tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:08 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

You frame it as not being an exit, but it is an exit. You might not like the exit, but there it is. And that is the core of the problem, nobody voted for a certain kind of Brexit, just for a whelm of possible Brexit.


Being tied to EU rules under TM agreement is not an exit


That statement is quite obviously wrong, as EU rules apply to countries that are very clearly not members.
What makes you an EU member is neither being subject to the ECJ, nor having to follow EU rules, nor being a member of the single market, not bwing a member of the costoms union. What makes the difference between being a member or not is having a say in those policy and rules. The UK is basically already in limbo on the out-side since the art. 50 notification.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:13 am

LJ wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
There are maybe hundreds of issues which need to be settled and new treaties arranged. But limited numbers of skilled negotiators available. GB needs to expand all of the civil service workers for all the agencies which heretofore have been done in the EU. In case of Brexit a time schedule for all of those issues can likely be agreed upon by December. But I think a smooth withdraw will take a while. It will be complicated.


Yet this is not the problem for the EU. The UK could have hired civil servants, custom officials and prepare for a hard Brexit in advance.


More importantly, the EU is of course perfectly willing to extend the period of transition to up to 10 years, WTO rules wouldn't allow more, with the only condition being "as long you are in, you are in", with all the consequences that come with being in.
A transition period where EU rules somehow don't apply, that is what won't ever fly.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
LJ
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:31 am

A101 wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:

I think you're missing the point, an FTA with the EU means following the EU's rules. You know, the one's designed to "reduce or eliminate barriers", the one's we already abide by as part of the EU, the one's EEA members abide by. You won't get a FTA as 3rd country without agreeing to those rules. To think otherwise is a. deluded or b. very arrogant indeed.



So do you think all those countries that have FTA with the EU have given up sovereignty? I was not aware third countries have pissed away there sovereign courts jurisdictions to the ECJ, nor have they taken all four key principles of the EU: the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour


You do know that a FTA usually comes with a supra national body which rules in case of trade disputes? Thus how is the UK not tied to EU regulation when a FTA with the EU will contain regulation stipulating the UK has to follow some EU rulings? The only way to get complete sovereignty is by having no FTA. However, this is something you don't propose (at least in the end state). Thus it's indeed arrogant assuming that the EU will not demand the UK following (the majority of ) its trade rules and ensures that there is a body which can enforce this regulation upon the UK. The EU isn't stupid and if you've followed TTIP a little bit, you would know that the EU, and more important its members, will never allow a FTA which doesn't secure its interest legally (the composition and responsibilities of the resolution body was one of the major breaking points).

Or do you define "sovereignty" by "not having to follow ECJ rulings"? If so, why are you objecting against May's proposal, in which the trade dispute body has a different name.

A101 wrote:
FTA's have to meet to respect and meet the laws of the land in both countries not just the EU, your also forgetting that the UK wont just trade within the EU. Brexit returns sovereignty in all jurisdictions back to the UK 100% in all matters


A FTA is an outcome of negotiations whereby usually the bigger party gets more than the smaller party. Yes one can have respect, but a FTA is pure business and politics. And you really believe that, for example the US. will not impose a resolution board when signing a FTA with the UK? Come on, they're not stupid (again see TTIP).
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:32 am

seahawk wrote:


I do not know what you are saying, I am saying that trade flowed long before the EU existed and it will flow again when the UK is back in control again.

And it seems like the population wants the hard Brexit. 64% of the Torries support it.

https://news.sky.com/story/more-than-ha ... l-11598348

Bring it!!



where you ordered your tea from India with a telegram - and you got it delivered 3 months later.

&
I talk about the glorious days of the Empire, when nobody cared about WTO or such things. Trade still functioned. One can always go back to those times.


Ha, your a veiled attempt at sarcasm, insinuating that post Brexit that that trade will go back to the time of British India between 1858-1947, with your attempt at :stirthepot:


Sigh, just like water of a ducks back
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:37 am

No, I am pointing out that in technologically less advanced times trade still did function without trade agreements, without free movement, without an ECJ. Why should this not work in modern times? England is a trading nation and a global power, it will find its place.
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:49 am

A3801000 wrote:
A101 wrote:

So do you think all those countries that have FTA with the EU have given up sovereignty? I was not aware third countries have pissed away there sovereign courts jurisdictions to the ECJ, nor have they taken all four key principles of the EU: the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour


Which cases did upset you the most where the ECJ decided in case of a British court?



I am still waiting....
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:05 am

'140+ factual, fully-sourced examples of the impact Brexit is already having on the UK. Jobs going, investment drying up, companies moving assets to the EU, or redomiciling.'

Very interesting : https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/sta ... 0617439233
 
LJ
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:06 am

A3801000 wrote:
"LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May might again push back a final vote in parliament on her Brexit deal"

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1OZ0NA


My admiration for May grows by the day (and I'm not sarcastic about this). This latest move would be a brilliant way of putting away the blame on everybody but herself. First, she can say that the opponents of her deal have no basis to oppose the deal anymore with the argument that "the UK could get a better deal". This means that those opposing at least acknowledge that the UK can't get a better deal at present. The argument that they don't have any faith is somewhat strange as she just won a leadership vote for the Tories. If Labour doesn't believe in May then they have to organise a vote of non-confidence. If Labour wouldn't do that, May could argue that they acknowledge that she's competent as well. Either way, a majority would need to acknowledge that no better deal is possible and those opposing want a hard Brexit regardless of what she does (and thus the consequences of a hard Brexit is for them to solve).

Second, she can blame the EU for not getting additional concessions and thus it's not her fault if we get a hard Brexit. In the end she's getting out of this mess being able to blame both the Brexiteers and the EU. Maybe this is not in the interest of the UK and EU, but she plays the game very well by putting the maximum pressure on both parties.
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:25 am

"EU nurses give up on Brexit Britain as their prospects dim
‘We are heading for catastrophe,’ NHS union warns as staffing crisis mounts"

https://www.ft.com/content/8f2d6e22-e7f ... b8afea6ea3
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:44 am

seahawk wrote:
No, I am pointing out that in technologically less advanced times trade still did function without trade agreements, without free movement, without an ECJ. Why should this not work in modern times? England is a trading nation and a global power, it will find its place.


Outside of occupied areas there where still trade deals.... That concept is 1000 years old. Without them trade was a burocratic nightmare, where every single shipment had to be negotiated.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:00 am

LJ wrote:

You do know that a FTA usually comes with a supra national body which rules in case of trade disputes?


The EU is loosely termed a supranational union as its a multinational political entity, but no third country is going to grant the EU a non partial judicial system such as the ECJ to oversee FTA dispute, The standards in an agreement will have as a minimum the highest standards of legitimacy, transparency and neutrality


There are three types of dispute settlement used in EU trade policy:
Dispute settlement at the World Trade Organisation,
Resolving differences between States under international trade agreements &
Investment dispute settlement


LJ wrote:
Thus how is the UK not tied to EU regulation when a FTA with the EU will contain regulation stipulating the UK has to follow some EU rulings?


Yes an FTA has to make allowance follow some rules of the EU and vice versa, As an example both participates in the agreement will have to follow the guidelines for the importation of foodstuffs for biosecurity needs which is vastly different from have influence in enacting sovereign laws of the nation, which as a member of the EU one has to do.


LJ wrote:
The only way to get complete sovereignty is by having no FTA. However, this is something you don't propose (at least in the end state).


LJ wrote:
Thus it's indeed arrogant assuming that the EU will not demand the UK following (the majority of ) its trade rules and ensures that there is a body which can enforce this regulation upon the UK. The EU isn't stupid and if you've followed TTIP a little bit, you would know that the EU, and more important its members, will never allow a FTA which doesn't secure its interest legally (the composition and responsibilities of the resolution body was one of the major breaking points).


You can demand all you want in an FTA, but if the EU stipulates rules and measures not in one own interest an agreement will never be reached nor should it be, There was no deal between Australia-US FTA initially as it was not in the interest of Australia

LJ wrote:
Or do you define "sovereignty" by "not having to follow ECJ rulings"? If so, why are you objecting against May's proposal, in which the trade dispute body has a different name.


The ECJ will not be an impartial and neutral body, its would be like give the Supreme Court of the United States power to decide disputes on an FTA between the EU-US(if one ever happens) are you willing to do that?


LJ wrote:
A FTA is an outcome of negotiations whereby usually the bigger party gets more than the smaller party. Yes one can have respect, but a FTA is pure business and politics. And you really believe that, for example the US. will not impose a resolution board when signing a FTA with the UK? Come on, they're not stupid (again see TTIP).


look at Australia -US FTA, Australia walked away as it was not in their best interest, you can demand but just expect a no in return. AU also walked away from the TPP

Your implying that a resolution board will be stacked in the US favour, one only has to look at CETA on how this works at an Appellate Tribunal, and is not conducted by the ECJ and will function in a similar way to the WTO Appellate Body

An arbitral tribunal is still comprised of three arbitrators. However, those arbitrators are chosen from a roster of fifteen people that is created by Canada and the European Union. This roster will be populated as follows: five members who are Canadian nationals, five members who are EU nationals, and five members who are nationals of non-Party third countries. A three-person division hearing a dispute will be composed of one person from each pool: i.e., one Canadian national, one EU national, and one national from a third country. The third country national will chair the division. When a division is formed to hear a dispute, the President of the Tribunal will appoint the members on a rotation basis, ensuring that the composition of each division is random and unpredictable, while giving equal opportunity to all Members of the Tribunal to serve. A person appointed to the roster will serve as a member for a term of five years.
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:07 am

A3801000 wrote:


I am still waiting....


I cant answer that question in relation to third country FTA disputes, as I be very surprised if any made it to the ECJ as I've never looked, And not at any internal disputes either.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:12 am

A101 wrote:
So do you think all those countries that have FTA with the EU have given up sovereignty?


You need to define what you mean by "sovereignty". It's a pretty broad brush.

Give us an example where you think the UK's sovereignty has been usurped by the ECJ.

Any business exporting to the EU needs to ensure that their product meets EU standards and complies with EU regulations. National standards and regulations may well differ from those of the EU, but if you want to export to the EU, you need to follow and abide by their rules and regulations. In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?

If a company exports sub-standard items to the US that result in injuries to Americans, which courts do you think will get involved? In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:08 pm

A101 wrote:

look at Australia -US FTA, Australia walked away as it was not in their best interest, you can demand but just expect a no in return. AU also walked away from the TPP


Australia ratifies the TPP-11
Joint media release

The Hon. Scott Morrison MP, Prime Minister
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment
https://trademinister.gov.au/releases/P ... 81031.aspx
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:18 pm

LJ wrote:
You do know that a FTA usually comes with a supra national body which rules in case of trade disputes? Thus how is the UK not tied to EU regulation when a FTA with the EU will contain regulation stipulating the UK has to follow some EU rulings?

