jay_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Has this awakening happened since Boris became pm and you realise that a Corbyn led government is very close unless a few more remainers become leavers?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Has this awakening happened since Boris became pm and you realise that a Corbyn led government is very close unless a few more remainers become leavers?
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
No. Mainly because it didn’t. Delivering Brexit is a legal and technical process. Shouting threats isn’t going to move anyone. No deal doesn’t solve or deliver Brexit nor does it make it go away. Developed countries have Treaty based trade arrangements and agreements with their neighbours. Lapsing all of ours in a hissy fit just means we will have to go back to the negotiating table later. Treaty arrangements govern how we move chemicals to how we can take Flopsy the dog on holiday with us. That’s just the reality. Reality is a bitch.
That's the bit I'm immediately worried about.
I'm coming over with the dog at the end of October. I'll be travelling back after the 31st of October.
Just hoping nothing stupid occurs at Holyhead on the way back. Don't want Flopsy in quarantine while you sort the paperwork out.
Same old same old. Yes we've been through this 100 times.
But your final paragraph is the nub of it. We have the basis of a deal if we can find a solution to the NI issue, and that's where the breakthrough will come if there is one. For example, Boris could ditch the support of the DUP and go for an NI-only backstop. There's other possibilities being explored as I am sure you realise.
But NONE of this was open to discussion until we threatened leaving with no deal.
That not correct, the option of a NI only backstop was put forward by the EU under May. May rejected it because she didn’t want to break the Union (and no doubt the fact that the DUP, who she needed, wouldn’t have accepted it).
M
M
mat
Guest
As a union activist I've asked our HR director what plans are in place should we crash out on the 31st. The company is Dutch owned. The response..."Fuck knows. We've asked the government and were sent a a pamphlet which say very little."
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,900
I thought it was an error of judgement to prorogue parlisment for longer than the norm, although I can see why he did it and personally I think the supreme court got it wrong in deeming it unlawful.. Other than that yes.
Honestly I fail to see what everyone is so worked up about. He's doing his utmost to honour the referendum result and a commitment he's made and parliament is ganging up on him trying stop him, and people get upset because he uses some atypical words? Well really??? Are we all so delicate that we're going to get all upset over a few words which lets face it are ludicrously tame compared to what you on here every 5 minutes and in fact in general parlance all the time.
I don't remember there being much of an outcry when John Major referred to the hard core of Eurosceptics as bastards.
So in summary I think people are wildly overreacting and most of the people doing so are indignant Remsiners. Perhaps who are panicking he might just manage to take us out by October 31st.
Do explain why you think that the 11 most senior judges in the country fucked it up, and whilst you’re at it it would be helpful to have an idea of your experience and qualifications to make that judgment
Based on three things:
1. The EU would rather we stayed, but if not, then they'd much rather we leave with a deal than with none. So whilst there's just a whiff of a threat of us leaving with no deal - either by Johnson doing something devious to outmanoeuvre parlisment or by winning a GE and getting a mandate for it, then we still have a tiny bit of leverage. Not as much as if the ludicrous Benn legislation had not been passed of course, but a bit.
2. The EU are also sick of this dragging on. It's not doing anything for growth across the EU with everything in limbo.
3. Johnson probably figures his chances of winning a GE go down significantly unless he gets us out by October 31st. So he'll be looking for whatever small compromise he can get from the EU that he can "sell' to parlisment. I think the May deal with some kind of backstop not called a backstop and with words exposing how the UK could cancel it, will be back on the table.
Genuinely I hope you are right and he gets a deal, for the good of the country but I just can’t see it.
I don’t think he has enough time left and the noise out of the EU is that he hasn’t even proposed an alternative.
I also believe that his backers want a no deal, as his sister has said.
I think he’s drumming up the feeling of Parliament vs the people in the knowledge we’ll still be in after the 31st and it’ll be parliaments fault.
yerwot?
Well-Known Member
Small amount? The apathy party would win every election if made to vote. just consider the turn-out for local and national polls. Labour and Cons are never likely to consider this, yet both claim to champion democracy. The technical glitches cited as a barrier to electronic polling have long been ironed out, but the two main parties still hide behind bogus fears of double-voting, yet propose an impossible technical solution to the backstop, something that is an impossibility (despite a poster on here claiming to have written the software for it.) A puppet politician claiming it is viable is one thing, he's just obeying party diktat to preserve his seat on the gravy train; maybe the poster is a bot. Or an arse. I don't know how many times the deck chairs on the Titanic were rearranged but this debate has left it trailing by miles. And the fucker still sank, just like brexit will, and this time it will be toffs locked in steerage as it sinks (wishful thinking obvs but so justiciable) xxIts not depressing, your summary of the Labour Party gives me hope, because its wrong and all we have to do is prove you are wrong and we win.
