EU-BREXIT - Page 244 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15035638
I think the Labour position is sensible.

a) No-deal was never on the table at the 2016 referendum.

b) Most experts agree that May's withdrawal agreement is not that bad; the trouble is they also agree that the political declaration, the agreed post-brexit direction of travel, is shite.

Given that it's not sensible to ignore 17.4 million Leave voters, a sensible Remain politician would...

Drop May's red lines.

Firm up the political declaration (No blind brexit).

Point out that the passing of the WA/PD is the beginning not the end of negotiations.

Point out that any brexit deal will leave people worse off (Labour's WA/PD included).

Offer the people a confirmatory vote, a final say.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15035639
ingliz wrote:I think the Labour position is sensible.

a) No-deal was never on the table at the 2016 referendum.

b) Most experts agree that May's withdrawal agreement is not that bad; the trouble is they also agree that the political declaration, the agreed post-brexit direction of travel, is shite.

Given that it's not sensible to ignore 17.4 million Leave voters, a sensible Remain politician would...

Drop May's red lines.

Firm up the political declaration.

Point out that the passing of the WA is the beginning not the end of negotiations.

Point out that any brexit deal will leave people worse off (Labour's WA/PD included).

Offer the people a confirmatory vote, a final say.


May be. But who will the people support?
1) Those who are promising to cancel Brexit outright.
2) Those who sit on the fence with a vague answer and try to take in to account both sides.
3) Those who are promising Brexit no matter the cost.

Obviously 1 will bring in the remainers in droves. While 3 will bring pro-Brexit people in Droves. Two will get relatively few people because remain and leave hardliners will find it deceptive while the moderates might consider it but will ultimately think it is safer to support 1 or 3 depending on leaning.
By Presvias
#15035642
ingliz wrote:I think the Labour position is sensible.

a) No-deal was never on the table at the 2016 referendum.

b) Most experts agree that May's withdrawal agreement is not that bad; the trouble is they also agree that the political declaration, the agreed post-brexit direction of travel, is shite.

Given that it's not sensible to ignore 17.4 million Leave voters, a sensible Remain politician would...

Drop May's red lines.

Firm up the political declaration (No blind brexit).

Point out that the passing of the WA/PD is the beginning not the end of negotiations.

Point out that any brexit deal will leave people worse off (Labour's WA/PD included).

Offer the people a confirmatory vote, a final say.


A sensible and measured post.

I see nothing to complain about.

Why don't the LDs get onboard with this??
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15035646
Presvias wrote:Never before in the history of man, have so many words meant so little to so few. :)

:moron: Learn to read and write coherent replies.

You're completely incapable of replying coherently to a single point made anywhere in this thread thus far. I suggest that comparing whatever passes for your brain, to a quantum dot would be a sleight... to quantum dots. :moron:


If a psychiatrist read any of your post, observe you splitting the infinity,by creating a mountain out of a molehill of '0.1%' they would strap you in a Houdini body suit & frog march you off to the nearest 'funny-farm' pronto. :moron: :moron: :lol: :lol: :lol: LMAO.
By B0ycey
#15035651
Presvias wrote:A sensible and measured post.

I see nothing to complain about.

Why don't the LDs get onboard with this??


Actually the LDs were on board with that because it is sensible and measured. It was their unique selling point and their position first FYI. But now Labour have aligned to the remain position as well they are forced to take a much more firmer remain position than this to keep their prospects in the forecoming election up.

Nonetheless to be honest my only criticism with Swinson is she is forever attacking Corbyn actually and not her position to revoke article 50. Does she not realise that she will need him come November if she wants power? Some awkward questions await her when she back tracks on everything she has said about him and asks for his support.
By Presvias
#15035655
Nonsense wrote:If a psychiatrist read any of your post, observe you splitting the infinity,by creating a mountain out of a molehill of '0.1%' they would strap you in a Houdini body suit & frog march you off to the nearest 'funny-farm' pronto. :moron: :moron: :lol: :lol: :lol: LMAO.


Pmsl, you keep spamming funny faces and repeating that rubbish to yourself, when you claimed that 0.1% difference over 1 quarter = the UK economy is in better shape than the EU..over the long term :moron: Just stop digging..
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15035658
Presvias wrote:Pmsl, you keep spamming funny faces and repeating that rubbish to yourself, when you claimed that 0.1% difference over 1 quarter = the UK economy is in better shape than the EU..over the long term :moron: Just stop digging..


You are the one 'digging', you were splitting hairs over the 0.1%, you keep digging, I'm not going anywhere. :p :roll:


Image
Image
Last edited by Nonsense on 23 Sep 2019 19:08, edited 1 time in total.
By Rich
#15035661
ingliz wrote:b) Most experts agree that May's withdrawal agreement is not that bad;

May's deal was awful. It was vassal Britain. I for one will not vote for any politician that backed it. At least on that @Nonsense is absolutely right. We should never forgive or forget the traitors like Boris and Reese Mogg or their establishment friends in the Labour party.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15035853
The Supreme Court in London has ruled on the MILLER vs H.M Government on the suspension of parliament case.

