Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:18:52 GMT
Can someone explain to me how a vote of no confidence will be held if he has prorogued Parliament? And what happens if a general election is called? Would that occur before Boris can effectuate a no deal exit? And my last question is if everyone despises BoJo and Corbyn so much, why are there no other alternatives? Is it because they both have enough support within their own parties to quash any potential challengers? ETA: Oh! One last question - if he had to get permission from the Queen to take this action, could she have told him to go jump in the Thames or is this just another ceremonial responsibility over which she really has no discretion? While technically the Queen could have refused Boris Johnson's request to suspend parliament, it was unlikely that she would say no. The vote of no confidence is formally brought about through a motion in parliament stating “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government”, which is debated and then voted on. If a majority of MPs vote in favour of the motion, then the government will be dissolved. This could trigger a General Election. Jeremy Corbin has already done that once with Theresa May and he lost. The other way a general election can be triggered is if Boris Johnson calls for one. As Theresa May did a couple of years ago soon after she took over from David Cameron. She won the election but without an overall majority. In other words she had to rely on the smaller parties, in particular the DUP of Northern Ireland to back her in any legislation that needed to be voted on.
|
|
cla
Shy Member
Posts: 13
Aug 29, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
|
Post by cla on Aug 29, 2019 15:20:08 GMT
I dont see how Boris shutting down our democratically elected MPs and parliament because he doesn't like what the parliament is saying, is anything other than a coup. Boris is removing our the rights of people's voices to be heard and interrupting the passing of many vital pieces of legislation. For example the landmark domestic abuse bill will now likely not be passed. This is an outrage!! What do you think the anti Brexit people are doing then? Are they also not attempting to remove the voice of the people, all 17,401,472 of them? Over 12 and a half million more people wanted to leave. I find it equally disingenuous by the constant accusation that the leavers didn't know what they were voting for too.I didn't vote to" leave provided we got a deal" either. The bottom line is, it all needs to be sorted. We're now on our third date to leave. How many more times are we going to move that date? In the meantime it's taking up all the time that the government could be spending on getting other things done. It has to stop sometime, we can't go on like this. They ALL need to get their act together whichever side one is on, they're acting like children that can't get their own way, some more than others. Which anti Brexit people? Jeremy Corbyn has always been a euro sceptic and the Labour manifesto states that they will respect the result of the referendum and try to get as fair a Brexit deal as possible. Furthermore accoring to yougov only 51% of people who voted leave in the referendum support such a suspension of parliament now. It is not about reversing Brexit it is about stopping such dictatorial abuses of power being allowed to happen in this country. How on earth are they supposed to get their act together when Boris Johnson has removed the possibility of this happening? He has simply decided he will push through his agenda regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants; his way or the highway. It is clear who is acting like a spoiled child who thinks they can do whatever they want. We will not stand for such dictatorial leadership in this country and I am heartened at the scale of the protests occurring today and over the weekend. If this was happening elsewhere we would be rightly up in arms about such an abuse of power. Many people who voted for Brexit are from economically deprived areas who believed leaving the EU would help them and their children in the future after they were given fraudelant promises such as extra money to the NHS. I fail to see how a no deal Brexit which will cost thousands of jobs and lead to food and medication shortages will help them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:30:51 GMT
Well they are IMO if they are using the word " coup" they obviously don't know what it means! The only people I can see attempting a " coup" is they themselves. They interviewed someone on the radio earlier ( didn't catch who it was) and he was suggesting that Corbyn formed his own caretaker government........now that is a "coup"!! That’s because you have a different interpretation of Boris’ action as opposed to others’. Your interpretation is it’s just business as usual, a procedural norm when a session of parliament is ended and a new one begins later, and just so he can set his agenda for a new session. Ostensibly, that is. You’re not recognizing that others see it plainly as a ploy to prevent parliament from stopping a no-deal Brexit. Boris’ premise for Brexit is to give the country and its parliament its sovereignty back. Contrary to that premise, he has wrested sovereignty away from parliament. They’re also saying that even though people voted for Brexit, no one voted for a no-deal Brexit that would cause chaos and severe economic repercussions to the country. That’s what the other side is seeing. Speaking as a foreigner only, I can’t get over the fact that the UK voted for a Brexit to begin with, and then went from arguing about soft vs hard Brexit to no-deal! It’s like visiting more harm upon oneself when already faced with intractable problems. That’s why the words “undemocratic,” and “coup” are being used. I’m not a Brit, but even I see a power grab. Having said all that, I, personally think there’s no stopping no-deal and a couple of weeks lost to debate isn’t going to make a difference. If three years’ worth of debates failed to coalesce parliament, what’s a couple of weeks going to achieve? No-confidence voting isn’t going to achieve anything because Boris won’t resign and he’ll call an election after Oct 31. Polls show he’ll likely gain a majority. Might as well just exit and get the pain over with. That I agree with you. I don't happen to be happy about a no deal, not at all, because it would have been far better for everyone if there was a workable transitional deal that both sides would be happy with.But it's pretty obvious that the EU isn't going to give on anything and it seems that some of our MP's are siding with them. None of them have come up with their own version that could/would be an acceptable alternative to what is on the table now. What I do disagree with is all this moving the date forward time and time again. It causes instability and stops parliament in covering other domestic policies that need to be covered.
