Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

For Forks Sake · 13-09-2019 07:37PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Alas, "the people" have demonstrated conclusively that they're prepared to believe any old nonsense as long as it shows up on Facebook or Twitter, and they don't have to think about it.

Or if it's being orated in a plummy accent....

Spanish Eyes · 13-09-2019 07:41PM

I am getting the feeling that Hard Brexiteers are going a little more silent now.

Am I raving or what. Just wondered. All the usual media outlets that I have listened to for a while have moved on now. Probably waiting for the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday. Dunno.

Strazdas · 13-09-2019 07:44PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am getting the feeling that Hard Brexiteers are going a little more silent now.

Am I raving or what. Just wondered. All the usual media outlets that I have listened to for a while have moved on now. Probably waiting for the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday. Dunno.

Things are a tad awkward. The right wing press were acting as cheerleaders for prorogation.....something that could turn out to be illegal and meant lying to the Queen.

An Ciarraioch · 13-09-2019 07:45PM

If any of the thread regulars are based in Louth, Prosperity UK AKA the Alternative Arrangements Commission AKA the Legatum Institute are visiting Dundalk tomorrow, which should be amusing, based on this thread:

https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1172553263956316165

lawred2 · 13-09-2019 07:47PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I listened to Brexitcast today (uploaded yesterday) and my god it is so annoying. The UK are facing into a constitutional crisis, with a prorogation of parliament, possible lying to the queen, current minority government and just recently the release of Yellowhammer docs that prove that at best Gove was being deliberately disingenuous about the report and probably outright lying to the public.

But rather than spend time on that, Laura jumps in with "There are whispers, whispers of a deal". No evidence, no basis for it, but rather than talk about what has actually happened better to simply ignore all that and talk about stuff that might happen. And of course no mention of the fact than Johnson said only a few weeks ago that there would be no talks without the backstop being removed entirely which obviously isn't the case.

Katya attempts so say what the EU position is, but always rows back. I would love someone like Peter Foster of the Telegraph to appear and lay into them like he did with the recent Choppers Brexit Podcast. Show them the fantasy of what they are passing off as news.

Rant over.

Why are you listening to their childish tittle tattle? It's never any different.

Neither of them have any inside track beyond relaying what's on Twitter.

Spanish Eyes · 13-09-2019 07:53PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Things are a tad awkward. The right wing press were acting as cheerleaders for prorogation.....something that could turn out to be illegal and meant lying to the Queen.

Interesting, isn't it? Hadn't thought of that really. Too much going on I think.

Wonder what the Supreme Court in London might decree on Tuesday?

Interesting times ahead.

Strazdas · 13-09-2019 07:57PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Interesting, isn't it? Hadn't thought of that really. Too much going on I think.

Wonder what the Supreme Court in London might decree on Tuesday?

Interesting times ahead.

I could see the Supreme Court coming down against Johnson. The Brexiteers did themselves no favours this week slagging off the Scottish judges.....I'm sure the Supreme Court judges were listening quietly in the background.

Leroy42 · 13-09-2019 08:01PM

lawred2 wrote: »

Why are you listening to their childish tittle tattle? It's never any different.

Neither of them have any inside track beyond relaying what's on Twitter.

I suppose I keep thinking that at some point they are going to have to deal with the reality. And its not even them not having the inside track, in fact the biggest problem is that both Laura and Katya have convinced themselves (and others apparently) that they do have the inside track when it is clear they haven't a scooby do.

But how about dealing with the reality of what Brexit has become. Why are they not showing people the differences between what was promised and what is now being proposed? Why do call out Johnson on his failure to get rid of the backstop? Why not call Gove out for his lying about the Yellowhammer report?

Why not call out the cabinet ministers for lying about prorogation (saying they would never stand for it). Why not run down through the fact that Johnson doesn't have the numbers to get a deal through HoC? Why not ask why, even though the HoC has voted a number of times against No Deal does Johnson still insist on it when all the polls show the public don't want it.

Ah Jebus, you got me into another rant!:)

Spanish Eyes · 13-09-2019 08:17PM

Strazdas wrote: »

I could see the Supreme Court coming down against Johnson. The Brexiteers did themselves no favours this week slagging off the Scottish judges.....I'm sure the Supreme Court judges were listening quietly in the background.

But to be fair, a rule of law should be based on the law. And whatever about Brexiteers I do think the ruling will be based on law in the end, not anything else.

Anyway, we shall see.

SeaBreezes · 13-09-2019 08:17PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I suppose I keep thinking that at some point they are going to have to deal with the reality. And its not even them not having the inside track, in fact the biggest problem is that both Laura and Katya have convinced themselves (and others apparently) that they do have the inside track when it is clear they haven't a scooby do.

But how about dealing with the reality of what Brexit has become. Why are they not showing people the differences between what was promised and what is now being proposed? Why do call out Johnson on his failure to get rid of the backstop? Why not call Gove out for his lying about the Yellowhammer report?

