.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
2 minutes ago, jpinx said:
What is your point?
Parliament is presented with a fait accompli , no commitment to a full Act of Parliament to approve the final deal
-
2 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Since when is a vote by MP's not binding? Still clutching at straws are you? And no reply to my comment to you in the other thread?
This link may provide some guidance
https://secondreading.uk/brexit/brexit-and-parliament-deal-or-no-deal/
-
54 minutes ago, jpinx said:
This is true -- it is going to be interesting to see how wide the compass of the ruling will be, either way it goes. One can not escape the fact that Art50 - of itself - is merely a "notice to quit", and prompts the start of negotiations. The result of the negotiations will require a debate and vote before becoming UK law, so it's been difficult to see how the high court could rule against RP being used in the first place. But given the highly politicised nature of the action - who knows what way it'll go.
The parliamentary debate and vote on final agreement will be via s20 of CRAG, which is not binding
-
46 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Art50 in itself does nothing. It is a "Notice to Quit". No rights will be gained or lost. That comes later when the terms of brexit are laid before parliament. All clear now? :)
The effect of giving art 50 notice on relevant rights is direct , even though art 50 process will take time. At the end of the process the UK will not be an EU member or subject to the treaties.
The gov in negotiating a withdrawal agreement will pick and choose which EU rights to preserve or lose, the effect of art 50 on rights is direct.
Parliament will be constrained in the knowledge that the effect of not ratifying the final agreement , however inadequate parliament believe it to be ,will result in the loss of all rights
-
15 minutes ago, jpinx said:
You're just confused. Art50 does nothing other than start the negotiations, it does NOT actually change anything in UK law -- *THAT* requires an act of parliament.
On the contrary I am not confused
RP cannot be used to frustrate the will of Parliament, it was parliament who enacted 1972 ECA ,in doing so its will was to give citizens the rights which have flowed since. In invoking Art 50 it is not within parliaments gift to keep some of these rights, they will be lost.
-
Just now, jpinx said:
Art50 is a foreigns affairs matter, concerning a treaty with a foreign entity. The bill of rights does not apply to Art50, but might come into play later when the subsequent acts of parliament are being debated and voted on.
I repeat - the UK has no written constitution.
Art 50 inevitably leads to a loss of rights, what might happen or not happen in the future is not an answer. As I mentioned once parliament enacted the treaty into domestic law it fettered the RP in relation to that treaty.
-
-
29 minutes ago, jpinx said:
UK does not have a written constitution. The PM clearly stated that the result of the referendum was going to be enacted. This has been done previously by RP. The RP allows for foreign treaties to be made or broken. The act of parliament that would enact the RP will come after the "deal" - or lack of it - is agreed and placed before the 2 houses for debate and a vote.
Incorrect , UK constitution is based on a mixture of case law and written acts such as Bill of Rights.
The RP can be used in foreign affairs because such treaties remain on the international plain and have no standing in the domestic sphere unless parliament wishes to incorporate them.
Art1 Bill of Rights RP cannot be used to alter domestic law. As parliament trumps RP, once parliament incorporates a treaty into domestic law it fetters the RP in relation to that treaty.
-
1 hour ago, jpinx said:
MP's and Lords will vote as they are told to, if push comes to shove. This is the ultimate neutering of the EU's threats of reprisals on UK for leaving, but the Dutch sussed the game very nicely when they said ".... the unspoken, big threat from London is creating a tax paradise in front of the gates of Europe,"
The No Deal option is just walk away and stop paying in. What's to lose?
If the government ministers are correct and nations are lining up to do a FTA , why make threats about becoming a tax haven.
-
12 hours ago, jpinx said:
This makes the method of invocation of Art50 almost irrelevant, since the final deal will get full debates in both houses
Not really, is parliament involved at beginning or end of the process. If the gov. comes back without a deal then there is nothing to debate.
