View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 293 of 608
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 292, 293, 294 ... 606, 607, 608  Next

suze
1264429.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:56 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I wonder if throwing Davies under the bus might mean a change in government policy?


The greater wonder is whether it might mean a change of government.

For anyone who doesn't know what the issue is here, David Davis has decided that he will not do a thing which he was directed to do by the Exiting the European Union Committee. That Committee instructed him to release unedited copies of a series of reports on consequences of leaving the EU, and he has refused to do it.

Pete Wishart MP (SNP, Perth and North Perthshire, and formerly the keyboard player in Runrig) submitted a written question to Mr Speaker asking whether this action by Mr Davis constituted Contempt of Parliament. Mr Speaker used conventional language to avoid actually answering that question, but accepting that the question was a reasonable one. Keir Starmer MP (Lab, Holborn and St Pancras, and formerly an eminent barrister) has used an obscure parliamentary procedure called "humble address" to put the same question.

If it is ruled that Mr Davis is indeed in Contempt of Parliament, then at the very least he will have to resign. In theory he could be sent to prison (which within the Palace of Westminster means the tower that houses Big Ben), although I don't seriously expect that to happen.

Now, in Canada a vote considering whether a member of the government is in contempt of Parliament is taken to be a confidence vote. That means that if the government loses it then there has to be a general election. British constitutional law is not identical to Canadian constitutional law, but they are inevitably rather similar.

The situation hasn't arisen before in Britain and so we don't really know whether the same would hold here. FWIW, some "constitutional experts" reckon that it wouldn't, and that the political damage wouldn't go beyond Mr Davis himself. Mind you, I seem to remember that it was a current member of the government who opined that "we've had enough of experts", so who knows how much credence should be given to them.

 
PDR
1264438.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:19 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
What medication are you taking about?
Being one that is on top of all things brexit, do you disagree with either of those statements?


To be honest until Suze suggested some context I hadn't a clue what you were gibbering on about. If Suze's conjecture on your meaning is correct then I see it is just business as usual - someone has challenged a brexit lie and you have told them to "grow up" (because that apparently is the height of intellectual riposte and counts as "argument" amongst the brexit fraternity).

The incident is both significant and trivial. It is significant because it is drawing a line - it is highlighting the point that a single non-binding referendum did not give any mandate to appoint dictators and throw away every piece of parliamentary check & balance process we have. People who tried than in the past ended up convicted or treason and dangling from ropes (perhaps we should bring that back pour encourager les autres). The re-inking of that line can only ever be a good thing, no matter how much the despot-wannabes might find it inconvenient.

It is trivial because all it has actually done is caught out the Brexit Elite in yet another big fat lie. They claimed they had this vast number of detailed position studies covering every aspect of the potential brexit consquences. It is now becoming clear they had no such thing, and when parliament exercised its right to have the committee scrutinise them they turned out not to exist. Tony Blair was pilloried for having one dodgy dosier - it now seems that DEXEU have dozens of the things - all cobbled together to try to look good but with no real content. It seems it was a bluff, and parliament has called it. Now if that means Dodgy Davis falls on his sword (or even goes to jail) that's probably a matter of little consequence as well. According to his officials he's embarrassingly incompetent as well as being lazy, so he'd be no great loss.

PDR

 
Stefan Linnemann
1264439.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:25 pm Reply with quote

Across the water on the other side, we've got a similar procedure, called "posing the trust question". It can be done by either side (commonly a parliamentary party, but possibly the minister). In case there's no trust expressed by the majority of the chamber, the minister is expected to pack his or her bags (in the expectation their policy proposals will fail, anyway), and the coalition to appoint a new minister subsequently. If the prime minister fails to win a vote of trust, the government falls, new elections are issued and the fallen cabinet simply takes care of routine business until the next cabinet is installed.

We've had ministers staying put after (narrowly) failing the trust vote, though. But that's never a sustainable option, though, so they will fail another trust vote later on, and still resign.

 
barbados
1264446.  Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:41 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Keir Starmer MP (Lab, Holborn and St Pancras, and formerly an eminent barrister) has used an obscure parliamentary procedure called "humble address" to put the same question.


This is an odd one, since Keir Starmer is also supposed to be in agreement that it was right not to include data that could compromise the ongoing negotiations.
Although I doubt it will result in a change of government, I would think it would result in a change of government stiyle.

