.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
Close to the last 'nail' in the concept of democracy
.
The question was clear, the pre-referendum rhetoric was clear (the govt. will abide by your vote), and yet this has been over-turned by the courts.
Great for everyone other than those who actually voted and 'won' the referendum.
No wonder this court decision was reported and then largely ignored in favour of further 'discussions' about what may happen in the future with EU negotiations!
You appear to misunderstand the courts decision .
The court has not ruled on the merit of the referendum or how parliament should vote,
-
3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
So the court ruling means that article 50 cannot be invoked until MPs agree with the decision unless the appeal (against the court decision) prevails?
In a nutshell correct,
-
24 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
Do we have any better idea as to the meaning of the Court's ruling?
Is invoking article 50 dependent on an MPs vote/does the ruling mean that MPs must debate ever negotiation points/or does it mean that an MPs vote is required at the end of the negotiations?
If the Court ruling means that invoking article 50 requires the MPs to vote and approve the move - then surely that should be carried out immediately as I gather the govt. doesn't intend to take the issue to higher courts?
The court ruling required an act of parliament before notification could be given.The appeal to the SC begins on 5th december
-
44 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:
Being a British citizen is not the sole criteria for UK voting , commonwealth and Irish republican citizens can also qualify
28 minutes ago, Richard W said:Technically, commonwealth and Irish citizens aren't foreigners!
Does that include , Indians, malaysians, Botswana,Cameroon, Nigerians
-
11 minutes ago, nontabury said:
I accept that if they are residents,they are not entittled to vote, the point I was trying to put across( and not very well) , is that if they are granted residency,then they will soon be eligible for British citizenship, and therefore be able to vote and influence the direction of the country,for good or for bad.
Maybe that is one of the reasons, why the last Cons/lib government increased the residency from 3yrs to 5yrs before foregners could be granted citizenship.
Being a British citizen is not the sole criteria for UK voting , commonwealth and Irish republican citizens can also qualify
-
12 hours ago, ukrules said:
Does anyone know how long do you have to stay there to keep the new higher rate before leaving the country 'permanently' again ?
I have not personally looked at the relevant UK legislation , however the following link albeit the info is somewhat old, may give a insight into the process. Go to section 9 moving back to Britain
http://www.britishpensions.org.au/pension-guidelines.htm
-
8 hours ago, jpinx said:
Here we go again - same old "I'm cleverer than you" arguments. Time you became an adult and took responsibility for your place in a democratic society, providing constructive support to enable the will of the people to be enacted. At the moment the hardline remainers are just a deadweight that has to be carried. You say "... Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum...." but your actions speak otherwise. You also say " Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider. " but you carefully reserve the judgement of wisdom to yourself, thereby proving your intransigence. If you accepted the democratic wisdom of the result of the vote - we would not be embroiled in this discussion.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than their public duty to back the government in power during a tricky transition with an awkward set of treaties to unravel. The rights and wrongs are really not interesting -- what *is* interesting is the persistence in the hardline remainers attempts to subvert the course of a democratically selected course of action. You can feel its a wrong course, but it is *the* course, so your choices are simple -- either get on the bike and start pedalling along with everyone else, or get off and walk your own way in some other country whose choices better fit your personal agenda.
It is not the remainers attempting to subvert democracy , it is the government.The vote to leave is accepted and now that process and the new deal needs to be carried out for the UK citizens and nations benefit. It is only through the democratically elected representatives that the public concerns and interests can be heard.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, jpinx said:
As I understand it, the EU can not pass any laws without ratification from *all* members, thus creating a right of veto by any one country. Is this not what a lot of the current posturing is about regarding Brexit -- everyone has to agree? Now - if member countries input was weighted by something like population of GDP or whatever, then Germany France and UK would have been able to run the EU as they wanted, but no -- the EU communists wanted everything to be equal, so now the EU can be held to ransom by its smallest member --- really?
EU laws generally are subject to a voting process and do not require unanimity.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:
You're going there again! After I pointed out that your post was a mis-representation of my post?!
And I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how an anonymous vote was suddenly not anonymous at all - apparently voters didn't only vote, they also declared their educational level.....
They use quota samples and ask
-
37 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
Everyone to their own, but personally I've no doubt that negotiations are happening behind the scenes between those at the top in the EU and UK.
Perhaps more accurately described as 'feeling points' as the Brit. government doesn't know where it wants to go at the moment (bearing in mind it has to answer to the electorate) and the EU doesn't know how elections will go in other EU countries.
' as the Brit. government doesn't know where it wants to go at the moment (bearing in mind it has to answer to the electorate) and the EU doesn't know how elections will go in other EU countries.'
This would appear correct, the UK recently joined another EU institution ,European Unified Patent Court , which is only open to EU members
-
1 hour ago, jpinx said:
I'm sure all this will be resolved in the appeals process. The chances of it getting to the ECJ are pretty slim because of the timescale. It takes quite some time to get a case in front of our lords and masters....
If the SC decision turns on Art 50 notification revocability , then the SC is obligated to seek a preliminary on the matter from the ECJ. Failure to do so could lead to damages claim
-
5 minutes ago, jpinx said:
The Author made his commentary before the HC ruling, so who's got egg on their face(s) now?
The author did not insert any notice withdrawal procedure in Art 50. Both the UK gov and claimant requested the HC to proceed , on the assumption notification irrevocable .
The irrevocability is a matter of EU law and is therefore the ECJ decision
-
3 hours ago, jpinx said:
The author of Art50 has already made it clear that it is not irrevocable.
The ability to unilaterally withdraw the withdrawal notification changes the landscape. It would result in the referendum campaign continuing throughout the negotiating period and with a likely scenario of accept the new deal or maintain status quo put to another referendum or parliament.
The HC ruling was based on Art 50 being irrevocable .
-
4 minutes ago, sandyf said:
Another touch of reality.
“If you join the club and you wish to leave the club, you leave in accordance with the rules when you joined the club," Ms Sharpston added. "The rules of this club are the ones contained in Article 50, and the interpretation of those rules is a matter for this Court (the ECJ).”
The NI appeal is questioning irrevocability of Art 50 , making ECJ referral likely
-
4 hours ago, Khun Han said:
Yes, Mair and his defence chose to be tried on the facts of the case, and chose not to introduce any physical (he's an epilleptic, apparently) or mental illness issues to his defence.
I certainly do know better: I have provided irrefutable evidence of Mair's mental illness. That you choose to ignore that irrefutable evidence, and twist Mair's wish not to be treated as a nut case at his trial into 'proof' that he's not mentally ill, shows just how utterly intellectually dishonest and deceitful remainers are prepared to be for their political cause. Truly disgusting political ambulance chasing. Is it possible for politics get any lower?
Mental illness does not equate to being a nut case
-
10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Apparently for remainers, Mair's unhealthy interest in Anders Breivik doesn't, in retrospect, indicate his state of mind and actions. But remainers are all over the fact that his target was a left wing remain-supporting MP, and this is apparently 'compelling evidence' that brexit turned Mair into a murderer! Astonishing logic (or worse).
No
The issue is he targeted Mrs Cox , and even had a remain pamphlet on him at the time of the murder. Mair researched a number of murders and even the KKK, and since Mair was of the opinion white collaborators are the worst kind of enemy , along with his remarks at the time 'Britain first , ' etc, the evidence is conclusive
-
45 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Of course, Mair's long time fixation with extreme right violence and extermination can just be conveniently ignored, can't it? His interest in the Norwegian far right mass murderer Anders Breivik alone (no connection with brexit there, by the way) proves that he had been 'tipped over the edge' ( to use a bit of Grouse psychobabble) for quite some time. It was just a question of which target he latched onto, and Jo Cox being his local left wing (and very active locally) MP was an obvious one. I suppose we can be thankful for small mercies, in that he didn't go for multiple targets like his role model Breivik.
