Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    1494

  • ri Alban

    1425

  • Cade

    1385

  • Victorian

    1348

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0912/1075402-ni-brexit-challenge/

 

A legal challenge in Belfast High Court that argued the UK government's Brexit strategy will damage the Northern Ireland peace process has been dismissed.

Lord Justice Bernard McCloskey delivered his ruling on three joined cases against British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's handling of the UK's European Union exit.

The trio of challenges contended that a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would undermine agreements involving the Irish and UK governments that were struck during the peace process and which underpin cross-border cooperation.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

"Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.

"Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, NI judge saying more or less the same thing as the English courts:

Since Westminster politics is run by tradition and convention and not bound in actually enforceable constitutional Laws, a court cannot make a legal judgement.

 

Which is mildly terrifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0912/1075402-ni-brexit-challenge/

 

A legal challenge in Belfast High Court that argued the UK government's Brexit strategy will damage the Northern Ireland peace process has been dismissed.

Lord Justice Bernard McCloskey delivered his ruling on three joined cases against British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's handling of the UK's European Union exit.

The trio of challenges contended that a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would undermine agreements involving the Irish and UK governments that were struck during the peace process and which underpin cross-border cooperation.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

"Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.

"Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1134530/Brexit-news-BBC-UK-EU-Michel-Barnier-European-Union-Theresa-May-Conservative-Party

 

Brexit OUTRAGE: Barnier caught admitting he will 'use Ireland' in negotiations with UK

 

Michel Barnier was filmed plotting with EU counterparts to use Ireland in Brexit negotiations to try to get the upper hand over the UK. The French negotiator claimed there was a “strategic and tactical reason” to “use Ireland for the future negotiations”. Filmed on the BBC’s Brexit: Behind Closed Doors, Mr Barnier said: “We are at a key point. In fact, we were ready on Friday to make this agreement but it stuck on the backstop

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Andrew Bridgen saying the the SNP pressurised the Court of Session.

 

Shameful stuff.

 

These claims, both for and against what was said, need to be accompanied by evidence. Otherwise no one can believe who said what or who didn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

These claims, both for and against what was said, need to be accompanied by evidence. Otherwise no one can believe who said what or who didn’t. 

What are you in about. Only one set of idiots are making claims, the English right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

What are you in about. Only one set of idiots are making claims, the English right wing.

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 


If I claimed that you had pressurised the Court of Session ... how would you prove that you didn't?

I might (or almost certainly don't) have proof that you did .... but you cannot prove that you didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 

Again, what are you on about. There are only Tory smears about our judges, no opposite claims at all. You just can't bring yourself to criticise these right wing loonies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bercow uses a speech to a legal think-tank to call for a properly codified UK constitution instead of the byzantine and unenforcable conventions and traditions that masquerade as due process in the current set-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

These claims, both for and against what was said, need to be accompanied by evidence. Otherwise no one can believe who said what or who didn’t. 

 

I watched him saying it on C4 news and just added it here.     You can go looking for mention of it on the Internet or decide not to.    Ignore it.     Your choice.

 

He said just that.    Without a hint of hesitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RobboM said:


If I claimed that you had pressurised the Court of Session ... how would you prove that you didn't?

I might (or almost certainly don't) have proof that you did .... but you cannot prove that you didn't.

 

Id invite you to the court to a meeting where you could present your claims to the relevant people and see or here their and my side of the story.  If a lie or in political speech an untruth on either side was established then the proof needed would be established. 

This should happen especially as history shows many untruths and false claims have been made around Brexit. 

We need the truth and the truth from both sides because if the truth had been told we would be in the mess we are in now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cade said:

Bercow uses a speech to a legal think-tank to call for a properly codified UK constitution instead of the byzantine and unenforcable conventions and traditions that masquerade as due process in the current set-up.

 

Agreed. About time too. Conventions and traditions can work if everyone acts in a responsible manner, but not if individuals start abusing the system. Where is no trust, there needs to be law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the avoidance of future doubt and only speaking for myself,    if I say a person said or did something,   I might reference my comment or might not.     Anyone else is perfectly entitled to take whatever notice of it they choose to,   or none at all.      This is an open discussion and everyone can fact-check if they choose to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I watched him saying it on C4 news and just added it here.     You can go looking for mention of it on the Internet or decide not to.    Ignore it.     Your choice.

 

He said just that.    Without a hint of hesitation.

 

I have no doubt he said it but was he challenged on it and asked for evidence that this pressure was actually applied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Id invite you to the court to a meeting where you could present your claims to the relevant people and see or here their and my side of the story.  If a lie or in political speech an untruth on either side was established then the proof needed would be established. 

This should happen especially as history shows many untruths and false claims have been made around Brexit. 

We need the truth and the truth from both sides because if the truth had been told we would be in the mess we are in now.

 

With due respect, what are you on about, DB?

 

If Andrew Bridgen claims that the SNP pressurised the Court of Session, then it is up to him to back up those claims or shut up, not to others to disprove them.

 

Surely even you can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Again, what are you on about. There are only Tory smears about our judges, no opposite claims at all. You just can't bring yourself to criticise these right wing loonies

 

Im on about the truth and backing up claims form right wing loonies or even left wing loonies. If you have evidence to the contrary let’s see it. You make a claim the on or in the press then let’s see the evidence. To many times people make claims and get away with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

With due respect, what are you on about, DB?

 

If Andrew Bridgen claims that the SNP pressurised the Court of Session, then it is up to him to back up those claims or shut up, not to others to disprove them.

 

Surely even you can see that.

 

Bridgen needs to provide evidence that these claims are true as do the people saying he’s talking ballox. That’s what I’m on about. To much claim and counterclaim without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

I have no doubt he said it but was he challenged on it and asked for evidence that this pressure was actually applied. 

 

Sorry,  thought you were challenging claims made on here.

 

No he wasn't really.    He's entitled to his say at the end of the day.    But it's dangerous ground to normalise accusations of impartiality against the judiciary.      Where next?      Do we eventually see people being harrassed as they visit a polling station one day?     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

Bridgen needs to provide evidence that these claims are true as do the people saying he’s talking ballox. That’s what I’m on about. To much claim and counterclaim without evidence.

 

No, the folk saying he is talking bollocks don't need to prove a thing. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Anyway, how on earth could you actually prove that no interference had taken place - 24/7 audio and visual observation of all three judges? It's a ridiculous proposition.

 

This is one of the ways in which fake news is created. We need evidence from folk making claims, otherwise it's just all hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Bridgen or Kwarteng are obliged to provide evidence or facts in order to say even the most ridiculous things,   or in Kwarteng's case,   to insinuate things without saying they are his beliefs.    Or to plant a seed in the minds of the public.      The trouble is that the norms of self control and reasonable responsibility are being broken.    It's getting worse and worse.     More and more people are pushing the boundaries of responsible conduct and it's not being adequately called out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Sorry,  thought you were challenging claims made on here.

 

No he wasn't really.    He's entitled to his say at the end of the day.    But it's dangerous ground to normalise accusations of impartiality against the judiciary.      Where next?      Do we eventually see people being harrassed as they visit a polling station one day?     

 

My main challenge was in this instance Bridgen making such a claim without evidence. My wider claim is that I’m pee off with anyone making claims which are purely speculative. A good addition to any claim should imo be ended in imo. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

The trouble is that the norms of self control and reasonable responsibility are being broken.

 

This is exactly what I’m on about. Its verging on hysterical now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Victorian said:

I don't think Bridgen or Kwarteng are obliged to provide evidence or facts in order to say even the most ridiculous things,   or in Kwarteng's case,   to insinuate things without saying they are his beliefs.    Or to plant a seed in the minds of the public.      The trouble is that the norms of self control and reasonable responsibility are being broken.    It's getting worse and worse.     More and more people are pushing the boundaries of responsible conduct and it's not being adequately called out.

 

I disagree, but perhaps because I'm a follower of scientific principles and a hater of bullshit. If you claim something to be true, you need to back it up. If you claim something *might* be true, that's a different matter, but even then it is often possible to show why things might possibly be true - circumstantial evidence, balance of possibilities, strong evidence that a claim is not false, etc. I agree with you however that, especially given that folk are easily led, we need to be responsible with public pronouncements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

No, the folk saying he is talking bollocks don't need to prove a thing. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Anyway, how on earth could you actually prove that no interference had taken place - 24/7 audio and visual observation of all three judges? It's a ridiculous proposition.

 

This is one of the ways in which fake news is created. We need evidence from folk making claims, otherwise it's just all hot air.

 

In the end it’s down to decrement. 

As I said to Victorian I’m pee off at all the ballocks that’s swirling around this cluster what’s it. It really needs to be taken away from the politicians and dare I say the courts and given back to the people. The question needs to be. Based on what you know now do you still want to leave the EU.Yes or No. 

Lets leave a deal or no deal out of it as we now know that will never be any chance of anyone agreeing one. IMO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually been given hassle by English guys whilst abroad on the basis of being Scottish and in the context of UK politics.     Something about Scotland being subsidised by England,  etc.     I hadn't even argued any case either way or intimated support for any party.      The reason is that to some,   perhaps a small percentage,    if you're Scottish then you're anti-English and/or an SNP supporter and/or all out for independence.     SNP is commonly conflated with Scotland.

 

If we're going down the road of hearing that Scottish Judges are sympathetic to SNP policy then it is effectively setting Scottish people against English people.    People will infer that Scottish people are supportive of English democracy being denied.    Not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to try and stay away from talking about politics on Internet forums because it makes me want to smash my head off a brick wall with some of the absolute melts you come across however, I’m going to try and convey my thoughts on the whole Brexit process and where we are now because I simply need to...

 

First off, the referendum was a complete sham from both sides. It was full of lies, smears and questionable funding. It was a difficult task to try a spin together a coherent argument for both sides and to let your average joe come to a completely informed opinion on the matter. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the referendum been legally binding there would have been a rerun ordered from the Supreme Court. 

 

Leave won, Cameron shat it and ran off into hiding.

 

May had an impossible task of trying to appease an entire country that is currently fractured in opinion as to how we should be proceeding. On one side you have hardcore Brexiteers who will literally support it at all costs, then you’ve got soft Brexiteers and Remainers who are open to leaving but with a meaningful deal and then you have hardcore Remainers who believe the only option we should be pursuing is remaining in the EU. You are not going to get all on side and let’s be straight, Mays deal is absolutely pitiful. I struggle to believe she’s spent the best part of two years negotiating with the EU and that’s the best she could muster.

 

Finally she threw in the towel and Brexiteers seen it as an opportunity to seize control of the process and push it through their way but it’s strengthened the resolve of every one on the hardcore sides. Those for leaving at all costs are pushing harder than ever for a no deal and those against no deal (whether leave with a deal or remain) are pushing back even harder.

 

We are FINALLY reaching a conclusion though and the final ‘battle lines’ are being firmly drawn. No matter Johnson’s talk, if he doesn’t come back to Parliament with an acceptable solution after the EU summit he will be forced to have ask for another extension and then we’re going to have a general election.

 

Tories and Labour are going to campaign on opposite tickets to try become the biggest party. Lib Dem’s are going to campaign to revoke article 50 in a hope they can get a concession of a second referendum should they enter into a coalition with Labour. SNP are going to push forward with independence at the core of their campaign based on Scotland being ignored at every step of the way. The Brexit party know they’ve got very little chance and going for a few seats with the hope of having some kind of power with the Tories.

 

Depending on how the election plays out will decide on where we go from here. Tories win in any form, be it majority or coalition, we’re heading for no deal on 31st January. Labour win, more than likely a coalition if they’re going to get a government, and it’ll be a second referendum. SNP are going to take 50+ seats here so it’s also possible they could be needed in any kind of coalition between Labour and Lib Dem’s, they will most definitely only agree to this if there’s a section 30 order granted.

 

In my opinion the only way out of this mess is a two question, legally binding referendum.

 

Q1) Should the UK govt formally request to revoke article 50?

 

A) Yes

B ) No

 

Q2) If the majority answer to Q1 is B, in what manner should the UK leave the EU?

 

A) On WTO terms

B ) With the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated

 

This puts all options on the table while not splitting the vote and giving remain supporters a say on the way we should leave. Aside from this, there’s no real way out of the current impasse.

 

For what it’s worth, I think we’d be absolutely mental to leave the EU without a worthwhile deal and I think the release of the Yellowhammer report will change a lot of minds.

Edited by DarioHMFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfajambo said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1134530/Brexit-news-BBC-UK-EU-Michel-Barnier-European-Union-Theresa-May-Conservative-Party

 

Brexit OUTRAGE: Barnier caught admitting he will 'use Ireland' in negotiations with UK

 

Michel Barnier was filmed plotting with EU counterparts to use Ireland in Brexit negotiations to try to get the upper hand over the UK. The French negotiator claimed there was a “strategic and tactical reason” to “use Ireland for the future negotiations”. Filmed on the BBC’s Brexit: Behind Closed Doors, Mr Barnier said: “We are at a key point. In fact, we were ready on Friday to make this agreement but it stuck on the backstop

 

 

Well shock horror.

 

UK wakes up to being in a negotiation where you use what power you have to win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet legal students are loving this. Position of Scottish Court of Session within UK legal system will now be a hot topic. 

 

Me personally, looking at it it's not only a challenge to the rule of law, the Tories implying bias are risking turning a load of people in  power in Scotland against the Union. Idiots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

I bet legal students are loving this. Position of Scottish Court of Session within UK legal system will now be a hot topic. 

 

Me personally, looking at it it's not only a challenge to the rule of law, the Tories implying bias are risking turning a load of people in  power in Scotland against the Union. Idiots. 

They’re making a rod for their own backs. Any ruling the Supreme Court gives is a win/win for the SNP and the wider independence movement. Supreme Court back the Scottish court and you’re going to have the full weight of British nationalists doing their utmost to make us leave. Supreme Court rules against us and there’s just something else (and huge) that they’re ignoring us on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is just as independent of politics as the Court of Session.    If the Supreme Court rules contrary to the Court of Session then so be it.      I'll assume it was arrived at correctly.     It wont treat the Court of Session as an inferior or less important court to an English court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

I bet legal students are loving this. Position of Scottish Court of Session within UK legal system will now be a hot topic. 

 

Me personally, looking at it it's not only a challenge to the rule of law, the Tories implying bias are risking turning a load of people in  power in Scotland against the Union. Idiots. 

Good point. Trying to downplay and fob off the Greatest Law System on the planet, the very basis of Civilisation & Order throughout the Developed World as inferior, is going to piss off many Scots in high places. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

The Supreme Court is just as independent of politics as the Court of Session.    If the Supreme Court rules contrary to the Court of Session then so be it.      I'll assume it was arrived at correctly.     It wont treat the Court of Session as an inferior or less important court to an English court.

Yep, it will also be partly made up of Scottish Judges who will now be making a ferocious defence in their arguments of Scots Law, to their U.K. counterparts. 🍿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a hierarchy of courts and depending on how deep your pockets are and the type of case you could ultimately end up International Court of Justice.  

(Ill stand corrected on the ultimate court!)

Edited by Dannie Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
1 hour ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 

 

Nah, you don't have to prove the something doesn't exist. Same faulty argument religious people make, "prove God doesn't exist". Burden of proof is always on the claimant. 

 

Prove to me you didn't murder a cat when you were 14 and ate it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Nah, you don't have to prove the something doesn't exist. Same faulty argument religious people make, "prove God doesn't exist". Burden of proof is always on the claimant. 

 

Prove to me you didn't murder a cat when you were 14 and ate it? 

 

Oh he didn't, did he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Nah, you don't have to prove the something doesn't exist. Same faulty argument religious people make, "prove God doesn't exist". Burden of proof is always on the claimant. 

 

Prove to me you didn't murder a cat when you were 14 and ate it? 

 

If you make a claim as Brigden did without offering evidence that can be challenged then that is wrong. It’s making a claim without offering evidence that’s the problem. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zlatanable said:

Are you saying that Scots Law, is this? -> 'Greatest Law System on the planet, the very basis of Civilisation & Order throughout the Developed World'

In civilised Countries throughout the western world, like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America etc..certainly, it was greatly influential. Of course Scots Law as it is now was evolved from Roman Law and Common Law. What separates people from Civilised and Uncivilised? Law & Order? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

If you make a claim as Brigden did without offering evidence that can be challenged then that is wrong. It’s making a claim without offering evidence that’s the problem. 

 

 

We agree on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Oh he didn't, did he?

 

I do remember murdering a fish and eating it at that age 🎣

Edited by Dannie Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you,   if the court rulings were reversed,   Bridgen or some other walking sphincter would be saying the High Court was sympathetic to the metropolitan,   liberal elite and the Scottish court ruled the other way due to being removed from metropolitan,   liberal elitism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Boris doesn't actually want a no-deal Brexit and never has. What if it's all a smoke screen, not as such as a bargaining chip for the EU, but for the opposition in Parliament, to make them concentrate all their efforts on opposing no-deal and therefore make them take their eyes off the ball as regards countering a deal Brexit. At the European Council summit, Boris will offer a "deal" Brexit. He'll then turn around to the opposition and say"You were afraid of No Deal - well look, I've got you a deal!" and will be feted by the right wing for getting the UK out of the EU, although admittedly alienating the ERG and the No-deal Brexiteers. If the opposition try to counter this, he will say "The deal is done" and bank on the fact that the opposition will look awkward for opposing him for doing exactly what they wanted, and that was to avoid a "No Deal". Just a (probably very naïve) thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zlatanable said:

Almost seems like you are defending the British Empire here. I'm certain that isn't what you meant. 

One of the better points of Empire & Imperialism I suppose. We even got Jet Engines from the Nazi’s 🤷🏼‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • davemclaren changed the title to Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...