|
|
cla
Shy Member
Posts: 13
Aug 29, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
|
Post by cla on Aug 29, 2019 15:41:59 GMT
That’s because you have a different interpretation of Boris’ action as opposed to others’. Your interpretation is it’s just business as usual, a procedural norm when a session of parliament is ended and a new one begins later, and just so he can set his agenda for a new session. Ostensibly, that is. You’re not recognizing that others see it plainly as a ploy to prevent parliament from stopping a no-deal Brexit. Boris’ premise for Brexit is to give the country and its parliament its sovereignty back. Contrary to that premise, he has wrested sovereignty away from parliament. They’re also saying that even though people voted for Brexit, no one voted for a no-deal Brexit that would cause chaos and severe economic repercussions to the country. That’s what the other side is seeing. Speaking as a foreigner only, I can’t get over the fact that the UK voted for a Brexit to begin with, and then went from arguing about soft vs hard Brexit to no-deal! It’s like visiting more harm upon oneself when already faced with intractable problems. That’s why the words “undemocratic,” and “coup” are being used. I’m not a Brit, but even I see a power grab. Having said all that, I, personally think there’s no stopping no-deal and a couple of weeks lost to debate isn’t going to make a difference. If three years’ worth of debates failed to coalesce parliament, what’s a couple of weeks going to achieve? No-confidence voting isn’t going to achieve anything because Boris won’t resign and he’ll call an election after Oct 31. Polls show he’ll likely gain a majority. Might as well just exit and get the pain over with. That I agree with you. I don't happen to be happy about a no deal, not at all, because it would have been far better for everyone if there was a workable transitional deal that both sides would be happy with.But it's pretty obvious that the EU isn't going to give on anything and it seems that some of our MP's are siding with them. None of them have come up with their own version that could/would be an acceptable alternative to what is on the table now. What I do disagree with is all this moving the date forward time and time again. It causes instability and stops parliament in covering other domestic policies that need to be covered. How is Boris Johnson suspending parliament helping other domestic policies to be covered? He is stopping MPs from doing their job and representing their constituents. How on earth are MPs supposed to come up with an alternative solution when Boris is making that an impossibility. It is not even about Brexit anymore, it is about preventing the loss of our democracy. Would you genuinely be okay if Jeremy Corbyn was leader and pulled a similar stunt (as a staunch labour party member I certainly would not be!)?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:49:55 GMT
Polls showed that Theresa May was expected to win a majority by a landslide in 2017 and yet she ended up having to cobble together a coalition. Gaining so many seats in Scotland was the only way she even achieved that and with Ruth Davidson resigning it's unlikely to be the same result this time. Besides that it's the principal of the matter. If we allow such breaches of power to occur now because "it doesn't make a difference anyway" then that's setting a dangerous precedent for the future. Democracy must always be defended. The pain of Brexit certainly won't stop with a no deal, it may lead to food shortages, lack of vital medication and will almost certainly send the UK back into a recession. This is no longer a Brexit issue in my opinion, it's an issue of whether we want to live in a fair, democratic country or not.Boris Johnson himself wrote to his Mps recently saying he would not suspend parliament and yet here we are. Looks like the US isn't the only country with a lying, wannabe dictator in charge. I hear you. But what can parliament do that will stop no-deal? Can they unify and pass legislation in an abbreviated time? My opinion is that May’s withdrawal agreement was the best that could be had under the circumstances, but for some unfathomable reason, parliament could not unify and spent three years arguing back and forth. At some point, the country via its politicians has to make a decision. Revoke Article 50 or go. How many more years will your populace argue about this? Like I said, I was aghast the UK even chose to exit, but it is what it is. Exactly! we can't go on like this. To revoke Article 50 would really be throwing our democracy out the window it would totally ignore the vote of the referendum.It seems the EU will not move so what are the leavers expecting everyone to do, say " never mind we'll stay then".
