Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[DigOutYourSoul]

Will there be a decision today?

[SweeperDee]

2 minutes ago, DigOutYourSoul said:

Will there be a decision today?

Most likely tomorrow or Monday at the latest.

The Irish QC was taking the piss, and was rightly slapped down for being overt about his intentions in solely focussing on the repercussions of Brexit on NI. I'm sympathetic with him but this is not the place to be banging on about it. 

Welsh Advocate General is doing really well so far.

Excited for what Major and Pannick say. 

[MuckleMoo]

Will there be a decision today?

Doubt it. Possibly tomorrow, more likely Monday

 

Edit sweeper beat me too it!

 

 

[hearthammer]

I believe the ultimate decision in this case will speak volumes as to whether the ""4 equal partners" bullshit is seen exist in real terms.  Hope de pfeffelll gets his tatties served up in one great dollop. 

[ICTJohnboy]

33 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

Most likely tomorrow or Monday at the latest.

The Irish QC was taking the piss, and was rightly slapped down for being overt about his intentions in solely focussing on the repercussions of Brexit on NI. I'm sympathetic with him but this is not the place to be banging on about it. 

Welsh Advocate General is doing really well so far.

Excited for what Major and Pannick say. 

 

He was, wasn't he? One of the best speakers so far.

Shame Sky News cut him off in his prime to break for the news headlines at 12.00.

[The OP]

43 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Nope. I think the barriers for an Indian should be no higher than for a Romanian. So, instead of chucking baseless insults about, I ask you again to find one thing I have said that shows that I dislike people from other countries. You obviously spent half an hour trawling but found nothing. Keep trying, though.

I obviously spent no time at all looking over your presumably pointless posting history. Your argument is specious and your position is disingenuous. You want to increase barriers against Romanians moving here. That's it. 

[SweeperDee]

We have it clear as day that there’s nothing stopping the executive to continually prorogue, even if the court deems it unlawful. Indeed, it’s one of the governments own submissions which say that the PM is considering that action. I think the court are going to issue a real corrective remedy to this, as that line of action is tantamount to frustrating the purpose of parliament indefinitely.

[Pet Jeden]

27 minutes ago, The OP said:

I obviously spent no time at all looking over your presumably pointless posting history. Your argument is specious and your position is disingenuous. You want to increase barriers against Romanians moving here. That's it. 

No, I don’t. But you just want a barrier around Europe that discriminates against goods and people from the rest of the world. Essentially a racist stance.

So, apart from ascribing false motives to me, you can’t back up your xenophobic accusation? Okay, I can tell you are embarrassed. No need to apologise just now. You can do it later after you have had time to reflect. In the meantime, work on your reasoning skills.

[Antlion]

16 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

No, I don’t. But you just want a barrier around Europe that discriminates against goods and people from the rest of the world. Essentially a racist stance.

So, apart from ascribing false motives to me, you can’t back up your xenophobic accusation? Okay, I can tell you are embarrassed. No need to apologise just now. You can do it later after you have had time to reflect. In the meantime, work on your reasoning skills.

So because the UK as a union has open borders only between its member nations and discriminates against goods and people who are not British, you are arguing that the UK is racist. Cool.

[tirso]

it's insane that the extremes of sides are now debated as moral truths rather than understanding that truths are generally in the middle.

Communities need protectionism.  It also needs to compete.  Obviously balances need struck. 

We probably need some form of protectionism within the EU and as an EU bloc.  

Scotland discriminates against English residing students in order to provide Education.  It's not racist in any way, it's simple economics.  It's protecting a good policy.

We'll end up throwing out nation states to appear non-Trump.  And the others are throwing out trade deals in reaction to a changing world.  Madness.  

 

[Granny Danger]

16 minutes ago, tirso said:

it's insane that the extremes of sides are now debated as moral truths rather than understanding that truths are generally in the middle.

Communities need protectionism.  It also needs to compete.  Obviously balances need struck. 

We probably need some form of protectionism within the EU and as an EU bloc.  

Scotland discriminates against English residing students in order to provide Education.  It's not racist in any way, it's simple economics.  It's protecting a good policy.

We'll end up throwing out nation states to appear non-Trump.  And the others are throwing out trade deals in reaction to a changing world.  Madness.  

 

If someone can interpret this post I’ll be grateful.

[The OP]

On 19/09/2019 at 12:56, Pet Jeden said:

No, I don’t. But you just want a barrier around Europe that discriminates against goods and people from the rest of the world. Essentially a racist stance.

So, apart from ascribing false motives to me, you can’t back up your xenophobic accusation? Okay, I can tell you are embarrassed. No need to apologise just now. You can do it later after you have had time to reflect. In the meantime, work on your reasoning skills.

