So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News8 mins ago
Ben Act Letwin Amendment Palava..
this is seriously getting on my nerves, this whole brexit thwarting tactics....errr
i just want to see an end to it, leave obviously..how long can this go on, court cases to stop it
were all going to die, were doomed etc etc.
i just want to see an end to it, leave obviously..how long can this go on, court cases to stop it
were all going to die, were doomed etc etc.
Answers
I too don't understand the logic that No Deal (aka WTO terms) means impoverishme
17:44 Sat 19th Oct 2019
I hope so fender. I know that public sentiment is in favour of carrying out the 'Leave' vote, but only this morning OH had a chat with some people outside the newsagent's and they were mostly asking 'What is the point in voting any more?' People have already lost faith in the democratic process; the damage to our country is immense - thanks to strident Remainers, who have so much to answer for.
Tweet from Laura Kuenssberg
"Govt is sending three documents to the EU tonight - the 1st, the Benn Act extension letter, exactly as set out in law, but that PM has not personally signed; 2nd, a cover note from Sir Tim Barrow and the 3rd, a letter signed by the PM arguing that further delay is a mistake"
"Govt is sending three documents to the EU tonight - the 1st, the Benn Act extension letter, exactly as set out in law, but that PM has not personally signed; 2nd, a cover note from Sir Tim Barrow and the 3rd, a letter signed by the PM arguing that further delay is a mistake"
At the most recent case to go before the Court Of Session, the Advocate General said,
"that the Prime Minister accepts in relation to the 2019 Act:
...
...
That he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions. Thus he cannot act so as to prevent the letter requesting the specified extension in the Act from being sent.”
This will be going back to the Court again.
"that the Prime Minister accepts in relation to the 2019 Act:
...
...
That he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions. Thus he cannot act so as to prevent the letter requesting the specified extension in the Act from being sent.”
This will be going back to the Court again.
It isn't a question of leg-pulling, Naomi. I accept the result. I do not accept how it has been implemented. This particular deal is anyway unpopular even with some of the most ardent of Brexit supporters -- Nigel Farage included, for example.
In reply to NJ: this Withdrawal Agreement is not a trade deal, it is true, but it *is* an agreement to have a period of between one and three years during which trading arrangements continue as before. A No Deal exit means one of two scenarios: either one or both sides impose punitive tariffs, thus destroying various markets; or the UK engages in no such protectionist measures, our markets are flooded with cheaper products, and the UK's home products are undercut and likely wrecked. One need only read the analysis of the relevant markets to see why No Deal means impoverishment. Everybody knows it. Even Johnson does, which is why his idea of "No Deal" was merely a bargaining chip to force the EU to submit to his demands, and when that failed, to force Parliament to submit to his demands -- and, if that too fails, then to get the people to force Parliament to submit to his demands.
In reply to NJ: this Withdrawal Agreement is not a trade deal, it is true, but it *is* an agreement to have a period of between one and three years during which trading arrangements continue as before. A No Deal exit means one of two scenarios: either one or both sides impose punitive tariffs, thus destroying various markets; or the UK engages in no such protectionist measures, our markets are flooded with cheaper products, and the UK's home products are undercut and likely wrecked. One need only read the analysis of the relevant markets to see why No Deal means impoverishment. Everybody knows it. Even Johnson does, which is why his idea of "No Deal" was merely a bargaining chip to force the EU to submit to his demands, and when that failed, to force Parliament to submit to his demands -- and, if that too fails, then to get the people to force Parliament to submit to his demands.
This link includes the text of the PM's second letter.
https:/
https:/
Michael Gove disagrees. He said, in yesterday's debate, "Our democracy is a precious thing and our Parliament is a special place.
Our democracy depends on respect for difference and this Parliament thrives on respecting the sincerity and the commitment to public service of every member.
That is why I know deciding how to vote today, it is important that all of us recognise who argued to remain and still argue that it’s the best outcome, they do so as patriots.
But they take a different view from some of us."
Our democracy depends on respect for difference and this Parliament thrives on respecting the sincerity and the commitment to public service of every member.
That is why I know deciding how to vote today, it is important that all of us recognise who argued to remain and still argue that it’s the best outcome, they do so as patriots.
But they take a different view from some of us."
The law is a weird thing, it comes up with judgements contrary to common sense, as we've seen recently. This 3 letter thing may go to court since blockers seem to know no other way to behave, but since it appears to have covered the demands of the act it ought to get nowhere. Which probably means that the unbiased judges will have the opportunity to tell the government they're wrong again.
OG "It's not the Irish border that's the problem, so much as the EU's insistence that it won't take seriously the peace issue in Ireland and insist on a hard EU border. If they weren't determined to cause problems in order to get their own way, there'd be no border problem" - TBF I don't blame the EUSSR for weaponising the Border non issue, but I do blame the 5th column collaborators in the HOQ for allowing them to. All we needed to do was say from the start, if you want a border have a word with your vassall state.
jim: "A No Deal exit means one of two scenarios: either one or both sides impose punitive tariffs, thus destroying various markets" - err horror of horrors we could do a sensible free trade deal on day 1 "; or the UK engages in no such protectionist measures, our markets are flooded with cheaper products, and the UK's home products are undercut and likely wrecked" - I we engage in protectionist measures surely that stops us being flooded? That seems contradictory jim.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.