rockingrobin

10 minutes ago, i claudius said:

More problems for the EU Macron is showing his true left wing side ,he wants to take over hotels to put up all the economic migrants(sorry children and refugees)  in France , how about putting up your own homeless first?

To be fair, he also is proposing to set up bases in Libya to process asylum cases

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

I consider all my points as valid otherwise I wouldn't have bothered writing them down. There has never been a decent counter argument from anyone on this site to dispute these. Which ones are not true? Regarding change from within, well I refer to that when I mention the EU's historical reluctance to reform.

What you fail to address is the European Union Act 2011, which clearly states that EU law is only permissable in UK domestic law whilst parliament permits, (as evidenced by the current repeal bill going through parliament ).

Also the Act ensures that any transfer of powers from UK to EU requires a referendum 

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I guess that makes be an outlier (or maybe an outright liar) as I am 63!

 

Closer correlation iswith educational attainment.

One analysis I read , correlated areas that voted leave with China Import shock

13 hours ago, nong38 said:

As has been said many times before the reciprical agreement is a red herring, how some of these red herrings happened is a mystery to me and many others no doubt.

All that needs to change to up grade the pensions is to amend clause 20 of the Pensions bill, everytime it is brought up for debate it is talked out of time.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will address the issue just like the students fees and debts etc, promises that were never promises easily mentioned in the heat of debate only to be rolled out later as ambition not a promise, now you understand.

Labour have tabled EDM 159, requesting that the uprating regulations be revoked

12 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

You also fail to see that, just as in Thailand, Poland's slanted judiciary needs an external reset, because it won't do it itself. But never mind.

I will point you towards to Turkey , and the actions carried out by Erdogan to quash a corruption enquiry

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/world/europe/turkey-prosecutors-in-corruption-inquiry-reassigned.html

1 hour ago, terryw said:

The EU need our money to meet their budget commitments. EU citizens rights, the Irish border etc. are minor problems. 

 

We plan to leave in March 2019, but the current EU budget period continues into 2020. A simple solution could be that we get a trade deal if we pay into their budget for an extra year. However, the problem is that the EU has never liked simple solutions.

I understand the Irish are refusing a land border , and talking about a border at sea

42 minutes ago, jimmybkk said:

Actually those who voted "Leave" only "got" what they were allowed to place a vote for in the referendum, namely "Leave" or "Stay", and what you seem to be in denial of is that they were misled by their PM. Voters weren't given any options regarding who they would like to lead the country through either a leave or remain outcome and, because voters were publicly deceived by statements made by Cameron, they did not think it an important point. After all, the political leader of the country, a person who many had voted for and the person who had instigated the referendum, had already told them that: “Our aim to set forward a choice for the British people that they want. And they can either choose to stay in a reformed European Union, or to leave a European Union. And, come what may, I will continue to lead the government in the way I have.”. (The words of David Cameron before the referendum.)

You keep admonishing anyone who dares to throw the blame towards Cameron whilst you throw the blame at those who voted to leave the EU with a somewhat smug: "You got what you deserve" attitude, all the whilst avoiding the fact that Cameron blatantly misled the nation, and that Cameron's deception influenced the way people voted. There's that whole cause and effect thing raising its head again...

 

Would you care to answer why you feel the way you feel? And please don't use the current state of affairs as part of your reasoning, because the current state of affairs is all down to Cameron's deception. Why is it that you feel so strongly that remaining in the EU was the right thing to do and that the person who gave the people of the UK the choice to remain or leave should not be held accountable in any way shape or form for the events that are now transpiring as a direct result of his actions? Are you, like Grouse, an expat living in an EU country worried about their own post-Brexit status in that country? If so, then why post on a Thailand forum?

 

Also, why would you be so opposed to following the outcome of a democratically held referendum? Do you not think that the UK should follow the wishes of the majority, i.e. you would prefer a system that is less democratic provided the outcome of referendums like this meet the goals of our own personal agenda?

Apologies for butting in here, I would like to comment

Firstly I am not going to state an opinion on the merits of Brexit or Remain , but focus on D.Cameron and the role of MPs

As I see it , an MPs duties is to do what he thinks is in the best interests of the nation as an whole , whilst representing all is constituents , those who voted for and those who voted against.

If D.Cameron believed that the nations best interests lie in staying in the EU , then it seems to me untenable , considering that as leader he would be responsible for making major decisions , that he should lead a government on a path towards Brexit whilst in his opinion these decisions would be detrimental to the nation. 

As for his statements during the campaign , people have to recognise that this is the theatre of politics, to come out and declare he would resign if he lost would be seen as political weakness and undermine his remain campaign

11 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

But the judiciary does Prayuth's bidding anyway. And the judiciary in Poland favours the old regime. Like I said, impartiality issues already exist.

Please expand, I fail to see how ministers having the ability to fire judges with impunity provides that impartiality, or the right of its citizens to a fair trial by an independent judge

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

You can look at it any way you want, but the Polish judiciary is currently self-perpetuating and is in the hands of cronies of the old regime. The current government is trying to address this problem.

Its nonsense

What it is about is rule of law and seperation of powers.

The judiciary needs to be seperate from the executive and legislative branch of government as it is supposed to hold them to account. The essence of this independence is impartiality and free from external interference

Such independence is re iterated in the right to a fair trial. 

9 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Which is currently controlled by cronies of the old regime.

So you would have to include the current president of Poland and elected MPs

25 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, I'm not demonstrating my ignorance. The judiciary was put in place by the post soviet regime. It's populated by and perpetuated by cronies of that regime. The current government is trying to break that perpetuation.

The Judiciary is put in via the NCJ , under the articles 186,187 of the 1997 constitution

23 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

And again, if you went beyond the headlines you would discover that the 'third power' in Poland is no such thing, and is mostly cronies of the old order, of which Donald Tusk is a member, and which the EU supports. The current government wants to redress this imbalance, and the EU is interfering in Poland's sovereignty to try and bully it into keeping the status quo.

Khun Han , you are demonstating your ignorance on the subject

The polish government is trying to subjugate the independent judiciary, thus ministers will be able to fire and hire judges at their whim with impunity. Thus a judges career will depend upon how much favour they can cohort from ministers

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its clear there was an agreement in principle.. just like stated in the article.. and the reds got back on their word. What part of agree in principle don't you understand.. nothing about dissolution only about election. They came back on their word after their nr 1 leader (guess who) decided that this was not in his interest he needed violence and martyrs. 

An agreement in principle is not really an agreement , but a stepping stone to an agreement , it is merely an expression of intent , and cannot be considered an agreement untill all details have been finalised.

An article that goes into more detail about free movement of horses, and Brexit implications

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86363

16 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Then that depends on where the buck stops.  In other words whether the highest court is in the UK or within the EU as it is now.  Personally I like the system as it is now but many will not.

Treaties are international instruments and unless specifically brought into UK domestic law (akin 1972 EC act) are outside domestic court remit

39 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I think this is a fair point as long as the Brits living in EU countries live by EU laws.  I imagine the concern is that Britain could change the law concerning foreigners rights at any time as they can (and do) with other foreign nationals.  However that would be checked by the EU being able to change the law concerning Brits rights in Europe.

According to Davis the rights will be backed up by a treaty, the question will be who has jurisdction on future intepretation when a dispute arises , and how does an individual exercise their legal rights enshrined in a treaty

20 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Exactly!

 

The UK has few (any?) legal obligations after it leaves - and so both the UK and  EU rely on getting the best deal possible in the circumstances, to minimise the damage to both sides.

 

And yet the topic headline is the French finance minister saying 'we want our money back'.....  As if the UK hasn't already been a main contributor towards the EU.....

The UK have already acknowledged that obligations exist

37 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I wrote morally maybe, not non. Legally non

 

The commitments that have been made last a year after the leave date, as i understand it. I am sure once the EU quantifies its demands the UK will agree to some payment, but some of the amounts being stated in the press are ridiculous. 

If the treaties are the agreements in law , how can they be non legal

4 minutes ago, chrissables said:

In that case we have no legal requirement to pay anything, moral, maybe.

I am having difficulty understanding this

The UK have made future commitments via the treaties in good faith, but have no moral duty to fulfill them ?

6 minutes ago, chrissables said:

I wrote wrong, i meant the EU wants us to agree up front before negotiations.

 

I am sure the EU will fight and try to find someway to force payment. But as there is no agreement in law, i can't see how. We are following the laws as were when we signed the Lisbon treaty.

The treaties are the agreement in law

46 minutes ago, chrissables said:

We are not, at present doing a runner. I hope the EU can quantify the financial demands and we reach an amicable agreement. But this crazy pay up before we negotiate stance is not helping.

The international reaction to UK not paying a bill it legally does not have to pay? Who would care? If the EU with all it's resources and civil servants could not write a contract that accounts for future obligations, they obviously aren't qualified for the job. 

It as not been ascertained that there is no legal liaility for the UK

Since Art 50 does not mention the obligations/commitments, then does not Art 70 of the Vienna Convention apply

The EU is not asking the UK to pay up front before negotiatons, it is requesting that the method to ascertain the liabilities to be finalised before proceeding

2 hours ago, chrissables said:

Have a read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/britain-will-not-have-pay-penny-leave-european-union-say-peers/

The article emphasis is on the UK doing a runner , because the enforceability of any such outstanding obligations will be dependant upon the international reaction 

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Certainly it was not clear to most. The EEC was put simply as a common market and I would guess that you know that.

 

No internet and most people would not watch this stuff even if they had a TV. Few people chose to heed Powell after the 1968 blood speech. 

 

Why keep up this facade, 

The government in 1975 sent a leaflet to every home ,

There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.

And on sovereignty

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense.

21 minutes ago, chrissables said:

We are leaving following the rules of article 50. Those rules state we can legally walk away without owing anything, or we can agree to pay an amount negotiated. We actually don't have to do so, and until the EU can quantify amounts asked for i see no reason to pay.

Please explain , because I dont see where it states that any obligations become defunct

10 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Please explain.

Art 50 states that the treaties shall cease to apply

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html