.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
36 minutes ago, NanLaew said:
Nothing at all to do with what the Brexiteers were promised.
But since you tried to tenuously link it to the Brexit vote; we knew this already. It was a bald-faced lie by Boris and his 'numpties'. Unfortunately, AT THE TIME there was no counter argument of any significant resonance so the atypical Brexit 'independence numpty' (as opposed to the right-wing, Brexit 'anti-immigration numpties' that were under Nigel's watch) were never made truly aware of the fallacy of it all and swallowed it hook, line and big red bus. You can claim that the higher educated Remnant had worked it out for themselves as total BS without needing to take off the shoes and socks to count, but AT THE TIME, there was no credible, public counterclaim. Was that complacency? Or was the whole thing mired in Conservative self-gain and playing to the peanut gallery while Labour's 'leadership' languished in its own mediocre mess? Or was it deliberate?
b
Anyway, there's nowt such thing as free cheese.
I agree with your sentiments.
What we are witnessing is a trend were people of influence are allowed to make statements without accountability. When statements are proved to be either incorrect or misleading there is no responsibility or requirement from their owners to correct.
The above is not meant as a critique for any one particular side ,but a general state of todays politics
-
17 hours ago, Khun Han said:
He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.
Khun Han,
I have just looked through the transcript of the courts morning session, the judges were made aware of Gina Millers preference of remain during the referendum ,by the claimants lawyers
-
1 hour ago, evadgib said:
Ironic that any judgement from within the UK would then be overturned by a European Court. How's that for playing 'em at their own game?
Out is out.
I dont think it functions like that
The ECJ cannot overule the UK supreme court.In the case of matters relating to the EU, the Supreme court can ask for a preliminary rulings before it gives its own judgement.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court-and-europe.html
-
10 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:
I'm really not up to speed on my UK Common Law, but whether a separate Act of Parliament is required is a valid question. For a simple justification as to why, the English Bill of Rights 1689 states:
Invoking article 50 would generally mean the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, this would require Parliament's consent. However, the open questions I see are:
- Does the European Union Referendum Act 2015 function as Parliament's consent? There is nothing explicit in the act that mandates or establishes the process for invoking article 50. However, if Parliament was just going to ignore the result, what would be the purpose of a referendum.
- Is there a loophole in this since article 50 does not explicitly repeal the European Communities Act 1972, but only mandates that the relevant EU treaties would cease to apply to the UK? In such a case, would a "hard" brexit only relieve the obligations of the EU member countries to the UK while leaving the European Communities Act 1972 remain in force in the UK up until it was repealed explicitly by Parliament?
The simple solution would seem to be for Parliament to just get on with it and explicitly pass an Act authorizing the PM to invoke article 50 at the time they see fit.
To answer or not the question of the referendum
'In short, by passing the 2015 Act, 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 '
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/approved-judgment-rhd-shindler-2.pdf
-
5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Robin, you know that she's an outspoken remainer (and she committed something of a faux pas in her Sky interview), and you know that a large majority of MPs favour remain. Forcing the executive to give the decision to MPs will result in some form of remain.
The case will be decided on legality, are you suggesting the rule of law should be brushed aside for political expediency
-
35 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.
This interview she talks about human rights being taken away, but does not indicate reversing the referendum
http://uk.businessinsider.com/gina-miller-article-50-brexit-eu-supreme-court-2016-8
An article from July
http://citywire.co.uk/money/gina-miller-the-funds-boss-behind-brexit-challenge/a934276
-
16 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Miller's lawyer has already misled the court.
Can you clarify, in what way has the court been misled
-
1 hour ago, Muhendis said:
Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.
-
1 hour ago, daveAustin said:
What a load of rubbish. The vote (sanctioned by the prime minister) has been and gone. There is no secretive power. The people have spoken and parliament works for the people. I wish these limp-wristed, so-called remainers would get over themselves and get back to work.
Gina Miller is correct, the court cannot dictate to parliament on how to vote, the court is not being asked to do this, it is deciding who has authority to invoke Art 50.
Consider if the Executive invoke art 50 and then was challenged and it was found not in line with UK constitutional requirements, the UK would be in breach of its international obligations and the EU within its rights to terminate any negotiations.
-
1 hour ago, Khun Han said:
What I'm asking is (and I don't know the answer): if the UK govenment challenged the ESC (even if, say, just delaying a discussion with it) up to the time of invoking Article 50, what would the situation be going forward?
