Jeremy corbyn (46 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Awww. Could you not find it on wiki?

Last time I believe was in 2016 when the Hungarian Commissioner IIRC resigned. The commission was down one for five months. There’s allowance for this in EU articles for an undetermined short period of time, the longest precedent being I believe the 2016 incident of five months. So basically Boris has got to go and ask for an extension before then and there’s a precedent set for the U.K. to not have a commissioner for a period of at least 5 months so a 5 month max extension based on the current precedent looks more than doable. Of course this was all pointed out the first time that Boris made the threat which IIRC was his first day as PM.

Interesting because the way I see the legislation is that the letter submitted by Sir Tim Barrow on the deadline day of August 26 is eliminating that request. It’s true 2 other countries had yet to submit but Barrows letter is indicative from him of no objection and suggests this only covers the uk leaving the Eu. It also pretty much eliminates the extension request. The Eu view is it’s unlikely the original plan of having King back temporarily can now not happen due to the content of Barrows letter.

So surely under the EUs own laws the Hungary precedent is rescinded as we’ve already in fact in the letter said we will not be seeking an interim commissioner as we are leaving the Eu and this has been lodged and accepted by the commission.

So I’m interested how your analysis of the Hungary situation given the content of Barrows letter counts as the uk have rejected an extension request past the deadline date?

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Interesting because the way I see the legislation is that the letter submitted by Sir Tim Barrow on the deadline day of August 26 is eliminating that request. It’s true 2 other countries had yet to submit but Barrows letter is indicative from him of no objection and suggests this only covers the uk leaving the Eu. It also pretty much eliminates the extension request. The Eu view is it’s unlikely the original plan of having King back temporarily can now happen due to the content of Barrows letter.

So surely under the EUs own laws the Hungary precedent is rescinded as we’ve already in fact in the letter said we will not be seeking an interim commissioner as we are leaving the Eu and this has been lodged and accepted by the commission.

So I’m interested how your analysis of the Hungary situation given the content of Barrows letter counts as the uk have rejected an extension request past the deadline date?

The EU believes that letter to be legally binding and stated that at the time. Maybe Boris can challenge that in the European courts. Wouldn’t that be ironic.

The Hungary precedent and indeed all other times the commission has continued without a full complement of commissioners is an article in EU law. The only way Boris can change that article is to vote on it so it favours his game plan and none of the other EU countries use their veto against that change. Again, the irony.

 

[Grendel]

The EU believes that letter to be legally binding and stated that at the time. Maybe Boris can challenge that in the European courts. Wouldn’t that be ironic.

The Hungary precedent and indeed all other times the commission has continued without a full complement of commissioners is an article in EU law. The only way Boris can change that article is to vote on it so it favours his game plan and none of the other EU countries use their veto against that change. Again, the irony.

But the point is the Hungary decision was ratified as this was requested

The uk have specifically requested that the commission proceed going forward with 27 commissioners and we will not appoint one and this is ratified

Can you explain to me where in the extension law that has been passed by the lords Johnson has to appoint a commissioner and go back in the original agreement? He can write a letter if extension and confirm by reference the Barrow letter still stands, namely that the uk will not and never will appoint another commissioner - how is that not a breach of EU law. Is it not also possible that even if -as the always do - the EU make up a new law to change the structure the UK have power to veto the law?

 

[skybluetony176]

But the point is the Hungary decision was ratified as this was requested

The uk have specifically requested that the commission proceed going forward with 27 commissioners and we will not appoint one and this is ratified

Can you explain to me where in the extension law that has been passed by the lords Johnson has to appoint a commissioner and go back in the original agreement? He can write a letter if extension and confirm by reference the Barrow letter still stands, namely that the uk will not and never will appoint another commissioner - how is that not a breach of EU law. Is it not also possible that even if -as the always do - the EU make up a new law to change the structure the UK have power to veto the law?

On the article regarding the commission and the letter we’ll see. But you keep putting your faith in Boris and his strategy and it keeps failing you. Maybe you’ll get lucky this time.

If we get an extension before the 31st of October then it’s irrelevant anyway so I’m not sure why you’re concerned about what is and isn’t in the bill. All Boris will be achieving is delaying Brexit and providing more evidence (as if that was needed) that his leave campaign was nothing more than a Trojan horse for a no deal brexit.

 

[Grendel]

On the article regarding the commission and the letter we’ll see. But you keep putting your faith in Boris and his strategy and it keeps failing you. Maybe you’ll get lucky this time.

If we get an extension before the 31st of October then it’s irrelevant anyway so I’m not sure why you’re concerned about what is and isn’t in the bill. All Boris will be achieving is delaying Brexit and providing more evidence (as if that was needed) that his leave campaign was nothing more than a Trojan horse for a no deal brexit.

I’m not putting faith in anything - the Trojan horse is labour - they want to remain and have admitted it.

