FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45686
Indeed, Corbyn absolutely kills the Labour Party right now. And I think he's hurt the Remain side as well during his time.CID1990 wrote:The only way snap election work (maybe) for Labour and Lib Dems is if Corbyn declares he won’t seek the PM seat.
Brexit is a fait accompli
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't see how it was Corbyn that dragged it out. They could have decided on a Brexit deal without Labor.GannonFan wrote:I understand that, but that's more around the no-deal Brexit option. That's where Corbyn found allies to latch on to. But Corbyn doesn't want an election that could end up giving Johnson even more power where he could really then go ahead with the no-deal plan. Corbyn's idea is to draw this out as long as possible (I think the original vote was in 2016) until people just give up on it. He doesn't want to bring anything to a head, just keep talking about it ad infinitum.Skjellyfetti wrote:It's not just Johnson vs Corbyn, though.
The vote yesterday required was orquestrated by Conservative party MPs - and had a sizable chunk of Conservative support. Labor and Corbyn couldn't have gotten the vote.
Agreed, but he's the poster child of the Remain group, even though I think he's technically pro-Brexit as well (well, under the "right" agreement, which to him is impossible to obtain - he's like the John Kerry of Brexit - he was against it before being for it, but is now against it again, or so he thinks). Parliament is just afraid to pull the trigger, and now I think they're scared of going to a general election because the general public is probably more reflective of the Johnson "the hell with it, let's just do it" position.Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't see how it was Corbyn that dragged it out. They could have decided on a Brexit deal without Labor.GannonFan wrote:
I understand that, but that's more around the no-deal Brexit option. That's where Corbyn found allies to latch on to. But Corbyn doesn't want an election that could end up giving Johnson even more power where he could really then go ahead with the no-deal plan. Corbyn's idea is to draw this out as long as possible (I think the original vote was in 2016) until people just give up on it. He doesn't want to bring anything to a head, just keep talking about it ad infinitum.
Theresa May negotiated a deal during the time you mention. It was rejected by the Conservative Party - 118 MPs from her party voted against it. If they could have agreed on a plan - it would be done now.
It's a case of them being saddled with no good option. BREXIT!!! Ok, now what? Pretty fucking difficult.
GannonFan wrote:Agreed, but he's the poster child of the Remain group, even though I think he's technically pro-Brexit as well (well, under the "right" agreement, which to him is impossible to obtain - he's like the John Kerry of Brexit - he was against it before being for it, but is now against it again, or so he thinks). Parliament is just afraid to pull the trigger, and now I think they're scared of going to a general election because the general public is probably more reflective of the Johnson "the hell with it, let's just do it" position.Skjellyfetti wrote:
I don't see how it was Corbyn that dragged it out. They could have decided on a Brexit deal without Labor.
Theresa May negotiated a deal during the time you mention. It was rejected by the Conservative Party - 118 MPs from her party voted against it. If they could have agreed on a plan - it would be done now.
It's a case of them being saddled with no good option. BREXIT!!! Ok, now what? Pretty fucking difficult.
At some point they're going to have to face the electorate again - can't avoid an election forever. And it ain't going to be pretty after the past 3 years of failing to finish the Brexit.Skjellyfetti wrote:Oof.
Boris Johnson fails in pushing through snap election after Brexit delay bill passes
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/boris-j ... asses.html
Don’t know about that, Jarf, but I don’t think either Boris or The Donald can mix a good martini.mainejeff2 wrote:How far the Caucasians have fallen.....
Skjellyfetti wrote:Boris suspends Parliament for the next 5 weeks. What a shitshow.
This. And, this! Send lotsa pics of the shitshow, and ask the little woman for a pass (for 'research' and 'reporting' purposes -- nodnodwinkwink) ...Ibanez wrote:Awesome. I'll be in the UK in about 5 weeks (for most of October).
I'll be the CS.COM Man on the Street and report.
She's kinda hot ...Ms Johnson said: "A lot of this language was initiated in the tabloids, because we had [headlines] like 'crush the saboteurs', we had the judiciary and remain MPs being 'enemies of the people', words like collaborationist, betrayal.
"My brother is using words like 'surrender' and 'capitulation' as if the people standing in the way of the blessed will of the people, as defined by the 17.4 million votes in 2016, should be hung, drawn, quartered, tarred, and feathered.
"I think that is highly reprehensible.
"I hope today in the Commons there will be some sort of deal on all sides that this sort of thing is utterly dialled down.
"It serves no purpose."
No doubt, but I'm sure this was/is just one microcosm of the reason why so many Brits wanted to leave the EU - they didn't like Brussels telling them how they had to setup and run their government. I don't remember us reacting very well to the idea that US service personnel could be tried in foreign courts rather than having those cases tried back here in the US.Aho Old Guy wrote:After 700+ years, the **UK traditional governmental structures** likely need a bit of updating ...
Can you cite where EU rules forced the UK to do this? The article you linked has nothing to do with that, and I've searched everywhere (including articles from 2009) and can't find a single mention of it.CID1990 wrote:Britain never had a Supreme Court until EU rules forced them to convert the old law lords portion of the House of Lords into a de facto "Supreme Court". Before that, questions of constitutionality were decided within Parliament.
I understood that the creation of the UK Supreme Court was motivated independently by separation of powers concerns and not required by EU rules. The EU constitutional system gives the EU Court of Justice supremacy in matters of European law, but not the domestic law of the Member States.∞∞∞ wrote:Can you cite where EU rules forced the UK to do this? The article you linked has nothing to do with that, and I've searched everywhere (including articles from 2009) and can't find a single mention of it.CID1990 wrote:Britain never had a Supreme Court until EU rules forced them to convert the old law lords portion of the House of Lords into a de facto "Supreme Court". Before that, questions of constitutionality were decided within Parliament.
I understood it to be that they (the UK) was worried they weren't in compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Right (fair trial).Ivytalk wrote:I understood that the creation of the UK Supreme Court was motivated independently by separation of powers concerns and not required by EU rules. The EU constitutional system gives the EU Court of Justice supremacy in matters of European law, but not the domestic law of the Member States.∞∞∞ wrote: Can you cite where EU rules forced the UK to do this? The article you linked has nothing to do with that, and I've searched everywhere (including articles from 2009) and can't find a single mention of it.
You found no mention of it because you don’t read very carefully∞∞∞ wrote:Can you cite where EU rules forced the UK to do this? The article you linked has nothing to do with that, and I've searched everywhere (including articles from 2009) and can't find a single mention of it.CID1990 wrote:Britain never had a Supreme Court until EU rules forced them to convert the old law lords portion of the House of Lords into a de facto "Supreme Court". Before that, questions of constitutionality were decided within Parliament.
I see it after the break now.CID1990 wrote:You found no mention of it because you don’t read very carefully∞∞∞ wrote: Can you cite where EU rules forced the UK to do this? The article you linked has nothing to do with that, and I've searched everywhere (including articles from 2009) and can't find a single mention of it.
(which explains a lot)
“Given that this has all happened due to the Brexit vote, the greatest irony here is that Britain only has a Supreme Court because European Union rules essentially required it to establish one.”
Still, that just explains how the court works in reviewing EU laws. Perhaps it was indirectly created to modernize the court so it can better work within the EU system, but doesn't seem like it was a direct circumstance of European Union rules. Unless anyone can find the rule...How does the court relate to Europe?
The court has a role in interpreting law passed in the name of the European Union and, separately, ensuring that the British courts take into account rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. Some people whose cases are rejected by the Supreme Court will be able to ask the European Court to intervene where there needs to be more clarity on specific areas of human rights.
Back to the original point which is loss of sovereignty∞∞∞ wrote:I see it after the break now.CID1990 wrote:
You found no mention of it because you don’t read very carefully
(which explains a lot)
“Given that this has all happened due to the Brexit vote, the greatest irony here is that Britain only has a Supreme Court because European Union rules essentially required it to establish one.”
Still, this is an opinion piece. Online, there's little relating the creation of the Supreme Court to a requirement by the European Union, but I did find this from the BBC from 2009:
Still, that just explains how the court works in reviewing EU laws. Perhaps it was indirectly created to modernize the court so it can better work within the EU system, but doesn't seem like it was a direct circumstance of European Union rules. Unless anyone can find the rule...How does the court relate to Europe?
The court has a role in interpreting law passed in the name of the European Union and, separately, ensuring that the British courts take into account rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. Some people whose cases are rejected by the Supreme Court will be able to ask the European Court to intervene where there needs to be more clarity on specific areas of human rights.
Say “Ello” to Denis for me.Ibanez wrote:Been in the UK for a week now. Took lil CCU to a park this morning and was chatting with the locals. As they explained it - the general consensus is to do something. Leave or stay. Do something and say something. There isn’t a lot of love for Boris over here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re welcome. I’ve been in the borders for about 4 days. - visiting the castles of my ancestors.kalm wrote:Say “Ello” to Denis for me.Ibanez wrote:Been in the UK for a week now. Took lil CCU to a park this morning and was chatting with the locals. As they explained it - the general consensus is to do something. Leave or stay. Do something and say something. There isn’t a lot of love for Boris over here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(That was a great FB post, thank you).
Northern Ireland remains the main problem. Now there’s a big surprise.bluehenbillk wrote:So they reach a deal last night that will need to go back to both the EU & UK Parliaments to be approved. Early prognosticators say EU approves, UK doesn't, EU tells them to pound sand & Johnson gets his hard exit wish.
