Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
George Hannah said:
The sea border was completely ruled out by the govt rep rolled out for Wednesday's Andrew Neil Show (about 15 mins in) but now it's Friday
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0008fhg/the-andrew-neil-show-series-1-11092019
Click to expand...

Maybe Boris has told Arlene, that the DUP are as likely to suffer in an election as the Cons are.
Maybe if he can get the original backstop through before the 31st then there won't be a need for an election and they can all stay in their cozy parliamentary seats.
Or does the fact that parliament is prorogued scupper that? If the supreme court upholds the original judgement the queen has her speech and there has to be an election anyway?
Or can he just carry on with a new/same government if he has the numbers after getting a deal? It really is getting confusing.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Maybe Boris has told Arlene, that the DUP are as likely to suffer in an election as the Cons are.
Maybe if he can get the original backstop through before the 31st then there won't be a need for an election and they can all stay in their cozy parliamentary seats.
Or does the fact that parliament is prorogued scupper that? If the supreme court upholds the original judgement the queen has her speech and there has to be an election anyway?
Or can he just carry on with a new/same government if he has the numbers after getting a deal? It really is getting confusing.
Click to expand...
There has to be a new parliament with a queen's speech but no need for a GE. Without a GE the queen's speech will be "my government will bring forward bills to do a lot of things but as Bojo hasn't got a majority he might as well be driving a clown car with the doors dropping off".
 
A GDM
BobKowalski said:
“And we thank GDM for today’s ‘Thought For The Day’. And now back to the studio for the
Not avin' it ,a bona fide gdm has a water-mark, at minimum **** has to feature twice,
like a brexit post has to have at least one but preferably more attempts to defend the ref.
Click to expand...
 
Fred_Quimby said:
Am I completely losing the plot? (Not difficult at my age). But is this not the famous 'backstop' that nobody wants?
Click to expand...

It removes the need for a backstop if it becomes permanent.

It was however a fundamental red line issue for the DUP. The DUP won't (or haven't) tolerated anything that separated NI from the rest of the uk and that position trumps brexit for them.

Whilst i'm no expert on NI politics I think the DUP have got themselves in a bind. Hard Brexit creates a tension with the RoI that would act as a driver for rejoining the republic. That might not bother the hard core DUP base but it must hit there marginal support and fires up the opposition. All the difficulties in NI could be, rightly, blamed on the DUP. I'm not sure they do much analytical thinking but they must know that a No Deal exit will not be a good look for them going forward.

What this is suggesting is that the DUP may be coming round to the idea that hard brexit doesn't work for them so some softer brexit with NI being fully aligned to the EU might be a better outcome. I cant see it myself. Surely the DUP's primary driver is to remain 100% aligned with the UK and brexit comes second. That said I don't see any other way to get out of the bind they are in.
 
Gaudion M said:
It removes the need for a backstop if it becomes permanent.

It was however a fundamental red line issue for the DUP. The DUP won't (or haven't) tolerated anything that separated NI from the rest of the uk and that position trumps brexit for them.

Whilst i'm no expert on NI politics I think the DUP have got themselves in a bind. Hard Brexit creates a tension with the RoI that would act as a driver for rejoining the republic. That might not bother the hard core DUP base but it must hit there marginal support and fires up the opposition. All the difficulties in NI could be, rightly, blamed on the DUP. I'm not sure they do much analytical thinking but they must know that a No Deal exit will not be a good look for them going forward.

What this is suggesting is that the DUP may be coming round to the idea that hard brexit doesn't work for them so some softer brexit with NI being fully aligned to the EU might be a better outcome. I cant see it myself. Surely the DUP's primary driver is to remain 100% aligned with the UK and brexit comes second. That said I don't see any other way to get out of the bind they are in.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I believe that an open border is the only way to keep the Good Friday Agreement active. Closing the border in any way shape or form will only play into the hands of republican activists. The idea that the EU will close the border but we won’t is, quite frankly, ludicrous. How do we have a border to stop ‘Johnny Foreigner’ coming over if we don’t have a physical border? Having it down the Irish Sea moves the border to our side of the sea but moved NI closer to the republic. Will this be acceptable to the majority of people in NI? It would solve a lot of problems if it was and, not to forget, the majority of the people in NI voted to remain.
 
Gaudion M said:
It removes the need for a backstop if it becomes permanent.

It was however a fundamental red line issue for the DUP. The DUP won't (or haven't) tolerated anything that separated NI from the rest of the uk and that position trumps brexit for them.

Whilst i'm no expert on NI politics I think the DUP have got themselves in a bind. Hard Brexit creates a tension with the RoI that would act as a driver for rejoining the republic. That might not bother the hard core DUP base but it must hit there marginal support and fires up the opposition. All the difficulties in NI could be, rightly, blamed on the DUP. I'm not sure they do much analytical thinking but they must know that a No Deal exit will not be a good look for them going forward.

