Good tweet thread that makes for some depressing reading.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I'm sure a policing partnership would be agreeable to both sides.
Of course you couldn't ban a NI manufacturer or distributor from manufacturing or distributing legal goods in the UK. However you could fine/imprison those who were doing so with the intention to supply into an area where the goods are illegal.
This is where a policing partnership would be important, almost certainly with UK funds being promised to Ireland to assist.
The way I would explain it is akin to shoplifting. You can't arrest someone in Tesco for shoplifting because they haven't yet exited the store, so they could argue they were going to pay. However potential shoplifters are identified in the shop and the second the leave the premises they're apprehended. Stuffing a bottle of wine down your pants is legal until you cross the Imaginary Tesco border.
You can't stop the UK producer because you have no authority. You are just waiting for someone to commit a crime before you arrest them.
The police co-operation is what there is at the moment because of the EU because they have the same jurisdiction, this is one of the thousands of agreements that will be broken because of the UK leaving the EU.
Why bother putting a lock on your front door, you know that the person hanging outside is a known thief but you don't arrest him until he's ransacked your house? But you can't arrest him because he's run outside of your garden and over the border of your property. Whereas if you had a lock he couldn't get in.
You continue to talk of co-operation which the UK is stopping by of them leaving the EU. You also talk of open borders - that's the EU- because of the same legal jurisdiction - the UK are leaving all this.
In the case of the USA all the states are in in the same federal jurisdiction even if various laws differ from state to state. The EU would not have that power after the UK leave the EU.
We would need some sort of deal for that, no? We would need cooperation governed by laws, sadly the UK has decided it's above those laws and doesn't want to be held accountable when it breaks any laws it agrees to.
On what basis should Europeans trust the UK that this "policing partnership" actually delivers for European interests? When those who would have to ensure and be trusted to make it work have been lying about Europeans and Europe non stop for the past 5 years?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
and the link to full show if you're interested
https://www.aljazeera.com/programme...-brexit-destiny-disaster-191011064629970.html
I know it's falling into the mistake of assuming they have a master plan but we've gone from Boris pretty certain to be kicked out and looking like he wanted no deal all along to now him getting a 'deal' that rips up standards but may pass subject to a referendum.
I hope the remainers don't accept the deal just to get a 2nd ref.
I hope the remainers don't accept the deal just to get a 2nd ref.
GOWI
Could be the new MAGA. Missed a trick there
Could be the new MAGA. Missed a trick there
GRWVI
Priti Patel has an incredibly punchable perma-smirk.
This Andrew Marr bloke is rubbish though. Just lets her waffle on and on.
This Andrew Marr bloke is rubbish though. Just lets her waffle on and on.
My thoughts too. Marr's a nice enough bloke but he's not doing his job any more.
Rumours of an attempt to tag a 2nd referendum onto Johnson's bill
That might actually pass but in reality it's going to take 6 months and I can't see any government lasting 6 months without a ge to get it done...
That might actually pass but in reality it's going to take 6 months and I can't see any government lasting 6 months without a ge to get it done...
Only way a deal passes I think. Be interesting to see what happens after.
I can only see 3 options
1. They keep a minority conservative government unable to pass any legislation until the referendum is done (seems unlikely)
2. There is a confidence motion followed by a gnu (seems unlikely without labour and very unlikely to last the 6 months needed for a referendum)
3. Confidence motion followed by a ge where libs say feck the referendum straight up remain... Conservatives say feck the referendum take the Boris deal.... Corbyn says something about unicorns and the SNP shout "freeeeeedom"
And the second referendum idea is in the bin
I thought pretty much the same, however a referendum would require an extention which Johnson has said he won't ask for so I don't really see how 1 can happen unless it's written into the ammendment that the extention must be requested so Johnson could argue it was out of his hands. Fighting a GE during a referendum campaign would be insanity so it might end up being 2 simply out a sense of self fear of the alternatives.
Difficult to predict though.
Tagging a second referendum onto Johnson's deal is so bleeding obvious that you know it's never going to happen for a number of reasons.
1. The ERG, most of whom are in the cabinet, neither want a deal not a second referendum.
2. The opposition parties want a deal and a second referendum but they want it to be their deal in the referendum and they want it to be their manifesto that calls for the second referendum.
1. The ERG, most of whom are in the cabinet, neither want a deal not a second referendum.
2. The opposition parties want a deal and a second referendum but they want it to be their deal in the referendum and they want it to be their manifesto that calls for the second referendum.
The problem for Labour in particular but all the opposition parties in general is if Johnson manages to negotiate a reasonable sounding deal and they reject it in favour of an extention Johnson almost certainly romps home in the next GE with a massive majority seat wise.
Agreed, the sticker for Johnson though is that the chances of him getting a deal that is good enough to beat Remain in a second referendum are slim to none. So the only way I can see this working is if Johnson and Co's plan for the referendum is to put his deal up against no deal with no remain option on the condition that if he wins the election he has parliament's permission to put those two options on a binding confirmatory referendum and parliament in turn will not obstruct the result.
At least that way the opposition would have something to campaign against:
Brexit Party: No Deal
Tories: Second referendum - Johnson's Deal vs No Deal
Labour: Second referendum - Corbyn's (TBD) Deal vs Remain
Lib Dems: Remain
The question is then whether the opposition parties think that's enough for them to take to a general election.
Unfortunately I'm not seeing how any of these points are functionally relevant to a referendum amendment passing.
I suspect it'd be 1 and then 2, followed by a referendum and 3.
A couple of months with Boris looking absolutely like a shambles to bleed their voters dry.
A month or two of a GNU if required until a few weeks before the referendum
A GE almost on top of the referendum to split the tory hardliners loyalties between campaigning for leave and for the election.
This would contradict parliamentary sovereignty. Nothing they do can bind the next parliament.
A referendum needs a minimum of 6 months... Which means a gnu probably has to deliver a budget (also possibly deal with the likes of turkey / Iran flashpoints as well ... ) It's not impossible it could survive 6 months but for sure I feel it's unlikely as currently they can't even agree who would be in charge... Let alone cabinet positions and policy stances
watching helplessly as we fall into the Abyss.
I feel they can let the tories flail on in minority for another 2-3 months first until boris cries enough to resign, then try to pick it up for 3 months afterwards, perhaps. There are probably enough mechanisms to stall it. One mooted idea has been a series of confidence motions in which the house has confidence for say a month, repeat, etc. Once a referendum is legislated for, the motivation for all parties for a GNU becomes greater.
I think the domestic agenda could technically be 'paused' for that long, but that the foreign office would need a real leader. Somebody like Clarke with a labour AG to curtail him.
Possibly... Like you say you could stall the domestic agenda (though I don't think that would be popular)... The international events will of course progress at their own pace and could well provide a flash point that would split a gnu beyond repair
Currently labour saying they wouldn't back a second ref ... Well untill they have won an election and negotiated a deal that they may or may not campaign for (even though lots have already said they would campaign against)
I think the EU might offer a deal till 1st June 2020... Allowing for a ge and a referendum and still before the next 7 year EU financial period kicks in
I don't think there should be a 1 policy ge.
First you need a referendum, then a proper ge, based onthe usual pack of lies and bribes proper party manifestos.
First you need a referendum, then a proper ge, based on
That's logical... Unfortunately the realities are
1. Conservatives don't want a referendum
2. Labour want to negotiate a new deal to put onto a referendum
Suspect we will see a lot of position changes and spin between now and "super Saturday"
It's a tough old chestnut for labour, they want to campaign on their domestic agenda so it makes sense for them to support a referendum now and simply remain; however Corbyn likely knows that brexit is one of the few things keeping him as leader. That said, a referendum now and before a GE would be a huge win for him personally that he can spin positively.
It also crushes both the conservatives and the lib dems for obvious reasons; in essence, it makes him far more likely to win a GE.
There may be some kicking and screaming, but I think in the end Labour, the SNP, and the rebels would all back a referendum pre GE. As to whether they'd let the Tory government flail around with a clown like Barclay as Foreign sec and Priti Patel as home sec for 6 months, well who knows...
I'm not sure... I think Corbyn does not want the humiliation of failing to get the backing to be leader if Boris goes
I think provided Boris asks for the extension Corbyn will strike a deal to back Boris for an immediate election under the fixed term parliament act ...
But for sure the saying a week is a long time in politics will be true this week... And genuinely a week from now we could be in a number of different places politically
I do agree with the bold.
You have to wonder about who the Labour strategists are, and how bad they are at their jobs. If I was advising him, I'd be telling him to go nowhere near leadership of a GNU, and let the old guys who are soon leaving politics run it in peace. He'd still be party leader, nothing would happen without his say so.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Anyone who has ambitions to be the PM must step up to the plate and lead when the opportunity presents itself, once he/she relinquishes/turns down/steps aside for another, albeit for a short time, they are 'dead in the water and Jeremy is long enough in the tooth to know that.
Corbyn's strategy thus far means he has rode the wave of Brexit to his advantage, it gives him possibly one shot at having his time in the sun. I cannot believe a man who has stuck to his (sometimes ridiculous beliefs) for all his time in Parliament would stand aside even for a minute, that's not what leaders are made of and Jeremy knows it.
Today Queen's speech really meant:
My Government aims to destroy manufacturing, sell NHS, and break up the UK due to this obsession with Brexit.
MUSA = Make UK Small Again
My Government aims to destroy manufacturing, sell NHS, and break up the UK due to this obsession with Brexit.
MUSA = Make UK Small Again
Brexit isn't about any national objective or betterment, it's about improving the finances of a select group of people.
Wish someone would put out your message to the 17 Million voters who voted to help fill pockets of these select group of people, selling the country out.
What was that Queen speech all about?
This is why I find it so frustrating. Brexiteers would rather push it through because they fell for it rather than admit they are wrong
The only way a referendum should be done first is if it includes Mays deal. It would be incredibly irresponsible for the remainers in parliament to risk Boris getting this deal through just so they can roll the dice at a people's vote.
That is my view as well. But. These are politicians who are making these decisions.