|
|
Post by Humph on Sept 11, 2019 10:49:14 GMT
I can see you will be ready soon Grasshopper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 12:15:24 GMT
I revisited t'other place and found it rather agressive in part so I tend to stick to the topics I actually enjoy; i.e. I avoid the Brexit threads! I do wish people would post as if the person they were responding to was two foot away from them and twice their size!
I like it here; far more relaxed...
|
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Sept 11, 2019 17:56:16 GMT
I've just given the old place a try, but it's evident that at least one racist idiot still posts on there, and that Otto and A.N. Other formerly of this parish have morphed into No Deal Brexiters. Jesus Christ. Dog has gone and Espada has returned as Netsur. Pat has been banned for arguing with Vx. I think that's wrong but I'm in a minority so hey ho. Roger pops up less and less frequently and when he does it's usually some old tut from 'Conservative Woman'. Otto/NoFM and Zero's advocacy of no deal is based on a 'pragmatic' assessment of where we are. I disagree but at least I can follow the logic that says jump now rather than the usual No Deal shtikk about immigration/fourth reich etc |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 21:41:28 GMT
So glad Dog has gone. He was the reason I left and also his departure the reason I looked back in. Still think it is not a totally pleasant place. Reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch...
As it happens, as a Remainer (albeit one who held my nose as I voted to remain), I too believe that we should just get on with Brexit and then work out where and what we want to be, otherwise we are just a laughing stock and no one can make long term plans. I am not convinced that the Europe that the Europhiles want and love, will actually last beyond the next 25 years. It is a shame, because as an economic group it made perfect sense.
|
|
Alanović
Full Member
Posts: 8,186 
Member is Online
|
Post by Alanović on Sept 12, 2019 8:34:38 GMT
I simply can't accept that anybody with an ounce of sense could countenance a no deal Brexit, particularly after the release of these Yellowhammer papers, which lay out for us the scale of unnecessary deaths, suffering, job losses and civil unrest which will ensue. "Getting on with" that would be an absolute abrogation of not just responsibility, but basic humanity. It's always price worth paying when it's someone else paying it, isn't it? Let's ask just one person who will suffer the loss of life saving medication if it's a price worth paying shall we? What say you to them?
I'll tell you where and what I want us to be. At the heart of Europe, leading. I will never stop arguing for that.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
|
Post by Rob on Sept 12, 2019 9:15:39 GMT
I'm with you on that Alanovic. I don't believe the document released is a worst case scenario. Some of what is in there is highly likely to happen like the holdups in Calais and Dover. And if that ones seen as likely then so are the others.
And the fact they decided to redact one piece of the document.... if it wasn't likely to happen then why are they so worried.
It will be interesting how the Supreme Court rules on Tuesday. With the differences in Scottish and English/Welsh law it might mean they rule differently on each. And then there's the case in NI too which will either be appealed by the Government or those bringing the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Sept 12, 2019 14:38:03 GMT
Not easy to summarise one's thoughts using a phone, but there are some fairly specious arguments being put forward, both by O and Z, and by others elsewhere.
Whilst it isn't going to happen unless someone grows a pair, indubitably the best solution for both UKplc and the wider UK is the rapid revocation of Article 50.
One of the views being put forward is that we've ruined our reputation, so we might as well get out. Actually, we've damaged our reputation whatever, but it doesn't compute that we should get out, particularly when, if we did so, we would immediately be into serious, long-term negotiations, with our reputation in tatters; not a good starting point. Better to swallow our pride, do what all external parties think is most sensible, stay in and manage our damaged relationship with existing trading arrangements retained and intact.
As for the reasoning that everyone is fed-up with wall to wall Brexit, the quickest way to remove it from agendas is to revoke Article 50!
An exit with a withdrawal agreement (an agreement to agree if ever there was one) foresees another two years of trying to agree with the EU what the future relationship will be. Given the situation to date, can anyone see that; being completed in 2 years; being (in UK terms) successful; not monopolising both parliament and the headlines in the interim; not being further divisive? (I'm also not sure how it leaves our position with third party relationships in the interim, but they are going to intrude at some point)
An exit with no deal is worse. Immediately into fraught negotiations with ALL parties, the disruption will be an order of magnitude greater than the above, and for longer.
Neither leave option gives a snowball in hell's chance of either ensuring trading stability, or removing the current societal disruption for years to come.
OTOH, remain puts us back in a more stable trading footing immediately, allowing welcome bandwidth to handle the sociopolitical aspects.
