.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
19 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Point taken, but it's not entirely clear what is being contested, other than the pecking order of the royal prerogative and the government. The government have sway over the assemblies, when push comes to shove - no?
The RP traditionally cannot be used to alter, repeal or create domestic law, that competence lies with parliament and not government.
If the government possessed such domestic powers then what is the purpose of some 600+ MPs
-
1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:
The supreme court is looking at Scotland, NI, and Wales submissions along with others
17 minutes ago, jpinx said:How did they by-pass the high court? I thought the supreme court was only used when the high court could not sort things out
NI had already been to the High Court, Scotland and others asked SC permission to intervene,
-
10 hours ago, jpinx said:
The supreme court is currently considering the appeal against the high court ruling. They are not looking at Scotland and N.Ireland - that will need a separate action to be raised, and they're running out of time. All parts of UK are represented in Westminster by elected MP's, so doubling up by getting a vote from the assembly would be ridiculous
The supreme court is looking at Scotland, NI, and Wales submissions along with others
-
49 minutes ago, i claudius said:
I have actually heard of two , someone told somebody that a guy they knew knew someone who had heard about it in a bar or so he was told .
Overall, some 7,296 British nationals were accused of fiddling their benefits in 157 countries and regions worldwide with the most common cases involving bogus claims for pension credit, housing benefit and income support.
http://www.chiangraitimes.com/uk-cracks-down-on-expat-pension-benefit-fraud.html?fdx_switcher=true
-
27 minutes ago, Basil B said:
I was thinking of spouse in particular being able to accompany partner while they and/or partner seek employment for 3 months, being able to request further extension of 3 months following interview at job centre who will check they are genuine job seekers (like they would with any person claiming unemployment benefits, but they would not be getting benefits) and would have to prove they sill have adequate fundining.
A route already exists for both non EU and EU spouses in the UK immigration acts. I cannot see the government relaxing the rules for non EU spouses, when they have spent the last 15+ years making life as difficult as possible
-
For information here is the UK double tax agreement
-
12 hours ago, Oxx said:
Curious. Can you think of any reason you've been singled out for special treatment?
There are lots of expat holders of Nationwide accounts (including myself), and this is the first time I've heard of anyone being asked for proof of their UK address.
I do wonder whether this is in any way connected to the closure of Nationwide International.
19 minutes ago, chiang mai said:This has been going on for at least three years with NWI, I was targeted in 2012 and they finally closed my last account (without any resistance from me at all I might add). The issue is tax residency and money laundering, the same problems all the UK high street banks faced a few years ago, HSBC went through their evaluation of non-UK resident customers to see which ones they wanted to keep and that involved a two hour telephone interview with the bank, NWI apparently couldn't be bothered to do the same thing.
The Finance Act 2008 schedule 36 , gave the HMRC wide and powerful powers
-
2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:
Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution.
49 minutes ago, jpinx said:How many ways does this question need to be answered? People voted for Brexit knowing that there are implications for trade, immigration, etc, etc. The majority voted for Brexit and leave it up to Westminster to sort out the details for the best deal available.
The court case is about giving UK sovereignty over the final deal negotiated .
Without a definitive ruling on revocability, then we are left with except the deal or leave without any deal. Whereas the opposite would offer the choice of accepting new deal, remain or leave with nothing.
Now I personally think Art50 is reversable, however the gov. position is Art 50 irrevocable ,
-
1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:
Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution.
3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:David Cameron tried to negotiate before the referendum and basically was told get stuffed. The EU has repeatedly told the UK that it will not be favourable and will do its best to make sure the UK gets a poor deal. If there was another referendum, which there will not be, the margin would be even greater than before, as the constant lies peddled by the remain on the economy have proven to be unfounded. Also the way the EU have behaved as made people realize why on earth we didn't get out sooner. Why don't you just accept the result.
I take that as no
-
1 minute ago, jpinx said:
Whilst the Article does not specify the terms, the author has stated publicly the terms, so why go to the cost of a pointless court case now if the result is already known.
The public might do many things, but the reality is that the polls did not change markedly prior to, or after the referendum. Unless we abandon the UK system and go for government by referendum, it has to be allowed to stand.
I dont follow the government by referendum, it would appear to me you would decline the public a vote on the final deal negotiated , somehow the will of the people at this point is inconsequtional.
Under what International law can Art 50 be unilaterally revoked
-
17 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Maybe in Ireland's constitution, but not in UK's.
There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated.
The Irish constitution was a reply to another poster on why a second referendum was held in Ireland.
Do I take it the ideology of leaving is more important than any consequences,
' There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated '
-
7 minutes ago, jpinx said:
It's another delaying/complicating tactic. The writer of Article 50 has already stated that it is NOT irrevocable, it is lodged by a country and can be taken back, there is no need to go to court to find that out. The Irish court's involvement is incidental - maybe because they need to go through a national court to get at the European Court, but who knows. All they want is as many tripwires as possible. Here's hoping TM will treat this sideshow with the contempt it deserves.
The Art 50 author also claimed it was never meant to be used, the Art50 is silent on the issue of revocability and its terms. It is prudent to get a definite answer now rather than at the end of the process.
Can you please explain how it is a delaying/complicating factor or a tripwire.
The UK referendum result is fixed in time, however public opinion is not.The public may have a different outlook in 2 years
-
42 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Another waste of Money. What on earth has Irelands judicial and court system got to do with the UK. I wish everyone would just accept the majority of the UK's peoples wishes and butt out of it. Just because Ireland had two referendums because the EU didn't like the Irish decision does not mean the UK will put up with it.
A total waste of time effort and money.
Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution.