You do know the EU won't agree to a FTA without the common rules and regs followed by the EU. A 3rd country will not get a better deal than it's members. Any FTA with the EU = following the EU regs & standards unless they agree on stricter enforcement & tighter regulations, which would negate the whole point of the FTA.

Brexiteers still don't realise the promised unicorns on sunlit uplands were then, still are,and always will be an unachievable fantasy.

The majority of what brexiteers want already exists as an EU member. Usually found in a manner that puts the UK in a much stronger position than what it will be going it alone as tiny island. Yeah yeah, "but the Empire!" Those days are long gone, the world has changed.
Last edited by ChrisKen on Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:41 pm

A101 wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:

I think you're missing the point, an FTA with the EU means following the EU's rules. You know, the one's designed to "reduce or eliminate barriers", the one's we already abide by as part of the EU, the one's EEA members abide by. You won't get a FTA as 3rd country without agreeing to those rules. To think otherwise is a. deluded or b. very arrogant indeed.



So do you think all those countries that have FTA with the EU have given up sovereignty? I was not aware third countries have pissed away there sovereign courts jurisdictions to the ECJ, nor have they taken all four key principles of the EU: the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour

FTA's have to meet to respect and meet the laws of the land in both countries not just the EU, your also forgetting that the UK wont just trade within the EU. Brexit returns sovereignty in all jurisdictions back to the UK 100% in all matters


Who mentioned sovereignty? I didn't. Merely pointed out the fact your beloved FTA is a complete no go unless you agree to the same standards the EU follows itself (The one's you keep incorrectly complaining about somehow stripping the UK's sovereignty). The EU wouldn't agree to it to start with, unless those conditions are met. It's no secret, that's been known for decades, we helped write the book. No cherry picking. No deal better than you have as a member. No unicorns. No FTA without adhering to basic EU standards (or tighter).

So what is it you actually want? Because your own argument contradicts itself.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14184
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:25 pm

I have to ask, was the Brexit Referendum actually binding or even really allowed per UK law ? Would a new Referendum be binding and legal as well ? Did Parliament actually vote to hold it ? It seems that there are serious issues with the Referendum process to begin with, that the MP's didn't want to do their job for the county and let it go to the people so could avoid making a decision.

Referendums of the voters are not part of the USA's Constitution for good reason. They are available in a number of USA states mainly to confirm State Constitutional Amendments or certain financial issues such as large bond issues and tax rate raises. Usually the Legislature has to vote in favor of a Referendum. California and a few other states allow citizen initiated referendums by petitions to force law changes (Initiative and Referendum - I&R) . CA has had some serious problems from I&R's. A series of I&R's in the late 1970's and into the 1980's strictly limited property taxes to their current owner to 1% of assessed value so 2 homes of the same market values might have huge differences in property taxes owned. That has hurt many towns as don't have enough tax revenues. Several years ago, and I&R in CA made same-gender marriage legal, but then a 2nd one came up a year or 2 later overturning the previous I&R. The 2nd I&R was largely sponsored by Church of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and got a lot of votes of Black and evangelicals. Eventually it went to the CA top Court and they said the 2nd one wasn't legit. (A US Supreme Court decision later mooted any laws against same-gender marriage). With that experience in CA in mind, would a 2nd Brexit in the UK be a good idea anyway as would be legally debatable and even right ? Could the Privy Council over turn it ?

PM May is trying to buy some more time to build a consensus on the Brexit vote in favor if it guided by the Referendum although 18 months have been wasted due to infighting and unforeseen complications from it. A clean Brexit is near impossible and not good for anyone but a half-assed one will anger the voters. Frankly I don't see any real leadership, only MP's and the PM trying to cover up the cesspool they have created, especially those in the formally industrial Midlands.
 
LJ
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:58 pm

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
Thus it's indeed arrogant assuming that the EU will not demand the UK following (the majority of ) its trade rules and ensures that there is a body which can enforce this regulation upon the UK. The EU isn't stupid and if you've followed TTIP a little bit, you would know that the EU, and more important its members, will never allow a FTA which doesn't secure its interest legally (the composition and responsibilities of the resolution body was one of the major breaking points).


You can demand all you want in an FTA, but if the EU stipulates rules and measures not in one own interest an agreement will never be reached nor should it be, There was no deal between Australia-US FTA initially as it was not in the interest of Australia


Yet in reply 1721 you view a FTA as a possibiity but you don't want to loose "sovereignty". Any FTA between the UK and EU will have more EU rulings in the agreement than UK issues as by size the EU is the much bigger party. The UK may choose not to conclude a FTA, but that would mean being tied to the EU, which you don't seem to like. Hence. Either you stick to just WTO schedules (which still need to be agreed) or be tied to the EU (and any other big country with whom you intend to conclude a FTA).

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
Or do you define "sovereignty" by "not having to follow ECJ rulings"? If so, why are you objecting against May's proposal, in which the trade dispute body has a different name.


The ECJ will not be an impartial and neutral body, its would be like give the Supreme Court of the United States power to decide disputes on an FTA between the EU-US(if one ever happens) are you willing to do that?


Have you followed the TTIP discussions? The final discussions on TTIP were almost entirely about the fact the Europeans didn't want to loose sovereignty over the US. However, that body was not called "US Supreme Court". The fact is that it doesn't matter what's called, it's how you set up the board. However, I get the impression that you're somewhat fixated at the ECJ, whereas the ECJ is a body which can easily be replaced by a similar body with the same function (see May's agreement).