|
|
cla
Shy Member
Posts: 13
Aug 29, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
|
Post by cla on Aug 29, 2019 15:57:10 GMT
I hear you. But what can parliament do that will stop no-deal? Can they unify and pass legislation in an abbreviated time? My opinion is that May’s withdrawal agreement was the best that could be had under the circumstances, but for some unfathomable reason, parliament could not unify and spent three years arguing back and forth. At some point, the country via its politicians has to make a decision. Revoke Article 50 or go. How many more years will your populace argue about this? Like I said, I was aghast the UK even chose to exit, but it is what it is. Exactly! we can't go on like this. To revoke Article 50 would really be throwing our democracy out the window it would totally ignore the vote of the referendum.It seems the EU will not move so what are the leavers expecting everyone to do, say " never mind we'll stay then". Again I ask, who is suggesting we revoke article 50?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 15:57:56 GMT
That I agree with you. I don't happen to be happy about a no deal, not at all, because it would have been far better for everyone if there was a workable transitional deal that both sides would be happy with.But it's pretty obvious that the EU isn't going to give on anything and it seems that some of our MP's are siding with them. None of them have come up with their own version that could/would be an acceptable alternative to what is on the table now. What I do disagree with is all this moving the date forward time and time again. It causes instability and stops parliament in covering other domestic policies that need to be covered. How is Boris Johnson suspending parliament helping other domestic policies to be covered? He is stopping MPs from doing their job and representing their constituents. Of come on, he's only put it back by a few days, he hasn't suspended it indefinitely. And as for MP's representing their constituents, some of them that represent the constituents that chose to leave should abide by their decision not vote against them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 16:03:50 GMT
Exactly! we can't go on like this. To revoke Article 50 would really be throwing our democracy out the window it would totally ignore the vote of the referendum.It seems the EU will not move so what are the leavers expecting everyone to do, say " never mind we'll stay then". Again I ask, who is suggesting we revoke article 50? It wasn't directed at you I was answering lizacreates post. But being that you brought it up. There are petitions out there by the anti Brexit brigade and many suggestion to Revoke article 50 and remain in the EU.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 29, 2019 16:05:52 GMT
That’s because you have a different interpretation of Boris’ action as opposed to others’. Your interpretation is it’s just business as usual, a procedural norm when a session of parliament is ended and a new one begins later, and just so he can set his agenda for a new session. Ostensibly, that is. You’re not recognizing that others see it plainly as a ploy to prevent parliament from stopping a no-deal Brexit. Boris’ premise for Brexit is to give the country and its parliament its sovereignty back. Contrary to that premise, he has wrested sovereignty away from parliament. They’re also saying that even though people voted for Brexit, no one voted for a no-deal Brexit that would cause chaos and severe economic repercussions to the country. That’s what the other side is seeing. Speaking as a foreigner only, I can’t get over the fact that the UK voted for a Brexit to begin with, and then went from arguing about soft vs hard Brexit to no-deal! It’s like visiting more harm upon oneself when already faced with intractable problems. That’s why the words “undemocratic,” and “coup” are being used. I’m not a Brit, but even I see a power grab. Having said all that, I, personally think there’s no stopping no-deal and a couple of weeks lost to debate isn’t going to make a difference. If three years’ worth of debates failed to coalesce parliament, what’s a couple of weeks going to achieve? No-confidence voting isn’t going to achieve anything because Boris won’t resign and he’ll call an election after Oct 31. Polls show he’ll likely gain a majority. Might as well just exit and get the pain over with. That I agree with you. I don't happen to be happy about a no deal, not at all, because it would have been far better for everyone if there was a workable transitional deal that both sides would be happy with.But it's pretty obvious that the EU isn't going to give on anything and it seems that some of our MP's are siding with them. None of them have come up with their own version that could/would be an acceptable alternative to what is on the table now. What I do disagree with is all this moving the date forward time and time again. It causes instability and stops parliament in covering other domestic policies that need to be covered. In