Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[NANOJAMBO]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

IIRC pretty much along these lines.

 

Tories - Would deliver the will of the people and leave the EU.

Labour - Respect the vote, negotiate a better deal than the Tories would for leaving the EU.

Lib Dems - Remain in the EU.

 

So it could be said that there has already been a so called 'people's vote' and the electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU.

If people wanted to stay in the EU, the Lib Dems offered that option, the electorate choose not to take it.

 

OK that was over a year ago and lots have happened since then, but the fact remains that if people wanted to remain in the EU they could have voted for the Lib Dems, and whilst they did see an increase in their share of the vote, it wasn't anything near like they had hoped for.

Except the Lib Dems were abandoned by many for their support of a Tory govt/tuition fees. They were seen as a wasted voted. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

This 'deal' ain't going to get passed.

I didn’t ask you that. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Doogz said:

Penry

Scatman. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Except the Lib Dems were abandoned by many for their support of a Tory govt/tuition fees. They were seen as a wasted voted. 

 

Immaterial, as the option to vote to remain in the EU was still there, if 16m remain voters had voted for the Lib Dems they'd be the Government now and brexit would have been stopped.

 

 

6 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I didn’t ask you that. 

 

I know you didn't.

 

No I don't think N. Ireland should get a better deal then Scotland should, but none of this is going to happen anyway.

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

It's being challenged by the government via the Supreme Court for very obvious,  acutely political motives.    That's an abuse of the courts.    The courts are not a political tool.

 

Again, it is for the Supreme Court of the U.K. to decide if it can hear the case or if it has properly been referred to the ECJ. 

 

You can accuse the U.K. Government of meddling in or interfering with a Scottish decision but wasn’t the Scottish Government, in the first instance, interfering in or meddling with a matter which was for the U.K. Parliament?

 

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

There should be no fear of the decision.    It could potentially empower parliament to properly handle the Brexit process.     Parliament is sovereign we are told.

 

The courts should be forbidden from challenging the will of parliament.  The only challenges to parliament should be in parliament by elected members.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Again, it is for the Supreme Court of the U.K. to decide if it can hear the case or if it has properly been referred to the ECJ. 

 

You can accuse the U.K. Government of meddling in or interfering with a Scottish decision but wasn’t the Scottish Government, in the first instance, interfering in or meddling with a matter which was for the U.K. Parliament?

 

 

No.   The action merely asks the question if Brexit can be halted by MPs.   The Court of Session can submit it to the ECJ without the input of the Supreme Court.    The government want to prevent the question being asked and the ECJ from making a determination.    They are two wholly different things and not comparible.

[Victorian]

Is it not better to find out the legalities and range of the powers at the disposal of parliament than to prevent parliament from knowing what powers it possesses?

 

I know which of the two is democratically legitimate and which is an abuse of the legal system.

[ri Alban]

Why is ok for the supreme Court to overrule Scots law, but the ECJ is not allowed to overrule the supreme Court. 

[ri Alban]

Why is ok for England to take back control of its borders, money, laws, but not Scotland. 

[ri Alban]

Why are we not independent from these muppets at Wm. Wake the feck up Scotland, time to go. 

[Victorian]

Oh good,    a recently discovered liar has returned to cabinet.     I'm sure she's completely reformed.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Oh good,    a recently discovered liar has returned to cabinet.     I'm sure she's completely reformed.

? 

[Victorian]

Rudd is DWP minister.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Rudd is DWP minister.

If it wasn't for AR, my Mrs would still be an illegal alien. 

[Victorian]

Just now, ri Alban said:

If it wasn't for AR, my Mrs would still be an illegal alien. 

 

Interesting but lacking in relevance.  

[Mikey1874]

Stephen Barclay new Brexit Secretary 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Rudd is DWP minister.

 

Good choice

 

Individual stories are encouraging  - hope for better treatment of people in benefits system 

[Mikey1874]

On BBC boy just now saying would take 24 weeks to organise a referendum 

[Shanks said no]

5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

On BBC boy just now saying would take 24 weeks to organise a referendum 

Friday
May 3, 2019

 

bit late

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

On BBC boy just now saying would take 24 weeks to organise a referendum 

 

Which if begun today would take us to the first week in May.

We leave the EU on the 29 March, so we'd be out before there could be a second referendum.

[JudyJudyJudy]

On November 14, 30 Heisei at 21:59, Brighton Jambo said:

Maybe but at least this deal genuinely seems to be an attempt to do the least damage to UK.  People burying their head in sand and hoping we just remain and it all goes away are delusional.  Labour and their ludicrous tests will vote it down and risk no deal to trigger a general election - putting own needs before hours, does anyone know their party position yet?!  SNP will do same to further cause of indyref2.  

 

Say what you want but at least she is trying to get us through this cluster**** with the least damage possible which is more than anyone else is doing. 

