Cable Forum
Page 2 of 56 1 2 34561252 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)

Mr K 18-09-2019 12:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010502)
This court case is turning into a farce,there seems to be a bunch of oldies fumbling about looking for bits of paper because they aren't computer literate.
'Fumbling oldies', they sound like Brexit experts then....

jfman 18-09-2019 12:48
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010484)
BREAKING. Guy Verhofstadt has just stated in European Parliament during Brexit debate that UK Parliament is like Soviet Union.

He’s not doing you any favours Remainers. At weekend he talked at Illiberal Undemocrat Conference that the EU is like an Empire.
In fairness, he could offer you the best deal in the world and you'd still not approve because it came from him.

Mick 18-09-2019 14:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010507)
In fairness, he could offer you the best deal in the world and you'd still not approve because it came from him.
That goofy twerp has not acted in good faith, there is footage of him laughing and relishing the fact that he wants to turn UK in to a colony and you sit there and support these morons?

Shameful that you tolerate such disgusting behaviour from these EU muppets and clowns.

Role on us leaving, when we actually do.

Mr K 18-09-2019 15:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010510)
That goofy twerp has not acted in good faith, there is footage of him laughing and relishing the fact that he wants to turn UK in to a colony and you sit there and support these morons?

Shameful that you tolerate such disgusting behaviour from these EU muppets and clowns.

Role on us leaving, when we actually do.
Think I've asked this before Mick, but I'll try again. How do your see your day to day life improving when we leave the EU? What brilliant thing do you foresee happening? Who will you blame if it isn't better or even worse? Who will be the corrupt cancerous moron Muppets then? Look before you leap..... The future looks rosy for a select few who are pulling the strings in this country atm, the rest of us are stuffed.

jfman 18-09-2019 15:32
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010510)
That goofy twerp has not acted in good faith, there is footage of him laughing and relishing the fact that he wants to turn UK in to a colony and you sit there and support these morons?

Shameful that you tolerate such disgusting behaviour from these EU muppets and clowns.

Role on us leaving, when we actually do.
I don't really think it's "shameful" that I tolerate "disgusting" behaviour to be honest. I just think you are perceiving events drastically differently from reality to be honest.

The UK was/is far from a colony, even when working alongside it's European partners.

Mick 18-09-2019 16:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010514)
I don't really think it's "shameful" that I tolerate "disgusting" behaviour to be honest.
I beg to differ.

Anyone who defends their actions in belittling our leader, mocks our country even if you cannot stand him, is a disgrace.

---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010512)
Think I've asked this before Mick, but I'll try again. How do your see your day to day life improving when we leave the EU? What brilliant thing do you foresee happening? Who will you blame if it isn't better or even worse? Who will be the corrupt cancerous moron Muppets then? Look before you leap..... The future looks rosy for a select few who are pulling the strings in this country atm, the rest of us are stuffed.
That's a view I do not share, so your question is irrelevant.

jfman 18-09-2019 16:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010517)
I beg to differ.

Anyone who defends their actions in belittling our leader, mocks our country even if you cannot stand him, is a disgrace.
I think anyone who belittles Johnson is carrying out a reasonable action. He's a proven liar. He doesn't even agree with leaving, it's political expediency for him to do so to ascent to the leadership of the Party. In many ways I've more respect for the Eurosceptics who have always held a principled stance.

Mick 18-09-2019 16:27
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010520)
I think anyone who belittles Johnson is carrying out a reasonable action. He's a proven liar. He doesn't even agree with leaving, it's political expediency for him to do so to ascent to the leadership of the Party. In many ways I've more respect for the Eurosceptics who have always held a principled stance.
And mocking our country as well, is perfectly fine as well to you, like Goofy twerp did this morning, mocking our Parliament, referring to it as the Soviet Union, that's tolerable to you because you cannot think past your convictions that we cannot survive outside this disgusting and corrupt EU.

Hugh 18-09-2019 16:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010517)
I beg to differ.

Anyone who defends their actions in belittling our leader, mocks our country even if you cannot stand him, is a disgrace.

---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ----------



That's a view I do not share, so your question is irrelevant.
He didn't belittle BJ, he said that instead of using the Hulk as an inspiration, he should use Mrs Doubtfire, because that character was caring...
Quote:
He referred to Boris Johnson's comparison to the Hulk while talking about EU citizens' rights.

He said that the prime minister needed to rethink settled status in the UK for EU citizens, and said that there should be automatic registration.

He quipped: "Boris Johnson likes a lot to compare himself with movie characters. Well, concerning citizens' rights, instead of playing the angry Hulk I think he should inspire himself by another character - the caring nanny from the film Mrs Doubtfire."
Also, re the alleged Soviet Union comparison, he was reflecting the Brexit Party's MEPs comments about the EU being like the Soviet Union - he actually said
Quote:
He said Eurosceptics like "to say the European Union is undemocratic", but he continued: "I can tell you that Jean-Claude Juncker or Tusk can do a lot of things but at least they can't close the doors of this house - that is not possible!"