I’m sure the Tories will stand on a platform in an election on honouring the leave date regardless of a deal or not. We do know that the Eu current deal with a couple of amendments regarding increased worker rights will in fact have another reading in October

So why are the opposition parties refusing an election. I don’t think Robert Peston is a massive Johnson fan but even he seemed speechless regarding the fact labour are refusing an election which would once and for all end the issue.

If Johnson won he’d still have to now put the WA to the house and if labour vote for it we have an 18 transition period as a minimum and a deal which will almost certainly get s free trade arrangement

If labour win they can have their charade of re negotiations then suggesting a remain stance at a referendum

Whatever anyone says about Johnson he is offering the opportunity to resolve the issue finally and it’s the constant shifting of the goalposts that’s actually causing business and the economy the most harm. Uncertainty is the issue and an election may well end that

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Whatever anyone says about Johnson he is offering the opportunity to resolve the issue finally and it’s the constant shifting of the goalposts that’s actually causing business and the economy the most harm. Uncertainty is the issue and an election may well end that

Spot on and the fact is that more than three years after the vote, he is the only party leader in Westminster today who is attempting to honour the result.

That’s a shocking indictment of our politicians.

 

[skybluetony176]

Spot on and the fact is that more than three years after the vote, he is the only party leader in Westminster today who is attempting to honour the result.

That’s a shocking indictment of our politicians.

He voted against the result.

 

[CCFCSteve]

I’m not putting faith in anything - the Trojan horse is labour - they want to remain and have admitted it.

I’m sure the Tories will stand on a platform in an election on honouring the leave date regardless of a deal or not. We do know that the Eu current deal with a couple of amendments regarding increased worker rights will in fact have another reading in October

So why are the opposition parties refusing an election. I don’t think Robert Peston is a massive Johnson fan but even he seemed speechless regarding the fact labour are refusing an election which would once and for all end the issue.

If Johnson won he’d still have to now put the WA to the house and if labour vote for it we have an 18 transition period as a minimum and a deal which will almost certainly get s free trade arrangement

If labour win they can have their charade of re negotiations then suggesting a remain stance at a referendum

Whatever anyone says about Johnson he is offering the opportunity to resolve the issue finally and it’s the constant shifting of the goalposts that’s actually causing business and the economy the most harm. Uncertainty is the issue and an election may well end that

Whatever happens, nobody can say politics is boring !!

I thought Johnson was out of options but the threat of ignoring the law (and the fact that Macron and possibly others in the EU don’t see the benefit in another extension - unless they believe it will lead to remain) might just be enough to still get an amendment to the WA from the EU. In which case the WA will be put before parliament (again) and you’re right Grendel, it’s then up to the opposition parties to put up or shut up. Is it a case of they will do everything to stop ‘no deal’ or is the reality that they just want to stop brexit ?

Ps as I’ve mentioned before, if Johnson isn’t seeking a deal I will be appalled. Also, as I mentioned earlier in the week, people should be careful what they wish for....if the election is only on the table after 31 Oct - which is what the opposition parties want as it weakens Johnson’s position (according to polls), the Tories will have little option but to agree a pact with the Brexit party on a no deal mandate.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Whatever happens, nobody can say politics is boring !!

Nope, but it sure is frustrating. The biggest barrier to governance is politics and those wishing to be politicians are often those least suited to it.

 

[Sick Boy]

I’m not putting faith in anything - the Trojan horse is labour - they want to remain and have admitted it.

I’m sure the Tories will stand on a platform in an election on honouring the leave date regardless of a deal or not. We do know that the Eu current deal with a couple of amendments regarding increased worker rights will in fact have another reading in October

So why are the opposition parties refusing an election. I don’t think Robert Peston is a massive Johnson fan but even he seemed speechless regarding the fact labour are refusing an election which would once and for all end the issue.

If Johnson won he’d still have to now put the WA to the house and if labour vote for it we have an 18 transition period as a minimum and a deal which will almost certainly get s free trade arrangement

If labour win they can have their charade of re negotiations then suggesting a remain stance at a referendum

Whatever anyone says about Johnson he is offering the opportunity to resolve the issue finally and it’s the constant shifting of the goalposts that’s actually causing business and the economy the most harm. Uncertainty is the issue and an election may well end that

That depends if the WA goes through though, I think it could do after all of this but then it’d tear the Tories apart.

 

[Sick Boy]

Whatever happens, nobody can say politics is boring !!

I thought Johnson was out of options but the threat of ignoring the law (and the fact that Macron and possibly others in the EU don’t see the benefit in another extension - unless they believe it will lead to remain) might just be enough to still get an amendment to the WA from the EU. In which case the WA will be put before parliament (again) and you’re right Grendel, it’s then up to the opposition parties to put up or shut up. Is it a case of they will do everything to stop ‘no deal’ or is the reality that they just want to stop brexit ?

Ps as I’ve mentioned before, if Johnson isn’t seeking a deal I will be appalled. Also, as I mentioned earlier in the week, people should be careful what they wish for....if the election is only on the table after 31 Oct - which is what the opposition parties want as it weakens Johnson’s position (according to polls), the Tories will have little option but to agree a pact with the Brexit party on a no deal mandate.

Where’s this amendment idea to the WA come from? There’s more chance of the the UK being turfed out.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Whatever anyone says about Johnson he is offering the opportunity to resolve the issue finally and it’s the constant shifting of the goalposts that’s actually causing business and the economy the most harm. Uncertainty is the issue and an election may well end that

A second referendum would end it on the spot and if he really thinks the will of the people is to flip off Europe with no agreement why is he scared of the idea? It really is something when Johnson’s actions make the pound tumble and you jump through hoops to defend him.

An election would make much more sense after a 2nd vote.

 

[dutchman]

A second referendum would end it on the spot

Your side has never accepted the result of the first referendum so there's no reason to think you would accept the result of a second if it went against you.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Your side has never accepted the result of the first referendum so there's no reason to think you would accept the result of a second if it went against you.

I have repeatedly called for another vote to be legally binding and the mechanism exists for that to be the case.

 

[dutchman]

I have repeatedly called for another vote to be legally binding and the mechanism exists for that to be the case.

Only because you assume you'll win it and if you don't you'll find some mechanism or other to sidestep the legislation just as the Dutch and French governments did when the vote went against them.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Only because you assume you'll win it and if you don't you'll find some mechanism or other to sidestep the legislation just as the Dutch and French governments did when the vote went against them.

No I just want a resolution and rather than an election dominated by Brexit it makes more sense to have another vote.

 

[dutchman]

No I just want a resolution and rather than an election dominated by Brexit it makes more sense to have another vote.

No, you want a referendum because you assume you'll win it and you don't want an election because you assume you'll lose it.

 

[skybluetony176]

No, you want a referendum because you assume you'll win it and you don't want an election because you assume you'll lose it.

Which constituency is he standing in?

 

[SIR ERNIE]

No I just want a resolution and rather than an election dominated by Brexit it makes more sense to have another vote.

hahaha, well of course it would wouldn't it..

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Your side has never accepted the result of the first referendum so there's no reason to think you would accept the result of a second if it went against you.

correct dutch, they can't be trusted.

 

[Otis]

correct dutch, they can't be trusted.

And Boris can?

 

[Grendel]

And Boris can?

Well he’s the only one offering a solution

We can’t have a referendum anyway

 

[skybluetony176]

Well he’s the only one offering a solution

We can’t have a referendum anyway

What solution is that?

 

[westcountry_skyblue]

So if the remoaners lost a second vote,Would they keep going until they get what they want?

 

[Grendel]

So if the remoaners lost a second vote,Would they keep going until they get what they want?

Well the Lib Dem strategy is to ignore the vote and revoke article 50

The no option would be split to deal or no deal against remain so it ensures a remain victory

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well the Lib Dem strategy is to ignore the vote and revoke article 50

The no option would be split to deal or no deal against remain so it ensures a remain victory

I have said before that No Deal should be put against Revoke.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

correct dutch, they can't be trusted.

I don’t really know what part of ‘legally binding’ is so hard to understand.

 

[Nick]

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No, you want a referendum because you assume you'll win it and you don't want an election because you assume you'll lose it.

What is the point in referendum by proxy instead of direct referendum?

 

[Grendel]

What is the point in referendum by proxy instead of direct referendum?

Explain how a second referendum would be able to be achieved without an election

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Explain how a second referendum would be able to be achieved without an election

...by putting it through the Commons and approving it.

 

[RegTheDonk]

Hypothetically, if all City fans decided that next season we would only follow the team if SISU agreed a deal with WASPs, whatever the terms…would that be in the best interests of CCFC?

 

[dutchman]

What is the point in referendum by proxy instead of direct referendum?

You're assuming people will vote the same way in a general election as they would in a referendum, I'm not.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You're assuming people will vote the same way in a general election as they would in a referendum, I'm not.

But you're therefore potentially looking for a disingenuous result in a GE re: Brexit and therefore the plan going forward.

Fact is if another election were untaken it would be seen as a 'Brexit election' and therefore whoever won it their position on Brexit would be seen to be the view of the population overall and therefore their plan should be implemented.

But you're saying that may not be the case because people would take other issues into account with a GE and therefore public opinion on Brexit may be misrepresented.

So if we want to know what public opinion is now on the Brexit issue the only way to know for sure is via a referendum on that single topic.

 

[Grendel]

...by putting it through the Commons and approving it.

So some problems here:

How will parliament agree on the questions for approval - remember this has to be approved by an independent body


Given the minimum time for a referendum is regarded as 6 months why is the extension only 3 and what happens if as macron indicates a further extension is blocked

If it is not blocked you are saying this administration has to survive for 6 months. Corbyn was not able to command support for an interim government for 2 weeks so no party will offer him 6 months

An election triggered before the referendum and the Tory party will run on a policy of scrapping it

Not happening is it?