all fairness, though, Dotty, your MPs skewered May unduly. They are much at fault, too. I watched the PMQs all throughout the debacle and instead of working with her to tweak some areas of the agreement, some/most of them were just intent on striking her down. The MPs are not blameless. There is no having your cake and eating it too simply because both the UK and the EU have interests they obviously want to protect. No PM can deliver something that’s impossible and May, IMO, did the best she could, yet paid dearly for it. But do I think the EU is completely blameless in this impasse? No. One example is the backstop. One of the main sticking points between the UK and the EU is the backstop. Boris wants it out, EU says no. The proposal by Jonathan Faull as an alternative to the backstop sounds reasonable and viable (well, to me, which I realize doesn’t matter a bit), and does not rely on technology that hasn’t been developed yet. If given a chance to be analyzed, I think therein lays the solution to maintaining the Good Friday Agreement and keeping peace between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now, I know Ireland does not want any checks anywhere even away from the border, but at some point, they will have to accept the fact that it is impossible (not just improbable, but impossible) to satisfy the no-hard-border imperative and abide by EU standards of imports and exports without checks. Faull’s proposal is as close as you can get to something workable without running afoul of laws – there won’t be a physical infrastructure right at the border itself, and both the EU and the UK can continue to move goods with each following their own customs rules without risking the fragile peace. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damn good alternative. But EU says no. As an observer, I’m just at a loss.
|
|
cla
Shy Member
Posts: 13
Aug 29, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
|
Post by cla on Aug 29, 2019 16:06:06 GMT
How is Boris Johnson suspending parliament helping other domestic policies to be covered? He is stopping MPs from doing their job and representing their constituents. Of come on, he's only put it back by a few days, he hasn't suspended it indefinitely. And as for MP's representing their constituents, some of them that represent the constituents that chose to leave should abide by their decision not vote against them. Well I'm sorry if you think it's ridiculous but I think any disregard for democracy is disgraceful, whether it's for one hour or one year. We must stand up for our rights. Again it's not about MPs trying to stop Brexit, it is about them trying to stop Boris Johnson unconstitutionally pushing through a no deal Brexit and disregarding our democracy. A no-deal Brexit that is democratically decided to be the only possible solution is much different than what Johnson is doing. How can you not see that?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 16:06:35 GMT
Can I ask what made you suddenly join the forum 3 hours ago @cia or are you an existing member under another name?
|
|
cla
Shy Member
Posts: 13
Aug 29, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
|
Post by cla on Aug 29, 2019 16:09:33 GMT
Can I ask what made you suddenly join the forum 3 hours ago @cia or are you an existing member under another name? I'm normally a lurker but this thread has made me very passionate as I take our democracy very seriously. Why do you ask?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 16:22:47 GMT
That I agree with you. I don't happen to be happy about a no deal, not at all, because it would have been far better for everyone if there was a workable transitional deal that both sides would be happy with.But it's pretty obvious that the EU isn't going to give on anything and it seems that some of our MP's are siding with them. None of them have come up with their own version that could/would be an acceptable alternative to what is on the table now. What I do disagree with is all this moving the date forward time and time again. It causes instability and stops parliament in covering other domestic policies that need to be covered. In all fairness, though, Dotty, your MPs skewered May unduly. They are much at fault, too. I watched the PMQs all throughout the debacle and instead of working with her to tweak some areas of the agreement, some/most of them were just intent on striking her down. The MPs are not blameless. There is no having your cake and eating it too simply because both the UK and the EU have interests they obviously want to protect. No PM can deliver something that’s impossible and May, IMO, did the best she could, yet paid dearly for it. But do I think the EU is completely blameless in this impasse? No. One example is the backstop. One of the main sticking points between the UK and the EU is the backstop. Boris wants it out, EU says no. The proposal by Jonathan Faull as an alternative to the backstop sounds reasonable and viable (well, to me, which I realize doesn’t matter a bit), and does not rely on technology that hasn’t been developed yet. If given a chance to be analyzed, I think therein lays the solution to maintaining the Good Friday Agreement and keeping peace between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now, I know Ireland does not want any checks anywhere even away from the border, but at some point, they will have to accept the fact that it is impossible (not just improbable, but impossible) to satisfy the no-hard-border imperative and abide by EU standards of imports and exports without checks. Faull’s proposal is as close as you can get to something workable without running afoul of laws – there won’t be a physical infrastructure right at the border itself, and both the EU and the UK can continue to move goods with each following their own customs rules without risking the fragile peace. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damn good alternative. But EU says no. As an observer, I’m just at a loss. Oh |I agree, totally with you. Their treatment of her was disgraceful. And the EU is being very pedantic about the Irish border and that is the biggest sticking point of all in this transitional deal. I agree that Faull's report is worth looking at but Ireland won't even consider it and EU is quoting food standards. Our food standards are highly unlikely to change after we come out of the EU, they were pretty stringent before we adapted some of theirs.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Aug 29, 2019 19:16:06 GMT
Could we make MORE of a pig’s ear of the whole debacle if we tried? Yes. You could have had Donald Trump in charge of it. 😂 I guarantee you, it’d be an entire pig spit roast if he was at the helm.
|
|
cla
Shy Member
Posts: 13
Aug 29, 2019 12:53:16 GMT
|
Post by cla on Aug 29, 2019 21:40:20 GMT
Could we make MORE of a pig’s ear of the whole debacle if we tried? Yes. You could have had Donald Trump in charge of it. 😂 I guarantee you, it’d be an entire pig spit roast if he was at the helm. Donald Trump has personally endorsed Boris Johnson as a great prime minister, which I think really says it all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 7:56:12 GMT
Yes. You could have had Donald Trump in charge of it. 😂 I guarantee you, it’d be an entire pig spit roast if he was at the helm. Donald Trump has personally endorsed Boris Johnson as a great prime minister, which I think really says it all. Donald Trump has personally endorsed Putin too, to a far greater extent than saying he's a great man. He thought Macron and Theresa May were great too until such time that they say something to upset him.
|
|
anniebygaslight
Drama Llama
I'd love a cup of tea. #1966
Posts: 7,394
Location: Third Rock from the sun.
Jun 28, 2014 14:08:19 GMT
|
Post by anniebygaslight on Aug 30, 2019 9:22:14 GMT
From The Handmaid's Tale.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Aug 30, 2019 12:29:51 GMT
When does one stop being a statesperson making unpopular decisions for the perceived benefit of the country and become a dictator riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate? Where is the line? What side is Boris on? I have no clue.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 30, 2019 12:40:04 GMT
Good question gillyp. It’s a fine line that’s for sure! Achieving Brexit but without a deal seems like too high a price to pay for upholding the vote imo.. I think getting an extension, pulling MPs together to pass some sort of deal is preferable.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 30, 2019 15:35:16 GMT
In all fairness, though, Dotty, your MPs skewered May unduly. They are much at fault, too. I watched the PMQs all throughout the debacle and instead of working with her to tweak some areas of the agreement, some/most of them were just intent on striking her down. The MPs are not blameless. There is no having your cake and eating it too simply because both the UK and the EU have interests they obviously want to protect. No PM can deliver something that’s impossible and May, IMO, did the best she could, yet paid dearly for it. But do I think the EU is completely blameless in this impasse? No. One example is the backstop. One of the main sticking points between the UK and the EU is the backstop. Boris wants it out, EU says no. The proposal by Jonathan Faull as an alternative to the backstop sounds reasonable and viable (well, to me, which I realize doesn’t matter a bit), and does not rely on technology that hasn’t been developed yet. If given a chance to be analyzed, I think therein lays the solution to maintaining the Good Friday Agreement and keeping peace between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now, I know Ireland does not want any checks anywhere even away from the border, but at some point, they will have to accept the fact that it is impossible (not just improbable, but impossible) to satisfy the no-hard-border imperative and abide by EU standards of imports and exports without checks. Faull’s proposal is as close as you can get to something workable without running afoul of laws – there won’t be a physical infrastructure right at the border itself, and both the EU and the UK can continue to move goods with each following their own customs rules without risking the fragile peace. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damn good alternative. But EU says no. As an observer, I’m just at a loss. Oh |I agree, totally with you. Their treatment of her was disgraceful. And the EU is being very pedantic about the Irish border and that is the biggest sticking point of all in this transitional deal. I agree that Faull's report is worth looking at but Ireland won't even consider it and EU is quoting food standards. Our food standards are highly unlikely to change after we come out of the EU, they were pretty stringent before we adapted some of theirs. Maybe I’m oversimplifying this issue, but, really, if the backstop is that controversial, then add an agreed-upon number of years that it can be in effect in May's withdrawal agreement instead of having an open-ended cancellation. No insurance plan is established in perpetuity, for goodness sake. Additionally, the cancellation is predicated on the approval of the EU, which really means the approval of 27 countries! It’s fundamentally unfair to the UK to have Northern Ireland bound to the customs union and single market indefinitely. How does that even make sense for a union that’s leaving the EU?! By making it indefinite, what incentive would Ireland have to work with the UK to find solutions that will be practical and work for both sides? I understand that they may consider it not their responsibility to come up with solutions since they’re not the ones leaving the EU, and that’s why they prefer the backstop as is. But really, I contend that maintaining the peace between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of both, not just one side. Therefore, some cooperation and compromise is required. As unpopular and reviled as Boris is in some quarters, on this one specific issue, I fully understand his reasoning behind wanting the backstop out.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 15:59:53 GMT
Oh |I agree, totally with you. Their treatment of her was disgraceful. And the EU is being very pedantic about the Irish border and that is the biggest sticking point of all in this transitional deal. I agree that Faull's report is worth looking at but Ireland won't even consider it and EU is quoting food standards. Our food standards are highly unlikely to change after we come out of the EU, they were pretty stringent before we adapted some of theirs. Maybe I’m oversimplifying this issue, but, really, if the backstop is that controversial, then add an agreed-upon number of years that it can be in effect in May's withdrawal agreement instead of having an open-ended cancellation. No insurance plan is established in perpetuity, for goodness sake. Additionally, the cancellation is predicated on the approval of the EU, which really means the approval of 27 countries! It’s fundamentally unfair to the UK to have Northern Ireland bound to the customs union and single market indefinitely. How does that even make sense for a union that’s leaving the EU?! By making it indefinite, what incentive would Ireland have to work with the UK to find solutions that will be practical and work for both sides? I understand that they may consider it not their responsibility to come up with solutions since they’re not the ones leaving the EU, and that’s why they prefer the backstop as is. But really, I contend that maintaining the peace between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of both, not just one side. Therefore, some cooperation and compromise is required. As unpopular and reviled as Boris is in some quarters, on this one specific issue, I fully understand his reasoning behind wanting the backstop out. You've got it. They did change it somewhat earlier in the year before TM resigned but it was basically not much different to the original and the Attorney General, concluded that the legal risk remains unchanged that if a post-Brexit trade agreement cannot be reached due to genuinely intractable differences, the UK would have no internationally lawful means of leaving the backstop without EU agreement. No side wants to return to a hard border in NI and rightly so but whatever the UK comes up with, it isn't acceptable to the EU. The EU won't accept the suggestion of technology either. I do have to wonder sometime why they are so stubborn about finding a solution, what is their end goal? That might be just me being cynical but it does make you wonder.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 30, 2019 17:13:06 GMT
