Not good but still infinitely better than Le Pen don't you agree?
Printable View
Not good but still infinitely better than Le Pen don't you agree?
That's a rather low threshold.
France is used to low thresholds.
Far better than Hollande, Sarkozy and Chirac too.
Certainly from Putin's perspective.
Not as good as your President elect from his ...
He wasn't arrested, Dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No only a politician was arrested on that date for reading the poem, so much better: https://boingboing.net/2016/04/23/ge...er-arrest.html
That, my dear, was a bit different than you try to paint it. They guy quoted the "poem" during a demonstration. Just in case you don't know it, demonstrations have to obtain a permit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The guys doing the demonstration obtained said permit under the following condition: To not quote the "poem" because the legal status of the "poem" was up in the air.
He quoted the "poem" anyway, thus nullifying the permit which made his demonstration an illegal one which in turn lead to his arrest. So, in fact he wasn't arrested for reading the poem. He was arrested for doing an illegal demonstration.
edit: Turns out that the newspapers know jackshit about what an "arrest" actually is. He wasn't arrested. He was detained for a very short while.
Airlines based in the UK are getting in a bit of a panic over landing rights after Brexit.
Also; if the ECJ has the article 50 case under it, it could rule every notification of withdrawal in violation of the TEU as it has not been established that the British Constitutional rules were followed.
Hence why A50 isn't being served until the Supreme Court rules what our requirements are.
Absolutely lovely this; you can't get yourself from under the jurisdiction of the ECJ untill the ECJ tells you that you can :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Taaaaake back control....
Supreme Court != ECJ.
Though taking back control is for the long term not overnight anyway.
The interpretation of article 50 falls well outside the jurisdiction of your Supreme Court. If the current case is dependent on the question whether or not notification is final, then your supreme court can't rule on the process of notification untill the ECJ has ruled on article 50. All attempts to notify before the ECJ and subsequently your own Supreme Court have ruled would have to be rejected as such notification would be invalidated by the simple fact that your own constitutional process wasn't followed. Which puts your Brexit firmly in the hands of the ECJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Except we aren't notifying until after the Supreme Court rules so the idea that we would do so before then is moot.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks parliamentary approval is logical and sensible? I mean you had a referendum which said in or out, the result is out so the UK should leave. At the same time there was no particular deal, timeline, or any detail in the referendum, so I think it makes sense to have parliament approve the actual way you will leave. I don't think parliament should stop you guys leaving, that decision was taken, but I also don't think it's a great idea to just accept whatever proposal your (unelected, mind you) government comes up with.
It makes perfect sense. A non-binding referendum should not be enough, on its own, to let the govt. revoke an act of parliament that effectively altered the UK's constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Well, if you run with changing the constitution by interpretation, then I guess not asking parliament makes perfect sense.
By the way is the extra borrowing so that they finally can give the NHS the 350m a week extra?
Whatever deal we get will need Parliamentary approval. The problem is that is at the end of the negotiation process and the way Article 50 works (unless it's revocable) is that Parliament will face a fait accomplj of accept the negotiated deal or let the clock run out and get the hardest of hard Brexits with no deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Hazir: No it's not.
So in that case doesn't it make sense to have parliamentary approval for invoking article 50 depending on the strategy and goals of the government to enter the negotiations? The rough framework, basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Except that to tie the hands of the government before the negotiations would significantly weaken the government and potentially lead to an impossible impasse which leads to Hard Brexit. After all nothing has to go through Parliament to result in that once Article 50 is invoked it is automatic barring a new agreement.
Incidentally yesterday we had our first budgetary Statement post Referendum and buried within the details of the economic forecasts reveals some assumptions about how the government expects negotiations to end.
From the 2019/20 tax year onwards (April 6 2019 on) there are forecast to be zero contributions from the UK to the EU. There are also forecast to be no tariffs between the UK and EU.
Did they say anything about the costs of cleaning up after the nuclear holocaust?
No longer forecast.
If you had any consistency in your European ideas you should actually entirely be in favor of your government's hands being tied in the negotiations. Given the present majority in Parliament it would mean that your government gets a mandate to negotiate a norway-type deal which would cause minimal disruption. Such a deal would be seen as favorable by the EU as well. Probably to the extent that an arrangement for the banking sector would be very possible.
It is exactly your government trying to operate too independently and vying for a 'free hand' that causes maximal uncertainty and potential damage.Especially as it gives the lunatic fring of the Conservative Party to run with this as if the British people voted to leave the continent and head out for the high seas.
I've got consistency in what I want the government to get - tariff free access to the Single Market with financial passporting etc - I think that is a deal that could and should be agreed favourably with the EU.
However the problem is that other people want other things like restrictions on free movement (I don't care about this) and a complete end to financial contributions (I'm actually OK with minimal contributions, Canada and Mexico give contributions to the USA to operate NAFTA I believe). However the EU is not keen to see an end to these. These are not going to be easily agreed.
What we need then is a compromise balancing on the one hand the need to deal with the migration issue and cost ... while simultaneously reaching a happy and mutually beneficial agreement on tariff-free and NTB-free trade.
What should Parliament then instruct the government to prioritise? If the EU knows that we are mandated to prioritise tariff-free trade then they'll not give an inch on the other concerns which will take us back to square one. If the government knows that we are mandated to prioritise migration and can't give an inch on that then we may not be able to get as great a deal with the Single Market as we could have done otherwise.
I don't think the government could whip its own MPs into agreeing a Norway style agreement (since that still includes unlimited free movement) which means relying upon opposition MPs which may pass amendments to demand other things too which is then a very risky strategy. OTOH if the negotiations end as a forced choice between a Norway style agreement and no agreement at all then there would be a massive forced majority to agree to the Norway agreement rather than let the clock run out.
Parliament could give the mandate for the least disruptive agreement. Which would cover what the vast majority of Brits want. Rather than the lunatic fringe option of maximum damage for everyone. Or the BoJo continuance of the favorite Tory passtime of destroying party leaders over Europe.
You're not thinking like a chess player. At least not from the British perspective. Think a couple of steps ahead.
Once Parliament mandates the government to seek the least disruptive agreement does that make agreeing a deal that agrees full access, restrictions to migration and an end to contributions more or less likely? I'd say less, it'd be a repeat of Cameron going into negotiations having already committed to backing Remain regardless of how the negotiations went.
Besides you forget May appointed Boris for a reason.
Half of your voters voted to remain. Now that you've decided to leave, do you believe you should disregard what that half would like to see Brexit look like in order to appease the minority that would prefer restrictions to migration even if it came at the expense of market access?
That is the part you don't seem to get; there will be no negotiations in the traditional sense. You will be trying to have a deal with a counter party that comes to the table with a negotiated set of conditions with no real mandate to deviate from these conditions. The harder you try to get a special deal the less likely it is you will get it. Only if you fold you may be able to add on some items you like more. This is not a game of chess; it's a melée. If you enter the field as if it's something more sophisticated you'll just get your head banged in.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't believe you.