Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

FrancieBrady

Igotadose wrote: »

Wow so all he is, is a PR spokesperson. No wonder he seemed so unenthusiastic the other day at his presser. I hope "Led by Donkeys" dogs his every footstep.

BXP are goners imo, without Farage running for a seat. Unfortunately chancers like Farage are always able to get their mugs on TV, without any serious challenge like, "Ever held political office in the UK?" What a sad, scary joke this tool is.

TBH it is quite a smart move.
As a 'new' MP he would have to invest too much time in one place to try to get elected.
This way he can pop up in all the key constituencies they can do damage to the established voting patterns.

We are gonna have 'to listen to him' anyway!

Joe_ Public

FrancieBrady wrote: »

TBH it is quite a smart move.
As a 'new' MP he would have to invest too much time in one place to try to get elected.
This way he can pop up in all the key constituencies they can do damage to the established voting patterns.

We are gonna have 'to listen to him' anyway!

A very convenient excuse if you ask me from a man who has contemplated the risk of another election failure and concluded it isnt worth it. Instead put others in the firing line and accept the credit if or when it goes right.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

TBH it is quite a smart move.
As a 'new' MP he would have to invest too much time in one place to try to get elected.
This way he can pop up in all the key constituencies they can do damage to the established voting patterns.

We are gonna have 'to listen to him' anyway!

I dont know, I think the Gammons will find this hard to square: they are all about the dunkirk spirit, 'do or die', etc (honorable exception for Boris, of course) This is an obvious avoidance of being judged by the electorate again - after the bloody nose they gave him last time.

It puts him on the back foot at the very least.

But then, the bar seems to be pretty low, so who knows?.

FrancieBrady

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A very convenient excuse if you ask me from a man who has contemplated the risk of another election failure and concluded it isnt worth it. Instead put others in the firing line and accept the credit if or when it goes right.

To be fair, they make no bones about the fact they are in it to 'spoil' rather than for seats.
Nigel has been told often enough (7 times?) that he is not wanted as an MP.

Joe_ Public

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To be fair, they make no bones about the fact they are in it to 'spoil' rather than for seats.
Nigel has been told often enough (7 times?) that he is not wanted as an MP.

To spoil who or what exactly though? Talking about damaging labour party this morning but all logic suggests they'll hurt tories more. Is that somehow what he actually wants? Struggling to see the direction of it.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nigel has been told often enough (7 times?) that he is not wanted as an MP.

I didn't realise it was that many. Good lord, the man has more front than Brighton.

FrancieBrady

Joe_ Public wrote: »

To spoil who or what exactly though? Talking about damaging labour party this morning but all logic suggests they'll hurt tories more. Is that somehow what he actually wants? Struggling to see the direction of it.

Yes...the Brexit Party want to force prospective MP's to commit to a clear leave path. If they don't, they will offer the 'alternative'.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have already said, Parliament CAN reject if it wishes. What is wrong with you?

Here is the process in bullet points.

1. The Irish people vote to unify.

2. Without any further consultation wit Parliament, the two governments work out the terms/legislation of the handover.

3. The government of GB brings that before parliament for ratification.
Parliament can if it wishes reject that agreement/legislation in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is forcing the government to break an international agreement where it agreed to 'give effect' to the wishes of the Irish people.

i.e Parliament can always vote to break the GFA agreement. Haven't you been paying attention?

no, Francis, you are not paying attention.

Voting against legislation to unify Ireland IS NOT BREAKING THE GFA. PARLIAMENT HAS NO OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT.

If a referendum in Northern Ireland showed a will to unify Ireland and, Parliament could, quite legally, vote down any legislation and no laws, treaties or any other agreements have been broken.

On the basis that the government has put this legislation forward to Parliament, then it is meeting its obligations under the GFA, because that is all the government is obliged to do. This applies to both country's parliaments by the way, not just the UK.

So, if this happened, would you shrug your shoulders and say oh well, it may have been the will of the people, but the referendum was only consultative and parliament don't like it, so we'll have to cancel it.

Joe_ Public

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes...the Brexit Party want to force prospective MP's to commit to a clear leave path. If they don't, they will offer the 'alternative'.

If theyre saying candidates have to commit to a new deal brexit, and speculation this morning that tory manifesto will rule it out or at least put some distance from it, then they're going to be offering themselves as the alternative in nearly every constituency. Which just decreases the chances of brexit happening at all. Mind you, the same counterintuitive dynamic is present on the other side too with the liberal democrats.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

no, Francis, you are not paying attention.

Voting against legislation to unify Ireland IS NOT BREAKING THE GFA. PARLIAMENT HAS NO OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT.

If a referendum in Northern Ireland showed a will to unify Ireland and, Parliament could, quite legally, vote down any legislation and no laws, treaties or any other agreements have been broken.

On the basis that the government has put this legislation forward to Parliament, then it is meeting its obligations under the GFA, because that is all the government is obliged to do. This applies to both country's parliaments by the way, not just the UK.

So, if this happened, would you shrug your shoulders and say oh well, it may have been the will of the people, but the referendum was only consultative and parliament don't like it, so we'll have to cancel it.

So you are having a little Unionist wet dream...that 'Parliament' will ride to rescue if hardy comes to hardy.

Aegir...'Parliament' have already ratified the GFA...i.e. 'committed to it's terms' when they passed the Northern Ireland Act 1998...something you were totally unaware of or willfully/or in vain hope - ignoring.

If they fail to 'give effect to the wishes of the people of Ireland, they do so, in the full knowledge that they are breaking the GFA.

And that my friend is the difference between the two situations...there was no such Act covering the Referendum in 2016, it was and still is, a 'non-binding' referendum, regardless of the personal promises of David Cameron or anybody else.

Bannasidhe

I have to say if I was still living in England my thinking on the various parties stance when considering my vote would be:

Conservatives - Lurching ever right ward. Untold damage done to society by austerity measures. A frankly untrustworthy PM. Leading MPs dodging serious questions about the Leave Campaign. Internal party politics one of the reasons Brexit has not happened for all their guff about 'will of the people. Their campaign 'promises' don't hold up to even cursory scrutiny.
LibDem - Although I would be a solid Remainer I feel their insistence on a straight revoke would be divisive and undemocratic. I also cannot shake the view that they are Tory-lite. The natural home of the Wets who find the current incarnation of the CP unpalatable but who would still pursue what are essentially Tory policies.
Labour - Although many decades ago I resigned from the LP and never voted for them again, I think their nuanced approach is the best option to try and heal a fractured country. Give the electorate a genuine choice between two clear options. Campaign for neither lest either be seen as 'the will of parliament'.
I also think protecting the NHS, renationalising the appallingly run rail network, expansion of worker's employment rights etc are goals I support.
Brexit Party - don't make me laugh mate.

If I lived in Scotland it would be SNP. None of the 3 parties listed above have records re: Scotland that would make me even consider them.

briany

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Labour - Although many decades ago I resigned from the LP and never voted for them again, I think their nuanced approach is the best option to try and heal a fractured country. Give the electorate a genuine choice between two clear options. Campaign for neither lest either be seen as 'the will of parliament'.

It might be difficult for a Labour-LD coalition to get a 2nd referendum enacted. LAB-LD look pretty unlikely to clinch any kind of majority right now, but even if they did, the majority they hold could be so slim, that a few Labour rebels, who vote against or abstain would be enough to spoil it.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are having a little Unionist wet dream...that 'Parliament' will ride to rescue if hardy comes to hardy.

Aegir...'Parliament' have already ratified the GFA...i.e. 'committed to it's terms' when they passed the Northern Ireland Act 1998...something you were totally unaware of or willfully/or in vain hope - ignoring.

If they fail to 'give effect to the wishes of the people of Ireland, they do so, in the full knowledge that they are breaking the GFA.

And that my friend is the difference between the two situations...there was no such Act covering the Referendum in 2016, it was and still is, a 'non-binding' referendum, regardless of the personal promises of David Cameron or anybody else.

ok, lets try this, but before we do, please have a read of this

Show me, in quoted text, the part of the GFA that PARLIAMENT would be breaking if they voted against unification of Ireland.

There is no obligations on Parliament, there can be no obligations on Parliament, because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament to legislation. That is a basic, underlining element of constitutional law and is how Parliament gets its sovereignty.

Bannasidhe

briany wrote: »

It might be difficult for a Labour-LD coalition to get a 2nd referendum enacted. LAB-LD look pretty unlikely to clinch any kind of majority right now, but even if they did, the majority they hold could be so slim, that a few Labour rebels, who vote against or abstain would be enough to spoil it.

Have the LD's even said they support a 2nd Ref?

I also find the idea of a LP/LD coalition odd given Swinson's constant attacks on Corbyn. If she agrees then it makes her very personal attacks on him look like empty posturing and the empty posturer role is currently amply filled by Boris'.
Should she insist the LP change their leader to one more to her liking if they want coalition then she should be told to take a hike. Like him or dislike him Corbyn was elected by the members of the LP to be the leader and no other political party should have any input into that process.
Imagine the outrage if Corbyn said he would agree to a coalition with the LD's provided Swinson stood down as leader :P

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

ok, lets try this, but before we do, please have a read of this

Show me, in quoted text, the part of the GFA that PARLIAMENT would be breaking if they voted against unification of Ireland.

There is no obligations on Parliament, there can be no obligations on Parliament, because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament to legislation. That is a basic, underlining element of constitutional law and is how Parliament gets its sovereignty.

From Google,

If both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted in favour of reunification, the Good Friday Agreement states that it “will be a binding obligation on both governments to introduce and support in their respective parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.


So they'd be bound by the vote at the time? This conversation is pointless if so

briany

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have the LD's even said they support a 2nd Ref?

I also find the idea of a LP/LD coalition odd given Swinson's constant attacks on Corbyn. If she agrees then it makes her very personal attacks on him look like empty posturing and the empty posturer role is currently amply filled by Boris'.
Should she insist the LP change their leader to one more to her liking if they want coalition then she should be told to take a hike. Like him or dislike him Corbyn was elected by the members of the LP to be the leader and no other political party should have any input into that process.
Imagine the outrage if Corbyn said he would agree to a coalition with the LD's provided Swinson stood down as leader :P

I believe the Lib Dems would, to a man, support a 2nd ref if they found themselves in a Labour coalition. Certainly if the choices were Deal/Remain. It's better that route to their preferred outcome than no route at all. It seems to me that politicians will do what's expedient and shake the hand of their sworn enemy if it furthers an agenda, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the LDs and Labour doing business. It's quite possible that their parties are doing such business anyway on a lower level. It would be wise for them not to be too antagonistic in this GE and split the Remain vote where it need not be split.

Bannasidhe

briany wrote: »

I believe the Lib Dems would, to a man, support a 2nd ref if they found themselves in a Labour coalition. Certainly if the choices were Deal/Remain. It's better that route to their preferred outcome than no route at all. It seems to me that politicians will do what's expedient and shake the hand of their sworn enemy if it furthers an agenda, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the LDs and Labour doing business. It's quite possible that their parties are doing such business anyway on a lower level. It would be wise for them not to be too antagonistic in this GE and split the Remain vote where it need not be split.

I agree.

I'm just finding it hard to believe that Swinson will dial down the anti-Corbyn rhetoric during her campaigning (she was certainly going hell for leather when she knew a GE was in the offing) enough to allow the LD's to come to an agreement with the LP that doesn't look like blatant political expediency at the cost of their espoused views. Not a good look for them as a party with aspirations towards becoming a majority party in govt but needing to build from a small base and much of that gain via defections.

There is also the small issue that policy wise the LP and LD's are not exactly aligned.

Eric Cartman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage will not stand in general election

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/2tGVXx

Dissapointing, would have liked to see him as an mp

briany

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree.

I'm just finding it hard to believe that Swinson will dial down the anti-Corbyn rhetoric during her campaigning (she was certainly going hell for leather when she knew a GE was in the offing) enough to allow the LD's to come to an agreement with the LP that doesn't look like blatant political expediency at the cost of their espoused views. Not a good look for them as a party with aspirations towards becoming a majority party in govt but needing to build from a small base and much of that gain via defections.

There is also the small issue that policy wise the LP and LD's are not exactly aligned.

Simple enough, I think. If Lab/LD clinched enough seats to be able to form a coalition, they'd just come out and say that they were going to put aside their differences for the greater good. It wouldn't be expedient for themselves. It would be expedient for the United Kingdom.

It's worth reiterating that even the opportunity to have the above coalition is highly unlikely. However, I'd even expect LD to enter talks with the Conservatives. Maybe not a coalition, but another C&S agreement. LDs would agree to back a deal with the proviso that it is put to a public vote.

briany

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Dissapointing, would have liked to see him as an mp

The BP's whole manifesto should be, "If elected to parliament, we promise our MPs will act like the c***s down the back of class, thinking they're really funny flicking the V at teacher from under the table."

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

ok, lets try this, but before we do, please have a read of this

Show me, in quoted text, the part of the GFA that PARLIAMENT would be breaking if they voted against unification of Ireland.

There is no obligations on Parliament, there can be no obligations on Parliament, because no Parliament can bind a future Parliament to legislation. That is a basic, underlining element of constitutional law and is how Parliament gets its sovereignty.