The appeal case,as expected, has gone in favour of MILLER,however,irrespective of the direction by the High Court, the U.K will Leave the E.U on 31 October 2019.

Should the general election result in a new Conservative government,it would want to undo any legislation that would prevent the U.K leaving the E.U.

That is where the chickens come home to roost for the opposition parties & their MP's.

They will now feel the wrath of the electorate on riding roughshed over the voters decision to leave the E.U.

Remember, what parliament imposes, another parliament can dispose of.
Last edited by Nonsense on 24 Sep 2019 10:50, edited 1 time in total.
By Presvias
#15035854
Nonsense wrote:You are the one 'digging', you were splitting hairs over the 0.1%, you keep digging, I'm not going anywhere. :p :roll:


Image
Image

Image

That's 2016...

Anyway; moving on from the long squabble, Bojo has simply said he'll reprorogue or hold the reconvening off til Oct 14th (is that lawful)?

So we're fecked..
User avatar
By Seeker8
#15035856
Ah so the supreme court has ruled unanimously that the Scotish court was correct and the English court wrong. The government did break the law. We are ruled by a bunch of criminals, they should resign but they wont because they are utter scum.
User avatar
By anarchist23
#15035857
It's official, Boris Johnson lied to the queen...

Hale says prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament.

Although it takes place in parliament, it is not their decision. It is something that has been imposed on them from outside.

The PM’s advice to Her Majest was “unlawful, void and of no effect”.

That means the order in council was also “unlawful, void and of no effect”.

That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect.

Parliament has not been prorogued, she says.

BBC
By Atlantis
#15035858
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Brexit is getting better by the day, see you at Wandsworth Boris ...

Hale says:

prorogation 'unlawful, void and of no effect'

Summary of judgment:

This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.
Last edited by Atlantis on 24 Sep 2019 11:05, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By Beren
#15035859
The Guardian wrote:Supreme court rules Boris Johnson's prorogation was 'unlawful'

Hale says the court is “bound to conclude that the decision to advise her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful”.

Hale says prorogation 'unlawful, void and of no effect'

Hale says prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament.

Although it takes place in parliament, it is not their decision. It is something that has been imposed on them from outside.

The PM’s advice to Her Majesty was “unlawful, void and of no effect”.

That means the order in council was also “unlawful, void and of no effect”.

That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect.

Parliament has not been prorogued, she says.

She says it is for the Speaker to decide what happens next.

Speaker John Bercow says parliament must reconvene urgently



Yesterday: Boris Johnson refuses to rule out suspending parliament again

Image
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15035860
Presvias wrote:Image

That's 2016...

Anyway; moving on from the long squabble, Bojo has simply said he'll reprorogue or hold the reconvening off til Oct 14th (is that lawful)?

So we're fecked..


Sorry, it's (03)2016-(02)2019, a three year period, the point really, is that the E.U, of which we are still a member, with the U.K, in general the economic performance of both is pretty miserable when measured against inflation & when we do leave the E.U, our poor productivity performance will have to be addressed.

I'm not sure that he can repeat the excercise,but, the case against the government, was that they wanted to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, I think the court have made an 'error' there, but their interpretation may be that there has been an unlawful interuption of parliamentary business.

On the other hand, the claimant, with the other supporters in the action, have their own motives that are not restricted to the case itself,they want parliament to stop Brexit-period & this case was their method to pursue their objectives.

That the High Court declared the decision to be 'extreme'; is neither here nor there, because, the situation(of thwarting the decision by voters to leave the E.U by a parliament that doesn't want to, was an 'exceptional' reason in which to invoke suspension.

At the end of the day though, the situation is political & normal service will only resume when an election has been conducted.

P.S

Yes, I would suggest that it could be, as it might be seen to be in 'contempt of court'.

So we're fecked... . Indeed, for a very long time,but we still have some way to go. :)
Last edited by Nonsense on 24 Sep 2019 11:12, edited 1 time in total.
By Atlantis
#15035861
Here’s another call for Boris Johnson’s resignation, from Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party. This is from its leader at Westminster, Liz Saville Roberts.

The supreme court has delivered a damming and unanimous verdict. Boris Johnson has broken the law for undermining the basic principles of democracy. The prime minister has shown himself to be no better than a tin-pot dictator, shutting down democracy to avoid scrutiny.

There is no question, the prime minister must resign immediately and a crash out Brexit stopped once and for all.

In his short time in office Boris Johnson has proven himself to be a deeply dangerous and anti-democratic leader, with no respect for the rule of law. It would be a complete affront to civilised society if the prime minister did not resign after this historic ruling.


UK democracy saved in the last minute by the high court judges.
  • 1
  • 242
  • 243
  • 244
  • 245
  • 246
  • 305

the Gaza riots are not peaceful protests thats wh[…]

Another school shooting

[...] You ever heard of this thing we have in the[…]

The idea that we can get more gas and oil from th[…]

I agree! However, the killing methods are vastly[…]