|
Post by wannabee on Jun 28, 2022 0:09:02 GMT
The genuine problem for the country is that it's still politically impossible for mainstream parties to have an honest conversation about the merits of Brexit. This is logical from their pov as voters aren't ready for that conversation yet, but it's a terrible way to make policy. Every single disastrous decision in history was made by someone who took responsibility and led, so that's not enough on it's own. We need evidence-based policy, that's open to challenge, and to change when circumstances or facts change. We are where we are though and I'd always rather light the candle than curse the darkness. I already had an Irish passport anyway, so am cocooned from it to an extent anyway. There's been a 1,200% increase in Irish passports issued to UK citizens since the vote - these are people coming to terms with and making the best of Brexit. Eventually their govt will show similar pragmatism and seek a closer relationship with the EU, but we'll already be far worse off than we ever had to be. I agree to a degree. For me it's acceptance of Brexit and then electing a government with " decent, acceptable, uniting, representative and visionary " policies to state the blindingly ( but therefore somewhat meaningless) obvious. Brexit has happened. We are now a country ,independent of the seven institutions of the EU. I don't think we need to look back ( i know you are not necessarily meaning back) at the merits of Brexit, in one sense Brexit is an event that has happened. Its now about what we do as a country. Interestingly the merits or otherwise of being in/ not in the EU were hardly ever mentioned whilst we were IN....except of course those that involved economic or political UNITY , eg ,joining the Euro, border control ( even if misunderstood). I think the EU supporters took the electorate too much for granted and didn't even attempt( no need to) to take the public with them or to embrace democracy ( imo). There was also toomuch of a cartel of the major parties/institutions no opportunity for debate. The British people will never truly relate to an overseas, remote government....if only for reasons of geography and history, let alone, patriotism , identity and democracy. Anyway I'll bow out now, I'm beginning to get drawn into doing the very thing I've said it is best not to do. Have a good night. I agree with a lot of what you say I accept fully Brexit is done but my cynicism towards Brexit is as much directed toward this Government who don't seem to know what to do with it, or expressed another way how to take the Country forward in the actual circumstances we are now in. Confrontation for confrontation sake when it is counterproductive is just plain ideology I agree with you regarding 6 of the 7 pillars but the Human Rights Act 1998 is a cut and paste of the ECHR . Raab's Bill of Rights Act in no way will subordinate it and nor should it in my opinion YMMV To revisit the merits of EU membership which were inadequately explored though complacency and contempt expecting the electorate to follow their leaders and betters serves no current useful purpose I agree "English" people were never comfortable bedfellows within EEC, as it was, but joined as a matter of expediency as "The Sick Man of Europe" A certain pride was regained and championed by that "Bloody Difficult Woman" For most of the reasons you state - Geography, History, Patriotism, Indentity and Democracy - They too exist in Northern-ireland and Scotland and in my view their is an inevitability to an outcome similar to Brexit irrespective of Economic Rationale simply because those pull factors are fundamentally more important to a person's self
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 28, 2022 1:00:38 GMT
I agree to a degree. For me it's acceptance of Brexit and then electing a government with " decent, acceptable, uniting, representative and visionary " policies to state the blindingly ( but therefore somewhat meaningless) obvious. Brexit has happened. We are now a country ,independent of the seven institutions of the EU. I don't think we need to look back ( i know you are not necessarily meaning back) at the merits of Brexit, in one sense Brexit is an event that has happened. Its now about what we do as a country. Interestingly the merits or otherwise of being in/ not in the EU were hardly ever mentioned whilst we were IN....except of course those that involved economic or political UNITY , eg ,joining the Euro, border control ( even if misunderstood). I think the EU supporters took the electorate too much for granted and didn't even attempt( no need to) to take the public with them or to embrace democracy ( imo). There was also toomuch of a cartel of the major parties/institutions no opportunity for debate. The British people will never truly relate to an overseas, remote government....if only for reasons of geography and history, let alone, patriotism , identity and democracy. Anyway I'll bow out now, I'm beginning to get drawn into doing the very thing I've said it is best not to do. Have a good night. I agree with a lot of what you say I accept fully Brexit is done but my cynicism towards Brexit is as much directed toward this Government who don't seem to know what to do with it, or expressed another way how to take the Country forward in the actual circumstances we are now in. Confrontation for confrontation sake when it is counterproductive is just plain ideology I agree with you regarding 6 of the 7 pillars but the Human Rights Act 1998 is a cut and paste of the ECHR . Raab's Bill of Rights Act in no way will subordinate it and nor should it in my opinion YMMV To revisit the merits of EU membership which were inadequately explored though complacency and contempt expecting the electorate to follow their leaders and betters serves no current useful purpose I agree "English" people were never comfortable bedfellows within EEC, as it was, but joined as a matter of expediency as "The Sick Man of Europe" A certain pride was regained and championed by that "Bloody Difficult Woman" For most of the reasons you state - Geography, History, Patriotism, Indentity and Democracy - They too exist in Northern-ireland and Scotland and in my view their is an inevitability to an outcome similar to Brexit irrespective of Economic Rationale simply because those pull factors are fundamentally more important to a person's self
Indeed, sadly ...
