The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#91New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 01:24:36
@shadowen Said

A new election shouldnt be necessary. The actions of Parliament have made it so. Back in 2015 Parliament in effect agreed to ask the people what they wanted them to do re the EU. Remain or Leave. Parliament in effect agreed to honour the result of the people's vote (2016). There should have been no need for another bloody election. The people had voiced their wishes in the biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. Parliament ought to have respected the referendum result. Instead they have castrated the Government who were trying to do as the majority wished. The executive arm of Parliament has been rendered powerless and so there has to be a General election for at the moment Parliament cant function. It should not have come to this but it has.

It's been a case of Parliament vs the People. The next election will indicate how the people feel about this.


Whether it should or shouldn't be necessary is a moot point. The fact of the matter is that it is necessary, and it was necessary back when I suggested as such before. I even said that if Parliament is moving the country in a direction the populace doesn't like, then an election was one of the only ways to change that. I was told repeatedly that that wasn't the case, to trust the government's plans, and that even suggesting such a thing was undemocratic. Well, look at where the UK is now.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#92New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 01:28:27
@shadowen Said

I have addressed this many times already...

At the end of the day, when the people are given the chance to vote (sometime this year), they (certainly leave voters) will make a judgement re how faithfully MPs have respected the people's vote of 2016 and vote accordingly.


Yes. Ultimately, an election is not about who was right, it is about who was popular with the public. In that sense, it doesn't really matter who said what and who failed to deliver on what. Ultimately, elections end up being about how the constituents feel about the job being done, nothing more.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#93New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 01:35:08
@shadowen Said

They were never negotiating on a level playing field as the UK were never prepared to leave without a deal. Being prepared to leave without a deal doesnt of course guarantee you a better deal but it makes it more likely.


Only in a specific set of circumstances.

Quote:

Their resolve not to compromise their so called 'values' hasnt been tested as they have known from the start that the UK won't leave without a deal. Whether or not they would be prepared to compromise if the UK were to be genuinely prepared to leave without a deal is a purely hypothetical situation at this point. We simply don't know how they would react and Parliament are doing all they can to ensure that we never know.


Clearly all of the preparation over years the EU have been doing for a no deal scenario clearly means they never took the idea of the UK walking away from talks seriously. Obviously they just did it to waste all of their time and money on pointless crap that was never going to happen.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#94New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 01:40:21
@shadowen Said

Go back to some of my earliest posts and you will see that I clearly state that leaving at the end of 2 years under WTO terms is the effective default outcome of triggering article 50. I don't feel the need to specify leaving without a deal after two years is the default position of Article 50 every time I mention the said article...particularly as you and I are the only ones commenting.

Note: One the very first page of this topic i stated:
"...trigger Article 50 and take the UK out of the EU, with or without a deal...with a No Deal exit effectively being the DEFAULT option."

"Article 50 states that the maximum amount of time a country has to negotiate an exit is 2 years (UNLESS the EU agrees to an EXTENSION). IF no agreement is struck during the two year negotiation period then the UK would leave WITHOUT a deal. In reality therefore the NO DEAL option is effectively the DEFAULT option."

Further one I have also stated that:

"Extensions are permitted if the EU agrees to any said extension request from the Member state"

And so on. Maybe you don't really read what I post. Or maybe you are selective, or perhaps determined to misrepresent or ignore what I say.


You need to remember that what started that was that you claimed Parliament did not abide by it's own legislation regarding article 50 and then brought up the default option as if that should be the end of it. In the context of whether or not Parliament is following it's own legislation, the original time limit means nothing because there is a clause in there that allows for extensions.

You cannot simultaneously claim that the legislation allows for extensions and that using that allowance goes against that legislation.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#95New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 13:54:37
@nooneinparticular Said

Whether it should or shouldn't be necessary is a moot point. The fact of the matter is that it is necessary, and it was necessary back when I suggested as such before. I even said that if Parliament is moving the country in a direction the populace doesn't like, then an election was one of the only ways to change that. I was told repeatedly that that wasn't the case, to trust the government's plans, and that even suggesting such a thing was undemocratic. Well, look at where the UK is now.


Firstly the UK had a general election in 2017. So to have yet another general election a year later seemed extreme. Of course no one had any idea that Parliament would take the extraordinary steps that is has over the past couple of weeks.

Secondly, another election in 2018 with May in charge wouldnt have solved anything. Now that there is a clear divide btw parties that are for or against Brexit, and in light of how Parliament has acted recently, an election is now not only necessary but also likely to be more instructive than it would have been if held last year.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#96New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 13:57:02
@nooneinparticular Said

Yes. Ultimately, an election is not about who was right...elections end up being about how the constituents feel about the job being done, nothing more.


I would simply add that 'who was right' is always going to be subjective.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#97New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 14:33:08
@mrmhead Said

Some want the EU to cut a deal that is Unfavorable to the UK in order to discourage other countries from leaving.

I hadn't thought of it that way. I just thought they couldn't come to agreeable terms.

Are the EU negotiators wanting to punish the UK for leaving?



@nooneinparticular Said


Ultimately I guess only a select few bureaucrats in the EU who have been driving the EU's negotiations with the UK know the answer to your question. I was listening to an interview with a Dutch politician only yesterday and he is certainly of the belief that the EU want Eurosceptic factions within the other 27 member states to see just how difficult, messy, and costly it is to try and break away from Brussels.


*added tag to fix thread -tiger
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#98New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 14:59:09
@nooneinparticular Said

You need to remember that what started that was that you claimed Parliament did not abide by it's own legislation regarding article 50 and then brought up the default option as if that should be the end of it. In the context of whether or not Parliament is following it's own legislation, the original time limit means nothing because there is a clause in there that allows for extensions.

The House of Commons voted 498 to 114 to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which allowed the PM to trigger article 50. Politicians did so knowing that article 50 clearly states that if no deal can be agreed upon btw the member state and the EU within 2 years (unless an extension is agreed upon) then the member state shall in effect leave without a deal. Now Parliament are saying that the UK cannot leave without a deal. It has created a brand new law to prevent the PM from taking the UK out without a deal even though leaving without a deal was always the default outcome once article 50 was triggered. So no, Parliament are not acting in a manner consistent with their passing the aforesaid European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. By the way, if the French really do block an extension what do Parliament do then?

@nooneinparticular Said

You cannot simultaneously claim that the legislation allows for extensions and that using that allowance goes against that legislation.

Only I can as the house of Commons voted to give he PM the power to trigger article 50 where leaving without a deal is the DEFAULT option. The house has now created a new law to prevent the current PM from leaving without a deal even though under Article 50 leaving without a deal is the default option. So clearly the rebel alliance are not abiding by their decision to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Furthermore, under law it is only the executive branch of the Government who can negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers and yet Parliament's new law seeks to prevent the executive from doing this and have created a law to dictate the PM's actions. How on earth is that in any way consistent with passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017?

As for whether or not Parliament are seen to be acting in a manner consistent with how they said they would act is something for the electorate to decide. As it is a great many leave voters seem to see the attack on no deal as being in reality an attack on Brexit. I for one think they are right.

Oh, and clearly when you said I "made NO indication" that I was "talking about the default position only", and that I "made it sound like the time limit was 2 years and that there would be no way to change that" you were wrong.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#99New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 15:03:10
Isnt it interesting that for yonks remoaners have been saying that the closer the UK gets to leaving without a deal the worse the economy will perform. And yet in July the economy grew at its fastest rate in six months.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#100New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 15:26:20
And of course remoaners have for a 2nd time refused to support a general election and give the people the chance to have their say on the complete CF that is the UK Parliament.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#101New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 17:19:12
@shadowen Said

Firstly the UK had a general election in 2017. So to have yet another general election a year later seemed extreme. Of course no one had any idea that Parliament would take the extraordinary steps that is has over the past couple of weeks.

Secondly, another election in 2018 with May in charge wouldnt have solved anything. Now that there is a clear divide btw parties that are for or against Brexit, and in light of how Parliament has acted recently, an election is now not only necessary but also likely to be more instructive than it would have been if held last year.


