Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Bannasidhe

Inquitus wrote: »

He can't this is as far as it can go.

Can he not take it to Europe??



Sorry - couldn't resist that.

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They had no say it in. Would you expect your salary to be docked if the boss was too hung over to open up one day?

I wasn't being serious

Zubeneschamali

listermint wrote: »

And the hyperbole about Corbyn being able to negotiate a better deal.

The EU would fall over themselves to offer a better deal to anyone who would throw away May's mad red lines and accept a customs union/single market membership, because these would mean lower barriers to trade and more money for the EU and for the UK.

Bannasidhe

VinLieger wrote: »

The condascending tone of your posts is really unnecessary and i wont be replying to you on this issue anymore

It's hardly condescending to ask you to provide proof of these claims you keep making about Corbyn's plans.

Nor is pointing out that as leader Corbyn is bound by what the party decides not his personal beliefs. When I say it's simple - that is what I mean. The personal views of the leader are simply irrelevant to the policy position of the LP.

But feel free to ignore me if you wish.

PopePalpatine

super_furry wrote: »

Boris should really appeal to the European Court.

That ERG shower might just be brazen enough to at least contemplate it.

Bannasidhe

one armed dwarf wrote: »

Is there any historical event that matches this, as far as PM disgraces go? This is bigger than Suez Canal surely.

Calling the historians in this thread

There was that time parliament voted to behead the king.

namloc1980

How can he not resign after that?

farmchoice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There was that time parliament voted to behead the king.

id say that was it alright.

Panrich

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There was that time parliament voted to behead the king.

And Johnson is lucky that he misled Elizabeth II instead of her namesake or he'd have bigger worries.

Cork Boy 53

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Surely the palace will have to comment on this? Or will they just remain silent?

I doubt that there will be any public comment from the Palace. They don't get publically involved in political matters. Then again everything related to Brexit has become so bizarre that nothing can be ruled out.

Sam Russell

BBC reporting that this verdict was totally a surprise, unseen by everyone.

Obviously they do not read this thread on boards.ie for ideas.

By the way, it was always going to be a unanimous verdict because it is obviously of such import that no quarter could be given to to the losing side. They had eleven judges sitting which is the maximum allowed as there are twelve judges and they need an uneven number to make sure that they give a majority verdict.

Such a judgement must mean BJ is forced to resign.

Oops69

This judgment has not only over ruled the prime minister but also the queen which has massive implications for the Monarchy.

robinph

Oops69 wrote: »

This judgment has not only over ruled the prime minister but also the queen which has massive implications for the Monarchy.

It does overrule the Queen, but she was acting on direct instructions from Johnson so can use the "was just following orders" defence.

J Mysterio

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's hardly condescending to ask you to provide proof of these claims you keep making about Corbyn's plans.

Nor is pointing out that as leader Corbyn is bound by what the party decides not his personal beliefs. When I say it's simple - that is what I mean. The personal views of the leader are simply irrelevant to the policy position of the LP.

But feel free to ignore me if you wish.

Thats not what people are saying following the party conference. They are saying the majority favoured the party adopting a Remain position, but the party leadership over ruled them. That they also refused to run a card ballot as is customary. That the leadership essentially decided the policy themselves and shut down debate.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

I know this is a fast moving thread and, today in particular, people may be quite excited/passionate about what's happening. However, please do read the charter and heed it. In particular;

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it. Thread will be locked and posters may face a sanction for repeatedly breaking this rule. This forum is for discussion and debate and we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and will take appropriate action. High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban.

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

You can make your point without having to resort to unparliamentary language.

Oops69

robinph wrote: »

It does overrule the Queen, but she was acting on direct instructions from Johnson so can use the "was just following orders" defence.

it does , she's makes the final decision, she takes advice ,not orders-- the prime minister 'ministers ' the Monarch . i.e advises her , not orders her .

Bannasidhe

Panrich wrote: »

And Johnson is lucky that he misled Elizabeth II instead of her namesake or he'd have bigger worries.

If he'd tried that with any of the Tudors his head would be on a spike outside the Tower fairly sharpish... the rest of him would be nailed up in various locations.

Panrich

Oops69 wrote: »

it does , she's makes the final decision, she takes advice ,not orders-- the prime minister 'ministers ' the Monarch . i.e advises her , not orders her .

As I understand it, she takes counsel from the Privy counsel of which JRM is the current head. A quorum of three PC's went to 'advise' her led by the bold JRM. There are many many many privy counsellors who would not have been on board with the advice to prorogue but the hand-picked trio were on message. There may be implications for more that Boris Johnson here.

GhostyMcGhost

Corbyn just making a fool of himself now calling for an election

He had one in the bag only a few weeks back and didn’t want it

gooch2k9

They're all coming out calling for his resignation and that he isn't fit to be PM. Logically this would say they will call a VONC now?



The ruling is good and all but what happens next is more important.

Igotadose

kevthegaff wrote: »

The judge sounded like Theresa May!

Theresa May was never that impressive when speaking. Lady Hale is a credit to the UK

lawred2

Sam Russell wrote: »

BBC reporting that this verdict was totally a surprise, unseen by everyone.

Obviously they do not read this thread on boards.ie for ideas.

By the way, it was always going to be a unanimous verdict because it is obviously of such import that no quarter could be given to to the losing side. They had eleven judges sitting which is the maximum allowed as there are twelve judges and they need an uneven number to make sure that they give a majority verdict.

Such a judgement must mean BJ is forced to resign.

really? pretty much every UK constitutional commentator I've seen over the past few days have said this looks bad for the government..

maybe the unanimity is a surprise but not the result..

Are the BBC going into full denial mode now? Next it'll be climate change

lawred2

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Corbyn just making a fool of himself now calling for an election

He had one in the bag only a few weeks back and didn’t want it

Calling for an election then was an easy out for the government... By not calling it - BJ was ultimately forced into prorogation and looks what that's led to.

LeinsterDub

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Corbyn just making a fool of himself now calling for an election

He had one in the bag only a few weeks back and didn’t want it

It's not that he didn't want it . He knew Johnston was attempting to trap him. You don't have to take an opponents pawn if you know doing so will lead to check . There is of course nothing preventing you taking that pawn later on if the trap has been lifted

Bannasidhe

J Mysterio wrote: »

Thats not what people are saying following the party conference. They are saying the majority favoured the party adopting a Remain position, but the party leadership over ruled them. That they also refused to run a card ballot as is customary. That the leadership essentially decided the policy themselves and shut down debate.

I agree the vote should have gone to card ballot.
Also that there are internal struggles within the LP.
But I need a bit more proof than 'what people are saying' tbh - other people are saying it was very close and that's why there should have been a card ballot. While yet more are saying the vote was ok.
But yes, it should have been a card ballot.

Did Corbyn organise that vote himself? Where does he find the time?? Is anyone else in the LP doing any work at all at all?

None of that changes the fact that Corbyn's personal views are still, strictly speaking, irrelevant when it comes to LP's policy - however they arrived by a decision.

Nor does it provide any proof that Corbyn is planning a socialist utopia where he is forever in power as the poster I was responding to was stating.

woejus

lawred2 wrote: »

Calling for an election then was an easy out for the government... By not calling it - BJ was ultimately forced into prorogation and looks what that's led to.

Calling for an election when though? It needs to be after Oct 31, when the UK are still in the EU and Boris has failed.

awec

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Corbyn just making a fool of himself now calling for an election

He had one in the bag only a few weeks back and didn’t want it

Did he call for an election?

I thought he called for Johnson to consider his position?

flazio

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Corbyn just making a fool of himself now calling for an election

He had one in the bag only a few weeks back and didn’t want it

Corbyn's priority number one is that the UK does not leave without an agreement in place with the European Union (a deal). Parliament voted into law that it would be illegal to leave the EU without a deal. So Corbyn is demanding the law be upheld before an election can be called.

VinLieger

awec wrote: »

Did he call for an election?

I thought he called for Johnson to consider his position?

He also called for an election once no deal is off the table which is pretty reasonable and basically what hes been saying for the past month.

GhostyMcGhost

awec wrote: »

Did he call for an election?

I thought he called for Johnson to consider his position?

British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called on Boris Johnson on Tuesday to consider his position and call a new election after the ruling.

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/uk-supreme-court-rules-that-boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-was-unlawful-38528848.html