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 3rd October 2019 07:04 AM

https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/s...20731027251201

Quote:

Hereís why Mr Corbyn simply doesnít have the numbers ... #RealityCheck needed & a unity candidate
Table embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179628959245438976

Quote:

Even if you massage the figures a little, there's no way of getting Corbyn a majority of support. LibDems recognised that reality early on and have tried to move past it to work out how a Government of National Unity might be constituted. Aiming flak at them is the wrong target.

Squeegee Beckenheim 3rd October 2019 07:07 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.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179401250573557760

Quote:

The DUP sounds like theyíre onboard, as well they might be, given the power the proposals would effectively grant them.

I would be *astonished* if the Irish govt can be seen to go along with something which basically allows the DUP to pull NI out of regulatory arrangements as it likes. Itís essentially a diluted time limited backstop.

If the Assembly falls apart (reminder: itís not sat for years) hard border is default. Thereís no safety net. Thatís exactly what the backstop was there to prevent.

Francesca R 3rd October 2019 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12842787)

Thanks for that

GlennB 3rd October 2019 07:28 AM

"Guy Verhofstadt, the former prime minister of Belgium who coordinates the European parliament’s Brexit steering group, said it was “nearly impossible” to see how a deal could be secured on the basis of the proposals.

He pointed to a leaked script handed to Conservative MPs by the party, which instructed them to attack the EU as “crazy” if it rejected proposals as an indication of Johnson’s insincerity about wanting a deal.

If there is a Tory document saying that they have to blame the European Union then it’s obvious that that is the purpose,” he said."

No surprises there then.

catsmate 3rd October 2019 08:44 AM

Quote:

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

Pointing out your typing complete bollocks is not "attacking" you.

Darat 3rd October 2019 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12842787)

So the likes of the lib dems only want a government of national unity on their terms. Not very national nor unifying of them.

catsmate 3rd October 2019 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12842530)
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.

Probably not a great move by the DUP, strategically.

Francesca R 3rd October 2019 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12842934)
So the likes of the lib dems only want a government of national unity on their terms. Not very national nor unifying of them.

Everyone who doesn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM are the ones to blame for Jeremy Corbyn not being PM.

Pretty much. But looks like we can't pretend that JC could lead a unity government, or even that he could if not for the LibDems holding out.

Not very national or unifying of him to insist on me me me.

Delphic Oracle 3rd October 2019 09:55 AM

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.

Fine, the constraints upon what kind of advice the PM can give the Queen is contained in the Privy Councillor Oath:

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God."

Yeah, I'd say there's a few behaviors at play he ran afoul of. To lie or by clever control of a narrow set of truths try to engineer your monarch into a decision for your own or others' benefit is probably not something to just let slide.

acbytesla 3rd October 2019 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12843011)
Fine, the constraints upon what kind of advice the PM can give the Queen is contained in the Privy Councillor Oath:

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God."

Yeah, I'd say there's a few behaviors at play he ran afoul of. To lie or by clever control of a narrow set of truths try to engineer your monarch into a decision for your own or others' benefit is probably not something to just let slide.

It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?

GlennB 3rd October 2019 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843120)
It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?

They're only trappings.

Delphic Oracle 3rd October 2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843120)
It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?

While I agree with you, there are clear parallels to republics that remain an important principle regardless of specifics of the figurehead position.

acbytesla 3rd October 2019 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12843133)
While I agree with you, there are clear parallels to republics that remain an important principle regardless of specifics of the figurehead position.

I just find this kind of sycophantic treatment to be beneath a modern nation.

Darat 3rd October 2019 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12842957)
Everyone who doesn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM are the ones to blame for Jeremy Corbyn not being PM.



Pretty much. But looks like we can't pretend that JC could lead a unity government, or even that he could if not for the LibDems holding out.



Not very national or unifying of him to insist on me me me.

Oh I agree, it's just amusing to me how it's always the other lot that is at fault.

ponderingturtle 3rd October 2019 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12843181)
Oh I agree, it's just amusing to me how it's always the other lot that is at fault.

Hence why no deal in inevitable. There is far more effort being put into avoiding responsibility than avoiding the crash.

Nessie 3rd October 2019 12:17 PM

The reaction as reported on the BBC from the EU and Ireland is that the answer will be no to Johnson's deal as it contains nothing that is new.

p0lka 3rd October 2019 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843120)
It absolutely stuns me that the UK maintains the trappings of such a disgusting thing as royalty. Being a true and faithful servant to a woman who's only accomplishment is being born to a particular family. Seriously?

