Sign in to follow this  
Jamie123

British Politics

Recommended Posts

You've got to admit - politics these days is better than a soap opera!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49807552

Who cares about Robert Preston on Coronation Street having two women on the go, engaged to one and getting the other pregnant. Or Seb getting himself beaten up for trying to bust a people trafficking gang. Or....well basically who cares about any of that, when you've got the drama going on about parliament and the supreme court and silly old Boris Defffeffeff...err whatever-his-name-is Johnson getting his butt busted for being a so-called "tin pot dictator"?

How long can he last now? I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing him at the next Prime Minister's Questions....they are going to give him SUCH a roasting!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 6:39 AM, Jamie123 said:

and silly old Boris Defffeffeff...err whatever-his-name-is Johnson getting his butt busted for being a so-called "tin pot dictator"?

Where there ya go... you just lost all credibility.

Case closed.  Next...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something, or does this whole sordid UK fiasco boil down to a case of the anti-Brexit politicians folding their arms in front of them with a scowl and petulantly refusing to cooperate with the expressed will of the people? I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand what all is going on, but that's what it looks like from my seat on Row 160.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

Am I missing something, or does this whole sordid UK fiasco boil down to a case of the anti-Brexit politicians folding their arms in front of them with a scowl and petulantly refusing to cooperate with the expressed will of the people? I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand what all is going on, but that's what it looks like from my seat on Row 160.

It's a wee bit more complicated than that...

There are 3 factions going right now:

1.)  Brexit - good deal or no deal.  - this would be Boris Johnson (Tory) and Nigel Farage (used to be UKIP now Brexit Party)

2.)  Brexit only if there's a deal.  - this would be Theresa May (Tory) and several other people supporting the extensions.

3.)  Remain.  Period. - I'd bunch Corbyn (Labour) in here who was actually running for a 2nd referendum thinking the 1st one was voted on with the people not having proper information on the consequences of Brexit.  He abandoned that idea when it caused Labour to lose MPs.  But the idea of a 2nd referndum, in my opinion, is more like let's get another referendum until we get the results we want.

Only the 3rd faction is refusing to cooperate with the will of the people.  The Supreme Court ruling was actually reasonable even if I side with the Brexiteers.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Where there ya go... you just lost all credibility.

Case closed.  Next...

It wasn't a rhetorical question Anatess! Stupid name or not, the guy has a butt made of asbestos. If you were him would you have the gall to show your face in parliament now? Notice how empty the government benches were today! Yet there was Boris defefff....err...Johnson giving as good as he got! Like I say it's better than any soap opera!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

Am I missing something, or does this whole sordid UK fiasco boil down to a case of the anti-Brexit politicians folding their arms in front of them with a scowl and petulantly refusing to cooperate with the expressed will of the people? I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand what all is going on, but that's what it looks like from my seat on Row 160.

I've mixed feelings about this. Abiding by "the will of the people" is important to prevent dictatorship, but is it more important than not doing something stupid? I have no answer to that. Democracy only really works so long as we never have to make that choice.

And another thing: they keep banging on (especially in The Sun) about the "betrayal" of the seven point however many million people who voted leave, while quietly forgetting about the approximately equal number who voted remain.

Yes I know leave won, and one way or another the thing has to be done, but to put it in such terms is hyperbole. If the "will of the people" has any meaning at all, I'd interpret such a narrow majority as "proceed with extreme caution".

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I've mixed feelings about this. Abiding by "the will of the people" is important to prevent dictatorship, but is it more important than not doing something stupid? I have no answer to that. Democracy only really works so long as we never have to make that choice.

And another thing: they keep banging on (especially in The Sun) about the "betrayal" of the seven point however many million people who voted leave, while quietly forgetting about the approximately equal number who voted remain.

Yes I know leave won, and one way or another the thing has to be done, but to put it in such terms is hyperbole. If the "will of the people" has any meaning at all, I'd interpret such a narrow majority as "proceed with extreme caution".

Well, there ya go, @Vort... you got the Canadians thinking that speech is only free as long as you don't offend anyone and you got Brits thinking Democracy is only valid if your side gets the majority, otherwise, you're doing something stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Democracy is only valid if your side gets the majority, otherwise, you're doing something stupid.