The government dont challenge the ESC, the power lies in the scrutiny reserve which prevents the government acting ( unless there is a specific overriding reason ), the following gives a better explanation
Now for the ESC, here is the parliamentary guide, pdf
The issue does article 50 fall intp the scope in particular pages 4 and 5 items (ii), (vi), if so then it can request a full debate and issue a scrutiny reserve.
What should be noted is the ESC is predominately eurosceptic and in the past been weak in its scrutinizing role. However with the government front bench appearing hell bent on alienating parliament who knows what the ESC approach will be
-
9 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
But if the UK government strings the ESC along until Article 50 is invoked, what legal standing would the ESC have in the matter, going forward from Article 50?
How would it do that
-
36 minutes ago, Grouse said:
Optimistic about the high court case about whether section 50 requires parliamentary approval. May be, just may be, there is a chance of a sensible way forward to everyone's benefit.
Switzerland needs to negotiate a new deal. Is it possible the EU will see sense and compromise to avoid a brittle fracture?
In addition to the court case it is possible that article 50 may go to the European Scrutiny Committee , where they could recommend a full debate
-
1 hour ago, Grouse said:
I agree the fishing issue. Seems odd, I wonder what the rationale is?
A decent overview
-
7 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
I was in agreement with TM Prime minister in waiting to invoke article 50. I don't know whether she should do it now and shut up all these lets have a vote on this and tell us what you are going to do brigade.
It might just help by starting the process as soon as possible.
The problem with invoking Art 50 now ,is the scenario what do you if it is challenged and declared unconstitional.
-
3 hours ago, Dexlowe said:
One swallow doth not a summer make. Security authorities can ill afford to drop their guard, and until there is a very deliberate and concerted action by muslim refugees to oppose terrorism and expose the terrorists in their midst, this kind of feel-good story will only ever be a happenstance. Kudos to those guys, but the story also highlights the dangerNs that seem unlikely to ever be resolved.
Neil Armstrong
One small step for man one giant leap for mankind
-
47 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
It would clarify if you could be a bit more specific about how these provisions are enacted, how they work, and how long they can be maintained Robin. 'led to believe' means nothing to me. Rumours are ten-a-penny, and often contradictory.
I think you're right about buying trade agreements. But I think migration will be quota and qualification based, for the period of time of the trade agreement, both to be re-negotiated upon renewal.
Apologies I am mistakenly applying EFTA agreements articles 112,113 which do allow such brakes, the only restrictions for the EU 2004 directive,are public security, health and public policy
-
1 hour ago, Khun Han said:
The problem is, it became clear that the EU is not going to reform for the better until it is absolutely forced to do so through some catastrophic event. Hell, look at how it treated Cameron when he went to it looking for a bit of help in winning over the British population to his remain campaign! It was quite dismissive, and treated him almost with disdain, when any sort of half-decent compromise would probably have given him enough to win over the referendum 'undecideds' and win the day. Look how that's all ended up: People talk about racism, stupidity and lies winning the vote, but it was this one single piece of intransigence by the EU, making Cameron return from Brussels looking like a dog that's lost it's bone, that sealed the referendum's fate. But, the EU is on a mission, and no individual member state is going to be allowed to interfere with that mission, as explained by Juncker in his state of the union speech.
There are provisions in the treatys for an emergency break in the freedom of movement, and if Cameron and asked he would of got, however we are led to believe that he could not cabinet backing.
I suspect after all the posturing and political bluster we will leave the EU, maintain single market access paying the mutual agreeable fee and place a temporary restriction on freedom of movement.
-
3 minutes ago, Grouse said:
Goodness me, people are touchy on here.
Currently we pay about 0.5% of GDP net in exchange for significant benefits. Sounds fair to me! In USD terms, our GDP has been slashed by 20% in a year! (3T USD) down to 2.4T USD)
There is a negotiation to be done. What are the Brexiteer priorities? Mainly immigration?
Don't you see that there are sensible ways forward?
As for knocking the BBC, what tosh. Nothing is perfect but the BBC is still the best by far for everything from dramas to documentaries and investigative journalism. Don't tell me you watch "the other side"; how awful for you!
Actually, remind me what those children's TV characters are called? You know, the smiling furry things. One has a TV aerial on his head. Aren't they called numpties?
I thought the article missed the point, the Cons manifesto upon which it elected promised to protect the single market, now obviously that will incur a cost. The article rambled on about estimated payments to the EU following Brexit but failed to put any context on the reasoning.
-
6 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:
Very good article in FT the other day, basically saying that we are at a point where we will need to restructure our economy, the same way as Germany & Japan had to after WWII, the shift is that big. We need to stop relying on the city and financial services to drive the economy and move more to other sectors.
