Brexit Phase Two - Trade

And your evidence for that comes from where exactly?

If there is a second referendum, and I don't think (hope) there will be one, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the losing side will be in the courts before the ink on the results paper is dry.
Given the current track record of one every 40+ for brexit minded folk and a second referendum only started to be asked for in the 90s.. Versus 1 day after demands for remainers and perhaps they get their wish in the next six months. I think the balance between stupid brexiteers and delightful at dinner party remainers, is perfectly fair (joke).

On the points, I thought Labour position is starting to harden with threats of resignations last week and now starmer this morning.. It looks as if labour are moving towards a second referendum. Sad times ahead, I fear.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Given the current track record of one every 40+ for brexit minded folk and a second referendum only started to be asked for in the 90s.. Versus 1 day after demands for remainers and perhaps they get their wish in the next six months. I think the balance between stupid brexiteers and delightful at dinner party remainers, is perfectly fair (joke).

On the points, I thought Labour position is starting to harden with threats of resignations last week and now starmer this morning.. It looks as if labour are moving towards a second referendum. Sad times ahead, I fear.
Which Labour Party?
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Had the percentages been reversed it is probably fair to say that Leavers would be demanding a second referendum as vociferously as Remainers.
And would most likely have been soundly ignored by Parliament, but not in this case as certain parts of Parliament are actually actively pursuing a 2nd referendum.
 
It doesn't matter how many times you make the point, so called Liberals would not be calling for a second People's Vote if Remain had one, they would be saying that the referendum result was binding
No matter how many times you say it and regardless of who says a referendum result is legally binding, the black and white fact Is that a referendum result is, in legal terms, advisory.

I don't disagree at all with what you say about 'so called Liberals would not be calling for a second People's Vote if Remain had won, they would be saying that the referendum result was binding'. I merely challenge the notion that a referendum result is legally binding on parliament and nothing more than that.
 
Which says what that could solve this?
The point is that Irish Government always makes out that it does not want to damage British interests. It’s always said that with fingers crossed. The existing agreements broadly work or have, until the British decided to leave. There is no reason they cannot continue working except for the mendacity of the Irish Government and the EU. The fundamental fact is the backstop would normally be implicit in any agreement, but no one wants to enforce it except against the British side. So what is our backstop against EU failure to control and Ireland’s continued demands for NI. It seems the GFA means nothing
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
No matter how many times you say it and regardless of who says a referendum result is legally binding, the black and white fact Is that a referendum result is, in legal terms, advisory.

I don't disagree at all with what you say about 'so called Liberals would not be calling for a second People's Vote if Remain had won, they would be saying that the referendum result was binding'. I merely challenge the notion that a referendum result is legally binding on parliament and nothing more than that.
Careful Sonny, your bias is showing!
 
The point is that Irish Government always makes out that it does not want to damage British interests. It’s always said that with fingers crossed. The existing agreements broadly work or have, until the British decided to leave. There is no reason they cannot continue working except for the mendacity of the Irish Government and the EU. The fundamental fact is the backstop would normally be implicit in any agreement, but no one wants to enforce it except against the British side. So what is our backstop against EU failure to control and Ireland’s continued demands for NI. It seems the GFA means nothing
The GFA was an abject surrender by our government and the constitutional holes in that treaty has led us to where we are today.. I maintain, the gloves should come off with the irish and make it clear that the time of friendship has ended.
 
No matter how many times you say it and regardless of who says a referendum result is legally binding, the black and white fact Is that a referendum result is, in legal terms, advisory.

I don't disagree at all with what you say about 'so called Liberals would not be calling for a second People's Vote if Remain had won, they would be saying that the referendum result was binding'. I merely challenge the notion that a referendum result is legally binding on parliament and nothing more than that.

So your pointless argument is a second referendum would not be binding, so…………
 
No matter how many times you say it and regardless of who says a referendum result is legally binding, the black and white fact Is that a referendum result is, in legal terms, advisory.

I don't disagree at all with what you say about 'so called Liberals would not be calling for a second People's Vote if Remain had won, they would be saying that the referendum result was binding'. I merely challenge the notion that a referendum result is legally binding on parliament and nothing more than that.
A referendum can be legally binding but only if the Referendum Act specifies so. That was the case with the AV Referendum in 2011. As you say, that was not the case with the Brexit one in 2016.
 
Be that as it may, the referendum result was legitimised by the overwhelming vote by MPs post referendum.
And also the 2017 GE.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
The GFA was an abject surrender by our government and the constitutional holes in that treaty has led us to where we are today.. I maintain, the gloves should come off with the irish and make it clear that the time of friendship has ended.
Why what problems did the GFA create?

They already did when BREXIT was announced except the U.K. still hasn’t realised that!

Ireland wants to stay as close as possible to the U.K. (it’s in our interests).

The U.K. Government also wants to stay as close as possible to the EU (yet to be decided if that is staying in the CU Or a FTA, or somewhere in between).

Ireland is also in the EU and wants to stay in it.
 
So your pointless argument is a second referendum would not be binding, so…………
Whatever...

My argument /the fact is simply that referendum results are not legally binding on parliament. Why you challenge that is quite beyond my comprehension.

The pointless argument, yours by inference is that referendum results are legally binding on parliament.

There will not be a second referendum so specific reference to it is quite meaningless but even if there was, the result would be advisory rather than legally binding on parliament. Third, fourth or four hundredth - nothing changes.

Circular and closed.
 
The point is that Irish Government always makes out that it does not want to damage British interests. It’s always said that with fingers crossed.
It doesn’t want to damage them, why not?
Because anything that damages the damages our biggest export market and isn’t in Irish interests.

Ireland will continue to be a EU member and therefore any deal has to be compatible with EU regulations.

The U.K. Government wants to stay close to the EU.

The existing agreements broadly work or have, until the British decided to leave. There is no reason they cannot continue working except for the mendacity of the Irish Government and the EU.
Agreed up to March 2019

Why is the U.K. going to stay in the CU?

How will all those areas of co-operation under the GFA work when U.K. regulations start to differ from EU regulations over time?


The fundamental fact is the backstop would normally be implicit in any agreement, but no one wants to enforce it except against the British side. So what is our backstop against EU failure to control and Ireland’s continued demands for NI. It seems the GFA means nothing
So your suggesting that the backstop should be permanent or a deal put in place so that it isn’t necessarily?

Can we at this stage?
The deal that was voted on Tuesday is supposed to cover approx 2 years while a final deal is done.

A bilateral deal with Ireland can’t be completely on a EU competency (eg external EU borders, which the RoI/NI border will be)

If there is a bilateral deal it needs to be permanent and between the U.K. and the EU (not Ireland)
 
And your evidence for that comes from where exactly?

If there is a second referendum, and I don't think (hope) there will be one, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the losing side will be in the courts before the ink on the results paper is dry.
Does one need evidence before saying "it is probably fair to say"?
 
The GFA was an abject surrender by our government and the constitutional holes in that treaty has led us to where we are today.. I maintain, the gloves should come off with the irish and make it clear that the time of friendship has ended.
Blood’s thicker than water as they say. When my dad was born Ireland was still part of Britain. I can’t imagine anyone this side of the puddle wants to get aggressive with kin, but this is doing Ireland a lot of harm
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top