Question Time Commentary

Godfrey talks about our useless Doris and her lies

imo very accurate.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
The panel for tonight's show is:-
Secretary of State for Housing James Brokenshire,
Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti, SNP's leader at Westminster Ian Blackford, Director of the Institute for Government Jill Rutter,
columnist Charles Moore.
 
The panel for tonight's show is:-
Secretary of State for Housing James Brokenshire,
Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti, SNP's leader at Westminster Ian Blackford, Director of the Institute for Government Jill Rutter,
columnist Charles Moore.
Adrian Chiles has just announced both Nick Ferrari and Will Self are panellists in addition to Chakrabarti, Blackford and Brokenshire?
I do hope so - Ferrari handing Shami her arse should be worth tuning in for!
 
The panel for tonight's show is:-
Secretary of State for Housing James Brokenshire,
Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti, SNP's leader at Westminster Ian Blackford, Director of the Institute for Government Jill Rutter,
columnist Charles Moore.
I hope someone asks the panel their thoughts on Brexit votes being bought with peerages, will be interesting to see the Shadow Attorney General's opinion
 
Adrian Chiles has just announced both Nick Ferrari and Will Self are panellists in addition to Chakrabarti, Blackford and Brokenshire?
I do hope so - Ferrari handing Shami her arse should be worth tuning in for!
Site still lists the originals - might Chiles be naming his guests on his radio wash-up ?
 
The panel for tonight's show is:-
Secretary of State for Housing James Brokenshire,
Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti, SNP's leader at Westminster Ian Blackford, Director of the Institute for Government Jill Rutter,
columnist Charles Moore.
May's Brexit / Blame it on Brexit Brokenshire...*
Shouty Blackford.... "Independence! INDEPENDENCE! FREEDOM!!!"*
One law for the many and one law for fellow travellers, it's a sham Shami Chakrabarti...*
Charles Moore sometimes has worthwhile things to say...
Jill Rutter - says she is a big fan of facts. Not impressed with the way Brexit negotiations have been done.
Best available Brexit not entailing excessive damage?
I'm not 100% sure but I get the impression she is not overly keen on Brexit. It may be interesting to get her take on the current chaos.

If anyone brings up the dip in the markets, it's ongoing elsewhere and is not a Brexit symptom, though the chancellor amongst others would like us to think so.

*allegedly
 
Site still lists the originals - might Chiles be naming his guests on his radio wash-up ?
Ah, could be - I stand corrected. Shame though!
 
This Week

Andrew Neil reviews the political week with Michael Portillo, Liz Kendall and Miranda Green.

Their guests are:

Former Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, Sam Gymiah calling for a second referendum.
1544128153891.png

He has concerns about censorship and threats to freedom of speech in universities.

Plus a film rounding up the headlines from Ayesha Hazarika (so called comedienne and former Labour advisor)

Robin Ince, looking at belief (That'll be the 5 minute slot at the end).
"In September 2016, Ince performed at the Keep Corbyn rally in Brighton in support of Jeremy Corbyn's campaign in the Labour Party Leadership Election."

Three lefties
 
Last edited:
Tonight's warm-up and prepartion for panel lies

Top ten horrors from Cox's Brexit ‘legal advice’


Despite numerous attempts by the government to keep it hidden, the Attorney General’s legal advice has finally been published. The move came after opposition MPs – to whom Mr S is very grateful – found ministers in contempt of Parliament for with-holding the information.

Remember our 40 horrors of the deal? Well, Geoffrey Cox’s hotly-anticipated legal advice has some nasty surprises of its own. As ever, Steerpike has compiled the top horrors from the latest document:

  • 1. This is not the full legal advice on the May’s deal. It is a very selective piece of advice solely on the Protocol, art. 184 and 5. So no other issues are considered. Parliament asked for the full legal advice on the deal, not just part of the deal. Where is it?

  • 2. May’s deal envisages the UK being in backstop indefinitely. It is staggering that she sought to conceal this advice from MPs or the public. “The Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down…. despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely. It is May’s duty to inform parliament in unambiguous terms. How can she claim to have fulfilled this duty? (Paragraph 16)

  • 3. The backstop is not an insurance. It is the expected destination. Remember when we were told that the backstop is “just an insurance”, that it was unlikely that we’d need? The legal advice makes clear that the backstop is both likely and in full contemplation of the parties (par 5). So everyone knows we are likely to go in. It is wholly wrong to for the government to pretend otherwise.

  • 4. May says that promising to negotiate ‘in good faith’ will result in a future deal. The legal advice accepts that this phrase is meaningless. Her deal places the EU under no obligation at all. “All they [the EU] would have to do to show good faith would be to consider the UK’s proposals, even if they ultimately rejected them. This could go on repeatedly without such conduct giving rise to “bad faith” or failure to use best endeavours.”

  • 5. The UK will never be able to leave the Customs Union without the EU’s agreement. May’s deal “does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement.” And as for the time limit? Forget it. “This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.”

  • 6. May’s deal may violate EU law. Under Article 50, the mechanisms that EU member states are allowed to leave, a transition agreement cannot be open-ended because that means it is not temporary. So this dodgy backstop might be illegal under EU law. “There may be, therefore, some doubt as to whether the proposed Protocol is consistent with EU law, and that uncertainly will increase the longer it subsists.”

  • 7. The EU may have the power to tap the UK for even more money given the expense of the ties that will still bind us. “The legal and administrative arrangements required to underpin the Protocol would be enormously complex, particularly in the light of proposed GB / NI flexibilities and will require considerable resources. These are not something to which the Commission will readily commit in the long term.”

  • 8. The UK has no proper legal protection so is being asked to ‘trust’ the EU. “Given the lack of any effective means of termination” to the backstop, “the UK may have to trust in seeking a satisfactory outcome from negotiations.”

  • 9. The ‘arbitration panel’ is useless in practice (par 25 to 28 ) certainly when it comes to deciding if the UK can ever escape. “ it is extremely difficult to see how a five member arbitral panel made up of lawyers who were independent of the parties would be prepared to make a judgment as political as whether the Protocol is no longer necessary.

  • 10. There is no legal protection for the UK: a solution to this (if it comes) would have to be political. But if we sign May’s deal, we are in a legally binding treaty – the EU now refuses to bend or change rules for us. It has refused every day of the negotiation. There is no basis to conclude the EU will change once we are controlled by them in the backstop.


Chance of UK receiving EU agreement to Leave "Backstop" = Zero

The Irish Ambassador has made absolutely clear in a letter to The Spectator on 1 December that Ireland will always exercise the veto [on UK Leaving Backstop] on the EU’s behalf</a> since it will never accept that “existing technology and administrative facilitation can remove the need for any border infrastructure or controls”.


.
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._the_Protocol_on_Ireland-Northern_Ireland.pdf
 
Last edited:
**** me this is coming around with monotonous regularity.

I’m not sure i’ve Got the stamina to watch it

Unless that lexit hotty Grace Blakey is on limping her shit
 
I predict several women with blue streaks in their hair in the audience.
 
Tonight's warm-up and preparation for panel lies

Top ten horrors from Cox's Brexit ‘legal advice’

Despite numerous attempts by the government to keep it hidden, the Attorney General’s legal advice has finally been published. The move came after opposition MPs – to whom Mr S is very grateful – found ministers in contempt of Parliament for with-holding the information.

Remember our 40 horrors of the deal? Well, Geoffrey Cox’s hotly-anticipated legal advice has some nasty surprises of its own. As ever, Steerpike has compiled the top horrors from the latest document:

  • 1. This is not the full legal advice on the May’s deal. It is a very selective piece of advice solely on the Protocol, art. 184 and 5. So no other issues are considered. Parliament asked for the full legal advice on the deal, not just part of the deal. Where is it?

  • 2. May’s deal envisages the UK being in backstop indefinitely. It is staggering that she sought to conceal this advice from MPs or the public. “The Protocol is intended to subsist even when negotiations have clearly broken down…. despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent, and the clear intention of the parties that it should be replaced by alternative, permanent arrangements, in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely. It is May’s duty to inform parliament in unambiguous terms. How can she claim to have fulfilled this duty? (Paragraph 16)

  • 3. The backstop is not an insurance. It is the expected destination. Remember when we were told that the backstop is “just an insurance”, that it was unlikely that we’d need? The legal advice makes clear that the backstop is both likely and in full contemplation of the parties (par 5). So everyone knows we are likely to go in. It is wholly wrong to for the government to pretend otherwise.

  • 4. May says that promising to negotiate ‘in good faith’ will result in a future deal. The legal advice accepts that this phrase is meaningless. Her deal places the EU under no obligation at all. “All they [the EU] would have to do to show good faith would be to consider the UK’s proposals, even if they ultimately rejected them. This could go on repeatedly without such conduct giving rise to “bad faith” or failure to use best endeavours.”

  • 5. The UK will never be able to leave the Customs Union without the EU’s agreement. May’s deal “does not provide for a mechanism that is likely to enable the UK lawfully to exit the UK wide customs union without a subsequent agreement.” And as for the time limit? Forget it. “This remains the case even if parties are still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believe that talks have clearly broken down and there is no prospect of a future relationship agreement. The resolution of such a stalemate would have to be political.”

  • 6. May’s deal may violate EU law. Under Article 50, the mechanisms that EU member states are allowed to leave, a transition agreement cannot be open-ended because that means it is not temporary. So this dodgy backstop might be illegal under EU law. “There may be, therefore, some doubt as to whether the proposed Protocol is consistent with EU law, and that uncertainly will increase the longer it subsists.”

  • 7. The EU may have the power to tap the UK for even more money given the expense of the ties that will still bind us. “The legal and administrative arrangements required to underpin the Protocol would be enormously complex, particularly in the light of proposed GB / NI flexibilities and will require considerable resources. These are not something to which the Commission will readily commit in the long term.”

  • 8. The UK has no proper legal protection so is being asked to ‘trust’ the EU. “Given the lack of any effective means of termination” to the backstop, “the UK may have to trust in seeking a satisfactory outcome from negotiations.”

  • 9. The ‘arbitration panel’ is useless in practice (par 25 to 28) certainly when it comes to deciding if the UK can ever escape. “ it is extremely difficult to see how a five member arbitral panel made up of lawyers who were independent of the parties would be prepared to make a judgment as political as whether the Protocol is no longer necessary.

  • 10. There is no legal protection for the UK: a solution to this (if it comes) would have to be political. But if we sign May’s deal, we are in a legally binding treaty – the EU now refuses to bend or change rules for us. It has refused every day of the negotiation. There is no basis to conclude the EU will change once we are controlled by them in the backstop.


Chance of UK receiving EU agreement to Leave "Backstop" = Zero

The Irish Ambassador has made absolutely clear in a letter to The Spectator on 1 December that Ireland will always exercise the veto [on UK Leaving Backstop] on the EU’s behalf</a> since it will never accept that “existing technology and administrative facilitation can remove the need for any border infrastructure or controls”.
Quick scan of that and it just seems beyond belief! Like signing off a traitors manifesto.
Eyes down! Look in. Cheers all.
 

Latest Threads

Top