Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that wouldn't work. Northern Ireland would then be subject to EU law though part of the UK so Uk legislation which was in the EU competency would then cause a clash between EU and UK law.

This is nonsense. Ni law already diverges from UK law. In many instances.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The way around this would be for Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland which might lead to violence and bombings within the Republic which Ireland would have to try to put down whilst at the same time it was making large payments to the North which would be a lot higher than they are now because the North sends more goods to the rest of the UK than to anywhere else.

If NI becomes part of Ireland, it will only be by plebiscite. And that would take a great deal of time, both to get to the point of such a plebiscite and then to implement it. The financial cost would be a lot less than it crrently weighs on the UK exchequer. Have a look for David McWilliams' articles on this.

But it's not the quick and easy fix for a brexiting UK that you seem to be implying it is. Oh, love the threats of violence too. Pathetic.

ThePanjandrum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If that is so, who is becoming more significant? from Brexiter rhetoric, it is the UK that is becoming more significant - is that really the case?

You misrepresent us. If the major growth is coming from without the EU then it makes sense to concentrate more on the growing markets rather than on a slower growing protectionist bureaucracy with political ambitions.

To use an analogy from the UK in the 1970s and 80s, if you owned a car dealership, would it make more sense to stick with British Leyland which was a large company but less competitive than Japanese car firms or switch to Nissan which was smaller but faster growing?

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

Oh, love the threats of violence too. Pathetic.

I said that this was a possibility but I would remind you that the EU and Ireland are using claims of political violence to push the entirely unnecessary backstop.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You misrepresent us. If the major growth is coming from without the EU then it makes sense to concentrate more on the growing markets rather than on a slower growing protectionist bureaucracy with political ambitions.

This is pure brexiter nonsense. The UK in the EU is not blocked from emerging markets. In fact the UK has lagged behind the rest of the EU in embracing these markets. This nonsense that the EU is 'protectionist' and inward looking is belied by the facts. Especially since the 'protectionism' that brexiters deride is the very thing that keeps them in jobs and ensures that standards are maintained that protect consumers.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

To use an analogy from the UK in the 1970s and 80s, if you owned a car dealership, would it make more sense to stick with British Leyland which was a large company but less competitive than Japanese car firms or switch to Nissan which was smaller but faster growing?

In the same post that you talk about the 'protectionist' EU, you illustrate the existence of trade that in the end finished a car industry that couldn't survive, despite huge investment in it by the 'protectionist' British government.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Ok, enough of the anti-Irish stuff please.

BonnieSituation

BluePlanet wrote: »

I think it is entirely reasonable to look at some measure of democratic framework for a NI only backstop.
This also gives the DUP a way out of their position.
Perhaps leaving the Backstop requires a 2 year lead time or something along those lines.
Though anything like that may end up impairing investment in NI and the border areas.

What about the divorce bill though?
It's not only the Backstop that the Tories want to cut.

Why do we need to give the DUP a way out?

They had no reason to wander down this cul-de-sac.

They can get rid of the backstop as soon as they come up with a solution that doesn't require the backstop. Simples.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I said that this was a possibility but I would remind you that the EU and Ireland are using claims of political violence to push the entirely unnecessary backstop.

No. They're pointing to why the GFA exists, what it was designed to stop and why it's necessary to take measures to preserve it after brexit. Something you were warned about many times before the referendum. But dismissed as project fear. Don't try and portray that as a threat of violence. You are dredging the barrel of ignorance and disingenuity here.

I addressed other of your lies in that post. I note you glossed over that to peddle more.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Ok, enough of the anti-Irish stuff please.

Posts have been deleted. Back on topic please.

McGiver

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

The EU is in continuous ascendancy since the 1951 Schuman declaration of the intent to (eventually) unite Europe.

The Euro is the second largest reserve currency. The Euro is also second largest IMF SDR at 31% of XDR basket, USD is 42% of the XDR basket - this confirms the prime reserve currency status. This was achieved in less than 20 years without any military domination or denomination unlike the USD status.

The EU is the largest single market in the world and with Japan deep FTA is now a free trade area worth of 21% global GDP (US is 24% and China 15%).

The EU consolidates further and is a global soft power able to take on the US or China.

Now how about UK since 1951? It's a story of continuous decline from former world super power. Ironically, the only period of a significant development and success is late 1980s to 2009 brought fully about by the EU membership and the ability of the UK government to leverage it.

