Brexit



  • @Bones said in Brexit:

    @pakman consultant for a software/solutions company.

    Seem to be quite a few of your brethren on the Fern!



  • @Rembrandt said in Brexit:

    @Paekakboyz said in Brexit:

    Bit of lightweight fluff via Reddit.

    Brexit Consequences - a couple who planned to retire in France...

    https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/hiic5g/brexit_consequences_a_couple_who_planned_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

    Sounds like a swell guy sharing all of that.

    Turns out it was a hoax/wind-up. Bloody good one though.

    https://www.indy100.com/article/fake-brexit-thread-eurostar-rs-archer-9599401



  • @Victor-Meldrew boom! Called it!



  • Now, I'm sure there is a huge amount of context missing from this clip which is getting a bit of airwaves here about Tony Abbott ...

    But surely you'd think Hancock would have a better answer than one that starts with ..."He's also an ..."



  • The Guardian: Labour urges UK government not to hire Tony Abbott as trade envoy.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/03/matt-hancock-shows-unease-at-tony-abbott-as-uk-trade-envoy



  • @Bones said in Brexit:

    The Guardian: Labour urges UK government not to hire Tony Abbott as trade envoy.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/03/matt-hancock-shows-unease-at-tony-abbott-as-uk-trade-envoy

    Jeeze, there's a shock. It comes down as to whether or not you view same-sex marriage as homophobia or a political opinion.

    Hancock could not have answered the question worse though!



  • @MajorRage I had no idea this was more brexit than britpol!

    Hancock is good value.



  • @Bones said in Brexit:

    @MajorRage I had no idea this was more brexit than britpol!

    Hancock is good value.

    It could be either, as without Brexit, they wouldn't have employed Abbott.

    But I got in first. So you can suck it.

    Hancock in this case, is good value in the same way a Lada is.



  • @MajorRage said in Brexit:

    So you can suck it.

    Awww shucks. I'm blushing.

    Ahhh I can't bloody see embedded tweets so didn't know what yours was...



  • @Bones said in Brexit:

    @MajorRage said in Brexit:

    So you can suck it.

    Awww shucks. I'm blushing.

    Ahhh I can't bloody see embedded tweets so didn't know what yours was...

    There's probably a response to that somewhere in the UI thread ... although that has thread has taken bit of a meander!



  • @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.



  • @rotated I hear you, as someone who lived through Abbott as my local rep since 1999, I was not his biggest fan. Its a very odd feeling to be nodding along with him now . Guess he was always more effective from the outside.



  • Anyone out there loving the squealing of EU that UK not playing fair?



  • @pakman 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 said in Brexit:

    @pakman 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.



  • @Godder 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.



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:

    @Godder 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.



  • @Godder said in Brexit:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:

    @Godder 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.

    @Godder said in Brexit:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:

    @Godder 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.



  • @pakman said in Brexit:

    @Godder said in Brexit:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:

    @Godder 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.

    @Godder said in Brexit:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:

    @Godder 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.


Log in to reply