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
Your implying that a resolution board will be stacked in the US favour, one only has to look at CETA on how this works at an Appellate Tribunal, and is not conducted by the ECJ and will function in a similar way to the WTO Appellate Body

An arbitral tribunal is still comprised of three arbitrators. However, those arbitrators are chosen from a roster of fifteen people that is created by Canada and the European Union. This roster will be populated as follows: five members who are Canadian nationals, five members who are EU nationals, and five members who are nationals of non-Party third countries. A three-person division hearing a dispute will be composed of one person from each pool: i.e., one Canadian national, one EU national, and one national from a third country. The third country national will chair the division. When a division is formed to hear a dispute, the President of the Tribunal will appoint the members on a rotation basis, ensuring that the composition of each division is random and unpredictable, while giving equal opportunity to all Members of the Tribunal to serve. A person appointed to the roster will serve as a member for a term of five years.


I doubt CETA is a good example. Some countries still refuse to confirm CETA due to the resolution board. No mater what kind of resolution board you design, the other party can still view it as partial. Moreover, this still doesn't solve your problem about "losing sovereignty" as, in case of CETA, both Canada and the EU surrender "sovereignty" towards the resolution board. Finally, the power one has in a resolution board depends on politics and the (economic) weights one has in the negotiations. Getting equal power means that the EU either likes you, the EU views you as important or you've given them something else in the negotiations which the EU badly needs. Judging from May's agreement (AFAIK there is the intention to set up a resolution board with equal power) the EU agrees to one or more of the before mentioned. However, I'm not sure that if the UK walks away from the deal, it can expect the same treatment it currently does. The again, this discussion is worthless as one of your main arguments is that you don't want to loose sovereignty at all, which means no FTA will be possible (with any country).

Which brings me to your statement in reply 1670:

My view is short term pain for long term gain, it’s not over till a satisfactory FTA is drawn up.


Which basically means you're saying that the pain will never go over unless you intend to surrender sovereignty, something which you oppose.
Last edited by LJ on Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:09 pm

ltbewr wrote:
I have to ask, was the Brexit Referendum actually binding or even really allowed per UK law ? Would a new Referendum be binding and legal as well ? .

The 2016 European Membership referendum was a non-binding, advisory vote.
Only brexiteers seem to think it wasn't or that it's result advised any other than a portion of the electorate effectively split down the middle of a Yes/No question.

The referendum itself was legal under UK law as per the European Union Referendum Act of 2015.

A new referendum could be anything, the terms are set at the time of it's announcement (aka in the act which allows it). They are usually non-binding advisories with the exception of a few which become binding if the result meets a pre-indicated threshold such as a 3/4s majority.
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:55 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

look at Australia -US FTA, Australia walked away as it was not in their best interest, you can demand but just expect a no in return. AU also walked away from the TPP


Australia ratifies the TPP-11
Joint media release

The Hon. Scott Morrison MP, Prime Minister
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment
https://trademinister.gov.au/releases/P ... 81031.aspx


Early in negotiations for TPP both Australia and New Zealand were prepared not to ratify the Agreement and walk away. You protect your own interest above all else and be prepared to say no, until you get a better deal which is acceptable.

TPP is an anomaly that its a trade pact with a number of countries without become a union like the EU.
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:02 pm

From post 1761

A101 wrote:
Yes an FTA has to make allowance follow some rules of the EU and vice versa, As an example both participates in the agreement will have to follow the guidelines for the importation of foodstuffs for biosecurity needs which is vastly different from have influence in enacting sovereign laws of the nation, which as a member of the EU one has to do.


scbriml wrote:

You need to define what you mean by "sovereignty". It's a pretty broad brush.

Give us an example where you think the UK's sovereignty has been usurped by the ECJ.

Any business exporting to the EU needs to ensure that their product meets EU standards and complies with EU regulations. National standards and regulations may well differ from those of the EU, but if you want to export to the EU, you need to follow and abide by their rules and regulations. In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?

If a company exports sub-standard items to the US that result in injuries to Americans, which courts do you think will get involved? In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?
 
JJJ
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:17 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

look at Australia -US FTA, Australia walked away as it was not in their best interest, you can demand but just expect a no in return. AU also walked away from the TPP


Australia ratifies the TPP-11
Joint media release

The Hon. Scott Morrison MP, Prime Minister
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment
https://trademinister.gov.au/releases/P ... 81031.aspx


Early in negotiations for TPP both Australia and New Zealand were prepared not to ratify the Agreement and walk away. You protect your own interest above all else and be prepared to say no, until you get a better deal which is acceptable.


If you aren't prepared to walk away you aren't negotiating, you're just rubberstamping.

TPP is an anomaly that its a trade pact with a number of countries without become a union like the EU.


Seriously? NAFTA, Mercosur, ECOWAS.... most trade agreements have a reach and scope closer to TPP than to the EU.
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:43 pm

"Brexit no deal sees 30,000 army troops preparing for deployment to stop chaos"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10676 ... rmy-troops

"Sources said ministers were told 30,000 regular troops and 20,000 reserves must be available for deployment to help manage the consequences of crashing out of the bloc at the end of March. "

That must have been on the other side of the bus. Or just another project fear. Or whatever
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:48 pm

JJJ wrote:

If you aren't prepared to walk away you aren't negotiating, you're just rubberstamping.




Gee look at that, something we agree on :yes:
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:44 pm

A101 wrote:
From post 1761

A101 wrote:
Yes an FTA has to make allowance follow some rules of the EU and vice versa, As an example both participates in the agreement will have to follow the guidelines for the importation of foodstuffs for biosecurity needs which is vastly different from have influence in enacting sovereign laws of the nation, which as a member of the EU one has to do.


scbriml wrote:

You need to define what you mean by "sovereignty". It's a pretty broad brush.