Well we don't swear allegiance to them on a daily basis or anything, so it's easy to ignore them in general.

ceptimus 3rd October 2019 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12843201)
The reaction as reported on the BBC from the EU and Ireland is that the answer will be no to Johnson's deal as it contains nothing that is new.

They would say that. They're desperate to keep the UK in the EU, or failing that keep the UK tied into observing EU rules and regulations so that we're no competition to them.

acbytesla 3rd October 2019 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12843129)
They're only trappings.

Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.

Delphic Oracle 3rd October 2019 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843276)
Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.

In any case, for the purpose of maybe finally satisfying psionl0, the point is made that whatever the process of prorogation, under this system any results arising from abuse of that process will be annulled.

Darat 3rd October 2019 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843276)
Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.

Most folk seem to forget that when Diana died there was a lot of anger directed at the royal family and directly at the Queen in particular, that would have been the moment to get rid of them. Unfortunately the moment passed and credit where credit due, after Diana's death they have had a very good marketing campaign, funded of course by us.

acbytesla 3rd October 2019 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12843303)
Most folk seem to forget that when Diana died there was a lot of anger directed at the royal family and directly at the Queen in particular, that would have been the moment to get rid of them. Unfortunately the moment passed and credit where credit due, after Diana's death they have had a very good marketing campaign, funded of course by us.

I think its a crime that the "royals" are enormously wealthy. As if they did anything to earn any of that. I think it's a bigger crime that people, an entire modern nation in the 21st century is willing to carry on such a charade. It's like the Kardashians on steroids. I guess it sells a lot of tabloids.

acbytesla 3rd October 2019 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12843283)
In any case, for the purpose of maybe finally satisfying psionl0, the point is made that whatever the process of prorogation, under this system any results arising from abuse of that process will be annulled.

That's good.

I feel like the US and the UK have been battling to see which nation can be more dysfunctional. You limeys started off the game with this Brexit nonsense. Then us Yanks raised the ante with Mr. Crazy. Then you guys tried to match our bid with Boris.

I think we're winning still. Or does that mean we're losing? Hmmmm.

Steve 3rd October 2019 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12843326)
Wasn't a special thread created so these hostile posts could continue without derailing this thread?

That is not the purpose of the thread split.

Arcade22 3rd October 2019 04:30 PM

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.

Not really. Their "compromise" is just a cover for their refusal to make Northern Ireland stay in the customs union while the rest of the UK leaves.

If Northern Ireland leaves the customs union this means that there needs to be custom checks at the border to prevent the commercial importation of exploding mobile phone chargers and lead toys made in future British sweatshops.

Arcade22 3rd October 2019 04:42 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.

Given the way British people speak of Europe you would be forgiven for thinking that the British Isles was it's own continent in the Atlantic.

Samson 3rd October 2019 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843322)
I think its a crime that the "royals" are enormously wealthy. As if they did anything to earn any of that. I think it's a bigger crime that people, an entire modern nation in the 21st century is willing to carry on such a charade. It's like the Kardashians on steroids. I guess it sells a lot of tabloids.

New Zealand has the Queen's representative here with similar powers over we subjects as she has over hers'. I guess the meek acquiescence to the illegal proroguing could happen here.

The Don 4th October 2019 12:28 AM

I find it interesting and depressing that (almost) all of the Conservatives who were kicked out of the party and a number of Labour Brexiteers seem to be enthusiastically behind Boris Johnson's latest set of demands - even though they are completely unworkable, unacceptable to the EU, and will break the Good Friday Agreement. :(

P.J. Denyer 4th October 2019 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12843442)
Given the way some British people speak of Europe you would be forgiven for thinking that the British Isles was it's own continent in the Atlantic.

No offence, but a lot of us don't want to be lumped in with the Quitlings.

Lothian 4th October 2019 01:40 AM

A couple of simple questions I hope someone here can answer about the UK proposal.
(1)Customs checks are not only on businesses. Anyone importing goods needs to pay the correct taxes. Fly into an airport from outside the EU and you make a declaration by choosing the green or red channel.
Anyone know how a law abiding citizen crossing from Eire to NI with a couple of bottles of Bushmills will pay the duty and import tax?
(2) Commercial goods coming into the UK from outside the EU are predeclared and the declaration Is checked at the border and only if satisfactory are they sent onward to a customs clearing facility. If you turn up without declaring the goods you need to make a declaration before you physically can move the goods. With no border in NI and only the inland clearing depots The proposal suggests there will not be anything to physically prevent goods without a declaration moving to NI or to the mainland via the NI border. Are we working on trust that all importers will make the declarations and take themselves to the clearing depot to pay the relevent taxes?

