UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[The Blaatschapen]

But doesn’t that make a border between parts of the UK? And isn’t that not really wanted?

My understanding is that the national government will arm the orange elements of society first then switch the border to being opened with the UK and closed to the EU. With Orange self defense forces patrolling catholic neighborhoods and such.

That is an impossibility. You can't be a self defense force and then patrol enemy territory.

[Phoenicaea]

^delay is good. too much talkish smoke, this is not british.

[The Huskar Social Union]

The DUP says Boris Johnson's Brexit deal "drives a coach and horses through the Good Friday Agreement" says Nigel Dodds, who of course would never ever consider doing anything that jeopardises peace in Northern Ireland.

The DUP complaining about anything screwing with the GFA is fucking laughable considering they never signed it and were always opposed to it.

Friendly reminder that in this crucial week the DUP decided to meet with, not community leaders, or business leaders from the greater NI community, but to meet with members of two terrorist organisations (the UDA and UVF) before making their decision on the new deal. And they refer to these terrorists as "Stakeholders"

[The Huskar Social Union]

Am I out of touch? No it is the peaceful majority of the country that is wrong.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Has Mark Francois said if he is going to vote for the Johnson Brexit Deal? I saw Farage urging MPs to ignore the democratic will of the people and vote against it.

[Vassenor]

Has Mark Francois said if he is going to vote for the Johnson Brexit Deal? I saw Farage urging MPs to ignore the democratic will of the people and vote against it.

Because he thinks he can force an election that way.

[Hirota]

So we get to the point now where the press is trying to do some estimates. The FT has it close, but to lose by 3 votes. Of course, they only counted 7 Labour rebels, but there were 19 who wrote to Junker saying they'd vote for a deal. So I guess it depends on how many of those 19 were convinced? Assuming the FT reckons 7 of the 19, then 3 of the remaining 12 would also need to vote for it.

It's also worth noting that Labour MP Ronnie Campbell has said on Newsnight that he would vote for this, and he wasn't on that forementioned letter.

Therefore, we can reasonably assume 2 of the remaining 12 labour MP's from the letter would need to vote for.

Edit: Just found out Labour MP John Mann has also said he would vote for it. He also isn't on the letter. We can assume that additional 1 Labour MP from the letter who said they would vote for a deal actually needs to vote for the deal...

Of course, this makes a lot of assumptions, and doesn't account for the possibility that some of the 12 might choose to abstain rather than vote for or against, so please don't take this as gospel. But I think it's fair to say this is close to passing in it's current form.

[Vassenor]

Depends how the amendments change things.

[Hirota]

Depends how the amendments change things.

Given how close it is right now, I reckon it would go over the line if an amendment proposed a referendum, given Lib Dem policy was to call for a second ref, and plenty of Labour are keen for that too. They reckon we will stay in...or as I would put it, they are playing the Cameron Gambit, and we know how that went last time.

I think it's certain something will pass. If it's for a referendum we can expect a short extension to give time for the campaign and vote.

[Souseiseki]

Even for me it was literally the part where May decided we had to stay in the customs union unless the EU decided we didn't that tipped me over the edge. The commitment to exploring a comprehensive FTA and the way for NI being in control of its fate is a bonus. The FTA commitment in particular is probably the biggest surprise since it seemed much less likely to me.

that part only existed because may relied on the DUP and they didn't want a border between the UK and northern ireland. now that johnson seems willing to throw the DUP under the bus, that's no longer a problem. i suppose it's a double whammy. since the rest of the UK is no longer relevant, the UK don't need to worry about their fantasies of the dastardly EU trapping them in the customs union against their will. one of the reasons the backstop was so restrictive was because the westminster government have repeatedly proven themselves to be skittish duplicitous weasels that openly discussed just scrapping the backstop as soon it was convenient for them and the UK electorate are completely unable to solve the problem they just caused. now that the decision lies with the northern irish electorate, they presumably feel like they have a more good faith partner and are relieved that the don't need to deal with the english/welsh electorate and politicians bullshit any longer. of course whether their assessment of northern ireland as a reliable partner while the DUP is still around remains to be seen.

[The Blaatschapen]

Even for me it was literally the part where May decided we had to stay in the customs union unless the EU decided we didn't that tipped me over the edge. The commitment to exploring a comprehensive FTA and the way for NI being in control of its fate is a bonus. The FTA commitment in particular is probably the biggest surprise since it seemed much less likely to me.

that part only existed because may relied on the DUP and they didn't want a border between the UK and northern ireland. now that johnson seems willing to throw the DUP under the bus, that's no longer a problem. i suppose it's a double whammy. since the rest of the UK is no longer relevant, the UK don't need to worry about their fantasies of the dastardly EU trapping them in the customs union against their will. one of the reasons the backstop was so restrictive was because the westminster government have repeatedly proven themselves to be skittish duplicitous weasels that openly discussed just scrapping the backstop as soon it was convenient for them and the UK electorate are completely unable to solve the problem they just caused. now that the decision lies with the northern irish electorate, they presumably feel like they have a more good faith partner and are relieved that the don't need to deal with the english/welsh electorate and politicians bullshit any longer. of course whether their assessment of northern ireland as a reliable partner while the DUP is still around remains to be seen.

The government of Northern Ireland is one of the most reliable in the world. It's has been very reliably steadfast in its resolve to not get an agreement

[Hirota]

Both "Leave.EU" and "Britain Stronger in Europe" have backed the Boris agreement, and business leaders are reported to be urging MPs to back the deal.