Referring to the Brexit Party, he said: "If the Eurosceptics in the coming minutes want to use again the ridiculous comparison with the Soviet Union they can point the finger at Westminster rather than Strasbourg or Brussels."
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...ment-1-6275792

jfman 18-09-2019 16:34
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010523)
And mocking our country as well, is perfectly fine as well to you, like Goofy twerp did this morning, mocking our Parliament, referring to it as the Soviet Union, that's tolerable to you because you cannot think past your convictions that we cannot survive outside this disgusting and corrupt EU.
I think our Parliament being suspended is very Soviet. An apt comparison.

papa smurf 18-09-2019 16:56
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010525)
I think our Parliament being suspended is very Soviet. An apt comparison.
Didn't realise the USSR had a queens speech and a conference season.

jfman 18-09-2019 17:09
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010530)
Didn't realise the USSR had a queens speech and a conference season.
Convenient excuses. No other country on earth would let their politicians go for a jolly by the seaside during a major constitutional crisis.

If the default was we would remain instead of leave I'm sure you'd be suitably outraged.

Mick 18-09-2019 17:38
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010531)
Convenient excuses. No other country on earth would let their politicians go for a jolly by the seaside during a major constitutional crisis.

If the default was we would remain instead of leave I'm sure you'd be suitably outraged.
Convenient excuses nothing - I wouldn't call the Illiberal Undemocrats conference in Bournmouth and their activists seen shouting and chanting, "Tony Blair, F Off and die." having a jolly.

The crisis is because of MPs keep extending Brexit when we could have left by now.

Carth 18-09-2019 17:52
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010531)
No other country on earth would let their politicians go for a jolly by the seaside during a major constitutional crisis.
A major constitutional crisis brought about by?

Three years, three long and wasted years, yet 'some' are arguing that a few days will make a massive difference.

Truthful answer (if you know one) . . what would have happened in Parliament in 4 days that would have been any different to the previous 3 years?

Mick 18-09-2019 17:52
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010524)
He didn't belittle BJ, he said that instead of using the Hulk as an inspiration, he should use Mrs Doubtfire, because that character was caring...

Also, re the alleged Soviet Union comparison, he was reflecting the Brexit Party's MEPs comments about the EU being like the Soviet Union - he actually said

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...ment-1-6275792
I have no interest in what he said. Desperate attempts, trying to paint that man in good light - the man is a cretin of the highest order.

The EU is worse than the Soviet Union ever was. Appointing a President of the Commission that wasn't even on the ballot paper, ignoring new suggested conventions that would have seen the EU to be the very thing it is criticised for not being, more democratic.

Mr K 18-09-2019 18:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010535)
I have no interest in what he said. Desperate attempts, trying to paint that man in good light - the man is a cretin of the highest order.

The EU is worse than the Soviet Union ever was. Appointing a President of the Commission that wasn't even on the ballot paper, ignoring new suggested conventions that would have seen the EU to be the very thing it is criticised for not being, more democratic.
I really must have missed something in my history lessons . Can't remember the EU making nearly 2 million people die/disappear in gulags...

jfman 18-09-2019 18:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36010534)
A major constitutional crisis brought about by?

Three years, three long and wasted years, yet 'some' are arguing that a few days will make a massive difference.

Truthful answer (if you know one) . . what would have happened in Parliament in 4 days that would have been any different to the previous 3 years?
Also Mick’s point, not quoted.

The constitutional crisis has been brought about by MPs and Government not agreeing. MPs could/should have shown backbone and acted decisively by GE/2nd referendum if they really wanted to stop Brexit. I do agree they’ve wasted time.

The 4 days is a red herring - the Queens Speech isn’t necessary now. I know many will disagree but it’s clearly a device to constrain Parliament. Again this, along with many things over the last three years we won’t agree on, so I’m happy to leave that to the side rather than go in circles.

pip08456 18-09-2019 18:53
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010543)
Also Mick’s point, not quoted.

The constitutional crisis has been brought about by MPs and Government not agreeing. MPs could/should have shown backbone and acted decisively by GE/2nd referendum if they really wanted to stop Brexit. I do agree they’ve wasted time.

The 4 days is a red herring - the Queens Speech isn’t necessary now. I know many will disagree but it’s clearly a device to constrain Parliament. Again this, along with many things over the last three years we won’t agree on, so I’m happy to leave that to the side rather than go in circles.
The Queen's speach is necessary to start a new session of parliament.

jfman 18-09-2019 18:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010544)
The Queen's speach is necessary to start a new session of parliament.
I know its function. Haven’t needed one for two years, don’t need one before October 31st.

Here is a list with some of the legislation lost through the timing of this

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/

Mick 18-09-2019 19:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010547)
I know it’s function. Haven’t needed one for two years, don’t need one before October 31st.

Here is a list with some of the legislation lost through the timing of this

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/
Which can be resubmitted at any time - not an issue.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:04
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010552)
Which can be resubmitted at any time - not an issue.
And start from scratch. Parliamentary time lost and wasted, although that’s not new!

pip08456 18-09-2019 19:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010553)
And start from scratch. Parliamentary time lost and wasted, although that’s not new!
As as been proven recently Parliament can pass time sensitive legislation in a matter of days.

Bills in the pipeline can also be carried over.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010558)
As as been proven recently Parliament can pass time sensitive legislation in a matter of days.

Bills in the pipeline can also be carried over.
And it suits Johnson to reduce the number of days. I don’t really see why these threads are getting bogged down debating the obvious. We could make every point made at the Supreme Court back and forth.

