Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see the unelected, unaccountable John Bolton has been promising a ‘brilliant trade deal’ following discussions with the unelected and unaccountable Dominic Cummings. Dominic is also at the forefront of doing ‘whatever it takes, including proroguing parliament if necessary, to secure a no-deal Brexit.
#takingbackcontrol.

In other news, Boris announces that he now has a ‘war-cabinet’ (made up of 6 men just like his hero Winston Churchill) and that any MPs opposed to Brexit are, in fact, “collaborators”. He doesn’t want no-deal (why not, if it’s going to be so brilliant, one may wonder?) but is now promoting the message that no deal will be the ‘fault’ of remainers, the Irish and the rest of the untrustworthy EU members. Again, why bother, if no-deal is where it’s at?

Him and his mates certainly do own the language of, and are still fascinated by, the Second World War and it’s similarity to the Brexit situation. Can’t see it myself but the comments on the bbc and mail are full of the usual pithy comments like:“it’s a pity treason doesn’t still carry the death penalty”.
 
blueinsa said:
As much as leaving the EU might stick in the throats of many MP's full stop, even with a deal for some, the realisation of the damage turning around to the electorate and saying "look i know we promised something but im sorry, we are not doing it" far out ways it and that is why the law hasn't been changed despite the mood music.

Political suicide to do anything other in the same way it would be political suicide for any Irish Taoiseach to agree to an EU demand for a hard/Customs border.
Click to expand...
Pssshhh. You have no idea what a hard border here means.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I see the unelected, unaccountable John Bolton has been promising a ‘brilliant trade deal’ following discussions with the unelected and unaccountable Dominic Cummings. Dominic is also at the forefront of doing ‘whatever it takes, including proroguing parliament if necessary, to secure a no-deal Brexit.
#takingbackcontrol.

In other news, Boris announces that he now has a ‘war-cabinet’ (made up of 6 men just like his hero Winston Churchill) and that any MPs opposed to Brexit are, in fact, “collaborators”. He doesn’t want no-deal (why not, if it’s going to be so brilliant, one may wonder?) but is now promoting the message that no deal will be the ‘fault’ of remainers, the Irish and the rest of the untrustworthy EU members. Again, why bother, if no-deal is where it’s at?

Him and his mates certainly do own the language of, and are still fascinated by, the Second World War and it’s similarity to the Brexit situation. Can’t see it myself but the comments on the bbc and mail are full of the usual pithy comments like:“it’s a pity treason doesn’t still carry the death penalty”.
Click to expand...
Frankly it would be laughable if all this rhetoric wasn´t so dangerous. There are plenty of people who will lap up this nonsense. It is deeply irresponsible of Johnson. Instead of admitting that the world is increasingly dividing ityself into powerful economic blocks and we are going to be on the outside looking in, he and his crew continue with this regurgitated 2nd world war narrative.
 
KS55 said:
Sovereignty is the power to govern, make laws etc.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t. Sovereignty is where ultimate law making authority rests. Parliament in this country has the ability to make or unmake any law. There is not a single body with or outwith the United Kingdom that can, ultimately, override Parliament without Parliamentary consent. In the case specifically of any law emanating from the EU, Parliament has, and always did have, the legal ability to say ‘that is not the law here.’ There may be consequences in political and economic terms of any such decision, but Parliament can, as I say, make or unmake any law it chooses. Ultimately, our constitution provides that Parliament has the final say on what the law of the UK should be.

That is what sovereignty is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also why the idea of sovereignty was hijacked during the referendum by those who either did not understand what sovereignty is, or did know but lied about the supposed loss of it.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Our/my/your is all the same thing...im British, we have the same government...in NI we (supposedly) have a devolved government, but that doesnt make us independent...we still fall under British rule. We dont get to choose our dependence without British interference...we are meant to be able to decide with British and Irish involvement.

