Jump to content

Britain no longer has 'a functioning government' - Labour Party


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

The Euro aswell as European stocks crashed yesterday along with Sterling and the Uk100....But obviously it’s only the UK that will suffer on a no deal yes...??

 

I think there is going to be some revaluation on the EU’s part in the next few weeks or months. The U.K are backed into a corner and a no deal at the moment seems the only way out for them right now. The ball is firmly in the EU’s court.

 

And talking of courts...the ECJ were rather quick to pass a law into article 50 this week. Basically saying the UK can cancel article 50 without any consent from Brussels..

 

That alone speaks volumes.

The ECJ don’t ‘pass laws’.

 

Say it all really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ECJ don’t ‘pass laws’.

 

Say it all really!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/10/does-ecj-ruling-article-50-mean-brexit-deal/

And you’re only response is to nit pick over wording....

That says a hell of a lot more.

Rule not Law ok. ????

 

 

 

 

Edited by goldenbrwn1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2018 at 11:31 AM, goldenbrwn1 said:

The Euro aswell as European stocks crashed yesterday along with Sterling and the Uk100....But obviously it’s only the UK that will suffer on a no deal yes...??

 

I think there is going to be some revaluation on the EU’s part in the next few weeks or months. The U.K are backed into a corner and a no deal at the moment seems the only way out for them right now. The ball is firmly in the EU’s court.

 

And talking of courts...the ECJ were rather quick to pass a law into article 50 this week. Basically saying the UK can cancel article 50 without any consent from Brussels..

 

That alone speaks volumes.

The ECJ ruled on whether the constitution - article 50 was able to be revoked by the party that initiated it -- that is all.  The lack of Article 50 state that it was able to be revoked could be interpreted either way.  The question is - was this 2 year timetable for the purposes of the country leaving (that they could not be held hostage forcing them to stay), or was it the complete process.  I would have taken politics into it - in that you would not want countries playing chicken by invoking it and withdrawing it - and ruled that there was no way to revoke it without unanimous agreement of all parties.   The court did not take this into account and just found that the invoking party had not actually left yet -- and therefore it was completely in their control to stop the process.  Both are perfectly fine decision, but it needed clarification.  The member states can now amend the constitution if that is what they want.

 

The ECJ did their job -- nothing more -- nothing less... 

Edited by bkkcanuck8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...