Give us an example where you think the UK's sovereignty has been usurped by the ECJ.

Any business exporting to the EU needs to ensure that their product meets EU standards and complies with EU regulations. National standards and regulations may well differ from those of the EU, but if you want to export to the EU, you need to follow and abide by their rules and regulations. In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?

If a company exports sub-standard items to the US that result in injuries to Americans, which courts do you think will get involved? In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?


And? A big fat nothing?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:06 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
From post 1761

A101 wrote:
Yes an FTA has to make allowance follow some rules of the EU and vice versa, As an example both participates in the agreement will have to follow the guidelines for the importation of foodstuffs for biosecurity needs which is vastly different from have influence in enacting sovereign laws of the nation, which as a member of the EU one has to do.


scbriml wrote:

You need to define what you mean by "sovereignty". It's a pretty broad brush.

Give us an example where you think the UK's sovereignty has been usurped by the ECJ.

Any business exporting to the EU needs to ensure that their product meets EU standards and complies with EU regulations. National standards and regulations may well differ from those of the EU, but if you want to export to the EU, you need to follow and abide by their rules and regulations. In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?

If a company exports sub-standard items to the US that result in injuries to Americans, which courts do you think will get involved? In your view is that "giving up sovereignty"?


And? A big fat nothing?


Ok is this what you want to hear?

One of the major effects of the European law to English legal system is on direct applicability or direct effect. For instance, the British constitution establishes that parliament is sovereign. This means that no other law in Britain that are above laws made by the government. Relative to its sovereignty it is clear that Parliament is the highest legislative authority in UK: only Parliament can create law, No court in UK can impede or restrict Parliament’s law making ability. Parliament can make whatever laws it wants, and the courts must apply that law, Parliament’s sphere of legislation has no limits; it can legislate on any matter of its choosing (E.g. retrospective legislation) and No parliament can bind a future Parliament. Therefore, Parliament can make or cancel any law it chooses, and the courts must enforce it. However, membership of the EC has compromised this principle

According to the primary law of the European community set in the treaty of Rome in 1957, all the primary laws of the treaty affect all the member country and Great Britain is not exceptional. Treaty of Rome is superior to all domestic laws and other laws from individual states should concur with it. This contradicts the sovereignty of the Britain Parliament which is believed to be above other legal systems (Aziz 2004). Since there is conflict between the treaty and the Britain parliament, a ruling can be made in favour of the European Union Law making the parliament to appear inferior and not sovereign as stated by the British constitution. There are some circumstances when a judge may misapply the provisions of an English statute under the Treaty of Rome. This is in order to give priority to Community law and to comply with the doctrine of direct applicability (Aziz 2004). On the other this judgement could be having some negative impacts to the citizens of Britain but they are left with no option but to adhere to EU laws for sake of the whole community.

According to section two of the European communities, act of 1972, any legislation made by the parliament of the member countries whether before or after the formation of the EU act must be amended to comply with the requirements of the community law. Consequently, English law should be interpreted and have effect subject to the principle that EC law is supreme; this means that EC law now takes precedence over all domestic sources of law (Aziz 2004). The case of R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame (1990) that went to the ECJ from the House of Lords makes it clear that the English courts must apply EC law which is directly effective even if it conflicts with English law. In this case the House of Lords struck down parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which held to conflict with the Treaty of Rome. It was the first time that British judges overturned a statute (Aziz 2004).

The case was significant as the ECJ said that national courts were to ignore any national law that ran contrary to European law. Therefore, it is clear that the European law has made the English legal system to become less effective since it cannon make its own ruling without considering the legal provisions stipulated by the EU laws on certain issues. Any doubt as to the primacy of EC law over national law was resolved by the European Court of Justice in Costa v ENEL (1964). The primacy of EC law prevails even where the domestic law is penal in nature, thus creating a defence of reliance on European Community law (Pubblico Ministero v Ratti Case 1974) (Snyder 2000).




Excerpt are from here,

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-ess ... -essay.php
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:27 am

A101 wrote:
Ok is this what you want to hear?


Well, you didn't answer the questions and this is not your opinion, is it?

But nice copy & paste work.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:45 am

Somebody in the UK had the greatest idea ever: Let's simulate how a traffic jam of lorries will look like after March 29th.
They rented like 140 lorries and today is the day.
It's hilarious:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1082 ... 76928.html

or live:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1082146978308476928
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:49 am

Oh, please, A101, not the purely academic discussion about in whose hands sovereignty truly lies again.

As you know perfectly well, because of the UK's membership of the EU, certain decision making powers are indeed DELEGATED from Westminster to the EP (where the UK has MEPs) and/or the EU Council (where the British PM has (well: had) a vote), all of which under the powers of an Act of Parliament from the early 1970s, which -as you have been demonstrated in 2016- can be recalled by any newly elected British Parliament by a simple vote at any time of its liking, exactly as is foreseen in article 50 of the Treaty of the EU.

Compare that to that other precious Union Brits are bound in -the United Kingdom- for a second, will you?
The Scottish Parliament has never delegated any powers over Scotland to London, it's the other way round in fact, which is why Scotland can not unilaterally decide to repatriate any of the remaining powers over its own matters that still lie with the UK, like the UK can do with the EU.
In the case of the UK, there was never any DELEGATION of powers from Scottland to the UK, it was a TRANSFER, one which can not be undone without consent from the UK itself: there's no article 50 equivalent anywhere in the British constitutional set-up.

And that's the BIG difference in fact: sovereignty ends when you TRANSFER things, not when you DELEGATE things.


As a brain teaser for you: if you are so worried about British sovereignty being eroded via supranational organizations which take decisions by delegation, I'd urge you to also roll out a red tank and tour the country with it!
Britain is a member of NATO, meaning that under article 5 of the treaty establishing this supranational organization, Britain automatically goes to war whenever one of the other 28 member states is attacked by a third country!
Indeed, Britain goes to war even if not directly attacked and without any meaningful vote in today's Parliament, based solely on a treaty containing this promise, voted for by a previous Parliament which no longer sits…
Remember Britain has been dragged into 2 very bloody and devastating WWs in the past century alone, based solely on international alliances and previous commitments it had made to others, so in a world like we live in today, I'd be far more worried about being dragged into yet another war on our continent which would risk costing the lives of tens of thousands of young people in my country, than I'd be about having to drive around with a standardized European drivers license showing the EU flag on it or hand over my passport at US immigration officers showing EUROPEAN UNION above the words UNITED KINGDOM OF BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND for instance if I were to be so pre-occupied with the pureness of British sovereignty as you seemingly are, but to each his priorities of course....
Last edited by sabenapilot on Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:53 am

The design a drivers licence would probably wall under the principle of subsidiarity anyway and apart from a very small EU standard parts, each country could make their own design - even blue.
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:03 am

So this morning Boris Johnson, in his quest for power, is claiming that "A no-deal Brexit is closest to what Brits voted for"

Lets remind ourselves what he said during the referdendum campaign:

11th March 2016: "We can be like Canada" & "I think we can strike a deal as the Canadians have done"

and

9th May 2016: "What we want is for Britain to be like many other countries in having free-trade access to the territory covered by the Single Market"

He never advocated a No Deal as the end scenario in the referendum campaign. It may be what he wants now, but it is not what he argued for in 2016 and as a lead figure in the leave campaign, not what people voted for.
Last edited by Richard28 on Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:05 am

seahawk wrote:
The design a drivers licence would probably wall under the principle of subsidiarity anyway and apart from a very small EU standard parts, each country could make their own design - even blue.


Indeed, but subtleties like these are completely lost on Brexiteers, which is why Farage has successfully been able to bang on about his burgundy red EU passport as proof of how his Britishness was watered down and even taken away from him by the EU, to the point the UK has even decided to reintroduce the 'iconic' blue passports again as proof of its regained sovereignty… Exactly the same colour like Croatia that is then, which very much is in the EU!
Farage could always have had his iconic blue passports back should his sovereign parliament have wanted him…. in the EU or out!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_passport#/media/File:Croatian_biometric_passport.jpg
Last edited by sabenapilot on Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:07 am

sabenapilot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The design a drivers licence would probably wall under the principle of subsidiarity anyway and apart from a very small EU standard parts, each country could make their own design - even blue.


Indeed, but subtleties like these are completely lost on Brexiteers, which is why Farage has successfully been able to bang on about his burgundy red EU passport as proof of how his Britishness was watered down and even taken away from him by the EU, to the point the UK has even decided to reintroduce the 'iconic' blue passports again as proof of its regained sovereignty… Exactly the same colour like Croatia that is then, which very much is in the EU!
Farage could always have had his iconic blue passports back should his sovereign parliament have wanted him…. in the EU or out!


And those new blue passports will be produced where? Exactly, in the EU :) in France IIRC.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:25 am

A3801000 wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The design a drivers licence would probably wall under the principle of subsidiarity anyway and apart from a very small EU standard parts, each country could make their own design - even blue.


Indeed, but subtleties like these are completely lost on Brexiteers, which is why Farage has successfully been able to bang on about his burgundy red EU passport as proof of how his Britishness was watered down and even taken away from him by the EU, to the point the UK has even decided to reintroduce the 'iconic' blue passports again as proof of its regained sovereignty… Exactly the same colour like Croatia that is then, which very much is in the EU!
Farage could always have had his iconic blue passports back should his sovereign parliament have wanted him…. in the EU or out!


And those new blue passports will be produced where? Exactly, in the EU :) in France IIRC.


I suppose they will also feature the 'made in EU' symbol on the back then?

Oh, and maybe they can also program the chip to play 'Ode of Joy' upon opening the passport.. ;)
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:31 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
Ok is this what you want to hear?


Well, you didn't answer the questions and this is not your opinion, is it?

But nice copy & paste work.



Was anything in that not factual?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:35 am

A101 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
Ok is this what you want to hear?


Well, you didn't answer the questions and this is not your opinion, is it?

But nice copy & paste work.



Was anything in that not factual?


The basic fact that parliament is also free to delegate responsibilities to EU and free to subject the country to the ruling of the EU courts. It is a sovereign decision to work with others, especially as Article 50 means you can always reverse course, but at no point did the UK give up sovereignty, as it made the sovereign decision to delegate some parts to the EU.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:45 am

sabenapilot wrote:
Oh, please, A101, not the purely academic discussion about in whose hands sovereignty truly lies again.
...


Stop being reasonable and logical, it just annoys the Brexiteers.

