Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

GM228

Enzokk wrote: »

Off to court early Monday morning it seems if this is correct,

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1185661892557201408?s=20

I believe that there is some legal principle where he would not frustrate what the legislation is supposed to achieve and what he has done is exactly that. I am sure others (GM228?) would be able to clarify better than this layman lawyers.

RickBlaine wrote: »

I think it is always good to refer to David Allen Green on such matters ...

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1185666023418220545

You are quite right Enzokk, the principle is known as the Padfield Constitutional Principle, developed from the 1968 House of Lords Padfield vs Minister for Agriculture [1968] UKHL 1 case. The essential principle of Padfield is that for a minister to do (or fail to do) anything which frustrates the intention of an Act, it is an unlawful act. It would more than likely lead to a charge of Misconduct in Public Office if the court found this was the case.

David Allen Green (he has greater expertise in that area than myself) may be just playing things down by calling the other letters "look squirrels", but, there is still a danger Johnson has crossed the line and could be foul of the Padfield principle, in fact DAG has said previously numerous times any subsequent letter would be unlawful, see these for example:-

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1177490685919821832?s=19

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1177501350533316609?s=19

Weather the subsequent letters are a breach will depend on how the court views them, how they were written, who signed them, the intention of the letters etc and DAG is of the view they may be compliant (and well drafted with Padfield in mind).

However the courts may not agree, Jolyon et al etc are pushing ahead for contempt tomorrow at the Inner House when it resumes at 12.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

Very messy : Goodall thinks it was a mistake for Johnson not to hold a vote on the deal of some description yesterday.

The talk of a customs union amendment seems purely be a wrecking tactic by the opposition. They must know there's not a hope in hell the EU will reopen negotiations with the UK.

Well, if it is the bill, it can be in the political declaration, or it could be a requirement for the UK Gov to negotiate for. The Customs Union goes some way to reduce the need for a border in the Irish Sea, or at Calais.

It is a good development.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure if its a case of reopening negotiations. As Water John says above its a softer Brexit, so its a pivot back towards what the EU (and Ireland) would like. Remain though would be liked most of all IMO.

But we have a Tory Government under PM Johnson. The idea that the EU are going to start renegotiating the WA in coming weeks with a Tory administration yet again is an absolute non runner (it would undoubtedly end in a fiasco / shambles).

Kermit.de.frog

listermint wrote: »

No they shouldn't.

They have a goal and they should stick to it. Fair play to them.

And frankly they are in the majority in the country they have no right to give up now nor should they . Nor should folks like yourself deride them for it.

I fundamentally disagree. They voted to leave. We have a deal.

There is also the real danger of civil strive if the referendum result is overturned.

We don't need that. They need to leave and they can continue debating with themselves.

That is in everyone's interest.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if it is the bill, it can be in the political declaration, or it could be a requirement for the UK Gov to negotiate for. The Customs Union goes some way to reduce the need for a border in the Irish Sea, or at Calais.

It is a good development.

What negotiations though? The WA and NI protocol has been concluded.

How could such a thing even get through the Parliament as things stand?

Joe_ Public

Surely if labour push that cu amendment johnson will simply scupper his own bill and we'll be back at stalemate, maybe awaiting EU or details of GE or vonc or something. Johnson wont, cant have anything to do with cu, that much we can be certain of.

54and56

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Correct, they're highly skilled, but being imported at the expense of training locals.
That is the point I'm making, growth at any cost.

How do you mean "at the expense of locals"?

Sounds like the argument taxi drivers used to make before deregulation.

If "local" IT experts cost too much because there are too few of them to meet demand it results in an inflated cost to businesses which makes the economy less competitive and ultimately means fewer jobs

No one should Earn an artificially inflated salary just because the economy isn't producing enough people with the required skills. In such a mismatch allowing in talent from overseas to meet demand and normalise cost makes absolute economic sense to me.

Capt'n Midnight

Reina Creamy Clock wrote: »

Maybe the DUP can be bought with a land connection to (indy) New Alba:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bridge-linking-northern-ireland-and-scotland-should-not-be-dismissed-varadkar-1.4056840
Just don't try taking a Honda50 across those very deep waters, during one of the many Atlantic storms.

Anyhoe, just added 'UK To Leave The EU On/Before 31/10/19? - UK Brexit Date' on the weekly accumulator bet @3.5.
It's now or never.

There were suggestions earlier that Boris endorsing the Bridge to NI was to distract from the unbuild Boris Garden Bridge in London that spaffed £53m up the wall.