The fact this came up during the Conservative leadership contest made it well known tactic. The Queens Speech is just a device to facilitate it. If it’s legal to do so we will find out soon enough.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 19:22
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010531)
Convenient excuses. No other country on earth would let their politicians go for a jolly by the seaside during a major constitutional crisis.

If the default was we would remain instead of leave I'm sure you'd be suitably outraged.
Convenient, maybe. It's also true. Party conferences happen every year and the conferences were arranged before Brexit day was changed.

We also, very clearly after a two-year Parliament, are in need of setting the agenda of measures for another year with the Queen's Speech.

Prorogation goes hand in hand with both of these things.

You and the remainer opposition are fooling nobody in making this fuss. You'd have thought they would have talked themselves out by now. The public is well fed up with it.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010566)
Convenient, maybe. It's also true. Party conferences happen every year and the conferences were arranged before Brexit day was changed.
Nobody is disputing that, only if other countries would do the same in a “constitutional crisis”.

Quote:
We also, very clearly after a two-year Parliament, are in need of setting the agenda of measures for another year with the Queen's Speech.

Prorogation goes hand in hand with both of these things.
That’s a matter of opinion. Obviously, if true, we will see Boris pursue his bold legislative agenda on that basis, and not pursue a November election.

Quote:
You and the remainer opposition are fooling nobody in making this fuss. You'd have thought they would have talked themselves out by now. The public is well fed up with it.
You are fooling nobody with your Conservative Party spin. The public can also see that.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 19:27
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010569)
Nobody is disputing that, only if other countries would do the same in a “constitutional crisis”.



That’s a matter of opinion. Obviously, if true, we will see Boris pursue his bold legislative agenda on that basis, and not pursue a November election.



You are fooling nobody with your Conservative Party spin. The public can also see that.
Nothing spinning here. We're just calmly waiting for Brexit.

pip08456 18-09-2019 19:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010569)
Nobody is disputing that, only if other countries would do the same in a “constitutional crisis”.



That’s a matter of opinion. Obviously, if true, we will see Boris pursue his bold legislative agenda on that basis, and not pursue a November election.



You are fooling nobody with your Conservative Party spin. The public can also see that.
I'm fed up of it and I'm NOT a Conservative.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:30
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010572)
Nothing spinning here. We're just calmly waiting for Brexit.
It’s obviously spin, if the default was remain you wouldn’t simply accept it. You’d be supporting any legal challenge. I note you’ve ignored my point about a November election.

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010575)
I'm fed up of it and I'm NOT a Conservative.
I didn’t say anyone was. I said the spin was. That holds true.

pip08456 18-09-2019 19:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010576)
It’s obviously spin, if the default was remain you wouldn’t simply accept it. You’d be supporting any legal challenge. I note you’ve ignored my point about a November election.

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------



I didn’t say anyone was. I said the spin was. That holds true.
We'd be having one before then if Corbin had the balls.

jfman 18-09-2019 19:43
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010585)
We'd be having one before then if Corbin had the balls.
Which as we all know would have allowed Johnson to set the date after October 31st. :)

nomadking 18-09-2019 19:51
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010558)
As as been proven recently Parliament can pass time sensitive legislation in a matter of days.

Bills in the pipeline can also be carried over.
You mean avoiding proper scrutiny? That apparently would be illegal.
Link

Quote:
Lord Drummond Young said that the UK government had failed to show a valid reason for the prorogation, adding: "The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny.
Surely that would also make any law passed containing time restrictions illegal?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Quote:
(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).
Unless the ruling of the Scottish Judges was purely Political.


Although scrutiny of what is a bit of a mystery, because there isn't anything to scrutinise, and what there has been, has been turned down 3 times by Parliament.

jfman 18-09-2019 20:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The danger there in your example the judiciary are telling Parliament what "proper scrutiny" is. Parliament being sovereign.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 20:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010576)
It’s obviously spin, if the default was remain you wouldn’t simply accept it. You’d be supporting any legal challenge. I note you’ve ignored my point about a November election.
If the result of the referendum was remain, I would have accepted it. That is because I believe in democratic principles.

This was a democratic country, renowned the world over, until this totally undemocratic lot tried to undermine it any way they could.

A November election may or may not be necessary, depending on whether Boris is actually allowed to govern. No point in soldiering on if everything you try to put through gets opposed and voted down, is there? If he cannot get a majority to push legislation through, he will have to call an election. But that is not his preferred choice.

Sephiroth 18-09-2019 20:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010514)
I don't really think it's "shameful" that I tolerate "disgusting" behaviour to be honest. I just think you are perceiving events drastically differently from reality to be honest.

The UK was/is far from a colony, even when working alongside it's European partners.
While they are our partners, we are/were far from being a colony. Obviously. However the WA would make us a vassal state.

pip08456 18-09-2019 20:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010597)
If the result of the referendum was remain, I would have accepted it. That is because I believe in democratic principles.

This was a democratic country, renowned the world over, until this totally undemocratic lot tried to undermine it any way they could.