Here is the dummies' guide. 

The United Kingdom has various rules,  treaties and agreements affecting the rights of citizens of all other countries on Earth to move to the UK. You have no say on any of these rules, treaties and agreements other than electing an MP to Parliament who has a 1/650 vote. Most MPs who stand in your constituency will be members of parties who have an immigration policy however these political parties will not make any specific promises other than to cut or increase immigration. If the UK wants to strike deals with the EU and non-EU countries post-Brexit those countries will negotiate (inter alia) the provision of visas for their citizens and vice versa. You will have no say in this either. 

The treaties, rules and agreements governing EU member states allow for free movement of people between member states. The UK and its elected officials helped formulate and pass these rules because they considered it to be part of a mutually beneficial arrangement. In any event, there are some allowances so this movement is not unfettered but you (again) have no say in whether those allowances are used other than voting for an MP with a 1/650 vote. 

Your logic (as per your previous post) was that less free movement with Europe results in more free movement between the UK and India. That is a false dichotomy. The rules governing Indian people moving here are already established and are not guaranteed to change post-Brexit. There is a good chance that they will because we may want to strike a better trade deal with India and also fill a labour shortage or skills gap because Brexit is likely to harm our economy. If India demand as part of a trade deal that more Indians can move here you have no say in whether we change our rules other than changing your single vote for your 1/650 MP. 

You either believe the rubbish you are posting about the UK not having a say in Freedom of Movement and Brexit giving Indian citizens a fairer crack of the whip or you are simply opposed to freedom of movement from the member states. This means you are either stupid or disingenuous in bringing the Indians into it. If you have a reasoned argument for opposing freedom of movement which explains why it is necessarily different from freedom of movement between Scotland and Cornwall, fair enough. If you have a reasoned argument as to why Freedom of Movement is something we should abandon despite all of the economic forecasts suggesting it will be a disaster, fair enough. If not, I will continue to presume xenophobia and you will continue to respond in an arrogant and dismissive manner which mimics mine but carries none of the same flair. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by The OP

[CaspianChris]

What happens if the Supreme Court finds this prorogation unlawful, I assume Boris will be ordered to restore Parliament to its session.

In that case if Boris refuses to comply with such a court order what course of action can be taken against him.

If a court is defied then the individual would be in contempt of court, however I am not sure how that would apply in a constitutional court case like this and in particularly the PM of the day. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Tariffs - equal partner - International trade liberalisation treaties need a positive vote - what the f**k use is a veto for that?

-whats the point of pulling out of a trade block with good trade deals for lesser deals just so Tories get richer?

Fish - "equal partner" - Aye, with Luxembourg. 1/28th say. Is it not QMV anyway?

1/28th but equal, veto.

Freedom of Movement. Every time you parrot like a sheep "equal partner", do you mind if I repeat 1/28 ? You might have a point about enforcement. But still means rights available to eastern Europe that are not avaialable to say India.

-thats for the UK to decide re India. Im quite happy to have free movement with anyone so long as certain conditions are met.

ECHR - the principle. I'm happy for any form of rights in Scotland to be determined at no higher level than Westminster. In fact I'm happy at Edinburgh level. Not Strasbourg. Go try and tell the Catalans how the ECHR protected them.

-on the whole I support the premise and most of its decisions, but do I trust westminster to ensure workers and human rights are fairly balanced? Given they want to scrap the conventions, working time regs and reduce maternity leave etc? Do I f**k.

Bulk of Euro bale-out money - what's your point? UK wasn't in the Euro and while would probably have been happy to help Greece unilaterally, was bounced into acquiescing in questionable use of EU resources.

- its part and parcel of being in a union. Scotland bails out the UK and the unionists seem ok with that.


EU Army - I trust the Independent isn't too right wing a paper for you to trust - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/emmanuel-macron-eu-army-european-france-angela-merkel-germany-trump-a8631806.html

-im personally fine and supportive of an EU army, especially given the UK would have a major say in its set up.

You're good with words and you sound plausible, mate. But you're a chancer, pure and simple.

Aw shucks! I like you too!
But your point about the veto isnt as cut and dried as you want, you paint it as if 27 say yes then the UK has to go with it, they dont.

[SweeperDee]

It appears, and I can’t stress “appears” enough, that the government have been roundly fucked on both cases by Pannick and co. Decision early next week according to Lady Hale. They were very keen to hear the remedies put forward by Pannick, which can only be a good thing as they didn’t seem arsed about the government remedies at all. Reckon it could be as much as 9-2/10-1 against the Govt.

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, The OP said:

Here is the dummies' guide. 