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 3:12:56 GMT
I agree with a lot of what you say I accept fully Brexit is done but my cynicism towards Brexit is as much directed toward this Government who don't seem to know what to do with it, or expressed another way how to take the Country forward in the actual circumstances we are now in. Confrontation for confrontation sake when it is counterproductive is just plain ideology I agree with you regarding 6 of the 7 pillars but the Human Rights Act 1998 is a cut and paste of the ECHR . Raab's Bill of Rights Act in no way will subordinate it and nor should it in my opinion YMMV To revisit the merits of EU membership which were inadequately explored though complacency and contempt expecting the electorate to follow their leaders and betters serves no current useful purpose I agree "English" people were never comfortable bedfellows within EEC, as it was, but joined as a matter of expediency as "The Sick Man of Europe" A certain pride was regained and championed by that "Bloody Difficult Woman" For most of the reasons you state - Geography, History, Patriotism, Indentity and Democracy - They too exist in Northern-ireland and Scotland and in my view their is an inevitability to an outcome similar to Brexit irrespective of Economic Rationale simply because those pull factors are fundamentally more important to a person's self
Indeed, sadly ...
Paul , are you saying that some/ most people's votes weren't based on what they believed is good for the country? ( or wider world/ very doubtful?) Or on what is good for themselves?( if they understood those things to be different?) I'm not disagreeing, I just would like clarification. I'd imagine some people in specific industries( fishing comes to mind) may have believed that the vote was in the interests of that industry....which could also be interpreted as part of " what is best for the country".( the challenge of future governments to ensure that all sectors of industry/ agriculture/ other is still there of course and still debated). Heseltine also springs to mind, who stood to lose alot with the removal of the common agricultural policy. I do think many people made the decision more simply based upon a belief that they did not want to be governed by " the EU", as they perceived the question. Of course the issue of whether the implications of the outcome were known/understood, whether " they" had all the facts to make an informed decision is another argument thrown into the mix. That question can apply to any vote/ election...and conversely whether we knew all the implications of joining/ remaining members....being such a " big decision ". I guess to some extent , when you embarrassed on any political path , the electorate then leave the decision making to that elected government, At the time when Covid arose or the Russian agression against Ukrainian, those events of course , could not have influenced the prior election.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 7:49:41 GMT
Brexit has given us this repulsive government that Scots hate more than most. It makes more people think being part of the EU rather than run by Westminster all the more attractive. Brexit definitely makes the Scots leaving the UK more likely. And Northern Ireland. More or less likely it is a democratic question for those entitled to vote. ( whether they get it " right" or " wrong" in " everyone's eyes" Presumably, equally the English voters should not be bound by votes in regions of the UK of GB and NI. Really your arguments are a symptom of the inability to accept tht others have voted differently in a clear " in / out" referendum, in which the electorate was clear, and not regionally. And , for me, I'm not going over the" they didn't know what they voted for( open to interpretation/ do we ever?) , arguments etc etcetera, which largely arose AFTER the referendum not before....perhaps if Remain had won , we would not have heard of them again ( I know about " unfinished business")... I think that the reluctance to accept the vote and the lost and wasted 3 years of attempted subversion following the result have changed UK politics , impeded our ability to deal with the Pandemic, let in Boris and potentially destroyed the Left or Labour fof a generation. The main hope that the Left has is grasping the Green agenda( I see Boris has taken a good stance on this at G7 today), grasping the opportunity to take ahead on Public ownership of the amenities and Rail( given the current difficulties), electoral( Proportional representation/ H of L abolition)...what do we get" keep your head down as much as possible get Boris, wait for the " government lose elections oppositions don't win them " moment and... Same old , same old.....oh and possibly insult the " ordinary "( deliberate) person along the way by implying Racism and unintelligent, amongst others. ??? I think you quoted the wrong post. I am saying that because Scotland voted heavily for remain, and because of the terrible governance we are having from Westminster since the brexit vote, it is going to persuade some in Scotland that they would prefer to be part of the EU and not run by Westminster. I don’t see how that is at all controversial or unexpected. I don’t want to rehash debates, but if you can point me to a post pre referendum that said we would be breaching international law to undo our own brexit deal within 2 years of it being implemented then by all means go ahead!
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 7:54:41 GMT
Brexit has given us this repulsive government that Scots hate more than most. It makes more people think being part of the EU rather than run by Westminster all the more attractive. Brexit definitely makes the Scots leaving the UK more likely. And Northern Ireland. That is your opinion. Which as we know is generally a load of bollocks. Opinion polls tell a very different story. You might want to run your jaundiced, blinkered eyes over this recent Wings Over Scotland article on the subject of polls; Progress ReportSo you do not agree that the Scots generally dislike the current Westminster government, and you disagree that they voted heavily to remain in the EU? I would say both factors help the SNP’s arguments for independence. An opinion poll in Scotland that says more want to remain in the UK than leave it does not disprove that Brexit and the current Westminster government is helping the SNP arguments for independence. It doesn’t mean they will get a binding vote or win the vote, but surely even you get the logic that the more the Scots dislike the Westminster government, the more likely they would vote for independence!?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 9:33:22 GMT