A November election may or may not be necessary, depending on whether Boris is actually allowed to govern. No point in soldiering on if everything you try to put through gets opposed and voted down, is there? If he cannot get a majority to push legislation through, he will have to call an election. But that is not his preferred choice.
The only problem there is the FTPA, he will have to get 2/3 agreement.

The FTPA needs scrapping IMHO.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 20:20
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010588)
Which as we all know would have allowed Johnson to set the date after October 31st. :)
Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010600)
The only problem there is the FTPA, he will have to get 2/3 agreement.

The FTPA needs scrapping IMHO.
True, but it's only 50/50 to change the law.

jfman 18-09-2019 20:21
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010602)
Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.
Alternatively, no. Labour couldn't control the date.

If Boris had asked for a technical extension to Brexit I'd have looked forward to the public verdict and the delivery of the outcome after a general election.

You know this though I'm surprised you even made the point.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 20:26
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010606)
Alternatively, no. Labour couldn't control the date.

If Boris had asked for a technical extension to Brexit I'd have looked forward to the public verdict and the delivery of the outcome after a general election.

You know this though I'm surprised you even made the point.
Even if Labour could control the date, they would not have wanted an election yet. I'd have thought that was obvious. He knows he would have to come clean about Brexit, and he is not fit to win that argument. The man is very confused and unable to make a decision.

jfman 18-09-2019 20:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010608)
Even if Labour could control the date, they would not have wanted an election yet. I'd have thought that was obvious. He knows he would have to come clean about Brexit, and he is not fit to win that argument. The man is very confused and unable to make a decision.
Ah, so you were speculating! Thanks for confirming.

Chris 18-09-2019 20:42
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010602)
Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------



True, but it's only 50/50 to change the law.
Repealing the FTPA would require only a simple majority in the Commons, but the bill would be amendable at various stages of its passage through Parliament. The way Parliament is right now, any piece of primary legislation is at risk of a rider clause being inserted, with the intention of sabotaging Brexit in some way. So repealing the FTPA is going to have to wait until after an election, when Boris hopefully has a comfortable working majority. If he does deliver Brexit next month, that should be achievable.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 20:54
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010610)
Ah, so you were speculating! Thanks for confirming.
Ridiculous argument. :walk:

jfman 18-09-2019 20:57
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010625)
Ridiculous argument. :walk:
You made a very clear statement in ignorance of a material fact.

pip08456 18-09-2019 20:58
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36010618)
Repealing the FTPA would require only a simple majority in the Commons, but the bill would be amendable at various stages of its passage through Parliament. The way Parliament is right now, any piece of primary legislation is at risk of a rider clause being inserted, with the intention of sabotaging Brexit in some way. So repealing the FTPA is going to have to wait until after an election, when Boris hopefully has a comfortable working majority. If he does deliver Brexit next month, that should be achievable.
Agreed Chris, why it was ever passed into law is beyond me.

1andrew1 18-09-2019 21:00
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Looks like the reality of border checks has finally caught up with BoJo.

Quote:
EU officials also described a lunch in Luxembourg on Monday between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier, and Mr Juncker as the moment the “penny dropped” for the prime minister on the complexities involved in replacing the Irish backstop. Mr Johnson was told by his counterparts that the UK’s proposals on allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock was not a sufficient replacement for the Irish backstop as it would still require customs checks on other types of goods.
“It was clear that Boris was on a learning curve,” said an EU official. Another described Mr Johnson as “slumping” into his seat over the course of dinner as the reality of the tight negotiating schedule dawned.
https://www.ft.com/content/93ff1a64-...b-77216ebe1f17

Quote:
Downing Street has described as “nonsense” a report in the Financial Times that Johnson turned to his chief negotiator, David Frost, and the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”
But senior EU sources confirmed that Johnson had expressed surprise during the lunch at the complexity of the situation, and that it appeared to have been a “bit of a reality check to hear it from EU officials”.
Sources said it was not the case that Johnson had failed to understand the role of the shared customs territory in the Irish backstop but that it was the scale of checks that would still be necessary without such an arrangement that appeared to hit home.
A second EU diplomat confirmed: “When the commission explained the technical challenges and enduring need for customs checks under the UK proposals, Johnson expressed surprise in the direction of his advisers.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-checks-brexit

Mr K 18-09-2019 21:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?

denphone 18-09-2019 21:06
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010636)
The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?
You have to realise Mr K that most politicians are liars even if sometimes its a white lie.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 21:10
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010629)
You made a very clear statement in ignorance of a material fact.
Looking at alternative scenarios is not ignorance, jfman. You do it all the time, don't you?

Pot, kettle, black...

Damien 18-09-2019 21:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010630)
Agreed Chris, why it was ever passed into law is beyond me.
The Liberal Democrats were worried that at an opportune moment the Tories would call a snap election, especially before their concessions to the Liberals were met.

I also think it's not all bad. In way it's doing what it was meant to do which is to stop the Government calling an election to suit them politically. This particular case is very weird since the Government can't govern and Parliament is keeping a zombie Government in place, and passing laws, which obviously isn't the intent though.

I am not sure if there is a way to avoid this situation but at the same time stop giving total discretion to the Government to call an election whenever they like.