The United Kingdom has various rules,  treaties and agreements affecting the rights of citizens of all other countries on Earth move to the UK. You have no say on any of these rules, treaties and agreements other than electing an MP to Parliament who has a 1/650 vote. Most MPs who stand in your constituency will be members of parties who have an immigration policy however these political parties will not make any specific promises other than to cut or increase immigration. If the UK wants to strike deals with the EU and non-EU countries post-Brexit those countries will negotiate (inter alia) the provision of visas for their citizens and vice versa. You will have no say in this either. 

The treaties, rules and agreements governing EU member states allow for free movement of people between member states. The UK and its elected officials helped formulate and pass these rules because they considered it to be part of a mutually beneficial arrangement. In any event, there are some allowances so this movement is not unfettered but you (again) have no say in whether those allowances are used other than voting for an MP with a 1/650 vote. 

Your logic (as per your previous post) was that less free movement with Europe results in more free movement between the UK and India. That is a false dichotomy. The rules governing Indian people moving here are already established and are not guaranteed to change post-Brexit. There is a good chance that they will because we may want to strike a better trade deal with India and also fill a labour shortage or skills gap because Brexit is likely to harm our economy. If India demand as part of a trade deal that more Indians can move here you have no say in whether we change our rules other than changing your single vote for your 1/650 MP. 

You either believe the rubbish you are posting about the UK not having a say in Freedom of Movement and Brexit giving Indian citizens a fairer crack of the whip or you are simply opposed to freedom of movement from the member states. This means you are either stupid or disingenuous in bringing the Indians into it. If you have a reasoned argument for opposing freedom of movement which explains why it is necessarily different from freedom of movement between Scotland and Cornwall, fair enough. If you have a reasoned argument as to why Freedom of Movement is something we should abandon despite all of the economic forecasts suggesting it will be a disaster, fair enough. If not, I will continue to presume xenophobia and you will continue to respond in an arrogant and dismissive manner which mimics mine but carries none of the same flair. 

Good to see you’ve not lost your composure OP. I take it you are not used to being told you’re wrong?

btw I realise my 1 vote towards 1/650 MPs is puny. But is it more or less than 1/(650 x 28)?

[The OP]

29 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Good to see you’ve not lost your composure OP. I take it you are not used to being told you’re wrong?

btw I realise my 1 vote towards 1/650 MPs is puny. But is it more or less than 1/(650 x 28)?

It's really odd that people on here infer annoyance when you make a measured, detailed and withering response when I absolutely bloody love making them. 

[madwullie]

5 hours ago, The OP said:

Here is the dummies' guide. 

The United Kingdom has various rules,  treaties and agreements affecting the rights of citizens of all other countries on Earth move to the UK. You have no say on any of these rules, treaties and agreements other than electing an MP to Parliament who has a 1/650 vote. Most MPs who stand in your constituency will be members of parties who have an immigration policy however these political parties will not make any specific promises other than to cut or increase immigration. If the UK wants to strike deals with the EU and non-EU countries post-Brexit those countries will negotiate (inter alia) the provision of visas for their citizens and vice versa. You will have no say in this either. 

The treaties, rules and agreements governing EU member states allow for free movement of people between member states. The UK and its elected officials helped formulate and pass these rules because they considered it to be part of a mutually beneficial arrangement. In any event, there are some allowances so this movement is not unfettered but you (again) have no say in whether those allowances are used other than voting for an MP with a 1/650 vote. 

Your logic (as per your previous post) was that less free movement with Europe results in more free movement between the UK and India. That is a false dichotomy. The rules governing Indian people moving here are already established and are not guaranteed to change post-Brexit. There is a good chance that they will because we may want to strike a better trade deal with India and also fill a labour shortage or skills gap because Brexit is likely to harm our economy. If India demand as part of a trade deal that more Indians can move here you have no say in whether we change our rules other than changing your single vote for your 1/650 MP. 

You either believe the rubbish you are posting about the UK not having a say in Freedom of Movement and Brexit giving Indian citizens a fairer crack of the whip or you are simply opposed to freedom of movement from the member states. This means you are either stupid or disingenuous in bringing the Indians into it. If you have a reasoned argument for opposing freedom of movement which explains why it is necessarily different from freedom of movement between Scotland and Cornwall, fair enough. If you have a reasoned argument as to why Freedom of Movement is something we should abandon despite all of the economic forecasts suggesting it will be a disaster, fair enough. If not, I will continue to presume xenophobia and you will continue to respond in an arrogant and dismissive manner which mimics mine but carries none of the same flair. 

Sair. Yin

[Cerberus]

Pat has reeled in some big fish here.

[The OP]

26 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

Pat has reeled in some big fish here.

Aye very good. The alternative theory is he’s a moron Brexiteer like 51% of this United Kingdom.