UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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]

Originally Posted by Dave42

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]

Originally Posted by denphone

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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]

Originally Posted by Dave42

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.

Originally Posted by nomadking

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]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

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.

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.

It is becoming clearer what el gov intends to do in order to circumvent the Surrender Act without breaking the law.

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."

Originally Posted by nomadking

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

It is becoming clearer what el gov intends to do in order to circumvent the Surrender Act without breaking the law.

From a barrister...

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.