BBC also getting into the number crunching game.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Both "Leave.EU" and "Britain Stronger in Europe" have backed the Boris agreement, and business leaders are reported to be urging MPs to back the deal.

BBC also getting into the number crunching game.

Going to be a circus tonight and tomorrow at any rate. Might go a hike even though the weathers going to be not so good just to get away from screens.

[Fartsniffage]

Decision at 5pm in the court case looking at whether the deal is legal.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Both "Leave.EU" and "Britain Stronger in Europe" have backed the Boris agreement, and business leaders are reported to be urging MPs to back the deal.

BBC also getting into the number crunching game.

So naturally it wont be picked and MP's reject it.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Both "Leave.EU" and "Britain Stronger in Europe" have backed the Boris agreement, and business leaders are reported to be urging MPs to back the deal.

BBC also getting into the number crunching game.

So naturally it wont be picked and MP's reject it.

Amendments could be very interesting. Although there does seem to be a huge push to back the deal right now. If Letwins goes through as a crowbar mechanism to snuff threat of no deal we could be seeing a referendum possibility become a real option or maybe the house of cards will all fall and this deal will be battled over in a general election.

[Dooom35796821595]

Decision at 5pm in the court case looking at whether the deal is legal.

Largely irrelevant, they can’t do anything about it. They can only point out a contradiction and let the commons fix it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Decision at 5pm in the court case looking at whether the deal is legal.

Largely irrelevant, they can’t do anything about it. They can only point out a contradiction and let the commons fix it.

They can strike it down.

So naturally it wont be picked and MP's reject it.

Amendments could be very interesting. Although there does seem to be a huge push to back the deal right now. If Letwins goes through as a crowbar mechanism to snuff threat of no deal we could be seeing a referendum possibility become a real option or maybe the house of cards will all fall and this deal will be battled over in a general election.

If amendments are passed, the EU will not back the deal. The deal is the result of months of deliberation, the EU will not cave to UK demands if the Commons decide to amend it. The deal is the deal on the table, a single amendment will kill it.

[Fartsniffage]

Largely irrelevant, they can’t do anything about it. They can only point out a contradiction and let the commons fix it.

They can strike it down.

Amendments could be very interesting. Although there does seem to be a huge push to back the deal right now. If Letwins goes through as a crowbar mechanism to snuff threat of no deal we could be seeing a referendum possibility become a real option or maybe the house of cards will all fall and this deal will be battled over in a general election.

If amendments are passed, the EU will not back the deal. The deal is the result of months of deliberation, the EU will not cave to UK demands if the Commons decide to amend it. The deal is the deal on the table, a single amendment will kill it.

I'm pretty sure they'd back a deal/revoke referendum amendment and extend for that.

[Dooom35796821595]

Largely irrelevant, they can’t do anything about it. They can only point out a contradiction and let the commons fix it.

They can strike it down.

No they can’t, not if we’re leaving the European court and their European legislation on human rights.

[Fartsniffage]

They can strike it down.

No they can’t, not if we’re leaving the European court and their European legislation on human rights.

Eh? The challenge is predicated on the deal being contrary to British law, specifically the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The ECJ has nothing to do with it.

[Dooom35796821595]

No they can’t, not if we’re leaving the European court and their European legislation on human rights.

Eh? The challenge is predicated on the deal being contrary to British law, specifically the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The ECJ has nothing to do with it.

The UK Supreme Court could only potentially strike down legislation if it violated EU law, like the European convention on human rights act 2003. (Terrible name for it)

But the Supreme Court cans strike down one law because it contravenes another, only point out the contradiction to be fixed by Parliament.
I think, in the absence of any other precedent that it’s newer legislation that takes priority.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

They can strike it down.

No they can’t, not if we’re leaving the European court and their European legislation on human rights.

As said by Fart, this is a challenge before a British court. They can strike it down.

And the deal can moet certainly be struck down by the ECJ, since the ECJ will retain jurisdiction over the UK for the two year transition period. Honestly, did you read the deal?

As a footnote, you also mixed up the ECJ and the ECtHR. The ECtHR will retain its jurisdiction over the UK since it is not leaving the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation from the EU.

[Fartsniffage]

Eh? The challenge is predicated on the deal being contrary to British law, specifically the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The ECJ has nothing to do with it.

The UK Supreme Court could only potentially strike down legislation if it violated EU law, like the European convention on human rights act 2003. (Terrible name for it)

But the Supreme Court cans strike down one law because it contravenes another, only point out the contradiction to be fixed by Parliament.
I think, in the absence of any other precedent that it’s newer legislation that takes priority.

It wouldn't be. An international treaty can never supercede British law, as was demonstrated in the Irish citizenship case recently.

[Dooom35796821595]

No they can’t, not if we’re leaving the European court and their European legislation on human rights.

As said by Fart, this is a challenge before a British court. They can strike it down.

And the deal can moet certainly be struck down by the ECJ, since the ECJ will retain jurisdiction over the UK for the two year transition period. Honestly, did you read the deal?

As a footnote, you also mixed up the ECJ and the ECtHR. The ECtHR will retain its jurisdiction over the UK since it is not leaving the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation from the EU.

The UK Supreme Court can’t strike down an act of Parliament.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/2 ... confusion/

“No it cannot. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is not the Court’s role to formulate public policy, but to interpret law and develop it where necessary, through well-established processes and methods of reasoning.”