What this is suggesting is that the DUP may be coming round to the idea that hard brexit doesn't work for them so some softer brexit with NI being fully aligned to the EU might be a better outcome. I cant see it myself. Surely the DUP's primary driver is to remain 100% aligned with the UK and brexit comes second. That said I don't see any other way to get out of the bind they are in.
Click to expand...

Im not a fan of the DUP, amazes me how they get so many votes over here...although its now very close with Sinn Fein...just as heinous....but if the DUP softened up on things like gay marriage, abortion rights etc they would gain an even bigger support.

Locally they could become the heroes, accepting the/a backstop scenario can be a good thing for us over here...having the best of both worlds....and would bring a much needed boost to the economy
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Maybe Boris has told Arlene, that the DUP are as likely to suffer in an election as the Cons are.
Maybe if he can get the original backstop through before the 31st then there won't be a need for an election and they can all stay in their cozy parliamentary seats.
Or does the fact that parliament is prorogued scupper that? If the supreme court upholds the original judgement the queen has her speech and there has to be an election anyway?
Or can he just carry on with a new/same government if he has the numbers after getting a deal? It really is getting confusing.
Click to expand...
Despite Arlene rubbishing today's Times headline story that the DUP are softening on the backstop Ben Lowry on Politics Live just now says that although the whole 'all-Ireland economy' argument is being resisted there is nevertheless growing support for the idea of an all-Ireland agricultural zone as a basis for resolution of the border issue.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Obviously I am no lawyer, and also I am no fan of Johnson's, nor do I approve of his extended prorogation of parliament.

However, I fail to see how the Scottish courts could conclude that the prorogation was illegal.

(a) Does the MP need a reason to prorogue? I am not sure he does. As far as I am aware, it's at the PM's discretion to go to the Queen as ask for parliament to be prorogued and under centuries old tradition, the Queen agrees to the PMs recommendations, whatever they may be.

(b) How on earth does the Scottish court know what is in the PM's head when he asks for prorogation? (Assuming he needs a valid reason, and I am not sure he does). They might think it's a bit iffy, but they can hardly read his mind. He says one thing and the court concludes another based on it looking iffy? How the hell does that work, from a legal perspective?

I'm finding it difficult to read this in any other way than a Remainer judge (or judges) taking a political stance. It looks very dodgy imo.
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with this.

I can’t see how it is illegal but then again I’m not a lawyer either.

His tactics are completely immoral and dangerous and undemocratic etc. etc. but they are legal from my understanding.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Im not a fan of the DUP, amazes me how they get so many votes over here...although its now very close with Sinn Fein...just as heinous....but if the DUP softened up on things like gay marriage, abortion rights etc they would gain an even bigger support.

Locally they could become the heroes, accepting the/a backstop scenario can be a good thing for us over here...having the best of both worlds....and would bring a much needed boost to the economy
Click to expand...

As i say - I don't see a way out for them. But I also don't see any evidence that they have a coherent plan. They like brexit but brexit wrecks their local political position!!!
 
Chippy_boy said:
Obviously I am no lawyer, and also I am no fan of Johnson's, nor do I approve of his extended prorogation of parliament.

However, I fail to see how the Scottish courts could conclude that the prorogation was illegal.

(a) Does the MP need a reason to prorogue? I am not sure he does. As far as I am aware, it's at the PM's discretion to go to the Queen as ask for parliament to be prorogued and under centuries old tradition, the Queen agrees to the PMs recommendations, whatever they may be.

(b) How on earth does the Scottish court know what is in the PM's head when he asks for prorogation? (Assuming he needs a valid reason, and I am not sure he does). They might think it's a bit iffy, but they can hardly read his mind. He says one thing and the court concludes another based on it looking iffy? How the hell does that work, from a legal perspective?

I'm finding it difficult to read this in any other way than a Remainer judge (or judges) taking a political stance. It looks very dodgy imo.
Click to expand...

So what about if BoJo suggested proroguing for 12 months and gave no reason. At what point would you expect a court to step in and say that is not constitutional?
 
Ban-jani said:
I have to say I agree with this.

I can’t see how it is illegal but then again I’m not a lawyer either.

His tactics are completely immoral and dangerous and undemocratic etc. etc. but they are legal from my understanding.
Click to expand...
If it's not illegal then your parliament isn't sovereign and you in effect live in a dictatorship.
 
aguero93:20 said:
If it's not illegal then your parliament isn't sovereign and you in effect live in a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

It wouldn’t be a dictatorship but because we don’t have a written constitution it allows someone to behave as such sometimes.

I may be wrong, I just believe the fixed term parliament act allows it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top