That bridge would never be economic.
It would cost more than the Channel Tunnel and only have a fraction of the traffic. Spain to North Africa or Corsica to Sardinia would also be shorter and cheaper. And they don't go through a trench filled with a million tonnes of explosives, poison gas and radioactive waste.



A better investment would be to link Japan to the Russian mainland via Sakhalin which would cut weeks off electronics and car deliveries, but like a Northern Ireland bridge you'd need to upgrade lots of roads on either side too.

There's a reason most of the traffic to NI comes in through Dublin.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Surely if labour push that cu amendment johnson will simply scupper his own bill and we'll be back at stalemate, maybe awaiting EU or details of GE or vonc or something. Johnson wont, cant have anything to do with cu, that much we can be certain of.

The ERG would vote down an all UK customs union en masse. That's why I think the Labour amendment is purely a stalling tactic designed to disrupt Johnson.

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree. They voted to leave. We have a deal.

There is also the real danger of civil strive if the referendum result is overturned.

We don't need that. They need to leave and they can continue debating with themselves.

That is in everyone's interest.

Absolute horse crap.

There is no majority leave vote. The notion that there will be widespread civil unrest is nonsense peddled by hard right news papers.

Is that were you are consuming this crap from.


The leavers can't even muster more than a handful of people to turn up at rallies. Not once ever in the last here years.

So praytell where is it you get this information from

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

What negotiations though? The WA and NI protocol has been concluded.

How could such a thing even get through the Parliament as things stand?

The negotiations I am referring to start on the day after Brexit actually occurs, if it ever does.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This would all end tomorrow in the HoC if the EU explicitly said they will not grant an extension.

So long as the EU is not going to block an extension or it seems likely they won't remainers will continue playing games and engaging in obstruction.

They have a deal tirelessly negotiated, people voted to leave, they should move on with it now.

The easy answer is for the EU to say that there is a (time limited) "free pass" to rejoin, if after the next GE a pro EU government is elected.


Then the remainers can just sit back, call the GE and return the UK to the EU (if they win)

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree. They voted to leave. We have a deal.

There is no deal. Teresa May agreed a draft withdrawal agreement but couldnt get it through the HoC.


Along comes Boris, he agrees a draft agreement but so far can't get it through the HoC. Without a deal, there is a no deal. And then everyone is fukt.

There is also the real danger of civil strive if the referendum result is overturned.

There is danger of that either way.

We don't need that. They need to leave and they can continue debating with themselves.

That is in everyone's interest.

You really don't get the implications of this, do you?

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

The ERG would vote down an all UK customs union en masse. That's why I think the Labour amendment is purely a stalling tactic designed to disrupt Johnson.

Erg have 60 or 70 votes, that wont vote it down. Labour could very likely pass that amendment, in fact i think they would. Dup might even go for it.

Sam Russell

listermint wrote: »

Absolute horse crap.

There is no majority leave vote. The notion that there will be widespread civil unrest is nonsense peddled by hard right news papers.

Is that were you are consuming this crap from.


The leavers can't even muster more than a handful of people to turn up at rallies. Not once ever in the last here years.

So praytell where is it you get this information from

The Farage Jarrow- London Brexit march moved from rally to rally on a single coach.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The easy answer is for the EU to say that there is a (time limited) "free pass" to rejoin, if after the next GE a pro EU government is elected.


Then the remainers can just sit back, call the GE and return the UK to the EU (if they win)

It may sound like an easy answer, but it is not a possible answer. The EU would not be able to allow a free pass to rejoin, once they are out they are out and if they wanted back in they would have to to through the same accession process as any other country which takes years.

Kermit.de.frog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no deal. Teresa May agreed a draft withdrawal agreement but couldnt get it through the HoC.


Along comes Boris, he agrees a draft agreement but so far can't get it through the HoC. Without a deal, there is a no deal. And then everyone is fukt.






There is danger of that either way.





You really don't get the implications of this, do you?

There is a deal between the British government and the EU.

We don't negotiate with a parliament for obvious reasons, we negotiate with the government.

What implications do you fear?

They voted to leave. They should leave.

It's not hard to understand.

J Mysterio

Its ridiculous this call to bring an amendment for an all UK customs union.

The deal was negotiated between the EU and the UK. Parliament can't just make whatever changes they fancy to this now and think that is ok. It's so arrogant.

Who says a customs union is now on offer? Who says that wouldn't require a different compromise from the UK? Quid pro quo. How would a customs union then affect the arrangements for Ireland?

The deal is the deal. It's the second deal. It's infuriating this idea that the UK can unilaterally change the deal now. Barnier was literally briefing ambassadors on the deal yesterday, and the UK is already trying to pick it apart again.

The UK need to understand that the latest deal is the deal unless and until there is agreement from the EU to alter it. The EU have no intention of changing the deal as they just concluded it literally days ago, miraculously pulling it out of the bag after some big compromises.

If the UK don't want to pass the deal, they should focus on getting an extension for a GE and/or a referendum. That also requires agreement of the EU if they don't want to crash out in 11 days.

Of course we don't know if the deal has a majority or not, because the HOC stopped the HOC asking the HOC. For ****s sake.

Water John

If Johnson is found to be in contempt of court or sought to circumvent the law, that would turn his Great Saturday on its head.

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is a deal between the British government and the EU.

We don't negotiate with a parliament for obvious reasons, we negotiate with the government.

What implications do you fear?

They voted to leave. They should leave.

It's not hard to understand.

The electorate are fully entitled to vote on the final deal.


Do you agree or not.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

The negotiations I am referring to start on the day after Brexit actually occurs, if it ever does.

Labour are talking about amending the actual WAB (Withdrawal Agreement Bill), as per Lewis Goodall :

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1185992750279352322

A total non runner as Johnson would still be PM and the one supposedly doing the negotiating

Kermit.de.frog

listermint wrote: »

The electorate are fully entitled to vote on the final deal.


Do you agree or not.

I'm not against a public vote to leave with this deal or no deal.

Capt'n Midnight

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Would ROI really welcome a UI?

I doubt it given the polarity of things up North. Does ROI really need to take that on with no realistic benefit?

Well if there is a benefit, tell me now.

A UI would mean we could join Schengen , Pros and Cons but since you have to do ID and security checks at airports and ferry's today for UK travel anyway its not a biggie. Once you've travelled within Schengen you'll understand.

It removes any threat of a Hard Border

It provides a new source of cheaper workers and they'd get a higher standard of living.

Right now only 1% of our exports head north. ( Its 30% the other way, but that's excluding the rest of the UK ) so more trade both ways.

Electricity and health care are fairly integrated at the moment. A while back the Air Corp helicopters were dropping water on fires in the North.

GM228

Water John wrote: »

If Johnson is found to be in contempt of court or sought to circumvent the law, that would turn his Great Saturday on its head.

I think his Great Saturday was already turned on it's head a little after 2.30pm.

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not against a public vote to leave with this deal or no deal.

Then you are not for the electorate and democracy it seems.

I've always suspected this though.

Are you also for subversion of the electoral process ? By let's say I don't know extremely wealthy forces hoping to make massive amounts of money.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Erg have 60 or 70 votes, that wont vote it down. Labour could very likely pass that amendment, in fact i think they would. Dup might even go for it.

70 votes ??

There's only 28 core ERG "Spartans" who voted against May.

And three of them Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Theresa Villiers - are now members of Mr Johnson's cabinet so they will vote as told or lose their jobs. They could even loose their jobs if they can't whip the rest into compliance.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

It may sound like an easy answer, but it is not a possible answer. The EU would not be able to allow a free pass to rejoin, once they are out they are out and if they wanted back in they would have to to through the same accession process as any other country which takes years.

They could if all 27 agree, after all they're being asked to agree on a lot of things that have been unexpected in recent months. If they really want closure on the whole Brexit saga, it provided a way out for all, and a possible way back for the remainers.

A far better option than a no deal crashout, which is still possible if an extension is refused.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Farage Jarrow- London Brexit march moved from rally to rally on a single coach.

If only they had a few billionaires to back their campaign.

Astroturfing at its finest.

Indestructable

It's outrageous that the HOC are trying to amend the Agreement in any manner whatsoever. Sure at that rate they could tack on that the EU will pay the UK 39 billion as a parting gift.

It's not within the gift, scope or power of the HOC to amend the Agreement. They can obviously add on things such as a confirmatory referendum as this doesn't fundamentally change the Agreement.

The CU amendment is more sh1t acting by the members of the HOC, and they know it. They NEED an election, there is no other way forward at this time, if they won't ratify the Agreement as it is.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

70 votes ??

There's only 28 core ERG "Spartans" who voted against May.

And three of them Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Theresa Villiers - are now members of Mr Johnson's cabinet so they will vote as told or lose their jobs. They could even loose their jobs if they can't whip the rest into compliance.

Ive heard different numbers for erg membership, up to 80 so i dont know. Maybe its just those 28 hardcore...anyway, point is i think that cu amendment would pass if brought. The usual tories might be minded to support it

But what happens this week could depend on what message, if any, comes from europe. Though numbers are tight i suspect Johnson must be close to giving up hope he can ever best this parliament and wants to get to that GE asap, this week if possible.