ever coming story. ;)
I won't comment on your choice of reading matter,it is of course your prerogative to read, inwardly digest and believe such material.

Pierre 05-10-2019 16:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012833)
Maybe we are just in the way of their future plans.

Maybe they are just sick of us and want us gone.
Bottom line is they won’t throw Ireland under the bus. Macron would only be too happy to see the back of us, but even he won’t do it.

No one has any idea what will happen after the 19th. No one knows what tricks, if any, BJ has - or thinks he has. What actions he will take or possible reactions Parliament may take.

Suffice to say nothing much will happen for the next two weeks. Then, we’ll see how it plays out.

Whatever happens, the Backstop is extension followed by election, followed by hung parliament, followed by...........who knows.

All those u18s that didn’t vote in the referendum and election, that everyone thinks will deliver a Labour Govt and Remain. I wonder what they think of MPs 2-3 years on.

Sephiroth 05-10-2019 17:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Nomad king has said some pretty important stuff.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=962

nomadking 05-10-2019 17:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36012829)
He has to seek an extension, it’s the law.
But is it? Primary legislation has set a minimum 21 sitting days before any deal can be debated and voted upon.
The Benn(?) bill limits it to 2 days. Even if the EU council and EU Parliament agreed to something, there isn't time to ratify it.

Quote:
1Duties in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union
(1)The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement that the United Kingdom has concluded an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and a copy of the agreement and—
(a)the agreement has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b)a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(i)the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(ii)the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of two Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).

Sephiroth 05-10-2019 17:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012841)
But is it? Primary legislation has set a minimum 21 sitting days before any deal can be debated and voted upon.
The Benn(?) bill limits it to 2 days. Even if the EU council and EU Parliament agreed to something, there isn't time to ratify it.
... and what is more, the Benn Act does not repeal or set aside for its purposes the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

jfman 05-10-2019 18:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
If all of the above is a correct interpretation all that will happen is a minor technical extension for the purposes of approving a deal. If Boris has a deal acceptable to Parliament, and results in leaving, it'd be fairly uncontroversial.

If he doesn't have a deal, and Parliament hasn't approved one in principle, the Benn Act applies.

papa smurf 05-10-2019 18:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012844)
If all of the above is a correct interpretation all that will happen is a minor technical extension for the purposes of approving a deal. If Boris has a deal acceptable to Parliament, and results in leaving, it'd be fairly uncontroversial.

If he doesn't have a deal, and Parliament hasn't approved one in principle, the Benn Act applies.


Lay down and surrender.

1andrew1 05-10-2019 18:52
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Good point from Bonnie Greer in Question Time
Quote:
Ms Greer added: “The United States is Irish. If anyone thinks that they’re going to get a deal through and have a trade relationship with the United States that shafts Ireland, you’ve got another thing coming.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...-a9144131.html

papa smurf 05-10-2019 19:04
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012846)
Good point from Bonnie Greer in Question Time

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...-a9144131.html
About 33 million Americans — 10.1% of the total population — self-identified as being of Irish ancestry in the 2017 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

that means just under 90% aren't irish.

jfman 05-10-2019 19:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012845)
[/B]

Lay down and surrender.
Or have the public approve no deal in a referendum or general election. Easy.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36012847)
About 33 million Americans — 10.1% of the total population — self-identified as being of Irish ancestry in the 2017 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

that means just under 90% aren't irish.
You're assuming all are represented equally. African Americans, Hispanics are underrepresented.

I agree the US isn't going to shaft Ireland. They won't need to, they'll be shafting the UK.

papa smurf 05-10-2019 19:53
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012848)
Or have the public approve no deal in a referendum or general election. Easy.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------



You're assuming all are represented equally. African Americans, Hispanics are underrepresented.

I agree the US isn't going to shaft Ireland. They won't need to, they'll be shafting the UK.
I'm not assuming anything i merely posted a statistical fact,your imagination did the rest.

nomadking 05-10-2019 20:16
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012846)
Good point from Bonnie Greer in Question Time

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...-a9144131.html
How does not having the backstop "shaft" the Irish? Any real negative impact comes from us leaving the EU full stop. The backstop doesn't remove borders, it just moves it.



For the US or Ireland, to insist on the UK remaining locked into the EU, at the behest of a bunch of terrorists who are still active, is quite obscene beyond belief.

jfman 05-10-2019 20:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012851)
How does not having the backstop "shaft" the Irish? Any real negative impact comes from us leaving the EU full stop. The backstop doesn't remove borders, it just moves it.

For the US or Ireland, to insist on the UK remaining locked into the EU, at the behest of a bunch of terrorists who are still active, is quite obscene beyond belief.
Because any “light” border leaves Ireland at risk of non-EU standard goods flooding tariff freely into their country. Threatening Irish jobs, Irish tax revenues, etc.

nomadking 05-10-2019 21:18
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36012852)
Because any “light” border leaves Ireland at risk of non-EU standard goods flooding tariff freely into their country. Threatening Irish jobs, Irish tax revenues, etc.
Tax, VAT, and currency differences currently have a financial effect. Non-EU standard goods flow freely from Ireland into the UK, eg horse meat masquerading as beef. It is the backstop that would allow that to happen. How many more times.:mad: There are already instances of "light" EU-non EU borders.:rolleyes:

1andrew1 05-10-2019 22:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012853)
Tax, VAT, and currency differences currently have a financial effect. Non-EU standard goods flow freely from Ireland into the UK, eg horse meat masquerading as beef. It is the backstop that would allow that to happen. How many more times.:mad: There are already instances of "light" EU-non EU borders.:rolleyes:
What's a light border and can you cite one? Not EU-Switzerland, we've covered off that one.

Mr K 05-10-2019 22:33
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Yesterday the Torygraph were looking to Hungary for a hard Brexit (didn't it used to be Poland?) Today it's the threat of sabotaging the EU. Are they making it up as they go aIong ? It's panic stations at Bozzas HQ....

Even more laughable are the Govt. adverts telling us to prepare for Brexit on 31/10 :D :D. It's them that need to be preparing to beg for an extension again...

Mick 05-10-2019 23:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Hahahaha - hope we do sabotage those corrupted cretins. Let's appoint Farage and piss off those pricks even more that they don't give us an extention.

They need to stop making us stay in their corrupted "empire"* then and let us bloody leave FFS, like we voted for!!!

* Using "empire" from Verhoftstadt or has Chris calls him Verhoftstwat. ;)

Chris 05-10-2019 23:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
HMG doesn’t actually have to do anything ... it simply has to fail to appoint a Commissioner, which renders the Commission in breach of its own rules. I believe there is also an opportunity for us to fail to agree to the new budget, which would bring the whole show to a grinding halt.

Poisoning the well is a time-honoured last resort tactic for averting an undesired outcome. Companies do it to themselves to avoid hostile takeover. Here, HMG might threaten to do it to avert any possible chance that the EU might actually agree to an extension beyond 31 October.

1andrew1 05-10-2019 23:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36012865)
Yesterday the Torygraph were looking to Hungary for a hard Brexit (didn't it used to be Poland?) Today it's the threat of sabotaging the EU. Are they making it up as they go aIong ? It's panic stations at Bozzas HQ....

Even more laughable are the Govt. adverts telling us to prepare for Brexit on 31/10 :D :D. It's them that need to be preparing to beg for an extension again...
Spot on Mr K. If you don't succeed at first with trying to coerce an EU member state to vote illogically, then the next straw to clutch at is to try and sabotage the EU. May have helped if the Boris Government hadn't decided to scale back its involvement in the EU. Oops! :D

But just supposing it could exert influence and sabotage things a little? I'm sure the EU would forgive and forget when the UK requested a free trade deal afterwards and the UK's emails wouldn't go into the EU's spam box and its calls to voicemail. ;)

Mick 05-10-2019 23:36
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012880)
Spot on Mr K. If you don't succeed at first with trying to coerce an EU member state to vote illogically, then the next straw to clutch at is to try and sabotage the EU. May have helped if the Boris Government hadn't decided to scale back its involvement in the EU. Oops! :D
Not spot on at all - far from it. We need to sabotage a relationship we should NOT still be in!!!

1andrew1 05-10-2019 23:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36012882)
Not spot on at all - far from it. We need to sabotage a relationship we should NOT still be in!!!
The Conservative Party promotes itself as the party of law and order. Breaking the law or the spirit of the law would further damage this image.

As mentioned above, it wouldn't get requests for a free trade deal off to a good start. The myth of "they need us more than we need them" has long since faded into the sunset.

It would also prevent the Government from taking the moral high ground with climate change protestors and complaining to countries about ways in which they operate.

Remember, the Brexit vote did not give a timescale. Leaving the EU could be enacted in 10 years' time and would still honour the vote.

Mick 05-10-2019 23:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012884)
The Conservative Party promotes itself as the party of law and order. Breaking the law or the spirit of the law would further damage this image.
The Surrender law is not a law I recognise, nor agree with. I hope they break it or find some way of circumventing it, those pricks in the worst parliament since Oliver Cromwell, will have egg on their faces. Bunch of pathetic Remain Maniacs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Remember, the Brexit vote did not give a timescale. Leaving the EU could be enacted in 10 years' time and would still honour the vote.
The EU will not survive that long. Thankfully.