If it were a vote about what flavour of soup to have as our starter, that's all fair and good. The trouble is, if you're voting whether or not to keep piranhas in the kiddies' swimming pool, a correct decision depends on something other than the number of people who voted for it.

Remember the Peloponnesian War? (Well I don't think you do, unless you're a bit older than I think!) The democracy of Athens fell to Sparta - and thus ceased to be a democracy at all - because of democratically arrived-at decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

If it were a vote about what flavour of soup to have as our starter, that's all fair and good. The trouble is, if you're voting whether or not to keep piranhas in the kiddies' swimming pool, a correct decision depends on something other than the number of people who voted for it.

Remember the Peloponnesian War? (Well I don't think you do, unless you're a bit older than I think!) The democracy of Athens fell to Sparta - and thus ceased to be a democracy at all - because of democratically arrived-at decisions.

Sure.  That's why the USA is not a plain Democracy but a Republic.  Because, all in all, if you have a society of 5 wolves and 3 sheep figuring out what to eat for dinner, democracy is great unless you're sheep.  But to say that the number of people who votes for something are stupid simply because you disagree with it... well, that's the beauty of Democracy, isn't it?  The government cannot decide what is stupid without the consent of its people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 12:40 PM, Vort said:

Am I missing something, or does this whole sordid UK fiasco boil down to a case of the anti-Brexit politicians folding their arms in front of them with a scowl and petulantly refusing to cooperate with the expressed will of the people? I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand what all is going on, but that's what it looks like from my seat on Row 160.

What I've gathered from reading various new services (and I hope you'll forgive me if I don't pursue references), there are three generic groups of thought within Parliament: Those who want to avoid Brexit altogether; those who want to and/or are willing to see Brexit through with the right deal; and those that want Brexit even if no deal can be negotiated. The primary struggle happening right now is that Prime Minister Johnson is a member of the third group, and campaigned on a platform that he would take the UK out of the EU deal or no deal. The first two groups are concerned about the impact of a No Deal Brexit*, and so are trying to prevent that eventuality.

That's the basic premise of the story at the moment.  It gets a lot more interesting and twisted once you dig in from there.  

PM Johnson was prepared to resume negotiations** with the EU while carrying the stick of a No Deal Brexit as leverage to get more concessions from the EU.  He seems to be under the impression that a No Deal Brexit would hurt the EU as much as it would hurt the UK; or at least that if it came to that, the EU would cave on some of the hardest terms, such as the hard border in Ireland.  At the same time, the EU is heavily motivated not to cave--the Brexit fiasco has resulted in depressed support for EU exits from other countries, such as Italy, as people have seen how complicated and unpleasant the results could turn out. If the UK makes a No Deal Brexit and the EU caves, it could spur other countries to follow suit.

If that is where the story reached its apex, then we'd probably see Johnson lead the UK out of the EU one way or another by the end of October. But then Johnson overplayed his hand and asked the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks. This was widely seen as an attempt to prevent Parliament from derailing his agenda and negotiations, and Parliament went nuts. Before the suspension went into effect, Parliament held a vote to seize control of the agenda from PM Johnson. Twenty one members of Johnson's own party voted against Johnson in that vote and were subsequently kicked out of the party. As a result, Johnson's party no longer has a majority in Parliament (which doesn't actually mean a whole lot, but it does appear to put Johnson in a weaker position). In the aftermath, Parliament passed a Bill that requires the Prime Minister to request an extension from the EU should negotiations fail to produce a deal by 19 October. I believe Johnson has said he won't do this.

Soon after that, Parliament went into its suspension while the courts heard cases about whether the suspension was lawful.  Long story short, the UK Supreme Court took arguments, and a panel of 11 judges voted unanimously that Johnson's advice to the Queen was untruthful, unlawful, prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional duty, and "of no effect."  Parliament is back in session.

Okay, so that was a lot of background to get to how this relates to "refusing to cooperate with the expressed will of the people." Most importantly, even though there are members of Parliament that do not want Brexit at all, they have not succeeded in revoking that will (yet); instead, they are acting to prevent a No-Deal Brexit that, by all forecasts, looks like it would be really painful for the country.

