brickster69 wrote: » All the remainers running around like headless chickens now because they know Boris won't resign and the Benn - Dover bill has more holes in it than a block of gouda. They know that if the Govt loses that vote, it could, under the FTPA, remain in office for 14 days, propose a vote of confidence, and, if it loses, a GE is automatically triggered. the speaker this week confirmed that an election could not be held before 31/10.
A Shropshire Lad wrote: » Hearing today a few Brexiteers mention that 'all 27 members have to agree to the extension beyond October 31st' Is there a possibility theres some pressure being put on individual countries behind the scenes to veto ?
Bannasidhe wrote: » But, one very very small opposition party also wants to flout conventions and excuses are being made as to why, in this instance, it's acceptable.
Water John wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/29/no-10-denies-claims-boris-johnson-squeezed-thigh-journalist-charlotte-edwardes Johnson accused of groping women. Ah he really is in Trump's image. Charlotte Edwards is a respected journalist.
CelticRambler wrote: » No, I'm saying you're using the undemocratic nature of FPTP to justify criticism of the leader of a party that has been penalised by that system, and insisting that the Old Order must be respected, even when the two traditional parties are incapable of maintaining that same order on their own. The convention to which you refer is obsolete, dead-in-the-water, no longer fit-for-purpose and not even relevant because there has been no VONC in the current PM; yet you're suggesting that lil' Miss Swinson should toe the line because she's nothing more than some provinical woman with notions who ought to know her place when playing with the Big Boys? That's exactly the same attitude that the Brexiters have shown towards Ireland. I reckon if you trawled through Ireland's voting history with as much assiduity as you've applied to Swinson's, you'd find plenty of examples that would be best left under the carpet where they've been swept.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Which is exactly the justification the Tories can use for flouting, tweaking, re-interpreting the conventions. And the entire Opposition benches scream blue bloody murder about it. The LibDem don't actually represent that many voters. 12 constitutancies returned LD MPs in the last GE compared with LP's 268. Labour is by far the largest opposition party by a country mile. Corbyn is the recognised leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council. Are you saying the person who's party returned 12 MPs gets to flout the conventions because they don't like the leader of the party with 268 seats? What could possibly go wrong with that as a precedent?? The fact is the UK Constitution is based on precedents and conventions. Boris is willfully flouting those - but so is Swinson. I honestly do not understand why one doing it is 'bad' but the other is 'good'.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The LibDem don't actually represent that many voters. 12 constitutancies returned LD MPs in the last GE compared with LP's 268. Labour is by far the largest opposition party by a country mile. Corbyn is the recognised leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council. Are you saying the person who's party returned 12 MPs gets to flout the conventions because they don't like the leader of the party with 268 seats?
CelticRambler wrote: » Ah, right. So you're talking about the old two-party system, which has completely broken down and will most likely never feature in British politics again. .
CelticRambler wrote: » Ah, right. So you're talking about the old two-party system, which has completely broken down and will most likely never feature in British politics again. There's no point in demanding that someone who's part of the disruptive environment follow obsolete conventions that have prevented their party (and others) from legitimately representing that portion of the electorate that have voted for them. Especially when the [united] Opposition is, in actual fact, governing the country.
Bannasidhe wrote: » This conventionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_(United_Kingdom)
woohoo!!! wrote: » Better to erect a border on a temporary basis than agree to one now and forever more. It's not an option seeing as staying in SM and CU is the priority.
Nody wrote: » Sorry but you're behaving like Boris here thinking Ireland can eat the cake and keep it at the same time. If Ireland don't defend the SM it will be pushed out one way or the other. That means if Ireland wants to be part of the SM it will have to defend it exactly like every other country inc. controlling it's borders; if it does not it fails in it's duties as a member of the SM to protect it. If you think Ireland will be given a free pass to NOT protect the NI border and have controls in the name of the peace process you're in for a rough wake up call and the EU commission will start an infringement process accordingly (as they have in the past when countries have failed to comply); failure to comply and well border in France or border at NI but no option for both borders to remain without checks.
Strazdas wrote: » The rules of the Single Market are about protecting its integrity and protecting its external borders. But there is no interpretation of SM rules that could allow or justify a full EU member being forced out of the SM and there having to be border checks ; that would be a quite perverse reading of the rules. The problem here is solely Brexit UK. Ireland is entitled to defend its SM membership and the peace process.
PeadarCo wrote: » Why would they be? Ireland by having an open border with a country outside the EU would be no longer part of the same SM and CU as the rest of the EU. Goods otherwise illegal and or normally subject to tarrifs would be effectively legal and untarrified. Do you honestly thing the EU an Irish businesses would let Ireland completely disregard the rules of the SM and CU. This wishful thinking is no different to the thinking that has got the UK it's current mess ie the UK is special and the UK could get all the benefits of the EU without the costs(upholding the laws that underpin the SM and CU) Ideally a hard border won't happen and in the event of hard or no deal brexit you would hope the UK would quickly reconsider. However if the UK and NI leaves the SM and CU a hard border will become a fact of life. This shouldn't be news. It's the reason there is such a big fuss over the backstop on both sides in the first place. If what you are saying is true why bother at all with the backstop? You wouldn't need if Ireland could have an open border with NI outside the SM and CU and still be a full member of the EU.
CelticRambler wrote: » What convention? Edit: I presume you mean this In which case I ask: when/where has that "convention" ever been applied in British politics?
The Leader of the Opposition is normally viewed as an alternative or shadow Prime Minister, and is appointed to the Privy Council. They lead an Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet which scrutinises the actions of the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, as well as offer alternative policies.
Strazdas wrote: Permanent checks between the Single Market and a full EU member would be an absolute non runner. Whatever the solution to the Brexit crisis / disaster, it won't be that one (the clue is in the name 'single market').