Mr K 18-09-2019 21:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36010639)
You have to realise Mr K that most politicians are liars even if sometimes its a white lie.
Sceaming Lord David Sutch - Monster Raving Loony Party never lied, he said he was nuts and he was. He seems quite sane now, compared to today's leaders, so maybe he did lie? ;)

Chris 18-09-2019 21:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
So one side of the negotiations is issuing briefings suggesting that the other side is ill-prepared. I mean obviously we should just take that at face value and uncritically. What possible reason could they have for making their opponents’ position look shaky while at the same time portraying themselves as thoroughly on top of everything.

pip08456 18-09-2019 21:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010636)
The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?
That is their position. Boris is deal or no deal 31st Oct. Let's wait to see what happens.

I would prefer no deal because that would not be about trade but still restricting us which I did not vote for.

If I were Boris I would say OK BYE!

jfman 18-09-2019 21:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010642)
Looking at alternative scenarios is not ignorance, jfman. You do it all the time, don't you?

Pot, kettle, black...
Don't make me laugh Old Boy. Your post lasted one reply before you moved on to another point entirely

Pierre 18-09-2019 21:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010507)
In fairness, he could offer you the best deal in the world and you'd still not approve because it came from him.
Just like Parliament and May then?

jfman 18-09-2019 21:14
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010649)
Just like Parliament and May then?
Not sure your point other than to get into an argument over nothing. I don't think anyone would describe that as "the best deal in the world" from a UK perspective.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 21:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010647)
That is their position. Boris is deal or no deal 31st Oct. Let's wait to see what happens.

I would prefer no deal because that would not be about trade but still restricting us which I did not vote for.

If I were Boris I would say OK BYE!
That may be the plan!

Pierre 18-09-2019 21:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010525)
I think our Parliament being suspended is very Soviet. An apt comparison.
One could argue that our Parliament rejecting a democratic decision equally.......Soviet.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010547)
I know its function. Haven’t needed one for two years, don’t need one before October 31st.
A new PM with new ideas, is well within his rights to put his ideas to the nation with a queens Speech.

OLD BOY 18-09-2019 21:17
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010648)
Don't make me laugh Old Boy. Your post lasted one reply before you moved on to another point entirely
I will not allow you to keep taking us around in circles. I am not answering every single pedantic point you make. That would just make me about as bad as you!

Let's move on. Nothing to see here.

God, I shall be glad when we've finally left.

jfman 18-09-2019 21:19
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010655)
One could argue that our Parliament rejecting a democratic decision equally.......Soviet.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------



A new PM with new ideas, is well within his rights to put his ideas to the nation with a queens Speech.
I've addresed both of those points elsewhere. No November election then?

---------- Post added at 20:19 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36010658)
I will not allow you to keep taking us around in circles. I am not answering every single pedantic point you make. That would just make me about as bad as you!

Let's move on. Nothing to see here.

God, I shall be glad when we've finally left.
Feel free to not enter the Brexit developments thread if you don't want to discuss the legal challenge to prorogation.

pip08456 18-09-2019 21:21
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010660)
I've addresed both of those points elsewhere. No November election then?

---------- Post added at 20:19 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------



Feel free to not enter the Brexit developments thread if you don't want to discuss the legal challenge to prorogation.
The discussion is up to the supreme court, no one else.

Pierre 18-09-2019 21:22
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010652)
Not sure your point other than to get into an argument over nothing. I don't think anyone would describe that as "the best deal in the world" from a UK perspective.
May could have brought back the moon in a silver bow mounted between golden antlers and Corbyn would have voted against it, because he wanted an election ( go figure). Whereas the LibDems, SNP and the Green would have voted against anything that enabled Brexit.

jfman 18-09-2019 21:22
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010666)
The discussion is up to the supreme court, no one else.
I refer you to Mick's post number 1 in this very thread.

Pierre 18-09-2019 21:23
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010660)
I've addresed both of those points elsewhere. No November election then?
An election after we have left? Absolutely.

jfman 18-09-2019 21:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010667)
May could have brought back the moon in a silver bow mounted between golden antlers and Corbyn would have voted against it, because he wanted an election ( go figure). Whereas the LibDems, SNP and the Green would have voted against anything that enabled Brexit.
My point was Mick's views on Guy Verhofstadt. Not to start a journey on the road already well trodden about May's deal.

nomadking 18-09-2019 21:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
So what is the mystery deal that Parliament would actually approve? None of them seem to want to say. The nearest thing supposedly is the EU removing THEIR insistence on the backstop. Surely the EU would be sensible in recognising that they can either deal with the issues on Nov 1st 2019 or Jan 1st 2021. Their choice.

Mr K 18-09-2019 21:25
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010670)
An election after we have left? Absolutely.
That might suit Mr Corbyn very well particularly if its a no deal chaos. He might be playing a blinder ;)

jfman 18-09-2019 21:38
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010670)
An election after we have left? Absolutely.
So you concede it's not about a bold policy platform in the next session?

I really don't see why this is a bone of contention for Leavers.

---------- Post added at 20:38 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36010672)
So what is the mystery deal that Parliament would actually approve? None of them seem to want to say. The nearest thing supposedly is the EU removing THEIR insistence on the backstop. Surely the EU would be sensible in recognising that they can either deal with the issues on Nov 1st 2019 or Jan 1st 2021. Their choice.
That's actually a good question. A series of indicative now, against no deal, as opposed to everyone and their dog knowing May would extend.

A (not the) customs union lost by maybe 3 or 4 votes last time?

(Whether that is or isn't Brexit has been done to death and we won't all agree).

Pierre 18-09-2019 21:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010673)
That might suit Mr Corbyn very well particularly if its a no deal chaos. He might be playing a blinder ;)
May be, but after we have left....who cares?

It will suit Corbyn absolutely, he won’t campaign to go back in, nor will Tories.

LibDems will be screwed.

The real democratic road is to leave, deal or no deal, then an election on how you will deliver the best for country now we have got beyond this roadblock.

I doubt you would get any sensible person argue against that.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010675)
So you concede it's not about a bold policy platform in the next session?

I really don't see why this is a bone of contention for Leavers.
Except maybe him

jfman 18-09-2019 21:41
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
I thank Pierre for, possibly inadvertently, calling me sensible. :)

Mr K 18-09-2019 21:42
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010684)
May be, but after we have left....who cares?

It will suit Corbyn absolutely, he won’t campaign to go back in, nor will Tories.
So Comrade Corbyn is a price you're prepared to pay for Brexit. Interesting.

Hugh 18-09-2019 21:44
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36010666)
The discussion is up to the supreme court, no one else.
The decision is up to the Supreme Court - anyone else can discuss it.

pip08456 18-09-2019 21:47
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010689)
So Comrade Corbyn is a price you're prepared to pay for Brexit. Interesting.
Considering everyone and his dog views Corbyn as unelectable a good price to pay.

Sephiroth 18-09-2019 21:59
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
The Supreme Court won't venture into Parliamentary territory as Parliament is a sovereign body.

However, the Executive is as open to scrutiny from the Courts as it is from Parliament. That's why we can't call the judgement.

I don't think the judgement will make any difference to the way Brexit will go because there's a lot of Parliamentary time available after the Queen's Speech unless that debate can eat into the time substantially.

Pierre 18-09-2019 22:01
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010689)
So Comrade Corbyn is a price you're prepared to pay for Brexit. Interesting.
I think I have been clear for the last three years, my argument with Brexit is one of democracy.

If the democratic will of the people is delivered in regards to Brexit.

Then there was a General Election and Corbyn won it fairly and democratically. How could I possibly argue against it.

That would make me as hypocritical as Parliament................

pip08456 18-09-2019 22:28
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36010697)
I think I have been clear for the last three years, my argument with Brexit is one of democracy.

If the democratic will of the people is delivered in regards to Brexit.

Then there was a General Election and Corbyn won it fairly and democratically. How could I possibly argue against it.

That would make me as hypocritical as Parliament................
IIRC you voted remain but accepted the result. I just wish there were more like you.

Hugh 18-09-2019 22:55
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36010696)
The Supreme Court won't venture into Parliamentary territory as Parliament is a sovereign body.

However, the Executive is as open to scrutiny from the Courts as it is from Parliament. That's why we can't call the judgement.

I don't think the judgement will make any difference to the way Brexit will go because there's a lot of Parliamentary time available after the Queen's Speech unless that debate can eat into the time substantially.
The Queen’s Speech debate normally takes around 5 days - that would leave 8 working days (including the 31st) to discuss/debate Brexit. Not sure if that can realistically be called "a lot of Parliamentary time".

1andrew1 18-09-2019 22:59
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010707)
The Queen’s Speech debate normally takes around 5 days - that would leave 8 working days (including the 31st) to discuss/debate Brexit. Not sure if that can realistically be called "a lot of Parliamentary time".
Eight days cannot be termed that by any stretch of the imagination.

papa smurf 18-09-2019 23:02
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010707)
The Queen’s Speech debate normally takes around 5 days - that would leave 8 working days (including the 31st) to discuss/debate Brexit. Not sure if that can realistically be called "a lot of Parliamentary time".
if they can cobble together new legislation in one day,8 days gives them time to do whatever they want to.

Hugh 19-09-2019 02:12
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010710)
if they can cobble together new legislation in one day,8 days gives them time to do whatever they want to.
Can you give me an example, please, where legislation has been "cobbled together" in one day...

Mick 19-09-2019 07:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010716)
Can you give me an example, please, where legislation has been "cobbled together" in one day...
You make this so easy Hugh. Stop it. :rolleyes:

The Cooper Letwin Bill, introduced on 3rd of April, went through all its stages in a single day, thanks to Letwin’s agreed motion to allow the Bill to go through the stages in a single day, which by convention, was unprecedented.

You’re not going to tell me now that this Bill wasn’t “cobbled” together in one day, when a motion was carried for it to pass the Commons in a single day now are you?

The Benn Bill, again went through the Commons, in quick style in a Single day, thus, another Bill “Cobbled” together. The fact that both Bills, didn’t go through Lords the same day is irrelevant. Both Bills, are as defined “cobbled” together, because the normal timetable for them passing each stage was bypassed.

1andrew1 19-09-2019 08:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010719)
You make this so easy Hugh. Stop it. :rolleyes:

The Cooper Letwin Bill, introduced on 3rd of April, went through all its stages in a single day, thanks to Letwin’s agreed motion to allow the Bill to go through the stages in a single day, which by convention, was unprecedented.