Given the Leave camp is split, there is an interesting take on this:
Leave with a deal will p-off the remainers and no-dealers.
Leave with no deal will p-off the remainers and the dealers.
Remain will p-off both sets of leavers.
By any maths, given at worst 52/48 that means least people are p'd-off by remain, we get immediate stability, and I would bet that, whilst the stance that we should have left will remain, six months down the line of remaining, an awful lot more people will simply be glad that Brexit isn't dominating everything.
Would take some balls, though.
|
|
Alanović
Full Member
Posts: 8,186
Member is Online
|
Post by Alanović on Sept 12, 2019 14:45:01 GMT
Balls? If Jo Swinson becomes PM, she'll be doing it, balls or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 17:30:17 GMT
Actually we should just simply have a new referendum. Remain/out wth deal/out without deal. STV method and may the best man win.
I'm not totally convinced about the total disaster that would occur if we left on 31st Oct without a deal. How do the Channel Islands or Canaries cope - they are out of the EU? I know we are a lot bigger so surely we have much better buying power?
The tariffs are for import not export; any one in the EU can sell to us if we have an open border, surely...
|
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Sept 12, 2019 18:17:30 GMT
It's complicated; which is why people tend to think it's simple. When you dig into these things you find there is little encouragement.
For example:
The Channel Islands are outwith the EU, but as part of the UK's entry, are part of the Customs Union, and part of the single market for goods. They get a lot of the benefits of the EU without paying (or indeed receiving subsidies) If/when the UK leaves, then both these arrangements will cease (as the current proposals for the UK encompass neither of these). Most CI residents didn't get a chance to vote in the referendum either.
As regards tariffs, without free trade agreements (with the EU or whoever) we will fall back on WTO rules. Problem with that is that "most favoured nation" then comes into play. If we choose to trade with the EU on WTO and a zero tariff basis (to emulate the current free trade agreements) then we have to trade with everyone else at zero tariff (category by category). The effect on some home businesses/industries could be catastrophic.
It is entirely clear that leaving one of the world's largest trading blocs is so stupid, it defies even a rude epithet.
|
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Sept 12, 2019 19:36:37 GMT
I'm with you on that Alanovic. I don't believe the document released is a worst case scenario. Some of what is in there is highly likely to happen like the holdups in Calais and Dover. And if that ones seen as likely then so are the others. And the fact they decided to redact one piece of the document.... if it wasn't likely to happen then why are they so worried. It will be interesting how the Supreme Court rules on Tuesday. With the differences in Scottish and English/Welsh law it might mean they rule differently on each. And then there's the case in NI too which will either be appealed by the Government or those bringing the case. I think that is a serious possibility. Several legal commentators have pointed out the precedent/convention that have lead E&W courts to decide they cannot touch this stuff don't apply in Scotland where the system is closer to European principles. Does the Supreme Court have to decide if English or Scottish interpretation prevails? Faced with that in their shoes I'd be looking for any reason to conclude Inner House was wrong but Scots memebers of the court might feel a principles/resignation conflict was in place. Alternative is PM being carried to Tower in chains or forced to resign based on Scottish Law alone. What a bloody mess... Perceptive speakers in Commons debates on referendum act saw some risks to Union but could anybody predict this? |
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Sept 12, 2019 20:12:53 GMT
Surely, if English and Scottish law are different, then in all cases the Supreme Court must assess any appeal against the law in the jurisdiction that it was first heard?
Any approach other than this would be a mockery of separate legislation. (e.g. I could appeal a drink drive conviction for 55mg, which is over the Scottish limit, but under the English - a trite example, I know but illustrative).
It is clear that, if custom and practice is different under each jurisdiction then there may be the same, or different, outcomes for each leg. And unless there is clear precedent or instruction, that could still be either way.
Nonetheless, if it IS illegal under Scottish law, then it IS illegal, as the jurisdiction will apply.
(Boris then might support indyref2 ;-) )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 20:58:01 GMT
>Alternative is PM being carried to Tower in chains..
I'd buy a ticket for that.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
|
Post by Rob on Sept 12, 2019 21:36:56 GMT
The English High Court didn't really rule on the case did they? They said it was not for the English court to get involved - they did not say the Government /Boris had not broken laws. The Scottish Inner Court has now rules that the action was not legal.
So could the Supreme Court just agree the English High Court did not have to rule on this but uphold the Scottish Inner Court decision?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 4:41:37 GMT
So a court which deals with 5m people gets to overrule one dealing 55m people. That's democracy!
|
|
