Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Sticking to EU regulations which benefit everyone isn't being a rule taker its common sense but you're probably right as common sense appears to be lacking in the UK press and government!

Well, it is if you forfeit your say in the making of said rules and regulations.

Professor Moriarty

fash wrote: »

How does this sit with the GFA I wonder?

I would say that the GFA, and any referendum held under its auspices, would be exempt. If not, the UK government would be tearing up the GFA and telling nationalists and the Irish government to get stuffed. Johnson has already thrown Unionism under the bus once, so...

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

How does this sit with the GFA I wonder?

The GFA would definitely be exempt. The British side can't rewrite the rules of how a border poll would operate and load it in favour of the Unionists.

Imreoir2

Strazdas wrote: »

The GFA would definitely be exempt. The British side can't rewrite the rules of how a border poll would operate and load it in favour of the Unionists.

An act of parliament is superior in British law to any international treaty they may have signed. If they were to put such an act into law then it would take precedence over the GFA in British Law. Passing such a law would in effect be a breach of the GFA and the British government is not likely to pass such a law as a result. If they did then it would be the law of the land and any border poll would be subject to its terms.

54and56

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, it is if you forfeit your say in the making of said rules and regulations.

Which is kind of where Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are relative to England in their own 4 nation union. The English Tories make the laws and the small junior members have to accept them.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If I understand correctly, this is very clever by the Brexiteers. The status quo is now that Britain leaves the EU. So, in order to change the status quo, a majority of 60% is required.

It is, until parliament decides to change the rules again. As we have seen with the FTPA, it only takes a majority in Westminster to change what they like.

SantaCruz

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

This private bill probably won't go anywhere, but could affect future referenda in the UK, Scotland and NI if it did pass:

https://twitter.com/PaulJColvin/status/1216774348079620098

Interesting. Argue that 52/48 is decisive for an earth-shaking decision, then change the rules so such a 'decisive' result against would be null and void. Their passion for democracy is heart-warming (assuming they back this bill, of course).

Strazdas

SantaCruz wrote: »

Interesting. Argue that 52/48 is decisive for an earth-shaking decision, then change the rules so such a 'decisive' result against would be null and void. Their passion for democracy is heart-warming (assuming they back this bill, of course).

It's what all authoritarians do the moment they get into power. Change the rules and try and rig things in their own favour.

Podge_irl

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If I understand correctly, this is very clever by the Brexiteers. The status quo is now that Britain leaves the EU. So, in order to change the status quo, a majority of 60% is required.

Its almost definitely an irrelevance. If they had the numbers for another referendum they have the numbers to do so while ignoring this. The FTPA has been overridden twice already.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If I understand correctly, this is very clever by the Brexiteers. The status quo is now that Britain leaves the EU. So, in order to change the status quo, a majority of 60% is required.

You don't. This seems to have nothing to do with the Brexiteers. This bill will not pass and has no support.

This has nothing to do Boris or anything like that.

A Dub in Glasgo

Christy42 wrote: »

This has nothing to do Boris or anything like that.

He is too busy denying the Scots democracy to worry about it

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1217102621997195265

Good lord. Are these lot out of there at the end of the month?

Tacitus Kilgore

Gintonious wrote: »

Good lord. Are these lot out of there at the end of the month?

The self importance knows no bounds.

Schadenfreude was created for Brexit.

lawred2

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1217102621997195265

Good lord. Are these lot out of there at the end of the month?

The best way to deal with that would have been to ignore it and move on to something else..

Hiding to nothing engaging in tit for tat with the likes of Anne Widdecombe.

Nody

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1217102621997195265

Good lord. Are these lot out of there at the end of the month?

Bar anything else that has to be the most grating voice I've heard in a very very long time; I think the rest of parliament should get a 10% bonus to have to listen to her talk to pay for the psychological damage she's inflicting on them. The sooner they are out the better (and cheaper!) as far as I'd guess most of the parliament is concerned.

lawred2

Any talk of these Brexit MEPs planning on foregoing their MEP pensions?

Strazdas

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1217102621997195265

Good lord. Are these lot out of there at the end of the month?

She does sound like some far right demagogue.....it's almost a throwback to the oratory of the 1930s

lawred2

Strazdas wrote: »

She does sound like some far right demagogue.....it's almost a throwback to the oratory of the 1930s

Brrrritisshhh

She seems to enjoy the theatrical delivery of some words alright

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

Brrrritisshhh

She seems to enjoy the theatrical delivery of some words alright

If you watch the speeches of Hitler, Mussolini and Goebbels, there's not much of a difference.....the same pent up anger, the same theatrical flourishes and exaggerated hand movements.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

She does sound like some far right demagogue.....it's almost a throwback to the oratory of the 1930s

This is not out of character for Anne. As for far right demagogue, if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...

Frank Bullitt

Will the British MEPs be out of Brussels by the end of the month?

Professor Moriarty

Gintonious wrote: »

Will the British MEPs be out of Brussels by the end of the month?

Yes. Good luck and goodbye.

William Legrande

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1217102621997195265

Good lord. Are these lot out of there at the end of the month?

When Sophie in 't Veld MEP spoke in flawless English in response did Ms. Widdecombe listen to her via an interpreter? Is she hard of hearing or is there another reason?