Sigh.

Parliament has already passed the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They have ratified and agreed to the GFA which contains in it a commitment to 'give effect' to the wishes of the people of Ireland' subject to and agreement between the two governments on the terms of the handover.

I.E. It is a done deal UNLESS parliament votes to break that agreement - The GFA.
Otherwise it will be similar to what is happening now with the EU...modified deals/agreements will continue to be brought before the HoC until a satisfactory agreement is passed.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sigh.

Parliament has already passed the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They have ratified and agreed to the GFA which contains in it a commitment to 'give effect' to the wishes of the people of Ireland' subject to and agreement between the two governments on the terms of the handover.

I.E. It is a done deal UNLESS parliament votes to break that agreement - The GFA.
Otherwise it will be similar to what is happening now with the EU...modified deals/agreements will continue to be brought before the HoC until a satisfactory agreement is passed.

Quotes please.

You are paraphrasing.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Quotes please.

You are paraphrasing.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is all the quotes you need. It ratified the GFA and passed it into law and received royal assent.

The GFA required parliamentary ratification in both jurisdictions.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is all the quotes you need. It ratified the GFA and passed it into law and received royal assent.

The GFA required parliamentary ratification in both jurisdictions.

I think aegir is extrapolating parliaments right not to be bound by previous laws as a sweeping right to ignore them. Of course that is not the case. If they dont like a previous law, they would need to repeal it or amend it and go through the formal processes to do so.

It looks like he believes that the GFA, and all the laws passed to support it can be simply ignored by a new parliament. How does he think it works with all the other laws that are passed daily by parliament?

joseywhales

Farage is going to get corbyn into power, just when I thought things couldn't get more ludicrous. The next season Brexit is going to be enthralling, I for one always wanted to see a corbyn government but thought it was impossible and purely for the entertainment of seeing posh conservatives with their nose out of joint after years of slander against an admittedly idealistic labour leader. The fact that farage, who represents noone, might cause this, is even sweeter.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Dissapointing, would have liked to see him as an mp

He would never get voted in.

ancapailldorcha

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He would never get voted in.

He's failed 7 times thankfully though this time the odious little tumour might actually do something of use.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think aegir is extrapolating parliaments right not to be bound by previous laws as a sweeping right to ignore them. Of course that is not the case. If they dont like a previous law, they would need to repeal it or amend it and go through the formal processes to do so.

It looks like he believes that the GFA, and all the laws passed to support it can be simply ignored by a new parliament. How does he think it works with all the other laws that are passed daily by parliament?

I thought he was just being obtuse for the sake of it, but now I think he genuinely believes parliament might come to the rescue if a border poll succeeds or that any Irish government would sign up to an international agreement if a future parliament could just ignore the GFA.

The Brexit process is all any Unionist needs to see if they think there is an out in parliament after a successful unity poll.
Not even the political event of the UK's last 100 years could trump the GFA>

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought he was just being obtuse for the sake of it, but now I think he genuinely believes parliament might come to the rescue if a border poll succeeds or that any Irish government would sign up to an international agreement if a future parliament could just ignore the GFA.

The Brexit process is all any Unionist needs to see if they think there is an out in parliament after a successful unity poll.
Not even the political event of the UK's last 100 years could trump the GFA>

you didn't read the bit about Parliament and government, did you?

You still haven't shown us the b part of the GFA that Parliament would be breaking if they voted against legislation for a united Ireland.

this is yet another of your warship fantasies, where you absolutely refuse, point blank, to accept pure and simple facts. but then, I guess without gullible people who think if they something enough, it must be true, Sinn Fein and the whole republican movement would have no support.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

From Google,

If both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted in favour of reunification, the Good Friday Agreement states that it “will be a binding obligation on both governments to introduce and support in their respective parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.


So they'd be bound by the vote at the time? This conversation is pointless if so

Neither parliament would be bound by the vote, only the two governments. They would have an obligation to put legislation before Parliament and the Dail but there is no obligation on either to actually pass the legislation.

It is the same with the Brexit referendum. Parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum. They then passed legislation telling the government to act on that referendum. To now turn to the people and say "You know what, its a bit difficult so we are going to cancel the whole thing" is, in truth perfectly legal. Morally though, it is absolutely ****ing reprehensible. Just as it would be if Parliament decided that they would ignore the outcome of a border poll.

Francis though, seems to be completely oblivious to this (and a lot else as well, but that's a different story).