Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…155156158160161…328

Comments

  • #4712
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You've changed your mind, so? ;)


    Eh no. Lets recap...



    My point was that the bill being drafted is basically worthless. Your point was that it is law and cannot be changed. Now you are saying "well, yeah it can be changed". It is you who has changed their mind whilst trying to hide behind semantics. You are not fooling anyone here mate.


  • #4713
    knipex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    If he teams up with Farage he will have a fairly big majority. Contrary to what your reading in the papers and watching on BBC/Sky news, the British people want to leave

    Farage and the Torys will be fighting over the same votes.

    I strongly suspect that if there was a vote tomorrow based on Brexit you woudl have a hung parliament.. (which goes to show just how unelectable Corbyn actually is)


  • #4714
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is like watching a trainwreck, but instead of train tracks, it's this thread, and instead of a train, it's a poster's credibility.


  • #4715
    lawred2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,757 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Semantics

    ah here


  • #4716
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    Tactically the correct thing to do is to refuse an extension, if a request is forthcoming. Let the exit issue be brought to a close, so that focus moves to the future relationships status. These talks will take a long time to conclude, agree and ratified. They will never get off the ground whilst the manner of leaving is in dispute.


  • Advertisement
  • #4717
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,542 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Eh no. Lets recap...

    My point was that the bill being drafted is basically worthless. Your point was that it is law and cannot be changed.
    I never said that, or anything like it.

    When you have to make stuff up to argue against, I'll take that as a concession that you can't argue against what was actually said.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    You are not fooling anyone here mate.
    Ooh, the irony! It burns! It burns!


  • #4718
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Eh no. Lets recap...



    My point was that the bill being drafted is basically worthless. Your point was that it is law and cannot be changed. Now you are saying "well, yeah it can be changed". It is you who has changed their mind whilst trying to hide behind semantics. You are not fooling anyone here mate.

    If it was worthless members of the UK Government wouldn't have gone on record stating they are actively looking for loopholes which will allow them to legally get around it.


  • #4719
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If it was worthless members of the UK Government wouldn't have gone on record stating they are actively looking for loopholes which will allow them to legally get around it.


    It is worthless, I have explained how, you are wrong. They are looking for loopholes around it for the current parliament. It is worthless in the next parliament, assuming Boris has a majority. I hope that answers your question.


  • #4720
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    We will just ignore the 21 who acted as 'parliamentarians' and not Tory government members too, it seems.

    None of the 21 were government members.


  • #4721
    FunLover18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    The ironic thing is that the new law being drafted is actually worth more than the bloody referendum result.


  • Advertisement
  • #4722
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,181 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    woohoo!!! wrote: »
    Tactically the correct thing to do is to refuse an extension, if a request is forthcoming. Let the exit issue be brought to a close, so that focus moves to the future relationships status. These talks will take a long time to conclude, agree and ratified. They will never get off the ground whilst the manner of leaving is in dispute.
    Now that would be interesting, if the EU27 refused an extension


    I wonder then when faced with the harsh binary reality of no deal crashout or revoke article 50, what the parliament would do!


  • #4723
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    It is worthless, I have explained how, you are wrong. They are looking for loopholes around it for the current parliament. It is worthless in the next parliament, assuming Boris has a majority. I hope that answers your question.

    Rather unlikely that Boris would have a majority. His polling is worse than May’s before she called her election, and he’s gutted his candidate pool.


  • #4724
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,707 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    alastair wrote: »
    None of the 21 were government members.

    If the poster is talking about 'majorities' in parliament then they are part of the government party. The fact is that Boris cannot depend on that 'party'. Hence his lame duck Government.


  • #4725
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    It is worthless, I have explained how, you are wrong. They are looking for loopholes around it for the current parliament. It is worthless in the next parliament, assuming Boris has a majority. I hope that answers your question.

    If the question was "does kidchameleon understand how the relationship between parliament and legislation works?" It certainly answered that.


