Good grief.I think a key thing that is forgotten here is that the EU was dealing with an EU member state when the WA was drawn up.Now it is not.
It's more like the next 4 weeks than the next 4 months because all 26 national parliamanets have to agree. If there is no solution until mid/end of octobre it's probably a no deal.Exactly and the only possible outcome is the hardest of brexits or no deal. And that was never sold to the public and would never have won a referendum. The leave campaign described the softest of brexits and everything else was project fear. Now all they will accept is the basis of project fear and dissenting voices are 'disrespecting the will of the people' and other such guff.
The whole thing is a massive dissaster. We are still looking to solve teh irish border problem 4 years on and with only months to go. The current solution is to just ignore the problem and the agreed solution exist. Time is nearly up on all this bollocks. Its do a deal or not in the next 4 months, a shit outcome either way and then we all live with the consequence.
Cheers Gina.So the government defence for the new bill is that parliament is ultimately sovereign as enshrined and reinforced in law recently in the Miller case.
oh Gina ......
Cheers Gina.
So the government defence for the new bill is that parliament is ultimately sovereign as enshrined and reinforced in law recently in the Miller case.
oh Gina ......
Your prerogative, anyway - to make the arch-Remainers happy:
They’re hoping people are stupid enough to not understand they’re answering a completely different question that isn’t being argued. Parliament being sovereign isn’t the issue, nor is it a constitutional matter.
No one is suggesting that parliament can’t enact any law they like. What they can’t do is enact a law in order to get around a treaty obligation without breaching international law.
I’m staggered any lawyer would put their name to the statement she’s put out, let alone the attorney general.
Judging by the sighs of relief by some posters it appears to have worked.
The other theory doing the rounds by Jonathan Powell:
‘The real reason is political. Johnson/Cummings are trying to imitate Trump by changing the subject from the mess they have made of Coronavirus to a fight on Brexit, the only subject they can manage. And in the process they have put NI peace at risk and cratered our reputation.’
This ties is with trying to get Starmer to engage on Brexit yesterday at PMQ. ‘Brexit is in peril, we are fighting off the dastardly EU and the Remainer elite’ etc etc.
Except Starmer isn’t playing ball and the EU will sit at the negotiating table until hell freezes over. It’s why, I guess, they mention Gina Miller, as if she invented Parliamentary sovereignty or something, but it’s a useful flag to wave in front of people who then get all gleeful that we are putting one over on remainers because we are all five years old or something.
They’re hoping people are stupid enough to not understand they’re answering a completely different question that isn’t being argued. Parliament being sovereign isn’t the issue, nor is it a constitutional matter.
No one is suggesting that parliament can’t enact any law they like. What they can’t do is enact a law in order to get around a treaty obligation without breaching international law.
I’m staggered any lawyer would put their name to the statement she’s put out, let alone the attorney general.
legally whether right or wrong what is clear is they ain’t getting on.
i would now put no deal at about 90%
Yep. Right now there is zero chance of a deal. The EU won’t walk, they will just play the game until the bitter end, say we did our best but the UK cannot be trusted to keep its word, blah, blah.
We will accuse the EU of being Nazi pedos or something.
Next year will be a hoot.
labour apparently are abstaining on the vote for the new bill.....
labour apparently are abstaining on the vote for the new bill.....
No deal is so last year ;). The EU thought they had banked the WA and were preparing to use it against us in the negotiations. That fox has been well and truly shot. Hence all the collective dummy spitting.legally whether right or wrong what is clear is they ain’t getting on.
i would now put no deal at about 90%
It does require a level of stupidity to not see what is going on here. Tories are acting like absolute shits as the brexit wonderland they want is not going to happen. The WA was the first step to leaving the EU but it was also the first nail in the coffin of the wonder deal and sunlit uplands promised. The grim reality is laid out in there and they don't like it - even though they own it - they think ignoring it is a good way out of that problem...
Its low capability / low competence politics in action. It only plays well if you're a bit thick or so bought in to the dogma you see any means as justifying the end.
No deal is so last year ;). The EU thought they had banked the WA and were preparing to use it against us in the negotiations. That fox has been well and truly shot. Hence all the collective dummy spitting.
Where abouts is the attorney general in the legal hierarchy? I can't see the courts standing for this from some jumped up lawyer :-)They’re hoping people are stupid enough to not understand they’re answering a completely different question that isn’t being argued. Parliament being sovereign isn’t the issue, nor is it a constitutional matter.
No one is suggesting that parliament can’t enact any law they like. What they can’t do is enact a law in order to get around a treaty obligation without breaching international law.
I’m staggered any lawyer would put their name to the statement she’s put out, let alone the attorney general.
Where abouts is the attorney general in the legal hierarchy? I can't see the courts standing for this from some jumped up lawyer :-)