Nessie 4th October 2019 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12843813)
A couple of simple questions I hope someone here can answer about the UK proposal.
(1)Customs checks are not only on businesses. Anyone importing goods needs to pay the correct taxes. Fly into an airport from outside the EU and you make a declaration by choosing the green or red channel.
Anyone know how a law abiding citizen crossing from Eire to NI with a couple of bottles of Bushmills will pay the duty and import tax?

No and nothing I have read goes into that level of detail for private purchases.

Quote:

(2) Commercial goods coming into the UK from outside the EU are predeclared and the declaration Is checked at the border and only if satisfactory are they sent onward to a customs clearing facility. If you turn up without declaring the goods you need to make a declaration before you physically can move the goods. With no border in NI and only the inland clearing depots The proposal suggests there will not be anything to physically prevent goods without a declaration moving to NI or to the mainland via the NI border. Are we working on trust that all importers will make the declarations and take themselves to the clearing depot to pay the relevent taxes?
Yes.

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

"All goods movements between Northern Ireland and Ireland will be notified using a declaration."

"Trusted trader scheme"

"Special provision would be made for small traders to ensure that requirements on them could be simplified. These simplifications should respect the nature of economic activity between Northern Ireland and Ireland and should ensure that any special circumstances regarding the purpose for which goods move between customs territories, the nature of the goods, or the nature of the trader carrying out the movement, are all taken into account. Some small traders should be exempted from processes and from paying duty altogether. These measures would need to be carefully designed so they target the traders most in need of support while continuing to ensure compliance as far as possible"

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12842934)
So the likes of the lib dems only want a government of national unity on their terms. Not very national nor unifying of them.

The post you quoted demonstrates how even if the Lib Dems supported Corbyn he still wouldn't be able to command a majority. The Lib Dems are not seeking "their terms", they are seeking a leader that in the real world could actually form a government of national unity.

Darat 4th October 2019 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843879)
The post you quoted demonstrates how even if the Lib Dems supported Corbyn he still wouldn't be able to command a majority. The Lib Dems are not seeking "their terms", they are seeking a leader that in the real world could actually form a government of national unity.

As long as that leader isn't Corbyn....

Face it they are all as power hungry and status grabbing as each other.

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843276)
Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.

For better or for worse, the Queen acts as a final balance of power. She very, very rarely exercises her power, but some people are envisioning a situation in which she might in the very near future.

ATM, there is no actual law requiring a PM who has lost a vote of no confidence to resign. It's just been tradition and the "gentleman's agreement" of UK politics to date that has meant that every one who has lost such a vote did resign. If Johnson were to refuse to leave after losing a vote of no confidence, then the only way for him to be removed would be for the Queen to fire him and appoint a new PM.

It was reported a little while ago (last week, maybe?) that the Queen had indeed been seeking legal advice about her powers to remove the PM in an extraordinary circumstance like that.

This isn't to say that there can't be better systems, but she does have a purpose. As does the also-unelected-by-the-public House of Lords.

UK politics is set up with a series of built-in checks and balances. How effective they all are, and how democratic and fair they all are is a matter for debate. But the idea that we should just "move on" is simplistic.

It's also worth noting the difference between how it is on paper and how it is in reality. From my observations people in the US tend to be far more deferential towards and worshipful of their politicians than people in the UK are of theirs - or even the Queen.

Similarly, the UK has a state religion with the Queen as the head of it, and a law requiring an act of collective worship for schoolchildren in schools, every single day. Separation of Church and state is absolutely not a thing here (as the fact that the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords are 26 Bishops).

But in practice it seems that US politics is more influenced by religion, and people in the US seem more accepting of religion in politics. There was a survey a while back which indicated that a politician who was openly atheist had very little chance of being elected in the US. OTOH, an overtly religious politician would be seen as strange and suspicious over here. I can't imagine a politician mentioning God in a speech, Tony Blair avoided converting to Catholicism until he was out of office and when asked about his religious beliefs a spokesperson famously said "we don't do God".

And as for the daily act of collective worship in schools? The majority of headteachers just ignore it and break the law, with zero consequence. I have, in fact, had debates with people who had been teachers in the UK for decades who had no idea that that law even existed.

A lot of how these things work are based on tradition and convention, and aren't quite how they seem. This is, in fact, why Johnson and Cummings are having the impact they're having and are quite as dangerous at they are - they're undermining the traditions and conventions. Perhaps that means that steps should be taken to mitigate the possibility of that kind of thing in the future, but these are extraordinary times and such protections simply haven't been needed before. Similarly, if the Queen were to try to overstep the limits of her power, that would almost certainly lead to her losing her power altogether.

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12843322)
I think its a crime that the "royals" are enormously wealthy. As if they did anything to earn any of that. I think it's a bigger crime that people, an entire modern nation in the 21st century is willing to carry on such a charade. It's like the Kardashians on steroids. I guess it sells a lot of tabloids.

Most of the time the royal family is just ignored, by the people and the tabloids alike. Well, other than the years that the Daily Express had daily headlines promoting conspiracy theories about Diana's death.

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12843885)
As long as that leader isn't Corbyn....

Because he doesn't have the numbers to form a GNU.

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 03:52 AM

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...364984323?s=21

Quote:

NEW: I’m told that the Secretary-General of the EU Council has informed member state delegations that if no new legal text is submitted by the UK before the end of next week, the focus will then shift to preparing for a no-deal scenario or an extension of a50.

Archie Gemmill Goal 4th October 2019 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francesca R (Post 12842957)
Everyone who doesn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be PM are the ones to blame for Jeremy Corbyn not being PM.

Pretty much. But looks like we can't pretend that JC could lead a unity government, or even that he could if not for the LibDems holding out.

Not very national or unifying of him to insist on me me me.

If JC doesnt have the numbers then nobody else does either. So let's just let Bojo do what he likes because the kids can't play nicely together.

This is not about who is the PM other than it not being a hard right Tory in the pocket of disaster capitalists.

Archie Gemmill Goal 4th October 2019 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12843902)
For better or for worse, the Queen acts as a final balance of power. She very, very rarely exercises her power, but some people are envisioning a situation in which she might in the very near future.

ATM, there is no actual law requiring a PM who has lost a vote of no confidence to resign. It's just been tradition and the "gentleman's agreement" of UK politics to date that has meant that every one who has lost such a vote did resign. If Johnson were to refuse to leave after losing a vote of no confidence, then the only way for him to be removed would be for the Queen to fire him and appoint a new PM.

It was reported a little while ago (last week, maybe?) that the Queen had indeed been seeking legal advice about her powers to remove the PM in an extraordinary circumstance like that.

This isn't to say that there can't be better systems, but she does have a purpose. As does the also-unelected-by-the-public House of Lords.

UK politics is set up with a series of built-in checks and balances. How effective they all are, and how democratic and fair they all are is a matter for debate. But the idea that we should just "move on" is simplistic.

It's also worth noting the difference between how it is on paper and how it is in reality. From my observations people in the US tend to be far more deferential towards and worshipful of their politicians than people in the UK are of theirs - or even the Queen.

Similarly, the UK has a state religion with the Queen as the head of it, and a law requiring an act of collective worship for schoolchildren in schools, every single day. Separation of Church and state is absolutely not a thing here (as the fact that the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords are 26 Bishops).

But in practice it seems that US politics is more influenced by religion, and people in the US seem more accepting of religion in politics. There was a survey a while back which indicated that a politician who was openly atheist had very little chance of being elected in the US. OTOH, an overtly religious politician would be seen as strange and suspicious over here. I can't imagine a politician mentioning God in a speech, Tony Blair avoided converting to Catholicism until he was out of office and when asked about his religious beliefs a spokesperson famously said "we don't do God".

And as for the daily act of collective worship in schools? The majority of headteachers just ignore it and break the law, with zero consequence. I have, in fact, had debates with people who had been teachers in the UK for decades who had no idea that that law even existed.

A lot of how these things work are based on tradition and convention, and aren't quite how they seem. This is, in fact, why Johnson and Cummings are having the impact they're having and are quite as dangerous at they are - they're undermining the traditions and conventions. Perhaps that means that steps should be taken to mitigate the possibility of that kind of thing in the future, but these are extraordinary times and such protections simply haven't been needed before. Similarly, if the Queen were to try to overstep the limits of her power, that would almost certainly lead to her losing her power altogether.

Actually i think the FTPA does not detail the process for an official VONC

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th October 2019 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12843934)
If JC doesnt have the numbers then nobody else does either.

Ken Clarke, for example, might. I think you're underestimating how much some people hate Corbyn.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:31 PM.

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