I fully expect "Breaking news: rain in London" at this point on Sky.
Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful
- Thread starter owlo
- Start date
They can't go to the EU court for this.
They could however change the law in the event of a majority.
Or future governments and parliaments could abuse this precedent.
This is now all electioneering and presenting themselves as the Defenders of The People against a recalcitrant establishment. The institutions of the country don't matter as much as the implementation of the 2016 vote.
It was never going to be simple for the UK to leave the EU.
It's never been done before ( I don't count Greenland ) and the EU have way too much to lose ( financially and reputation ) if the UK does eventually leave.
So add a few hundred quisling politicians determined to stop the UK from leaving and the reality is that either the UK sticks it's fingers in the face of the EU and walks, or stays trapped inside until Pro-Brexit politicians are in the majority - say in 2022.
But imagine, if you will, how dragging the uncertainty of if, of what, of when, of how, for another three years will affect businesses throughout the EU.
The idea that the UK leaving asap will massively impact the economy and employment situation throughout the EU ( not just in the UK ) is fair comment, but don't think there won't be the same problems, at a slower rate but still the same numbers, if this is just dragged out until 2022.
Even if the politicians will never get tired of playing politics, businesses will get tired of them playing politics and investment will be cancelled in the UK and throughout the EU. Result - even worse than we dare guess.
And all because of a few hundred politicians....
YouGov said:
I fear even with a second referendum they are all too entrenched to change. In fact, this decision to today is likely to harden them even more.
It's depressing.
Yep, ignorant delusion of the highest order.
Ugh, spare us.
good to know 30% of people think they know more than the Supreme fecking Court.
there are a lot of really shit humans in this country.
there are a lot of really shit humans in this country.
I've got no doubt another referendum would result in a leave vote again winning.
We're in a world where Boris Johnson is PM and Donald Trump is President.
Everything is fecked.
That rain is crazy. Better pack my brolly.
Feck me, do those people who disagree genuinely think they know better than the supreme court
Of course it's a legal technicality to overcome, but if you don't see it as tactical negotiating card, the idiocy is on you.
No. Thr other and far more sane option is to not set fire to the country. Are you a wum or do you think hes called joris bonson?
only hope would be the number of old voters dying and new young voters on the ballot since the last referendum.
What's the fix for the Irish border?
I'd have to agree with you - it's been a polarising process this and those who voted to leave are likely to feel even more strongly that Brexit needs to happen. If anything I think it would be a bigger leave vote.
You've already been asked what would replace the backstop multiple times in the last few pages and refused to answer.
So why not answer the question before proclaiming people who say it won't be gotten rid of idiots?
I remember the day of the vote feeling very worried when I saw who was going to the ballots.
Was like night of the living dead, I was the only one there under 80.
Feck me, do those people who disagree genuinely think they know better than the supreme court
They question the integrity of the supreme court, yet don't the likes of Johnson and Farage.
Says it all really.
What do you replace it with and why don't you think the backstop is important to them?
Feck me, do those people who disagree genuinely think they know better than the supreme court
Nobody has to agree with it, only the government has to abide by it.
The only people who don't give a feck about the backstop are Brexiteer's in England and Wales - which is quite sad considering NI is a member of the UK, first and foremost.
Technically the alleged original proposition works perfectly, NI stays in the EEA and the EUCU for as long as they want while the rest of the UK leave and have great deals with the rest of the world.
Can I wholeheartedly say as a person living in Northern Ireland I can inform you that is a lot more than a 'legal technicality'. It has political, cultural and economic ramifications which is why it has been impossible to ignore - that and within the issue is an international peace treaty that has to be respected.
It is not a negotiating card, rather it is a responsibility for both sides to respect the delicate issues on the island which is unique in Europe. The EU are upholding their side of the responsibility and unfortunately there are many on the UK side who seem determined to shirk them because it is inconvenient.
Yep 100%. I said last week that now that the DUP are essentially irrelevant it's the best course of action to take at this stage.
Don't need to replace it.
As others have pointed out / claimed earlier, the idea of the backstop was proposed by the UK.
Simply unpropose it and see what the EU's reaction is and whether it is the UK or the EU insisting on the Backstop.
It's hard not to see leavers as clueless when there's never any real answers to even the most basic of questions.
So.. a back-stop? Personally I welcome the back-stop as it would give Northern Ireland a possible competitive edge over the rest of the UK which would definitely be a first in our history.
It was a UK proposition to an existing and accepted problem wich is the GFA. The EU original alternative was rejected, so if the UK unpropose the backstop they have to propose something to fix the issue.
The backstop was proposed by the UK because the EU said there could be no deal that places a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Ergo a solution is needed to ensure that still does not happen.
So, if the Backstop is taken off the deal.. what replaces it?
Also technically the EU were the ones who suggested the backstop in its original form by suggesting NI stay in the customs union to avoid the border. The UK were the ones who made it UK-wide.
They don't have to agree with it but it takes some major arrogance to think their opinion is worth shit. Most people assume they're wrong when a body of experts says otherwise.
I don't think i'm going out on a limb here when i say i doubt he has a clue.
The truth is more likely to be that he simply does not care about it and would rather it just went away.
Not quite mate, the "back-stop" in its current firm involves the UK also having a common customs territory. The NI only one (the original one proposed by the EU) doesn't have that.