Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

It would be simpler to just close the ports of Belfast and Larne to imports. That would solve all the problems.

Of course you could inspect all imports into those ports but that would be the backstop. That would not be too big an imposition, would it?.

I would suspect that this would form part (or all) of the Irish Government's strategy for no deal. Hence why they're saying feck all about it. Would be a dynamite admission now, not so much after October 31st.

Forty Seven

prawnsambo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Mostly prison related as that would be my area of interest but many times they have overruled the government on prisoners rights. Voting for one, certain legal aid conditions for two and the nonsense around article 8 of the echr (which would be upheld in ecthr) resulting in a violent rapist being placed in a female prison.

I'm intrigued by this. Is their case law that I can look at?

Echr = European convention on human rights.
Ecthr = European court of human rights.

My sentence does not imply there would be case law. I note you avoided mentioning the ones that do.

An Ciarraioch

gmisk wrote: »

No mention of northern ireland?

Most UK polls only cover GB. Lucid Talk had Alliance in contention in three DUP constituencies last weekend:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/09/02/the-alliance-party-surge-could-spell-trouble-for-the-dup-at-westminster/

Kermit.de.frog

Quite incredible that Johnson has not had a single meeting with Varadkar since he became PM given that the border is the single biggest issue in Brexit atm.

As Merkel told Theresa May at her last EU council - "we are not the ones with the border with the Rep Ireland"...in other words, that's great but you should be talking to the Irish.

Hopefully the welcome is as warm as the snub.

Duane Dibbley

IS there any suggestion on what Labours Manifesto would actually be going into an Election

Dytalus

Forty Seven wrote: »

Mostly prison related as that would be my area of interest but many times they have overruled the government on prisoners rights. Voting for one, certain legal aid conditions for two and the nonsense around article 8 of the echr (which would be upheld in ecthr) resulting in a violent rapist being placed in a female prison.

....what.

Art 8, ECHR wrote:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Why on earth would this result in a rapist being put into a woman's prison? What does their privacy or right to family life have to do with what prison they get placed in?

The ECHR also has nothing to do with the EU. Neither does the ECtHR.

Forty Seven

Enzokk wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Mostly prison related as that would be my area of interest but many times they have overruled the government on prisoners rights. Voting for one, certain legal aid conditions for two and the nonsense around article 8 of the echr (which would be upheld in ecthr) resulting in a violent rapist being placed in a female prison.

I hoped you would be able to point to specific laws from the EU though, as some of what you mention here seems to be ECHR, which is not related to the EU. In any case there is a firm commitment that the UK will keep to the ECHR via Northern Ireland as it is in the GFA that they will incorporate the ECHR into Northern Irish laws.

It also allows that the European Court of Human Rights would be able to overrule Assembly legislation if there is inconsistency. We know how much the UK wants to ensure that all parts of the UK is treated the same so I am sure taking the whole of the UK out of the ECHR but keeping NI in it would be totally unacceptable.

As for the case of Karen White who I believe you refer to, maybe you can point me to where the ECHR was involved in the mistakes that happened there.

Enzokk wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Mostly prison related as that would be my area of interest but many times they have overruled the government on prisoners rights. Voting for one, certain legal aid conditions for two and the nonsense around article 8 of the echr (which would be upheld in ecthr) resulting in a violent rapist being placed in a female prison.

As for the case of Karen White who I believe you refer to, maybe you can point me to where the ECHR was involved in the mistakes that happened there.

The lst two paragraphs of your own link clearly state what you are seeking.

Zubeneschamali

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

IS there any suggestion on what Labours Manifesto would actually be going into an Election

I imagine it will be similar to their 2017 manifesto when key policies were:

Scrap student tuition fees
Nationalisation of England's nine water companies.
Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)
Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above
More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes
End to zero hours contracts
Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000
Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West".

Forty Seven

Apologies for that last balls of a quote. Phone posting is a disaster.

Theanswers

VinLieger wrote: »

Completely unworkable if we want to retain access to the SM which we 100% do

I wonder if the figures RE Ireland's trade with the Single Market stack up.

I believe the real economy (SME) (Bread & Butter) in rural Ireland require UK Trade more than EU trade.

