rockingrobin

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I have mentioned this before. if you find it fascinating like I do, read and research on the Lisbon treaty and Maastricht treaty for starters.

The start of the European common market was and is not what it was stated to be.

Then look at the Amsterdam and Nice treaty and this is causing so many problems with immigration.

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/treaties/eu-treaties-treaty-on-european-union-maastricht-treaty-of-nice-lisbon-treaty.html

 

Great and fascinating stuff. Nobody had a referendum on these or a vote. They were ushered in.

I think this kills your argument

'  In the UK, ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and its new provisions on the amendment of the founding Treaties was subject to the requirements of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. 1 The European Union Act 2011, 2 which received Royal Assent on 19 July 2011, provided various additional safeguards to protect the UK from further transfers of power from the UK to the EU, including the possibility of a national referendum on proposed Treaty changes. The EU Treaty amendments that have been adopted since Lisbon came into force have all required an Act of Parliament but have not been deemed to attract a referendum in the UK.'

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06503#fullreport

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is called independent research but I thought it would have been obvious that living in Thailand, there was no bus that I saw with the 350 million pound slogan, that is being refereed to. Once again, I made my mind up way before the referendum voting day. The stranglehold the EU has on the European countries and the dictatorship that they enforce on the countries, eradicating their culture and identity the remain campaign could never have changed my mind.

 

Plus as someone who is very interested in politics, the UK public are not aware the way the many treaties and laws have been put in through the back door, which has in effect saw their sovereignty taken away. The fishing and agriculture industries have, as they have been directly affected by the EU.

How are treaties put through the back door?

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Really. Why don't then all elections get void every time a winner emerges. Lets go even further take it to by- elections. The whole point of the referendum was a simple in or out and the government respect the will (majority) of the people. It has been said countless times. If people can't accept such a basic principle then they should stop all voting, political parties, freedom of speech and just let the EU commission tell the UK and all the other European countries in it, what to do.

Referendums are an individuals opinion. Representation debates and discusses the issue at hand and likely consequences reaching decisions based as a whole .

37 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

' If the government was truly representing the people, there'd be no need for them because the MP's would be reflecting the consensus of his constituents wishes anyway, allowing the normal process of motion, debate, vote, enactment to create the laws we collectively want. '

 

I think Edmund Burke speech in 1774 provides sufficient clarity

'  Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, '

 

'  But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution '

 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

 

 

34 minutes ago, jpinx said:

As applied to the US political system - yes -- but UK is a bit different.  UK can have a referendum which provides an INSTRUCTION to the MP, and which he must follow regardless of his personal opinion, or resign his seat as Cameron did.  If all the Remainer MP's had resigned  there would have been a GE and things would never have become this messy

The speech has no connection to the US

The speech came about after Lord Verney wasnt going to renominate Burke  for the borough of Wendover, however after 2 merchants did nominate Burke , he went to Bristol and delivered his speech

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

Given the history of referendums (dae?) in UK two things are clear -- there's been very few and they've always been held for internal party political reasons.  If the government was truly representing the people, there'd be no need for them because the MP's would be reflecting the consensus of his constituents wishes anyway, allowing the normal process of motion, debate, vote, enactment to create the laws we collectively want. 

 

There's two reasons this does not happen -- one is because the party political system actually stifles the feed of opinion from constituent to MP for all but the constituents who are party stalwarts. Secondly we have a government in Westminster that is subservient to the EU and we can not make the laws we want.

' If the government was truly representing the people, there'd be no need for them because the MP's would be reflecting the consensus of his constituents wishes anyway, allowing the normal process of motion, debate, vote, enactment to create the laws we collectively want. '

I think Edmund Burke speech in 1774 provides sufficient clarity

'  Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, '

'  But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution '

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, so that's how the fix will be done to circumvent the will of the people.

Personally i dont think the result will be overturned.

But I will ask this question, if you were to enter into a contract that consisted of false promises , would you expect to be able to set it aside

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

Which is *not* the electorate 

The European Council is the head of states of each member state, in the case of the UK the PM

44 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Terminology is tricky, but federalism would have been preferable to the mess the EU actually is. A federation of independent countries sharing trade, labour and other advantages but running their own affairs under skinny umbrella of federation.  What we actually got is an indescribable mess of beaurocracy held together by treaties which have no restrictions on the amount of future central governance.  Look to the USA where the resentment of the federal government is widespread and each state has considerable differences - even to the extent of the death penalty.  That could not happen in the EU as it exists today.

 

P.S. --  it'd also make Mr Tusk subject to election -- it'd be funny to see that play out,,,,,  

Mr Tusk was elected by the European Council

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

There is a gap between the intention of the EU free-movement of labour policy, and the reality of what happens.  If the UK rules for benefits were not so wide open to abuse the free-loaders would move out.  Why do you think they come all the way across europe to UK?  They don't stop in Italy or Spain so much because they know UK is a soft touch with a system of benefits that is easy to "play". Whilst border contol is in place, the tendency is to allow folks in with conditions on living and  reporting, but it's so easy to disappear in the ghettos around the country and almost impossible for officials to winkle out ill-intended aliens without bringing on a storm of protest about bias, racism, etc.  There is no easy solution to this and I am very glad to not have the job of sorting it out.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed, to obtain benefits you have to apply and the application processed , if you do not meet the requirements you get no benefits.

29 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I watched it also and thought Farage destroyed her with 'what part of leave did you not understand'. Eloquent is not the term I would use. Self serving arrogance, yes. Either way the more I debate on this outcome, the more I realize that people can speculate and throw so called facts at each other. The truth is nobody knows what will happen in the next few months.

 

We can however say that, what a lot of what was said straight after the referendum has not happened, thankfully. Or we would be living in an apocalyptic financial meltdown with mass unemployment and no food on the shop shelves. 

what part of leave did you not understand'

I have not watched the clip

However the above statement is vacuous in the context of Brexit, it doesnt provide any meaning or substance. What is the desired outcome and where is the journey, are we looking to negotiate a deal before triggering art 50 , as per Leave campaign leaflet, to enter FTA with EU, single market, customs union access, 

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

 

At the risk of wandering off-topic a bit -- I have heard from several different sources that Germany (for one) is looking at the influx of young refugees as a lifeline for their state pension scheme. Hence the unseemly hurry to get them documented and into employment and paying taxes which will pay the aging local population   One wonders where Mrs May's thinking is on this score - given the way the pensions are being eroded at an alarming rate.  The free movement of labour actually can work *for* the UK, not against it, by producing more tax revenues.

The free movement of labour is viewed in the UK as a detriment, the PM has a tendency to address the public's misconceptions as opposed to reality .

The following is a legal perspective of FOM

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html 

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

That is why a short motion to invoke Article 50 is important to get through parliament quickly.  There's no need to discuss terms yet - just get the clock ticking on the process.

What to do if parliament reject the deal negotiated by the government after the 2 year timeframe

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once Parliament votes to implement article 50 whether by itself or by the PM, once it is invoked then the Brexit process is irrevocably under way and in 2 years the UK will be out. Unless the EU and the UK agree to extend the negotiations. So, no, the terms and conditions don't have to be approved by all nor do they have to be approved by Parliament. If no deal is negotiated in   2 years and no extension is granted by the EU, should the UK want one, then the UK is out. It's over.

10 hours ago, elliss said:

 

 Unless ? .  thanks for your valued  comments .

The issue of the Art 50 being irrevocable once triggered is contestable. Note the government response after the HC verdict, it is government policy not to  revoke.

Under international law the right to change your mind exists

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The court's decision at least clarifies the legal process and timetable for Brexit if there was ever any misunderstanding or misrepresentation made by any politician.

Converse to "not a huge majority" was "a huge minority." At least UK voters chose to vote rather than remain silent. Democracy does notextend to  those who avoid participation. Perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to make the referendum binding if legally possible and require a "super majority" for passage.  More clarification might have unfolded for a better informed electorate.

When the 2015 Act was enacted by parliament they possessed the gift to make it binding or abrogate their authority to the government if they so wished.The fact that they did not do this suggests that it was parliaments wish to be involved.

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

 

You know probably better than me how complex it is and how difficult it is to unravel a monster like this.  It'd be easier to get out and re-join with more carefully though-out terms

I have no issue with the UK wanting to extract itself from the EU , but to give some pretense of EU grievance is unfair

I found the following blog quite good 

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-case-for-brexit-lessons-from-1960s-and-1970s

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

A looser federation would have worked, but the politicians and beaurocrats could not stop empire building.  I supported joining the Common Market, but it was never envisaged to morph into the monster it has become.  If the PM and her Brexit team can wind our position back sufficiently to give us our own laws again, that would start to get interesting.  Unfortunately the EU has set it's face against making this a happy divorce and that means hurt on both sides -- very silly and short-sighted of Tusk et al.  They are protecting the empire they have built, when really they should be relaxing and allowing other countries to be less subsumed if they want.  Enforcement of a marriage never makes for happy and productive partners.

It never was intended to be a loose trading bloc, what parts would you say should not have occurred. 

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Churchill’s power, influence and prestige internationally meant that his speeches were taken seriously and widely reported, and he became regarded as a leading figure in the European movement. But he wasn’t, as some have said, a committed ‘European’; he always felt that Britain should not be subsumed within a federal Europe. He always remained a British nationalist....

 

https://www.churchillcentral.com/timeline/stories/the-tragedy-of-europe

I agree, but he did support a federal Europe , maybe the UK joining was a mistake , I dont know , but we should not start claiming ignorance to where it has evolved to today

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Obviously you do not know the various Treaties that the signed behind closed doors that took away the countries ability to feed itself. Took away various industries and created the UK as a service industry. You and everyone else who has voted can you not accepting the majority.

