Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Ed Miliband
The Humiliation of Boris Johnson yesterday by Ed Miliband was classic .
He pointed out the lifetime of lies that Boris has told about the E/U.
Fat Tounged, Slack Jawed, Wide eyed, and Wobbling sat Boris on the front bench Alone. and faced down his inevitable humiliation.As miliband calmly laid out before him one by one,, each of Boris's many many lies,
that had made him PM, Boris could do nothing but shake his head, and force short grunts. It was classic , just like Geoffrey Howe Bringing down Thatcher.
He pointed out the lifetime of lies that Boris has told about the E/U.
Fat Tounged, Slack Jawed, Wide eyed, and Wobbling sat Boris on the front bench Alone. and faced down his inevitable humiliation.As miliband calmly laid out before him one by one,, each of Boris's many many lies,
that had made him PM, Boris could do nothing but shake his head, and force short grunts. It was classic , just like Geoffrey Howe Bringing down Thatcher.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, the Lords is likely to reject it in my opinion.
Boris isn't firing on all cylinders at the moment- he has clearly been affected by Covid and may in time decide he can't carry on. But I think gulliver overstates the performances of Keir and Ed Miliband- they have an easy job criticising from the sidelines with lots of hindsight and no accountability, although it must be depressing for them knowing they have little power to change anything for 4 years.
Boris isn't firing on all cylinders at the moment- he has clearly been affected by Covid and may in time decide he can't carry on. But I think gulliver overstates the performances of Keir and Ed Miliband- they have an easy job criticising from the sidelines with lots of hindsight and no accountability, although it must be depressing for them knowing they have little power to change anything for 4 years.
Under the 1949 Parliament Act, the Lords can delay Bills for up to a year.
https:/
https:/
It's amazing at times how radically different the interpretation of a speech can be based on your politics. I (obviously) thought Miliband made some excellent points, and TTT thinks that Miliband apparently wouldn't have been out of place in a high school debate, and it's the exact same thing we're evaluating. I mean, I'm not amazed really, this is how subjectivity works, but still.
On the other hand, has anybody here even read the Bill in question? Or are we now at the point where all the Government needs to do is print "BREXIT!!!" in large font at the top, and everything that follows is irrelevant as long as it looks pretty? Why doesn't detail matter?
From what I've seen of the Bill, I suspect that most of it is reasonable, and all the Government needs to do is scrap the pretence that breaking International Law is in any eventuality the right course, and it would enjoy broader support. That's the sticking point, and nothing Johnson said yesterday explained why it was so important to have that. Indeed, at one point he made the claim that the EU was acting in bad faith, a claim that is undermined by his Government's own official submissions the very same day:
"I regret to have to tell the House that in recent months the EU has suggested that it is willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths... My honorable friend [Andrea Jenkyns] is entirely right [that the EU refuses to negotiate in good faith]." (Johnson in his speech)
"The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith..." (Brandon Lewis, submission to Northern Ireland Committee, that same day).
Which is it? This and a host of other transparent contradictions surely need addressing, whether or not you agree with the Government's ultimate strategy.
On the other hand, has anybody here even read the Bill in question? Or are we now at the point where all the Government needs to do is print "BREXIT!!!" in large font at the top, and everything that follows is irrelevant as long as it looks pretty? Why doesn't detail matter?
From what I've seen of the Bill, I suspect that most of it is reasonable, and all the Government needs to do is scrap the pretence that breaking International Law is in any eventuality the right course, and it would enjoy broader support. That's the sticking point, and nothing Johnson said yesterday explained why it was so important to have that. Indeed, at one point he made the claim that the EU was acting in bad faith, a claim that is undermined by his Government's own official submissions the very same day:
"I regret to have to tell the House that in recent months the EU has suggested that it is willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths... My honorable friend [Andrea Jenkyns] is entirely right [that the EU refuses to negotiate in good faith]." (Johnson in his speech)
"The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith..." (Brandon Lewis, submission to Northern Ireland Committee, that same day).
Which is it? This and a host of other transparent contradictions surely need addressing, whether or not you agree with the Government's ultimate strategy.
Can't wait a year if you need this legislation by December...
A more likely avenue if it got that far would be a second piece of legislation that repeals the previous Parliament Act and replaces it with a more aggressive one, curbing the power of the Lords still further. But it may not go that far yet.
The simple fact is, though, that the UK is proposing legislation that would breach its Treaty Obligations, in a Treaty it only signed and ratified this year. Why that should be desirable is anybody's guess. If you don't like the Treaty you signed then, tough. You signed it, and dictum meum pactum as Johnson might say.
A more likely avenue if it got that far would be a second piece of legislation that repeals the previous Parliament Act and replaces it with a more aggressive one, curbing the power of the Lords still further. But it may not go that far yet.
The simple fact is, though, that the UK is proposing legislation that would breach its Treaty Obligations, in a Treaty it only signed and ratified this year. Why that should be desirable is anybody's guess. If you don't like the Treaty you signed then, tough. You signed it, and dictum meum pactum as Johnson might say.
In effect, this legislation would override the Northern Ireland Protocol part of the Withdrawal Agreement. That Protocol comes into force on January 1, 2021, unless another Trade Deal is reached and ratified before then.
If you were to wait a year, then, you'd have to "endure" nine months of the negotiated arrangements with the EU, or hope for a Trade Deal in the coming weeks.
If you were to wait a year, then, you'd have to "endure" nine months of the negotiated arrangements with the EU, or hope for a Trade Deal in the coming weeks.
jim:"Can't wait a year if you need this legislation by December... " - we don't need to by December, in fact we may not actually need it at all, if necessary we'll wait a year, though I suspect the Turkey's in the HOL will not vote for Xmas, they'll play ping ping till their nerve goes. All the government is doing is saying that UK law will take precedence should a conflict arise in the NI situation. What other country in the world would not protect it's own interests ahead of the rest? The anti British amaze me sometimes.
// What other country in the world would not protect it's own interests ahead of the rest? //
It depends on how you go about it. Protecting our own interests is fine. Signing a Treaty and then breaking that Treaty unilaterally is not. This isn't difficult. If you want to go out and deal with other countries then they clearly need to be able to trust that you'll do what you say you'll do. This is why International Law exists, and this is also why we kick up a fuss when other nations act recklessly in violation of International Law.
It depends on how you go about it. Protecting our own interests is fine. Signing a Treaty and then breaking that Treaty unilaterally is not. This isn't difficult. If you want to go out and deal with other countries then they clearly need to be able to trust that you'll do what you say you'll do. This is why International Law exists, and this is also why we kick up a fuss when other nations act recklessly in violation of International Law.
