5 minutes ago, aright said:

Sentence and/or paragraph otherwise its wishful thinking and has no basis in fact.

Eh? What has no basis in fact? That directives are the result odf legislation?

 

If so, you then immediately contradict yourself!

6 minutes ago, aright said:

According to Europa, the official European Union website, a "directive is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve."  goals are not laws.....Primacy applies to laws

A legislative act; in other words, a law.

 

2 minutes ago, aright said:

Your last paragraph is pure obfuscation and a form of trolling.

Really?

 

Providing the legal basis for the FoM directive we were discussing is, in your opinion, obfuscation and a form of trolling? 

 

That comment carries the stench of your desperation.

26 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I don't understand why so many remainers persist with this 'non-binding referendum' nonsense. Whether or not referendums are non-binding from a legal standpoint, everybody knew this one was to be binding. From when Cameron first announced it, and all the way through the campaign, nobody made the slightest suggestion it was advisory only.

In fact we were categorically told by the remain campaign all the nasty things that will happen if we voted to leave. Why would they do that if it was just a poll?

 

When people went to the ballot boxes in 2016 they did it because it was an actual vote to either leave the EU or stay in it. Do you honestly believe those voters thought it was just an opinion poll? 

If Parliament viewed the referendum as an opinion poll, why did they vote something like 4 to 1 in favour of triggering article 50? 

 

This 'non-binding' argument only surfaced when Leave won the vote. It just sounds petulant to me. 

 

 

 

 

 Correct, I’m 100% sure, that had the remainers won the people’s vote in 2016, even if it had been by only 1 vote. They would have insisted it was a binding referendum. And of course they would have been correct.

Unfortunately for them the people Democratically voted to leave this so called union.

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Eh? What has no basis in fact? That directives are the result odf legislation?

 

If so, you then immediately contradict yourself!

A legislative act; in other words, a law.

 

Really?

 

Providing the legal basis for the FoM directive we were discussing is, in your opinion, obfuscation and a form of trolling? 

 

That comment carries the stench of your desperation.

What has no basis in fact? I ask you to demonstrate your claim that I am trying to convince people that EU law has primacy in all aspects of law in a member state by identifying paragraph and/or sentence where I said it and you get wobbly and inane. Can I repeat if you can't provide the evidence its wishful thinking and has no basis in fact. It's a straight forward question all it requires is a straight forward answer which may be beyond you.

 

A legislative act  sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. it is not a law. A Directive is an order listing objectives to be completed, a Regulation is a rule and a Law is a legally binding force that must be followed and abided in every Member State, similar to any other National Law. 

 

Yes your third paragraph was obfuscation and a form of trolling.

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 20197 yr by aright

Off-topic posts and replies removed.   One suspension given.  

 

 
You obviously don't believe in allowing people to make an informed democratic decision; but don't insult my father and his generation by thinking that they would share your undemocratic views.
 
Let alone share your stated support for a neo fascist.

I certainly do, that’s why 17.4 Million are allowed to decide to Leave the EU. You Remainers don’t want to allow that.

Your father and his generation fought two wars to prevent an European superstate controlled by Germany. He and his comrades would be ashamed of you and those of your ilk, and your attempts to surrender the freedoms many of them died for.

Who have you declared to be a neo fascist today? Somebody else who doesn’t agree with you? When you keep throwing these insults around but don’t really understand them, it only dilutes their effectiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

10 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I certainly do, that’s why 17.4 Million are allowed to decide to Leave the EU. You Remainers don’t want to allow that.

Your father and his generation fought two wars to prevent an European superstate controlled by Germany. He and his comrades would be ashamed of you and those of your ilk, and your attempts to surrender the freedoms many of them died for.

Who have you declared to be a neo fascist today? Somebody else who doesn’t agree with you? When you keep throwing these insults around but don’t really understand them, it only dilutes their effectiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

What a confused mindset. Fortunately, since 1945 there has been no war on European soil  (except the disintegration of Yugoslavia). That the working together in the EU and not going to war is an essential block in the EU Self-image of the EU. Equating from today's situation in Europe with the world wars 70 years ago is stupid and ridiculous.

8 hours ago, aright said:

Ok no problem, I give 4 references agreeing the primacy of EU Law and you tell me the EU website disagrees with them. I can live with that.

Do you understand subsidiarity?

8 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Of course they know. They won the referendum through lies and false promises, by telling everyone everything they wanted to hear. That was their only chance; had they told the people what we hear from them today, no one except the far-right and some hardcore haters would have voted to leave. Their strategy worked; the problem is, at some point the house of cards will tumble. 

 

As a refresher, from the CNN today: 

Infamous Brexit promises haunt politicians as Britain faces crunch week

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/09/uk/brexit-promises-gbr-intl/index.html?no-st=1552238368

 

Boris! "a Titanic success"!

7 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

The right word is Beamter. Beamte are employed for life. Beamte must take an oath of loyalty to the state, on the contrary to state employees (Angestellte).

Bürokraten, right?  do service according to regulations, without any flexibility

Pedant! 

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

We were also talking about the EEC becoming the EU; which the Single European Act laid the foundations to the UK, under Major, signing the Maastricht Treaty which effectively established the EU.

 

If you are going to use history in your arguments, it would behove you to actually do some research first!

 

 

Deeper and deeper into space. Bon voyage!

5 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I don't understand why so many remainers persist with this 'non-binding referendum' nonsense.

The reason could be that some people believe in the rule of law and that it is an integral part of a democracy, something that Brexiteers don’t seem to understand.

 

Quote

Whether or not referendums are non-binding from a legal standpoint, everybody knew this one was to be binding.

Oh, you’re speaking for the people now? Let me say then that everybody knew it was non-binding because that’s what the rules say that everyone knows. 

 

Quote

From when Cameron first announced it, and all the way through the campaign, nobody made the slightest suggestion it was advisory only.

The constitution saying it is non-binding is more than a slight suggestion. 

 

Quote

In fact we were categorically told by the remain campaign all the nasty things that will happen if we voted to leave. Why would they do that if it was just a poll?

Because the poll’s purpose was to advise the government? 

 

Quote

When people went to the ballot boxes in 2016 they did it because it was an actual vote to either leave the EU or stay in it. Do you honestly believe those voters thought it was just an opinion poll? 

I believe in the rule of law.

 

Quote

If Parliament viewed the referendum as an opinion poll, why did they vote something like 4 to 1 in favour of triggering article 50? 

Because they can. The one doesn’t negate the other. 

 

Quote

This 'non-binding' argument only surfaced when Leave won the vote. It just sounds petulant to me. 

On a side node: If a single politician really could just change the constitution on the fly and make a non-binding referendum binding:

 

1. The result would have been voided because of electoral laws being broken. 

 

2. Nicola Sturgeon could do the same and hold a referendum without a section 30 order (thus being legally non-binding) and, just by making bold promises, turn it into a binding one, circumventing the laws of the United Kingdom. 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by welovesundaysatspace

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Pedant! 

Bürokrat = Pedant in state service function

Equating from today's situation in Europe with the world wars 70 years ago is stupid and ridiculous.

What about the end result?
Same Same but different?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

7 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

As much as you think that David Cameron single-handedly changed the constitution to turn a non-binding opinion poll into a binding referendum. 

I have never said that but the moral and constitutional obligation on the government and parliament after the referendum was enough to make the result too difficult to avoid in any case. The 2017 EU Notification of Withdrawal Act passed by 494-122. Binding enough?

21 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Bürokrat = Pedant in state service function

Yes, but I was also pulling your leg! Is there a German word for double entendre?

 

6 hours ago, aright said:

I thought Kommisare was a Police Inspector...….pretty close I suppose.

And I thought a cabinet is where I store my wine, not a group of ministers.....pretty close I suppose. 

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes, but I was also pulling your leg! Is there a German word for double entendre?

Go to the Wikipedia page and see if it offers a corresponding one in German. Here it is “Zweideutigkeit” and “Mehrdeutigkeit”. 

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I have never said that but the moral and constitutional obligation on the government and parliament after the referendum was enough to make the result too difficult to avoid in any case.

I have never said that the government does not have any obligation at all to consider the referendum result. I am objecting Brexiters’ claim that the referendum result is binding. 

 

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The 2017 EU Notification of Withdrawal Act passed by 494-122. Binding enough?

I have never said it is not binding. Of course, an act of parliament would be required to change that. 

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes, but I was also pulling your leg! Is there a German word for double entendre?

No. "Doppelter Vorsatz" or "zweifacher Vorsatz" comes closest to that.

in the sense of a sentence of double meaning, then "Zweideutigkeit".

But I understood your joke.

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by tomacht8

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I have never said that but the moral and constitutional obligation on the government and parliament after the referendum was enough to make the result too difficult to avoid in any case. The 2017 EU Notification of Withdrawal Act passed by 494-122. Binding enough?

David Cameron committed the CONs to implement the result of the referendum. The very fact that he did so demonstrates that the referendum was not binding (in accordance with the act). The terms of Brexit were not specified. May's red lines are her own. LAB committed to Brexit but with a number of conditions. May's red lines and consequent "deal" contravene these conditions.

2 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

No. "Doppelter Vorsatz" or "zweifacher Vorsatz" comes closest to that.

Danke!

7 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

No. "Doppelter Vorsatz" or "zweifacher Vorsatz" comes closest to that.

Are you sure you’re talking about the same things? 

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Are you sure you’re talking about the same things? 

See my Post 4494.

I could not edit it that fast.

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by tomacht8

There is a perception that Brexiteers are of lower intellect and educational achievement than Remainers.

Reading this thread and others does nothing to dispell this so-called bias.

For a critical thinker, this can be extraordinarily frustrating......

In the words of Mark Twain ...

 

“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. …  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”

32 minutes ago, Grouse said:

David Cameron committed the CONs to implement the result of the referendum. The very fact that he did so demonstrates that the referendum was not binding (in accordance with the act). The terms of Brexit were not specified. May's red lines are her own. LAB committed to Brexit but with a number of conditions. May's red lines and consequent "deal" contravene these conditions.

David Cameron also promised a referendum in 2015 and won that GE easily. If you count the UKIP and some other votes, even more easily. That demonstrates that the referendum was both desired and expected. The referendum was not legally binding but in that case, neither was the 1975 referendum. However, this certainly was not well explained to the electorate. This omission plus the promises made by Cameron made the result morally binding from the voters aspect. UK referendums have been mainly used to settle constitutional questions and membership of the EU certainly affects our constitution. 

 

There should have been a fully "informed" referendum before Heath got his pen out in Brussels in 1973, as joining the EEC was anti-constitutional and Heath had lied anyway (he was the only British politician to have had prior access to the complete Treaty of Rome) . If the truth had been fully explained to the British electorate we would never have joined. It's a shame that we have been in so long now, which makes it so messy to extricate ourselves from this mess.

 

The terms of Brexit, May's red lines and Labour's wishy-washy conditions were foolish and impractical, respectively. A remain PM in a leave environment was always going to cause a foul-up.

1 minute ago, wilcopops said:

There is a perception that Brexiteers are of lower intellect and educational achievement than Remainers.

Reading this thread and others does nothing to dispell this so-called bias.

For a critical thinker, this can be extraordinarily frustrating......

In the words of Mark Twain ...

 

“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. …  How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”

Send your quote to Ted Heath. Don't hold your breath for a response.

 

 

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

See my Post 4494.

I could not edit it that fast.

I just thought that a “Doppelter Vorsatz” is something completely different than a “Double entendre”. Doppelter Vorsatz in German language refers to criminal intent in legal proceedings; a Double Entendre in English language is a figure of speech or just a wording with multiple meanings. Thus my thinking that “Mehrdeutigkeit” or “Zweideutigkeit” is a better translation (it literally means multiple/double meanings). 

11 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

As much as you think that David Cameron single-handedly changed the constitution to turn a non-binding opinion poll into a binding referendum. 

You must be aware that the UK doesn't have a written constitution, but one which evolves through custom and practice.

 

When David Cameron pledged that the result of the  "once in a generation" referendum would be binding on Parliament, he was perfectly justified in doing so - and not a single Remainer voices rang out to accuse him of being unconstitutional.

 

Perhaps this was because the pro-EU camp expected, along with the world and his wife, they would romp home by a mile. Hence countless Remainers continuing to spit out mouthfuls of sour grapes.

 

This sorry spectacle might have been expected. The subsequent marathon act of Brexit betrayal due to reach its grotesque climax in the Commons later this month, certainly was not.

 

Commentators have rightly deduced that the shock Leave majority was our own "Trump" moment - a poke in the eye for our venal and out-of-touch career politicians as well as the remote Brussels Raj.

 

If Brexit is not delivered it will be a death blow not so much for our economy - which will survive and ultimately prosper - but for a deeply-flawed British political system long past its sell-by date.

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by Krataiboy

3 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

When David Cameron pledged that the result of the  "once in a generation" referendum would be binding on Parliament, he was perfectly justified in doing so - and not a single Remainer voices rang out to accuse him of being unconstitutional.

Who said it was unconstitutional to call it a once in a generation referendum? What I said is that David Cameron calling it like that didn’t make it binding. When the Scottish today hold an indyref, they can tell their people it’s a binding one, but it isn’t. 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Send your quote to Ted Heath. Don't hold your breath for a response.

 

 

Curious attitude to historiography, but kind of expected... ...here here is 20 years of fake news that Brexiteers have swallowed whole from the far right media...take your pick...

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/?fbclid=IwAR2WnYSoKt4w3bjnG5ezEwKS92guy7Ywq1Tx0FB_436TlcDdFzLxcX4Wcpc

 

Edited March 11, 20197 yr by wilcopops