But even the "will of the people" gets interesting here.  Because the original referendum wasn't a binding referendum. If Parliament had wanted to, they could have ignored the whole thing. The fact that we've gotten this far is an indication that the will of the people isn't being ignored lightly. There are also a lot of questions about the Referendum itself. The Leave campaign was slapped with multiple campaign finance violations, and reportedly spread a lot of misinformation and outright falsehoods about how easy peazy life would be outside of the EU. I've read (and take this with a grain of salt, because I can't find a reference for this) some claims that if the Referendum had been binding, the courts would have cancelled the results due to the shady work of the Leave campaign.

On top of that, one of the arguments is that no one really understood what Brexit would look like at the time. Those that want to stop Brexit entirely have argued for a revote, though there seems to be more support for the idea of a second referendum that offers more nuanced choices, such as Remain, Leave with a deal, or Leave with no deal. While support for leaving is still pretty near where it was three years ago, only 22% of respondents in this poll consider leaving with no deal a good outcome.

 

So, in the end, popular support for Brexit is about 50%, and that side won the Referendum in 2016. However, popular support for a No-Deal Brexit maxes out at 38% (44% oppose it). So it's reasonable for someone to claim they oppose Brexit, but will honor the will of the people as expressed in the Referendum, yet still oppose the No-Deal Brexit.  And that's mostly what's happening right now.

 

 

 

* No Deal Brexit is exactly what it sounds like.  The UK goes crashing out of the EU, with no customs negotiations or agreements between the EU and UK. Free travel across borders would no longer be permitted. The UK projections for what would happen under such a scenario include weeks, if not months, of unrest, food shortages, and medicine shortages. One of the thorniest issues has been that of Ireland, part of which is not part of the UK, and so half of the island would have to be locked down. There is a lot of anxiety that this could reopen some of the violence of the 80's and 90's.

** The current deal, negotiated by Theresa May, keeps the UK in a "customs union" that would prevent the need for a hard border between the Irelands. The hard core Brexiteers believe that is no Brexit at all--in the customs union, any goods that enter the EU through Norway will be taxed with the EU tariffs, and then no more tariffs can be applied.  So if those same goods go from Norway to the UK, the tariffs are paid and UK can apply no more.  Brexiteers consider that a violation of sovereignty. It also means that anyone in the EU may travel freely into the UK, meaning that the UK could not set strict entrance requirements. Again, Brexiteers consider that a violation of sovereignty. 

As far as I can tell, Theresa May's deal is about as good as you could hope for as a first step in a long process of disentangling the UK from the EU. But hard core Brexiteers are kind of all-or-nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

What I've gathered from reading various new services (and I hope you'll forgive me if I don't pursue references), there are three generic groups of thought within Parliament: Those who want to avoid Brexit altogether; those who want to and/or are willing to see Brexit through with the right deal; and those that want Brexit even if no deal can be negotiated. The primary struggle happening right now is that Prime Minister Johnson is a member of the third group, and campaigned on a platform that he would take the UK out of the EU deal or no deal. The first two groups are concerned about the impact of a No Deal Brexit*, and so are trying to prevent that eventuality.

That's the basic premise of the story at the moment.  It gets a lot more interesting and twisted once you dig in from there.  

PM Johnson was prepared to resume negotiations** with the EU while carrying the stick of a No Deal Brexit as leverage to get more concessions from the EU.  He seems to be under the impression that a No Deal Brexit would hurt the EU as much as it would hurt the UK; or at least that if it came to that, the EU would cave on some of the hardest terms, such as the hard border in Ireland.  At the same time, the EU is heavily motivated not to cave--the Brexit fiasco has resulted in depressed support for EU exits from other countries, such as Italy, as people have seen how complicated and unpleasant the results could turn out. If the UK makes a No Deal Brexit and the EU caves, it could spur other countries to follow suit.

If that is where the story reached its apex, then we'd probably see Johnson lead the UK out of the EU one way or another by the end of October. But then Johnson overplayed his hand and asked the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks. This was widely seen as an attempt to prevent Parliament from derailing his agenda and negotiations, and Parliament went nuts. Before the suspension went into effect, Parliament held a vote to seize control of the agenda from PM Johnson. Twenty one members of Johnson's own party voted against Johnson in that vote and were subsequently kicked out of the party. As a result, Johnson's party no longer has a majority in Parliament (which doesn't actually mean a whole lot, but it does appear to put Johnson in a weaker position). In the aftermath, Parliament passed a Bill that requires the Prime Minister to request an extension from the EU should negotiations fail to produce a deal by 19 October. I believe Johnson has said he won't do this.