I think this makes complete sense, the spiral of money centred on the city was always a stupid idea. We need a more balanced economy, and like Germany & Japan, we might actually come out of the whole thing stronger. At least that is the hope isn't it?
Mervyn King - that old geezer who ran the BoE for a while doesn't think there's anything to worry about
Germanys re-unification,
-
17 minutes ago, sandyf said:
Not quite. The Good Friday Agreement called for equality between Nationalists and Unionists in the government of Northern Ireland. The Unionists are now in the minority on Belfast City Council.
My friend tells me they have been talking about dismantling the peaceline for several years but nothing has been done.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/29/belfast-berlin-wall-moment-permanent-peace-walls
NI could very well see the EU as a way out of the predicament.
The option to re-unite was in the irish constitution amendment
United Ireland: Article 2, as substituted after the Good Friday Agreement, asserts that "every person born in the island of Ireland" has the right "to be part of the Irish Nation"; however, Article 9.2 now limits this to persons having at least one parent as an Irish citizen. Article 3 declares that it is the "firm will of the Irish Nation" to bring about a united Ireland, provided that this occurs "only by peaceful means", and only with the express consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland
-
On 8/12/2016 at 0:05 PM, partington said:
Legally you are not eligible for free NHS treatment given your current description.
Eligibility for free NHS hospital treatment (GP visits are still free, for now) in the UK is entirely based on residence, not on NI contributions, payment of taxes, owning a house, having an NI number, or even number of days in the country. It is dependent on being "permanently settled" in the country.
This residence definition for NHS eligibility is not the same as the residence definition for tax purposes -they are two separate parallel systems.
You have to be able to show that you are permanently settled in the UK if asked. You can be permanently settled the first day you arrive , and eligible for NHS treatment immediately, as long as you can prove this settlement. Typical proofs would include having a permanent job based in the UK, a long term rental contract, an address where you can show you pay utility bills and so on.
You probably won't get asked but they are tightening up so you may be.
You dont have to be permanently resident for free nhs treatment, it is possible to be ordinarly resident in more than one country.
This guide should be useful to anyone seeking NHS treatment
-
3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Mores scaremongering in this political change for the UK. When someone says 'we will definitely' instead of may, could or possibly I will start taking interest.
Speculation and more speculation for project fear.
The amount of rubbish spouted from this news network is becoming tedious.
I dont see it as project fear, the article is based around ifs what might be, and rather pointless , lacking any substance.
-
35 minutes ago, sandyf said:
Quite, it wouldn't work, both north and south would be against it. From what I could gather, those in the north that wish to stay with the UK are now in the minority, which has helped to keep the peace.
This possibility of a breakup of the UK following the EU exit is going to do little for the long term future of the pound.
Under the terms of the good friday agreement a majority from both the Republic of Ireland and NI is required.At present I dont see the support in the Republic, especially when considering the EU funds available to maintain the peace process.
Although Ireland is important, an intriguing prospect lies ahead in Scotland, although they probably wont prevent the great repeal bill, which cuts across devolved matters, there is nothing preventing Scotland Parliament enacting a bill to continue EU laws
-
1 hour ago, chiang mai said:
The key take away from Krugman's article is that UK wages will be lower, the Pound weaker and the economy smaller. I don't regard that as doom speak and I don't regard it as necessarily bad, the UK economy was over inflated previously and the Pound was overvalued. BUT if Mr and Mrs Average UK are on board with seeing their standard of living decrease, potentially to recover later, maybe, I think that's a good and realistic approach to the UK's economy - I'll bet however that Mr and Mrs Average UK didn't see that coming and certainly didn't plan for it, especially given that consumer price inflation is going to hit UK plc real soon (nothing doom speak in that, just fact, exports down, imports up, currency way down means consumer price inflation) and that means increased interest rates at some point, another load on Mr and Mrs Average they were hoping to avoid. Hmmm, did I really say this was all not a bad thing! Well for me sat here in Thailand spending already banked Baht it's not a problem but I bet the UK population wouldn't agree.
CM the Bank of England has stated it will look through inflationary pressure and my take is this is saying it will not use interest rates as a means of combating.
The merits of sterling being overvalued / undervalued is being approached from a simplistic view that everything exists in almost perfect equilibrium.There are many different aspects that drive currencies, however it is the economy being reflected.
The following may shed some light
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3457/currency/problems-of-a-strong-currency/
Hate speech trial of far-right politician Wilders will go ahead
in World News
Posted
He was acquitted when charged about criminal moroccan immigrants, these latest charges are for a different speech.