registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 13, 2019 20:13:59 GMT
Party one - Tory leavers (who don't want the Tories out of government, and are terrified of Corbyn) Party two - Tory remainers (who don't want the Tories out of government, and are terrified of Corbyn) Party three - Labour leavers (who don't like either of the Tory camps, or the Labour remainers, and, possibly, Corbyn) Party four - Labour remainers (who don't like either of the Tory camps, or the Labour leavers, and, possibly, Corbyn) Party five - DUP (who want a Protestant Old Testament flat earth and would love to stick it to the Republic on their way back to the stone age) Party six - Theresa May Party seven - the electorate (split on much the same lines as parties one through six above) Party eight - the EU Party nine - the SNP I suspect that even Nash would struggle with the above, and so I fear bracknellboy may be correct.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 13, 2019 20:27:32 GMT
This article is not entirely correct and is somewhat selective. 'If' we were to leave with a no deal and subsequently refuse to pay the £39 billion the only option the EU would have is to pursue it through the ECJ, which they have statute to do given the legal text of various treaties. However if the UK leave they would no longer be under the ECJ's jurisdiction anyway and the hearing would rely solely on the goodwill of the UK representative to acknowledge and attend the hearing. If the UK say no there is nothing the EU can legally do. It's the equivalent of trying to extradite a criminal out of a country without an extradition treaty, the country might play ball if they feel like it but they don't have to. You have confused the ECJ with the International Court in The Hague. That is not an EU institution. So nothing you have written here makes any sense.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 13, 2019 20:41:00 GMT
.... There will be no "crash out" brexit because no politician wants responsibility for that laid at their party's door.... Unfortunately on this I feel you might be wrong. If May does not want a crash out, she is now playing a very dangerous strategy. If Parliament ultimately decides it won't accept the TM deal it is increasingly likely that the result could well be a no deal exit.
I think it is very unlikely that TM would revoke A50. And only the Govt has the power to do that. And to extend it requires not just a request but an acquiesence by the other side. It may well be coming to the point that the 27 are roundly fed up with the utter failure of the UK to come with either a viable proposal or one for which they have pre-built a parliamentary consensus.
In which case a no deal could easily happen by virtue of the 27 heads of govt collectively deciding enough and refusing to extend even if TM made the request.
What you say here is very much the argument made in the chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com (new post added today). But I find this too alarmist in tone. I still believe in the "men in grey suits" (sorry women) who were thought to be in the background of the Tory party. Well, at least in the 1980s - the ones who told Margaret Thatcher that it was time to go. So my argument is that the Conservative Party has not lasted this long without a self-righting mechanism, and secondly as the 'party of business' it will not in the end chance crashing the economy and offering up the burning remains to Jeremy Corbyn to build Socialism from ground zero. You have already seen that preserving the party comes before country, and the only logical way to preserve the party is suddenly to dump the ERG faction. That is my prediction.
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Feb 13, 2019 20:51:25 GMT
This article is not entirely correct and is somewhat selective. 'If' we were to leave with a no deal and subsequently refuse to pay the £39 billion the only option the EU would have is to pursue it through the ECJ, which they have statute to do given the legal text of various treaties. However if the UK leave they would no longer be under the ECJ's jurisdiction anyway and the hearing would rely solely on the goodwill of the UK representative to acknowledge and attend the hearing. If the UK say no there is nothing the EU can legally do. It's the equivalent of trying to extradite a criminal out of a country without an extradition treaty, the country might play ball if they feel like it but they don't have to. You have confused the ECJ with the International Court in The Hague. That is not an EU institution. So nothing you have written here makes any sense. Nope I meant exactly what I said. The Hauge's bread and butter is earned trying war criminals, it has ruled on territorial issues when parties are found unfit to settle a dispute between themselves, without blowing each other to pieces. The threat of going to the Hague is a sensationalised response to the threat of refusing to pay the said bill. While in theory it's a possibility, I think it's a slim one at best. If and I mean if it goes that way I think it will be a first for the IC to intervene on financial dispute between a group treaty and departing member, there is no precedent for the specific situation.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 13, 2019 21:56:12 GMT
Unfortunately on this I feel you might be wrong. If May does not want a crash out, she is now playing a very dangerous strategy. If Parliament ultimately decides it won't accept the TM deal it is increasingly likely that the result could well be a no deal exit.
I think it is very unlikely that TM would revoke A50. And only the Govt has the power to do that. And to extend it requires not just a request but an acquiesence by the other side. It may well be coming to the point that the 27 are roundly fed up with the utter failure of the UK to come with either a viable proposal or one for which they have pre-built a parliamentary consensus.
In which case a no deal could easily happen by virtue of the 27 heads of govt collectively deciding enough and refusing to extend even if TM made the request.
What you say here is very much the argument made in the chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com (new post added today). But I find this too alarmist in tone. I still believe in the "men in grey suits" (sorry women) who were thought to be in the background of the Tory party. Well, at least in the 1980s - the ones who told Margaret Thatcher that it was time to go. So my argument is that the Conservative Party has not lasted this long without a self-righting mechanism, and secondly as the 'party of business' it will not in the end chance crashing the economy and offering up the burning remains to Jeremy Corbyn to build Socialism from ground zero. You have already seen that preserving the party comes before country, and the only logical way to preserve the party is suddenly to dump the ERG faction. That is my prediction. I hope that you are correct. I am concerned that the "self-righting mechanism" might have become, or perhaps has been overpowered by, a "wronging mechanism".