The EU is the second largest market and the EU as a whole is becoming less significant year by year in global terms.

Because the developing nations all grow. Not a big revelation.

The same applies to the US and Japan. Japan's World gdp share decreased from 15 to 5% in last 30 years, so according to your logic the Japs should shoot themselves in the head as the UK. Right...

J Mysterio

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

To use an analogy from the UK in the 1970s and 80s, if you owned a car dealership, would it make more sense to stick with British Leyland which was a large company but less competitive than Japanese car firms or switch to Nissan which was smaller but faster growing?

I would say switch to Nissan. Then fast forward fifty years to where your economy is fully modernized and integrated with the market of your neighbours and then completely pull the rug out from under them by unilaterally exiting all your agreements and force their closure and exit.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You misrepresent us. If the major growth is coming from without the EU then it makes sense to concentrate more on the growing markets rather than on a slower growing protectionist bureaucracy with political ambitions.

To use an analogy from the UK in the 1970s and 80s, if you owned a car dealership, would it make more sense to stick with British Leyland which was a large company but less competitive than Japanese car firms or switch to Nissan which was smaller but faster growing?

The only reason the other regions are growing quickly is because they are coming from much further behind. The EU simply cannot grow quickly as it is already one of the richest regions in the world (and will remain so).

It would be like saying that Cornwall or south Wales showing strong economic growth would be proof that the rest of the UK is screwed and in decline.

McGiver

prawnsambo wrote: »

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The EU is the second largest market and the EU as a whole is becoming less significant year by year in global terms.

When you consider that China has a population four times the size of the EU, that's not exactly news. However it doesn't bode well for a country a tenth of the size of the EU in that paradigm.

World gdp:
USA 24%
China 15%
EU 13%
Japan 5%
India 3%
UK 3%
The rest 37%

As the developing world grows the developed countries' share of the world's GDP will decrease. Again, this is not a rocket science. Developed countries grow less, developing countries grow faster (from lower base).

The key point which alludes the Brexiter lunatics is this:
1. The UK's share of world gdp decreases too

2. UK in the EU having the same share of world gdp as China or 75% of that of the USA is much better than UK out of EU having only 20% of China gdp or 12% of USA gdp.

A Shropshire Lad

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

Strazdas

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

I could well believe that is the angle he will go for. He and his ministers have been saying they believe the Parliament to be obstructionist and a nuisance and that they are in a battle with them.

CelticRambler

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

If the major growth is coming from without the EU then it makes sense to concentrate more on the growing markets rather than on a slower growing protectionist bureaucracy with political ambitions.

On the face of it, that's a reasonable argument. Unfortunately, it's a one-sided view of global trade. In those "growing markets" alongside their consumers who may (or may not) wish to buy UK goods, there are manufactuers and service providers who want British people to buy their output.

So lets look at where we are at the moment:
UK-Ireland trade surplus: £16.4bn
UK-China trade deficit: £22.9bn
Ireland-China trade surplus: €3.5bn (~£3.2bn)

So where you have two neighbouring countries operating within the same "slower growing protectionist bureaucracy", one is doing a roaring trade with an emerging market on the far side of the world, and the other is drowning in imports. Not only that, but revenue from Ireland alone - a country of barely 5 million - funds more than half of the UK's imports from China.

Explain, then, how reducing exports to Ireland (and the rest of the EU) is somehow going to improve the UK's trade deficit with an aggressively competitive emerging economy?

A Shropshire Lad

Strazdas wrote: »

I could well believe that is the angle he will go for. He and his ministers have been saying they believe the Parliament to be obstructionist and a nuisance and that they are in a battle with them.

Yet they sold the whole Brexit dream as the 'taking back control' from Brussels to Westminster.

Zubeneschamali

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

I wonder if he plans to go to court and argue that Bercow was wrong and the act needs Queens consent. Might win, but better for him, might run the clock down to NoDeal.

Strazdas

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Yet they sold the whole Brexit dream as the 'taking back control' from Brussels to Westminster.

Indeed, it seems they want to set up a right wing semi authoritarian government. Interestingly, many Brexiteers are cheering them on on social media. It does appear the talk about parliament was mostly hot air....the Leave vote was as much about giving two fingers to Europe just for the sake of it.