  • #4726
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,935 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If the question was "does kidchameleon understand how the relationship between parliament and legislation works?" It certainly answered that.

    a stunning example of the dunning-kruger effect.


  • #4727
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If the question was "does kidchameleon understand how the relationship between parliament and legislation works?" It certainly answered that.


    Perhaps I don't. Answer me this, assuming the bill becomes law, assuming a GE is called, assuming Boris remains PM but with a majority, can he remove the bill from law?


  • #4728
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    It's also worth mentioning that Boris is a total coward. He's also a crowd pleaser. He wants people to like him more than anything, because he's basically an entertainer. If I was a Tory he'd be the last man I'd want when it came to dying on the Brexit hill. Boris caves on things at the last second. The EU are well aware of this.

    "Assuming Boris wins". "Let's say Boris wins the next election. He will have a huge majority".


    HAHAHAHAHAHA.


  • #4729
    interactive
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭interactive


    Very simple now for Boris to leave without a deal.
    France is hinting that they would not agree to a extension.
    Boris just has to come out and say "the French dont have the balls to not give us a extension, they have a history of surrender and they will cave into our extension request".
    They would have to reject the extension or be a world laughing stock


  • #4730
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Perhaps I don't. Answer me this, assuming the bill becomes law, assuming a GE is called, assuming Boris remains PM but with a majority, can he remove the bill from law?

    Only parliament can do that.


  • #4731
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    interactive wrote: »
    Very simple now for Boris to leave without a deal.
    France is hinting that they would not agree to a extension.
    Boris just has to come out and say "the French dont have the balls to not give us a extension, they have a history of surrender and they will cave into our extension request".
    They would have to reject the extension or be a world laughing stock

    Not so easy when parliament has removed no deal exit from the equation.


  • Advertisement
  • #4732
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    alastair wrote: »
    Only parliament can do that.


    Oh jesus christ, another semantic argument. You know what I freaking mean!


  • #4733
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,935 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Perhaps I don't. Answer me this, assuming the bill becomes law, assuming a GE is called, assuming Boris remains PM but with a majority, can he remove the bill from law?

    If parliament agree. but boris cannot remove the bill on his own or ignore it.


  • #4734
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Oh jesus christ, another semantic argument. You know what I freaking mean!

    Not semantic at all.


  • #4735
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    alastair wrote: »
    Not so easy when parliament has removed no deal exit from the equation.


    AFAIK, they would exit by default on the 31st on WTO terms in those circumstances.


  • #4736
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    If parliament agree. but boris cannot remove the bill on his own or ignore it.


    Nobody is claiming he can


  • #4737
    interactive
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 91 ✭✭interactive


    alastair wrote: »
    Not so easy when parliament has removed no deal exit from the equation.

    "We want a deal, but the pesky French wont give us one, they refuse to give us a extension, so we are not leaving without a deal, we are being kicked out!"

    Boris would instantly rocket up the polls in Britain, he would win a election with a huge majority


  • #4738
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    AFAIK, they would exit by default on the 31st on WTO terms in those circumstances.

    They have enacted a law to ensure that doesn’t happen. The likelihood is that article 50 would be revoked to ensure sufficient time for a renegotiated exit deal.


  • #4739
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,935 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Nobody is claiming he can

    apart from when you did
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    You are wrong. In the UK there is what is called "parliamentary sovereignty". Meaning that any government formed after a general election can disregard laws made by the previous parliament. A new government would not be "bound" by the previous parliament. Look it up, I am right and you are wrong.


  • #4740
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Before mods thread-ban me for "soap boxing", which of course, everyone else is doing except me, I'm going to leave. I don't want to be thread banned on the 31st. Bye friends, I'm preparing a meme sh1storm for you all :D


  • Advertisement
  • #4741
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    apart from when you did


    Where did I say "Boris" could disregard a law? I stated it was the government who would do so, look at the post you quoted and read it properly.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement