-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
Jeeze, there's a shock. It comes down as to whether or not you view same-sex marriage as homophobia or a political opinion.
The last thing I thought I'd ever do is defend Abbott twice in a week but the LGBTQI+ community should wish for more homophobes like Abbott.
Leaving aside the fact he is such a homophobe he has actually attended a same sex wedding and obviously has clear close relationships with several gay people, it was under his leadership where debate in the Liberal party room was opened up on gay marriage and where the Dutton plebiscite proposal was passed which directly led to the legislation being changed.
Contrasting him with Gillard, clearly held a personal conviction for SSM (she voted yes), but took a pragmatic hardline political position against it. She no is a darling of the left. Holding to a personal conviction despite the political consequences in the case of Abbott makes you a homophobe.
He is certainly no LGBTQI+ advocate but from a strictly moral perspective I would have greater issue with Gillard forcing the likes of Penny Wong to unconvincingly campaign against gay marriage for political gain than Abbott having his own opinions on the issues.
-
Anyone out there loving the squealing of EU that UK not playing fair?
Well I kinda like the way BoJo isn't simply rolling over the way May, Cameron, et al did. Barnier is starting to look quite ineffective as a negotiator as May was as PM. He's all over the place.
But i just don't understand BoJo taking a gamble on getting his Bill unpicking the Withdrawal Agreement thru the Commons. Seems a pretty unnecessary way to put pressure on Brussels.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
Anyone out there loving the squealing of EU that UK not playing fair?
Well I kinda like the way BoJo isn't simply rolling over the way May, Cameron, et al did. Barnier is starting to look quite ineffective as a negotiator as May was as PM. He's all over the place.
But i just don't understand BoJo taking a gamble on getting his Bill unpicking the Withdrawal Agreement thru the Commons. Seems a pretty unnecessary way to put pressure on Brussels.
-
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
-
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
Are you sure? I understood the Lords can reject a bill, but if it's passed a 3rd reading in the House of Commons and if the Lords reject it again, it automatically goes for Royal Assent. May be wrong.
Also, Gina Miller, in trying to stop Article 50 being enacted by the then government, argued successfully and got a Supreme Court judgement that the HoC held primacy on legislation.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
Are you sure? I understood the Lords can reject a bill, but if it's passed a 3rd reading in the House of Commons and if the Lords reject it again, it automatically goes for Royal Assent. May be wrong.
Also, Gina Miller, in trying to stop Article 50 being enacted by the then government, argued successfully and got a Supreme Court judgement that the HoC held primacy on legislation.
Apparently that only applies to supply (tax) bills. Otherwise it takes a year.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
Are you sure? I understood the Lords can reject a bill, but if it's passed a 3rd reading in the House of Commons and if the Lords reject it again, it automatically goes for Royal Assent. May be wrong.
Also, Gina Miller, in trying to stop Article 50 being enacted by the then government, argued successfully and got a Supreme Court judgement that the HoC held primacy on legislation.
Apparently that only applies to supply (tax) bills. Otherwise it takes a year.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
Are you sure? I understood the Lords can reject a bill, but if it's passed a 3rd reading in the House of Commons and if the Lords reject it again, it automatically goes for Royal Assent. May be wrong.
Also, Gina Miller, in trying to stop Article 50 being enacted by the then government, argued successfully and got a Supreme Court judgement that the HoC held primacy on legislation.
Apparently that only applies to supply (tax) bills. Otherwise it takes a year.
Makes for interesting uncertainty. If EU push too hard, Lords pivots and they get shut down.
Apparently Boris has invoked Salisbury convention that Lords does not vote against manifesto promises of elected party. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
Are you sure? I understood the Lords can reject a bill, but if it's passed a 3rd reading in the House of Commons and if the Lords reject it again, it automatically goes for Royal Assent. May be wrong.
Also, Gina Miller, in trying to stop Article 50 being enacted by the then government, argued successfully and got a Supreme Court judgement that the HoC held primacy on legislation.
Apparently that only applies to supply (tax) bills. Otherwise it takes a year.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew The bill is unlikely to pass the House of Lords, and if the Lords vote it down, it takes a year before it can be pushed through over their opposition.
Are you sure? I understood the Lords can reject a bill, but if it's passed a 3rd reading in the House of Commons and if the Lords reject it again, it automatically goes for Royal Assent. May be wrong.
Also, Gina Miller, in trying to stop Article 50 being enacted by the then government, argued successfully and got a Supreme Court judgement that the HoC held primacy on legislation.
Apparently that only applies to supply (tax) bills. Otherwise it takes a year.
Makes for interesting uncertainty. If EU push too hard, Lords pivots and they get shut down.
Apparently Boris has invoked Salisbury convention that Lords does not vote against manifesto promises of elected party.Very interesting stuff, although there are also arguments that passing the specific legislation here is enough of an overreach that it would be outside the Convention anyway.
-
Good shit Boris. This is playing out just the way everyone warned you it would. But hey, let's just go on a power grab based on jingoism and fuck the country over with the outcome.
Ignore the ideals for a moment and you can see that this was never going to turn out well. That doesn't mean that you concede sovereignty, you just find a better way of chipping away at the aspects you don't like.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
-
What are we, four years now?
And Nigel Farage is long gone, along with some other fuckwits I guess.
It would be kind of funny IF there wasn't a bunch of people who supported Brexit, because they were lied to, and are now worse off.
And then BAM! Pandemic! Just to cut them off at the knees.
-
It seems all but three things broadly agreed, to the benefit of BOTH EU and UK.
The three things are, fishing; Level playing field commitments on environmental/labour/state aid regulations; and dispute resolution on trade issues.
Here the absurdity of EU position is apparent.
EU says it doesn't like UK fishing offer and if it isn't improved will choose No Deal, which leaves it LESS fish and UK MORE fish.
On state aid EU wants more commitments on trade than UK has offered. Or will choose No Deal (WTO rules) which involve LESS commitments and MORE freedom for UK.
On disputes UK supports independent arbitration. EU wants direct ability to block areas of dispute in advance of arbitration. Or threatens No Deal, which involves WTO rules, and LESS influence over UK which can simply ignore WTO decisions (as the EU itself does).
In summary, there is nothing in it for EU from here in rejecting the UK deal on offer.
They will push for whatever improvement they can get, then deal, and will try and dress it up as a win.
All a bit pathetic.
-
Good shit Boris. This is playing out just the way everyone warned you it would. But hey, let's just go on a power grab based on jingoism and fuck the country over with the outcome.
Ignore the ideals for a moment and you can see that this was never going to turn out well. That doesn't mean that you concede sovereignty, you just find a better way of chipping away at the aspects you don't like.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
With all due respect, did you leave London at all when you lived here through the vote?
The above seems to completely ignore why it was successful and following on, why May wasnt and why the Dec 19 election was such a landslide.
Let me sum it up for you. I think 75% of the country outside London and probably 30-40% of London will take no deal, over an EU tied deal.
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
Good shit Boris. This is playing out just the way everyone warned you it would. But hey, let's just go on a power grab based on jingoism and fuck the country over with the outcome.
Ignore the ideals for a moment and you can see that this was never going to turn out well. That doesn't mean that you concede sovereignty, you just find a better way of chipping away at the aspects you don't like.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
With all due respect, did you leave London at all when you lived here through the vote?
The above seems to completely ignore why it was successful and following on, why May wasnt and why the Dec 19 election was such a landslide.
Let me sum it up for you. I think 75% of the country outside London and probably 30-40% of London will take no deal, over an EU tied deal.
My comments weren’t to do with what people wanted they were around how it was pretty obvious that it was going to be a messy shit show and nowhere near as easy or rosy as Farage and co made out.
Now Boris is trying to sell going WTO as the “Australia deal” after promising everyone that if they voted for him he would get a deal. -
My comments weren’t to do with what people wanted they were around how it was pretty obvious that it was going to be a messy shit show and nowhere near as easy or rosy as Farage and co made out.
Now Boris is trying to sell going WTO as the “Australia deal” after promising everyone that if they voted for him he would get a deal.Less than a year ago the EU offered the UK a choice of a Customs Union, membership of the Single Market or a Canada-style Free Trade Agreement, but when Boris said he wanted a Canada-style deal, the EU then took it off the table.
It's hardly Boris's fault the EU turned out to be as duplicitous and/or incompetent as they have been. At least he's showing some consistency in approach unlike May, Cameron etc.
Brexit