Jenny1

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There really are some genuinely well respected > posters on here, people who often make good > balanced arguments, turning into complete doom > mongers over this issue. Not even based in fact, > pure conjecture. Very odd indeed. > > Louisa. Ah. What things 'not based in fact' have been said recently that you object to Louisa?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > Hahaha. You really make me laugh. No, people > dieing doesn't make me laugh. Statements like the > above really do though. > > I don't know how you can even attempt to claim > balanced judgement with comments like this one. > Best of luck to you though. Do you have any friends or relatives on long term medication at all TheCat? If so, what are their views on this?

Loutwo Wrote: ----------------------------------- We will end up on WTO terms and > probably sink into a small recession until the > economy readjusted to new conditions. It wouldn?t > be ideal, but equally it wouldn?t be total chaos > either. > Please tell me what you think 'WTO terms' are Louisa, and who operates on them? Thanks. Asking for the UK.

I notice that The British Retail Consortium have said Gove is wrong about that today....

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was never concerned with a deal OK...but how can you possibly know the following? Most leave > voters didn?t give it a second thought

diable rouge Wrote: ----------------------------------------------- > Big difference, the credit crunch wasn't > self-inflicted and the country wasn't divided by > it. If you think it's bad now, it's going to get a > lot worse whatever happens... Indeed. It's inexcusable for the government to knowingly inflict harm on the country when they have a clear choice not to do so.

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Deal > is a far better option for a leave voter than any > half arsed deal. > But the trouble is that the day after 'No Deal' we have to start the whole painful business of negotiating a deal all over again - there will have to be a 'deal' done after 'No Deal'. I think many people regard 'No Deal' as some kind of bracing culmination, rather than what it really is....a return to square one and the beginning of a very long process of coming up with a new deal, but this time from the weaker position of being a 'third party' with a declining economy, rather than a fully paid up member of the club.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only reason this is being done is to overcome > the deadlock we currently have. Just think what a > laughing stock UK plc is to the rest of the world. I don't think the deadlock is the main thing that's making us a laughing stock to be honest....

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a lighter note > If only Larry the Cat and @borderish could run things between them, we'd be fine.

I doubt anyone knows what the next few weeks and months may hold (least of all Johnson). But at each stage it's vital that we oppose moves that undermine the political and legal structures we rely on. Any policy that requires the executive to drive a steamroller over law and constitutional principle is a wrong policy. Such actions set dangerous precedents.

I agree it's not a coup. But it is dangerous constitutional impropriety. I think protestors against it are justified in using snappier language to get their message across. It's arguable that we are too complacent in this country about the separation of powers, given the comparative peace and stability of our recent history.

This is a useful timeline from FT legal commentator David Allen Green on how we got to the point today where a leading cabinet minister has said that the government is not necessarily obliged to obey the law. This is, of course, constitutionally dangerous but is in line with a pattern of government behaviour over the past three years. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1168108396605857792

Apologies if your comments are addressed exclusively to diable rouge dbboy. But do you mind if I also contribute? Firstly I think it would be good to continue discussing what lessons we should or should not be drawing from Weimar Germany. So would appreciate your views on that. You seem to have shifted the discussion in a different direction. But that's fine. We can do both. And all these issues are of course connected. You can call what's happened (and is continuing to happen) a coup or not, it doesn't really matter, what we have seen this week is very dangerous, as it undermines the legal and political structures and conventions of the country. That's one area where parallels to Weimar come in useful. See the article I linked to above. Secondly, given the nature of Parliamentary Democracy (as defined by Churchill, among others), the first duty of MPs is to act in the interests of the country. So they would be in breach of their duty to enact a policy that they knew would damage its citizens. I think MPs were at fault to vote to trigger Article 50 when there was no plan as to how Brexit was to be enacted. But it's arguable that they could have reasonably expected the government to act responsibly and either come up with a workable deal that did no harm to the country, or abandon the idea of Brexit altogether. Since neither thing has happened they are certainly within their rights to do all they can to force the government to now behave in a responsible manner.

Oh OK. But do have a look at the article, if you have time, and let me know what you think. There do, sadly, seem to be lessons from the history of 1930s Germany that we need to bear in mind so that, as you say, we can avoid repeating them.

@borderirish. Always good for a laugh.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So how do you describe 1930's Germany, Hitler and > the resulting catastrophe which resulted? Sorry dbboy. Who are you asking this question of? What did you think of the article by the way. That focuses on Germany, not Italy. Though of course there are similarities as well as differences between the two countries.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe learning lessons from history is > important so that they are not repeated. I think we can all agree with this.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Google didn't have an answer to your question > Jenny... Maybe. But to be fair I don't think anyone has an answer to the question of how we could both carry out a 'Swiss Model' 'Soft Brexit' and also conform to the Good Friday Agreement.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now, it's the inference that you clearly make > > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's still not a reference to Nazi Germany. > Keep > > trying... This is a long read but I think it makes some really interesting points about what comparisons we can and can't make between our current situation and the Weimar Republic. There are, of course, never any direct repetitions of history, and one shouldn't look for them, while at the same time trying to learn what lessons one can from the past. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/britain-proroguing-boris-johnson-parliament-suspension-richard-evans-weimar

Dulwich Fox. What are your views on Churchill's ideas on a united Europe?

An informative David Allen Green thread on Brexit, The Tories and The Constitution. He charts how we got to the point today of a government minister saying that the government does not necessarily have to comply with the law. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1168108396605857792 I take it you've gone off the whole 'Swiss Model' idea Dulwich Fox? Or maybe just didn't see my question to you about it above?

It seems that the government has decided it's above the law. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1168085121901256704

DF. Let's get back to talking about the 'Swiss Model', the form of Brexit which you say you favour. I'm pleased to see you want a 'Soft Brexit' solution that involves complying with the Schengen Treaty (although a little surprised by that, to be honest). But, even with much more open immigration rules in place (which would apply in those circumstances), there's still the fact that we would have to have the same kind of infrastructure at our borders as the Swiss do. This would be unacceptable in Ireland under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. So how do we get round that one? I've yet to hear any convincing solutions to the problem.

Very apt from David Allen Green I think! Gareth Keenan is now running the country... https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1167733220751884288

Ah. So you're not a No-Dealer after all DF! You advocate the Swiss Model, one well-known model of 'soft Brexit'. That still leaves a number of problems though, doesn't it? How would you get past those?