A3801000 wrote:
Somebody in the UK had the greatest idea ever: Let's simulate how a traffic jam of lorries will look like after March 29th.
They rented like 140 lorries and today is the day.
It's hilarious:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1082 ... 76928.html

or live:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1082146978308476928


What could possibly go wrong? :rotfl:

But it will be OK, we'll just go all WTO on their ass. Fuck the Irish and their stupid "border issues" :banghead:

Richard28 wrote:
So this morning Boris Johnson, in his quest for power, is claiming that "A no-deal Brexit is closest to what Brits voted for"

Lets remind ourselves what he said during the referdendum campaign:

11th March 2016: "We can be like Canada" & "I think we can strike a deal as the Canadians have done"

and

9th May 2016: "What we want is for Britain to be like many other countries in having free-trade access to the territory covered by the Single Market"

He never advocated a No Deal as the end scenario in the referendum campaign. It may be what he wants now, but it is not what he argued for in 2016 and as a lead figure in the leave campaign, not what people voted for.


BoJo is the biggest self-serving politician in Parliament today. Nothing he says is of any value and he should be ignored. His brother is a whole lot smarter. And his Dad for that matter.

Much like Labour and their endless demands for an election, Brexit is just a vehicle for BoJo self-promotion. And, just like the other hard-nut Rees Mogg, doesn't care what impact Brexit has on the masses because he'll be OK whatever happens.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:55 am

A101 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
Ok is this what you want to hear?


Well, you didn't answer the questions and this is not your opinion, is it?

But nice copy & paste work.



Was anything in that not factual?


well, it misses the FACT that the situation described by your link is:
1- voluntarily
2- revocable
because it came into being by DELEGATION of powers, not TRANSFER of powers as is often claimed wrongly by Brexiteers.

As said before: if you are so worried about the consequences of a simple DELEGATION of powers, better get out of other international organizations like for instance NATO too then as the decisions taken by them by delegation may carry a far greater impact on your personal life than what the EU only has.
But then I suppose the British press isn't exactly full of reports on yet another new NATO standard or another investment requirement for the British military every other day, are they?

FWIW-
France -the only other nuclear capable European NATO member- holds several precious opt outs the UK doesn't have on quite important NATO obligations with very far reaching obligations as to that nuclear capability and its common use: the UK has effectively DELEGATED control and common use of its submarine nukes to NATO's Nuclear Planning Group, something France hasn't: it remains fully sovereign over it!
Should you not follow their lead, A101?
Last edited by sabenapilot on Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:55 am

A101 wrote:
Was anything in that not factual?


Let's hear your answers to the questions.

See sabenapilot and seahawk's responses and let us know if you're still struggling with the sovereignty situation.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:03 am

Richard28 wrote:
So this morning Boris Johnson, in his quest for power, is claiming that "A no-deal Brexit is closest to what Brits voted for"


At the same time 209 MPs write to the PM urging her to rule out a "no deal" Brexit. Unlike some here, they understand the impact and consequences of it.

A3801000 wrote:
And those new blue passports will be produced where? Exactly, in the EU in France IIRC.


Yep, I do enjoy irony.

sabenapilot wrote:
Oh, and maybe they can also program the chip to play 'Ode of Joy' upon opening the passport..


Now that would be funny!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:32 am

sabenapilot wrote:
Oh, please, A101, not the purely academic discussion about in whose hands sovereignty truly lies again.
As you know perfectly well, because of the UK's membership of the EU, certain decision making powers are indeed DELEGATED from Westminster to the EP (where the UK has MEPs) and/or the EU Council (where the British PM has (well: had) a vote), all of which under the powers of an Act of Parliament from the early 1970s, which -as you have been demonstrated in 2016- can be recalled by any newly elected British Parliament by a simple vote at any time of its liking, exactly as is foreseen in article 50 of the Treaty of the EU.
.


Yes that's right it was a sovereign act by parliament after negotiations to merge with the EEC, but unlike then there was no referendum if the UK populace agreed with the decision to commence accession of judicial power to the EC in 72, they were not given a choice until 75 after the horse had already bolted., then like now opinion was divided but the remain vote got up with a majority. Unlike then now the minority did not like the outcome and seek a second referendum to overturn the first.
Just like then as it was in the 2016 referendum it was a simple question
1975 "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
2016 " Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? "



sabenapilot wrote:
As a brain teaser for you: if you are so worried about British sovereignty being eroded via supranational organizations which take decisions by delegation, I'd urge you to also roll out a red tank and tour the country with it!
Britain is a member of NATO, meaning that under article 5 of the treaty establishing this supranational organization, Britain automatically goes to war whenever one of the other 28 member states is attacked by a third country!
Indeed, Britain goes to war even if not directly attacked and without any meaningful vote in today's Parliament, based solely on a treaty containing this promise, voted for by a previous Parliament which no longer sits…
Remember Britain has been dragged into 2 very bloody and devastating WWs in the past century alone, based solely on international alliances and previous commitments it had made to others, so in a world like we live in today, I'd be far more worried about being dragged into yet another war on our continent which would risk costing the lives of tens of thousands of young people in my country, than I'd be about having to drive around with a standardized European drivers license showing the EU flag on it or hand over my passport at US immigration officers showing EUROPEAN UNION above the words UNITED KINGDOM OF BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND for instance if I were to be so pre-occupied with the pureness of British sovereignty as you seemingly are, but to each his priorities of course...
.


If you want to compare a defence alliance with a union that infringes UK sovereignty to make national laws in its self interest you can, and yes the UK can also leave NATO if its so desires under Article 13.

"After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation."
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:42 am

Again the EU does not infringe national sovereignty, the the EU memberships delegate some decisions to the EU and agree to follow this decision, that is a sovereign decision by each state. Neither does the EU make laws in its self interest - how could it as the EU has no self interest, it is the combined interest of the member states and every organ of the EU is elected or made up by representatives of the member states.
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:42 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
Was anything in that not factual?


Let's hear your answers to the questions.

See sabenapilot and seahawk's responses and let us know if you're still struggling with the sovereignty situation.


yeah right struggle to tell the difference between able to make national laws without the influence of an outside party, and ECJ which can overrule Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
 
A101
Posts: 1017
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:50 am

seahawk wrote:
A101 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Well, you didn't answer the questions and this is not your opinion, is it?

But nice copy & paste work.



Was anything in that not factual?


The basic fact that parliament is also free to delegate responsibilities to EU and free to subject the country to the ruling of the EU courts. It is a sovereign decision to work with others, especially as Article 50 means you can always reverse course, but at no point did the UK give up sovereignty, as it made the sovereign decision to delegate some parts to the EU.


Yes and its a simple fact that the referendum voted to withdraw from the EU to give back full sovereignty of the laws without influence or legal jurisdiction other than the UK.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:56 am

You mean the voters participating in a non-binding referendum voted with a small majority for a decision to change the current relationship between the EU and the UK. Which might mean a complete cut and no EU influence on laws or maybe a close partnership with the EU fully integrated into the common market with the EU still influencing some sections of the law.

But then you must be for a second referendum, as the vote should be even clearer now, as voters can now express that they absolutely positively wish to cut all connections to the EU and would not have to fear future influence of the EU in the form a soft Brexit. The majority should overwhelming and certain.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:57 am

A101 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
A101 wrote:


Was anything in that not factual?


The basic fact that parliament is also free to delegate responsibilities to EU and free to subject the country to the ruling of the EU courts. It is a sovereign decision to work with others, especially as Article 50 means you can always reverse course, but at no point did the UK give up sovereignty, as it made the sovereign decision to delegate some parts to the EU.


Yes and its a simple fact that the referendum voted to withdraw from the EU to give back full sovereignty of the laws without influence or legal jurisdiction other than the UK.


Aside of the EHRC, the ICJ, ICC, the WTO panel and Appellate Body, ITLOS and probably a few I forgot you mean....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:59 am

A101 wrote:
Yes that's right it was a sovereign act by parliament after negotiations to merge with the EEC, but unlike then there was no referendum if the UK populace agreed with the decision to commence accession of judicial power to the EC in 72, they were not given a choice until 75 after the horse had already bolted., then like now opinion was divided but the remain vote got up with a majority. Unlike then now the minority did not like the outcome and seek a second referendum to overturn the first.
Just like then as it was in the 2016 referendum it was a simple question
1975 "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"
2016 " Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"


In other words: you come and go as you wish…
No sovereignty is ever transferred in either direction as you do come and go (and possibly come againà: you just have to abide by the rules of the club while in it.


A101 wrote:
If you want to compare a defence alliance with a union that infringes UK sovereignty to make national laws in its self interest you can, and yes the UK can also leave NATO if its so desires under Article 13.


Indeed, NATO can be left, just like one can leave the EU: my point is you better leave it too then, if absolute sovereignty is so important to you, because clearly you have no clue as to the full extent to which the UK is tangled up in NATO, to the point that many of the laws enacted by Parliament and decisions taken by your government regarding your defense are merely rubber stamping previously agreed NATO decisions, very similar to how they did it until the EC became the EU which is the moment the ridicule rubber stamping method by national parliaments was done away with, and which is still in force at NATO.

Or do you mean to say the legal obligation to go to war against anybody actually attacking say Latvia is just small bear to you??? Basically, to put at tabloid levels of understanding: there's a pre-signed declaration of war from the UK resting in a volt somewhere in Brussels, with only the name of the enemy country to be filled in by the Norwegian NATO Secretary-General, and off goes the RAF and the Royal Navy, including its nuclear warheads!
At least the French got out of that... :stirthepot:
 
Boeing74741R
Posts: 1096
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:23 pm

Meanwhile, Theresa May again mentions the prospect of there being no Brexit at all if her deal is rejected in Parliament. If, as expected, the deal is rejected by Parliament, I do hope no Brexit is a reality instead of no deal, particularly considering the amendment passed before Christmas about Parliament being able to take control of the next steps if the current deal is rejected...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46772601
 
LJ
Posts: 4771
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:49 pm

A3801000 wrote:
Somebody in the UK had the greatest idea ever: Let's simulate how a traffic jam of lorries will look like after March 29th.
They rented like 140 lorries and today is the day.
It's hilarious:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1082 ... 76928.html


To be honest, I think it's a good idea. Visualizing the chaos may not convince the hard core Brexiteer, but some less hard core may be start thinking. It will be interesting what others "tests" May has organised before the vote.

BTW it's also good business for the UK haulers as they probably got a good hourly rate for this exercise. Moreover, it's good to see that Manston has a new function.
 
A3801000
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 4: Until the last Tory Standing

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:29 pm

LJ wrote:
A3801000 wrote:
Somebody in the UK had the greatest idea ever: Let's simulate how a traffic jam of lorries will look like after March 29th.
They rented like 140 lorries and today is the day.
It's hilarious:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1082 ... 76928.html


To be honest, I think it's a good idea. Visualizing the chaos may not convince the hard core Brexiteer, but some less hard core may be start thinking. It will be interesting what others "tests" May has organised before the vote.

BTW it's also good business for the UK haulers as they probably got a good hourly rate for this exercise. Moreover, it's good to see that Manston has a new function.


they used 60 lorries, expected are around 6000

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bennator, T18 and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos