Cable Forum - UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

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)

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.

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!

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

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.

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:

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36012908)

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.

Political expediency when it suits ones political agenda l would call it.

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.

Why do you call it a myth, Andrew? Who exports more to whom?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012909)

That's primary law and not easily overturned.

Where have you been? If this Parliament has demonstrated anything it’s that ideas such as this aren’t true any more.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36012903)

Please can you just answer my question?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36012916)

Please can you just answer my question?

Of course he can’t. If you want paragraph after paragraph of unrelated wishful nonsense then knock yourself out.