As for the other of my points, I wonder what delaying tactic will be employed now to prevent the supposed negotiations from moving forward?

 
brunel
1264447.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:49 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Quote:
Keir Starmer MP (Lab, Holborn and St Pancras, and formerly an eminent barrister) has used an obscure parliamentary procedure called "humble address" to put the same question.


This is an odd one, since Keir Starmer is also supposed to be in agreement that it was right not to include data that could compromise the ongoing negotiations.
Although I doubt it will result in a change of government, I would think it would result in a change of government stiyle.

As for the other of my points, I wonder what delaying tactic will be employed now to prevent the supposed negotiations from moving forward?

There would be many who would say that the government is quite capable of delaying itself through its sheer incompetence and disorganisation (though, no doubt, you will still continue to seek a way to blame the foreigners).

 
barbados
1264448.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:23 am Reply with quote

I don't for one second think that we are not capable of delaying things - for a start, it too 9 months to send in the resignation letter.
However while that does cause a delay - it causes a delay to one side, and that is the side causing the delay. When one party in a negotiation suggests that negotiations can't continue until the other side have set out their position on an unknown quantity that is being childish.

The news yesterday was that agreement had been made in principle over the settling of financial commitments. Not the amount, that is still open, just the make up of the bill. The agreement is that the UK will meet the commitments agreed, which was the position of the UK in March.

The next stumbling block has to do with the Irish border - something that we haven't put together a plan for yet. The government's position has always been to work towards maintaining the CTA that predates the EU membership. There is no difficulty because we are happy to allow those legally in the ROI to move freely in NI. If you enter the UK or EU via a port you have to show ID anyway, so all that will change is increased border control at a couple of ferry ports which would be required anyway. So there is nothing to get fussy about, the UK position is no hard border, the ROI position is no hard border, lets see how long the delay is this time.

 
PDR
1264452.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:33 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I don't for one second think that we are not capable of delaying things - for a start, it too 9 months to send in the resignation letter.


I think you need to have another go at that one - your bluster-generator appears to be malfunctioning.

Quote:

However while that does cause a delay - it causes a delay to one side, and that is the side causing the delay. When one party in a negotiation suggests that negotiations can't continue until the other side have set out their position on an unknown quantity that is being childish.


Sorry, but that's not really true. In most serious, complex negotiations (large contracts, treaties, legal settlements etc) it is a normal and established practice to have the "Cardinal Point Specification" stage (aka "Heads of Agreement", "Memorandum of Understanding", "Memorandum of Intent" etc). This is the preliminary negotiation over what are deemed the most important aspects (typically up to a dozen points of spec or SoW) which, if mutual agreement cannot be found, show that there is no basis for the bulk of the remaining trivia. That isn't childish. Continually attacking and blaming anyone who raises the slightest snag or objection, or who in anyway criticise your beloved brexit buccaneers (especially if they are those damned impertinent foreigners ) - that is childish, as many here have observed.

Quote:

The news yesterday was that agreement had been made in principle over the settling of financial commitments. Not the amount, that is still open, just the make up of the bill. The agreement is that the UK will meet the commitments agreed, which was the position of the UK in March.


Given that the actual content of the agreement has not been published you cannot possibly know this, so it's either an opinion of just yet another unsubstantiated claim from a brexit supporter. This is just you trying to spin everything to say the bloody foreigners are the bad boys. That is childish

Quote:

The next stumbling block has to do with the Irish border - something that we haven't put together a plan for yet. The government's position has always been to work towards maintaining the CTA that predates the EU membership. There is no difficulty because we are happy to allow those legally in the ROI to move freely in NI. If you enter the UK or EU via a port you have to show ID anyway, so all that will change is increased border control at a couple of ferry ports which would be required anyway. So there is nothing to get fussy about, the UK position is no hard border, the ROI position is no hard border, lets see how long the delay is this time.


This just shows how little understanding you have of the situation, and how much stupidity you are prepared to impose on the UK to get your beloved brexit. Others have different, less childish views on this.

PDR


Last edited by PDR on Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:24 am; edited 1 time in total

 
ali
1264455.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:09 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Quote:
Keir Starmer MP (Lab, Holborn and St Pancras, and formerly an eminent barrister) has used an obscure parliamentary procedure called "humble address" to put the same question.


