keano77

?Only, it isn't. Even if we accept "the purpose" of the act is as you say, nothing you raised impacts his ability to comply with the law.? What if Boris wrote the letter and attached it to a carrier pigeon that regrettably didn?t make it out of England due to confusion during a pheasant shoot?

stepdown Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > He should go go to the Supreme Court now and > argue > > there?s no point asking for an extension > because > > the U.K. can never leave the EU unless it > > constitutionally tears itself apart. > > Wait... you think the Supreme Court can overturn > an Act of Parliament? No stepdown. However if certain stipulations within an Act are ?void due to impossibility? then the SC could agree that is the case. My point is although the concept is mainly to do with Contract Law, the purpose of ?forcing? the PM to write a letter requesting an extension under the Surrender/Capitulation/Humiliation Act is to prevent the U.K. leaving without a deal. However, if Merkel?s words are as reported (and that is being questioned) then the U.K. (as an indivisible entity) can never leave. Thus, there is no point in requesting an extension. An extension to what. The U.K. is trapped in the EU and can never leave. It can only leave if it jettisons NI and if it did that it would no longer be the U.K. In short, Boris would not be breaking the law because it would be impossible for a PM of the U.K. to obey it. (Can I get away with that argument M?Lud?)

She might have just given Boris the loophole he?s been looking for. He should go go to the Supreme Court now and argue there?s no point asking for an extension because the U.K. can never leave the EU unless it constitutionally tears itself apart. That?ll get the white flag wavers frothing at the mouth

She?s put her foot in it because she has said, intentionally or otherwise We Germany could leave the EU because nobody could stop us. We can put up borders because nobody can stop us. You U.K. can?t leave the EU because we can stop you. Further, one of our smallest members with barely 5 million people can hold you U.K. with nearly 70 million people hostage. So much for your recent Supreme Court nonsense of Parliamentary Supremacy. We, the EU, will tell you what to do. (More details of the Johnson/Merkel phone call here https://news.sky.com/story/angela-merkel-tells-pm-brexit-deal-overwhelmingly-unlikely-11830601

Awaiting further details of her call with Boris Johnson this morning. Early reports are Merkel said if Germany wanted to leave the EU they could but Britain would need to leave Northern Ireland behind undern EU rules and the Republic of Ireland would have a say if NI could leave. I emphasise early reports which need clarification.

Oh oh, looks like Merkel?s put her foot in it. It?s all going to kick off. More follows

?Oh they would. You said so yourself. They are blackmailing the UK aren't they?? A negotiating tactic in case we have a no-deal. It?s working and has certainly scared the life out of the opposition parties

I concede I do over-simplify things. However there is a tendency to tie ourselves up in knots with all the rules - directive xyz as amended blah blah. The danger is we can?t see the woods for the trees. I think it?s Parkinson?s law that basically says bureaucrats make up rules to keep themselves in jobs. I don?t have a problem with the avocado for my morning toast going up in price because of a tariff. I do have a problem with medicines being delayed because of form filling. It would be unnecessary as we have been importing these medicines from the same reputable sources for the last 40-odd years. I don?t believe the EU would allow such a situation.

We are talking about possible shortages of life-saving medicines and you are trying to justify ?filling out forms correctly? ? I?m sure you don?t really believe that

?...This is a consequence of brexit not a cause? True pk. There will be many consequences. But I cannot see administrative intransigence leading to the 21st century equivalent of people leading horse- and donkey-drawn carts through the streets of Britain shouting ?Bring out your dead - the EU is holding up our medicines because we haven?t filled out the forms properly? But then again I could be wrong. We?ve all met jobsworths who stick to the rules

Correct me if I?m wrong, but as I understand it the worry over the supply of medicines is they?ll be caught up in bureaucratic customs processes - UK companies dealing with customs declarations and/or the need to change IT systems to comply with customs processes and border requirements for both import and export. If this is correct all the EU has to do is guarantee priority clearance and dispense with form filling and box ticking in the case of essential medicines. The EU is not our enemy and is not employing some medieval siege tactic to unleash pestilence and starve the UK into submission. However it?s time the EU got a grip and realised there?s a limit to pen pushers colouring paragraphs red, amber and green. I realise such a guarantee would weaken its negotiating clout but such a guarantee could be released in the next 10 minutes if there was good will.

As I say, there are some points you make that I agree with and many of our problems, or shortcomings, have nothing to do with the EU and stretch back to the Thatcher government but led to the Leave result nevertheless. However, this whole Brexit issue has been good for this country. It has exposed how over 40-odd years we have sleep-walked into a bureaucratic and logistical spider?s web. We have lost our own manufacturing base as businesses profited from out-sourcing and just in time supply chains. We are dependent on other countries for medicines which the EU is now using as project fear blackmail. Expand our pharmaceutical industries. To use one of your examples Burbage, there is no reason why Cornwall couldn?t can its own pilchards so much needed jobs could be created. It would cost far less than one month of our contributions to the EU to set up and we get the income tax and our shopkeepers benefit from workers? spending power. Whether Britain seizes the opportunity of Brexit or not is of course another question

?...The government has bribed a few key seats (not, noticeably, those mentioned) with a few paltry millions as a Brexit bribe, but a one-off bung hardly makes up for the development money the EU distributed, much more fairly and strategically. The EU *is* why Blackpool and Hull (and even Nottingham) have money for flood defences. The EU *isn't* why the UK national and local governments have failed to invest in those cities, or provide a fair allocation of taxpayers' money.? I?m quite enjoying your posts Burbage even if I disagree with parts of them. The problem you and Remainers have got with the bit quoted above is Leavers would argue that the development money was only the EU giving us back a small fraction of our own money and telling us what to spend it on no less. Secondly the lack of investment in some of our less prosperous areas, some would argue, is due partly to a lack of funds due to the huge sums the U.K. gives to the EU each year. Old arguments I know but valid points Remainers cannot get around.

You are obviously a man of means Bob and your efforts to satisfy Mrs Bob?s desires are to be commended. So far be it for me to advise you how to spend your money. However, have you considered going ?high-tech? and buying some virtual reality goggles? On Monday Mrs Bob could survey the Grand Canyon from your loft. Tuesday, while enjoying a cuppa in your side extension she could be monitoring the surf on Bondi Beach and Wednesday, enjoying the sights and sounds of the Amazon Rain Forest from the safety of your conservatory. And so on. Just a thought.

Yes of course TheCat. Apologies, I don?t know what came over me.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And somehow you think this will encourage her and > others to give uk a good deal? On the contrary, if you care to read the article you?ll see that she/they/the Eu are so worried that Britain could be successful that ?...EU sources have said that the UK will need to sign up to more onerous, level playing-field obligations than Canada due to the UK?s proximity and the size of its economy...? Point is, project fear is for the little guys. The big players see the potential upsides and the EU don?t like it.

?...Speaking of facts - regale us some more with all of the upsides now!...? Merkel sees the bigger picture and it?s got her worried Merkel warns of danger to EU of Singapore-style UK on its border https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/11/angela-merkel-stresses-danger-of-britain-becoming-singapore-on-thames-no-deal

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just last week on this very thread Lou was > accusing me and others of doom mongering and we > weren?t basing anything on facts. And yet here we > are How are these facts? They are planning assumptions - short term possible downsides.

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Steady on - it's a reasonable proposition isn't > it? It depends bob. Is it theirs to sell? Do they have a mortgage? If so your ?15k could disappear down the drain. But I?m sure you?ve done due diligence despite an uncharacteristic lack of judgement wasting money on artisan butter.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And another good read here > > https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/ > 0907/1074437-backstop-brexit-boris-johnson/ > > I have no idea where people like Louisa and keano > get their info from. But it?s very very wrong Donald, Jean-Claude, Michel and Guy frequently call my encrypted hotline to chew the fat. The applications of Ursula (von der Leyen) and Charles (Michel) are pending subject to being vetted by my team

I?m sure you?re right DR, it just struck me listening to the pundits tonight talking about Boris? (the government?s) options maybe there?s a loophole for the extreme brexiters. I can?t imagine the legal drafters of the Bill haven?t worded it accordingly. (Edited typo)

A query. Assuming the no-deal bill passes the House of Lords in its present form, my understanding (from the BBC website) is the Prime Minister (Boris) 1. has until 19 October to either pass a deal in Parliament or get MPs to approve a no-deal Brexit. 2. Once this deadline has passed, the Prime Minister has to request an extension to the UK's departure date, taking it from 31 October to 31 January 2020. 3. If the EU responds by proposing a different date, the PM will have two days to accept that proposal. But during this two-day period, MPs - not the government - will have the opportunity to reject the EU's date. My query is - if Boris has no deal to offer, or no hope of getting one passed by Parliament, by 19 October and he resigns on (or before) 19 October so there is no Prime Minister and giving the timing of electing a new party leader before October 31, do we crash out on October 31 by default? (Ie, the no-deal Act (by then) doesn?tapply If no PM to request extension) I?m sure cleverer people than me have already anticipated this in the wording of the Bill.

?...Last time was in Williamsburg NY, but I?m not back there until the beginning of October.? Would you mind picking up a couple of frozen chlorinated turkeys for me please for Thanksgiving? Will settle up when you get back.

Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m curious. I had my second ever cycling lesson > on Saturday. I can cycle and turn corners but > told the instructor I wasn?t confident looking > behind or signaling. > > So the route we took involved me cycling from > Burgess Park through Elephant and Castle, > navigating Waterloo roundabout next to the IMAX to > get onto Waterloo bridge and ending up in convent > garden. > The instructor ended up in a different lane to me > at the roundabout by the Imax with a bus driver > leaning out his window shouting GO GO and another > cyclist asking if I was okay. > Then we did it all in reverse. > > The instructor at the end told me I should just > get out and cycle and that the busier the road the > better as traffic goes slowly. > > Is this normal? As a car driver I find this tale very disturbing that such inexperienced cyclists are on our busy routes. Your ?instructor? has questions to answer.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > prepared to put people through this for decades? > > People will die. Be it because of resumption of > the troubles. Or food/medicine shortages > > And you won?t even be embarrassed? You should be > prosecuted This remainer hysteria is getting out of hand. You?ll make yourselves poorly with these made up scare stories. I suggest a nice cup of cocoa and an early night. A good night?s sleep works wonders.