Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

josip

The bridge suggestion is so farcical I can't believe that even the politicians are managing to keep straight faces while it's being mentioned.
A £20bn estimated cost now will inevitably go the same way as HS2, which has doubled in cost since first proposed from £30bn to £60bn.
HS2 could be seen as making London more accessible for how many, 10 million people ?
A NI bridge would make Scotland and Northern England more accessible for 1 million people.

The Channel Tunnel, serving all of the UK, France and Benelux did not have a viable business case and had to be bailed out.
There won't be a bridge across the Irish Sea in even my grandchildren's lifetimes.

Boris couldn't even get a bridge across the Thames built.

Peregrinus

farmchoice wrote: »

right that makes sense so Paypal are being less then forth coming in revealing their data.

who was asking them for it, was it just journalists who were conducting an investigation or was it some state agency. I'm assuming it was not part of a policy investigation.

I would imagine Paypal has privacy obligations to its customers, both arising out of its standard terms of contract and imposed on it by GDPR and similar legislation in other jurisdictions. Their position would presumably be "We can't share this data with you unless legally compelled to. Subpoena, please."

(At least, I hope that would be their position.)

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Meanwhile it looks like the Tory-BXP pact will come at a higher cost than many imagined:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171540275975602176?s=19

Johnson would be unwise to accede to this IMO. I think Farage is overestimating his chances but even so, an accord would mean curtailing a potential Conservative victory.

The whole point of Boris 'going hard' on Brexit was to avoid the need to compromise with Farage and his Brexit Party. They should rightly tell them to bugger off, particularly as if (when) it all falls apart, to be in a political pact with these degenerates would be absolutely damning and would taint the Tories for a generation. They will probably be in the wilderness at the end of this anyway (when Brexit comes home to roost) but no need to make it even worse.

The' party of business', the 'unionist party', the 'safe pair of hands'.

I really think they have already damaged themselves so thoroughly that Labour will be in, at least in a coalition.

At any rate, most of the BXP candidates are close to unelectable, even by some of the worst deplorables. Where they stand against familiar names and faces with an actual background in politics and with actual policies and ideas... I can't see them doing well.

I'm imagining BXP candidates canvassing and I can't see how that will go well at the doors of anyone but the dimmest, stupidest most uninformed.

BXP: 'We're going to make sure we leave the EU!' (gurning Liz Truss face)
Voter: 'What then? What are your policies'?
BXP: 'All that matters is getting out!'

Surely these schmucks have to release a manifesto at some point. That's when they get further into trouble.

j8wk2feszrnpao

josip wrote: »

The bridge suggestion is so farcical I can't believe that even the politicians are managing to keep straight faces while it's being mentioned.
A £20bn estimated cost now will inevitably go the same way as HS2, which has doubled in cost since first proposed from £30bn to £60bn.
HS2 could be seen as making London more accessible for how many, 10 million people ?
A NI bridge would make Scotland and Northern England more accessible for 1 million people.

The Channel Tunnel, serving all of the UK, France and Benelux did not have a viable business case and had to be bailed out.
There won't be a bridge across the Irish Sea in even my grandchildren's lifetimes.

Boris couldn't even get a bridge across the Thames built.

A bridge from NI to Scot? Is he insane? The maintenance costs alone would deem it unfeasible.

Water John

The first bridge Johnson will need to build is to Scotland, as after a GE it will be an alien land to the Tories.

prawnsambo

This is an interesting development. Government are appealing to Supreme Court, so not done yet.
This is the High Court case against the prorogation of parliament.

Professor Moriarty

Scottish court has ruled that prorogation is unlawful. Barrister says that MPs can now re-occupy their seats in the HoC. I'm running out of popcorn.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Scottish court has ruled that prorogation is unlawful. Barrister says that MPs can now re-occupy their seats in the HoC. I'm running out of popcorn.

I wonder what they will sing.

LeinsterDub

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1171713383055405056



Massive news here . What does Johnson do next? Another appeal likely

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Scottish court has ruled that prorogation is unlawful. Barrister says that MPs can now re-occupy their seats in the HoC. I'm running out of popcorn.

A Scottish court telling the sovereign HoC what it can and can't do?

They will be after the bananas next!

99problems1

The prorogation is pointless now anyways as the whole thing was to ensure opposition couldn't do anything, which they did anyways.

devnull

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1171713383055405056



Massive news here . What does Johnson do next? Another appeal likely

Will go to supreme court now.

Dyr

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Farage is wanting his cake and want to eat it as well. If he has a pact with the Tories he wins a seat most likely and sits in the HoC, if they decline and the Tories lose the election then the UK most likely doesn't leave the EU and he keeps his EU MEP job. It is a win win for him.


Edit: Just came across this tweet.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171691602772996097?s=20

Another casualty of proroguing parliament, PayPal gets to miss out on questioning and their role in funding the Brexit Party and the likes of Katie Hopkins spewing hate, but will now not have to testify.

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

Enzokk

Bambi wrote: »

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

I don't know what she wants, but at the very least it would have been great if they could give evidence to MPs on how they work. I am sure questions would have been asked on how they could ensure foreign donations could not be made to UK political parties, but now we will not know. This evidence could have been used to update the electoral laws.

J Mysterio

Bambi wrote: »

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

That's bollocks. She wants to stop illegal funding of political groups which break the rules. She wants transparency and for these companies to be held to account.


Cadwalladr.

boggerman1

devnull wrote: »

Will go to supreme court now.

And if that fails would the British government appeal to the ecj.oh the irony

LeinsterDub

devnull wrote: »

Will go to supreme court now.

LBC are reporting that it's unclear if this is allowed . Owe joy.

Dyr

J Mysterio wrote: »

That's bollocks. She wants to stop illegal funding of political groups which break the rules. She wants transparency and for these companies to be held to account.


Cadwalladr.

Illegal funding is covered by the law already, hence the term "illegal"
Who's illegally funding Katie Hopkins? Because the Bould Carol makes it clear that she wants PayPal to deny her their service

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1171713383055405056



Massive news here . What does Johnson do next? Another appeal likely

The courts will be ignored. Laws schmaws.

trellheim

Bambi wrote: »

Paypal are governed by the same laws as any other company when it comes to transactions and money trnsfers What Caldweller wants is to be able to shut down revenue streams for people and groups because she dislikes their opinion. Should not be entertained

Where on earth do you get this. She exposed Cambridge Analytica ffs and for that deserves multiple Pulitzers. ( ffsx2)

GM228

devnull wrote: »

Will go to supreme court now.

Not necessarily, to appeal an application for leave to appeal is required of the Inner House or the Supreme Court. It is not guaranteed that an appeal will be allowed though considering the public importance leave is unlikely to be refused.

Professor Moriarty

Various legal opinions stating that it is now lawful for MPs to sit in parliament.

It's Wednesday. PMQs would be amazing.

GM228

boggerman1 wrote: »

And if that fails would the British government appeal to the ecj.oh the irony

Prerogation of Government is not an ECJ matter, a decision of the Supreme Court on appeal would be final.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

It's Wednesday. PMQs would be amazing.

I'm fairly sure that Johnson won't turn up.

Enzokk

Bambi wrote: »

Illegal funding is covered by the law already, hence the term "illegal"
Who's illegally funding Katie Hopkins? Because the Bould Carol makes it clear that she wants PayPal to deny her their service

Yes, so if it is illegal how is a private company going to help to stop this from happening? We won't know because parliament is shut down. Also the law has a loophole and if Paypal isn't able to help plug this then the law will need to be tightened to stop the Brexit Party from accepting £5 donations without taking details.

I don't know why you are not seeing this, yes it may be that she has a bee in her bonnet about Hopkins, but that doesn't mean the other crucial part is being lost and it is ridiculous.

As for the ruling, does that mean government must now release the Operation Yellowhammer documents as it was supposed to be released today. The government could get away with not releasing it seeing as parliament was shut, seeing that it is not shut right now this changes it.

J Mysterio

Bambi wrote: »

Illegal funding is covered by the law already, hence the term "illegal"
Who's illegally funding Katie Hopkins? Because the Bould Carol makes it clear that she wants PayPal to deny her their service

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/03/brexit-party-paypal-investigation-rampant-impermissible-donations-revealed-by-watchdogs-visit-tip-of-the-iceberg/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/18/brexit-party-check-donations-for-illegal-funding-nigel-farage

GLaDOS

An English Court ruled the prorogation legal did they not?

How does that work?

Enzokk

The Scottish Court has found that Johnson lied to the Queen. That is another bow for the opposition once an election is called. He is not beyond lying to the Queen, do you as an ordinary person think he is not lying to you?

Good luck to him getting a majority.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, so if it is illegal how is a private company going to help to stop this from happening? We won't know because parliament is shut down. Also the law has a loophole and if Paypal isn't able to help plug this then the law will need to be tightened to stop the Brexit Party from accepting £5 donations without taking details.

Its £500 donations and below. They can take millions in anonymously so long as the donations are broken down to this ammount.