International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339007)

Squeegee Beckenheim 2nd October 2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841351)
No, it was mitigation of your point.

i.e. In spite of all you say, even if it's true, he's still not as bad as Boris. So why is he being painted as such?

You're literally quoting a post in which I said that my opinion, which I voiced just a couple of posts ago, is that Corbyn would be better than Johnson. Yet you're claiming that my point was that they would be equally bad.

That's three times I've voiced that opinion in this thread within the last 7 hours, now. Hopefully third time's the charm.

Squeegee Beckenheim 2nd October 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12841645)
oh and apparently parliament is going to be prorogued again next week for a Queens speech

It'd be hilarious if she went off on one.

Nessie 2nd October 2019 11:13 AM

The proposal;

https://assets.publishing.service.go...Accessible.pdf

"Building on the existing practice established to maintain the Single Epidemiological Unit (SEU) on the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland would align with EU SPS rules, including those relating to the placing on the market of agri-food goods."

That in effect leaves NI under EU rules.

"Agri-food goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain would do so via a Border Inspection Post or Designated Point of Entry as required by EU law, building on the provisions that already exist to support the SEU. They would be subject to identity and documentary checks and physical examination by UK authorities as required by the relevant EU rules."

"To support this system of controls at the boundary of the zone, traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would need to notify the relevant authorities before entering Northern Ireland..."

That is just like the backstop.

"In addition, Northern Ireland would also align with all relevant EU rules relating to the placing on the market of manufactured goods."

So again, NI is virtually being handed over to the EU to save the rest of the UK from its pesky rules and threat to sovereignty. Then;

"The regulatory checks and controls taking place on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain would not apply when goods enter Ireland from Northern Ireland. The UK would not apply corresponding checks or controls on goods entering Northern Ireland from Ireland."

NI is being more closely aligned with the Republic.

Johnson's plan is to give NI away.

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 11:22 AM

To be fair Theresa May would have given NI away if she had not depended on the DUP and was able to call their bluff

3point14 2nd October 2019 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12841765)
You're literally quoting a post in which I said that my opinion, which I voiced just a couple of posts ago, is that Corbyn would be better than Johnson. Yet you're claiming that my point was that they would be equally bad.

That's three times I've voiced that opinion in this thread within the last 7 hours, now. Hopefully third time's the charm.

Fair enough

ponderingturtle 2nd October 2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12841738)
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. "

So racist brexit rhetoric is not racist just the usual brexit stupidity?

dudalb 2nd October 2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12841613)
Its ridiculous how Johnson is still trying to act like he's holding all the cards in negotiating with the EU even when everyone can see his hand is actually just pages torn from a notebook with the word 'ace' scrawled on them.

So he is basically bluffing with a busted flush;too bad the EU will call him on it.

The Don 2nd October 2019 12:45 PM

Oops

Nessie 2nd October 2019 12:56 PM

I do not get why the DUP are happy with this latest plan. It still treats NI differently from the rest of the UK.

Francesca R 2nd October 2019 01:10 PM

They simply have less influence over Johnson than they did over May. At some point you need someone more than they need you that point may have been approached if not crossed

Mojo 2nd October 2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12840937)
If you are going to link to a wall of text then at least quote or point to the part you want me to pay attention to.

The title is COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS AND OTHERS APPELLANTS AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE RESPONDENT from which I would never have guessed that it had anything to do with recommendations made by the PM to the Queen.


Well, you could try reading it. If you get as far as the third paragraph you might find out who the Minister for the Civil Service is.

But, basically, it’s what you’ve been asking for: a precedent for an order made under royal prerogative (i.e. by the crown on the recommendation of a minister) being subject to judicial review.

Archie Gemmill Goal 2nd October 2019 02:25 PM

so it was a masterplan to lose so much support that even the DUP cant help him, therefore rendering them useless. And the self appointed minister of the union throws the union under the bus the first chance he gets.

And some people still think he is better than Corbyn.

psionl0 2nd October 2019 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12841634)
Alternatively, what existing law said he could do what he did?

As we have tried to explain to you repeatedly that was the question put to the court. Does the existing law allow him to do this? and the answer came back, no it doesn't.

Thats the job of the SC to interpret and clarify the law.

So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12842059)
Well, you could try reading it. If you get as far as the third paragraph you might find out who the Minister for the Civil Service is.

But, basically, it’s what you’ve been asking for: a precedent for an order made under royal prerogative (i.e. by the crown on the recommendation of a minister) being subject to judicial review.

Yet again, that is not the question.

I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.

Darat 2nd October 2019 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12841969)
They simply have less influence over Johnson than they did over May. At some point you need someone more than they need you that point may have been approached if not crossed

Yep, they no longer can deliver him a majority so I'd say they now have zero influence.

Darat 2nd October 2019 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12842104)
So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?





Yet again, that is not the question.



I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.

For goodness sake give it a rest.

Mojo 2nd October 2019 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12842104)
So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?


Yet again, that is not the question.

I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.


Nonsense. Your question has always been "what existing law or precedent limits the advice the PM can give the Queen?" The judgment I linked to does just that.

a_unique_person 2nd October 2019 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12841950)
I do not get why the DUP are happy with this latest plan. It still treats NI differently from the rest of the UK.


They finally realise that after all this ***** around they have to agree to something?

a_unique_person 2nd October 2019 04:03 PM

Quote:

But his language on Britain's broader relationship with Europe was markedly softer. "This is not an anti-European party and it is not an anti-European country. We love Europe," he sad. The response from the conference hall was decidedly muted. "Well, I do, anyway," he muttered.


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/u...gbr/index.html



Come on Boris. You know what **** you have been stirring up to get elected. It's definitely not "This is not an anti-European party and it is not an anti-European country. We love Europe". It's the exact opposite.

dudalb 2nd October 2019 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12842156)
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/u...gbr/index.html



Come on Boris. You know what **** you have been stirring up to get elected. It's definitely not "This is not an anti-European party and it is not an anti-European country. We love Europe". It's the exact opposite.

"The Wogs Begin At Calais" is still the way quite a few people in the UK view the world, sadly.

SezMe 2nd October 2019 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12841138)
I think they're polls apart.

I don't think they're polls apart although they may well be poles apart. :)

SezMe 2nd October 2019 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12841284)
I really don't see a GNU hanging round for the length of time needed to put together a referendum.

:confused:

Steve 2nd October 2019 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12842244)
:confused:

Gnu, aka wildebeest.


(It actually works in that sentence)

angrysoba 2nd October 2019 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12842244)
:confused:

Government of National Unity, I suppose.

a_unique_person 2nd October 2019 08:16 PM

Quote:

He sought to ramp up the pressure on Brussels by insisting Britain is*now ready to leave without a deal*at the end of this month. “That is not an outcome we want, it is not an outcome we seek at all – but let me tell you, my friends, it is an outcome for which we are ready,” he said.

He then asked the packed hall in Manchester: “Are we ready for it?” The audience shouted back: “Yes!”

What a tosser. "not an outcome we want".



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y_to_clipboard

psionl0 2nd October 2019 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12842108)
For goodness sake give it a rest.

Why only me? Why is everybody else allowed to continue to attack me with gay abandon?

I'm guessing that it is because you on their side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12842127)
Nonsense. Your question has always been "what existing law or precedent limits the advice the PM can give the Queen?" The judgment I linked to does just that.

No, you said that the answer is that an order made under royal prerogative is subject to judicial review. Even if the Royal Prerogative is exercised under ministerial advice, it is not being disputed that it is "subject to judicial review". However, it doesn't answer the question I asked.

Lothian 2nd October 2019 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12842385)
Why only me? Why is everybody else allowed to continue to attack me with gay abandon?

I'm guessing that it is because you on their side.


No, you said that the answer is that an order made under royal prerogative is subject to judicial review. Even if the Royal Prerogative is exercised under ministerial advice, it is not being disputed that it is "subject to judicial review". However, it doesn't answer the question I asked.

If you are not going to understand the answer there is no point asking the question.

psionl0 2nd October 2019 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12842419)
If you are not going to understand the answer there is no point asking the question.

If you are not going to understand the question there is no point giving an answer.

McHrozni 2nd October 2019 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worm (Post 12841500)
UK Proposals for a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland :

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rthern-ireland

Same old again. Make what you want the default unless positive action is taken to overturn it and wait. You'll get there eventually.

The uncertainty of having to prolong the status every four years is enough to make this proposal unworkable. Make it so if no positive action is taken, status quo remains and it might go through.

McHrozni

Nessie 3rd October 2019 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12842448)
Same old again. Make what you want the default unless positive action is taken to overturn it and wait. You'll get there eventually.

The uncertainty of having to prolong the status every four years is enough to make this proposal unworkable. Make it so if no positive action is taken, status quo remains and it might go through.

McHrozni

It does look like the DUP have decided to compromise to a remarkable extent, just to get Brexit done.

Nessie 3rd October 2019 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12842104)
So there is an existing law that says under what circumstances a PM can advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament?


Yet again, that is not the question.

I keep asking what law or precedent says when a recommendation made by a PM is unlawful and I keep getting an answer to a completely different question.

In answering your question about common law I gave you links to a lot of reading material. There is other stuff I did not even look at.

I think the time of you pestering others to answer your questions should end. Go and do some research yourself and find the answer, yourself. Start with the various links that I gave you.

The Don 3rd October 2019 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12842514)
It does look like the DUP have decided to compromise to a remarkable extent, just to get Brexit done.

Or, as other commentators have suggested, they know that the deal won't be acceptable to the EU and so they can safely give it their support safe that it will never happen and try and deflect the blame for the resulting no-deal to the EU.

McHrozni 3rd October 2019 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12842514)
It does look like the DUP have decided to compromise to a remarkable extent, just to get Brexit done.

Have they? This is just a time-limited backstop that includes the option to be extended by NI, if they take a positive action to do so. Guess what DUP will try to do.

They proposed something very similar way back. They're prepared to compromise and have a hard border in Ireland a few years after Brexit, that's the extent of their compromise.

The idea is clever in that it puts the fate of NI in the hands of Northern Irish at least. I can't argue against that. It still fails the snicker test, because it sets a hard Brexit as the legal default. EU has had enough of those, I think.

McHrozni

P.J. Denyer 3rd October 2019 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12842333)
What a tosser. "not an outcome we want".



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y_to_clipboard


Quote:

“That is not an outcome we want, it is not an outcome we seek at all – but let me tell you, my friends, it is an outcome for which we are ready,”
Wow, not one part of that wasn't a lie. Three lies in one sentence, he hasn't managed that since last time he called Gove "My Right Honourable Friend".

Did you see him brush off Sajid Javid to wrap himself around Priti Patel? It was brutal.

Nessie 3rd October 2019 02:03 AM

Noel Edmunds should be the DUP spokesman, "deal or no deal". It looks like a deal, but it is just the postponing of any final decision until after Brexit which crucially, gives NI more say in what happens.

Nessie 3rd October 2019 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12842519)
Have they? This is just a time-limited backstop that includes the option to be extended by NI, if they take a positive action to do so. Guess what DUP will try to do.

They proposed something very similar way back. They're prepared to compromise and have a hard border in Ireland a few years after Brexit, that's the extent of their compromise.

The idea is clever in that it puts the fate of NI in the hands of Northern Irish at least. I can't argue against that. It still fails the snicker test, because it sets a hard Brexit as the legal default. EU has had enough of those, I think.

McHrozni

It is a watering down of the backstop, NI leaves the customs union but stays in the single market. I think the DUP agreed to that because it means customs checks not at the backstop and in Ireland itself and because there are already various existing agreements in place regarding the harmonisation of the market, particularly agricultural products.

Samson 3rd October 2019 02:38 AM

Ladbrokes are offering these odds that are mainly new today
Another UK EU Referendum before end 2020
Brexit Specials
2.50
UK to leave EU with no Brexit Deal before Nov 1st
Brexit Specials
3.00
UK to REVOKE Article 50 in 2019
Brexit Specials
3.50
UK to vote to REMAIN in EU before end 2020
Brexit Specials
4.00

I would be concerned by the no deal case, since it is shortening. However, no deal was at 1.72 several weeks ago, which I would have killed to take the bookie side.

3point14 3rd October 2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12842239)
I don't think they're polls apart although they may well be poles apart. :)

God damnit! Yeah, that one, thanks :D

psionl0 3rd October 2019 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12842516)
In answering your question about common law I gave you links to a lot of reading material. There is other stuff I did not even look at.

I think the time of you pestering others to answer your questions should end. Go and do some research yourself and find the answer, yourself. Start with the various links that I gave you.

You keep answering the wrong question and you can't even tell that it is the wrong question.

You have no right to feel so smug about yourself.

Samson 3rd October 2019 04:38 AM

Boris Johnson is swimming into a sea of enemies, while Trump is an apex predator.
This looks like another referendum where the devil you know is the new best friend.
That is the logical progression.
Remain is already defined, and leave has all the time in the world to define "leave".

Francesca R 3rd October 2019 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12842547)
2.50 UK to leave EU with no Brexit Deal before Nov 1st

[ . . . ]

I would be concerned by the no deal case, since it is shortening. However, no deal was at 1.72 several weeks ago

Doesn't that mean it's lengthening? Other bookies' odds of no deal is lengthening too, Paddy Power has it at 7/2 which is just around 20% likely; before the Benn law (end August) it was about 45% or 1.1

I suppose the punters think that Johnson is bluffing about no brextension and/or have faith that opposition parties might be able to find a leader they can unsquabble about.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.