More or less likely it is a democratic question for those entitled to vote. ( whether they get it " right" or " wrong" in " everyone's eyes" Presumably, equally the English voters should not be bound by votes in regions of the UK of GB and NI. Really your arguments are a symptom of the inability to accept tht others have voted differently in a clear " in / out" referendum, in which the electorate was clear, and not regionally. And , for me, I'm not going over the" they didn't know what they voted for( open to interpretation/ do we ever?) , arguments etc etcetera, which largely arose AFTER the referendum not before....perhaps if Remain had won , we would not have heard of them again ( I know about " unfinished business")... I think that the reluctance to accept the vote and the lost and wasted 3 years of attempted subversion following the result have changed UK politics , impeded our ability to deal with the Pandemic, let in Boris and potentially destroyed the Left or Labour fof a generation. The main hope that the Left has is grasping the Green agenda( I see Boris has taken a good stance on this at G7 today), grasping the opportunity to take ahead on Public ownership of the amenities and Rail( given the current difficulties), electoral( Proportional representation/ H of L abolition)...what do we get" keep your head down as much as possible get Boris, wait for the " government lose elections oppositions don't win them " moment and... Same old , same old.....oh and possibly insult the " ordinary "( deliberate) person along the way by implying Racism and unintelligent, amongst others. ??? I think you quoted the wrong post. I am saying that because Scotland voted heavily for remain, and because of the terrible governance we are having from Westminster since the brexit vote, it is going to persuade some in Scotland that they would prefer to be part of the EU and not run by Westminster. I don’t see how that is at all controversial or unexpected. I don’t want to rehash debates, but if you can point me to a post pre referendum that said we would be breaching international law to undo our own brexit deal within 2 years of it being implemented then by all means go ahead! Sorry if I have replied to the wrong post. To be honest I do believe that you argue passionately for something you genuinely believe is best for the country...we simply disagree. I honestly think your final question is nonsense....for lots of reasons. The five main ones are..... a post on the Oatcake pre 2016 is totally irrelevant to where we are now. there may well be one or not, who really cares. Who's daft enough to spend time searching for one. Your gripe is with THIS government, not Brexit. Arguably it may be appropriate to challenge" international law"....as is also the case with the ECHR .....that was one of the problems with the EU, remote and unchallengable. Have a good day and you can have the last word
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 10:02:17 GMT
??? I think you quoted the wrong post. I am saying that because Scotland voted heavily for remain, and because of the terrible governance we are having from Westminster since the brexit vote, it is going to persuade some in Scotland that they would prefer to be part of the EU and not run by Westminster. I don’t see how that is at all controversial or unexpected. I don’t want to rehash debates, but if you can point me to a post pre referendum that said we would be breaching international law to undo our own brexit deal within 2 years of it being implemented then by all means go ahead! Sorry if I have replied to the wrong post. To be honest I do believe that you argue passionately for something you genuinely believe is best for the country...we simply disagree. I honestly think your final question is nonsense....for lots of reasons. The five main ones are..... a post on the Oatcake pre 2016 is totally irrelevant to where we are now. there may well be one or not, who really cares. Who's daft enough to spend time searching for one. Your gripe is with THIS government, not Brexit. Arguably it may be appropriate to challenge" international law"....as is also the case with the ECHR .....that was one of the problems with the EU, remote and unchallengable. Have a good day and you can have the last word My gripe is with this government, and with Brexit which has led to this government. But Brexit has happened and we have left the EU. So we have to make the best of it which means remainers accepting what I have just said in my previous sentence, and leave voters accepting that the promises they were made by the architects of brexit were lies amd will not happen, and we now need to make the best of it. Breaking the treaty we proposed and signed is not the way to do that. I will end on something we seem to agree on. To make the best of brexit we need a new government!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 10:29:00 GMT
Sorry if I have replied to the wrong post. To be honest I do believe that you argue passionately for something you genuinely believe is best for the country...we simply disagree. I honestly think your final question is nonsense....for lots of reasons. The five main ones are..... a post on the Oatcake pre 2016 is totally irrelevant to where we are now. there may well be one or not, who really cares. Who's daft enough to spend time searching for one. Your gripe is with THIS government, not Brexit. Arguably it may be appropriate to challenge" international law"....as is also the case with the ECHR .....that was one of the problems with the EU, remote and unchallengable. Have a good day and you can have the last word My gripe is with this government, and with Brexit which has led to this government. But Brexit has happened and we have left the EU. So we have to make the best of it which means remainers accepting what I have just said in my previous sentence, and leave voters accepting that the promises they were made by the architects of brexit were lies amd will not happen, and we now need to make the best of it. Breaking the treaty we proposed and signed is not the way to do that. I will end on something we seem to agree on. To make the best of brexit we need a new government! I agree with your last sentence. We could go on forever about accepting things. Perhaps you need to accept that nit everyone thinks the same as you ( DC) and you need to come to terms with the bit about " Brexit has happened and we have left the EU"....what the electorate and government do next is the important bit.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 11:06:28 GMT
My gripe is with this government, and with Brexit which has led to this government. But Brexit has happened and we have left the EU. So we have to make the best of it which means remainers accepting what I have just said in my previous sentence, and leave voters accepting that the promises they were made by the architects of brexit were lies amd will not happen, and we now need to make the best of it. Breaking the treaty we proposed and signed is not the way to do that. I will end on something we seem to agree on. To make the best of brexit we need a new government! I agree with your last sentence. We could go on forever about accepting things. Perhaps you need to accept that nit everyone thinks the same as you ( DC) and you need to come to terms with the bit about " Brexit has happened and we have left the EU"....what the electorate and government do next is the important bit. I thought i could have the last word
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 28, 2022 11:49:40 GMT
Paul , are you saying that some/ most people's votes weren't based on what they believed is good for the country? ( or wider world/ very doubtful?) Or on what is good for themselves?( if they understood those things to be different?) I'm not disagreeing, I just would like clarification. I'd imagine some people in specific industries( fishing comes to mind) may have believed that the vote was in the interests of that industry....which could also be interpreted as part of " what is best for the country".( the challenge of future governments to ensure that all sectors of industry/ agriculture/ other is still there of course and still debated). Heseltine also springs to mind, who stood to lose alot with the removal of the common agricultural policy. I do think many people made the decision more simply based upon a belief that they did not want to be governed by " the EU", as they perceived the question. Of course the issue of whether the implications of the outcome were known/understood, whether " they" had all the facts to make an informed decision is another argument thrown into the mix. That question can apply to any vote/ election...and conversely whether we knew all the implications of joining/ remaining members....being such a " big decision ". I guess to some extent , when you embarrassed on any political path , the electorate then leave the decision making to that elected government, At the time when Covid arose or the Russian agression against Ukrainian, those events of course , could not have influenced the prior election. I'm not saying either John, wannabe lists a number of pull factors that he thought had more influence on how many people voted than anything else, I was agreeing with him.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 28, 2022 11:57:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 12:17:02 GMT
A very interesting interview. Government lawyers are not stupid and will have given this advice to the government. The government know this will be challenged and that is precisely why they are doing it. To ignite support of brexiteers to this concept of absolute sovereignty that exists nowhere in the modern globalised world (North Korea being closest to it) and that was part of the brexit argument. International treaties exist for a reason and individual nation states cannot simply ignore them. They bind them and therefore bind sovereignty, save for there are ways from withdrawing from the treaties of course, as brexit demonstrated when we left the EU. The less influence you have over the treaty, the less sovereignty you therefore have. The EU are in the position of power here, and Johnson’s deal reinforces that.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 28, 2022 12:32:09 GMT
I think the 'right' need to move on and accept the result of the 2017 election that led to a hung parliament and the "3 years of attempted subversion". Ultimately even if the 'right' don't feel that the public voted "correctly" (in their minds) in the 2017 election, they chose a hung parliament and the chaos, gridlock and general stalemate that is produced by such a situation. I think it is just time to move on. It seems to be a lack of leadership and vision in the 'right' which is making them cling on to past grievances - instead of looking towards a future that they themselves have created. They seem stuck in a kind of victimhood, a never-ending groan about Brexit taking longer than it should have due to the electorate not voting "correctly" in 2017. Surely anyone who championed Brexit should be delighted with where the country stands at the moment, having got what they voted for (albeit slightly slower than we thought it would take). I don't follow your argument at all Rip, I'm not that clever. It was a clear in/ out referendum about membership of the EU, that'll do me.What happened since is dependent on several other factors in a changing world...the Elected UK government, the intent of the major political parties and other major players the attitude and approaching response of the EU. When the Scots and Irish have their say , at the forefront of the electorate's mind will be issues of Nationhood, independence, sovereignty, democracy , history, political union etc , very little about trade.... I suspect RRP was just taking the piss, John, based on your repetitive "the Left" stuff
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 12:35:33 GMT
I don't follow your argument at all Rip, I'm not that clever. It was a clear in/ out referendum about membership of the EU, that'll do me.What happened since is dependent on several other factors in a changing world...the Elected UK government, the intent of the major political parties and other major players the attitude and approaching response of the EU. When the Scots and Irish have their say , at the forefront of the electorate's mind will be issues of Nationhood, independence, sovereignty, democracy , history, political union etc , very little about trade.... I suspect RRP was just taking the piss, John, based on your repetitive "the Left" stuff Every little bit helps
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 28, 2022 12:55:11 GMT
Extremely interesting interview, I wonder how Brandon Lewis would respond to it?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 28, 2022 16:27:13 GMT
Extremely interesting interview, I wonder how Brandon Lewis would respond to it? To answer your question Brandon would have no opion until it is given to him I'm surprised Jame O'brien is surprised most reasonably informed Journalists would fully understand this Lawlessness is the very hallmark of this Government and the Fish stinks from the head It ranges from the more petty Partygate fiasco, but the attitude to its outcome of denial and failure to take responsibility underlines its contempt for Law and Order Up the scale we then have these champions of Sovereignty refusing a House of Commons Vote ordering it to release the papers on the appointment of "Lord" Lebedev Next up we have the more prosaic common or garden sleaz and potential criminality as evidenced by the Owen Patterson Affair and the Secret VIP Procurement Lane which was found to be illegal in the High Court The Patterson Affair gives an interesting insight into the thinking Because although found guilty and sanctioned there was an attempt to change the rules to avoid any punishment for one of "the Eton Chum" It backfired spectacularly Next up on the rank was the UK Internal Markets Bill which Brandon Lewis announced to the House of Commons in September 2020 would breach International Law but ONLY in a "Limited and Specific Way" The timing of this is important as it is less than a year after The Withdrawal Agreement and The Protocol was agreed in October 2019 This was Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Turkey" on which he won the December 2019 Election EU immediately commenced Legal Action. In steps Michael Give who negotiates with Mauro Sefcovic and hey presto Gove announces in December 2020 everything is now OK with The Protocol and the Northern-ireland Clauses in the IM Bill are removed The Agreement is signed into UK Law on 31st December 2020 and UK leave EU on 31st January 2021 Hurrah! Not quite Boris's "Oven Ready Turkey " which Gove had Butter Basted was still not succulent and plump enough Our latest Brexit Hero announces that UK is taking Unilateral Action to ignore the Agreement it had painstakingly agreed There is no question to anyone with an ounce of common sense that it breaks International Law Whether UK Government intends to fully push through all stages of NI Protocol Bill I'm doubtful but perhaps they are crazy enough Perhaps the EU renewed legal Action may come first forcing mediation A review of the Legal Opinion is here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/northern-ireland-protocol-billRaab's clumsy attempt to imply his Bill of Rights overrides ECHR doesn't exorcise me too much, it doesn't It's a wedge issue intended to throw red meat to its supporters One of the specific issues it purports to address is The Rwanda Policy which the legality or otherwise will be subject to full Judicial Review next month so we shall see More concerning in the Bill is that it will make it more difficult for UK Citizens to gain access to ECHR
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 16:42:12 GMT
Extremely interesting interview, I wonder how Brandon Lewis would respond to it? To answer your question Brandon would have no opion until it is given to him I'm surprised Jame O'brien is surprised most reasonably informed Journalists would fully understand this Lawlessness is the very hallmark of this Government and the Fish stinks from the head It ranges from the more petty Partygate fiasco, but the attitude to its outcome of denial and failure to take responsibility underlines its contempt for Law and Order Up the scale we then have these champions of Sovereignty refusing a House of Commons Vote ordering it to release the papers on the appointment of "Lord" Lebedev Next up we have the more prosaic common or garden sleaz and potential criminality as evidenced by the Owen Patterson Affair and the Secret VIP Procurement Lane which was found to be illegal in the High Court The Patterson Affair gives an interesting insight into the thinking Because although found guilty and sanctioned there was an attempt to change the rules to avoid any punishment for one of "the Eton Chum" It backfired spectacularly Next up on the rank was the UK Internal Markets Bill which Brandon Lewis announced to the House of Commons in September 2020 would breach International Law but ONLY in a "Limited and Specific Way" The timing of this is important as it is less than a year after The Withdrawal Agreement and The Protocol was agreed in October 2019 This was Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Turkey" on which he won the December 2019 Election EU immediately commenced Legal Action. In steps Michael Give who negotiates with Mauro Sefcovic and hey presto Gove announces in December 2020 everything is now OK with The Protocol and the Northern-ireland Clauses in the IM Bill are removed The Agreement is signed into UK Law on 31st December 2020 and UK leave EU on 31st January 2021 Hurrah! Not quite Boris's "Oven Ready Turkey " which Gove had Butter Basted was still not succulent and plump enough Our latest Brexit Hero announces that UK is taking Unilateral Action to ignore the Agreement it had painstakingly agreed There is no question to anyone with an ounce of common sense that it breaks International Law Whether UK Government intends to fully push through all stages of NI Protocol Bill I'm doubtful but perhaps they are crazy enough Perhaps the EU renewed legal Action may come first forcing mediation A review of the Legal Opinion is here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/northern-ireland-protocol-billRaab's clumsy attempt to imply his Bill of Rights overrides ECHR doesn't exorcise me too much, it doesn't It's a wedge issue intended to throw red meat to its supporters One of the specific issues it purports to address is The Rwanda Policy which the legality or otherwise will be subject to full Judicial Review next month so we shall see More concerning in the Bill is that it will make it more difficult for UK Citizens to gain access to ECHR An excellent account. So would you say the only three solutions in the medium or long term are: Rejoin the EU A United Ireland A Hard border between NI and the Republic.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 17:31:03 GMT
To answer your question Brandon would have no opion until it is given to him I'm surprised Jame O'brien is surprised most reasonably informed Journalists would fully understand this Lawlessness is the very hallmark of this Government and the Fish stinks from the head It ranges from the more petty Partygate fiasco, but the attitude to its outcome of denial and failure to take responsibility underlines its contempt for Law and Order Up the scale we then have these champions of Sovereignty refusing a House of Commons Vote ordering it to release the papers on the appointment of "Lord" Lebedev Next up we have the more prosaic common or garden sleaz and potential criminality as evidenced by the Owen Patterson Affair and the Secret VIP Procurement Lane which was found to be illegal in the High Court The Patterson Affair gives an interesting insight into the thinking Because although found guilty and sanctioned there was an attempt to change the rules to avoid any punishment for one of "the Eton Chum" It backfired spectacularly Next up on the rank was the UK Internal Markets Bill which Brandon Lewis announced to the House of Commons in September 2020 would breach International Law but ONLY in a "Limited and Specific Way" The timing of this is important as it is less than a year after The Withdrawal Agreement and The Protocol was agreed in October 2019 This was Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Turkey" on which he won the December 2019 Election EU immediately commenced Legal Action. In steps Michael Give who negotiates with Mauro Sefcovic and hey presto Gove announces in December 2020 everything is now OK with The Protocol and the Northern-ireland Clauses in the IM Bill are removed The Agreement is signed into UK Law on 31st December 2020 and UK leave EU on 31st January 2021 Hurrah! Not quite Boris's "Oven Ready Turkey " which Gove had Butter Basted was still not succulent and plump enough Our latest Brexit Hero announces that UK is taking Unilateral Action to ignore the Agreement it had painstakingly agreed There is no question to anyone with an ounce of common sense that it breaks International Law Whether UK Government intends to fully push through all stages of NI Protocol Bill I'm doubtful but perhaps they are crazy enough Perhaps the EU renewed legal Action may come first forcing mediation A review of the Legal Opinion is here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/northern-ireland-protocol-billRaab's clumsy attempt to imply his Bill of Rights overrides ECHR doesn't exorcise me too much, it doesn't It's a wedge issue intended to throw red meat to its supporters One of the specific issues it purports to address is The Rwanda Policy which the legality or otherwise will be subject to full Judicial Review next month so we shall see More concerning in the Bill is that it will make it more difficult for UK Citizens to gain access to ECHR An excellent account. So would you say the only three solutions in the medium or long term are: Rejoin the EU A United Ireland A Hard border between NI and the Republic. Or join the EEA Or stick to the current protocol (most of N Ire like it) Or negotiate more on the current protocol
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jun 28, 2022 17:39:29 GMT
To answer your question Brandon would have no opion until it is given to him I'm surprised Jame O'brien is surprised most reasonably informed Journalists would fully understand this Lawlessness is the very hallmark of this Government and the Fish stinks from the head It ranges from the more petty Partygate fiasco, but the attitude to its outcome of denial and failure to take responsibility underlines its contempt for Law and Order Up the scale we then have these champions of Sovereignty refusing a House of Commons Vote ordering it to release the papers on the appointment of "Lord" Lebedev Next up we have the more prosaic common or garden sleaz and potential criminality as evidenced by the Owen Patterson Affair and the Secret VIP Procurement Lane which was found to be illegal in the High Court The Patterson Affair gives an interesting insight into the thinking Because although found guilty and sanctioned there was an attempt to change the rules to avoid any punishment for one of "the Eton Chum" It backfired spectacularly Next up on the rank was the UK Internal Markets Bill which Brandon Lewis announced to the House of Commons in September 2020 would breach International Law but ONLY in a "Limited and Specific Way" The timing of this is important as it is less than a year after The Withdrawal Agreement and The Protocol was agreed in October 2019 This was Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Turkey" on which he won the December 2019 Election EU immediately commenced Legal Action. In steps Michael Give who negotiates with Mauro Sefcovic and hey presto Gove announces in December 2020 everything is now OK with The Protocol and the Northern-ireland Clauses in the IM Bill are removed The Agreement is signed into UK Law on 31st December 2020 and UK leave EU on 31st January 2021 Hurrah! Not quite Boris's "Oven Ready Turkey " which Gove had Butter Basted was still not succulent and plump enough Our latest Brexit Hero announces that UK is taking Unilateral Action to ignore the Agreement it had painstakingly agreed There is no question to anyone with an ounce of common sense that it breaks International Law Whether UK Government intends to fully push through all stages of NI Protocol Bill I'm doubtful but perhaps they are crazy enough Perhaps the EU renewed legal Action may come first forcing mediation A review of the Legal Opinion is here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/northern-ireland-protocol-billRaab's clumsy attempt to imply his Bill of Rights overrides ECHR doesn't exorcise me too much, it doesn't It's a wedge issue intended to throw red meat to its supporters One of the specific issues it purports to address is The Rwanda Policy which the legality or otherwise will be subject to full Judicial Review next month so we shall see More concerning in the Bill is that it will make it more difficult for UK Citizens to gain access to ECHR An excellent account. So would you say the only three solutions in the medium or long term are: Rejoin the EU A United Ireland A Hard border between NI and the Republic. Getting into another referendum territory with that John😉
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 17:51:05 GMT
An excellent account. So would you say the only three solutions in the medium or long term are: Rejoin the EU A United Ireland A Hard border between NI and the Republic. Or join the EEA Or stick to the current protocol (most of N Ire like it) Or negotiate more on the current protocol I Don't think those are decisive or clear cut
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 17:54:53 GMT
An excellent account. So would you say the only three solutions in the medium or long term are: Rejoin the EU A United Ireland A Hard border between NI and the Republic. Getting into another referendum territory with that John😉 A referendum on a United Ireland? Or Another EU referendum, if there was a clear public or political will...but of course that would mean knowing all the implications of rejoining, acknowledging the supremacy of the EU Court of Justice, joining the Euro, Free movement, ever closer union towards a United States of Europe......mind you we did have that in 2016, so ....is it politically likely? But ,as I say, those are the only 3 genuinely workable options, imo
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jun 28, 2022 18:06:13 GMT
Getting into another referendum territory with that John😉 A referendum on a United Ireland? Or Another EU referendum, if there was a clear public or political will...but of course that would mean knowing all the implications of rejoining, acknowledging the supremacy of the EU Court of Justice, joining the Euro, Free movement, ever closer union towards a United States of Europe......mind you we did have that in 2016, so ....is it politically likely? But ,as I say, those are the only 3 genuinely workable options, imo Well - I don't really see re-entry to the EU without a referendum - nor a United Ireland (in which citizens of ROI would presumably participate). So - as I say - referendum territory. Re entry to the EU assumes they'd have us back anyway (not a given) but if they would I'm sure they would be more than happy to lay down their terms for doing so. But as we were told back in 2016 by Farage et al 'they need us more than we need them' then I'm sure they would be inordinately generous. And whatever they were - at least they'd be clearer and more detailed than - er - 'Brexit means Brexit'
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 18:18:59 GMT
A referendum on a United Ireland? Or Another EU referendum, if there was a clear public or political will...but of course that would mean knowing all the implications of rejoining, acknowledging the supremacy of the EU Court of Justice, joining the Euro, Free movement, ever closer union towards a United States of Europe......mind you we did have that in 2016, so ....is it politically likely? But ,as I say, those are the only 3 genuinely workable options, imo Well - I don't really see re-entry to the EU without a referendum - nor a United Ireland (in which citizens of ROI would presumably participate). So - as I say - referendum territory. Re entry to the EU assumes they'd have us back anyway (not a given) but if they would I'm sure they would be more than happy to lay down their terms for doing so. But as we were told back in 2016 by Farage et al 'they need us more than we need them' then I'm sure they would be inordinately generous. And whatever they were - at least they'd be clearer and more detailed than - er - 'Brexit means Brexit' I think there are a lot of presumptions there Seymour. Time will tell. I think my other two options areas likely but as I've said many times , we can't predict the future.....and I would say even moreso in this era.Changing times....we are a trading nation, but possibly trade will not be as important in a changing world ,as other factors, who knows, climate , security, viruses... Many countries have issues of different sorts at their borders. We only have to look at Ukraine, the Turkey/ Greece issue, the 40 plus people who have sadly died in America from heatstroke on the bus. Of course the Irish question is largely , historically of our( Scottish Protestants) making. I was once fairly reliably informed that the amount of illegal weapons and drugs making there way into Europe via Naples was unbelievable. All I'm saying is that the three solutions I've mentioned are the clearest, and of course ,not everyone will be satisfied with any outcome. Of course better mind than mine may come up with better working solutions.