-
1 hour ago, i claudius said:
Actually if i am not mistaken , it was brought in by Maggie Thatcher ,when the only pensioners who lived abroad were very well off ones ,unlike todays ,who cant afford to live in the UK
The 1st pension increase in 1946 was not paid to pensioners abroad
The National Insurance Act 1946 contained a disqualification of benefits payments absent of UK
-
35 minutes ago, thai3 said:
You must be blind then, why should you get the increase every year if you live in the Philippines and not here? the reciprocal tax agreement is just an excuse not to, not a just reason.
Your argument is a false dichotomy.
The UK enters into such agreements not for the sole purpose of pensions uprating.
-
39 minutes ago, evadgib said:
It's really quite simple. None of us were aware of it at the start of our compulsory NI obligation & wouldn't know today if it wasn't for Annette Carson and the advent of social media.
The DWP has to comply with UK law , which prohibits the uprating , the fact that an individual is unaware does not relieve the DWP from its obligations.
-
2 hours ago, i claudius said:
You have a right to the way you feel , good for you , as for getting what you deserve , that's what the"fiddlers" are doing getting what they paid for and good for them , As for what the UK has "done" for you well unless you never paid in to the system and got all the benefits free,everything its "done for you" you paid for in taxes all your working life,you, got nothing for free
and as for a catastrophe happening , yes it would look after you ,you paid in for it all your life , and yes it would house you i am sure .
An attempt to morally justify fraud
If a person claims for something that they are not entitled to for financial gain. It is an individuals choice to commit fraud and in doing so should if caught expect the consequences .
-
10 hours ago, evadgib said:
As a 'frozen' pensioner do you not see how the UK has fiddled you?
No I dont
Pensioners who are not in the UK or a country with reciprocal arrangements have never been entitled to uprating. Some may view this as unjust or unfair, but I fail to see how you can construe this as fiddled when there is no entitlement in the first place
-
4 hours ago, Khun Han said:
This post will only appeal to brexiters, I know. But one thing I've noticed recently is the increasingly aggresssive and shrill posts by remainers in recent days. Their highly selective attempts at presenting a doom and gloom scenario for the UK's economy are becoming almost cartoon-like. Desperate times ahead for remainers, as the UK's economy continues to be a world force, and the rearguard action by the globalists falls on rocky ground.
Apologies Khun Han but I dont understand
' Desperate times ahead for remainers, as the UK's economy continues to be a world force, and the rearguard action by the globalists falls on rocky ground'
If the UK is going to be a global leader in free trade , then are they not globalists ?
-
4 minutes ago, jpinx said:
There will be votes - if only to repeal whatever acts need to be binned, and constructing the new ones to fill any gaps - but basically I agree. The sadness is that what should have been a referendum quickly followed by action, has become mired in these challenges because the instigator didn't have the courage to fulfill his "promises". If Camoron had invoked Art50 the day after the result, we'd be out by now,,,,,,,,
Clause 2 of Art 50
'
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.'
Does this mean the negotiations can be concluded before a final deal is in place
So for example could we say , No customs union, no SM, X- amount for liabilities, we would like to conduct a FTA to be negotated, and a transitional deal of 2 years to enable orderly exit. If the EU agree , would that satisfy clause 2 and UK withdrawal complete
-
11 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Obviously. But what happens is that the deal has to be amended to suit what the MP's want. Has to be said that the deal will be discussed at length prior to any vote, so that there's little chance of sending the negotiators back to brussels with their tails between their legs.
A parliamentary vote is not a given and T May in Decembers Liaison committee meeting would not commit to a vote in parliament.
If the RP is the correct route, then there is no necessity for parliament involvement. The gov. could simply leave the deal on the international plane
-
Does he want to run it like a protection racket, if you cant pay we will not defend you
-
1 hour ago, jpinx said:
Why not?
If parliament disagree with the final deal it cannot maintain the status qou, and has no control of domestic laws in this matter
-
32 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Was the Maastricht treaty not agreed by RP? . Agreeing a treaty is only part of the process anyway, there then has to be laws written to enact the treaty and those are subject to full debate and a vote. Art50 can be treated in the same way, with full debate on the terms of departure as and when they become known.
There is difference between Art 50 and International treaty.
The government can make any treaty it wants , however it has no standing in domestic law until parliament incorporates into the domestic sphere if parliament wishes.
If parliament dont incorporate a treaty into the domestic sphere , there is no change to domestic laws, the status quo remains. This cant be said for Art 50
-
17 hours ago, 7by7 said:
Correct; but it can be, and has been, used to make, amend or break international treaties, such as membership of international organisations such as the EU.
When the UK joined the EC back in 1972, Heath used the Royal Prerogative to sign the treaty. However, an Act of Parliament, the European Communities Act 1972, was required to bring the UK's domestic laws etc. into line with it's treaty obligations.
The same has happened since; the government have agreed to various EU regulations with the other member states, but an Act of Parliament has been required to bring those agreements into UK law.
For example the Maastricht Treaty. Major used the Royal Prerogative to sign the treaty, but it needed an Act of Parliament, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, to bring the provisions of that treaty into UK law.
There is no constitutional reason why the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to break the UK's treaties with the EU by triggering Article 50. Once an agreement has been reached with the other 27, an Act of Parliament would be required to repeal or amend those UK domestic laws which have derived from our membership of the EU so that they meet the requirements of any agreement reached.
For more on this, see Thomas Fairclough: Article 50 and the Royal Prerogative
Of course, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with this, we will find out when they give their judgement.
The article from Thomas Fairclough centers on the 1972 ECA , and the opinion that Parliament have not actually given any domestic law rights. However he does not address the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002.
Treatise are not self executing , they have no standing in domestic law unless parliament wishes it so. A question , when Parliament chooses to bring a treaty into domestic law , do they not fetter the RP in relation to such treaties in a similar fashion to how the fixed term parliament act has eliminated the RP to dissolve parliament.
The RP has wide powers to operate on the international plane because it doesnt have the right to make or deprive laws in the domestic sphere.Art 50 cannot be said to operate within the normal relationship between RP international treaties and parliament. If parliament wishes a treaty should not be incorporated into domestic law , then the status quo remains , no laws are changed. The use of RP to invoke art 50 pre-empts parliament. The wishes of parliament become frustrated, and its options constrained by RP. Domestic laws are changed irrespective of what parliament thinks and cannot be considered as sovereign.
-
22 minutes ago, SheungWan said:
The 'obvious intent of parliament' is a fake pass but 3/10 for effort.
11 minutes ago, jpinx said:So - how does one "measure" the intent?
Parliament was told the referendum was advisory.
Parliament is sovereign and trumps RP, statutes enacted by parliament cannot be set aside other than by parliament or acting on their wishes.
When enacting 1972 ECA parliament introduced a constitutional statute, and as such as to be repealed by express language
-
1 hour ago, 7by7 said:
Did you read the article I linked to?
It's author, Thomas Fairclough, would disagree with you; and, with respect, I suspect he knows far more about these matters than you and I. Certainly me.
As for the 'clear intention of Parliament,' from the comments on the article by another highly qualified and respected lawyer; Michael Wilkinson
In short, the clear intention of Parliament was to leave the decision up to the electorate.
Of course, as you can see from the comments, and other articles by equally eminent lawyers, not everyone agrees.
So, as I said, we will have to await the judgement of the Supreme Court.
Whilst the referendum act was going through parliament, D Liddington expressly stated the referendum was advisory , when debating an amendment to propose the action to be taken after.
May ready for tough talks over Brexit
in World News
Posted
I fail to see the comparison.
If the UK parliament does not ratify any EU laws, then nothing changes in the UKs domestic sphere, the status quo remains. The same cannot be said for Art 50, if UK parliament rejects the final deal , the treaties and subsequent domestic law, changes in UK