-
10 minutes ago, localczar said:
yeah ok, there are laws, standards, rules, etc in TH....but are rarely enforced, so the tax law is meaningless and is not worth the paper its written on.
It would surely depend upon any double taxation agreements in operation
-
2 hours ago, dutchinlondon said:
I do know "some:" English living the life in Spain and all over europe. So I guess we send them all back to your lovely island?
31 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:I think you'll find the people you refer to are actually British, not English.
I challenge you - how many of the British people living in Spain, and other EU countries, which is not all Europe, are living on benefits, or receiving benefits and free hand-outs of some kind?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu
-
52 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Yes I agree her stance is softening from previous years and different papers say different things.
As for negotiating good luck with that. There is only one way to get your sovereignty back and that is to leave. if she did get in that would be a politicians way to say well we tried to negotiate with the EU but they won't allow change so we will leave. Sounds a bit like the UK situation.
France membership of the EU is written into the French constitution , thus leave is a bit more problematic
-
9 hours ago, AlexRich said:
True to form, another deliberate misinterpretation of a post.
The point was that a region that has had two massively destructive wars in the 20th Century has managed to get along quite peacefully since then ... as a result of closer economic and cultural ties, and EU membership has helped greatly to create that situation. A dis-united Europe is dangerous ... countries on the edge are more vulnerable to predators like Putin ... he has very good reasons to want to see the meltdown of the EU and a Trump presidency that is anti-NATO. And if he does move on a country we are back to more dangerous times. Brexit won because of immigration concerns, but the implications stretch way beyond these matters. When you align your interests with extremists don't be surprised if it backfires on you.
D Express 2014
The gap between exiting the EU and seeing it completely destroyed and at the economic mercy of Moscow is not one that seems to worry Ukip however
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Actually Grouse some posters on here have claimed the EU is the best thing since sliced bread and leaving it the UK will lose its democratic way.
You have mentioned the EU has faults and that you fee it is better to stay. We have been in the EU for 40 plus years and it hasn't changed. In fact it has become even more bureaucratically controlling and turned into the dictating force it is. Obviously I disagree as the original idea was a decent one but it has morphed into something very different. How many more years do you suggest we work and try and change it from within. Whilst your sentiments are honourable they are unachievable, as the EU has a set agenda and change is not in its vocabulary.
Please enlighten me were I have claimed often that others are arrogant. I have felt that the EU has turned into a united states of Europe, eroding cultures and traditions and penalizing those that don't conform to its ideology. So yes I want out. The sooner the better.
Your post is contradictory,
It hasnt changed in 40 years , on the other hand it was a good idea but it has morphed into a dictating force
-
5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:
So when can I get my democratic vote on the EU council and more important the commission?
I can vote in the general election and vote MPs in or out but the EU commission I can't and yes they are a self serving arrogant boys club.
Then the real question is who in the UK votes for Downing St Chief of Staff
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:
You are making a common mistake, one which, I believe, caused many people to make the wrong decision last June. The EU is not undemocratic.
The EU is governed, it's laws and rules made by:
- the European council, which is made up of each member state's head of government; for the UK that's the Prime Minister,
- the council of ministers; which is made up of ministers from each member state's elected government, and/or
- the European parliament, which is made up of directly elected members from each member state.
The commission, the arrogant bully boys you call them, is akin to the British civil service; it drafts and advises, but does not make decisions.
How the EU works: who runs the EU?
It is not the commission with whom the UK government will have to agree a deal with; it is the council; i.e. the heads of government of the remaining 27.
When the UK joined in 1973, the European Parliament was appointed by each of the member states national parliaments.From 1979 direct elections took place
-
28 minutes ago, nontabury said:
Before last June's referendum the Bank of England's Governor, Mark Carney,Morgan Stanley and the IMF all predicted a catastrophic outcome if the UK voted for Briexit.
Now 6 months down the road they admit they were completely wrong. So When will the Remoaners on this thread also admit they were wrong,or are they still hoping and praying that events turn out bad for their country.
As Phillip Hammond said, forecasts are based on a model, e.g the Treasury assumed Art 50 would be implemented immediately and did not include any mitigating policy measures that may be introduced.
-
1 hour ago, nontabury said:
Correct. In 1973 the British people voted to join the EEC.
The Treaty was signed January 1972,
The ECA bill was forwarded and debated in parliament 1972
January 1973 the UK became a member of the EEC
1975 a referendum held
-
11 minutes ago, nontabury said:
In other words she is wanting to change the EU into something like the previous EEC. This is exactly what the Briexiteers would have preferred. As this is what the British electorate voted for in 1973, not the undemocratic bureaucracy that we now have in Brussels, run by a group of arrogant bully boys.
The British didnt have a vote on the EU in 1973
-
1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:
I have to say Le Penn sums up what the EU is about and the way they are behaving in dealing with Brexit. With this attitude the EU are really putting nails in their own coffins. Quite stupid.
"The Front National leader said: "The way the EU has reacted to Brexit has put paid to the few in Europe who still believe that there is an ounce of democracy in this structure, that is the EU.
"Europe would be showing its true face, as it already has done so in Greece and tried to do with Britain.
"This EU doesn't move forward by consent because it knows its people no longer adhere to this political structure, it advances via threats, intimidation and blackmail."
I agree Le Penn summed it up
' Front National chief Marine Le Pen has said she would not wish to see France leave the European Union straight away if she came to power but instead would seek to negotiate with the bloc in a bid to reinstate French sovereignty. '
May ready for tough talks over Brexit
in World News
Posted
The restriction on the RP to alter domestic law is in the Bill of Rights and a fundamental principle,