politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The battle between LAB & CON viewed through the perspective of
Comments
-
None at present, but I've heard some people suggest incorporating the NI-only backstop into the GFA via a border poll.RobD said:
But what needs to be changed?gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
That won't happen, however, because the people of Ireland would vote the wrong way (i.e. yes).0 -
There are plenty of clauses in there (I listed some of them the other day) which are relevant for the purposes of this discussion, namely referring to maintaining stability, peace, etc but as you always point out because presumably you believe it is a key point, short of any mention of prohibiting a hard border in the text.RobD said:gypsumfantastic said:
But a pretty significant change in its relationship with the Republic, hence the concern.RobD said:
No change in it’s relationship with the U.K. though, unless a border poll is required for reach new EU treaty, for example. I don’t remember there being calls for one for Lisbon.gypsumfantastic said:
The important thing for the Irish government, and also the British government until it welched on its deal last week, is that the GFA requires no change in the constitutional status of NI without a border poll.RobD said:
Brexit is a pretty damn significant change.
In any case, it's relevant because the British government was committed to assuring there could be no return to a hard border. And until last week, when May suddenly reneged on her solemn promise and voted against the backstop she negotiated, maybe Ireland even believed the UK government meant it.
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
As for May reneging the deal. Parliamentary theatre, probably to demonstrate once and for all that this is the only deal on the table.0 -
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go.gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.0 -
Just musing -Charles said:Although as @SouthamObserver points out the Irish lobby in the US is so strong they ... (snip) ...
If we substitute 'Jewish' for 'Irish' in the above sentence do we have something problematical?0 -
It would make the current deal illegal. No deal, not so much...gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).0 -
I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).0 -
It's across both the province of Northern Ireland and Ireland itself - from memory both sides have to say yes separately.OldKingCole said:
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go.gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.0 -
I think it's fair to say the negotiators and drafters of the GFA didn't think Britain would be likely to do anything as insanely, suicidially stupid as Brexit.TOPPING said:
There are plenty of clauses in there (I listed some of them the other day) which are relevant for the purposes of this discussion, namely referring to maintaining stability, peace, etc but as you always point out because presumably you believe it is a key point, short of any mention of prohibiting a hard border in the text.
Overestimating the intelligence of British politicians is always an error.0 -
Can kicking - she has it down to a fine artkinabalu said:
To do what though?Big_G_NorthWales said:Seek an extension to A50
However, Trimble's move today is very interesting.
Win his case and Ireland and the EU are breaking the GFA, lose and the backstop is legitimised
Big stakes0 -
It requires a qualified majority of both registered unionist and nationalist voters to carry. Not a straight 50%+1.OldKingCole said:
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go.gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.0 -
In fact, where does it say this in the GFA? The only talk of a poll is in reference to one about leaving the UK.gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.0 -
A proppa Tory would eat the puppy, shoot Boris......gypsumfantastic said:
One puppy, one revolver, one bullet.kinabalu said:
So what do you think her 'last resort' move is if her deal is irredeemably blocked by parliament?Big_G_NorthWales said:She will not get it passed her party judging by the near hysteria from her mps on twitter. The only way is through another vonc but even that may not result in a GE
0 -
OK. So if Gina Miller now asks the court to rule that No Deal would breach the Good Friday Agreement, where would that leave us?DavidL said:
It would make the current deal illegal. No deal, not so much...gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).0 -
Why would we want to go back to an NI-only backstop? It's basically free membership of the single market/customs union for the entire UK.gypsumfantastic said:
None at present, but I've heard some people suggest incorporating the NI-only backstop into the GFA via a border poll.RobD said:
But what needs to be changed?gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
That won't happen, however, because the people of Ireland would vote the wrong way (i.e. yes).0 -
Lord Trimble is a brexiteerdixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).OldKingCole said:
We are talking about a Unionist politician.RobD said:
I don’t think it mentions anything about customs checks either. You are right that the concession won by May for the backstop to apply to the entire UK renders Trimble’s case a bit silly.DavidL said:
I'm not saying I agree with the argument but that is what is said. It is claimed that it was implied that we would do nothing to impede the free movement of goods and people in the island of Ireland and that means we need to agree something that has that effect, even if we leave the EU which essentially provided such a scenario.RobD said:
For the backstop to be a breach of the GFA you would need to argue that it breaches the terms on which NI was going to remain in the UK. Not sure I am seeing that, tbh.
But its been weeks since we had a completely daft and irrelevant court case about some aspect of Brexit, so why not?0 -
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.0 -
This case stops that in its trackskinabalu said:
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.0 -
Yes to your first point. As to your second, I don't think British politicians are not intelligent; they are supremely self-interested and often idealists, and so they fix upon a particular vision, often fantastic and unrealistic, and then, because it is not called the Westminster bubble for nothing, somehow come to believe that they are justified in pursuing that vision at the cost of all else. Because of course plenty of them insulated via wealth or position from the consequences of pursuing that fantasy vision.gypsumfantastic said:
I think it's fair to say the negotiators and drafters of the GFA didn't think Britain would be likely to do anything as insanely, suicidially stupid as Brexit.TOPPING said:
There are plenty of clauses in there (I listed some of them the other day) which are relevant for the purposes of this discussion, namely referring to maintaining stability, peace, etc but as you always point out because presumably you believe it is a key point, short of any mention of prohibiting a hard border in the text.
Overestimating the intelligence of British politicians is always an error.0 -
Official correspondence with Nissan in 2016 published by BEIS.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nissans-investment-in-the-uk
0 -
Lord knows. I trust those highlighting any adverse economic effects of Brexit are off setting the boon to the legal profession.Chris said:
OK. So if Gina Miller now asks the court to rule that No Deal would breach the Good Friday Agreement, where would that leave us?DavidL said:
It would make the current deal illegal. No deal, not so much...gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).
FWIW I would say that the GFA is not a part of the substantive law of the UK in the same was as EU law is under the European Communities Act and therefore still falls within the Royal prerogative with the consequence that any alleged breach would not be justiciable but you are talking to the man who thought the CJEU couldn't possibly allow the UK to unilaterally withdraw the article 50 notice.0 -
Can kicking - sure - but eventually that ends.Big_G_NorthWales said:Can kicking - she has it down to a fine art.
So, when it does, and she still cannot get her deal through this parliament, what then?
What IYO is her move?0 -
I suppose the other question is how long it will take before there is a judgment.0
-
Says who? Genuine question.kinabalu said:
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.0 -
Stops what in its tracks?Big_G_NorthWales said:This case stops that in its tracks
0 -
Of course the other thing is that you can multiply the time new FTAs are going to take by what, two? Three? A hundred?
Previously an agreement would be reached by the government and then ratified by Parliament.
This has now changed - now an agreement is reached by the government and then rejected by Parliament who instructs the government to go back to renegotiate what it has already negotiated.
How the fuckity fucking fuck is any country going to know what or how to negotiate with us, nor will they particularly want to, in the light of this, our new modus operandi?0 -
Passing a deal with the backstopkinabalu said:
Stops what in its tracks?Big_G_NorthWales said:This case stops that in its tracks
0 -
The British government’s refusal to ask the people of Northern Ireland to say whether they would accept a Northern Ireland only backstop speaks volumes. And tells us very clearly the backstop is not the real issue.williamglenn said:
0 -
I thought it was a vote of all adults and needed an all Ireland majority PLUS a majority in NI.gypsumfantastic said:It requires a qualified majority of both registered unionist and nationalist voters to carry. Not a straight 50%+1.
Is that not right?0 -
What, right across the island?gypsumfantastic said:
It requires a qualified majority of both registered unionist and nationalist voters to carry. Not a straight 50%+1.OldKingCole said:
Silly question: what is a 'border poll'. Is it this districts which border on the border, on both sides, and how far back does a 'district' go.gypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.
