Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Part of a debate!!! You are joking. The IM bill was presented by the government including clauses which broke the WA. The bill was passed by the HOC with the government whipping the cattle to vote.
The only reason the bill did not become law is the remain HOL voted it down.
I suggest you educate yourself. The only reason the bill did not become law is the remain HOL voted it down.
The government removed the clauses during the debate process.
jsf said:
Truth not fitting your narative is hard for you to swallow. EU is the only party to break the treaty to date.
The history between the English and the Irish began before this protocol.There is a world beyond Brexit so try looking at things from a wider perspective.
You will still be able to jack off over the EU cocking things up, but you might also be able to discuss things in a wider context.
jsf said:
JeffreyD said:
L O f
king L at this ignoramus.
Truth not fitting your narative is hard for you to swallow. EU is the only party to break the treaty to date.king L at this ignoramus.andymadmak said:
jsf said:
The IM bill contentious issues were never in place, they were part of the debate that never made it to law, never mind actually used.
As to your 3 hours mistake, it opened pandoras box, welcome to the consequences of EU arrogance and incompetence.
Indeed, the mask well and truly slipped there. Years of the EU hectoring the UK about how precious the NI peace process is, years of pretending that their prime concern in NI was securing a deal that protected it, and yet at the first sign of an issue they illegally triggered Article 16. As to your 3 hours mistake, it opened pandoras box, welcome to the consequences of EU arrogance and incompetence.
The EU defenders on here are utterly delusional....... It was a mistake they bleat. Really? It wasn't a mistake at all, it was a policy decision taken at the highest levels of the EU. The only mistake was that it showed the world how quickly and easily that precious NI peace would be chucked under a bus if it suited them. ........It was only 3 hours they wail...... Yes, 3 hours that revealed a lot about what the EU really thinks and what its real motivations are.
The simple fact is that A16 should not have been triggered in the first place, not for 3 hours, 3 minutes or 3 seconds. That it was, and so readily is indefensible.
Cue the EU apologists protesting that they are not defending it, that they have criticised it, but then going to say something about the IMB (that was never used) or the 'we should stop talking about it because it will upset and antagonise the EU.
No, let's keep talking about it. Keep talking about it until the EU finally realise that the NI peace is not something that they can play politics with.
You're confirming my point when you use language like indefensible for A16 whilst the same time being dismissive of how serious the IM Bill was. You're the one expressing double standards.
Keep talking about it all you want. Fat lot of good it'll do though which is my other point. Any belief that the EU's balls up has given the UK additional leverage to renegotiate the terms of their own deal is a dubious one.
Fair comment by David Allen Green (constitutional law wonk) on twitter - https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1367209... - I think this means that the United Kingdom has expressly threatened to break international law every single month since the end of the Brexit transition arrangements
jsf said:
Mrr T said:
Part of a debate!!! You are joking. The IM bill was presented by the government including clauses which broke the WA. The bill was passed by the HOC with the government whipping the cattle to vote.
The only reason the bill did not become law is the remain HOL voted it down.
I suggest you educate yourself. The only reason the bill did not become law is the remain HOL voted it down.
The government removed the clauses during the debate process.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-5498614...
Mrr T said:
jsf said:
The IM bill contentious issues were never in place, they were part of the debate that never made it to law, never mind actually used.
As to your 3 hours mistake, it opened pandoras box, welcome to the consequences of EU arrogance and incompetence.
Part of a debate!!! You are joking. The IM bill was presented by the government including clauses which broke the WA. The bill was passed by the HOC with the government whipping the cattle to vote.As to your 3 hours mistake, it opened pandoras box, welcome to the consequences of EU arrogance and incompetence.
[b]The only reason the bill did not become law is the remain HOL voted it down.[/i]
The Govt dropped certain parts of the legislation when Gove and Sefcovic reached an 'agreement in principle' over Border issues prior to the WA being agreed on Xmas Eve.
JeffreyD said:
The history between the English and the Irish began before this protocol.
There is a world beyond Brexit so try looking at things from a wider perspective.
You will still be able to jack off over the EU cocking things up, but you might also be able to discuss things in a wider context.
The arrogance of this post.There is a world beyond Brexit so try looking at things from a wider perspective.
You will still be able to jack off over the EU cocking things up, but you might also be able to discuss things in a wider context.
I expect most on here are old enough to have lived with the issues of Ireland and are well aware of the issues. It's why people like me were disgusted with the EU tactics to leverage Ireland in such a cynical manner.
jsf said:
The arrogance of this post.
I expect most on here are old enough to have lived with the issues of Ireland and are well aware of the issues. It's why people like me were disgusted with the EU tactics to leverage Ireland in such a cynical manner.
Hark at this one calling others arrogant, so very English.I expect most on here are old enough to have lived with the issues of Ireland and are well aware of the issues. It's why people like me were disgusted with the EU tactics to leverage Ireland in such a cynical manner.
jsf said:
Mrr T said:
The government did not have time for ping-pong. Gove gave the EU what they asked for and so the government dropped the clauses.
You live in a fantasy world.Crackie said:
Fair enough. Here are a couple more opinion pieces published on the LSE website ...........they are from the same article's comments section.
I am so sorry. As before when I realised that fact checked articles from pro-EU or neutral news sources were confusing Brexit supporters and I needed to post more Brexit articles from the Daily Express. Here again I see I have overestimated the critical thinking ability of Brexit supporters. A higher education institution would never publish an opinion piece saying a decline in the importance of the City of London was possible, as an opinion of the whole institution. I thought that was so obvious, it did not need saying, but alas, yet again I have now come to realise that things must be spelled out for Brexiters. Although the pitfalls of Brexit were spelled out for 4 years and are coming to pass, but that is another topic. ...........they are from the same article's comments section. So, to assist Brexiter understanding, the opinion piece was not the opinion of the higher education institution which is the London School of Economics. It was the opinion of an expert, writing under the LSE blog, which has minimum editorial standards. Again, I am so, so sorry that I did not take into account the reading or thinking ability of Brexiters when I posted.
But today is a new day. Here is some great Brexit winning, from the Daily Express!
Welsh independence support up!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1405283/we...
Mrr T said:
Really in what way is the above statement wrong. You can check the original changes to the NI protocol in the IM bill against the Gove agreement. None of the changes in the IM bill where included in the Gove agreement. Except one small concession on document to be provided on good sent from NI to the GB which could now be provided by the shipping agent not the seller.
This is very simple, government dropped the clauses. It doesn't matter what the Lords decide, the commons has the final say on legislation and in that final stage government withdrew the clauses.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-with...
Mrr T said:
No wonder you support BJ and chums. They also seem to forget what happened only months ago as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-5498614...
And here in more detail. https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-uk-to-ditch-inte...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-5498614...
Your story was a month earlier, do keep up.
jsf said:
Mrr T said:
Really in what way is the above statement wrong. You can check the original changes to the NI protocol in the IM bill against the Gove agreement. None of the changes in the IM bill where included in the Gove agreement. Except one small concession on document to be provided on good sent from NI to the GB which could now be provided by the shipping agent not the seller.
This is very simple, government dropped the clauses. It doesn't matter what the Lords decide, the commons has the final say on legislation and in that final stage government withdrew the clauses.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-with...
I agree the government dropped the clauses but only after the vote in the HOL delayed them passing into law and Gove agreeing to everything the IM NI protocol attempted to change.
So the government was just debating breaking international law?
Mrr T said:
Rule of holes when in one stop digging.
I agree the government dropped the clauses but only after the vote in the HOL delayed them passing into law and Gove agreeing to everything the IM NI protocol attempted to change.
So the government was just debating breaking international law?
This is not up for debate, the facts are there, covered fairly well in the sky piece.I agree the government dropped the clauses but only after the vote in the HOL delayed them passing into law and Gove agreeing to everything the IM NI protocol attempted to change.
So the government was just debating breaking international law?
jsf said:
Mrr T said:
No wonder you support BJ and chums. They also seem to forget what happened only months ago as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-5498614...
And here in more detail. https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-uk-to-ditch-inte...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-5498614...
Your story was a month earlier, do keep up.
Guess what my link about the HOL defeat is from a month before yours. Are you struggling with the time line?
Mrr T said:
I said the remain HOL rejected the IM bill changes to the NI before the government dropped the clauses.
Guess what my link about the HOL defeat is from a month before yours. Are you struggling with the time line?
You are clearly struggling with how legislation is created in the UK. The Lords cant stop the commons getting its way.Guess what my link about the HOL defeat is from a month before yours. Are you struggling with the time line?
It wasnt just the WA bill that saw the clauses removed, the treasury bill that followed and was not even debated yet were also draughted to not have clauses that would have affected the WA after the issues were resolved by Gove/EU.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff