The Brexit aftermath thread

[Gorsameth]

I wouldn't wipe my arse with that Bill. If Boris perceives some advantage in eating his own words he will do it whoever's bloodied corpse he has to walk over.

You might want the get the tiniest bit of sense before you type.
If the bill passes and becomes law with that provision in it there is no choice to make. Its the exact same situation as when they passed a bill forcing Boris to ask for an extension, he didn't want to do it but he was forced to send the letter.

The PM doesn't get to pick and chose what laws he will or will not follow.

Additionally, I will say it again. Boris wants a hard brexit. He wants the UK to crash out, mostly likely because he and his donors have bet against the UK economy. That is why he tried to crash out before but was stopped when forced to ask for an extension. That is why the current Brexit bill has the 'no extending past 2020' limit in it. So that when December comes around without a trade deal, which is highly likely due to the time frame, parliament cannot stop him for forcing a hard crash out of the EU.

[Pann]

You might want the get the tiniest bit of sense before you type.
If the bill passes and becomes law with that provision in it there is no choice to make. Its the exact same situation as when they passed a bill forcing Boris to ask for an extension, he didn't want to do it but he was forced to send the letter.

The PM doesn't get to pick and chose what laws he will or will not follow.

Laws can be amended by Parliament via use of secondary legislation or statutory instruments. It is odd that you point to the European Withdrawal Act 2018 being amended as evidence that laws cannot be changed.

[LeGin Tufnel]

You people really seem to have a problem with the concept of democracy. You respect a democratic mandate whether you like the result or not, or one day you'll get someone in charge who doesn't like the decision YOU voted for that has a mandate. You are giving the green light to all kinds of tyranny pushing this reasoning.

This is a false equivalence.

Besides, there is actually *no law* saying there can't be another ref re. Scottish independence... just a load of meaningless waffle to do with "once in a generation".

Edit.

Anyway, while you're on the subject. No, I don't really give a fuck about the Daily Mail's notion of what 'democracy' is. That's while I'll be down my local Wetherspoons with a baseball bat on the the 31st. I encourage others to do the same. #NoCTDWaitroseDayOfProtest

[Gorsameth]

Laws can be amended by Parliament via use of secondary legislation or statutory instruments. It is odd that you point to the European Withdrawal Act 2018 being amended as evidence that laws cannot be changed.

Oo
That was not an amendment of an existing law, which would have required a 2/3 majority. The 'Benn Act' was a new bill that was passed with a simply majority.

If the Brexit bill, with no extension past 2020 provision, passes it would require a 2/3 majority vote to undo that. Which is a pretty safe bet not to happen.

[Tulipmantra]

This is a false equivalence.

Besides, there is actually *no law* saying there can't be another ref re. Scottish independence... just a load of meaningless waffle to do with "once in a generation".

Edit.

Anyway, while you're on the subject. No, I don't really give a fuck about the Daily Mail's notion of what 'democracy' is.

The Daily Mail's notion of democracy is precisely what yours is: whatever suits their bullshit agenda.

[LeGin Tufnel]

The Daily Mail's notion of democracy is precisely what yours is: whatever suits their bullshit agenda.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[Pann]

Oo
That was not an amendment of an existing law, which would have required a 2/3 majority. The 'Benn Act' was a new bill that was passed with a simply majority.

If the Brexit bill, with no extension past 2020 provision, passes it would require a 2/3 majority vote to undo that. Which is a pretty safe bet not to happen.

Complete and utter nonsense.

You appear to be getting confused with the requirements to call an early election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The Benn Act is no longer in place as Parliament has approved Johnson's Deal although it is worth pointing out that had it required a two-thirds majority - as you seem to think - it would never have passed.

If Johnson's government feels that they need to amend the leaving date they have the numbers in parliament to do so if they don't they won't. It really is that simple.

[Tulipmantra]

You're embarrassing yourself.

What is scary to me is that you actually think that. It never occurred to you that any one piece of liberal, progressive legislation could be arbitarily overturned on precisely the same grounds. Criminalization of homophobia? No, then we'll ask the question again on alternate thursdays till we get the "right" answer? Privatization of the NHS? Withdrawal from human rights agreements and legislation? Jail for cannabis users? Where do you think your flawed logic is going?

[Gorsameth]

Complete and utter nonsense.

You appear to be getting confused with the requirements to call an early election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The Benn Act is no longer in place as Parliament has approved Johnson's Deal although it is worth pointing out that had it required a two-thirds majority - as you seem to think - it would never have passed.

If Johnson's government feels that they need to amend the leaving date they have the numbers in parliament to do so if they don't they won't. It really is that simple.

You seem to be confused to let me run this conversation by you again.
I was talking about the Brexit bill currently being discussed by parliament, it includes a provision that the negotiation period cannot extend past 2020.
Tulipmantra mentioned he doesn't put much faith in that because Boris has no problem going back on his word.
I then explained that if the bill as present, with the limit to 2020, passes Boris cannot later change his mind and change it because it would be law. I brought up the so called Benn Act as an example of this. It was Law and forced Boris to ask for an extension he didn't want. He couldn't get around that.

This is where you come in saying its odd that I use an example of an amended law to show that laws can't be amended.
This is wrong. Because the Benn Act was not an amendment to an existing law, it was a new law.
It it were an amendment (which it isn't) it would have required a 2/3 majority. Which it didn't.

No one is talking about early election requirements, no where do I say the Benn Act was an amendment, I say the opposite. You brought that up

It is odd that you point to the European Withdrawal Act 2018 being amended as evidence that laws cannot be changed.

- - - Updated - - -

What is scary to me is that you actually think that. It never occurred to you that any one piece of liberal, progressive legislation could be arbitarily overturned on precisely the same grounds. Criminalization of homophobia? No, then we'll ask the question again on alternate thursdays till we get the "right" answer? Privatization of the NHS? Withdrawal from human rights agreements and legislation? Jail for cannabis users? Where do you think your flawed logic is going?

You acts as if this is a got-ya... Its not. This is not a logic trap that you have caught a silly progressive in, you have just discovered how democracies work.

Yes if you have the votes you can overturn legislation, that is how it works. Its kind of a corner stone of the entire process.
I don't see the votes to criminalise homophobia (a 2/3 majority to overrule existing laws) happening any time soon tho. Heck you can re-institute slavery if you wanted and got the votes.

[LeGin Tufnel]

What is scary to me is that you actually think that. It never occurred to you that any one piece of liberal, progressive legislation could be arbitarily overturned on precisely the same grounds. Criminalization of homophobia? No, then we'll ask the question again on alternate thursdays till we get the "right" answer? Privatization of the NHS? Withdrawal from human rights agreements and legislation? Jail for cannabis users? Where do you think your flawed logic is going?

Again, this is a false equivalence.

Address the actual debate.

The debate is: should Scotland be allowed a second referendum post Brexit decision on the grounds that a "once in a generation" decision is null and void on the grounds that Brexit itself has been mooted as exactly the same thing.

It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the random issues you mentioned above.

You genuinely support the status quo?

[Tulipmantra]

You acts as if this is a got-ya... Its not. This is not a logic trap that you have caught a silly progressive in, you have just discovered how democracies work.

Yes if you have the votes you can overturn legislation, that is how it works. Its kind of a corner stone of the entire process.
I don't see the votes to criminalise homophobia (a 2/3 majority to overrule existing laws) happening any time soon tho. Heck you can re-institute slavery if you wanted and got the votes.

I was stating the blindingly obvious. Calling for a referendum immediately when you haven't implemented the first one is transparently exploitative and that is why your push for the second referendum put Boris Johnson in charge for 5 years, even people that didn't vote for Brexit were unwilling to endorse that type of obviously unfair strategy.

But you yourself just dug a logic hole 100 foot deep, as IF you people would have accepted a second referendum requiring a 2/3 majority to overturn Brexit. Even Farage would have gone for that one.

- - - Updated - - -

The debate is: should Scotland be allowed a second referendum post Brexit decision on the grounds that a "once in a generation" decision is null and void on the grounds that Brexit itself has been mooted as exactly the same thing.

I'm sure you can think of some kind of bullshit criteria to void a democratic mandate. Whatever it is.

- - - Updated - - -

You genuinely support the status quo?

I would really Scotland to fuck off personally, but for very good reasons that is not my decision.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I would really Scotland to fuck off personally, but for very good reasons that is not my decision.

Is this sour grapes because you were taken up the arse by a pissed Glaswegian after a night out at Nice N Sleazy?

Icons of Filth on this Sat.

Edit.

Anyway, to answer the point, no, I whole-heartedly object to majority rule. Majoritarian democracy sucks.

You use the word "democratic" as if it it's a one size fits all definition. It really isn't.

[Pann]

You seem to be confused to let me run this conversation by you again.
I was talking about the Brexit bill currently being discussed by parliament, it includes a provision that the negotiation period cannot extend past 2020.
Tulipmantra mentioned he doesn't put much faith in that because Boris has no problem going back on his word.
I then explained that if the bill as present, with the limit to 2020, passes Boris cannot later change his mind and change it because it would be law. I brought up the so called Benn Act as an example of this. It was Law and forced Boris to ask for an extension he didn't want. He couldn't get around that.

This is where you come in saying its odd that I use an example of an amended law to show that laws can't be amended.
This is wrong. Because the Benn Act was not an amendment to an existing law, it was a new law.
It it were an amendment (which it isn't) it would have required a 2/3 majority. Which it didn't.

No one is talking about early election requirements, no where do I say the Benn Act was an amendment, I say the opposite. You brought that up

I am not confused at all - you simply do not know what you are talking about.

If Johnson wants to he can either through primary or secondary legislation alter the end date of the transition period. The Benn Act is completely irrelevant to Johnson's ability to alter the date on which the UK leaves the EU a it is not no longer in place and had he had the majority prior to the GE - as he does now - he could have either nullified by passing the Withdrawal Agreement (which he did this December) or he could, if he wished, altered or repealed it altogether.

A law being a new one does not mean that it does not amend an existing law and Johnson can alter his end date by exactly the process. There is no requirement for a two-thirds majority to amend an existing law or pass a new one, the only Act which requires this is the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, this is a false equivalence.

Address the actual debate.

The debate is: should Scotland be allowed a second referendum post Brexit decision on the grounds that a "once in a generation" decision is null and void on the grounds that Brexit itself has been mooted as exactly the same thing.

It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the random issues you mentioned above.

You genuinely support the status quo?

How has Brexit voided the previous IndyRef result? Had Scotland voted for independence in 2014 it would have been out of the UK and the EU - Brexit does not change this.

[LeGin Tufnel]

it would have been out of the UK and the EU - Brexit does not change this.

What's your point? Timelines?

Scotland either aligns itself with the EU or with the UK / US.

[Pann]

What's your point? Timelines?

Scotland either aligns itself with the EU or with the UK / US.

I thought I made it quite clear. Had Scotland voted be independent it would have had to leave the EU therefore a vote to leave the UK would have been a vote to leave the EU. Regardless of whether the rUK is in or out of the EU an independent Scotland will not be in the EU.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I thought I made it quite clear. Had Scotland voted be independent it would have had to leave the EU therefore a vote to leave the UK would have been a vote to leave the EU. Regardless of whether the rUK is in or out of the EU an independent Scotland will not be in the EU.

Yes.

So what? What’s your actual point?

Scotland leaves the union, she joins the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

A vote for Brexit was a vote for Scottish secession. Own it.

[Pann]

Yes.

So what? What’s your actual point?

Scotland leaves the union, she joins the EU.

How does Scotland join the EU?

[JohnBrown1917]

How does Scotland join the EU?

...The same way every other country beside the orginal 6 did?

[Pann]

...The same way every other country beside the orginal 6 did?

Is Scotland able to fulfil the same criteria as all those other countries?

[JohnBrown1917]

Is Scotland able to fulfil the same criteria as all those other countries?

That is something neither of us know.