Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaudion M said:
True but how long would a standstill last and what happens when it ends, who decides when it can end (unilateral or bilateral) - can you have an extension of a standstill?

From a negotiating stance a standstill is semantics - what you are describing is a Withdrawal Agreement and the one on the table has a backstop.
Click to expand...

I don't know I'd need to do more research, I heard 12 months floated around but that could be incorrect.
 
BobKowalski said:
Brexit Secretary. Currently in Madrid threatening the Spanish over...well everything at the moment. Also threatening the Irish with drug shortages in a no deal scenario which is odd given we will be fine apparently. Anyway we have nothing concrete to replace the backstop for another year, so what we want is to leave with a transition deal and nor sweat the details because we will probably have them by December 2020. In short he says trust us and the Irish will have to take ‘a risk on the border’.

Oh and if we can’t leave on 31st October we will hate you all forever.

A compelling and reasoned argument as ever from our Brexit Overlords.
Click to expand...

I’d love to see the thoughts of those on here who said the border was being exaggerated as an issue and it just needed good will.
 
Chris in London said:
...Or are you going to tell me why the Supreme Court is wrong?
Click to expand...
Not at all, although the recent Miller judgement was a majority decision I don't doubt there was unanimity on that issue. You are aware that the principal reason the Brexit Bill wasn't passed by the HoC was that the AG informed parliament that under the proposed WA we would have no unilateral right of exit from the backstop element of the treaty? It would in the last resort be subject to the competence of the ECJ and that is the current situation with all such EU derived legislation as Denning famously described:
  1. THE IMPACT OF THE EU TREATY ON ENGLISH LAW

    The first and fundamental point is that the Treaty concerns only those matters which have a European element, that is to say, matters which affect people or property in the nine countries of the Common Market besides ourselves. The Treaty does not touch any of the matters which concern solely the mainland of England and the people in it. These are still governed by English law. They are not affected by the Treaty. But when we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to any statute.
As part of a future federated EU superstate there would be no independent HoC to pass another 'Great Repeat Bill'. You are simply wrong that our EU membership does not necessarily diminish our sovereignty and would eventually deprive us of democratic control of our country if it continues on its current political direction.
 
Last edited:
M18CTID said:
Looks like my prediction that we'll still be in the EU this time next year might just come true. You can actually get 4/7 with Paddy Power that we don't leave this year if anyone fancies a punt
Click to expand...
You've been worryingly sucked into this vortex recently, mate. Get out while you can!
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Of course it should, after all, we all want to know what sort of leave position people who voted remain in the referendum would support.

But that's not their aim; they just want to stop brexit and ignore the result of the first referendum by any means necessary, not come to a compromise with leave voters. For leave voters, the compromise with remainers is to leave with a deal, instead of leaving with a clean break. For remainers, the compromise is... to remain in the EU against the wishes of over 17 million people.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure your EFTA proposal would have satisfied many of them.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Yes I do, but i'm not defending the actions of the no dealers, you appear to be defending the remainers position, or at least ignoring the fact that remainers on here mostly talk about stopping brexit entirely.

If i'm wrong, please list the names of all the remainers on this forum who you feel support leaving the EU with a deal.
Click to expand...
I would have been ok leaving with the deal that was promised but now that's second best to revoking and ending the madness.
 
George Hannah said:
Not at all, although the recent Miller judgement was a majority decision I don't doubt there was unanimity on that issue. You are aware that the principal reason Brexit Bill wasn't passed by the HoC was that the AG informed parliament that under the proposed WA we would have no unilateral right of exit from the backstop element of the treaty? It would in the last resort be subject to the competence of the ECJ and that is the current situation with all such EU derived legislation as Denning famously described:
  1. THE IMPACT OF THE EU TREATY ON ENGLISH LAW

    The first and fundamental point is that the Treaty concerns only those matters which have a European element, that is to say, matters which affect people or property in the nine countries of the Common Market besides ourselves. The Treaty does not touch any of the matters which concern solely the mainland of England and the people in it. These are still governed by English law. They are not affected by the Treaty. But when we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to any statute.
As part of a future federated EU superstate there would be no independent HoC to pass another 'Great Repeat Bill'. You are simply wrong that our EU membership does not necessarily diminish our sovereignty and would eventually deprive us of democratic control of our country if it continues on its current political direction.
Click to expand...

There you go again, spouting shite about things you plainly don’t understand. What the AG told Parliament, correctly, is that the WA did not provide the UK with a unilateral right to exit from the backstop. What you plainly haven’t understood is that if Parliament passed an Act saying ‘notwithstanding the terms of the withdrawal agreement, we are no longer bound by it’ that would be the law of the land backstop or no backstop. Plainly, backing out of an international agreement that, under its own terms, we did not have a contractual right to back out of would carry consequences but that is nothing to do with sovereignty. Sovereignty, as I’ve tried to explain, is the concept of where ultimate lawmaking authority lies within a society. If the ECJ said ‘the law in Northern Ireland is X’ and our Parliament said ‘the law of Northern Ireland is Y’ then our Parliament wins. That is what sovereignty is. What Lord Denning said 45 years ago has no impact on sovereignty, it was to do with the effect of EU law. They are totally different concepts.

Since you accept that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller represents the definitive statement of the law on the question, I just don’t understand how you can say ‘you are simply wrong that our EU membership does not necessarily diminish our sovereignty.’ That is the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court says in Miller. See the final line of my earlier post.

Look George, you understand electricity and how it works. So if you flick a light switch and the light comes on, you understand why. If anyone said it was witchcraft, you would say they are spouting shite about something they plainly don’t understand.

Stop saying this is witchcraft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top