Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mormont

UK Politics: Time Marches On

Recommended Posts

If one passes by a pond with a drowning child there is an obligation to pull it out. But there is no obvious obligation to patrol (or pay for patrolling) all ponds in the world (or even all ponds in the neighborhood) because there might be children drowning. One could debate if there might be an obligation for putting fences around the more dangerous ponds or warning signs. But that's it. Anything more is extraordinary and certainly not a "right".

I also don't get why some citizen from western Europe who is caught with some petty crime or maybe with drugs in Russia, Singapore or Indonesia should have to face local justice system (usually with far harsher sentences and conditions than the home country) whereas people who openly renounce their home country and join a terrorist organization (in some cases including fighting and killing for such organizations) should not have to face Iraqi or Syrian institutions of justice but be brought back to Western Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Well, when the prime minister does it, that means that it is not illegal

I think the official reply to that tweet by Cox was ‘bollocks’. So that’s a denial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

So the country waits for an unelected expert (Geoffrey Cox QC) to tell us what to do

brexit irony number 5892736

Yeah the chief legal advisor to the crown.. who is that anyway?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah the chief legal advisor to the crown.. who is that anyway?!

an unelected expert ;-)
funny isn't it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nevarfeather said:

an unelected expert ;-)
funny isn't it

So the Attorney General should be elected now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Heartofice said:

So the Attorney General should be elected now?

did i say that?
i'm just finding it hilariously ironic that the fate of the country lies with an unelected expert's opinion
that's all. just read what I said. Of all the brexit ironies (take back control- give it to Ireland etc) this one is very amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mormont said:

I know Javid's defence is that it was too dangerous to rescue the child, but let's not dignify that patent rubbish by taking it seriously.

It may well have been too dangerous: however, that was not why Javid did nothing.

But also: was it dangerous?  A journalist spoke with her and her husband.  If Javid wanted to rescue the child, ask the journalist how he got in!  Or get the journalist to bring the child back.

Feeble excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nevarfeather said:

did i say that?
i'm just finding it hilariously ironic that the fate of the country lies with an unelected expert's opinion
that's all. just read what I said. Of all the brexit ironies (take back control- give it to Ireland etc) this one is very amusing.

Yeah I don't really see the irony at all sorry. What else has been undemocratic? Unless you are referring to the 'peoples vote'?

Attorney General is an office appointed by the Prime Minister and he is giving his legal opinion on the contents of the so called deal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah I don't really see the irony at all sorry. What else has been undemocratic? Unless you are referring to the 'peoples vote'?

that's ok, you don't have to see the irony
nobody is saying you have to see irony today, it's not obligatory

ps how is a vote undemocratic? that's an odd thing to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

that's ok, you don't have to see the irony
nobody is saying you have to see irony today, it's not obligatory

ps how is a vote undemocratic? that's an odd thing to say

I don't see the irony because there is little that is ironic about what you said. Keep trying.

The whole 'peoples vote' argument has been going seemingly forever, but its often argued that if you have a second referendum to reverse the first one, before you have even implemented the result of the first vote.. then its nothing more than a 'vote until you get the answer correct' device. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Heartofice said:

I don't see the irony because there is little that is ironic about what you said. Keep trying.

The whole 'peoples vote' argument has been going seemingly forever, but its often argued that if you have a second referendum to reverse the first one, before you have even implemented the result of the first vote.. then its nothing more than a 'vote until you get the answer correct' device. 

i don't  have to keep trying HO, it's not my role to demonstrate ironies i find to other people, they're just ironies i find.

we haven't had a vote on May's deal, so how can we vote until we get the correct answer on something we haven't ever voted on before? it would be the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nevarfeather said:

we haven't had a vote on May's deal, so how can we vote until we get the correct answer on something we haven't ever voted on before? it would be the first time.

Yeah don't really want to have to rerun this old tired conversation. But the ref was to leave the EU, a problem with the original wording was how vague it was, but it didn't ask how to leave the EU. You could probably justify a second ref which didn't include remain, but it would seem pretty undemocratic if you tried to get it in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'pretty undemocratic'
so not actually undemocratic. right.

Meanwhile the unelected expert has spoken!
Geoffrey Cox says legal risk remains "unchanged" that if there were "intractable differences" between the parties the UK would have "no internationally lawful means of exiting" the backstop.
So tonight I guess her deal goes down. Again.

So what's plan B? An extension or No-deal.
Does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

Geoffrey Cox says legal risk remains "unchanged" that if there were "intractable differences" between the parties the UK would have "no internationally lawful means of exiting" the backstop.
So tonight I guess her deal goes down. Again.

So what's plan B? An extension or No-deal.
Does anyone know?

 

Quote

He also says that: “There is no doubt, in my view, that theclarifications and amplified obligations contained in the Joint Instrument and the Declaration provide a substantive and binding reinforcement of the legal rights available to the United Kingdom in the event that the EU were to fail in its duties of good faith and best endeavours.”

Cox also talks of a measures that “reduce the risk”, saying: “I now consider that the legally binding provisions of the Joint Instrument and the content of the Unilateral Declaration reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained within the Protocol’s provisions at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.”



So maybe the deal won't go down in a ball of fire, but it still doesn't look all that positive.

My guess is that No Deal is basically off the table (which means the EU didn't have to really budge at all) and in all likelyhood some sort of delay or extension will come about. The EU is asking for a good reason for the delay however, and it looks pretty pricy for the UK so its far from guaranteed. JRM has also mentioned that No Deal is still a possibility. 

Basically I don't think anyone can accurately predict what will happen with Brexit. 

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Plan B depends on the outcome of the next two votes. The flaw here (which may be intentional) is that they are two separate votes. So, first the Commons votes on whether to reject No Deal (Wednesday): then it votes on whether to ask for an extension to A50 (Thursday). 

But of course, it's possible that the Commons would vote against both of these things, which then gives us fifteen days to sort out a deal that has so far proved impossible over two years. Or we go out with no deal anyway, whether we want to or not. 

ETA - it remains unclear what length of extension to A50 we'd be talking about, and that may be crucial. 

Edited by mormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nevarfeather said:

i'm so glad we took back so much control
 

Leaving the EU is designed to be difficult / impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Heartofice said:

Leaving the EU is designed to be difficult / impossible.

lol, that's exactly the opposite of what voters were told in 2016 by Leave though, isn't it.
anyone who said otherwise was dismissed as Project Fear

all Leave lies are coming home to roost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else feeling an impending sense of doom?

How can they rule out No Deal when they haven't got any idea what a Deal would like????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×