Soon after that, Parliament went into its suspension while the courts heard cases about whether the suspension was lawful.  Long story short, the UK Supreme Court took arguments, and a panel of 11 judges voted unanimously that Johnson's advice to the Queen was untruthful, unlawful, prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional duty, and "of no effect."  Parliament is back in session.

Okay, so that was a lot of background to get to how this relates to "refusing to cooperate with the expressed will of the people." Most importantly, even though there are members of Parliament that do not want Brexit at all, they have not succeeded in revoking that will (yet); instead, they are acting to prevent a No-Deal Brexit that, by all forecasts, looks like it would be really painful for the country.

Your background is lacking to get a full context.  The referendum was voted on in June 2016.  The timeline to get a deal ended in May 2019.  Theresa May led Parliament into one bad deal after another which caused May 2019 to come and go with no good deal made.  Some would argue that Theresa May did this on purpose - she did not want to leave the EU.  A Bad Deal Brexit (the last iteration is tantamount to the UK still keeping the same immigration and trade agreements as the EU without EU representation - it is, of course, a STUPID DEAL), can be argued as worse for Britain than a No Deal Brexit.

No Deal Brexit looked at as "painful for the UK" is a globalist propaganda that assumes people do not remember that Britain once owned half the planet and still until today holds the 5th largest economy of the entire planet.  What's painful is this - UK leaving the EU would be painful for the EU who has to keep Greece, Spain, et. al. afloat.  The Irish border is not as terrible as it sounds.  The Northern Irish peace has been achieved between the UK and Ireland by the Belfast Agreement regardless of EU membership - the EU was not party to it.  There is no reason for the peace treaty to dissolve or change just because the UK exits the EU.  Irish citizenship is still limited to Ireland regardless of EU membership.  The UK simply has to limit border activity to Ireland and not the rest of the EU according to the Belfast Agreement.

And on the Supreme Court ruling... your statements are incorrect.  The SC did not rule that "Johnson's advice to the Queen was untruthful, unlawful".  This is an incorrect interpretation of the ruling.  Johnson has every right to prorogue Parliament in preparation for the general election.  By the way, the Tories becoming a minority party is very significant as the Prime Minister is chosen from the majority party.  Johnson called for an early general election to settle the matter of minority rule but neither Labour nor Liberal wants it (my opinion:  they know they're going to lose again and even make their position even more untenable).  The SC ruling did not state that proroguing parliament was unlawful - it is standard operating procedure for general elections, after all.  Rather, the SC ruling ruled that Parliament can't be prorogued for more than the standard 2 weeks without valid reason and Johnson's statement that Parliament is stonewalling the will of the people is not a valid reason.  So Parliament is back in session for 2 more weeks before the standard prorogue period in preparation for the Queen's speech to open the new Parliamentary session.

 

Quote

But even the "will of the people" gets interesting here.  Because the original referendum wasn't a binding referendum. If Parliament had wanted to, they could have ignored the whole thing. The fact that we've gotten this far is an indication that the will of the people isn't being ignored lightly. There are also a lot of questions about the Referendum itself. The Leave campaign was slapped with multiple campaign finance violations, and reportedly spread a lot of misinformation and outright falsehoods about how easy peazy life would be outside of the EU. I've read (and take this with a grain of salt, because I can't find a reference for this) some claims that if the Referendum had been binding, the courts would have cancelled the results due to the shady work of the Leave campaign.

On top of that, one of the arguments is that no one really understood what Brexit would look like at the time. Those that want to stop Brexit entirely have argued for a revote, though there seems to be more support for the idea of a second referendum that offers more nuanced choices, such as Remain, Leave with a deal, or Leave with no deal. While support for leaving is still pretty near where it was three years ago, only 22% of respondents in this poll consider leaving with no deal a good outcome.