Interesting Times...


Regardless, the border cannot be sealed if the EU wants it to be.

prawnsambo

Forty Seven wrote: »

Echr = European convention on human rights.
Ecthr = European court of human rights.

My sentence does not imply there would be case law. I note you avoided mentioning the ones that do.

I know what they ECTHR and ECHR are. I didn't question the other ones because I was able to find them. So what you're saying is that you have made a judgment based on the ECHR without any actual legal test?

Forty Seven

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

IS there any suggestion on what Labours Manifesto would actually be going into an Election

I imagine it will be similar to their 2017 manifesto when key policies were:

Scrap student tuition fees
Nationalisation of England's nine water companies.
Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)
Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above
More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes
End to zero hours contracts
Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000
Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West".

Nobody here in the UK cares about policies. This will be a one issue referendum. That must be obvious from the last results of various polls. Lib dem surge is a remain vote, brexit party is leave. Since then polarisation is much stronger given the debacle we face. The only difference is that Boris moved the Tories onto the brexit parties ground.

serfboard

Enzokk wrote: »

You can see the tabloids are scared in that they are attacking Corbyn instead of Johnson

You seriously expect "newspapers" owned by billionaires to attack Johnson?

Forty Seven

prawnsambo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Echr = European convention on human rights.
Ecthr = European court of human rights.

My sentence does not imply there would be case law. I note you avoided mentioning the ones that do.

I know what they ECTHR and ECHR are. I didn't question the other ones because I was able to find them. So what you're saying is that you have made a judgment based on the ECHR without any actual legal test?

I didn't but I'm sure the people involved carried out an assessment on their chance of contesting this and decided it was a losing battle. UK government against a marginalised group currently making lots of noise rarely goes well for them.

First Up

Theanswers wrote:

I believe the real economy (SME) (Bread & Butter) in rural Ireland require UK Trade more than EU trade.

It has been quantified and yes, SMEs are more exposed to UK trade. The EU knows that too.

It is regrettable but considered manageable and doesn't change our fundamental position. EU membership and the SM have served us well and remain a central part of our economic and industrial strategy.

ArmaniJeanss

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nobody here in the UK cares about policies. This will be a one issue referendum. That must be obvious from the last results of various polls. Lib dem surge is a remain vote, brexit party is leave. Since then polarisation is much stronger given the debacle we face. The only difference is that Boris moved the Tories onto the brexit parties ground.

Other issues will arise even if it looks like a single-issue campaign now.
Last time it was the likes of Grenfell, the Manchester suicide bomber, the Dementia tax, Corbynmania v the IRA sympathiser questions etc.
I don't know what it'll be this time obviously.
Some of the debates (chancellor v shadow, home sec v shadow) will be deliberately framed by the broadcasters as non-Brexit.

Any issue like this has the potential to move the votes a key 1% or 2% even in a 'nobody cares about politics' scenario.

ElectronVolt

I've been watching this thread for a while and decided to register and post. I was just wondering does anyone else notice that they're trying to 'poison search' using memes? It's quite clever when you look at it, and something that's not unusual in guerrilla marketing / PR.

Take the search word 'lie', 'lies', 'lying' and so on and any other keywords like Westminster, or any of the key front benchers.
If you search those now, you get various memes of Jacob Rees-Mogg lying down and endless social media comments, reposts and so on that have basically pushed down that particular keyword combination way down the list and will push any stories about lying etc down the list too in various social media platforms - e.g. if you've a story from let's say the Guardian mentioning the word 'lies' it's very likely to be swamped by JRM draped over the bench and thousands of social media users will retweet, edit, make jokes and propagate that image all over the web.

If you also look at the rather bizarre story about Boris Johnson making busses out of wine crates and painting them. It seems ludicrous but when you think about it it's made the NHS 350 million a week big red Brexit bus disappear out of search.

There's nothing tin-foil-hat or conspiracy theory related about this. It's just someone's running an extremely savvy campaign. There's some exceedingly clever PR and social media management running behind the scenes.