GM228

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

Johnson has said many things, thus far he has failed to do anything he said he would so saying he will defy the law means he will obey the law

Imreoir2

Forty Seven wrote: »

As for the polls, and with all due respect to you, would you care to remind me what the polls said of Trumps chances?

I think most of the polls in the lead up to the election had Trump very close to Hillary, much like the polls had Brexit very close to remain. They were usually behind and that is what people took from them, but often the margin was less than the margin of error. That Trump won was not some massive upset that no one could have seen comming. He was always very close, much like support for independance in Scotland is getting very close to a majority and it would not be a massive upset if it won in a referendum.

GM228

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wonder if he plans to go to court and argue that Bercow was wrong and the act needs Queens consent. Might win, but better for him, might run the clock down to NoDeal.

The Act (like any), does need Royal Assent, there is no question of that, without it it is not law. The thing is Royal assent has not been refused in 311 years, but, it can be upon advice to the Queen of the PM.

ath262

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

He will not get his election request passed if he keeps that approach - the Alliance will block him until he has actually asked ror and approved the extension request (assuming the EU agree).

Yesterday in Scotland in an interview (BBC?) he said something about going over and negotiating a deal... so parliament is suspended from next week he has plenty of time to do this, maybe some magic will happen

Imreoir2

devnull wrote: »

Latest from Iain Duncan Smith:
Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith encouraged Mr Johnson to break the law, saying he would be seen as a Brexit "martyr" if judges opted to put him jail for breaching Parliament's terms.

Honestly it's going to full out dictatorship being encouraged now and the Telegraph are now saying that Labour are to blame as they are forcing Boris to break the law and causing a constitutional crisis.

If Boris disobeys the law there will be very ugly scenes I predict. All out full civil war and mayhem on the streets.

Things can spiral out of control very quickly if one side is seen to ignore the rules by which everyone is expected to abide. If Brexiters can flout the law, then they have no right to expect their oponents to abide by the law. That way lies anarchy.

Joe_ Public

GM228 wrote: »

The Act (like any), does need Royal Assent, there is no question of that, without it it is not law. The thing is Royal assent has not been refused in 311 years, but, it can be upon advice to the Queen of the PM.

I think the post was referring to "Queen's consent" which is a different thing to "Royal assent", though dont ask me how or why, as it is well above my lowly pay grade. From what i have read, it seems very possible there could be a challenge made on this point and legal opinion seems to be divided on whether Benn et al have covered themselves in the event of one.

GM228

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the post was referring to "Queen's consent" which is a different thing to "Royal assent", though dont ask me how or why, as it is well above my lowly pay grade. From what i have read, it seems very possible there could be a challenge made on this point and legal opinion seems to be divided on whether Benn et al have covered themselves in the event of one.

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative, and provisions affecting the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, aswell as personal property or personal interests of the Crown. It does not fit into the question of Brexit unless they are trying to argue the government as as an agent of the Crown has limited its stance in relation to nternational negotiations.

fash

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

Good blog post by David Allen Green on why he (unless he resigns etc) must comply with parliament:
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/what-if-the-prime-minister-deliberately-broke-the-law-over-extending-article-50/

He would be liable in tort and would be certain to face significant jail time. In addition even anyone encouraging him to do so could also be prosecuted. Various newspapers need to watch out.

GM228

fash wrote: »

Good blog post by David Allen Green on why he (unless he resigns etc) must comply with parliament:
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/what-if-the-prime-minister-deliberately-broke-the-law-over-extending-article-50/

He would be liable in tort and would be certain to face significant jail time. In addition even anyone encouraging him to do so could also be prosecuted. Various newspapers need to watch out.

I already mentioned the misconduct in public office offence the other day and as someone who studied it I really can't see the test satisfied.

Joe_ Public

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative, and provisions affecting the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, aswell as personal property or personal interests of the Crown. It does not fit into the question of Brexit unless they are trying to argue the government as as an agent of the Crown has limited its stance in relation to nternational negotiations.

Yes I believe that is what is being argued, but I haven't seen any definite suggestion that the government is going down that route. Just smoke and mirrors as of yet. Might not know until Monday.

Joe_ Public

Reading that convinces me he's very unlikely to beak the law but still can't see him seeking the extension either, so its either resignation or rabbit out of hat pulling and my moneys on the former.

trellheim

The Kinnock Amendment to the Benn bill - has anyone looked at that in any depth .....