So, in the end, popular support for Brexit is about 50%, and that side won the Referendum in 2016. However, popular support for a No-Deal Brexit maxes out at 38% (44% oppose it). So it's reasonable for someone to claim they oppose Brexit, but will honor the will of the people as expressed in the Referendum, yet still oppose the No-Deal Brexit.  And that's mostly what's happening right now.

Well, that's the BBC narrative...

For example, most Brexiteers want a deal - no visa requirements, for example is one of those deals.  Even the USA has a no visa requirement deal with the EU.  But, are those same Brexiteers going to agree with Remaining in the EU because they can't get a no-visa travel deal?  Highly unlikely.

 

Quote

* No Deal Brexit is exactly what it sounds like.  The UK goes crashing out of the EU, with no customs negotiations or agreements between the EU and UK. Free travel across borders would no longer be permitted. The UK projections for what would happen under such a scenario include weeks, if not months, of unrest, food shortages, and medicine shortages. One of the thorniest issues has been that of Ireland, part of which is not part of the UK, and so half of the island would have to be locked down. There is a lot of anxiety that this could reopen some of the violence of the 80's and 90's.

That's the Remoaner narrative...  Food shortages, medicine shortages, lock down Ireland... laughable.  THIS IS THE UK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.  They won't even keep Somalians out of the EU and you think they'll stop Northern Ireland from coming down into Ireland?  And TRUMP is the President of the USA, not Obama.

 

Quote

** The current deal, negotiated by Theresa May, keeps the UK in a "customs union" that would prevent the need for a hard border between the Irelands. The hard core Brexiteers believe that is no Brexit at all--in the customs union, any goods that enter the EU through Norway will be taxed with the EU tariffs, and then no more tariffs can be applied.  So if those same goods go from Norway to the UK, the tariffs are paid and UK can apply no more.  Brexiteers consider that a violation of sovereignty. It also means that anyone in the EU may travel freely into the UK, meaning that the UK could not set strict entrance requirements. Again, Brexiteers consider that a violation of sovereignty. 

The Theresa May deal keeps the UK foreign policy under the control of the EU (which is the major issue that caused Brexit in the first place) while having no EU representation.  That's how stupid it is.  That's what you call a worse deal than a No Deal Brexit.

 

Quote

As far as I can tell, Theresa May's deal is about as good as you could hope for as a first step in a long process of disentangling the UK from the EU. But hard core Brexiteers are kind of all-or-nothing. 

No.  Theresa May deal is worse than Remain.  And I am fairly certain, although it's only my opinion, that that was exactly the purpose - so Brexit will fail.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent a week traveling with three Brits on a trip through Europe. All are befuddled by the Brexit mess. 

AFAIK, the referendum function in the U.K. is advisory, not binding. The consensus among my friends is that the whole thing was mishandled from the beginning.  Boris is trying to comply with the vote whether there is a so called “deal” with the EU or not. The reality seems to be that no one is at all sure where any of this all leads politically, hence the appearance of anarchy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2019 at 8:54 PM, mrmarklin said:

AFAIK, the referendum function in the U.K. is advisory, not binding. The consensus among my friends is that the whole thing was mishandled from the beginning. 

In other words, “Oh look at those peasants who think they can advice the Lords and actually get the Lord to do their bidding.”

Yeah.  Just saw Downton Abbey at the theater and was reminded that the Royals went on a countryside tour to appease the commoners fearing they’d go the route of the Russians and put them on the guillotine.  How little things have changed in the UK since.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to Brexit, I think a majority of Europe just want the Britains to finish it up, make up their minds, and be done with the drama and all of that.  There's extending a situation...and there's EXTENDING a situation.

Britain may not be tired of it, but I think a whole lot of others are.  It's like being held hostage by someone who cannot make up their mind.  Eventually everyone else gets fed up.

It seems that they don't want Brexit, but they also want Brexit.  They want a deal, but they don't want any deal that's reasonable (like Europe is going to lose everything just to let Britain have a bunch of advantages).  I think there are many that just want a resolution, any sort of resolution.

At this point I'd probably be in favor of the EU just kicking Britain out with or without a deal.  If Britain wants out, let them out and if they don't want to make a deal (and let's face it, they've had a TON of time to do so, just because they don't like what is offered is no reason to keep giving them extension after extension after extension) let them out without a deal.  Then, deal with the consequences of it in the channel, north sea, and North Ireland.

New says they have around 2 days now, after what...years of haggling.  If not, it's probably yet another extension?  Sigh.  Is there any point where the EU simply just says...can't we just finish this somehow, one way or the other?

Anyways, it's back in International News with the Queen's Speech.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to Brexit, I think a majority of Europe just want the Britains to finish it up, make up their minds, and be done with the drama and all of that.  There's extending a situation...and there's EXTENDING a situation.

Britain may not be tired of it, but I think a whole lot of others are.  It's like being held hostage by someone who cannot make up their mind.  Eventually everyone else gets fed up.

It seems that they don't want Brexit, but they also want Brexit.  They want a deal, but they don't want any deal that's reasonable (like Europe is going to lose everything just to let Britain have a bunch of advantages).  I think there are many that just want a resolution, any sort of resolution.

At this point I'd probably be in favor of the EU just kicking Britain out with or without a deal.  If Britain wants out, let them out and if they don't want to make a deal (and let's face it, they've had a TON of time to do so, just because they don't like what is offered is no reason to keep giving them extension after extension after extension) let them out without a deal.  Then, deal with the consequences of it in the channel, north sea, and North Ireland.

New says they have around 2 days now, after what...years of haggling.  If not, it's probably yet another extension?  Sigh.  Is there any point where the EU simply just says...can't we just finish this somehow, one way or the other?

Anyways, it's back in International News with the Queen's Speech.

Ok... this is backwards... so I'm going to "right-side-up" it...

 

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to Brexit, I think a majority of Europe just want the Britains to finish it up, make up their minds, and be done with the drama and all of that.  There's extending a situation...and there's EXTENDING a situation.

Britain may not be tired of it, but I think a whole lot of others are.  It's like being held hostage by someone who cannot make up their mind.  Eventually everyone else gets fed up.

It seems that they don't want Brexit, but they also want Brexit.  They want a deal, but they don't want any deal that's reasonable (like Europe is going to lose everything just to let Britain have a bunch of advantages).  I think there are many that just want a resolution, any sort of resolution.

The majority of Europe does not want anything to change, that's why British Remain MPs forced Boris to seek another Brexit extension by passing the Benn Act - they have confidence that the 26 EU members will continue agreeing to one. 

The majority of Brits on the other hand is tired of nothing happening and now more and more Brits are expressing support for No-Deal Brexit which is the reason why Nigel Farage was able to create a brand new political party and in 3 weeks seat MPs causing May to step down and Johnson to sit as PM... while pro-extension Corbyn is in a position to call for another general election but will not because he knew he is going to be in a weaker position than now if he does it just like what happened the last time.

 

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

At this point I'd probably be in favor of the EU just kicking Britain out with or without a deal.  If Britain wants out, let them out and if they don't want to make a deal (and let's face it, they've had a TON of time to do so, just because they don't like what is offered is no reason to keep giving them extension after extension after extension) let them out without a deal.  Then, deal with the consequences of it in the channel, north sea, and North Ireland.

The EU does not want Britain out THAT's the problem!  Article 50 is a process for an EU member to exit the union, there's no process for the EU to kick a member state out of the union.  It can only suspend member state's rights if they violate EU laws by invoking Article 7.

Britain has been trying to GET OUT.  The EU is not the one that drafts the deals - the exiting member is the one that drafts the deals - EU agrees or not.  Theresa May drafted several deals that she knew the EU will sign... but none of them can get through British Parliament.  Now Boris drafted a deal but the EU is squirming because they don't like it.  The EU has been reported to be "colluding" with some British MPs to kill the deal in Parliament and hope Boris will honor the Benn Act just like he told the British Supreme Court and get Brexit extended again.

 

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

New says they have around 2 days now, after what...years of haggling.  If not, it's probably yet another extension?  Sigh.  Is there any point where the EU simply just says...can't we just finish this somehow, one way or the other?

Boris will not extend, deal or no deal.  I'm fairly certain of it.  If he does, he is toast and will have to learn to code.  From reports, he is currently looking for loopholes in the Benn "Surrender" Act.  If he can't find loopholes, he has expressed to the EU head honchos that if they approve the extension, he will put Farage as their representative on the EU Council to "Trump Talk" all meetings and they will stop paying member dues.  If the EU invokes Article 7 on them, they'll take that as a sign that Britain doesn't have to honor any EU mandates.

And saying the EU wants Brexit finished... that is laughable.  The EU Economy is crumbling... Turkey is saber rattling... the US refuses to prop up NATO to save Europe... the US refuses to prop up the UN to save Europe... their only reprieve is that Greta did not win the Nobel Peace Price so they can save face as they stop spending on their #1 priority of fighting environmental extinction.

 

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Anyways, it's back in International News with the Queen's Speech.

You need to pay better attention on what's happening Internationally if you want to understand it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you that us Brits are fed up with the political carnage that has been Brexit. This process has been drawn out, damaging to all political parties, caused community tensions and taken up far too much political time, too much money which could have been better spent on national issues. We should remember that this started with David Cameron (2 PMs ago) seeking a referendum sure in the knowledge that the people would say remain and shut up the Eurosceptics in his own party.....There was no great appetite on the part of the UK to leave until the campaigning began and all sorts of claims (which have since been disproven) about how much better we would be outside of the EU - along with plenty of not so covert racism disguised as politics.... its been downhill ever since!!

There has been a flurry of planning over the last few months for contingencies should no deal take place https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-deal-readiness-report . The operation Yellowhammer document also makes for an interesting read. We have already seen loss of investment and companies moving financial services (our big earner) out of the UK in preparation for leaving the EU. Supermarkets have taken extra storage as they anticipate food shortages.  I have moved away from the Dover tunnel, but saw the building of huge car parks which will keep trucks held at boarder points from blocking the already congested motorways. The selling of certain medical supplies abroad has been suspended (by law) to ensure that we don't run out.

So today's latest shenanigans the Prime Minister has sent the letter seeking an extension to the EU as he was required by law, but has not signed it, and has also sent a letter explaining why the EU should not agree to an extension so that a no deal becomes inevitable.

The biggest complication is that we now have a minority part of the Conservative party in charge who do not have the backing of  many in their own party, do not have a majority and have lost members over this fiasco. But the opposition parties are a mess of their own making too and so cant do their job and hold the government to account

YUP we are sick of it too...... I know we seem like the cat that stands at the door mewing to get out that once you open the door refuses to leave.

Edited by KScience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 8:35 AM, KScience said:

There was no great appetite on the part of the UK to leave until the campaigning began and all sorts of claims (which have since been disproven) about how much better we would be outside of the EU - along with plenty of not so covert racism disguised as politics....

Ahh... another Remainer, I see.  You need some Farage-ing.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Ahh... another Remainer, I see.  You need some Farage-ing.  ;)

 

Sorry no I voted to leave.  I took a lot of time looking at the available information and realised that there was not enough to make a properly informed decision.  I never believed the "Boris Bus"  I didn't want rid of immigrants, but did see that the EU is  a bloated bureaucratic system and that too many interests dilute reasonable argument and effectiveness as an entity. I didnt for one minute believe that it would be a swift and easy exit (no divorce ever is) and knew that France and Germany could not afford to let us out without a bloody nose, as a warning to any other nations thinking this could be a good option. 

What I did think was that Parliament would have to good of the nation at heart, be able to come up with innovative solutions to the obvious issues and negotiate with a little more persuasion....I know, how foolish !!  The biggest issue is that MP's are not acting like parliamentarians.

 

As for Farage...... he is an odious man that has stirred up racial tensions throughout the country. He tries to be "a man of the people"  but his only interests are his own economic gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KScience said:

As for Farage...... he is an odious man that has stirred up racial tensions throughout the country. He tries to be "a man of the people"  but his only interests are his own economic gain.

They always say that... Trump "stirred up racial tensions"... Farage did the same... Italy's Salvini did the same... etc. etc.  You want strong national identity and borders... you're a racist.  It's tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a speech today, Johnson brought up the Bridge On The River Kwai and the poet Virgil🤣. I'd like to view the ITV Debate tomorrow, but not sure if they will carry it on their FB site or anywhere else for those outside the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this