 

No one else is doing it so there is no comprising what others may be able to achieve . Election needed with a new government wit a new mandate to do whatever is in their manifesto . 

[Don Dan]

5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Which if begun today would take us to the first week in May.

We leave the EU on the 29 March, so we'd be out before there could be a second referendum.

 

 

Unless  

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

 

Unless  

 

Indeed.

 

If there is one thing which is certain in all of this, it's nothing is certain.

 

Listening to Heseltine there on the TV and he was on about a second referendum and he said that he knew from the day after the first one we'd have a second referendum.  Mmm I'm sure some folks would read something into that comment.

[Boab1874]

Referendum.Vote for May’s deal or What we have.No deal is now not an option.The only way is remain.May wants out of the E C J that cannot happen because of  the good Friday agreement.Lesson you cannot have referendums without education.

[maroonlegions]

Taking the utter pesh now,

How desperate for mates does May have to be.

 

 

 

She needs to go, pure lunatic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Good choice

 

Individual stories are encouraging  - hope for better treatment of people in benefits system 

No words, just mindblowing .

 

Liars and corrupt individuals are encouraging, hope you say.

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by maroonlegions

[Shanks said no]

5 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Re Archbishops, what would Gordon Brown have done, for example?  He's CoS not CoE.  Barmy!

Gordon Brown actually had to do it and felt uncomfortable doing so as a son of the manse, so since 2007 the convention has been that the prime minister will choose the first-named recommendation. If the chosen individual accepts the office, the prime minister advises the Sovereign, who then formally nominates the prime minister's choice. 

[Victorian]

Appointing cronies / allies who have previously been disgraced is just another symptom of a corrupt and sick administration.     It says "**** you" to the electorate who prefer to have faith in their politicians and "**** you more" to the many capable people in the parliamentary group who haven't yet had their chance to make a pure ***** of themselves.      There must be a wider talent pool of deceit to explore.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Boab1874 said:

Referendum.Vote for May’s deal or What we have.No deal is now not an option.The only way is remain.May wants out of the E C J that cannot happen because of  the good Friday agreement.Lesson you cannot have referendums without education.

Where does the good friday agreement say that?. I read it twice to confirm it said nothing about the border despite repeated assertions that it commited the UK to no border or an invisible border.  i'd rather just goto the relevant clauses than read it all again. Thanks in advance.

And if no deal is not an iption why? And if not an option why all the scare stories about it?

Edited November 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

No words, just mindblowing .

 

Liars and corrupt individuals are encouraging, hope you say.

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

As Home Secretary, Amber Rudd helped create the Hostile Environment that led to people from the Windrush Generation being deported;

 

Well now she is set to continue creating a Hostile Environment  this time for people on benefits!

 

 

 

[Ibrahim Tall]

4 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Immaterial, as the option to vote to remain in the EU was still there, if 16m remain voters had voted for the Lib Dems they'd be the Government now and brexit would have been stopped.

 

 

 

I know you didn't.

 

No I don't think N. Ireland should get a better deal then Scotland should, but none of this is going to happen anyway.

 

It’s not immaterial at all, the Lib Dem’s could have offered every voter a blowjob from a Page 3 girl and they still wouldn’t have got 16m votes. 

They're a protest vote party that everyone knows will never win anything and they couldn’t even do that properly given they then sided with Cameron and gave everyone a Conservative government.

 

They didn’t get the “remain” vote as people didn’t believe others would vote likewise and didn’t want to waste their vote, they were right.

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Do u think it's alright to give NI special treatment, but feck Scotland? If they can stay in the Single market so can we. Regardless of borders. Once folk cross into NI they can go anywhere. 

Scots  could either (1) have waged a decades long terrorist campaign killing British soldiers, policemen and civilians and threatened to resume it if we did not stay in the single market or  customs union or (2) have voted for independence when given the opportunity just 4 years ago. Special treatment would have followed. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Thunderstruck]

3 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

No.   The action merely asks the question if Brexit can be halted by MPs.   The Court of Session can submit it to the ECJ without the input of the Supreme Court.    The government want to prevent the question being asked and the ECJ from making a determination.    They are two wholly different things and not comparible.

 

It is a futile exercise. There can be no definitive answer as Art. 50 is silent on revocation. The best we are likely to get from any court is ‘maybes aye, maybes naw.’

 

Politicians and courts within Europe are already divided on the point. The U.K. Supreme Court previously ruled on the Bill that triggered Art. 50 but did not rule on the possibility of withdrawing. 

 

On the other hand, Germany and France have indicated that the U.K. would be pushing at an open door if it was decided to stop the process. 

 

Lord Kerr, who designed Art. 50, said that ‘you can change your mind when the process is ongoing’. This was his view as expressed when the Gina Miller case was being decided. 

 

The legal advice given to the House of Lords arrived at a similar conclusion. 

 

A leaked memo memo on a draft EU resolution contained the following - ‘Whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership.’ 

 

It might be fair to say that Art. 50 could be revoked but not as an absolute right and it would be within the gift of the EU-27. 

 

That’s the easy bit. If it can be assumed that the process can be halted, the next step would be to determine how Parliament could a halt to the process.

 

Clearly, there would have to be a Parliamentary majority in favour but for that to happen without a popular mandate would cause outrage. 

 

So how could a popular mandate be obtained? A referendum or a General Election? 

 

The problem with a General Election is that the majority of seats won under FPTP is typically on the back of a minority of the popular vote so which holds sway - seats or vote? Further turmoil would inevitably follow. 

 

That leaves a referendum which is simpler but the choices need to be made stark and honestly explained. That would take time but time is of the essence as there are 133 days (around 85 working days) left before we leave. That is if no extension is agreed.

 

The biggest problem with a second referendum is that demand largely lies outwith Parliament. The Tories and Labour don’t seem keen and the SNP is treating the notion like it is Kryptonite. 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Because we have a proposed Brexit Withdrawal deal that won't get through parliament and a No Deal solution won't get through either.  Therefore result still means Remain.

 

Let us assume that the withdrawal deal is rejected by Parliament.  That's fair enough, because Parliament can reject the deal.

 

Parliament can't reject "no deal", because there is nothing to reject. 

 

Therefore the only alternative to the withdrawal deal is the status quo.  The status quo isn't Remain.  The status quo is defined by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  The status quo is Leave.

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

No deal or stay in the EU.

 

The deal she's got is all she'll get as a transitional agreement. EU are done negotiating. If it gets beaten in parliament it's no deal or staying in.

 

Why are people going on about "staying in"?  Or about it being impossible to leave?

 

Here's what Article 50.3 of the Lisbon Treaty says about a state that invokes Article 50 to withdraw from the EU:

 

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

 

The two years is up in March 2019.

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Imo The EU's law making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws......

 

 

Can you describe how and why this is the case?

[The Mighty Thor]

14 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Because we have a proposed Brexit Withdrawal deal that won't get through parliament and a No Deal solution won't get through either.  Therefore result still means Remain.

My understanding is that because article 50 has been triggered we are out of Europe on 29/3. End of story.

There's no remain and the default position at that point is no deal.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Scots  could either (1) have waged a decades long terrorist campaign killing British soldiers, policemen and civilians and threatened to resume it if we did not stay in the single market or  customs union or (2) have voted for independence when given the opportunity just 4 years ago. Special treatment would have followed. 

3 Or maybe have been treated fairly. Not ignored. But don't worry 2 is not far away. To paraphrase The Bruce  from the outlaw/King, let's win our  country back and then we can decide, not Wm. 

[Number28]

There was in 2016, and can only now be, one referendum on leaving the EU!

 

Getting enough votes to support the leave bill thru parliament may not necessarily be impossible to achieve.

 

 MP's will have to get above the rhetoric and vile puke coming from the likes of  the brothers Johnson, Corbyn  and others with selfish interest and separate agendas.

 

MP's will have to vote on their constituents  desires, that is the point when self-survival will kick in.

 

270 constituencies voted in the referendum to "LEAVE" Only 129 voted remain. As a representative of one of the leave constituencies, is that MP going to vote against the bill then return to their patch to risk deselection?

 

 How can you be trusted as an MP when you were told "We want to leave Europe- get on with it" and you vote against the demands of your constituents wishes.  

 

Personally, I would want the MP's head and other bodily parts on a plate then ask my fellow constituents how should we dispose of these?

 

 

[Sidelight]

2 hours ago, Number28 said:

There was in 2016, and can only now be, one referendum on leaving the EU!

 

Getting enough votes to support the leave bill thru parliament may not necessarily be impossible to achieve.

 

 MP's will have to get above the rhetoric and vile puke coming from the likes of  the brothers Johnson, Corbyn  and others with selfish interest and separate agendas.

 

MP's will have to vote on their constituents  desires, that is the point when self-survival will kick in.

 

270 constituencies voted in the referendum to "LEAVE" Only 129 voted remain. As a representative of one of the leave constituencies, is that MP going to vote against the bill then return to their patch to risk deselection?

 

 How can you be trusted as an MP when you were told "We want to leave Europe- get on with it" and you vote against the demands of your constituents wishes.  

 

Personally, I would want the MP's head and other bodily parts on a plate then ask my fellow constituents how should we dispose of these?

 

 

Forget the press pass - Jones for PM.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Number28 said:

There was in 2016, and can only now be, one referendum on leaving the EU!

 

Getting enough votes to support the leave bill thru parliament may not necessarily be impossible to achieve.

 

 MP's will have to get above the rhetoric and vile puke coming from the likes of  the brothers Johnson, Corbyn  and others with selfish interest and separate agendas.

 

MP's will have to vote on their constituents  desires, that is the point when self-survival will kick in.

 

270 constituencies voted in the referendum to "LEAVE" Only 129 voted remain. As a representative of one of the leave constituencies, is that MP going to vote against the bill then return to their patch to risk deselection?

 

 How can you be trusted as an MP when you were told "We want to leave Europe- get on with it" and you vote against the demands of your constituents wishes.  

 

Personally, I would want the MP's head and other bodily parts on a plate then ask my fellow constituents how should we dispose of these?

 

 

MPs will need to vote on their constituency desires. Well Scotland will have to leave the UK. 

Edited November 17, 2018 by ri Alban

[frankblack]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Let us assume that the withdrawal deal is rejected by Parliament.  That's fair enough, because Parliament can reject the deal.

 

Parliament can't reject "no deal", because there is nothing to reject. 

 

Therefore the only alternative to the withdrawal deal is the status quo.  The status quo isn't Remain.  The status quo is defined by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  The status quo is Leave.

 

7 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

My understanding is that because article 50 has been triggered we are out of Europe on 29/3. End of story.

There's no remain and the default position at that point is no deal.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Something tells me the tories will self-implode and stop it getting to a No Deal scenario - even if that means triggering a general election they know they will lose.

 

Time will tell.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Let us assume that the withdrawal deal is rejected by Parliament.  That's fair enough, because Parliament can reject the deal.

 

Parliament can't reject "no deal", because there is nothing to reject. 

 

Therefore the only alternative to the withdrawal deal is the status quo.  The status quo isn't Remain.  The status quo is defined by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.  The status quo is Leave.

 

Think you need to tell that all the MP's who have been banging on about the very thing you mention in your last paragraph, because they seem to be under the impression that if they reject everything the only option left is the status quo and that is to remain in the EU.

 

My understanding is the same as yours, the UK leaves the EU on the 29 March 2019 deal or no deal, the EU/Article 50 makes that perfectly clear as far as I'm aware, and then yesterday it was mentioned that a second referendum could take until early May before it could take place (don't know if that's true or not) but if what you say is true and if a second vote timescale is true then you have to wonder what the motive is behind all those MP's who are still banging on about second referendum's and staying in the EU.

 

As it's coming from politicians you can pretty much guarantee that they don't have your or mine interests at heart.

It wouldn't surprise nor shock me to learn, for some at any rate, that their motivation is that they don't want to lose their place at the trough.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Something tells me the tories will self-implode and stop it getting to a No Deal scenario - even if that means triggering a general election they know they will lose.

 

Time will tell.

I only heard this recently. I didn't realise no deal/deal or whatever, we're out on 29/3 when all current agreements end.

 

Mental.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 hours ago, Number28 said:

There was in 2016, and can only now be, one referendum on leaving the EU!

 

Getting enough votes to support the leave bill thru parliament may not necessarily be impossible to achieve.

 

 MP's will have to get above the rhetoric and vile puke coming from the likes of  the brothers Johnson, Corbyn  and others with selfish interest and separate agendas.

 

MP's will have to vote on their constituents  desires, that is the point when self-survival will kick in.

 

270 constituencies voted in the referendum to "LEAVE" Only 129 voted remain. As a representative of one of the leave constituencies, is that MP going to vote against the bill then return to their patch to risk deselection?

 

 How can you be trusted as an MP when you were told "We want to leave Europe- get on with it" and you vote against the demands of your constituents wishes.  

 

Personally, I would want the MP's head and other bodily parts on a plate then ask my fellow constituents how should we dispose of these?

 

 

 

Agree with this, it amazes me week in week out when you see MP's stand up in the commons and the side bar says:

MP Voted to Remain

Constituency Voted to Leave

 

And the MP is banging on about remaining in the EU, that's not representing his/her constituents, that's putting themselves before their constituents, then again we are talking about politicians here so for most they have always put what's best for them before their constituents.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I only heard this recently. I didn't realise no deal/deal or whatever, we're out on 29/3 when all current agreements end.

 

Mental.

 

That being the case and if you know that, then you'd think that the MP's will also know that, yet many are still banging on about staying in the EU. 

 

You have to wonder why?

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Don Dan]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Can you describe how and why this is the case?

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en

 

We the people of the EU don’t elect the commission. 

[Thunderstruck]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why are people going on about "staying in"?  Or about it being impossible to leave?

 

Here's what Article 50.3 of the Lisbon Treaty says about a state that invokes Article 50 to withdraw from the EU:

 

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

 

The two years is up in March 2019.

 

The highlighted text suggests that 29 March 2019 need not be set in stone. 

 

If the Withdrawal Agreement does not gain approval, the alternative to the disorderly Hard Brexit might be to seek to extend the Art. 50 timetable to explore options.