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 13, 2019 22:01:27 GMT
Meanwhile, apropos nothing directly to do with Brexit, I note that back in the capital of this sceptered isle which is of course the epitome of best practice in public probity and good civil governance, and a shining example to all those incompetent and corrupt "continentals" we have the following:
£53m on something which never got out the starting blocks, £21m of which was on cancelling contracts to build something on land which had not even be secured.
All brought to you by the dream team that also brought you ..... oh, ok, not quite so apropos nothing then....
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 13, 2019 22:19:36 GMT
I could have sworn it was £63m earlier. Must be one of those dodgy valuations that ozboy goes on about .
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Feb 13, 2019 22:24:11 GMT
I am always amused by the people who find the fine detail of the democratic structure of the EU Commission more important than your own freedom to cross borders, to go and live in any other EU country, to trade without barriers, to make the rules that apply when you visit or do business in all our near neighbour countries. Yeah blue passport, but not so welcome round the world as the red one used to be. There will be no "crash out" brexit because no politician wants responsibility for that laid at their party's door. So in the end all Brexit is is swapping being in at the top table making the rules of the EU for Theresa May's second division trading relationship, accepting rules made elsewhere. Made in the very place where the democratic structures so criticised hold power. Anyone thinking rationally would be campaigning to remain in the EU in order to reform the aspects of it that you don't like.my bold. And anyone thinking rationally would after 40 years ... now realise that the EU cannot be reformed from the inside, this is not a democracy , it is a bureaucracy. .
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 923
|
Post by aju on Feb 14, 2019 0:09:07 GMT
I could have sworn it was £63m earlier. Must be one of those dodgy valuations that ozboy goes on about . Ah that illusive money tree TM said was not available suddenly yet bares more fruit again. Watch the DUP don't hoover that one up when everyone is looking the other way on Mar 29th ....
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 14, 2019 10:26:04 GMT
I am always amused by the people who find the fine detail of the democratic structure of the EU Commission more important than your own freedom to cross borders, to go and live in any other EU country, to trade without barriers, to make the rules that apply when you visit or do business in all our near neighbour countries. Yeah blue passport, but not so welcome round the world as the red one used to be. There will be no "crash out" brexit because no politician wants responsibility for that laid at their party's door. So in the end all Brexit is is swapping being in at the top table making the rules of the EU for Theresa May's second division trading relationship, accepting rules made elsewhere. Made in the very place where the democratic structures so criticised hold power. Anyone thinking rationally would be campaigning to remain in the EU in order to reform the aspects of it that you don't like.my bold. And anyone thinking rationally would after 40 years ... now realise that the EU cannot be reformed from the inside, this is not a democracy , it is a bureaucracy. . Indeed, a bureaucracy. As is the British Civil Service. Your quibble with one line is a waste of time as it doesn't address anything I said before that.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 14, 2019 10:36:56 GMT
You have confused the ECJ with the International Court in The Hague. That is not an EU institution. So nothing you have written here makes any sense. Nope I meant exactly what I said. The Hauge's bread and butter is earned trying war criminals, it has ruled on territorial issues when parties are found unfit to settle a dispute between themselves, without blowing each other to pieces. The threat of going to the Hague is a sensationalised response to the threat of refusing to pay the said bill. While in theory it's a possibility, I think it's a slim one at best. If and I mean if it goes that way I think it will be a first for the IC to intervene on financial dispute between a group treaty and departing member, there is no precedent for the specific situation. Professor Iain Begg, Research Fellow at the London School of Economics “This is where the question of jurisdiction comes in.” It doesn’t have to be taken through in a European court, “it could be the International Court in The Hague, which could rule that Britain is required to make the payment”. Emily Reid, Professor of International Economic Law at Southampton, “as a matter of international law [she cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties] whether we leave the EU with or without a deal, the UK bears those liabilities and commitments, and resultant financial obligations, and legally is required to execute them.” UK chancellor Philip Hammond, who said of the divorce payment last December: “I find it inconceivable that we as a nation would be walking away from an obligation that we recognised as an obligation. That is not a credible scenario. That is not the kind of country we are. Frankly, it would not make us a credible partner for future international agreements.” Quoted in The Irish Times, 14.2.19
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Feb 15, 2019 16:58:08 GMT
my bold. And anyone thinking rationally would after 40 years ... now realise that the EU cannot be reformed from the inside, this is not a democracy , it is a bureaucracy. . Indeed, a bureaucracy. As is the British Civil Service. Your quibble with one line is a waste of time as it doesn't address anything I said before that.Please forgive me but I tend to try and not get bogged down in Brexit comments where there tends to be copious amounts of "Waffle"
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 15, 2019 17:34:54 GMT
Please yourself. I like this thread because it brings together people who think Britain should just leave the EU and others who think we should remain. It is far superior to the echo chambers where Guardian readers and Leave.eu site followers agree with each other without checking whether their apparent facts are true or just 'truthy' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Feb 15, 2019 17:46:47 GMT
Please yourself. I like this thread because it brings together people who think Britain should just leave the EU and others who think we should remain. It is far superior to the echo chambers where Guardian readers and Leave.eu site followers agree with each other without checking whether their apparent facts are true or just 'truthy' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruthinessI think Colonel Nathan R Jessep, called it correctly. We are all most comfortable with the truth that fits us best.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 16, 2019 19:34:53 GMT
Airline Flybmi ceases operations
"The airline has faced several difficulties, including recent spikes in fuel and carbon costs, the latter arising from the EU's recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
"Current trading and future prospects have also been seriously affected by the uncertainty created by the Brexit process, which has led to our inability to secure valuable flying contracts in Europe."
Still, sunny uplands to come.
Edit: and yes, airlines fairly frequently get into trouble.
|
|