[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

Despite me spending nearly 3.5 years explaining to you why there is no such thing as a 'good deal', you still haven't learnt that the Leave campaign 'good deal' was a pack of total lies, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your 'good deal' solutions.

Good deal solution 1
You are incapable of comprehending what the EU single market is, which means you can't comprehend why Britain can't have a unilateral veto over the backstop in your first 'good deal' suggestion.

Good deal solution 2
You are incapable of comprehending the implications of the GFA and therefor can't comprehend why Canada's deal with the wonderful benefit of regulatory divergence can't be implemented.

Maybe you would like another go at explaining your 'good deal' ?

No I don't think I have a learning/comprehension disability. And I have also learnt what Irony means

Ah back to good old misrepresentation then. When did anyone mention a good or any deal when I made my suggestion about the UK having the freedom to withdraw from the backstop? Btw having the unilateral ability to withdraw from any treaty or agreement should be a prerequisite see sovereignty, the EU insisting we can't do this speaks volumes.

Now on to the time when I did mention my preferred trade option /deal, the Canada + deal. You say the GFA effectively prevents regulatory divergence, therefore, Canada++++ is a non-starter. The High Court in Northern Ireland disagrees ...

“Neither NIA 1998 nor the international treaty scheduled to the Belfast Agreement (or, for that matter, the Agreement itself) has the effect in law of requiring the continued membership of the EU on the part of the UK.

“Once again, neither the Belfast Agreement nor this suite of provisions was predicated on the basis that UK membership of the EU would continue forever.*Neither of them can be construed as requiring a customs Union or continued regulatory alignment.*More fundamentally, there is no sufficient evidential foundation for the incompatibility asserted. There is no suggestion that the incompatibility has already materialised”

https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judici...lications v the Prime Minister and others.pdf

I'm sure you still think you know best though

 

[schmunk]

I doubt they will.

They'll just run another one of their hilarious and not at all inflammatory 'enemies of the people' splash pages.

I think they'll go with "Well that told us, eh?"

 

[WATFORD zero]

Serious question .... have you got a learning/comprehension disability?

Despite me spending nearly 3.5 years explaining to you why there is no such thing as a 'good deal', you still haven't learnt that the Leave campaign 'good deal' was a pack of total lies, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your 'good deal' solutions.

Good deal solution 1
You are incapable of comprehending what the EU single market is, which means you can't comprehend why Britain can't have a unilateral veto over the backstop in your first 'good deal' suggestion.

Good deal solution 2
You are incapable of comprehending the implications of the GFA and therefor can't comprehend why Canada's deal with the wonderful benefit of regulatory divergence can't be implemented.

Maybe you would like another go at explaining your 'good deal' ?

No I don't think I have a learning/comprehension disability. And I have also learnt what Irony means

Ah back to good old misrepresentation then. When did anyone mention a good or any deal when I made my suggestion about the UK having the freedom to withdraw from the backstop? Btw having the unilateral ability to withdraw from any treaty or agreement should be a prerequisite see sovereignty, the EU insisting we can't do this speaks volumes.

Now on to the time when I did mention my preferred trade option /deal, the Canada + deal. You say the GFA effectively prevents regulatory divergence, therefore, Canada++++ is a non-starter. The High Court in Northern Ireland disagrees ...

“Neither NIA 1998 nor the international treaty scheduled to the Belfast Agreement (or, for that matter, the Agreement itself) has the effect in law of requiring the continued membership of the EU on the part of the UK.

“Once again, neither the Belfast Agreement nor this suite of provisions was predicated on the basis that UK membership of the EU would continue forever.*Neither of them can be construed as requiring a customs Union or continued regulatory alignment.*More fundamentally, there is no sufficient evidential foundation for the incompatibility asserted. There is no suggestion that the incompatibility has already materialised”

https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judici...lications v the Prime Minister and others.pdf

I'm sure you still think you know best though

I am certain most Brexiteers (including me) want a deal, even at this late stage but not any old deal and certainly not one the one that includes tying us inside the customs union indefinitely without an exit date. If no deal happens it is because the EU (Eire) insists a deal that has been rejected by the United Kingdom parliament on numerous occasions and by a record margin, cannot be changed. If avoiding no deal and increased tensions in NI is so important to the Irish I have no idea why they couldn't agree to a temporary backstop (say 2 years) where our future trade relationship would be partially negotiated /much clearer with the possibility to extend the agreement at any time to continue trade negotiations but also have the ability, with a set amount of notice ( say 6 months) to end the process (very unlikely). Pretty sure this would have got through the HoC and still would.

Land, Sea, Air If you recognise each others regulatory standards you don't have to carry out regulatory standard checks at the border so diverging from EU standards wouldn't cause the issues you suggested

And yet we still seem to be having a learning and comprehension mismatch. I wonder why that is

 

[rippleman]

The remainer MPs and supporters who want to keep fighting and wont accept that they lost the referendum.

You appear to have got muddled between Brexit and the shutting down of Parliament. They are not one and the same thing. I voted Leave. I still want to Leave but as Gina Miller said earlier today:-

"......to defend parliamentary sovereignty, which is the absolute pillar of our democracy. That is something anybody, irrespective of how you voted, irrespective of your cause, should be celebrating".

And I most certainly am celebrating. If you allow parliament to be shut down on the whim of a PM then you no longer have a parliamentary democracy. You have a dictatorship.

 

[Motogull]

You appear to have got muddled between Brexit and the shutting down of Parliament. They are not one and the same thing. I voted Leave. I still want to Leave but as Gina Miller said earlier today:-

"......to defend parliamentary sovereignty, which is the absolute pillar of our democracy. That is something anybody, irrespective of how you voted, irrespective of your cause, should be celebrating".

And I most certainly am celebrating. If you allow parliament to be shut down on the whim of a PM then you no longer have a parliamentary democracy. You have a dictatorship.

I think that might need a 'sun' translation/conversion for some people.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Or Get ready for Brexit
Regards
DF

That's a laugh – those in charge have had more than three years to 'Get ready for Brexit' and it's still an utter shitshow with, what, five weeks to go?

How on earth anyone thinks they can turn it around to any sort of satisfactory outcome between now and the end of October is beyond me.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

How does the Daily Mail spin Boris causing their beloved Queen to be drawn into illegality.

'Remoaners give you cancer' or something about the Spirit of Lady Di while the Sussexes are in Africa...

 

[BensGrandad]

And you think his legal team is more important than 11 Supreme Court judges?
You are truly clueless.

I do not think that they are more important just held a different view and interpretation of the law.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I do not think that they are more important just held a different view and interpretation of the law.

I think as has been proven today, beyond all reasonable doubt (11-0) that their different view and interpretation of the law was completely and utterly WRONG

 

[Bold Seagull]

Now on to the time when I did mention my preferred trade option /deal, the Canada + deal. You say the GFA effectively prevents regulatory divergence, therefore, Canada++++ is a non-starter. The High Court in Northern Ireland disagrees ...

“Neither NIA 1998 nor the international treaty scheduled to the Belfast Agreement (or, for that matter, the Agreement itself) has the effect in law of requiring the continued membership of the EU on the part of the UK.

“Once again, neither the Belfast Agreement nor this suite of provisions was predicated on the basis that UK membership of the EU would continue forever.*Neither of them can be construed as requiring a customs Union or continued regulatory alignment.*More fundamentally, there is no sufficient evidential foundation for the incompatibility asserted. There is no suggestion that the incompatibility has already materialised”

https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judici...lications v the Prime Minister and others.pdf

I'm sure you still think you know best though

The judicial review is held against the Withdrawal Act itself breaching the NIA / GFA. The judiciary isn't confirming that no incompatibility could exist, it is asserting that it cannot be proved to exist through the proposals of the Withdrawal Agreement alone. There is no suggestion the incompatibility has already materialised - because we haven't started trading differently yet. Until specific details would be known on what the border conditions would be under any particular deal or no deal for that matter, we don't know if they we will be compatibility. All the review is saying is the the NIA doesn't specifically state that the UK needs to be in the EU or the Customs Union. That doesn't relieve the UK of it's duty in other parts of the agreement to ensure the 'ease' of movement of people and goods, particularly section 75 of the NIA, that means it isn't a foregone conclusion a Canada+, Norway+, Hard Deal, No Deal would be compatible or not, until the specifics are known and can be tested, a breach cannot be ascertained.

 

[Juan Albion]

I think as has been proven today, beyond all reasonable doubt (11-0) that their different view and interpretation of the law was completely and utterly WRONG

Just imagine if it had come out as 6-5 against Boris. They'd be crying that that's as good as a draw.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think as has been proven today, beyond all reasonable doubt (11-0) that their different view and interpretation of the law was completely and utterly WRONG

Who is disputing that but the blame does not rest 100% on Boris shoulders although as No 1 he takes the blame.

 

[Mellotron]

Who is disputing that but the blame does not rest 100% on Boris shoulders although as No 1 he takes the blame.

Quite - he takes the blame, and if he had even a tiny bit of integrity, he would resign immediately.

 

[BensGrandad]

Quite - he takes the blame, and if he had even a tiny bit of integrity, he would resign immediately.

on that we disagree nothing to do with integrity. He is here to do a job get us out of the EU let him do his job, then applaud or criticise as appropriate.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And yet we still seem to be having a learning and comprehension mismatch. I wonder why that is

Because you keep confusing the WA deal and a future trade relationship deal

 

[Mellotron]

on that we disagree nothing to do with integrity. He is here to do a job get us out of the EU let him do his job, then applaud or criticise as appropriate.

Which law would he need to break for you to think it would be right for him to resign?

 

[Dick Swiveller]

on that we disagree nothing to do with integrity. He is here to do a job get us out of the EU let him do his job, then applaud or criticise as appropriate.

His job is not to break the law. You can't just ignore that because it was a means to an end you want.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Who is disputing that but the blame does not rest 100% on Boris shoulders although as No 1 he takes the blame.

Are you saying that Johnson is too stupid to make his mind up, as the top man, on whether he was ill advised or not.
Anyway, shhhh for a while please as Jezza has just taken to the stage for his speech.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

He is here to do a job get us out of the EU .

Even I could 'get us out the EU' if 'do F all and let it just happen by default' was one way of doing it.

 

[Stat Brother]

Plenty are clip-clopping over BG's bridge this afternoon.