Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 18:46:34 GMT
It normally happens every year. It's standard. This is the longest running session of Parliament since the Civil War. You cannot allow the Domestic Agenda to stop just because of Brexit. Life has to go on. In 2017 it was agreed that this session would last for the duration of Brexit, thought to be 2 years. No problem with prorogation in principle, but what can the Government do after that they couldn't before? Start to implement their domestic stuff? Brexit is not the only show in town.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 19:14:07 GMT
In 2017 it was agreed that this session would last for the duration of Brexit, thought to be 2 years. No problem with prorogation in principle, but what can the Government do after that they couldn't before? Start to implement their domestic stuff? Brexit is not the only show in town. Prorogation isn't the solution though, is it. Brexit is still there either way and the Government can still function. As I said before, plenty of Bills already under way are now lost or delayed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 19:20:42 GMT
Start to implement their domestic stuff? Brexit is not the only show in town. Prorogation isn't the solution though, is it. Brexit is still there either way and the Government can still function. As I said before, plenty of Bills already under way are now lost or delayed. No Bills from the government. All the stuff from the last Queen's Speech was finished ages ago.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 19:25:23 GMT
I've enjoyed it, shame work got in the way though. What loopholes are there? From my understanding :, No Bills should be passed that force the government into a spending commitment. With previous Brexit Bills, May way 'asked' or she was 'encouraged' to approach the EU for an extension. With the latest Bill it dictates that the PM 'Must' ask for an extension, and he 'must' accept whatever the EU offer. It is an instruction, not a request. Any extension costs over 1 billion per month, which is a spending commitment. Therefore, the Bill can be challenged or even ignored. Next, there is a conflict over the Law. One Law says that we leave the EU on Oct 31st, either with or without a deal. The new Law says that without a deal the PM must accept an extension. Which Law has precedent? For really muddled up thinking, "The best way to bypass the flaw is for MPs to refuse to approve any motion for a WA on or before 19 October. Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal." - Flaw in Benn BillIn other words, even if Johnson comes back with a great WA, they will still vote against it! Marvellous eh. There is also something about the letter to the EU must be delivered by 23:59 on the 19th, which is a Friday night. The EU meeting ends on the 18th, and the UK have to respond to the EU within two calendar days! Something about that for the Lawyers to get their mucky mitts into. There is also something about apparent conflicts between the Benn Bill and the Withdrawal Act. As I said earlier, the Benn Bill wasn't thought through enough. You cannot rush through something that you want to become Law. No conflict between the Acts, the instruction is more to do with whether Queen's Consent was required, no longer an issue now that it has received Royal Assent. The other one about the machinations om the WA is possible, but now unlikely for the reason you pointed it out and no one will trust Boris. Bring it back as a full Bill rather than a meaningful vote and it will be amended to prevent tbis happening. So not really the "whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited." Lord Sumption was on Newsnight the other day, in his opinion the Act is very well written and although there may be a loophole, it is not clear where.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 19:31:43 GMT
Prorogation isn't the solution though, is it. Brexit is still there either way and the Government can still function. As I said before, plenty of Bills already under way are now lost or delayed. No Bills from the government. All the stuff from the last Queen's Speech was finished ages ago. Not sure about no government Bills, but regardless plenty of important ones lost, Brexit Bills, no fault divorce, Domestic Abuse, Animal welfare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 19:42:30 GMT
From my understanding :, No Bills should be passed that force the government into a spending commitment. With previous Brexit Bills, May way 'asked' or she was 'encouraged' to approach the EU for an extension. With the latest Bill it dictates that the PM 'Must' ask for an extension, and he 'must' accept whatever the EU offer. It is an instruction, not a request. Any extension costs over 1 billion per month, which is a spending commitment. Therefore, the Bill can be challenged or even ignored. Next, there is a conflict over the Law. One Law says that we leave the EU on Oct 31st, either with or without a deal. The new Law says that without a deal the PM must accept an extension. Which Law has precedent? For really muddled up thinking, "The best way to bypass the flaw is for MPs to refuse to approve any motion for a WA on or before 19 October. Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal." - Flaw in Benn BillIn other words, even if Johnson comes back with a great WA, they will still vote against it! Marvellous eh. There is also something about the letter to the EU must be delivered by 23:59 on the 19th, which is a Friday night. The EU meeting ends on the 18th, and the UK have to respond to the EU within two calendar days! Something about that for the Lawyers to get their mucky mitts into. There is also something about apparent conflicts between the Benn Bill and the Withdrawal Act. As I said earlier, the Benn Bill wasn't thought through enough. You cannot rush through something that you want to become Law. No conflict between the Acts, the instruction is more to do with whether Queen's Consent was required, no longer an issue now that it has received Royal Assent. The other one about the machinations om the WA is possible, but now unlikely for the reason you pointed it out and no one will trust Boris. Bring it back as a full Bill rather than a meaningful vote and it will be amended to prevent tbis happening. So not really the "whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited." Lord Sumption was on Newsnight the other day, in his opinion the Act is very well written and although there may be a loophole, it is not clear where. I think (off the top of my head) that it would need Queens' Consent to do some of the things it demands, especially with the spending commitment, and Royal Assent is not enough. It's something to do with the difference between the two. Bercow ruled that it didn't need Consent. Apparently, this was a mistake. There is also something around the Kinnock Amendment to the Benn Bill which was strange. It passed while Bercow was not in the chair, and it passed because there were no government tellers there to count the votes! Bercow did not look a happy man when he came back and realised what had happened. All very strange but it was obviously done for a reason. I'm pretty sure there are other loopholes that are not obvious to us mere mortals when it comes to understanding Parliamentary procedures etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 21:24:46 GMT
I'm sorry, but just because he is a qualified legal bloke in what way does that make his opinion, and it is just his opinion, better than anyone else's? What are you going to suggest next, only people with a Degree should be allowed to either have an opinion, or indeed vote ? Sorry, but I do not sit on a financial services desk in Frankfurt. It does not, in anyway. But one thing you always get confused over is that when you instigate a proposition and post it in a debate, it its for you to support it with corroborating evidence. Not me, or anyone else. In this case you have taken a very poorly worded speech and conflated its intent by using a map and data showing EU interventions into a suggestion of proof that indeed the EU is intent on empire building. When challenged your only response is to say I, and in this case Stuart, have no knowledge of EU interventions. As if that, true or false, proves your argument. When I point out that on review of the data you presented it is clear those interventions were either humanitarian or conflict resolution in nature, you offer no proof to the opposite, but just weakly pronounce, "believe what you want" In contrast I shall seek the opinion of someone involved in the criminality in conflict. It will be interesting to say the least, in a compare and contrast with you. More generally though this is always the flaw in your arguments. Is the EU expanding? Yes it is, and we do not know the limits of that expansion. We still don't know what is the ultimate destination of the EU. We have never been told. To you a poorly worded speech. To me, when he talks about the end of nation states and countries because we have to build an Empire.......it takes on a different meaning.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 22:20:59 GMT
No conflict between the Acts, the instruction is more to do with whether Queen's Consent was required, no longer an issue now that it has received Royal Assent. The other one about the machinations om the WA is possible, but now unlikely for the reason you pointed it out and no one will trust Boris. Bring it back as a full Bill rather than a meaningful vote and it will be amended to prevent tbis happening. So not really the "whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited." Lord Sumption was on Newsnight the other day, in his opinion the Act is very well written and although there may be a loophole, it is not clear where. I think (off the top of my head) that it would need Queens' Consent to do some of the things it demands, especially with the spending commitment, and Royal Assent is not enough. It's something to do with the difference between the two. Bercow ruled that it didn't need Consent. Apparently, this was a mistake. There is also something around the Kinnock Amendment to the Benn Bill which was strange. It passed while Bercow was not in the chair, and it passed because there were no government tellers there to count the votes! Bercow did not look a happy man when he came back and realised what had happened. All very strange but it was obviously done for a reason. I'm pretty sure there are other loopholes that are not obvious to us mere mortals when it comes to understanding Parliamentary procedures etc. As I understand it Queen's Consent is about Prerogative power, is decided at First Reading and therefore before Royal Assent not afterwards. It doesn't apply now that it is law. Be genuinely interested to see anything you have to suggest otherwise. As for the Kinnock Amendment, it was usual but it just means May's deal is debated so still doesn't stop no deal being forced through in itself. Agree we are mere mortals with regards to the legal aspect, but haven't heard from anyone with a good legal reputation who thinks it is badly drafted with gaping holes though.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 22:28:37 GMT
It does not, in anyway. But one thing you always get confused over is that when you instigate a proposition and post it in a debate, it its for you to support it with corroborating evidence. Not me, or anyone else. In this case you have taken a very poorly worded speech and conflated its intent by using a map and data showing EU interventions into a suggestion of proof that indeed the EU is intent on empire building. When challenged your only response is to say I, and in this case Stuart, have no knowledge of EU interventions. As if that, true or false, proves your argument. When I point out that on review of the data you presented it is clear those interventions were either humanitarian or conflict resolution in nature, you offer no proof to the opposite, but just weakly pronounce, "believe what you want" In contrast I shall seek the opinion of someone involved in the criminality in conflict. It will be interesting to say the least, in a compare and contrast with you. More generally though this is always the flaw in your arguments. Is the EU expanding? Yes it is, and we do not know the limits of that expansion. We still don't know what is the ultimate destination of the EU. We have never been told. To you a poorly worded speech. To me, when he talks about the end of nation states and countries because we have to build an Empire.......it takes on a different meaning. One man's expansion is another man's admitting new members who request it, meet certain criteria and can only join with the unanimous agreement of existing heads of government. For me, the future is in regional trade blocs apart from the US, China and maybe India. Smaller countries will get squeezed out by the two (or perhaps three) big boys and geography (plus shared history, culture, etc) will still be a major factor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 7:04:59 GMT
Is the EU expanding? Yes it is, and we do not know the limits of that expansion. We still don't know what is the ultimate destination of the EU. We have never been told. To you a poorly worded speech. To me, when he talks about the end of nation states and countries because we have to build an Empire.......it takes on a different meaning. One man's expansion is another man's admitting new members who request it, meet certain criteria and can only join with the unanimous agreement of existing heads of government. For me, the future is in regional trade blocs apart from the US, China and maybe India. Smaller countries will get squeezed out by the two (or perhaps three) big boys and geography (plus shared history, culture, etc) will still be a major factor. I think it's fairly straightforward, in reality. Sovereign States apply to join of their own free will. That's not empire building by any stretch of the imagination. Now, how the EU organises itself in the future is open to question and debate. The Euro and a common central bank and that impact on smaller economies needs sorting and that will stress national democratic processes. This is why Germany wants the UK to stay given our natural antipathy to centralised control. And this is the strange dilemma for leavers. Because their leaver government is doing exactly that, centralising control in the UK. Prorogation of Parliament is symptomatic of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 13:25:05 GMT
For Nobby The view from America, repudiating most if not all of your claims. Johnson’s Bumbling Brexit Is a Blow to Global Security flip.it/5t9j1l
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Sept 20, 2019 14:07:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 14:56:50 GMT
Let them eat themselves. Fkin idiots.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Sept 20, 2019 17:02:27 GMT
No Bills from the government. All the stuff from the last Queen's Speech was finished ages ago. Not sure about no government Bills, but regardless plenty of important ones lost, Brexit Bills, no fault divorce, Domestic Abuse, Animal welfare. Including one being worked on by Lord Keen, who did the summing up in the Supreme Court for the government side. 😆
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 17:05:22 GMT
Not sure about no government Bills, but regardless plenty of important ones lost, Brexit Bills, no fault divorce, Domestic Abuse, Animal welfare. Including one being worked on by Lord Keen, who did the summing up in the Supreme Court for the government side. 😆 Indeed. The Domestic Abuse bill was particularly important. But hey ho, let the Leavers live in denial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 8:25:20 GMT
Nobody is living in deniel, however, with this being the longest Parliamentary session since the Civil War, why hasn't this Bill been passed? They have had more than enough time.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 21, 2019 9:29:17 GMT
Nobody is living in deniel, however, with this being the longest Parliamentary session since the Civil War, why hasn't this Bill been passed? They have had more than enough time. These Bills didn't start 2 years ago and didn't you state rushed Bills make bad laws? Besides, who controls Parliamentary time? Just goes to show how much bandwidth Brexit has taken up, as I pointed out at the time of the Referendum.
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Sept 21, 2019 9:36:29 GMT
For Nobby The view from America, repudiating most if not all of your claims. Johnson’s Bumbling Brexit Is a Blow to Global Security flip.it/5t9j1l
That's not the view from "America" its the view of one person, James Stavridis, who by the way is very much a remainer....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 11:22:22 GMT
For Nobby The view from America, repudiating most if not all of your claims. Johnson’s Bumbling Brexit Is a Blow to Global Security flip.it/5t9j1l
That's not the view from "America" its the view of one person, James Stavridis, who by the way is very much a remainer....
Who he was "When I was supreme allied commander of NATO, the 16th in that line," "James George Stavridis is a retired United States Navy admiral, currently an Operating Executive with The Carlyle Group and Chair of the Board of Counselors at McLarty Associates." A remainer??? 🤣🤣🤣🤡 Pure Gammon
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 21, 2019 11:35:08 GMT
For Nobby The view from America, repudiating most if not all of your claims. Johnson’s Bumbling Brexit Is a Blow to Global Security flip.it/5t9j1l
That's not the view from "America" its the view of one person, James Stavridis, who by the way is very much a remainer....
Would that invalidate the points raised? If it does and that is your benchmark then it rules out pretty much this whole thread and probably debate in general. If you disagree with his views, please say why.
|
|