So,
Some wish to stay within the UK but leave the EU
Some wish to stay within the UK but remain in the EU
Some wish to unite with the RoI and remain in the EU (republicans/nationalists)
Some would rather unite with RoI rather than leave the EU (some "soft" unionists)


A nationalist/republican may wish you not to claim NI is British, but it is. I dont really consider myself to be a unionist or nationalist....ultimately i "think" id rather be within the UK and remain in the EU...however, the thought of a united Ireland doesnt bother me at all...but thats a different conversation, and there will never just be a United Ireland....itll be a 2 state solution if it were to ever happen, a devolved government from Dublin, rather than London
Click to expand...
My preferred solution
 
KS55 said:
Yes, but that is not the same as sovereignty. Suppose we strongly object to a directive but are outvoted and the directive goes thru. We are obliged to enact provisions that are anaethema to us. That is the sovereinty issue.
Looking to the future, as the EU approaches closer and closer union, if we are still in it, this question looms larger and larger. An example that actually happened. Two Australian academics were visiting London when a Spanish judge issued a European Arrest Warrant against them for hate crimes. They were lecturers in Religious Studies and had written a paper critical of Islam. The "crime". took place in Australia. Thay were arrested in London. The judge said it was highly unlikely that they had committed an offence at all but he was obliged to issue an extradition order. Over the following weekend, the academics were spirited out of the country back to Oz. Home office connivence, probably. Now, under our old law, neither the arrest nor deportation could have happened. The fact that our gov was a willing partner in framing the law is irrelevant. The point is, had the academics actually been deported, there would have been a great scandal, but our parliament would have been powerless to change that law. That is parliament would no longer be sovereign, for the first time since the English civil war. Other examples are coming now: see the Italian budget row, or the suspension of Austria or the stand off between Poland and the EU. Closer union multiplies these problems, but little attention is given to them. It seems economics trumps all. To stay alive the EU needs to rethink subsidiarity. See also Federal US gov relationships with individual states.
PS EDIT I might add the view of some academics that closer union impoverishing nation states' powers is partly responsible for the growth of loony populist parties in Europe.
Click to expand...
If you strongly object to a directive you can veto it. Next.
 
Chris in London said:
No it isn’t. Sovereignty is where ultimate law making authority rests. Parliament in this country has the ability to make or unmake any law. There is not a single body with or outwith the United Kingdom that can, ultimately, override Parliament without Parliamentary consent. In the case specifically of any law emanating from the EU, Parliament has, and always did have, the legal ability to say ‘that is not the law here.’ There may be consequences in political and economic terms of any such decision, but Parliament can, as I say, make or unmake any law it chooses. Ultimately, our constitution provides that Parliament has the final say on what the law of the UK should be.

That is what sovereignty is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also why the idea of sovereignty was hijacked during the referendum by those who either did not understand what sovereignty is, or did know but lied about the supposed loss of it.
Click to expand...
The ECJ takes the view that, once a directive is passed, it is the law in EU countries and is actionable.
Your definition is no different to mine, except it is more verbose. The British constitution can say what it likes, but ever closer union impacts parliaments ability to legislate.
 
Vic said:
A bloke I know works for a firm that imports white goods. They've stockpiled, because they anticipate a five mile queue of ships waiting to enter Felixstowe.
Click to expand...
5 miles stationary is about 17 hours. That's off a data model before anyone attacks it.
 
Vic said:
The Brady amedment was to replace the backstop with "alternative arrangements". Another vote for unicorns.
Click to expand...
Tbf, there could actually be alternative arrangements. They just haven't qualified what they are yet. Unfortunate.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
Yes, they have longer routes so will take more time to traverse that route than those on shorter distances who can do the same trip multiple times in the same period. Not sure that's a difficult concept to be honest.. These are Ro-Ro ferries we are talking about so everything you want to go on it has to be ready to go on it based on the scheduled time the boat leaves. Obviously if you can fill up a boat you could rent one for yourself but the discussion is about what is the quickest way to get goods from Dublin to Rotterdam using current routes against the direct routes.
Click to expand...
Cork to France is deep water, no difference.
 
KS55 said:
The ECJ takes the view that, once a directive is passed, it is the law in EU countries and is actionable.
Your definition is no different to mine, except it is more verbose. The British constitution can say what it likes, but ever closer union impacts parliaments ability to legislate.
Click to expand...

In the 1980s the UK govt removed teachers’ rights to collective bargaining and imposed a pay committee on them.
They were taken to court and the ECJ found against the govt and instructed them to reinstate the n3gotiating system previously used.
The govt refused and have continued to defy the ECJ ever since.

Just one case.
I’ll bet there are hundreds more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top