I know you will never vote Labour, just as I would never vote Tory, so its the small amount of people that decide elections that need to hear the message. The more that Labour are denigrated, the more like project fear it becomes and the British hate project fear.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
A few states in the USA seem to have had problems with their initial attempts at solely electronic voting to the extent that they are looking at a dual-function system with an identifiable paper record.Small amount? The apathy party would win every election if made to vote. just consider the turn-out for local and national polls. Labour and Cons are never likely to consider this, yet both claim to champion democracy. The technical glitches cited as a barrier to electronic polling have long been ironed out, but the two main parties still hide behind bogus fears of double-voting, yet propose an impossible technical solution to the backstop, something that is an impossibility (despite a poster on here claiming to have written the software for it.) A puppet politician claiming it is viable is one thing, he's just obeying party diktat to preserve his seat on the gravy train; maybe the poster is a bot. Or an arse. I don't know how many times the deck chairs on the Titanic were rearranged but this debate has left it trailing by miles. And the fucker still sank, just like brexit will, and this time it will be toffs locked in steerage as it sinks (wishful thinking obvs but so justiciable) xx
https://www.cnet.com/news/electroni...the-future-now-paper-ballots-make-a-comeback/
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Tory Conference in Manchester ... guarded behind a ring of steel and police
shame a simple technological solution couldn't be found ..... apparently its so easy
shame a simple technological solution couldn't be found ..... apparently its so easy
The Supreme Court verdict was fairly damning at 11-0. But then the very senior judges in the High Court of Justice thought otherwise. Seems slightly disconcerting that the two courts reached such different outcomes. I could understand it if the High court had come up with one verdict and the Supreme Court had overturned it by a small majority. But 11-0? Is the Master of the Rolls up to the job?Do explain why you think that the 11 most senior judges in the country fucked it up, and whilst you’re at it it would be helpful to have an idea of your experience and qualifications to make that judgment
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
I don't think that position has changed much to be honest.
They are willing to replace the backstop if you come up with a valid alternative. They have said that all along.
This has basically put the onus back on Boris and his crew to actually say what it is that they would do.
They are scrambling about to try and make it look like they are proposing something concrete, but the fact is they aren't really and there isn't much time left.
I watched "A week in politics" late last night on RTE 1, and it was said and is well understood on this side of the Irish sea that Johnson is not sincere in his efforts.
Nobody here thinks that the Tory Government are in the slightest way thinking about Ireland, north or south. They couldn't care less. Never have and never will.
It's pure self interest.
The feeling seems to be that politics in the UK is a mess and the normal rules of engagement seem to have gone out the window.
We are preparing for the worst.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Isn’t that supposed to be the point of an appellate court?The Supreme Court verdict was fairly damning at 11-0. But then the very senior judges in the High Court of Justice thought otherwise. Seems slightly disconcerting that the two courts reached such different outcomes. I could understand it if the High court had come up with one verdict and the Supreme Court had overturned it by a small majority. But 11-0? Is the Master of the Rolls up to the job?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
It is utterly shameful the way the interest of the Irish people has been totally disregarded in any and all Brexit calculations and shows Brexit to be, at its heart, a selfish act.I don't think that position has changed much to be honest.
They are willing to replace the backstop if you come up with a valid alternative. They have said that all along.
This has basically put the onus back on Boris and his crew to actually say what it is that they would do.
They are scrambling about to try and make it look like they are proposing something concrete, but the fact is they aren't really and there isn't much time left.
I watched "A week in politics" late last night on RTE 1, and it was said and is well understood on this side of the Irish sea that Johnson is not sincere in his efforts.
Nobody here thinks that the Tory Government are in the slightest way thinking about Ireland, north or south. They couldn't care less. Never have and never will.
It's pure self interest.
The feeling seems to be that politics in the UK is a mess and the normal rules of engagement seem to have gone out the window.
We are preparing for the worst.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,900
The Supreme Court verdict was fairly damning at 11-0. But then the very senior judges in the High Court of Justice thought otherwise. Seems slightly disconcerting that the two courts reached such different outcomes. I could understand it if the High court had come up with one verdict and the Supreme Court had overturned it by a small majority. But 11-0? Is the Master of the Rolls up to the job?
It doesn’t matter how eminent the judges are in the lower court, they only ever get overturned in the Supreme Court when they get it wrong. On this occasion they got it wrong. And when you read the Supreme Court judgment you don’t think ‘what bollocks is this’, its reasoning is absolutely watertight.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
I believe the difference between the two courts was on whether the matter was justiciable or not.The Supreme Court verdict was fairly damning at 11-0. But then the very senior judges in the High Court of Justice thought otherwise. Seems slightly disconcerting that the two courts reached such different outcomes. I could understand it if the High court had come up with one verdict and the Supreme Court had overturned it by a small majority. But 11-0? Is the Master of the Rolls up to the job?
Not on whether the government acted unlawfully or not as that question did not arise in the light of the High Court's decision.
Important to mention that.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Yes it was.Same old same old. Yes we've been through this 100 times.
But your final paragraph is the nub of it. We have the basis of a deal if we can find a solution to the NI issue, and that's where the breakthrough will come if there is one. For example, Boris could ditch the support of the DUP and go for an NI-only backstop. There's other possibilities being explored as I am sure you realise.
But NONE of this was open to discussion until we threatened leaving with no deal.
You're basically describing what we first wanted.
Well yes. I just thought it unusual that it was unanimous. The high court judges weren’t just “average” judges they were extremely senior. I was surprised that none of the Supreme Court judges agreed with themIsn’t that supposed to be the point of an appellate court?
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Also the UK citizens of Northern Ireland.It is utterly shameful the way the interest of the Irish people has been totally disregarded in any and all Brexit calculations and shows Brexit to be, at its heart, a selfish act.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I too was surprised, but I expect they came to a consensus for very proper and well considered reasons.Well yes. I just thought it unusual that it was unanimous. The high court judges weren’t just “average” judges they were extremely senior. I was surprised that none of the Supreme Court judges agreed with them
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I was referring to them within that post, hence the absence of the words ‘Republic of’ or an approximation thereto.Also the UK citizens of Northern Ireland.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.