1andrew1 06-10-2019 01:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36012887)
The EU will not survive that long. Thankfully.
If you're confident about that prediction then we may as well not bother leaving and focus on other issues. I think you may have just solved the Brexit riddle making leavers and remainers both happy!

Pierre 06-10-2019 08:22
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012884)
Remember, the Brexit vote did not give a timescale. Leaving the EU could be enacted in 10 years' time and would still honour the vote.
Yes it did. Quite clearly we were advised by the prime minister, two years after triggering A.50

Sephiroth 06-10-2019 09:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012884)
The Conservative Party promotes itself as the party of law and order. Breaking the law or the spirit of the law would further damage this image.

As mentioned above, it wouldn't get requests for a free trade deal off to a good start. The myth of "they need us more than we need them" has long since faded into the sunset.

It would also prevent the Government from taking the moral high ground with climate change protestors and complaining to countries about ways in which they operate.

Remember, the Brexit vote did not give a timescale. Leaving the EU could be enacted in 10 years' time and would still honour the vote.
Image would be damaged only in the eyes of Remainers.
Law & Order in the ordinary sense is about combating crime of the usual sort. Brexit is something quite different, as if you didn't know.

The rest of the world (whom you say would refuse to do trade deals with us!) are watching all this with great amusement.



---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012891)
If you're confident about that prediction then we may as well not bother leaving and focus on other issues. I think you may have just solved the Brexit riddle making leavers and remainers both happy!
Good point. If only the prediction would come true.

nomadking 06-10-2019 09:19
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012861)
What's a light border and can you cite one? Not EU-Switzerland, we've covered off that one.
So where are the "heavy" ones? Any in the past with Eastern Europe were "heavy" for very different reasons and not because of the EU, and when a new EU country(eg Hungary) puts up a "heavy" border, the EU complains about it.:confused:

Hugh 06-10-2019 09:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Speaking about "the party of Law* and Order’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ueen-fsbpsnjdc
Quote:
‘Sack me if you dare,’ Boris Johnson will tell the Queen

Boris Johnson will dare the Queen to sack him rather than resign as prime minister in an attempt to drive through Brexit on October 31, cabinet ministers have revealed.

In an unprecedented escalation of the constitutional crisis, senior aides said Johnson would not stand aside if his proposals were rejected by Brussels and MPs tried to unseat him to avert a no-deal Brexit.

They said Johnson was prepared to “squat” in Downing Street even if MPs declare no confidence in his government and agree a caretaker prime minister to replace him.
*except the laws they don’t like...

Sephiroth 06-10-2019 09:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012904)
Speaking about "the party of Law* and Order’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ueen-fsbpsnjdc
Those MPs who would unseat him are plotical opportunists and entirely dishonourable.

Boris is carrying out the Referendum instruction.

Hugh 06-10-2019 09:44
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012906)
Those MPs who would unseat him are plotical opportunists and entirely dishonourable.

Boris is carrying out the Referendum instruction.
Shame on you - if Jeremy Corbyn used these tactics for any other reason, you would be first in the queue to decry him (along with me); but it’s alright if it’s something you support.

nomadking 06-10-2019 09:46
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012904)
Speaking about "the party of Law* and Order’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ueen-fsbpsnjdc

*except the laws they don’t like...
The backstop breaks EU law. It's not transitional and can only be in any future agreement.



How is a law that says X is evicted if they don't stop the anti-social behaviour of Y & Z, valid? Just completely absurd by any stretch of the imagination. It effectively puts the power to evict X, in the hands of Y and Z. Would people on the street be happy to give their neighbours that sort of unfettered power?


As the Benn bill involves making a "treaty", ie further delays, with the EU, shouldn't it have been subject to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010

Quote:
20Treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification
(1)Subject to what follows, a treaty is not to be ratified unless—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the treaty,
(b)the treaty has been published in a way that a Minister of the Crown thinks appropriate, and
(c)period A has expired without either House having resolved, within period A, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(2)Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met.
(3)Subsections (4) to (6) apply if the House of Commons resolved as mentioned in subsection (1)(c) (whether or not the House of Lords also did so).
(4)The treaty may be ratified if—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why, and
(b)period B has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period B, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(5)Period B is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (4)(a) is met.

...
25Meaning of “treaty” and “ratification”
(1)In this Part “treaty” means a written agreement—
(a)between States or between States and international organisations, and
(b)binding under international law.
That's primary law and not easily overturned.

papa smurf 06-10-2019 09:49
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36012906)
Those MPs who would unseat him are plotical opportunists and entirely dishonourable.

Boris is carrying out the Referendum instruction.
He has the backing of real Tory's,the others should consider finding a party that shares their corrupt vision of politics and party loyalty.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:00.
Page 10 of 56 « First 6789 10 1112131420 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum