Lancasterclaret wrote:Breaking the law is now fine if you want Brexit.
Cheers for the confirmation Android.
A bloke as bright as you shouldn't need telling that if you ignore laws you don't like in a country, then that country is in serious trouble.
Which of them were PM?RingoMcCartney wrote:Tell that to the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Tell that to Martin Luther king
Tell that to Ghandi
Tell that to those massacred at Peterloo
Tell that to the suffragettes
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
martin_p wrote:Which of them were PM?
I've liked reading your posts, but there's one assumption that I'm not immediately agreeing to: the necessity of self sufficiency in food. So many successful countries are not self sufficient in food, relying instead on imports. I'm not sure we should base food policy on 'What if there's a war?'CrosspoolClarets wrote:Sadly I only have 5 minutes while grabbing some lunch so can only post quickly.
I’m not sure how I have ended up being challenged on this because as I said up the thread I don’t have a dog in this fight - I can see both sides, and it is a hugely complex set of variables that mean none of us, including Lancs, is qualified to answer it.
My hunch is that food security (I.e. producing our own) is of paramount long term importance, but that the government will try to avoid a short term Brexit recession as a top priority by keeping costs low (a consequence of the People’s Revote campaign, the Govt have to win arguments like food prices rather than simply doing the right thing such as ensuring food security).
My other hunch is that farming needs rebalancing - are we producing the correct proportions of each product such as cereal grains and eggs? Highly unlikely. Farming needs to become more niche, especially for exporting. How can a UK wheat farmer compete with Russia who can produce it for two thirds of the cost? Wheat also suffers from moisture problems in the UK - is it viable to produce in such quantities?
So......I’m not seeing much evidence of the NFU giving a vision on this whole thing, just grumbling about tariffs and quotas. I don’t know if those are spot on by each product type, nothing is perfect, but we need a strategic vision for each commodity setting out, containing all stakeholders including the NFU. That would be more credible. It would include things like the product standards we demand for imports, even if they are at zero tariff.
Yes, bumping my own post.Paul Waine wrote:Hi spice, are you sure about the examples you quote? There are laws about "planning" terrorist acts - these allow the police/security authorities to act and people breaking these laws should be charged and brought to court. Similarly, there are laws about public order and these allow the police to control football fans and the same with organised public protests/demonstrations - and, I'm guessing, police actions (warrants) require the approval of a court official. On tax, I think cases are brought to court when HMRC says "£X tax is due" and on the other hand the tax payer is arguing that "no, I don't owe that tax."
I put it in the realm of "high politics" that we have one group of politicians rushing thru a law that says you must do this (extend) and not this (leave with no deal) and on the other hand another group of politicians, led by BJ, saying "we don't like your law, we think you are wrong and it will stop us getting a deal..." and also "we will always obey the law...… but, your new, rushed, law isn't very clear..... so, we will see how that works out...."
Fascinating that the action has been taken to a Scottish Court. I know that Scottish law differs from the law of England & Wales - but, I've no experience and I don't know how it differs. Maybe the Scottish Court can "bind" the actions of BJ and provide a single interpretation of what BJ must do in order to comply with the Benn Act. I guess that's the hope of Dale Vince (the owner of Ecotricity, a one-time hippy, and now also the proud owner of Forest Green Vegans!) and the others involved.
We will see how it turns out.
What’s wrong with taking it to the people? At least there’d be a defined leave to vote for or against.summitclaret wrote:I can't believe what I have just heard from the normally moderate Hilary Benn on Radio 4. He said even if we get a deal it should be subject to a confirmatory referendum even if the HOC votes for that deal and if we don't we should do the same with May's deal. Ffing barmy or what.?What happened to trying to sort brexit?
This is where I diverge from the norm here.AndrewJB wrote:What’s wrong with taking it to the people? At least there’d be a defined leave to vote for or against.
You appear to have missed out the important bit.Paul Waine wrote:Yes, bumping my own post.
So, Scottish Court has confirmed my view posted last Friday - the Scottish Inner Court of Sessions will not make a judgement on BJ's "Benn Act" letter until they sit again on 21st October. They are waiting to see what has happened by that date.
From BBC report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49975066" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A Scottish court has delayed a decision on whether to sign a letter requesting a Brexit extension if Boris Johnson refuses to do so.
Campaigners asked the judges to agree to enforce legislation passed by MPs aimed at preventing a no-deal exit.
The Benn Act requires Boris Johnson to ask EU leaders for a delay if a deal has not been agreed by 19 October.
Judges at the Court of Session said they could not rule on the matter until the political debate has "played out".
The court will sit again on 21 October, with the judges saying the circumstances should be "significantly clearer" by then.
Your not being serious are you? WE HAD A REFERENDUM AND SERVED A 50 AND WE WOULD HAVE A DEAL. Why would we not implement if it got thro the HOC?AndrewJB wrote:What’s wrong with taking it to the people? At least there’d be a defined leave to vote for or against.
Why is this a matter for the Court anyway? It would make more sense for Parliament to sit on the 19th, late. A repeal bill ought to be put before Parliament to repeal Benn's bill; assuming it isn't passed, then (if Boris doesn't submit his letter and doesn't resign) at 1 minute past midnight there should be a vote of no confidence in Boris and a new PM can be appointed to be recommended to the Queen next morning. No need for the Courts to take on responsibilities that belong to Parliament.Paul Waine wrote:Yes, bumping my own post.
So, Scottish Court has confirmed my view posted last Friday - the Scottish Inner Court of Sessions will not make a judgement on BJ's "Benn Act" letter until they sit again on 21st October. They are waiting to see what has happened by that date.
From BBC report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49975066" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A Scottish court has delayed a decision on whether to sign a letter requesting a Brexit extension if Boris Johnson refuses to do so.
Campaigners asked the judges to agree to enforce legislation passed by MPs aimed at preventing a no-deal exit.
The Benn Act requires Boris Johnson to ask EU leaders for a delay if a deal has not been agreed by 19 October.
Judges at the Court of Session said they could not rule on the matter until the political debate has "played out".
The court will sit again on 21 October, with the judges saying the circumstances should be "significantly clearer" by then.
I'll give you the chance to edit your post so its accurate.dsr wrote:Why is this a matter for the Court anyway? It would make more sense for Parliament to sit on the 19th, late. A repeal bill ought to be put before Parliament to repeal Benn's bill; assuming it isn't passed, then (if Boris doesn't submit his letter and doesn't resign) at 1 minute past midnight there should be a vote of no confidence in Boris and a new PM can be appointed to be recommended to the Queen next morning. No need for the Courts to take on responsibilities that belong to Parliament.
And if Parliament can't find a PM that a majority can be happy with, then we have a general election to appoint a new Parliament. We don't let the Courts run the country. The Courts are responsible to Parliament and Parliament is responsible to the people. At least, that's how it should be.
Some MPs are talking about voting for such a deal, but only if it is then put to a second referendum (my understanding of what Benn meant). If this gets the deal over the line, why would you have a problem with it?summitclaret wrote:Your not being serious are you? WE HAD A REFERENDUM AND SERVED A 50 AND WE WOULD HAVE A DEAL. Why would we not implement if it got thro the HOC?
It feels like you're making out that Remainers need to fully understand why leavers voted leave in order for remainers to be able to help them get the leave they wanted. I can't help but chuckle at that that thought. The vote is done and leave won. We don't need to keep justifying that decision just to please remainers. If remainers want a say in how it's enacted they have to approach it with that in mind.aggi wrote:And that is exactly why Brexit hasn't yet happened.
The suggestion that 48% of the voters should have no say in a future deal is why a deal hasn't been arrived at yet that the country can go forward with.
My thoughts, it's a plea by an interest group. No problem, all groups exist to make "special pleadings" for their own area of interest.Lancasterclaret wrote:I think its worth putting then out there isn't it?
"It is a monumental day in the Brexit process and one that I bitterly disagree with. There is NO excuse for Govt not to apply a reciprocal tariff for grains. 99.8% of households eat bread made with 85% British wheat. And we have a huge harvest surplus of grain.
And then there's eggs. We consume 13 billion eggs a year. 90% produced here. 56% Retail, 23% Food Service 21% liquid and dried egg. And now 0% tariff on all imports. We'll be importing eggs that would be illegal for our farmers to produce here.
