Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

Groose

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Groose

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Albert the Cat said:

 

I wouldn’t  be so sure, they have lost at the Supreme Court by following advice from his advisors. 

Don't be so naive.  The Government and Boris tell their legal advisers what they want to achieve and legal advice is given to support and not support their aim.  The Government legal advisers will have told Boris it was highly likely he would lose in the Supreme Court.  The same legal people who argue against Boris would argue for him if they were working for him. To suggest the legal experts who advice Boris are not the very best is ludicrous

Edited by Lockdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Albert the Cat said:

You have no grasp of the political reality whatsoever. It has been demonstrated REPEATEDLY that there is no majority in Parliament for no deal. The extension of A50 THREE times and the Benn Act are examples of how no deal isn’t anywhere near realistic.  So no deal is the legal default, how is that working out for you?

Whether it is working out or not is not the point I was making as the fact of the matter and the law is that a no-deal is still the default legal stance unless changed by parliament and I was very clear on that. Parliament has neither revoked A50 or accepted leaving with a deal so any extension is just that, an extension of the negotiations in parliament. The EU are not going to change their minds about what they are offering and why should they.

 

Quote

So if an amendment was tabled, do you really think no deal will be an option?

I will wait and see and not judge on pointless hypothetical questions.

 

Quote

Johnson is no attempting to ram through his deal in three days through Parliament. The previous deal took three months. Think there will be sufficient scrutiny on this deal in three days?

I don't know as parliament are in charge not me and in anycase, see above! 

 

Just to add.. If this deal is basically the same with only a 5% change then is safe to assume that most of it has already been debated and only the bit that is changed will need debating again.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apelike said:

If this deal is basically the same with only a 5% change

that was the withdrawal agreement (2 pages)

 

this is the withdrawal agreement bill (100 pages)

 

it's a good job we're leaving all that EU bureaucracy behind!

 

oh....

Edited by ads36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ads36 said:

that was the withdrawal agreement (2 pages)

 

this is the withdrawal agreement bill (100 pages)

 

it's a good job we're leaving all that EU bureaucracy behind!

 

oh....

The Irish border seems to have the best governmental brains in a twist. By best I mean Barclay.

 

BBC News - Brexit deal: NI firms must declare goods heading to rest of the UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50137320

 

Shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

Don't be so naive.  The Government and Boris tell their legal advisers what they want to achieve and legal advice is given to support and not support their aim.  The Government legal advisers will have told Boris it was highly likely he would lose in the Supreme Court.  The same legal people who argue against Boris would argue for him if they were working for him. To suggest the legal experts who advice Boris are not the very best is ludicrous

So you're saying Boris prorogued parliament despite his legal advisers telling him it wasn't legal to do so.

22 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The Irish border seems to have the best governmental brains in a twist. By best I mean Barclay.

 

BBC News - Brexit deal: NI firms must declare goods heading to rest of the UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50137320

 

Shambles.

On Politics Live this lunchtime someone commented that if the Brexit Secretary, who has known what's in the withdraw agreement all along, doesn't understand it what chance have MPs of understanding it in the three days they've been given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, altus said:

So you're saying Boris prorogued parliament despite his legal advisers telling him it wasn't legal to do so.

 

I'm saying Boris will have known that there was a risk that proroguing Parliament would be challenged in the courts and he would lose.  Also Boris will have known that a ruling against him in the Supreme Court won't damage him politically because the honest section of the general public support his efforts by whatever means to get the democratic 2016 EU Referendum implemented.  Boris is the good guy in the eyes of all reasonable honest people who respect the democratic  2016 EU Referendum result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By whatever means?

 

Im fairly certain that the honest people wouldn't go that far.

 

News though - Bojo is going to pull the brexit bill ina  fit of pique and arrange a new Parliament if they get and extension and the timetable is voted down. So that is a dead cert now.

 

Election before Chrimbo and a new leader, that will be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Obelix said:

By whatever means?

 

Im fairly certain that the honest people wouldn't go that far.

 

News though - Bojo is going to pull the brexit bill ina  fit of pique and arrange a new Parliament if they get and extension and the timetable is voted down. So that is a dead cert now.

 

Election before Chrimbo and a new leader, that will be fun.

Sadly, it will be the same leader with a workable majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

I'm saying Boris will have known that there was a risk that proroguing Parliament would be challenged in the courts and he would lose.  Also Boris will have known that a ruling against him in the Supreme Court won't damage him politically because the honest section of the general public support his efforts by whatever means to get the democratic 2016 EU Referendum implemented.  Boris is the good guy in the eyes of all reasonable honest people who respect the democratic  2016 EU Referendum result.

So he prevented parliament from doing its job in order to boost his chances in an election - very honest of him.

Edited by altus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, altus said:

So you're saying Boris prorogued parliament despite his legal advisers telling him it wasn't legal to do so.

I don't think his legal advisors said it wasn't legal to prorogue parliament the way he did. In any case the courts later declared that it was unlawful and not illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Sadly, it will be the same leader with a workable majority. 

You are most likely correct.  The Tory Party are the only Party with any chance of winning a workable majority.

 

The reality is that by negotiating a new deal with the EU, Boris is in a much stronger position to win an outright majority in the General Election than he would have been if Parliament had allowed a General Election before the EU summit.  An extension if granted by the EU won't damage Boris because everyone knows he had a gun to his head and was forced by a dishonest Parliament to write the letter.

 

19 minutes ago, altus said:

So he prevented parliament from doing its job in order to boost his chances in an election - very honest of him.

The truth is the dishonest parliament continue to seek to prevent Boris doing the job of the Government which is to implement the democratic 2016 EU Referendum result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's increasingly clear that Johnson and his cabinet don't understand what they're proposing to do to Northern Ireland...

 

Which is disturbing and hilarious in equal measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.