Watch this over the next few weeks. I would be far from confident that a general election will bring about a restoration of normality and the end of no-deal-Brexit. I think you're going to see probably one of the most sophisticated political social media and traditional media campaigns we've ever witnessed and, unfortunately, the general public and even most of the media are not social-media savvy enough to see when they're being fed this stuff. We're generally just not equipped with the skillset to see past it because the medium is so new.

Much like with Trump, you're watching power grab by social media.

Forty Seven

Dytalus wrote: »

The ECHR also has nothing to do with the EU. Neither does the ECtHR.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

They don't but God forbid we would want to leave them. It is a sticking point for some in Theresa Mays deal.

Enzokk

Forty Seven wrote: »

The lst two paragraphs of your own link clearly state what you are seeking.

Do you mean first two or last two paragraphs?

Here is the 1st two paragraphs,

Transgender politics – like any politics – can be divisive. Yet in the case of Karen White, who is legally still a man but was put in a female-only prison, both sides of the transgender rights debate are united in the belief mistakes were made.

White entered the UK prison system as transgender. However, despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male. She was also a convicted paedophile and on remand for grievous bodily harm, burglary, multiple rapes and other sexual offences against women.

And here is the last 2 paragraphs,

Whatever the case with White, it is clear the prison service is under increasing pressure in this “rapidly developing area of policy”.

But Bishop argues that cases like White’s are still rare.

“The case boards are a good way of doing things – you can’t say the system is wrong when it goes wrong once. It is almost the exception that proves the rule – you’ve just got to look at what went wrong and make sure it doesn’t happen again. No system is perfect. It’s human nature that people will sometimes get it wrong.”

I think you mean this part,

The new 60-page policy introduced in January 2017 emphasised the right of prisoners to “self-identify” and to be treated “according to the gender in which they identify”. Previously, prisoners requiring such treatment would have needed a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or to have had a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Citing article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the new policy allowed those who did not have the GRC and who identified as a different gender to their biological sex to be located “in the part of the estate consistent with the gender they identify with”.

That is the only place where the ECHR is mentioned, but if you had read the article you would have seen the problem with this case was not the ECHR, it was that there were failures to determine whether it would have been appropriate to place her in the womans prison.

Those who met White were shocked that she was moved to a female prison, describing the convicted sex offender as “manipulative and controlling”, and questioned her commitment to her transition. The Ministry of Justice has since apologised for the placement.

For now, White is being held at HM Prison Leeds, a category B men’s prison, and is undergoing gender reassignment surgery.

So it seems quite clear to me that the ECHR article 8 obviously doesn't do what you think it does as the person is in a men's prison when the article was printed. If it did then surely she could have appealed it and be sent to a woman's prison, or do I have that wrong?

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nobody here in the UK cares about policies. This will be a one issue referendum. That must be obvious from the last results of various polls. Lib dem surge is a remain vote, brexit party is leave. Since then polarisation is much stronger given the debacle we face. The only difference is that Boris moved the Tories onto the brexit parties ground.

What about the 2017 election? Just after article 50 was triggered and May was trying to get a majority for her Brexit, and she lost it because?

Seth Brundle

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If ''No Deal Brexit'' passes into law, is it there for good? Even with a new PM in place. Does it confirm once and for all that there can never be a 'No Deal Brexit''

No deal is the default exit regardless of any votes held in Westminster. This is what the UK are currently sailing towards and *will* happen (despite the recent WM vote) unless they either revoke Art 50, accept the WA or ask and receive an extension.

prawnsambo

Forty Seven wrote: »

I didn't but I'm sure the people involved carried out an assessment on their chance of contesting this and decided it was a losing battle. UK government against a marginalised group currently making lots of noise rarely goes well for them.

I would quote "hard cases make bad law" here, but this wasn't a case before the ECHR and ascribing the motivation for a bad decision to the possibility of a case being taken to the ECHR and winning, is more than a stretch. And as has been pointed out, the ECHR is not part of the EU and in fact predates it; with its origins being back in the days of Winston Churchill.



So I think the original question still stands unanswered.

Forty Seven

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Nobody here in the UK cares about policies. This will be a one issue referendum. That must be obvious from the last results of various polls. Lib dem surge is a remain vote, brexit party is leave. Since then polarisation is much stronger given the debacle we face. The only difference is that Boris moved the Tories onto the brexit parties ground.