It's as plain as daylight from all the evidence that Mair was going to kill somebody if he wasn't stopped first. Like I said, remainers trying to taint brexit leave with his actions is deplorable political ambulance chasing which willfully ignores a whole raft of evidence that Mair had, for a very long time, been working himself up to be a political killer.
' It's as plain as daylight from all the evidence that Mair was going to kill somebody if he wasn't stopped first '
What evidence ?
-
15 hours ago, rockingrobin said:
When arrested he claimed to be a political activist.
At his home newspaper articles about Mrs Cox , biography and a quote from her “I believe the patriotic choice is to vote for Britain to remain inside the EU.”
7 hours ago, Khun Han said:And the article you linked confirms what we already know: That Mair is a sad loner with an obsession with foreign right wing extremists, and no connections whatsoever with the brexit leave movement. But remainers continue to attempt to link Mair to brexit leave, however tenuously, in order to discredit and taint bredit leave. It's politics of the gutter and it won't succeed. If anything, it cofirms to brexiters that remain has a strong undercurremt of intellectual dishonesty and underhand tactics: that, basically, remainers can't be trusted.
What you wish to believe is your decision, however for myself I find the evidence compelling that the referendum campaign and Mrs Cox view that Remain was in the UK interest was the reason for her murder .
-
16 hours ago, Grouse said:
OK, I'll play along
The target was an obvious remain supporter, quite outspoken, local and recognisable. Logical
The timing was approaching the referendum. Rhetoric at crescendo. This was the catalyst.
His statements were all "little englander". Britain comes first (to paraphrase)
Why Brexiteers don't go along with this I have no idea
18 minutes ago, Khun Han said:Nothing in your speculation, or in anything he said, that connects his actions to anything in the vote leave campaign.
When arrested he claimed to be a political activist.
At his home newspaper articles about Mrs Cox , biography and a quote from her “I believe the patriotic choice is to vote for Britain to remain inside the EU.”
-
2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Many would disagree with you as Brexit meant Brexit and as I quoted in the article just hurdles that undermine the democratic process. What the EU are offering for the single market 'smacks' the whole point of leaving the EU. Backdoor antics to get the UK to stay in its corrupt stranglehold.
' Brexit means Brexit ' = nothing , it is a vacuous statement .
-
27 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:19 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Yes there are those that just can't abide democracy and like children throwing their dolls out of the pram because they didn't get their own way. Same happening in the US with trumps victory. The remain campaign are resorting to bringing out dinosaurs like John Major and Tony Blair to try and 'champion' the cause. The hilarious thing is these two got the UK in the mess it is in with the EU.
The best part of the article.
"The public have spoken; we should respect the result and get on with it, not try to find new hurdles that undermine the democratic process."
The legal challenge will be about clarification on what happens on Brexit and nothing to do with circumventing the referendum.
The referendum was about leaving the EU , not the single market .The PM recognises this when she states the UK wants maximum access to and operate within the SM
-
-
4 hours ago, Khun Han said:
Why wouldn't you doubt it? The best example she could come up with for the interviewer from Reuters was the one I quoted. Not exactly 'vile abuse', is it? Bit of a drama queen, isn't she?
The constant attacks on Gina Miller by some members of this forum is scurrilous , you may disagree with her opinions or actions but this is no excuse .
The High Court was provided with evidence and at the time took the attacks seriously enough to state that they amounted to contempt of court
-
3 minutes ago, gmac said:
Not that either. I am talking about the EU nationals coming to the UK because they have heard that they can get free handouts from the state not Brits moving the other way. Yes the freedom to move is currently there but other EU countries are not so foolish in giving handouts to every immigrant that arrives with his hands held out for cash.
The Freedom of Movement is conditional and as a directive it is up to the national states to how it is implemented into national laws. If in the Uk it is more generous than the actual directive requirements then that would be as the result of UK parliament
.
Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say
in World News
Posted
You are correct the residing government did state they would implement the vote. However like any manifesto pledge or policy , whilst it may be the government intention , the government still needs to secure its passage through parliament to be implemented