Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M18CTID said:
Yeah, that's my thinking too. I said weeks ago on one of the threads (can't remember which one), that I felt his best chance of winning a GE was there and then because at that point the Tories were all over the show, and the Brexit negotiations weren't exactly going anywhere. Instead, he's gambled on the Tories imploding still further and by the looks of it, it's backfired on him.
Click to expand...

For what’s it worth I think this deal makes Johnson’s electoral chances much worse especially if it’s voted down. Instead of electioneering on ‘do or die’ and ‘Brexit or bust’ the Tories will be campaigning on this deal and like all deals it’s based on compromise. It’s based on NI becoming detached from the Union. It’s based on ECJ rule and oversight in NI and on citizen rights and remaining in the Single Market and CU for at least another 3 years or so. We are still paying billions in a divorce settlement and we will be excluded from all decision making.

Defending this deal is a nuanced position and that makes simple slogans difficult compared to the Brexit Party rhetoric over ‘Johnson’s Surrender Deal’. Labour will play this is as a ‘Trump Brexit deal be fearful for the NHS’ . SNP this deal disadvantages Scotland why can’t we have a bit of what NI has got and Remainers just don’t want to leave full stop.

Johnson would play better as the ‘no deal’ champion and Parliament forced him to extend.

Now he has to defend an actual deal.
 
dave_blue12 said:
I believe the Benn Act requires a legal agreement to be brought before Parliament. It does not have to be passed.

The more I think about it the more I think that this is the game Johnson is playing.

He has given in on virtually everything on this deal. He doesn't want it to go through, he wants it to be rejected, he then gets the no deal he has been positioned to deliver.

This could well come down to the courts again to stop this devious plan.

If only Jacob hadn't drafted that amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border) Act 2018. ;-)
Click to expand...

Devious plan?

Sovereign Parliament that makes and changes the law has to keep going to the courts to practically beg to get them to stop something they voted for and put into law?

Brilliant!
 
BobKowalski said:
For what’s it worth I think this deal makes Johnson’s electoral chances much worse especially if it’s voted down. Instead of electioneering on ‘do or die’ and ‘Brexit or bust’ the Tories will be campaigning on this deal and like all deals it’s based on compromise. It’s based on NI becoming detached from the Union. It’s based on ECJ rule and oversight in NI and on citizen rights and remaining in the Single Market and CU for at least another 3 years or so. We are still paying billions in a divorce settlement and we will be excluded from all decision making.

Defending this deal is a nuanced position and that makes simple slogans difficult compared to the Brexit Party rhetoric over ‘Johnson’s Surrender Deal’. Labour will play this is as a ‘Trump Brexit deal be fearful for the NHS’ . SNP this deal disadvantages Scotland why can’t we have a bit of what NI has got and Remainers just don’t want to leave full stop.

Johnson would play better as the ‘no deal’ champion and Parliament forced him to extend.

Now he has to defend an actual deal.
Click to expand...

He only has to defend it if it goes through.
 
dave_blue12 said:
I believe the Benn Act requires a legal agreement to be brought before Parliament. It does not have to be passed.

The more I think about it the more I think that this is the game Johnson is playing.

He has given in on virtually everything on this deal. He doesn't want it to go through, he wants it to be rejected, he then gets the no deal he has been positioned to deliver.

This could well come down to the courts again to stop this devious plan.

If only Jacob hadn't drafted that amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border) Act 2018. ;-)
Click to expand...

I think the original line is wrong, but I saw this touted around yesterday too. My underlining:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/enacted/data.htm

Duties in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union
(1)The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement that the United Kingdom has concluded an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and a copy of the agreement and—
(a)the agreement has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(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).
 
blueinsa said:
Devious plan?

Sovereign Parliament that makes and changes the law has to keep going to the courts to practically beg to get them to stop something they voted for and put into law?

Brilliant!
Click to expand...

I try not to respond to you as you posts are largely foolish.

The role of the judiciary is to uphold the laws as enacted by Parliament. The laws of the land as enacted by Parliament must be respected by the executive (Government).

Sadly this Government thinks it is above the law and so to the courts the people must go.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I think the original line is wrong, but I saw this touted around yesterday too. My underlining:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26/enacted/data.htm

Duties in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union
(1)The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement that the United Kingdom has concluded an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and a copy of the agreement and—
(a)the agreement has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(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).
Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting, I'll dig a little more.
 
dave_blue12 said:
I try not to respond to you as you posts are largely foolish.

The role of the judiciary is to uphold the laws as enacted by Parliament. The laws of the land as enacted by Parliament must be respected by the executive (Government).

Sadly this Government thinks it is above the law and so to the courts the people must go.
Click to expand...

Law of the land says the government had to present the legal text of a deal and they have now done that.

What you going to court for again?
 
SWP's back said:
The House voted it through Tolm?
Click to expand...

I think they get excited at the chance to fluff a Johnson.

What I don’t get is that there is in my view a case for saying Johnson did something positive but it gets overlooked in favour of ‘Ooh Johnson made the EU do things. He my hero’ posts.
 
SWP's back said:
The House voted it through Tolm?
Click to expand...

The House has deferred to me ;)

It's been so long ago now, who was it who said "no deal is better than a bad deal?"

Personally, I'm on a lucky guess streak after saying Brexit would win on voting day, so I suspect the ERG will fall into line and the DUP will be handed plenty of pork, to just squeak this through.

If I'm being candid, I'm sick of it all and would be more than happy for a second referendum to be put to the people.

I wouldn't change my vote, but others do have the absolute right to.
 
Trumpian playbook with that press conference. Boris Speaks. Media not allowed to question.
 
mat said:
Corbyn is a democrat above all else. If it meant democracy wins he would sacrifice his chance of becoming PM. Unlike Boris or Swinson.

History will judge him better than his peers and the media ever have.
Click to expand...

What, because he believes in democracy? Hardly ground-breaking is it?

I can't ever see history judging him particularly well to be honest
 
BobKowalski said:
No. He has to defend it no matter what. This is Johnson’s Deal just as it was May’s Deal. He is stuck with it no matter what. He can’t disown it if it gets voted down. He has to campaign on it. There is no other choice.
Click to expand...

He can and he will.

The Benn Act made me do it !

If he manages to crash out with no deal as many believe to be his goal he will attack those that rejectec the deal as the architects of all the problems

Think Trump, nothing will be Johnson's fault and the gullible will swallow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top