Other issues will arise even if it looks like a single-issue campaign now.
Last time it was the likes of Grenfell, the Manchester suicide bomber, the Dementia tax, Corbynmania v the IRA sympathiser questions etc.
I don't know what it'll be this time obviously.
Some of the debates (chancellor v shadow, home sec v shadow) will be deliberately framed by the broadcasters as non-Brexit.

Any issue like this has the potential to move the votes a key 1% or 2% even in a 'nobody cares about politics' scenario.

Austerity ended yesterday. Nobody is talking about it. That was as big as it gets.

Maybe a resurgence of NI violence could swing a % here and there but unlikely in the timeframe.

Seth Brundle

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Quite incredible that Johnson has not had a single meeting with Varadkar since he became PM given that the border is the single biggest issue in Brexit atm.

Johnson is scheduled to meet Varadkar on Monday, the same day that they will now try and push through a general election.
Will Boris change his plans and stay in London now?

RobertKK

It was said on Sky News by Lewis Goodall that Boris Johnson could be planning on breaking the law.
That he has no plan to ask the EU for an extension even if the law is passed requiring him to, and the opposition will not allow an election since they have Boris Johnson in this hole.
Then Corbyn steps in when Johnson is not following the law and takes over leading the country, and this is why there will be no election until November at the earliest.
Johnson is cornered and the opposition have no plans on releasing him with an election that he wants so to escape from his current predicament.

Enzokk

Forty Seven wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

They don't but God forbid we would want to leave them. It is a sticking point for some in Theresa Mays deal.

People obviously doesn't understand the ECHR and the EU. All they see is EUROPEAN Convention/Court of Human Rights and they assume it is the EU. It is there in the article you posted yourself,

The court, which is entirely separate to the EU’s institutions, was established after the second world war as an arbiter of disputes over the European convention of human rights, to which 47 states are signatories.

In any case, what are your thoughts about the ECHR, the GFA and Brexit?

Enzokk

Forty Seven wrote: »

Austerity ended yesterday. Nobody is talking about it. That was as big as it gets.

Maybe a resurgence of NI violence could swing a % here and there but unlikely in the timeframe.

If you think one budget/spending review, and before an election at that, will stop austerity then I have a bridge to sell you.

Seth Brundle

Guy criticising the use of the "surrender" terminology last night...
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1169603638458818566

Meanwhile Sammy is reassured by Gove on the future of agriculture in NI after what they're doing...
https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1169614622946672640

jm08

Forty Seven wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit

They don't but God forbid we would want to leave them. It is a sticking point for some in Theresa Mays deal.

If the UK wants a security agreement with the EU, the UK will need to have signed up to the ECHR. Countries who have signed up to the ECHR won't extradite people to a country that isn't signed up to the convention. If the UK wants to extradite any paramilitiries from the ROI to NI/UK, it can't do it.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

If you think one budget/spending review, and before an election at that, will stop austerity then I have a bridge to sell you.

Is that the one from Larne to Stranraer? that Boris wanted to build?

prawnsambo

RobertKK wrote: »

It was said on Sky News by Lewis Goodall that Boris Johnson could be planning on breaking the law.
That he has no plan to ask the EU for an extension even if the law is passed requiring him to, and the opposition will not allow an election since they have Boris Johnson in this hole.
Then Corbyn steps in when Johnson is not following the law and takes over leading the country, and this is why there will be no election until November at the earliest.
Johnson is cornered and the opposition have no plans on releasing him with an election that he wants so to escape from his current predicament.

I know we're in 'what happens next' mode, but it's useful to stop and think about what's actually happened here. A lame duck PM, who's painted himself into a corner with his big red bus brush and is now squirming to try and get out without covering himself in paint and the opposition effectively running the parliament with all the power that he thought he'd have when he became World Kiing. It's like that point in the game of chess where your opponent can only make moves that end in checkmate. And rather than do that, is contemplating just sweeping the board onto the floor. But you've anticipated that and have photographed the board so you can just put it all back the way it was.