.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
On 11/11/2016 at 6:14 AM, rockingrobin said:
Can you please explain how the court case is going to nullify the referendum result.
On 11/11/2016 at 6:51 AM, dick dasterdly said:My actual words were " Instead, a wealthy person (with a lot of backing from others who hate the referendum result) brought a court case in an attempt to nullify the referendum result..... "
As far as I can make out, its still 'all up in the air'. Did the Court decision mean that Article 50 cannot be invoked without a parliamentary vote? If this is the case and MPs vote against invoking Article 50, then its nullified the referendum vote.
But this is likely to result in an General Election, which would be interesting - but cause more chaos.
Or does it mean that MPs must vote on whether or not to accept the final agreement (at most 2 years after Article 50 has been invoked)?
I was curious because one of the claimants voted leave in the referendum
-
1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:
Arron Banks commissioned a poll which suggested that 25% of people who intended to vote remain would vote leave if Turkey became a member
8 minutes ago, Grouse said:A mentor once suggested I solve a particular problem thus: "offer them every assistance short of actual help".
Fools don't understand diplomacy or cross cultural skills!
There was NEVER a chance that Turkey would be allowed to join the EU.
If the Turks thought otherwise, it's a result of great diplomatic skills.
Too subtle for numpties!
Yet it is the remain accused of scaremongering
-
1 hour ago, Donutz said:
Why would any sensable person even mention Turkey in athe Brexit debate? Cameron's (complete) quote is simply the truth and even pro EU, pro extending the union supporters will acknowledge that Turkey has only been moving away from the EU in the last years, drifting it away further then ever to meet the required demands for membership. Even visa free travel to the Schengen area became more unlikely due to the mess happening in Turkey right now that goes against everything Europe stands for.
The EU has many plans down the road but making any of those happen is often a tedious task, getting all memberstates to come to an agreement often isn't easy. Hell, I'm following the talks of updated Schengen visa rules and that is already taking a couple of years now since various members want entirely different things and simply find it hard to come up with the 'least worst' consensus which they all can live with. So things lke an EU Army are even further away from seeing the day of light.
Arron Banks commissioned a poll which suggested that 25% of people who intended to vote remain would vote leave if Turkey became a member
-
1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:
Presumably the same is going to happen in the US?
The violence shown by those who hate Trump towards Trump supporters has proven that the unintelligent "numpties" are not confined to one side, and I've no doubt the same applies in the UK.
Credit to UK voters though as they haven't shown the same propensity to demonstrate/riot and whilst doing so attack those who voted the other way.
Instead, a wealthy person (with a lot of backing from others who hate the referendum result) brought a court case in an attempt to nullify the referendum result.....
Can you please explain how the court case is going to nullify the referendum result.
-
1
-
-
-
At some point in time the UK and EU will reach an agreement and this no doubt form a treaty. The question is who will have judicial oversight if or when a dispute over its interpretation occurs.Since the treaty involves EU will it fall with the ECJ or International Court
-
25 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said May 22 it would be decades before Turkey could possibly join the EU, saying that it might happen in the year 3000 on current progress.
and reported in FT
10 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:Look at post 319. The whole point is he lied like many politicians do.
On the issue of Turkey he didnt lie
The point is Leave made an issue of Turkeys EU membership whilst they themselves did not object to Turkey becoming a member
-
17 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Here is another link. How many do you need? The main point Lies. Which you keep going on and on about. Yes all politicians lie.
'Cameron said in May that Turkey would not become an EU member state “until the year 3000” – a statement which shocked some observers in the country.'
https://www.rt.com/uk/347761-turkey-cameron-eu-referendum/
British Prime Minister David Cameron said May 22 it would be decades before Turkey could possibly join the EU, saying that it might happen in the year 3000 on current progress.
and reported in FT
-
9 minutes ago, oilinki said:
So Boris the great is offering, once again, promises he can't possibly keep.
Typical Boris.
6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:Desperate to strike a trade deal, maybe he will offer his Turkish brethren with free passage to the UK while the EU retains its controls? That would be ironic.
Daniel Hannan MEP (eurosceptic) wants to keep free movement of people
-
13 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
The quoted text says that Turkey wants to join the EU and it looks like they will be accepted. David Cameron as listed below clearly stated in his campaign that would never happen until the year 3000.
David Cameron did not say that, he said at the current rate of Turkeys improvement it will be in 3000
If Turkey is accepted into the EU it will be with the blessing of a Brexit government, unless the UK have left by the time of Turkeys membership approval
-
44 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Here is one that Mr. Cameron said that the EU would never allow Turkey in for many years and is not remotely on the cards. Guess that was lies then from todays Times.
Tensions between Turkey and the European Union escalated yesterday as President Erdogan urged Brussels to reach a final decision on the nation’s application for EU membership.
A growing row flared between the two sides as the Turkish leader goaded Europe over its fears of a refugee influx. In return, the European Commission criticised Ankara over freedom of expression and human rights.
Mr Erdogan said that Turkey’s patience had been tested after trying to join the bloc for more than half a century. He attacked those who “shamefully” said that Turkey’s application should be reviewed before urging Brussels to make up its mind. “Get a move on and review it straight away,” he said. “But doeaco.uk/edition/world/angry-erdogan-tells-eu-to-decide-on-membership-tvthps0pp
A prominent leave campaigner is supportive of their bid
It would appear that a Brexit gov wants Turkey to join whilst a remain gov was opposed.