|
|
|
Post by muggleton on Jun 28, 2022 18:57:36 GMT
The genuine problem for the country is that it's still politically impossible for mainstream parties to have an honest conversation about the merits of Brexit. This is logical from their pov as voters aren't ready for that conversation yet, but it's a terrible way to make policy. Every single disastrous decision in history was made by someone who took responsibility and led, so that's not enough on it's own. We need evidence-based policy, that's open to challenge, and to change when circumstances or facts change. We are where we are though and I'd always rather light the candle than curse the darkness. I already had an Irish passport anyway, so am cocooned from it to an extent anyway. There's been a 1,200% increase in Irish passports issued to UK citizens since the vote - these are people coming to terms with and making the best of Brexit. Eventually their govt will show similar pragmatism and seek a closer relationship with the EU, but we'll already be far worse off than we ever had to be. I agree to a degree. For me it's acceptance of Brexit and then electing a government with " decent, acceptable, uniting, representative and visionary " policies to state the blindingly ( but therefore somewhat meaningless) obvious. Brexit has happened. We are now a country ,independent of the seven institutions of the EU. I don't think we need to look back ( i know you are not necessarily meaning back) at the merits of Brexit, in one sense Brexit is an event that has happened. Its now about what we do as a country. Interestingly the merits or otherwise of being in/ not in the EU were hardly ever mentioned whilst we were IN....except of course those that involved economic or political UNITY , eg ,joining the Euro, border control ( even if misunderstood). I think the EU supporters took the electorate too much for granted and didn't even attempt( no need to) to take the public with them or to embrace democracy ( imo). There was also toomuch of a cartel of the major parties/institutions no opportunity for debate. The British people will never truly relate to an overseas, remote government....if only for reasons of geography and history, let alone, patriotism , identity and democracy. Anyway I'll bow out now, I'm beginning to get drawn into doing the very thing I've said it is best not to do. Have a good night. I certainly took the Referendum for granted and misread the English electorate. The British (English really) people who didn't truly relate to the EU have got what they want, and will pay a price for that. Farage of all people had a monent of candour in the campaign when he said he spoke for people who'd be happy to be poorer outside the EU with increased control over migration. That chimed with me as there are loads of major political changes I'd be happy to accept despite them making me poorer (wealth redistribution, punitive inheritance taxes, investment in public services, commitments to address poverty/homelessness, a United Ireland). But Brexit wasn't really sold as something that would make the country poorer economically, with the hit to the economy being balanced out by other non-monetary benefits. And those benefits still look elusive, while the economic costs are increasingly apparent.
|
|
|
Post by muggleton on Jun 28, 2022 19:04:49 GMT
A referendum on a United Ireland? Or Another EU referendum, if there was a clear public or political will...but of course that would mean knowing all the implications of rejoining, acknowledging the supremacy of the EU Court of Justice, joining the Euro, Free movement, ever closer union towards a United States of Europe......mind you we did have that in 2016, so ....is it politically likely? But ,as I say, those are the only 3 genuinely workable options, imo Well - I don't really see re-entry to the EU without a referendum - nor a United Ireland (in which citizens of ROI would presumably participate). So - as I say - referendum territory. Re entry to the EU assumes they'd have us back anyway (not a given) but if they would I'm sure they would be more than happy to lay down their terms for doing so. But as we were told back in 2016 by Farage et al 'they need us more than we need them' then I'm sure they would be inordinately generous. And whatever they were - at least they'd be clearer and more detailed than - er - 'Brexit means Brexit' The tragedy of Brexit is it's irreversiblility (which I'm not even sure is a word), as the hard won concessions to the UK position within the EU will never be replicated outside it or by rejoining. Rejoining would be on drastically worse terms, making it politically impossible, so it's a case of making the best of inferior arrangements outside. Both significantly worse than what we had. Part of the madness of the 2nd Referendum campaign was driven by the realisation that once it happened the damage of Brexit could never be undone.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 19:13:23 GMT
I agree to a degree. For me it's acceptance of Brexit and then electing a government with " decent, acceptable, uniting, representative and visionary " policies to state the blindingly ( but therefore somewhat meaningless) obvious. Brexit has happened. We are now a country ,independent of the seven institutions of the EU. I don't think we need to look back ( i know you are not necessarily meaning back) at the merits of Brexit, in one sense Brexit is an event that has happened. Its now about what we do as a country. Interestingly the merits or otherwise of being in/ not in the EU were hardly ever mentioned whilst we were IN....except of course those that involved economic or political UNITY , eg ,joining the Euro, border control ( even if misunderstood). I think the EU supporters took the electorate too much for granted and didn't even attempt( no need to) to take the public with them or to embrace democracy ( imo). There was also toomuch of a cartel of the major parties/institutions no opportunity for debate. The British people will never truly relate to an overseas, remote government....if only for reasons of geography and history, let alone, patriotism , identity and democracy. Anyway I'll bow out now, I'm beginning to get drawn into doing the very thing I've said it is best not to do. Have a good night. I certainly took the Referendum for granted and misread the English electorate. The British (English really) people who didn't truly relate to the EU have got what they want, and will pay a price for that. Farage of all people had a monent of candour in the campaign when he said he spoke for people who'd be happy to be poorer outside the EU with increased control over migration. That chimed with me as there are loads of major political changes I'd be happy to accept despite them making me poorer (wealth redistribution, punitive inheritance taxes, investment in public services, commitments to address poverty/homelessness, a United Ireland). But Brexit wasn't really sold as something that would make the country poorer economically, with the hit to the economy being balanced out by other non-monetary benefits. And those benefits still look elusive, while the economic costs are increasingly apparent. It seems to me it is going to take a generation of new politicians, who regrasp the idea of independence from the directives of the EU to implement Brexut. In my opinion , for most of the Leavers it wasn't about trade, but about sovereignty( ie no reference to the EU in decision making), independence, democracy patriotism , identity and Nationhood...similar issues that will be prevalent in a Scottish or Irish referendum. Perhaps in the EU referendum of those who voted, slightly more people preferred not to be in the EU....it is possible. But I'm not going to get drawn into living the past many, many timess again on the Oatcake...We've gone over this ground in different ways many times , so I'll leave that part of the debate. The 3 options I put forward, as difficult as each is, seem to me to be the only workable solutions to future relations......, it may be taken out of the UK's hands.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jun 28, 2022 19:14:45 GMT