Shall it be a 60 40, 70 30, 80 20 percent. the terms was a simple as a 5 year could understand. out or in. Not out or in with lets make so many conditions. You are embarrassing your self and intellect.

How do treaties become enacted into UK domestic law

6 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No we did not make that ourselves. Look up how the UK and Europe was formed due to the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty. This is the bit many remainers don't understand and I don't think ever will. Many of us who voted out just want out from the corrupt EU. we do not give a <deleted>. The EU is as bad as the Nazis dictating what we can do or can't within a historical time. Sadly many reamainers haven't the nostalgic, patriotism or even sense, to realize that the EU is no difference from a tyranny and control of the European countries of the early 1900s.

Nonsense

The UK entered into treaties fully knowing and supporting the aims and objectives .Churchills Tragedy of Europe speech as an example

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

 

The Supreme Court has not made any decision. The High Court has. Secondly, the High Court's decision has nothing to do with the percentage allocation of the Brexit vote.

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Correct. RockingRobin has kindly been going to great lengths to clarify the court's reasoning in this case.

Personally I think the ECJ will rule notification is reversible, thus allowing RP as no laws will be repealed invoking Art 50.How that will play out politically I dont know

6 hours ago, nong38 said:

A committe of MPs have recommended that the triple lock pension be stopped and to generous and unsustainable, this is on the BBC website under news or business.

They claim that since the introduction of the triple lock pension that came into being in 2010 that the State Pension has risen by £1100 a figure that I certainly dont recognize an increase of £183 per year!

They forgot to mention how theirs has gone up in comparison, strange that.

The figures look correct

http://adviser.royallondon.com/technical-central/rates-and-factors/state-pension/basic-state-pension-rates/

22 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

The subject is brexit-high-court-judges-to-give-legal-verdict and the perspective is from the viewpoint of the ordinary voter.  Does that help?

The High Court verdict was about law not politics.

With regards MPs and their constituents, how are they supposed to know.The vote was to leave the EU, but what are the voters requirements, EFTA, Single market, customs union, WTO, the variables are numerous what will be the consequences with regards other voters and non voters, the vulnerable and minority groups whose voices will  be drowned out by lobbyists and the most vocal and lobbyist.

We have already seen one leave MP resign , evidently wanting to remain in single market.   

51 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Prime Minister May in today's Sunday Telegraph:

 

“Parliament voted to put the decision about our membership of the EU in the hands of the British people. The people made their choice, and did so decisively.

 

“It is the responsibility of the government to get on with the job and to carry out their instruction in full.  MPs and peers who regret the referendum result need to accept what the people decided.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/the-people-have-made-their-democratic-decision-and-a-principle-i/

This seems at odds with the SoS, who derives his authority to give notice under prerogative and not the referendum. Paras 105 onwards 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

50 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Except that in this matter, parliament gave the decision to the people, and made it very clear that the peoples' decision would be carried out.

47 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, Parliament didn't make it clear at all.  They could easily have changed the wording to make it so. No, they chose to leave themselves some wiggle room.  Given the current political situation, they won't have wiggle room enough.I think the odds are overwhelming that the commons will approve it and will override the Lords if they have to.

The Act was silent on the issue as opposed to the 2011 AV Act which was explicit.

However 

Shindler v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2016] EWCA Civ 469, Lord Dyson MR said that “by passing the [European Union Referendum Act 2015] Parliament decided that one of the constitutional requirements that had to be satisfied as a condition of a withdrawal from the EU was a referendum”

32 minutes ago, nontabury said:

  Hillary Benn a prominent Labour front bench M.P has now joined other MP's who voted for Remain, to come out and criticise the ruling of these establishment judges, stateing that ALL the M.P's who voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented. So it would seem that what we have witnessed this week is just another delaying tactic by the Remoaners. Could this be so that they and their supporters both domestic and internationally will have further time to cause havoc on the British economy, in the hope that they can bully and pressurise the British people,as they did so successfully to the electorate in the Netherlands,France and the R.O.I. 

This  is what H Benn said after the verdict announcement

' 

Brexit select committee chairman Hilary Benn said he would vote in favour of triggering Article 50 but it was important that Parliament should have a role in the process.

The Labour MP told BBC2's Daily Politics: "This is an important judgment on the sovereignty of Parliament. It is not about a decision on whether we are leaving the European Union, because we are - the British people made that choice in the referendum and I think Parliament should uphold it.

"But there is ... a debate to be had about what kind of relationship we are going to have and therefore the Government's negotiating objectives are really important."

Mr Benn said he would vote in favour of triggering Article 50 "but that is separate from what we should be seeking to negotiate in that process".