-
On 11/8/2016 at 2:32 AM, jpinx said:
That's a bit rich - given the Remainers lies and misleading forecasts bandied around, sponsored by the government. I smacks of serious sour grapes and hopefully will not muddy the waters any further.
53 minutes ago, sandyf said:It would appear that there are many of the opinion that horse doping should be legalised, the stewards enquiry abolished and every result taken at face value.
Forecasts are dependent upon future actions and interventions
The leave made quantifiable claims , £350m , point based immigration system
-
1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Ireland and the UK have extremely close links and it wasn't that long ago really when they were run by one sovereign. France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Hungary etc etc have never been part of the UK.
France ruled England , norman conquest and England has ruled France.
The UK pooled its Sovereignty with the EU with 1972 ECA
-
1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Look at your history. Ireland was once part of the United Kingdom.
Would you include the former British Empire colonies
-
9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
We will have to disagree on this one jpinx. The Irish/UK situation is slightly different though.
.
Different from what and how
-
43 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
Incidentally, I still (vaguely) remember the original referendum about whether or not to join the Common Market. I've no idea why, as I was too young to vote and wasn't interested in politics!
The main thing I remember is prices increasing shortly thereafter - or perhaps I'm confusing it with the earlier decimalisation of the pound
!
There was no initial referendum to join, the referendum you recall in 1975 was to continue or not , The UK joined the EU in 1972
Gina Miller was the lead claimant , other persons and groups ,some crowdfunded were involved .
The HC case was about who is responsible to trigger Art 50 ,Executive or Parliament, not about the merit of the ref. result
-
11 minutes ago, alanrchase said:
So what is your prediction for the Brexit outcome with a Trump victory. Will it help or hinder a "deal"? Seems the West is navigating into uncharted territory.Trump promised UK first in line for trade deal, possibly end of TIPP,TPP
-
35 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:
However you are chastising previous PM for negotiating treaties
31 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:Yes because the people were not given any option in those treaties or even informed what they were about. The referendum, the PM gave a clear option in or out and campaigned vigorously for in. The people knew exactly what it was. Leave the EU or stay in. Not leave the EU but how and why way and when and with who etc etc. Simply clear in or out. Plus the result would be respected by the government. This has been said over and over again.
And what option will the people be given in the new treaty, and when will they be informed. If we are to believe the PM there will be no running commentary , parliament will get to vote on the final deal.The process is no different from the previous PMs who negotiated the previous treaties, the very act you lambast
-
9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
No because it was a simple in or out. The people were given a choice. Nobody knows what the terms for negotiating out are. Do you not realize that.
However you are chastising previous PM for negotiating treaties
-
2 minutes ago, jpinx said:
You said ...
'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'
Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.
.........but when the PM recently tried to use the Crown Prerogative to enact art50 - clearly a matter of foreign affairs - the courts upheld an appeal against that action.
The issue is not Art 50 itself, but lies with 1972 ECA and parliaments intentions at the time.It was agreed at the court that Art 50 was irrevocable , thus it would inevitable lead to 1972 Act being hollowed out and the loss of rights that followed.The gov claimed foreign affairs lie with the Crown and Parliament on enacting 1972 ECA had not fettered its powers, the court disagreed
-
1 minute ago, jpinx said:
There's a recent court ruling that begs to differ ! ; )
In what way
-
15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:
This is total nonsense
' The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and was also withheld '
If it was the case the UK would be under no obligation to fulfill the treaty.
'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'
Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.
9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:This is true but again the whole treaties that these so called people, who made decisions on our behalf would/should have informed the people what they were. they did not. On your statement alone then the referendum should be accepted, as a clear choice was given in the, in or out and the government will respect the wishes of the majority.
If you disagree then move on. I have explained that these treaties where not given to the people in detail or the consequences for the country.
I did not say the elected representative should slavishly follow what the people want ,they are elected to make the choice on there behalf.
If you truly believe this
'these so called people, who made decisions on our behalf would/should have informed the people what they were. they did not.'
Then you have to agree with the High Court ruling, the only way the people have an opportunity to shape the Brexit future is via their MPs and through parliamentary debate
-
3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and was also withheld. Heath, Major, Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for. At least with the referendum people had a choice. With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice. You may say we could vote them out but was after they were put in place. The EU did this with all of the EU countries and that is why I suggest you read all about the various treaties that has made what the EU is today. We obviously have different affections for the EU but the treaties and what they have done/created for the EU are unquestionable.
This is total nonsense
' The PM at the time signed them yes and the information what is in them was not always disclosed and was also withheld '
If it was the case the UK would be under no obligation to fulfill the treaty.
'With all the treaties put in place the people had no choice'
Under the Crown prerogative the PM agrees treaties on the international plane and parliament creates Acts to bring them into domestic sphere. The people elect representatives to make the decision and choices on their behalf.
-
5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
How does that the kill the argument. Have you read the treaties yet and how they came to be introduced. If not never mind. I enjoyed researching them. It took me more then 10 minutes though.
Read all the links here. Here is a start to some of the EU treaties.
http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/maastricht.htm#1993-1996
But you fail to acknowledge the UK signs them.
!
Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say
in World News
Posted
How will there be a further appeal. The Supreme court cannot be overruled by the ECJ . If the SC verdict is dependent upon interpretation of EU law then its obliged to seek preliminary ruling from ECJ before giving its judgement