Or join the EEA Or stick to the current protocol (most of N Ire like it) Or negotiate more on the current protocol I Don't think those are decisive or clear cut No less decisive and clear cut than your options (other than rejoining the EU )
|
|
|
Post by muggleton on Jun 28, 2022 19:14:50 GMT
Sorry if I have replied to the wrong post. To be honest I do believe that you argue passionately for something you genuinely believe is best for the country...we simply disagree. I honestly think your final question is nonsense....for lots of reasons. The five main ones are..... a post on the Oatcake pre 2016 is totally irrelevant to where we are now. there may well be one or not, who really cares. Who's daft enough to spend time searching for one. Your gripe is with THIS government, not Brexit. Arguably it may be appropriate to challenge" international law"....as is also the case with the ECHR .....that was one of the problems with the EU, remote and unchallengable. Have a good day and you can have the last word My gripe is with this government, and with Brexit which has led to this government. But Brexit has happened and we have left the EU. So we have to make the best of it which means remainers accepting what I have just said in my previous sentence, and leave voters accepting that the promises they were made by the architects of brexit were lies amd will not happen, and we now need to make the best of it. Breaking the treaty we proposed and signed is not the way to do that. I will end on something we seem to agree on. To make the best of brexit we need a new government! I find the accept/make the best of Brexit line a bit glib tbh. Just about everyone tries to make the best of bad situations not of their making. People and communities did it throughout Thatcherism, without feeling they necessarily had to change their view on how damaging it was. Agree on all other fronts though. Get this shower gone.
|
|
|
Post by muggleton on Jun 28, 2022 19:19:44 GMT
I certainly took the Referendum for granted and misread the English electorate. The British (English really) people who didn't truly relate to the EU have got what they want, and will pay a price for that. Farage of all people had a monent of candour in the campaign when he said he spoke for people who'd be happy to be poorer outside the EU with increased control over migration. That chimed with me as there are loads of major political changes I'd be happy to accept despite them making me poorer (wealth redistribution, punitive inheritance taxes, investment in public services, commitments to address poverty/homelessness, a United Ireland). But Brexit wasn't really sold as something that would make the country poorer economically, with the hit to the economy being balanced out by other non-monetary benefits. And those benefits still look elusive, while the economic costs are increasingly apparent. It seems to me it is going to take a generation of new politicians, who regrasp the idea of independence from the directives of the EU to implement Brexut. In my opinion , for most of the Leavers it wasn't about trade, but about sovereignty( ie no reference to the EU in decision making), independence, democracy patriotism , identity and Nationhood...similar issues that will be prevalent in a Scottish or Irish referendum. Perhaps in the EU referendum of those who voted, slightly more people preferred not to be in the EU....it is possible. But I'm not going to get drawn into living the past many, many timess again on the Oatcake...We've gone over this ground in different ways many times , so I'll leave that part of the debate. The 3 options I put forward, as difficult as each is, seem to me to be the only workable solutions to future relations......, it may be taken out of the UK's hands. It's certainly been a chastening experience for the UK to have the limits if it's sovereignty outside the EU highlighted so starkly so early. An honest debate on the pros and cons of the current and any future position is needed. But the country isn't ready for that, so the damage will continue to be done.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2022 19:25:11 GMT
Well - I don't really see re-entry to the EU without a referendum - nor a United Ireland (in which citizens of ROI would presumably participate). So - as I say - referendum territory. Re entry to the EU assumes they'd have us back anyway (not a given) but if they would I'm sure they would be more than happy to lay down their terms for doing so. But as we were told back in 2016 by Farage et al 'they need us more than we need them' then I'm sure they would be inordinately generous. And whatever they were - at least they'd be clearer and more detailed than - er - 'Brexit means Brexit' The tragedy of Brexit is it's irreversiblility (which I'm not even sure is a word), as the hard won concessions to the UK position within the EU will never be replicated outside it or by rejoining. Rejoining would be on drastically worse terms, making it politically impossible, so it's a case of making the best of inferior arrangements outside. Both significantly worse than what we had. Part of the madness of the 2nd Referendum campaign was driven by the realisation that once it happened the damage of Brexit could never be undone. We might disagree but the " power " of the 7 EU institutions lies with Germany and France...and is then exerted through the unminuted meetings of the Eurogroup, then through the meeting of the Council of EuropeanUnion, the next day, then Commission draws up and implements the ( Eurogroup / Council of European Union/ Germany and France , take your pick) agreed policies, then approved by the quasi- Parliament, and enforced by the Europen Court of Justice....with one aim in mind....ever closer union. No real debate or involvement of the people, particularly the British....we have never shown any interest in the EU. Each word is important, as long as the project moves in the right direction, economic and political union, controlled from Brussels then that's progress....so in my opinion there will come a time when every country will be required to join the Euro, cementing union, we would be so far in , we could not reasonably get out....Political and economic union. You might want that....but I didn't and don't.
|
|