Maybe I’m oversimplifying this issue, but, really, if the backstop is that controversial, then add an agreed-upon number of years that it can be in effect in May's withdrawal agreement instead of having an open-ended cancellation. No insurance plan is established in perpetuity, for goodness sake. Additionally, the cancellation is predicated on the approval of the EU, which really means the approval of 27 countries! It’s fundamentally unfair to the UK to have Northern Ireland bound to the customs union and single market indefinitely. How does that even make sense for a union that’s leaving the EU?! By making it indefinite, what incentive would Ireland have to work with the UK to find solutions that will be practical and work for both sides? I understand that they may consider it not their responsibility to come up with solutions since they’re not the ones leaving the EU, and that’s why they prefer the backstop as is. But really, I contend that maintaining the peace between Ireland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of both, not just one side. Therefore, some cooperation and compromise is required. As unpopular and reviled as Boris is in some quarters, on this one specific issue, I fully understand his reasoning behind wanting the backstop out. You've got it. They did change it somewhat earlier in the year before TM resigned but it was basically not much different to the original and the Attorney General, concluded that the legal risk remains unchanged that if a post-Brexit trade agreement cannot be reached due to genuinely intractable differences, the UK would have no internationally lawful means of leaving the backstop without EU agreement. No side wants to return to a hard border in NI and rightly so but whatever the UK comes up with, it isn't acceptable to the EU. The EU won't accept the suggestion of technology either. I do have to wonder sometime why they are so stubborn about finding a solution, what is their end goal? That might be just me being cynical but it does make you wonder. Rightly or wrongly, the most obvious to me is to make the UK the example of the hazards of leaving the EU. To discourage other countries from doing the same, in other words. Which is their prerogative if it’s true (I don’t know that it is). However, the harm of a no-deal will not be concentrated just on the UK. EU countries are quite vulnerable as well, in varying degrees. Like we say in America, there has to be a come-to-Jesus moment on all sides or everybody will be hurting.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 13:44:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 31, 2019 13:58:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 14:10:54 GMT
I find it very disingenuous for Boris and his party to keep going on about the 'only 4 days extra'. He knows full well there is a difference between a RECESS and a PROROGATION. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/740236/Guide-to-Parliamentary-Work-2018.pdfRecesses 6. Periods when both Houses are not sitting are commonly known as recesses, although all of them, except prorogation, are more correctly termed as adjournments. 7. Each parliamentary session opens with the State Opening of Parliament, usually in spring, and closes at prorogation, usually the following spring. The usual calendar for the periods during which both Houses do not sit is as follows: Parliamentary Recesses May Recess Early May Bank Holiday Whitsun Recess Usually one week in May Summer Recess Mid-late July to early September Conference Recess Mid-September to early October November recess Usually a short recess of less than a week. Christmas recess Mid-late December to early January February recess February, usually one week Easter Recess Usually two weeks to include Good Friday and Easter Monday 8. In general, parliamentary business is not conducted during recess periods, although there are a few exceptions such as the nominated days during the summer recess when it is possible to table written questions in the Lords. Each year, the Table Offices issue guidance to Government on the way in which they work during recess periods. Prorogation 9. Prorogation is the formal end of each session. Prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown, exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. The date is chosen by the Business Managers (the Leader of the House and Chief Whip in both Houses) shortly before the session ends. This allows flexibility in planning the legislative programme. During the period of prorogation neither the House nor any Committee may meet. It is possible to lay certain documents before Parliament during prorogation (e.g. Secondary Legislation and Command Papers), but not during a dissolution (i.e. not in the run up to a general election). It is also important for Parliamentary Clerks, as it marks the period when parliamentary business is suspended and Parliamentary Questions (PQs) / Questions for Written Answers (QWAs), Early Day Motions (EDMs) and Private Members Bills (PMBs) fall. Government bills also fall if they have not received Royal Assent, unless they are subject to a carry-over motion Was this really the best time to prorogue parliament (vs. after Oct 31st) - in the final weeks of the run up to the greatest change in politics and commerce in the UK in over 40 years?
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Aug 31, 2019 14:48:36 GMT
I am still on the fence but I am delighted so many people ARE protesting and making themselves heard.
I suppose if someone said you HAVE to make a choice, I’d be protesting too.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 31, 2019 15:54:08 GMT
I find it very disingenuous for Boris and his party to keep going on about the 'only 4 days extra'. Me too.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 15:56:05 GMT
I find it very disingenuous for Boris and his party to keep going on about the 'only 4 days extra'. He knows full well there is a difference between a RECESS and a PROROGATION. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/740236/Guide-to-Parliamentary-Work-2018.pdfRecesses 6. Periods when both Houses are not sitting are commonly known as recesses, although all of them, except prorogation, are more correctly termed as adjournments. 7. Each parliamentary session opens with the State Opening of Parliament, usually in spring, and closes at prorogation, usually the following spring. The usual calendar for the periods during which both Houses do not sit is as follows: Parliamentary Recesses May Recess Early May Bank Holiday Whitsun Recess Usually one week in May Summer Recess Mid-late July to early September Conference Recess Mid-September to early October November recess Usually a short recess of less than a week. Christmas recess Mid-late December to early January February recess February, usually one week Easter Recess Usually two weeks to include Good Friday and Easter Monday 8. In general, parliamentary business is not conducted during recess periods, although there are a few exceptions such as the nominated days during the summer recess when it is possible to table written questions in the Lords. Each year, the Table Offices issue guidance to Government on the way in which they work during recess periods. Prorogation 9. Prorogation is the formal end of each session. Prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown, exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. The date is chosen by the Business Managers (the Leader of the House and Chief Whip in both Houses) shortly before the session ends. This allows flexibility in planning the legislative programme. During the period of prorogation neither the House nor any Committee may meet. It is possible to lay certain documents before Parliament during prorogation (e.g. Secondary Legislation and Command Papers), but not during a dissolution (i.e. not in the run up to a general election). It is also important for Parliamentary Clerks, as it marks the period when parliamentary business is suspended and Parliamentary Questions (PQs) / Questions for Written Answers (QWAs), Early Day Motions (EDMs) and Private Members Bills (PMBs) fall. Government bills also fall if they have not received Royal Assent, unless they are subject to a carry-over motion Was this really the best time to prorogue parliament (vs. after Oct 31st) - in the final weeks of the run up to the greatest change in politics and commerce in the UK in over 40 years? I don't think he means it the way you are interpreting it. Of course he knows that there's a difference. The four days he's talking about covers the time from the end of the recess ( for conferences ) to the time he's ended the Parliamentary session. He could have reconvened Parliament on the last day of the recess but he didn't he made it four days later. They return to Parliament after the summer recess on Sept 3rd until 13th September They then have scheduled conference recess from Monday September 15th to October 9th. Normally they would have reconvened on the 10th but he's chosen to re convene on the 14th instead. The prorogue in fact only covers 4 parliamentary working days the 12th & 13th are Saturday and Sunday. Contrary to what some reports out there say he has not shut parliament down for six weeks.He could if had wished done it for longer. I think it's something like a maximum of 20 days. ( not sure on that unless I check but I do know he's no where near the maximum) A session of Parliament isn't the same as a recess. A session usually begins one spring until the next spring. It used to be November to November but that was changed a few years ago. This session of Parliament from 2017 is the longest we have had in modern times.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 16:24:43 GMT
I don't think he means it the way you are interpreting it. Of course he knows that there's a difference. The four days he's talking about covers the time from the end of the recess ( for conferences ) to the time he's ended the Parliamentary session. He could have reconvened Parliament on the last day of the recess but he didn't he made it four days later. He could also have NOT prorogued parliament AT ALL or at least until AFTER 10/31/19 - which would have made more sense since this isn't a new gov't even though there's been a change in PM. He deliberately chose to prorogue/disband parliament vs. just letting them go on recess (but continue on w/background work as necessary) until after the brexit date.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 6, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 16:41:00 GMT
I don't think he means it the way you are interpreting it. Of course he knows that there's a difference. The four days he's talking about covers the time from the end of the recess ( for conferences ) to the time he's ended the Parliamentary session. He could have reconvened Parliament on the last day of the recess but he didn't he made it four days later. He could also have NOT prorogued parliament AT ALL or at least until AFTER 10/31/19 - which would have made more sense since this isn't a new gov't even though there's been a change in PM.He deliberately chose to prorogue/disband parliament vs. just letting them go on recess (but continue on w/background work as necessary) until after the brexit date. Doesn't matter if it's a new government or not they can still end a session of Parliament. They normally do so every year except for this session. He hasn't legally done anything that he's not allowed to do. I don't happen to think it was a good time either, not because of the many reasons that people in this country have concluded though, but in so far as he must have known there would have been opposition to him doing so and in a way he's fanning the flames.Sometimes you have to take drastic actions to achieve the end goal though. We can't just keep moving the date people have had enough and it's causing more and more uncertainty day by day.
|
|