The Tories could not agree on the plan in light of the fact they created a coalition government because they and their coalition partner could not decide on what to do. A hung Parliament is not a tenable situation at this time, unless both sides are willing to re-examine what it is they can give on and what it is they can't. No one seemed willing to do so, hence why the UK got almost 2 years of wheel spinning and bickering, hence why I suggessted that they hold another election a year ago.

Johnson's problem is the same as May's. He cannot reach consensus with Parliament in the situation it has been in for almost 2 years.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#102New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 17:35:01
@shadowen Said

The House of Commons voted 498 to 114 to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which allowed the PM to trigger article 50. Politicians did so knowing that article 50 clearly states that if no deal can be agreed upon btw the member state and the EU within 2 years (unless an extension is agreed upon) then the member state shall in effect leave without a deal. Now Parliament are saying that the UK cannot leave without a deal. It has created a brand new law to prevent the PM from taking the UK out without a deal even though leaving without a deal was always the default outcome once article 50 was triggered. So no, Parliament are not acting in a manner consistent with their passing the aforesaid European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. By the way, if the French really do block an extension what do Parliament do then?


Only I can as the house of Commons voted to give he PM the power to trigger article 50 where leaving without a deal is the DEFAULT option. The house has now created a new law to prevent the current PM from leaving without a deal even though under Article 50 leaving without a deal is the default option. So clearly the rebel alliance are not abiding by their decision to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Furthermore, under law it is only the executive branch of the Government who can negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers and yet Parliament's new law seeks to prevent the executive from doing this and have created a law to dictate the PM's actions. How on earth is that in any way consistent with passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017?


And now we're talking about how two different laws interact with each other, not what one law allows and disallows. Also, I still can't find the text of that law forbidding no deal, so I can neither say what happens in the event the EU say no to an extension (a real possibility), or how it interacts with article 50.

Quote:

As for whether or not Parliament are seen to be acting in a manner consistent with how they said they would act is something for the electorate to decide. As it is a great many leave voters seem to see the attack on no deal as being in reality an attack on Brexit. I for one think they are right.

Oh, and clearly when you said I "made NO indication" that I was "talking about the default position only", and that I "made it sound like the time limit was 2 years and that there would be no way to change that" you were wrong.


Sure. You were talking about the default option only, which is why you decided to drag the no no deal bill into this conversation. You were talking about the default option in the context of Parliament's obligations to follow their own legislation, which makes whatever the default is a moot point.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#103New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 18:53:48
@nooneinparticular Said

The Tories could not agree on the plan in light of the fact they created a coalition government because they and their coalition partner could not decide on what to do. A hung Parliament is not a tenable situation at this time, unless both sides are willing to re-examine what it is they can give on and what it is they can't. No one seemed willing to do so, hence why the UK got almost 2 years of wheel spinning and bickering, hence why I suggessted that they hold another election a year ago.

Johnson's problem is the same as May's. He cannot reach consensus with Parliament in the situation it has been in for almost 2 years.


I don't think another election last year with May in charge would have changed anything.
shadowen On about 5 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#104New Post! Sep 10, 2019 @ 19:05:36
@nooneinparticular Said

...You were talking about the default option in the context of Parliament's obligations to follow their own legislation, which makes whatever the default is a moot point.


Parliament passed a law allowing to PM to trigger article 50 which has leaving with no deal as the default option. They have now passed a new law (by passing the executive) that prohibits the PM from leaving without a deal. If you think that's well and good then bully for you. I am not going to continue to debate the point endlessly. If the rebel alliance (and esp Labour) had the decency to agree to a general election so the people could voice their opinion, re their behaviour, at the ballot box we might actually get some sort of resolution. But despite constantly going on about democracy and letting the people decide (yet again) they refuse to allow the electorate a chance to have their say.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Random
Wed Oct 26, 2011 @ 18:17
25 1802
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Tue Dec 04, 2018 @ 19:19
1 185
New posts   Technology & Internet
Mon Nov 20, 2006 @ 18:37
18 1011
New posts   Poetry
Tue Oct 20, 2009 @ 11:27
1 192
New posts   Relationships
Sun Mar 01, 2009 @ 16:21
7 401