Presumably also the poll is carried out on both sides of the border.0 -
Why are you not using my whole postkinabalu said:
Can kicking - sure - but eventually that ends.Big_G_NorthWales said:Can kicking - she has it down to a fine art.
So, when it does, and she still cannot get her deal through this parliament, what then?
What IYO is her move?
Do not underestimate how much Lord Trimble's action today will have an effect on the process over the next few weeks0 -
Not a border pollgypsumfantastic said:
The important thing for the Irish government, and also the British government until it welched on its deal last week, is that the GFA requires no change in the constitutional status of NI without a border poll.RobD said:
Brexit is a pretty damn significant change.
That’s a different provision0 -
No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.kinabalu said:
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.0 -
So why the reference to 'legal text' in the Treaty?Richard_Tyndall said:No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.0 -
Ok, I am persuaded.gypsumfantastic said:Guys I think I've come across a workable Brexit compromise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyoaBa7DaE0 -
No he isn't. He is a strong Leave supporter.. He hopes that ruling the backstop illegal will mean this particular version of the Deal is dead no matter what May and the EU agree.gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).0 -
And it would put Ireland and the EU in breach of the GFARichard_Tyndall said:
No he isn't. He is a strong Leave supporter.. He hopes that ruling the backstop illegal will mean this particular version of the Deal is dead no matter what May and the EU agree.gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).
It would be very dramatic as would a decision it is legal0 -
You’re muddling a border poll with the principle of consent. Different thingsgypsumfantastic said:
Changes to the GFA need to be approved by a border poll too.RobD said:
Does it explicitly prevent changes in arrangements between the UK and Ireland? I only remember clauses about a borde rpoll being necessary if it was thought there was a majority for joining Ireland.0 -
Except the CJEU decided we could revoke Art 50 unilaterally on an argument based almost entirely on the 1969 Vienna Convention which, quite bizarrely, they used to construe the EU treaty to which it did not apply.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.kinabalu said:
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.
Anyone confidently expressing views about what the courts might do here is, well, unwise.0 -
Then the choice becomes No Deal or Revoke. Has he thought this through?Richard_Tyndall said:
No he isn't. He is a strong Leave supporter.. He hopes that ruling the backstop illegal will mean this particular version of the Deal is dead no matter what May and the EU agree.gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).0 -
Opinium say their 7% Conservative lead wasn't an outlier:
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/10924650893687316480 -
Treaties become legal texts within the laws of the countries involved until such times as they are revoked. But there is nothing to stop a country unilaterally revoking a treaty should it choose. As I said politically it is a very bad thing to do but that is because of the consequences for ones international relations and trust between countries. It has nothing to do with legality as long as it is done in accordance with a country's own laws. There is an additional complication for the UK as it is a signatory to the 1969 convention (something for example that does not apply to France as it never signed) but that does not apply to any treaties with the EU.kinabalu said:
So why the reference to 'legal text' in the Treaty?Richard_Tyndall said:No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.0 -
Of course a deal can be doneChris said:Trimble last April:
However, he maintained that the Good Friday Agreement was robust enough to weather the challenges of Brexit and that a solution would be easy.
“The Taoiseach, the Prime Minister, and somebody from Brussels who is in a position to take decisions, if those three people sat down around a table I suspect it wouldn’t take them more than half an hour to sort things out”.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/trimble-says-irish-brexit-challenges-could-be-solved-in-half-an-hour-1.3456791
However May can’t sell the backstop to Parliament & the Irish/EU are refusing to sit down and find a way out0 -
He is:dixiedean said:
Then the choice becomes No Deal or Revoke. Has he thought this through?Richard_Tyndall said:
No he isn't. He is a strong Leave supporter.. He hopes that ruling the backstop illegal will mean this particular version of the Deal is dead no matter what May and the EU agree.gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).
(a) still a politician of sorts
(b) talking about Brexit so
(c) don't be silly.0 -
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.gypsumfantastic said:
I think it's fair to say the negotiators and drafters of the GFA didn't think Britain would be likely to do anything as insanely, suicidially stupid as Brexit.TOPPING said:
There are plenty of clauses in there (I listed some of them the other day) which are relevant for the purposes of this discussion, namely referring to maintaining stability, peace, etc but as you always point out because presumably you believe it is a key point, short of any mention of prohibiting a hard border in the text.
Overestimating the intelligence of British politicians is always an error.
Brexit was not beyond contemplation in 1998.0 -
How do you know a poll is or isn't an outlier? The only way is to conduct a series of further polls to either confirm or disprove it. There is literally no other way.El_Capitano said:Opinium say their 7% Conservative lead wasn't an outlier:
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1092465089368731648
Edit. Not you personally El Capitano, but you Opinium.0 -
Because we are still on the 'last resort' point. (Trimble does of course sound interesting).Big_G_NorthWales said:Why are you not using my whole post?
Do not underestimate how much Lord Trimble's action today will have an effect on the process over the next few weeks
Reprise:
What IYO will Mrs May's move be if (after all the can-kicking) she simply cannot get a Brexit deal through this parliament?
I think probably GE but you don't - so am interested to hear what specific course of action you think is more likely.
If you don't want to answer, that's totally fine - I won't keep bugging you - but I AM genuinely interested.0 -
Oh I agree as far as the ECJ is concerned. I would hope the Supreme Court would have more sense. As far as the basic facts surrounding the Vienna Treaty are concerned, if the ECJ cited it with the claim that they are bound by it then they are wrong. The EU are not signatories. Nor are a number of individual members of the EU.DavidL said:
Except the CJEU decided we could revoke Art 50 unilaterally on an argument based almost entirely on the 1969 Vienna Convention which, quite bizarrely, they used to construe the EU treaty to which it did not apply.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.kinabalu said:
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.
Anyone confidently expressing views about what the courts might do here is, well, unwise.0 -
The Good Friday Agreement is incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is an Act of Parliament that would require a subsequent Act of Parliament to repeal. If the Act were repealed, at that point you can kiss goodbye to the peace process.DavidL said:
Lord knows. I trust those highlighting any adverse economic effects of Brexit are off setting the boon to the legal profession.Chris said:
OK. So if Gina Miller now asks the court to rule that No Deal would breach the Good Friday Agreement, where would that leave us?DavidL said:
It would make the current deal illegal. No deal, not so much...gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).
FWIW I would say that the GFA is not a part of the substantive law of the UK in the same was as EU law is under the European Communities Act and therefore still falls within the Royal prerogative with the consequence that any alleged breach would not be justiciable but you are talking to the man who thought the CJEU couldn't possibly allow the UK to unilaterally withdraw the article 50 notice.0 -
It depends. I don’t have a particular issue with it provided it is viewed as people banding together to protect their own interests. (Eg Evangelicals or Catholics or black caucus)kinabalu said:
Just musing -Charles said:Although as @SouthamObserver points out the Irish lobby in the US is so strong they ... (snip) ...
If we substitute 'Jewish' for 'Irish' in the above sentence do we have something problematical?
If there is an implication of ultramontainism (ie a group owing loyalty to a foreign power above their own country) then it becomes very problematic0 -
Ah, time for my Avatar directors' cut.gypsumfantastic said:Guys I think I've come across a workable Brexit compromise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyoaBa7DaE
0 -
Does this mean the panic is over for toilet paper?Scott_P said:0 -
As for the data, this should be no surprise to anyone.0
-
It's in line with their earlier poll, which was not headlined, which gave the Conservatives a 4% lead,dixiedean said:
How do you know a poll is or isn't an outlier? The only way is to conduct a series of further polls to either confirm or disprove it. There is literally no other way.El_Capitano said:Opinium say their 7% Conservative lead wasn't an outlier:
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1092465089368731648
Edit. Not you personally El Capitano, but you Opinium.0 -
Ah yes of course. My mistake.DavidL said:
He is:dixiedean said:
Then the choice becomes No Deal or Revoke. Has he thought this through?Richard_Tyndall said:
No he isn't. He is a strong Leave supporter.. He hopes that ruling the backstop illegal will mean this particular version of the Deal is dead no matter what May and the EU agree.gypsumfantastic said:
Yes, he's a remainer. He hopes that having the backstop ruled illegal will make Brexit legally impossible.dixiedean said:
Wasn't Trimble in the OUP. Aren't they Remainers? (I believe he's a Tory peer now).
(a) still a politician of sorts
(b) talking about Brexit so
(c) don't be silly.0 -
CJEU is a political court not a court of lawDavidL said:
Except the CJEU decided we could revoke Art 50 unilaterally on an argument based almost entirely on the 1969 Vienna Convention which, quite bizarrely, they used to construe the EU treaty to which it did not apply.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.kinabalu said:
If we -Chris said:I'm not sure the UK courts have the power to make Brexit legally impossible.
(1) sign the withdrawal treaty with the backstop,
(2) define Brexit as meaning leaving the EU in a meaningful fashion, i.e. no CU or SM,
(3) accept the consensus that there is no tech solution to the border,
(4) insist on the regulatory oneness of the UK,
- then the UK courts do not have to opine on the matter since Brexit is ALREADY illegal.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.
Anyone confidently expressing views about what the courts might do here is, well, unwise.
They constructed a justification for the answer they wanted0 -
I will give you my answer, but now Trimble has put the cat among the pigeons, in truth anything could happen but I am not convinced a GE will.kinabalu said:
Because we are still on the 'last resort' point. (Trimble does of course sound interesting).Big_G_NorthWales said:Why are you not using my whole post?
Do not underestimate how much Lord Trimble's action today will have an effect on the process over the next few weeks
Reprise:
What IYO will Mrs May's move be if (after all the can-kicking) she simply cannot get a Brexit deal through this parliament?
I think probably GE but you don't - so am interested to hear what specific course of action you think is more likely.
If you don't want to answer, that's totally fine - I won't keep bugging you - but I AM genuinely interested.
There are too many moving parts to predict with any confidence but the next few weeks are going to be very interesting.
So I suppose honesty requires me to say ' I haven't a clue'0 -
I get that. But, at the risk of being pedantic* that neither proves or disproves it. It merely adds to the evidence.Sean_F said:
It's in line with their earlier poll, which was not headlined, which gave the Conservatives a 4% lead,dixiedean said:
How do you know a poll is or isn't an outlier? The only way is to conduct a series of further polls to either confirm or disprove it. There is literally no other way.El_Capitano said:Opinium say their 7% Conservative lead wasn't an outlier:
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1092465089368731648
Edit. Not you personally El Capitano, but you Opinium.
In reality, the Conservatives could be 12 ahead, making the earlier poll an outlier.
Or they could have one testing the upper range, and the later one an outlier.
* Go on I'll risk it.0 -
Why has Trimble left it so late in the day?0
-
Deleted.
Done alraedy0 -
Isn’t that what they are saying - there are now 2 polls showing movement in this way. Need more to know whether it’s a blip vs sustained but it implies not an outlierdixiedean said:
How do you know a poll is or isn't an outlier? The only way is to conduct a series of further polls to either confirm or disprove it. There is literally no other way.El_Capitano said:Opinium say their 7% Conservative lead wasn't an outlier:
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1092465089368731648
Edit. Not you personally El Capitano, but you Opinium.0 -
Agreed. Just objecting to the implied certainty in the original tweet. A bugbear of mine. And I'm grumpy.Charles said:
Isn’t that what they are saying - there are now 2 polls showing movement in this way. Need more to know whether it’s a blip vs sustained but it implies not an outlierdixiedean said:
How do you know a poll is or isn't an outlier? The only way is to conduct a series of further polls to either confirm or disprove it. There is literally no other way.El_Capitano said:Opinium say their 7% Conservative lead wasn't an outlier:
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1092465089368731648
Edit. Not you personally El Capitano, but you Opinium.0 -
0
-
-
Yes, I suppose that we could revoke the treaty. And we would probably have to if we wished to leave the customs union in the absence of a technological solution to the border. Since the treaty (via the backstop) prohibits this That was the point I was getting at.Richard_Tyndall said:Treaties become legal texts within the laws of the countries involved until such times as they are revoked. But there is nothing to stop a country unilaterally revoking a treaty should it choose. As I said politically it is a very bad thing to do but that is because of the consequences for ones international relations and trust between countries. It has nothing to do with legality as long as it is done in accordance with a country's own laws. There is an additional complication for the UK as it is a signatory to the 1969 convention (something for example that does not apply to France as it never signed) but that does not apply to any treaties with the EU.
0 -
Absolutely right. And if we felt that the other side was not acting in good faith - by not actually working towards technological solutions in Northern Ireland - then we would be well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty, irrespective of if there was an exit clause in there.Richard_Tyndall said:
Treaties become legal texts within the laws of the countries involved until such times as they are revoked. But there is nothing to stop a country unilaterally revoking a treaty should it choose. As I said politically it is a very bad thing to do but that is because of the consequences for ones international relations and trust between countries. It has nothing to do with legality as long as it is done in accordance with a country's own laws. There is an additional complication for the UK as it is a signatory to the 1969 convention (something for example that does not apply to France as it never signed) but that does not apply to any treaties with the EU.kinabalu said:
So why the reference to 'legal text' in the Treaty?Richard_Tyndall said:No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.0 -
OK! Nice one.Big_G_NorthWales said:I will give you my answer, but now Trimble has put the cat among the pigeons, in truth anything could happen but I am not convinced a GE will.
There are too many moving parts to predict with any confidence but the next few weeks are going to be very interesting.
So I suppose honesty requires me to say ' I haven't a clue'
We will no doubt re-visit.0 -
I'm not sure that pre-advertising a bonanza for people-smugglers was exactly what most Leave voters had in mind for Brexit.Scott_P said:0 -
That is a good question.rottenborough said:Why has Trimble left it so late in the day?
I mentioned a few weeks ago that there was an argument to be made that any separation of the UK from NI in terms of customs could be viewed as a direct breach of the GFA in a way that a hard border - although undesirable - would not be. I am surprised this sort of challenge was not made much sooner.0 -
As an aside, I find it odd that people who balk at us potentially unilaterally withdrawing from a Treaty because the other party is not acting in good faith, seem very relaxed about us breaching the Treaties that setup the World Trade Organisation.0
-
-
0
-
RUTTE! MAY TRUSTED YOU! HOW COULD YOU?!0
-
It turns out this is the government's plan to stop the "migrant dinghy invasion". Just let people come over risk-free in lorries from 30th March onwards.AlastairMeeks said:
I'm not sure that pre-advertising a bonanza for people-smugglers was exactly what most Leave voters had in mind for Brexit.Scott_P said:
0 -
Not necessarily. If we're going to fold (which May has already tried to do), it is likely to be before a No Deal scenario comes into effect.SouthamObserver said:
“If we don’t fold” is doing a hell of a lot of work in that scenario given what No Deal means for us.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it does help the UK as (so long as we don't fold) it gives us immense leverage. The only way to solve the problem - and it will be a problem for the EU - will be to get a deal. Only way to get a deal is to get both sides to agree. We wont agree if there is a backstop.SouthamObserver said:
I agree that the Irish are not going to put up any barriers when we go to No Deal. They would be mad to. But that is not going to help the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
But if a no deal scenario happens then Ireland will break its obligations before it erects a border. If the UK doesn't come to heel then the only way to get out of the mess will be a deal which means no backstop.
The EU will need the Irish border issue dealing with us in that scenario more than us. The integrity of the UK will be intact but the integrity of the Single Market won't be. A standstill transition minus the backstop is a fudge that will kick the can down the road and remove the immediate headache for the EU while concentrating minds on both sides to find a real solution.
After a No Deal politicians will have already been committed enough to walk away not just from May's deal but to all other alternatives such as an extension. They will have chosen (via inaction if nothing else) to follow through with No Deal.
At that point there will have to be some dramatic change surely to cause us to fold then, when we didn't beforehand.0 -
Of course we would. It's not as if we are going to face military attack if we do. Obviously, we would have to live with the practical consequences of such a unilateral withdrawal, but it is a decision we are perfectly free to make.rcs1000 said:
Absolutely right. And if we felt that the other side was not acting in good faith - by not actually working towards technological solutions in Northern Ireland - then we would be well within our rights to withdraw from the treaty, irrespective of if there was an exit clause in there.Richard_Tyndall said:
Treaties become legal texts within the laws of the countries involved until such times as they are revoked. But there is nothing to stop a country unilaterally revoking a treaty should it choose. As I said politically it is a very bad thing to do but that is because of the consequences for ones international relations and trust between countries. It has nothing to do with legality as long as it is done in accordance with a country's own laws. There is an additional complication for the UK as it is a signatory to the 1969 convention (something for example that does not apply to France as it never signed) but that does not apply to any treaties with the EU.kinabalu said:
So why the reference to 'legal text' in the Treaty?Richard_Tyndall said:No it isn't. Under those circumstances we would then have the choice as to whether or not we would abide by the treaty. There is nothing in British law that says we need to abide by a treaty should we choose not to. Personally I think it would be a mistake to renege but it certainly isn't illegal. Nor would we be in breach of any international law since the only relevant law on treaties is the 1969 Vienna Convention which the EU is not a party to because it only applies to treaties between nation states. All other organisations are explicitly excluded.
Reneging on a treaty would be a very daft thing to do but that would be in the world of politics and international relations, not law.
0 -
You (a genius) "Trump's racist wall stuff is good politics that builds his support"
Reality: https://twitter.com/TheToddSchulte/status/1092414297815293953?s=190 -
Yes I guess it's the 'their loyalty is elsewhere' sentiment that is potentially so unsavoury.Charles said:It depends. I don’t have a particular issue with it provided it is viewed as people banding together to protect their own interests. (Eg Evangelicals or Catholics or black caucus)
If there is an implication of ultramontainism (ie a group owing loyalty to a foreign power above their own country) then it becomes very problematic
Tricky area.0 -
I wonder why this is being advertised now. If there is a Project Fear, this seems to be directly undermining it. More like Project Reassurance.AlastairMeeks said:
I'm not sure that pre-advertising a bonanza for people-smugglers was exactly what most Leave voters had in mind for Brexit.Scott_P said:0 -
I see that our National Brexitstantial crisis is continuing well.
At least we can rely on Matt:
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1092479541954727938?s=190 -
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.TOPPING said:
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.Philip_Thompson said:
Nobody will. End of story.TOPPING said:Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.0 -
It reminded me of koala.OldKingCole said:
0 -
Goods are already waved through. People smugglers will still be targetted in the same way as they already are.AlastairMeeks said:
I'm not sure that pre-advertising a bonanza for people-smugglers was exactly what most Leave voters had in mind for Brexit.Scott_P said:0 -
Councillor apologise for entirely uncalled-for bout of honesty:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-471171070 -
Interesting that the SDLP voters are the ones most keen on a hard Brexit for part or all of the UK.Scott_P said:0 -
Quite a seasonal treat in Malawi, soldby the roadside. The fur burns off when held over a fire, but the bones are a little crunchy. All good protien and calcium I suppose:Recidivist said:
It reminded me of koala.OldKingCole said:
https://youtu.be/Z2kWkT0gonI0 -
Obviously don't agree but it is a sentiment we have heard a few times expressed on here. For better or worse though we are all in it together, if you voted remain or against the Tories (or abstained) you are on a ride someone else is controlling so you just have to enjoy it until they get bored.gypsumfantastic said:Councillor apologise for entirely uncalled-for bout of honesty:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-471171070 -
Now you are missing the point. (It would be the UK government that would be forced to act not the Irish one). And the UK government can't take the chance that instead of inaction, actually things wouldn't be delayed, or that the UK would indeed be forced either to erect a border or give everyone tariff free access to the UK markets.Philip_Thompson said:
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.TOPPING said:
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.Philip_Thompson said:
Nobody will. End of story.TOPPING said:Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.
It is entering the process that is problematic regardless of the outcome (and don't forget the UK's enthusiastic embrace of every and any supranationally imposed rule).0 -
Brexiteer thicky thick thick and walking waste of air Nadine Dorries can't tell brown people apart.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-471208790 -
So, the suggested solution is to ask the EU to break international rules in a very egregious manner, simply because the courts are rubbish. And with divergence hugely extending the grey market between the RoI and UK into the bargain, in fact, unless you are also suggesting checks at Ireland/EU sea and air borders, the grey market would extend all the way into and across the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
You are far too blinkered and legalistic to see the woods for the trees.TOPPING said:
I mean Phil, I think your presence on here is interesting enough in that it gives us an insight into the mind of people such as yourself, of whom I think there are many.Philip_Thompson said:
Nobody will. End of story.TOPPING said:Jesus (Jaysus) H Christ will you please take some time to understand who will or won't erect a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But when your posts are so devoid of understanding, and exhibit such transparent ignorance, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As one final effort, although god knows why I persist, I will point you in the direction of the answer which is WTO MFN.
All yours now - good luck!
Yes WTO dispute mechanisms exist. They are not a compulsion though. Even if a dispute is raised, even if it is legitimate, if Ireland chooses to continue to keep an open border then they will keep an open border. The WTO can not unilaterally erect a border, even if its rules say there should be one.
To date there have been over 577 WTO disputes brought forward and nearly half of them have never been resolved. There are 177 disputes still "in consultations" (many dating back to the WTO's foundation in 1995, there are 30 where its been escalated to seeking a panel but the panel still hasn't been composed (again some dating back to 1995), 31 where a panel has been composed but still no resolution yet (some dating back to 2005).
Even if a dispute is resolved, it could take decades before it goes through all the processes and even then there is no compulsion on Ireland to act. There will however be immense pressure on the EU to make this go away - and the way to do that is to strike a deal with the UK as if the UK has a deal then MFN rules don't apply in the same way. And to get a deal, means dropping the backstop.
It's possible. It's even possible to cover the legality, but not the grey market side, by citing peace requirements at the WTO. But to designate the EU the bad guys for resisting the attempted blackmail. Cloud cuckoo.
0 -
Cmon, if she didn't exist we would have to invent her. Even in a tragedy, there needs to be a clown.gypsumfantastic said:Brexiteer thicky thick thick and walking waste of air Nadine Dorries can't tell brown people apart https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47120879
0 -
Today in Brexiteers do the darnedest things:Foxy said:
Cmon, if she didn't exist we would have to invent her. Even in a tragedy, there needs to be a clown.gypsumfantastic said:Brexiteer thicky thick thick and walking waste of air Nadine Dorries can't tell brown people apart https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47120879
- Brandon Lewis demands a female candidate be sacked for liking a dick pic
- Nadine Dorries confuses Ash Sarkar with Faiza Shaheen
- Daniel Kawczynski hangs up on a radio interviewer for asking him to retract his Marshall Plan lies0 -
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-sounds-out-mps-over-irish-backstop-concession-0tx7n0jhc
"The change would make legally binding a series of assurances by Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, presidents of the European Council and commission, that the backstop would not lock Britain into a permanent customs union with the EU."
Seems way too good to be true. If those legally binding changes came then surely Labour would have to vote it through.0