Frank Bullitt

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. Good luck and goodbye.

Love it.

Peregrinus

William Legrande wrote: »

When Sophie in 't Veld MEP spoke in flawless English in response did Ms. Widdecombe listen to her via an interpreter? Is she hard of hearing or is there another reason?

MEPs generally wear their headphones throughout the debate they are attending. They can listen either directly to the MEP speaking, if the understand the language being used, or to an interpreter, if they don't. Even if you understand the lanaguage being used, you will hear it better through the headphones, because (a) the chamber is very large, and (b) spekers don't "declaim" or projectg in the expectation that anybody is listening to them from a distance away, because they aren't.

Enzokk

So, remember Johnson saying there would be no checks between NI and GB? How he told business to contact him if they are told to fill out a form?

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1217354765727870977?s=20

Barnier confirming there will be checks and controls if the Irish protocol happens and a FTA doesn't negate the need for this.

And Tony Connelly has his say on the level playing field and where the EU sits right now on this,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1217210053033447430?s=20

The longer thread can be read here,

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1217210053033447430.html

TLDR, The EU will be looking for May's assurances on LPF as the starting point but will look to for an even tougher poipsition. Some of the reason for this is Johnson saying the UK will look to change its economic model which in turn will allow UK business to undercut EU companies if they are competing.

The negotiations will be tough, and we haven't even started it yet. I am struggling to see a FTA in 5 months time unless it is BRINO or very bare boned.

ancapailldorcha

I actually don't remember Johnson promising no checks between NI and GB. Surely it would be obvious to all concerned that if NI is effectively staying in most of the single market and customs union then checks are going to be a necessary proviso of such an arrangement.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I actually don't remember Johnson promising no checks between NI and GB.

A video aide memoire for your benefit:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-50344110

To the best of my recollection, he said it then, was challenged, reiterated it in a subsequent interview or HoC statement, was further challenged and (like Saint Peter) denied it thrice in yet another interview. Cockadoodle-doo! :pac:

From the pre-election Sky interview where the point was raised (my bold):

SR: ...when it comes to Brexit because last month you told businesses in Northern Ireland that they would face no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind under your Brexit deal and you also went on to say that if anyone asked them to fill out a form they phone you up personally and you’d direct them to throw that form in the bin. Well how come then that this government document that was leaked this week says that that’s not true, that there will be checks and forms, were you telling the truth?

BORIS JOHNSON: Yes, I am. Look at what we say in our manifesto, look what we’re going to deliver. The deal that we’ve done …

SR: So will there be checks?

BORIS JOHNSON: No, absolutely not. The deal we’ve done with the EU is a brilliant deal and it allows us to do all the things that Brexit was about so it’s about taking back control of our borders, of our laws but unlike the previous arrangements it allows the whole of the UK to come out of the EU including Northern Ireland and the only checks that there would be, would be if something was coming from GB via Northern Ireland and was going on to the Republic, then there might be checks at the border into Northern Ireland in order to …

SR: So this document is talking about checks both ways.

BORIS JOHNSON: And that’s wrong because there won’t be checks.

SR: So you’re saying this is wrong, the government’s own impact assessment is wrong, your Brexit Secretary is wrong, all these people are wrong and you are right?

BORIS JOHNSON: Yes, because there’s no question of there being checks on goods going NI/GB or GB/NI because they are part of … if you look at what the deal is, we’re part of the same customs territory and it’s very clear that there should be unfettered access between Northern Ireland and the rest of GB.

Leroy42

But in papers like the Express (I know!) they are reporting this as some reach by Barnier. When in fact it was the people were explicitly voting for when they went with Johnson.

It's as if they really weren't paying any attention and simply voting for 'Get Brexit Done' without realising what that actually meant. Brexit is going to effectively split their own single market (UK) apart. And that is before we get to the rights that every citizen in the UK is freely giving up (FoM), ability to go to ECJ for redress against their own government etc.

ArthurDayne

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I actually don't remember Johnson promising no checks between NI and GB. Surely it would be obvious to all concerned that if NI is effectively staying in most of the single market and customs union then checks are going to be a necessary proviso of such an arrangement.

Indeed. Furthermore, one of the things which has been more or less ignored as regards the effect of the provisions for Northern Ireland in the Withdrawal Agreement is the fact that it has most likely compromised one of the key pillars of “Brexitism” — ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ and ending the applicability of EU law and judgements in British courts. That is because, if Northern Ireland remains tethered to the EU regulatory sphere in certain areas, then there is now a clear question as to the applicability of EU law and ECJ judgements to Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is not a vacuum, and many companies in Great Britain have a footprint there or supply chains — then we may still find EU law being applicable in domestic legal matters and disputes.

I’d strongly recommend having a quick read of this blog published by the London School of Economics which explains the matter. It’s a pretty quick read but very informative.

“The UK government has been keen to sell its Withdrawal Agreement as ending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice within the United Kingdom. However, the changes to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland mean that continuing jurisdiction would become the default rather than a fall-back in the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified”

The fact that very little has been made about this — despite it being a potentially huge compromise on one of the great Brexiteer redlines — is testament (in my view anyway) to the nature of the Leave argument to favour the optics over the actual practical substance.