Why not call out the cabinet ministers for lying about prorogation (saying they would never stand for it). Why not run down through the fact that Johnson doesn't have the numbers to get a deal through HoC? Why not ask why, even though the HoC has voted a number of times against No Deal does Johnson still insist on it when all the polls show the public don't want it.

Ah Jebus, you got me into another rant!:)

Why not, in actuality, act like journalists are SUPPOSED to act? By representing the truth with a critical eye?

Infini · 13-09-2019 08:34PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But to be fair, a rule of law should be based on the law. And whatever about Brexiteers I do think the ruling will be based on law in the end, not anything else.

Anyway, we shall see.

Maybe but let's be honest the motive for suspending parliment just like all of Boris's other plans is there for all to see: He's silencing parliment to avoid scrutiny, he's a serial liar and bullshítter and honestly I'd love to see the Supreme court find he acted illegally and have the highest court in the land rule he "lied to the queen".

It's all to play for but this whole fiasco was built on ignorant bullshítters and liers and feeding off the igonrance of the masses so for the whole house of cards to come crashing down and taking the likes of Boris, Moggles, the European Troll Group and half the psudotories with them would be the greatest political comeuppance in modern times. It would be fitting on so many levels to see these shysters get sucked back into the hole from whence they came along with all their crap and misery they've caused. Only thing that could possibly top that is if the same thing happens to Trumpy across the way as both movements were the subject of Russian meddling of course.

An Claidheamh · 13-09-2019 08:38PM

VinLieger wrote: »

This entire post is a straw man tbh.

Everything you describe was done to try and get over our history and help with integration for a future UI.

Blaming people with objectively good intentions for the clusterfvck the tories have put everyone in is incredible petty and reductive.

Also when priti patel suggested starving us as a negotiating strategy it was condemned by our government so get off your selective memory high horse.

So it seems you're strawmanning me.

I disagree, Britain agreed to the backstop and would never have tried to completely ignore an agreement made with any other country (two in fact with the Belfast Agreement) other than Ireland.

They just assumed we didn't count.

This is very similar to their behaviour during the 70s/80s where the likes of the British/Thatcher knew Cosgrave/Fitzgerald were non-entities who were eager to please them, whereas Haughey got results by putting manners on them.

As far as retorts to British insults, the Irish government are fairly lame and only do do if pushed.

That all said, I fully agree that the Tories are 100% the cause of this mess and feel that there is little to be gained from wasting time reasoning or engaging with them.

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2019 08:47PM

The English court did not disagree on the facts, it ruled that no matter what the facts, prorogation is a matter for parliament, not the courts.

I think the SC will agree with the Scots, otherwise there is no possible check on the government - they could prorogue Parliament forever per the English court, which is clearly wrong.

And if they rule they can look at the facts, Johnson loses.

Strazdas · 13-09-2019 08:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The English court did not disagree on the facts, it ruled that no matter what the facts, prorogation is a matter for parliament, not the courts.

I think the SC will agree with the Scots, otherwise there is no possible check on the government - they could prorogue Parliament forever per the English court, which is clearly wrong.

And if they rule they can look at the facts, Johnson loses.

It would be more of a surprise if the SC ruled against the Scots. The Scottish court was the equivalent of their supreme court, so they would need to have very strong grounds for ruling against such an eminent body.

Akrasia · 13-09-2019 08:56PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The English court did not disagree on the facts, it ruled that no matter what the facts, prorogation is a matter for parliament, not the courts.

I think the SC will agree with the Scots, otherwise there is no possible check on the government - they could prorogue Parliament forever per the English court, which is clearly wrong.

And if they rule they can look at the facts, Johnson loses.

Yep. It is a plainly ludicrous situation to allow a PM to unilaterally and indefinitely shut down the government at any time he/she wants to avoid scrutiny and ram through policies that are unsupported by the parliament.

If the Supreme court doesn't stand up to it now, then it will have become a precedent which means the next time a Prime minister needs to hide from a parliamentary committee or bulldose through parliament then they will be able to justify it on the basis that Johnson got away with it this time.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2019 08:57PM

What is the proceedure/action if the court finds against Johnson?

Professor Moriarty · 13-09-2019 08:59PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is the proceedure/action if the court finds against Johnson?

Immediate recall of parliament.

SeaBreezes · 13-09-2019 09:00PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But to be fair, a rule of law should be based on the law. And whatever about Brexiteers I do think the ruling will be based on law in the end, not anything else.

Anyway, we shall see.

Who own the judges? And how many of them (hopefully none) have accounts in the caymans that they don't want taxed?

Let's be clear. This is ALL
About taxes on the rich 1% and the rest is who they own and how far they can get with breaking the law, and how far into a dictatorship they can obviously go... not saying they dont own everything already in the UK. That's patently obvious. But how far they can go before the multitudes realise they are being treated like imbeciles...

Hats off to the Scottish judges not being owned, or cowed and saying it like it is..