And all fruit and vegetables NO reciprocal tariff.
And back to grains. 12 million loaves of bread, 10 million cakes and biscuits and 2 million pizzas made here in the UK every day using over 85% British Wheat and with NO tariff protection we will open our doors to lower standard grains.
And for Dairy - skimmed milk powder and yogurt plus some cheeses NO tariff or TRQ. Which all begs the question on how you negotiate from here, when you're allowing everyone free access."
This is from Minette Batters, Chairman NFU
Thoughts Paul/Crosspool?
I couldn't possibly manage to attain your level of smug. Why not be a bit less opaque and tell me what you don't like, and at the same time give people yet another chance to say "what a fine intelligent man who knows everything, is Lancaster".Lancasterclaret wrote:I'll give you the chance to edit your post so its accurate.
100% up to you
Give over man - your embarrassing yourself. Just look how Lancaster is trying to be reasonable and have a think.AndrewJB wrote:Some MPs are talking about voting for such a deal, but only if it is then put to a second referendum (my understanding of what Benn meant). If this gets the deal over the line, why would you have a problem with it?
Feel welcome, Lancs. Let me know which bit of "let's wait until 21st October" I've got wrong.Lancasterclaret wrote:You appear to have missed out the important bit.
Do you want to edit your post so its actually true, or do you want me to do it for you?
Paul Waine wrote:My thoughts, it's a plea by an interest group. No problem, all groups exist to make "special pleadings" for their own area of interest.
Do I take it as "gospel" and the un-contestable words of an expert? No, because many of these claims are contestable.
We import food now that wasn't produced in the EU. We did the same before the UK joined EEC. Is all the food that we important from outside the EU now "sub-standard?" Does "zero tariffs" mean "zero food standards?" No.
Why do we have a "huge harvest surplus of grain?" How much do we over-produce? Where do we sell/dispose of that surplus? Does the country over-produce because the farmers are over-subsidised and, therefore producing too much - which results in mis-allocation of resources and waste (though wealthy grain farmers)? Or, are the UK grain farmers super-efficient and can easily compete against the grain farmers across the rest of the world?
The same on all the farm produce you reference. Is it good "for the world" that the UK's farmers have a subsidised existence, over-produce in the UK and force out of business more efficient farmers in other countries, many of them at an earlier stage in the economic development process?
Talk about "I'm alright, Jack" approach to life.
OK. You've got my thoughts. Can you explain "GFA is an international treaty" etc for me?
Hi dsr, I'm happy if Lancs tells both me and you where we are wrong.dsr wrote:I couldn't possibly manage to attain your level of smug. Why not be a bit less opaque and tell me what you don't like, and at the same time give people yet another chance to say "what a fine intelligent man who knows everything, is Lancaster".
Thanks, martin.martin_p wrote:international
/ɪntəˈnaʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
existing, occurring, or carried on between nations.
Okaydsr wrote:I couldn't possibly manage to attain your level of smug. Why not be a bit less opaque and tell me what you don't like, and at the same time give people yet another chance to say "what a fine intelligent man who knows everything, is Lancaster".
Cheers PaulPaul Waine wrote:My thoughts, it's a plea by an interest group. No problem, all groups exist to make "special pleadings" for their own area of interest.
Do I take it as "gospel" and the un-contestable words of an expert? No, because many of these claims are contestable.
We import food now that wasn't produced in the EU. We did the same before the UK joined EEC. Is all the food that we important from outside the EU now "sub-standard?" Does "zero tariffs" mean "zero food standards?" No.
Why do we have a "huge harvest surplus of grain?" How much do we over-produce? Where do we sell/dispose of that surplus? Does the country over-produce because the farmers are over-subsidised and, therefore producing too much - which results in mis-allocation of resources and waste (though wealthy grain farmers)? Or, are the UK grain farmers super-efficient and can easily compete against the grain farmers across the rest of the world?
The same on all the farm produce you reference. Is it good "for the world" that the UK's farmers have a subsidised existence, over-produce in the UK and force out of business more efficient farmers in other countries, many of them at an earlier stage in the economic development process?
Talk about "I'm alright, Jack" approach to life.
OK. You've got my thoughts. Can you explain "GFA is an international treaty" etc for me?
First, brilliant post.Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, I posted last night (or was it Monday) about the GFA. I asked if we knew would signed GFA. I mentioned that I'd seen many mentions that "it's an international treaty" as though this was in some way a barrier to leaving the EU.
DA replied - here's the link. But, that wasn't the response I was looking for - I'd already read GFA before my post. I was interested in what posters on here know - as well as what a lot of politicians know - and what they "don't know."
So, what does "an international treaty" mean in your comment about "the EU because of its commitment to the GFA?"
There are only two countries that have signed the GFA, UK and RoI. The other signatories - with different "rights and responsibilities" are the multiple political parties of Norther Ireland And, that's it.
The EU is not a party to the GFA. The EU has no "rights and obligations" under the GFA. Neither, before anyone asks, does the USA (a Senator chaired the negotiations) and neither does any other country or supra-national organisation.
The GFA references the EU - but only as UK and RoI co-operating on EU matters. The GFA does not require either UK or ROI to be a member of EU because the two countries were members when they signed.
The GFA references ECHR - the European Convention on Human Rights - and we all know that the ECHR is not the EU.
The GFA does not say anything about "infrastructure" on the NI/RoI border. It doesn't say "there cannot be a hard border" or that "there cannot be checks on goods being transported across the border...." We all know that at the time GFA was signed, RoI was planning to join the euro zone - which I think commenced the following year (1999 - and notes and coins in 2001) - and that UK wasn't joining euro. We also all know that different rates of VAT operate in the two countries - and that the import and export of goods has to be reported for VAT purposes.
So, the EU has no commitments under the GFA - and RoI "rights and obligations" under GFA are not impacted by UK leaving the EU.
So, what's the "problem that is impossible to solve?"
The EU supports its member states so wouldn’t do anything that put one of those member states in a position where it defaulted, whether to the letter or in spirit, on its commitments laid out in an international treaty.Paul Waine wrote:Thanks, martin.
So, we know we understand the word. Do you want to have a go at explaining the EU's commitments to the GFA?
I’m not describing my position, but that of some MPs as I understand it. They support a reasonable and agreed WA - and in return for this get a second referendum on it. The alternative I would imagine is them just opposing it. Which would be better in your opinion?summitclaret wrote:Give over man - your embarrassing yourself. Just look how Lancaster is trying to be reasonable and have a think.
No such deal exists and even if it did it would be BINO and wouldn’t be as good as the deal we now have.Lancasterclaret wrote:This is where I diverge from the norm here.
If we can get a deal, and its acceptable to NI, safeguards the GFA, and is acceptable to the EU and the UK, then Parliament should be sovereign.
Only reason for us to have another ref is to overturn Article 50, if that is what we end up having to do.
Specifically mentioned in the text of the GFA PaulPaul Waine wrote:Thanks, martin.
So, we know we understand the word. Do you want to have a go at explaining the EU's commitments to the GFA?
This is true.Burnley Ace wrote:No such deal exists and even if it did it would be BINO and wouldn’t be as good as the deal we now have.
Why oh why did Labour abandon the leave vote?? Idiots. Absolute idiots.AndyClaret wrote:Only a 17 point lead, well done everyone.
https://twitter.com/britain_elects/stat ... 61698?s=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Customs Union I think (but I'm going from memory here so probably wrong!) if we still want to leave.If it be your will wrote:First, brilliant post.
But the problem we leavers have is that we did sign the GFA. That means it can be used as a weapon to stop brexit, should one side (e.g. ROI) choose to do this. I totally agree that the GFA could be tweaked to allow the UK to leave the EU, but that would require both sides to want to enable this outcome. For as long as one side does not, and I can see why the ROI does not, we have a problem.
Okay, here's a question: What is the solution if ROI refuse point blank to alter any aspect of the GFA?
At some stage you might accept that Labours problem isn't Brexit.If it be your will wrote:Why oh why did Labour abandon the leave vote?? Idiots. Absolute idiots.
Well, obviously.Lancasterclaret wrote:Okay
There isn't time for an election.
There has to be a maximum of a 14 day gap to arrange an alternative government.
No guarantee that would happen if you've been keeping up with current information.
Real danger we'd get what Brexiteers want (ie leave the EU by mistake) unless the court intervenes.
And as the government have already admitted in court that they will send the letter, no need to do any of that as Johnson would be in contempt of court.
summitclaret wrote:Give over man - your embarrassing yourself. Just look how Lancaster is trying to be reasonable and have a think.
There are enough labour mps to see a deal thro imo. If the remainers from leave seats want to risk their jobs by opposing a deal yet again so be it.AndrewJB wrote:I’m not describing my position, but that of some MPs as I understand it. They support a reasonable and agreed WA - and in return for this get a second referendum on it. The alternative I would imagine is them just opposing it. Which would be better in your opinion?
Lancasterclaret wrote:At some stage you might accept that Labours problem isn't Brexit.
You know the polls on that twitter account aren’t real don’t you? The biog even says ‘we make up polls so you don’t have to.’AndyClaret wrote:Only a 17 point lead, well done everyone.
https://twitter.com/britain_elects/stat ... 61698?s=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought that, but to be fair the original source looks more crediblemartin_p wrote:You know the polls on that twitter account aren’t real don’t you? The biog even says ‘we make up polls so you don’t have to.’
Johnson still in contempt of court if he doesn't send letter though. (computer ate my massive long post so you'll have to do with that!)dsr wrote:Well, obviously.
There does not have to be a gap to arrange an alternative government. Johnson was appointed on the day May resigned or else the day after.
And the Court's problem is that Parliament has voted to leave the EU (explicit), and it has voted to leave the EU on 31st October (explicit), and it has voted that the PM should request an extension in certain circumstances (conditional). If Parliament is then so divided among itself that it can't appoint anything any more, not even a Prime Minister, then should the Court be taking it on itself to decide what Parliament might like to do, or might not, but can't make its mind up? Especially when what the Court is asked to do is partly contrary to what Parliament has voted on in the past?
But Johnson has been sacked from jobs more than once for lying. I thought his strained relationship with the truth was pretty well established!KateR wrote:You are wasting your breath, both Andrew and Martin are remainers at all costs, anything that delays leaving is good and supported, they continue to post only what other remainers or articles that point to the failing of leave. This is coupled with there continued insistence of BJ being a liar and therefore no one should ever vote for him or the Tory party.
I stopped replying or questioning anything they post as they do not think for themselves or look at any point from both sides and think, well that could work or I never thought of that, there mantra is reflected throughout the whole of this post.
After a two and a half month process to decide Johnson was the man!dsr wrote:Well, obviously.
There does not have to be a gap to arrange an alternative government. Johnson was appointed on the day May resigned or else the day after.
martin_p wrote:But Johnson has been sacked from jobs more than once for lying. I thought his strained relationship with the truth was pretty well established!
Oh, and if you can point me to the articles showing the success of leave I’ll happily read and debate them.
17 point lead for what?AndyClaret wrote:Only a 17 point lead, well done everyone.
https://twitter.com/britain_elects/stat ... 61698?s=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's an opinium Research poll, but hey facts.martin_p wrote:You know the polls on that twitter account aren’t real don’t you? The biog even says ‘we make up polls so you don’t have to.’
If you can point to where you’ve asked me this question before I’ll apologise, but you haven’t.KateR wrote:Martin,
how about just for once you answer the reverse question which I have asked you and others.
Tell me what was so good about being in the EU from the day we joined up until now, this is historical, and factual because it happened not what will be in someone's imagined future reality. Just try to explain the benefits of remaining, I can immediately give you one, not having to wait in a passport line, that would be a benefit of remaining.
I can remember before the EU, I can remember the time since we joined and I can not come up with anything that fundamentally made my life, my family's better by joining the EU, or the ultimate requirement for me, it made the UK better.
If your a famer you could add that having subsidies such that I don't have to farm as much is good, isolated and does not help the UK as a whole, so these are examples of what could be better but are in fact irrelevant to the majority of British people.
And it’s changed the figures of that poll. But hey facts.AndyClaret wrote:It's an opinium Research poll, but hey facts.
Here’s another of its tweeted polls from August which will have worried Boris.AndyClaret wrote:It's an opinium Research poll, but hey facts.