This is an odd one, since Keir Starmer is also supposed to be in agreement that it was right not to include data that could compromise the ongoing negotiations.


Not really. The House voted that the information be made available, and the Speaker ruled that it be made in full. Starmer's personal views on the original matter are no longer relevant - the point now is enforcing the House's decision and dealing with a potential contempt.

 
GuyBarry
1264456.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:15 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

The next stumbling block has to do with the Irish border - something that we haven't put together a plan for yet. The government's position has always been to work towards maintaining the CTA that predates the EU membership. There is no difficulty because we are happy to allow those legally in the ROI to move freely in NI. If you enter the UK or EU via a port you have to show ID anyway, so all that will change is increased border control at a couple of ferry ports which would be required anyway.


But if you do that, you're not maintaining the Common Travel Area. The CTA consists of the whole of the UK, RoI, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. If you imposed border controls on the Stranraer-Larne ferry you'd be restricting the freedom of British citizens to move around the UK, and that's clearly unacceptable.

 
GuyBarry
1264458.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:17 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:

This just shows how little understanding you have of the situation, and how much stupidity you are prepared to impose on the UK to get your beloved brexit. Others have different, less childish views on this.


If you're just going to go back to personal attacks like this, then don't be surprised if it all ends in tears again.

 
PDR
1264465.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:57 am Reply with quote

A man who continually blames everything on the alleged childishness of foreigners is throwing stones dangerously close to the.glasshouse of his limited understanding of the topic. He therefore has only himself to blame for the inevitable broken glass.

PDR

 
barbados
1264478.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:03 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
PDR wrote:

This just shows how little understanding you have of the situation, and how much stupidity you are prepared to impose on the UK to get your beloved brexit. Others have different, less childish views on this.


If you're just going to go back to personal attacks like this, then don't be surprised if it all ends in tears again.

It was expected Guy, hence my reluctance to bite in the way he wishes.

Let’s have a sensible conversation about what is happening, not unfounded accusations about what you would have liked to happen in the hope you can change history

 
PDR
1264479.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:13 am Reply with quote

What is happening is that Parliament are holding the executive to account (which is its job - not something childish) and a government minister is attempting to obstruct Parliament in its attempt to do it (which is arguably either criminal or childish, or both).

What there has NOT been is any overtly childish behaviour from the EU negotiation team - they have merely been acting in their own interests in precisely the manner we predicted over the last year or so and which you repeatedly stated that they wouldn't. Your bad...

PDR

 
GuyBarry
1264486.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:11 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Pete Wishart MP (SNP, Perth and North Perthshire, and formerly the keyboard player in Runrig) submitted a written question to Mr Speaker asking whether this action by Mr Davis constituted Contempt of Parliament. Mr Speaker used conventional language to avoid actually answering that question, but accepting that the question was a reasonable one.


Isn't it up to the Speaker to decide whether a member is in contempt of Parliament? If not, who decides?

Quote:
If it is ruled that Mr Davis is indeed in Contempt of Parliament, then at the very least he will have to resign. In theory he could be sent to prison (which within the Palace of Westminster means the tower that houses Big Ben), although I don't seriously expect that to happen.


Well at least it'll be nice and quiet in there for the next few years :-)

Quote:
Now, in Canada a vote considering whether a member of the government is in contempt of Parliament is taken to be a confidence vote. That means that if the government loses it then there has to be a general election. British constitutional law is not identical to Canadian constitutional law, but they are inevitably rather similar.


The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 lays down the exact wording of the motion required for an early general election, namely "that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", unless if it is followed within fourteen days with a resolution "that this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". So I don't think it would apply in this situation.

 
barbados
1264492.  Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:58 am Reply with quote

What has happened yesterday is twofold

1) there has been accord over the “divorce bill”, it was suggested that both sides are in agreement that the UK will meet their commitments, which is the stance that was laid out in March. No numbers have been suggested or agreed. The UK position has not changed, the EU have now confirmed in principle that the uk position is the correct one. That is just time wasting

2) The UK government got their fingers burned in Parliament this is nothing to do with what you suggest, it is a result of them not voting on opposition day motions, had they done so they would likely have got a successful result on this motion because it is in essence an unreasonable request. The change of policy suggested is they may think twice about such actions in the future. Nothing to do with the EU at all.

 

Page 293 of 608
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 292, 293, 294 ... 606, 607, 608  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group