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2019 09:01PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Immediate recall of parliament.

And what then...curious as to how it works if he is found to have lied to herself.

swampgas · 13-09-2019 09:04PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I suppose I keep thinking that at some point they are going to have to deal with the reality. And its not even them not having the inside track, in fact the biggest problem is that both Laura and Katya have convinced themselves (and others apparently) that they do have the inside track when it is clear they haven't a scooby do.

But how about dealing with the reality of what Brexit has become. Why are they not showing people the differences between what was promised and what is now being proposed? Why do call out Johnson on his failure to get rid of the backstop? Why not call Gove out for his lying about the Yellowhammer report?

Why not call out the cabinet ministers for lying about prorogation (saying they would never stand for it). Why not run down through the fact that Johnson doesn't have the numbers to get a deal through HoC? Why not ask why, even though the HoC has voted a number of times against No Deal does Johnson still insist on it when all the polls show the public don't want it.

Ah Jebus, you got me into another rant!:)

It's the end of the old order, perhaps?

Convention is being trashed: all sorts of unwritten rules about how to behave in the political arena have been brazenly broken. And Laura and Katya just don't know how to react. It's way too big for them to deal with, so they fall back on the minor stuff.

There are deeper, unspoken, subconscious rules in any culture, and these are the ones that Laura and Katya seem to be following: deference to class, wealth, and privilege. If they actually do recognise the gravity of what's going on (and maybe they have no idea), they seem determined not to see it.

SeaBreezes · 13-09-2019 09:06PM

An Claidheamh wrote: »

So it seems you're strawmanning me.

I disagree, Britain agreed to the backstop and would never have tried to completely ignore an agreement made with any other country (two in fact with the Belfast Agreement) other than Ireland.

They just assumed we didn't count.

This is very similar to their behaviour during the 70s/80s where the likes of the British/Thatcher knew Cosgrave/Fitzgerald were non-entities who were eager to please them, whereas Haughey got results by putting manners on them.

As far as retorts to British insults, the Irish government are fairly lame and only do do if pushed.

That all said, I fully agree that the Tories are 100% the cause of this mess and feel that there is little As to be gained from wasting time reasoning or engaging with them.

As far as retorts to British insults, the Irish government: The Irish government are reasoned, intelligent, measured and considered in their responses ... there, fixed that for you...

Professor Moriarty · 13-09-2019 09:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And what then...curious as to how it works if he is found to have lied to herself.

Not a lot apparently except that he'll be savaged in parliament. Maybe they could call the Queen as a witness to prove he lied...

Cork Boy 53 · 13-09-2019 09:11PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not a lot apparently except that he'll be savaged in parliament. Maybe they could call the Queen as a witness to prove he lied...

Does the Queen not have the legal power to sack a PM who has knowingly misrepresented facts to her? Whether she would actually invoke that power is another thing,

Strazdas · 13-09-2019 09:17PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Immediate recall of parliament.

I don't believe the SC has the authority to 'order' the PM to recall the Parliament (it's surely outside their remit) but one would expect Johnson would be under huge pressure to do so immediately.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2019 09:20PM

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Does the Queen not have the legal power to sack a PM who has knowingly misrepresented facts to her? Whether she would actually invoke that power is another thing,

That's what I was wondering...who instigates punishment, if there is any.

SeaBreezes · 13-09-2019 09:34PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's what I was wondering...who instigates punishment, if there is any.

Who are we kidding? Which family has the largest number of Cayman Island accounts? Which family has the largest financial reason not to let the public know exactly how much they own?
Lied to? Ha ha ha ha. Which family is most likely directing operations behind the scenes? Which family was recently implicated in the Epstein child paedophilla ring? Which family is untouchable, but ready with a scapegoat of the sh*t hits the fan? He LIED to me!! Really? Cant read the news?'

Strazdas · 13-09-2019 09:34PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's what I was wondering...who instigates punishment, if there is any.

Apparently the Director of Public Prosecutions can bring a prosecution against a serving PM if they believe they have broken the law.

S.M.B. · 13-09-2019 09:47PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And what then...curious as to how it works if he is found to have lied to herself.

Half the country will demand he gets punished in some way and the other half will declare that the courts are part of the establishment that is refusing to carry out the will of the people.

And round and round we go.

FrancieBrady · 13-09-2019 09:56PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Apparently the Director of Public Prosecutions can bring a prosecution against a serving PM if they believe they have broken the law.

It would certainly be the icing on the Absurd Cake Brexit has become. But probably a tier too high to expect.

Professor Moriarty · 13-09-2019 10:34PM

S.M.B. wrote: »

Half the country will demand he gets punished in some way and the other half will declare that the courts are part of the establishment that is refusing to carry out the will of the people.

And round and round we go.

So lying to the monarch is treason. And the current Home Secretary, Pritti Patel, used to be in favour of capital punishment (as was Gove). I must check out Paddy Power's odds on Johnson being beheaded.

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments