5,062 posts
|
Brexit
Oct 19, 2019 22:37:07 GMT
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 19, 2019 22:37:07 GMT
Farmers and fishermen may have been taking the long view. They might have been thinking about future generations having control of our food production. The Leave vote wasn’t all about individual and short term bank balances. They had control over their own food productions, But they were happy to take the ‘tribute money’ for what they were told to grow. They were also so conscientious about the long term, they were happy to employ EU workforce, because it was cheaper, than British.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 19, 2019 23:29:19 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 23:29:19 GMT
Well letter was sent and accompanying letter to say ignore the first letter. I don't see how Boris thought he could get a deal through without DUP support.
Perhaps it needs the EU to give us an extension but this will be the final one and we need to get things sorted one way or another or just give us a month but then we call a general election.
What next a State of Emergency gets declared which the Privy Council has the power to do. No doubt Gina Miller would go to court over that unless she was put under house arrest.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Oct 19, 2019 23:41:23 GMT
I have avoided this thread until now - simply because I want my theatre talk to be as a free from contemporary politics as possible.
However I have spent a lot of this evening looking at the relevant legislation and the letters causing such a kerfuffle.
1 - The sending of the letter is exactly as laid out in the 'Benn' Act. It was sent - as required by law. And it is being acted on by the EU. So the purpose of the Act has been fulfilled. 2 - Nothing in the letter to Tusk (copied to others) is new. Nor does this letter contain any request to ignore the 'Benn' Act letter. There is also nothing in it asking the EU to deny the extension request. It does lay out the legal status of the first letter and the steps being taken to pass the legislation that will render any extension unnecessary.
It is always necessary to look at the detail of these things rather than relying on Twitter or news reports for any real accuracy.
There is a huge amount of sound and fury abroad tonight over these letters. And it is misplaced.
The Act required a letter to be sent. That letter - exactly as set out in the schedule to the Act - has been sent. The EU are now acting on receipt of that letter.
The second letter is a perfectly legitimate letter to send - it is not scandalous or illegal.
I had so hoped that we would be beyond this phase by now. Sadly we aren't. But please - whatever your position on this broader subject, please do read up on the actual content of legislation and documentation - form your own conclusions. Don't just jump because someone on Twitter is making a lot of noise.
We need to take the heat out of this - not contribute to more.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 19, 2019 23:59:26 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 23:59:26 GMT
I have avoided this thread until now - simply because I want my theatre talk to be as a free from contemporary politics as possible. However I have spent a lot of this evening looking at the relevant legislation and the letters causing such a kerfuffle. 1 - The sending of the letter is exactly as laid out in the 'Benn' Act. It was sent - as required by law. And it is being acted on by the EU. So the purpose of the Act has been fulfilled. 2 - Nothing in the letter to Tusk (copied to others) is new. Nor does this letter contain any request to ignore the 'Benn' Act letter. There is also nothing in it asking the EU to deny the extension request. It does lay out the legal status of the first letter and the steps being taken to pass the legislation that will render any extension unnecessary. It is always necessary to look at the detail of these things rather than relying on Twitter or news reports for any real accuracy. There is a huge amount of sound and fury abroad tonight over these letters. And it is misplaced. The Act required a letter to be sent. That letter - exactly as set out in the schedule to the Act - has been sent. The EU are now acting on receipt of that letter. The second letter is a perfectly legitimate letter to send - it is not scandalous or illegal. I had so hoped that we would be beyond this phase by now. Sadly we aren't. But please - whatever your position on this broader subject, please do read up on the actual content of legislation and documentation - form your own conclusions. Don't just jump because someone on Twitter is making a lot of noise. We need to take the heat out of this - not contribute to more. Hooray for common sense! Can you please stand at the next election, oxfordsimon - something tells me there are going to be a few vacancies to fill... ;-)
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 0:00:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 0:00:01 GMT
The letters are a deliberate distraction, merely to send media on a wild goose chase so that they miss the substance. Ignore.
The big story of the week is of betrayal, however. I’m rarely shocked at politics but the brutality and insouciance with which Unionists have been used and dropped is at a whole new level of shamefulness, Not only is it saying that Johnson is happy with destroying the Union but it must give anyone being given promises for voting for his, much more hardline, deal pause. They must surely know now that they will be next for this humiliation ritual.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 0:26:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 0:26:15 GMT
With the talk about getting the act through the Lords and there could have been delaying tactics how come these weren't used on the Benn Bill.
Plus I'll throw another scenario out there with all these independent MPs and others under threat from deselection etc, are some just thinking they may not stand again so can be as awkward as they like with things as they have nothing to lose.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 4:58:15 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Oct 20, 2019 4:58:15 GMT
Almost anything involving Hillary Benn is second-rate nonsense - a poor intellect making a living off his fathers achievements. Hot air, bluster and without any weight.
The yang to Nickolas Soames' yin.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 6:05:09 GMT
via mobile
Dave25 likes this
Post by NeilVHughes on Oct 20, 2019 6:05:09 GMT
On consideration the second letter ironically adds weight to the extension letter.
We have a Sovereign Parliament, Parliament by definition speaks for the whole nation.
Therefore saying that the request for an extension comes from Parliament is actually saying the request for an extension has the ‘will of the people’ as per our representative sovereign Parliament against the opinion of one man who happens to be Prime Minister.
This returns to the calibre of our Prime Minister, a man who lies, is contemptuous of the law, and does not uphold /believe in the Democratic principles of this Country.
He is a disgrace and mocks every core value we expect of our elected representatives and especially our Prime Minister.
The natural next step is a Vote of No Confidence once the EU agree the extension which wil hopefully happen very quickly, the 14 days to build a Government will take us past the 31st.
If not due to the close numbers the opposition Parties could still end up with Johnson’s Deal being passed, the only caveat is they must believe there are the numbers for a confirmatory referendum or an amendment around what happens at the end of the transition period to stop a No-Deal scenario.
Every day in Parliament is engrossing, will the Government force the Bill through on Monday, will the Speaker allow it to be heard, it is not customary to allow two debates on the same Bill and Bercow is not a ‘friend’ of this Government.
Johnson has forgotten this pertinent rule ‘keep your friends close and your enemies even closer’ especially when your enemies appear to be one step ahead of you and greater in number.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 8:00:54 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2019 8:00:54 GMT
Almost anything involving Hillary Benn is second-rate nonsense - a poor intellect making a living off his fathers achievements. Hot air, bluster and without any weight. The yang to Nickolas Soames' yin. Hero of the right with his war mongering speech last year
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 8:05:28 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2019 8:05:28 GMT
On consideration the second letter ironically adds weight to the extension letter. We have a Sovereign Parliament, Parliament by definition speaks for the whole nation. Therefore saying that the request for an extension comes from Parliament is actually saying the request for an extension has the ‘will of the people’ as per our representative sovereign Parliament against the opinion of one man who happens to be Prime Minister. This returns to the calibre of our Prime Minister, a man who lies, is contemptuous of the law, and does not uphold /believe in the Democratic principles of this Country.
He is a disgrace and mocks every core value we expect of our elected representatives and especially our Prime Minister.The natural next step is a Vote of No Confidence once the EU agree the extension which wil hopefully happen very quickly, the 14 days to build a Government will take us past the 31st. If not due to the close numbers the opposition Parties could still end up with Johnson’s Deal being passed, the only caveat is they must believe there are the numbers for a confirmatory referendum or an amendment around what happens at the end of the transition period to stop a No-Deal scenario. Every day in Parliament is engrossing, will the Government force the Bill through on Monday, will the Speaker allow it to be heard, it is not customary to allow two debates on the same Bill and Bercow is not a ‘friend’ of this Government. Johnson has forgotten this pertinent rule ‘keep your friends close and your enemies even closer’ especially when your enemies appear to be one step ahead of you and greater in number. Definitely the attack point for the Labour party during an election campaign.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 8:07:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 8:07:10 GMT
At this point, Boris’ entire approach is about winning a majority in an election. This triple threat of letters to the EU, his ‘do or die’ pledge, proroguing parliament and then having to go go court over it... it all adds up to the fact that we have a party leader TRYING to get Brexit done, but that MPs will not let it happen. The more he appears to fight for Brexit the more support he’s getting from the electorate, because let’s face it: we’re all bloody sick of it.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 9:12:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 9:12:39 GMT
This returns to the calibre of our Prime Minister, a man who lies, is contemptuous of the law, and does not uphold /believe in the Democratic principles of this Country. He is a disgrace and mocks every core value we expect of our elected representatives and especially our Prime Minister This is why the unsigned letter is so pathetic, nothing to do with whether it technically complies with the law or not! The spirit of the law is as important as the letter of it (no pun intended) - that is why we have Hansard to aid in legislative interpretation. Boris made his contempt for the former perfectly clear, and that is nothing more than pathetic.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Oct 20, 2019 9:33:55 GMT
@posterj
This is what drives me more than the Brexit and keeps me actively engaged.
I have a deep pride in our Democratic process which is still hanging on despite the best intentions of ironically the Establishment.
Brexit could have easily been achieved if May / Johnson stopped pandering to the 20 or so ERG members.
A Custom Union / Single Market solution would have sailed through with Labour support and we would have left with a solution that worked for the majority of the electorate me included.
The Tories self interest and questionable tactics have undermined the sovereignty of Parliament and required involvement of the judiciary to maintain our weak unwritten constitution by precedent.
If you are a Remainer / Leaver how can you allow this man and his Party undermine our core British Values is beyond me.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 9:34:49 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Oct 20, 2019 9:34:49 GMT
Ah, the spirit of the law. How do you feel about the 'spirit' of 52/48%?
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Oct 20, 2019 9:40:04 GMT
londonpostieWith the 52%, not with the 20 or so ERG MP’s who have hijacked the result and held the Country to ransom with their Hard Brexit only stance.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 9:43:01 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Oct 20, 2019 9:43:01 GMT
Sorry, your post crept inbetween - the previous poster spoke about spirit.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 10:02:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 10:02:55 GMT
Ah, the spirit of the law. How do you feel about the 'spirit' of 52/48%? Clearly after 3 years you still don't understand the difference between the law and an advisory referendum, so I'm not sure what else as I can say. But I have said many times on here that although I still fervently believe that Brexit is the wrong course and that the referendum was based on so many lies that it cannot be trusted, a deal is better than No Deal, and this could have been sorted years ago if anyone had been strong enough to stand up to those far right idiots who think that having their cake and eating it is a sensible negotiating tactic and realistic outcome.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 10:04:16 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Oct 20, 2019 10:04:16 GMT
Have you stopped talking about "the spirit"?
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 10:06:45 GMT
via mobile
vdcni likes this
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 10:06:45 GMT
Have you stopped talking about "spirit"? Have you started contributing substantively to the debate rather than just raising the same question over and over again when you get answers you don't like? I'd love to have a proper debate on this but your one line posts really aren't conducive to that at all, and I've had enough of your condescenion.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 10:20:12 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Oct 20, 2019 10:20:12 GMT
Ah, it's not about spirit now < pivot> it's about me!
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 11:01:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:01:45 GMT
Ah, the spirit of the law. How do you feel about the 'spirit' of 52/48%? Clearly after 3 years you still don't understand the difference between the law and an advisory referendum, so I'm not sure what else as I can say. But I have said many times on here that although I still fervently believe that Brexit is the wrong course and that the referendum was based on so many lies that it cannot be trusted, a deal is better than No Deal, and this could have been sorted years ago if anyone had been strong enough to stand up to those far right idiots who think that having their cake and eating it is a sensible negotiating tactic and realistic outcome. The referendum may not have been legally binding but there was never going to be a second asking us to vote on a legal position. This was it - we would stay or go based on the results anyway. To say it was based on lies and cannot be trusted is pointless: the losing side can always say exactly the same at every single general election. The UK’s legal position on leaving was done democratically: the public had their say via referendum (a referendum authorised by 544 MPs) and then our MPs (498 of them) supported Article 50. In terms of standing up to the far-right, actually, I think May did her utter best standing up to them. She went through all sorts of internal party problems, and survived a number of coups. Personally I don’t think her deal was terrible, but if MPs can’t support it - then that’s an issue we, the electorate, have to deal with at the next election. But did she pander to them? No, I don’t believe she did. The larger problem with Brexit is that everyone feels that we can have whatever wanted in a deal and the truth is no deal was ever going to good enough. When May’s deal failed, Parliament took control to decide what kind of deal it would support: and it refused to support any kind of deal. May options were tabled and parliament refused to back any of them. The only thing Parliament has agreed on for the last few years is that we shouldn’t leave without a deal. I voted to remain and I’m a lifelong Labour supporter, but frankly I don’t blame the Conservatives for this mess: I blame Labour and Corbyn entirely. Brexit could have been sorted if Labour had stronger leadership and won the 2017 general election (and took control of the process). We had been out of power long enough to have figured out a way of re-connecting with the electorate and yet we still failed. The entire party is a mess at the moment, so personally I don’t feel like I can judge the Tory party too much... not when Corbyn always appears to be one step away from a tantrum. Got help him if he had to deal with PMQs.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 11:11:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:11:55 GMT
Almost anything involving Hillary Benn is second-rate nonsense - a poor intellect making a living off his fathers achievements. Hot air, bluster and without any weight. The yang to Nickolas Soames' yin. Hero of the right with his war mongering speech last year Not a right/left issue, as can be seen by Trump’s reaction. Isolationism has no particular political hue. So now we have Assad still brutalising his people, Russia the main player in the region, Erdogan massacring Kurds as Trump does his ‘who, me?’ schtick. Should there be a moral aspect to foreign intervention? That’s a difficult question but inaction in Syria has been a disastrous advert for the isolationist point of view.
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 11:18:04 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:18:04 GMT
Have you stopped talking about "spirit"? Have you started contributing substantively to the debate rather than just raising the same question over and over again when you get answers you don't like? I'd love to have a proper debate on this but your one line posts really aren't conducive to that at all, and I've had enough of your condescenion. It’s strange how, in a thread about Brexit, they don’t engage in the substantive debate. Alan Johnson campaigned for remain, so it’s clearly not a postman thing....
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Oct 20, 2019 11:41:51 GMT
In some ways it would have helped if it were a legally binding referendum as it has been judged already to be illegal....so it would have been challenged in the court and fallen. We would have had to do it again.....
|
|
|
Brexit
Oct 20, 2019 11:49:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:49:25 GMT
On consideration the second letter ironically adds weight to the extension letter. We have a Sovereign Parliament, Parliament by definition speaks for the whole nation. Therefore saying that the request for an extension comes from Parliament is actually saying the request for an extension has the ‘will of the people’ as per our representative sovereign Parliament against the opinion of one man who happens to be Prime Minister. This returns to the calibre of our Prime Minister, a man who lies, is contemptuous of the law, and does not uphold /believe in the Democratic principles of this Country.
He is a disgrace and mocks every core value we expect of our elected representatives and especially our Prime Minister.The natural next step is a Vote of No Confidence once the EU agree the extension which wil hopefully happen very quickly, the 14 days to build a Government will take us past the 31st. If not due to the close numbers the opposition Parties could still end up with Johnson’s Deal being passed, the only caveat is they must believe there are the numbers for a confirmatory referendum or an amendment around what happens at the end of the transition period to stop a No-Deal scenario. Every day in Parliament is engrossing, will the Government force the Bill through on Monday, will the Speaker allow it to be heard, it is not customary to allow two debates on the same Bill and Bercow is not a ‘friend’ of this Government. Johnson has forgotten this pertinent rule ‘keep your friends close and your enemies even closer’ especially when your enemies appear to be one step ahead of you and greater in number. Definitely the attack point for the Labour party during an election campaign. Boris against Jeremy not exactly a great choice. A bit like the 2016 US Election where we had two deeply flawed candidates. A halfway decent and charismatic leader would be on for a clear victory.
|
|