You’re not going to tell me now that this Bill wasn’t “cobbled” together in one day, when a motion was carried for it to pass the Commons in a single day now are you?

The Benn Bill, again went through the Commons, in quick style in a Single day, thus, another Bill “Cobbled” together. The fact that both Bills, didn’t go through Lords the same day is irrelevant. Both Bills, are as defined “cobbled” together, because the normal timetable for them passing each stage was bypassed.
I suspect by "cobbled together" Hugh means the bill being researched, stakeholders consulted on, drafted, legally assessed, redrafted, consulted on again, etc and not merely presenting the finished article to Parliament.

Mick 19-09-2019 09:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010726)
I suspect by "cobbled together" Hugh means the bill being researched, stakeholders consulted on, drafted, legally assessed, redrafted, consulted on again, etc and not merely presenting the finished article to Parliament.
Stop trying to sugarcoat the quick passage of these Bills. They were cobbled together. :rolleyes:

1andrew1 19-09-2019 09:52
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Just trying to explain how borh you and Hugh can be correct as you're each talking at cross purposes. In both senses. :)

Mick 19-09-2019 10:55
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36010736)
Just trying to explain how borh you and Hugh can be correct as you're each talking at cross purposes. In both senses. :)
A normal passage of a Bill from it being introduced, carried, debated, gone through each stage from committee to report and third reading, for it to then be passed to the Lords and receiving Royal Assent, can take months or even years.

A Bill that passes all stages, in a single day, is by Papa's definition, "cobbled" together.

In other news it is going to laughable when John Major or his counsel, stand to give their arguments at the Supreme Court later.

What is John Major's argument going to say?

"It's never ok, to prorogue Parliament...

......Except, when I did it, to avoid the Cash for Questions Scandal!". :rolleyes:

Mr K 19-09-2019 11:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010740)
What is John Major's argument going to say?

"It's never ok, to prorogue Parliament...

......Except, when I did it, to avoid the Cash for Questions Scandal!". :rolleyes:
Seems corruption is rife in the UK Govt aswell then? There's been a few other scandals too...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

The EU although not perfect, might not be so bad in comparison. All is not black and white in these things.

Hugh 19-09-2019 11:03
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010719)
You make this so easy Hugh. Stop it. :rolleyes:

The Cooper Letwin Bill, introduced on 3rd of April, went through all its stages in a single day, thanks to Letwin’s agreed motion to allow the Bill to go through the stages in a single day, which by convention, was unprecedented.

You’re not going to tell me now that this Bill wasn’t “cobbled” together in one day, when a motion was carried for it to pass the Commons in a single day now are you?

The Benn Bill, again went through the Commons, in quick style in a Single day, thus, another Bill “Cobbled” together. The fact that both Bills, didn’t go through Lords the same day is irrelevant. Both Bills, are as defined “cobbled” together, because the normal timetable for them passing each stage was bypassed.
The Benn Bill was published on the 2nd September, submitted to the Speaker* on the 3rd September, debated and passed through the Houses 4th to 6th September, Queen’s Assent 9th September - that’s 6 working days (not included is the time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

The Cooper-Letwin Bill was presented to the Speaker* on the 2nd April, introduced to the House on 3rd April, passed on the 3rd, went to the House of Lords on the 4th April, House of Lords Committee and Report Stage 8th of April, Common vote on House of Lords amendment and Royal Assent on 8th April - that’s 4 working days (again, this does not include any time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

Neither of those appear to have been "cobbled together" in one day...

*bills must be presented to the Speaker on (at least) the day before being introduced to the House

papa smurf 19-09-2019 11:09
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010742)
The Benn Bill was published on the 2nd September, submitted to the Speaker* on the 3rd September, debated and passed through the Houses 4th to 6th September, Queen’s Assent 9th September - that’s 6 working days (not included is the time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

The Cooper-Letwin Bill was presented to the Speaker* on the 2nd April, introduced to the House on 3rd April, passed on the 3rd, went to the House of Lords on the 4th April, House of Lords Committee and Report Stage 8th of April, Common vote on House of Lords amendment and Royal Assent on 8th April - that’s 4 working days (again, this does not include any time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

Neither of those appear to have been "cobbled together" in one day...

*bills must be presented to the Speaker on (at least) the day before being introduced to the House
I don't think any amount of smart arsery is going to fly here,they were cobbled together.

Mr K 19-09-2019 11:11
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010744)
I don't think any amount of smart arsery is going to fly here,they were cobbled together.
It's good parliament can work quickly when it really needs to though, isn't it ? ;)

Mick 19-09-2019 11:13
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010742)
The Benn Bill was published on the 2nd September, submitted to the Speaker* on the 3rd September, debated and passed through the Houses 4th to 6th September, Queen’s Assent 9th September - that’s 6 working days (not included is the time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

The Cooper-Letwin Bill was presented to the Speaker* on the 2nd April, introduced to the House on 3rd April, passed on the 3rd, went to the House of Lords on the 4th April, House of Lords Committee and Report Stage 8th of April, Common vote on House of Lords amendment and Royal Assent on 8th April - that’s 4 working days (again, this does not include any time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

Neither of those appear to have been "cobbled together" in one day...

*bills must be presented to the Speaker on (at least) the day before being introduced to the House
So, you have just confirmed what I already said, so I reiterate they passed all stages in one day!

The Bills were "cobbled" together.

papa smurf 19-09-2019 11:15
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010745)
It's good parliament can work quickly when it really needs to though, isn't it ? ;)
Passing bad [un-scrutinised] law is nothing to be proud of,bad law has consequences further down the line.

Mick 19-09-2019 11:19
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010748)
Passing bad law is nothing to be proud of,bad law has consequences further down the line.
And the way things are going, Finland PM in conjunction with the French President, giving Boris the ultimatum of 30th September, or it's "over", makes the Benn Bill largely a defunct piece of crap, I can call it that because it's not a law, we as individuals have to follow.

Mr K 19-09-2019 11:23
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010748)
Passing bad law is nothing to be proud of,bad law has consequences further down the line.
Don't see any problem if it was 'cobbled' together. Sometimes they do need to act quickly (in this case to stop a no deal Brexit). It's only telling the PM to write a letter, not much can go wrong with that surely ? ;)

They only had to pass it that quickly cos of Bozza's illegal (allegedly atm) prorogation, which was intended to stop them passing bills like this. Parliament 1 the Liar 0. But admittedly its only half time.

jfman 19-09-2019 11:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010748)
Passing bad [un-scrutinised] law is nothing to be proud of,bad law has consequences further down the line.
It was scrutinised in line with Parliamentary processes and passed by both Houses. To redefine "scrutiny" because you don't like a law as passed is denying Parliamentary sovereignty. Is that not what we voted to get back?:confused:

papa smurf 19-09-2019 11:29
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36010749)
And the way things are going, Finland PM in conjunction with the French President, giving Boris the ultimatum of 30th September, or it's "over", makes the Benn Bill largely a defunct piece of crap, I can call it that because it's not a law, we as individuals have to follow.
It was a childish tantrum enacted into law,a total abuse of power.

Mr K 19-09-2019 11:33
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010752)
It was a childish tantrum enacted into law,a total abuse of power.
Is this the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing ? :D

papa smurf 19-09-2019 11:35
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010750)
Don't see any problem if it was 'cobbled' together. Sometimes they do need to act quickly (in this case to stop a no deal Brexit). It's only telling the PM to write a letter, not much can go wrong with that surely ? ;)

They only had to pass it that quickly cos of Bozza's illegal (allegedly atm) prorogation, which was intended to stop them passing bills like this. Parliament 1 the Liar 0. But admittedly its only half time.
This is an attempt to force the PM to beg the EU for something he doesn't want,it's designed to make him look like a fool,it's just an act of petty revenge.

Mick 19-09-2019 11:37
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36010751)
It was scrutinised in line with Parliamentary processes and passed by both Houses. To redefine "scrutiny" because you don't like a law as passed is denying Parliamentary sovereignty. Is that not what we voted to get back?:confused:
Oh come on - normal scrutiny takes more than a day, more than a week, months, a Bill being rushed through in one day is not being scrutinised as it should be through each stage, the Parliamentary processes, were broken by the Speaker, so your point is moot.

Mr K 19-09-2019 11:40
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36010754)
This is an attempt to force the PM to beg the EU for something he doesn't want,it's designed to make him look like a fool,it's just an act of petty revenge.
He doesn't need any help with that, although I think it was more about stopping a no deal Brexit. Incompetent individuals are an irrelevance.

nomadking 19-09-2019 11:50
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36010753)
Is this the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing ? :D
The Scottish Judgment referred to "proper scrutiny". There was none.



Also the bill specifies a time limit for debate. That is denying "proper scrutiny" of any, as yet unspecified potential agreement, which will be hundreds of pages in length. It further specifies what happens if the EU(council and EU Parliament) doesn't agree to anything. How can that be remotely lawful. It is totally outside of the UKs control.

Pierre 19-09-2019 12:33
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36010742)
The Benn Bill was published on the 2nd September, submitted to the Speaker* on the 3rd September, debated and passed through the Houses 4th to 6th September, Queen’s Assent 9th September - that’s 6 working days (not included is the time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

The Cooper-Letwin Bill was presented to the Speaker* on the 2nd April, introduced to the House on 3rd April, passed on the 3rd, went to the House of Lords on the 4th April, House of Lords Committee and Report Stage 8th of April, Common vote on House of Lords amendment and Royal Assent on 8th April - that’s 4 working days (again, this does not include any time spent writing, agreeing, lawyers reviewing, rewriting the actual bill).

Neither of those appear to have been "cobbled together" in one day...

*bills must be presented to the Speaker on (at least) the day before being introduced to the House
"Cobbled together" is a fair colloquialism for something that has been hurriedly put through a process.

and there is no denying that the bill was hurried. Given that the average time for a bill to go through Parliament is a year.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislat...ugh-parliament

Mick 19-09-2019 12:45
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 
Getting a bit testy in SC today, the QC for the Irish case, getting a royal ticking off by the Lord Justices, "Don't abuse our patience." The QC is trying to bring political elements and merits of Brexit in to the court room, Lady Hale, rightfully challenges him saying this is not a matter for the court and that they are only concerned about the legal advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46.
Page 2 of 56 1 2 34561252 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