Johnson warns EU against any 'Napoleonic' tariffs in no-deal Brexit

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Go to the source of the claimant 

Robin Tilbrooke

Agreed - we have to go to the source, to discover pretty much any evidence that this court case even exists ☹️.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

17 minutes ago, NightSky said:

 

..it was a non-binding referendum, so basically it was an opinion poll.

 

I agree there are changes to be made on how EU rules are determined and implemented however Brexit isn't the way to do it unfortunately. Crashing out and burning bridges is never a good idea in the long run.

 

'it was a non-binding referendum, so basically it was an opinion poll' - says you, and only because you voted the other way, I'm quite sure.

 

Find me one piece of info - written or vocalised by the government pre June 2016 that points to this so called 'fact'.

 

Do you really think that DC and the Tories / Labour + everyone else that was working for both the official and unofficial campaigns as hard as they were and spending the amounts of cash (taxpayers and private) were doing so to win 'an opinion poll' - that had no legitimacy after it was delivered!!??

 

Cloud-cuckoo land my friend, sorry to say it (and I don't mean it as a personal attack) - but you underscore my previous point re: childish inability to accept a result that went against you  very aptly indeed. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, NightSky said:

Fact, Article 50 can be revoked.

 

Fact, The referendum poll is non binding. 

 

Fact, A question to obtain a view point is all it was.

 

Fact, You are clutching at straws mate.

Article 50 can be revoked but it would require another act to do it. Defying a referendum result which both morally and constitutionally binds the government to act on the decision of the people, would be political and democratic suicide. Why do you think this has gone as far as it has??

 

PS - your banana is bendy and is illegal according to EU rules.

[cleopatra2]

6 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'it was a non-binding referendum, so basically it was an opinion poll' - says you, and only because you voted the other way, I'm quite sure.

 

Find me one piece of info - written or vocalised by the government pre June 2016 that points to this so called 'fact'.

 

Do you really think that DC and the Tories / Labour + everyone else that was working for both the official and unofficial campaigns as hard as they were and spending the amounts of cash (taxpayers and private) were doing so to win 'an opinion poll' - that had no legitimacy after it was delivered!!??

 

Cloud-cuckoo land my friend, sorry to say it (and I don't mean it as a personal attack) - but you underscore my previous point re: 'childish inability to accept a result that went against you' very aptly indeed. 

 

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm

[NightSky]

13 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'it was a non-binding referendum, so basically it was an opinion poll' - says you, and only because you voted the other way, I'm quite sure.

 

Find me one piece of info - written or vocalised by the government pre June 2016 that points to this so called 'fact'. 

 

 

 

Here are three very reputable references just to start with..

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-vote-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-supreme-court-legal-challenge-article-50-a7418706.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

 

.. now prove otherwise.

 

It is you who is in the clouds my friend.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm

 

CHAPTER 7: Summary of Recommendations   Referendums—Arguments for and against 209.  The balance of the evidence that we have heard leads us to the conclusion that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums. In particular, we regret the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day. Referendums may become a part of the UK's political and constitutional practice. Where possible, cross-party agreement should be sought as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for referendums to be used. (Para 62)   Referendums on constitutional issues 210.  Notwithstanding our view that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums, we acknowledge arguments that, if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues. We do not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a "fundamental constitutional issue". Nonetheless, we would consider to fall within this definition any proposals:   ·  To abolish the Monarchy; ·  To leave the European Union; ·  For any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union; ·  To abolish either House of Parliament; ·  To change the electoral system for the House of Commons; ·  To adopt a written constitution; and ·  To change the UK's system of currency.   There is nothing here suggesting that the result of a referendum is NOT binding or at the very, very least used to inform a government decision on constituional matters. I actually agree with parliament that the use of ad-hoc referendums are an ill-advised way of coming to a decision on such a major decision, but that nevertheless is what happened. The fact that we don't have a written constitution makes a lot of this null and void anyway. Again - if the government believed for a moment that the decision arrived at by the public through the referendum was not going to be enacted then they would not have made the numerous claims that it would be - and so publically and unequivocally.    This referendum was implemented by the government, not by the people - such as other national referendums like the Scottish independence ref. and the United Ireland ref. were, but by your understanding these other referendums too are simply opinion polls and can be voided too, yes? They weren't were they, and that is the key point.

Edited July 3, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[cleopatra2]

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

CHAPTER 7: Summary of Recommendations   Referendums—Arguments for and against 209.  The balance of the evidence that we have heard leads us to the conclusion that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums. In particular, we regret the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day. Referendums may become a part of the UK's political and constitutional practice. Where possible, cross-party agreement should be sought as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for referendums to be used. (Para 62)   Referendums on constitutional issues 210.  Notwithstanding our view that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums, we acknowledge arguments that, if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues. We do not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a "fundamental constitutional issue". Nonetheless, we would consider to fall within this definition any proposals:   ·  To abolish the Monarchy; ·  To leave the European Union; ·  For any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union; ·  To abolish either House of Parliament; ·  To change the electoral system for the House of Commons; ·  To adopt a written constitution; and ·  To change the UK's system of currency.   There is nothing here suggesting that the result of a referendum is NOT binding or the very, very least used to inform a government decision on constituional matters. I actually agree with parliament that the use of ad-hoc referendums are an ill-advised way of coming to a decision on such a major decision, but that nevertheless is what happened. The fact that we don't have a written constitution makes a lot of this null and void anyway. Again - if the government believed for a moment that the decision arrived at by the public through the referendum was not going to be enacted then they would not have made the numerous claims that it would be - and so publically and unequivocally.    This referendum was implemented by the government, not by the people - such as other national referendums like the Scottish independence ref. and the United Ireland ref. were, but by your understanding these other referendums too are simply opinion polls and can be voided too, yes? They weren't were they, and that is the key point.

Read paragraph 223

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

40 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Read paragraph 223

'if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues'

 

'due to the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be very difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.'

 

-- On 24 January 2017 the Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case that the process could not be initiated without an authorising act of Parliament, and unanimously ruled against the Scottish government's claim in respect of devolution. Consequently, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017empowering the prime minister to invoke Article 50 was enacted in March 2017 after Parliament voted it into law' --

 

So, something of a moot point BUT - fair enough - point taken (that you have answered my request to point to written info pre: June 2016) - it is written in parliamentary publication, albeit regarding referenda on constitutional issues and since we have no written constitution it has little grounding, but still - I'll submit to you on this point. ????

 

However this doesn't refute the fact that it wasn't once - either in print (in all the leaflets delivered to each household for example) or vocalised publically by the then government - that any decision came to would not be binding/enacted. The opposite was delcared unequivocally. The triggering of article 50 then ratified it and passed it into UK law.

 

The point I'm making is that :

 

DC and the Tories / Labour + everyone else that was working for both the official and unofficial campaigns as hard as they were and spending the amounts of cash (taxpayers and private) would not be doing so to simply win 'an opinion poll' - that had no legitimacy after it was delivered.

 

and that

 

'This referendum was implemented by the government, not by the people - such as other national referendums like the Scottish independence ref. and the United Ireland ref. were, but by your understanding these other referendums too are simply opinion polls and can be voided without issue? They weren't were they, and that is the key point'.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[cleopatra2]

23 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

CHAPTER 7: Summary of Recommendations   Referendums—Arguments for and against 209.  The balance of the evidence that we have heard leads us to the conclusion that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums. In particular, we regret the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day. Referendums may become a part of the UK's political and constitutional practice. Where possible, cross-party agreement should be sought as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for referendums to be used. (Para 62)   Referendums on constitutional issues 210.  Notwithstanding our view that there are significant drawbacks to the use of referendums, we acknowledge arguments that, if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues. We do not believe that it is possible to provide a precise definition of what constitutes a "fundamental constitutional issue". Nonetheless, we would consider to fall within this definition any proposals:   ·  To abolish the Monarchy; ·  To leave the European Union; ·  For any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union; ·  To abolish either House of Parliament; ·  To change the electoral system for the House of Commons; ·  To adopt a written constitution; and ·  To change the UK's system of currency.   There is nothing here suggesting that the result of a referendum is NOT binding or at the very, very least used to inform a government decision on constituional matters. I actually agree with parliament that the use of ad-hoc referendums are an ill-advised way of coming to a decision on such a major decision, but that nevertheless is what happened. The fact that we don't have a written constitution makes a lot of this null and void anyway. Again - if the government believed for a moment that the decision arrived at by the public through the referendum was not going to be enacted then they would not have made the numerous claims that it would be - and so publically and unequivocally.    This referendum was implemented by the government, not by the people - such as other national referendums like the Scottish independence ref. and the United Ireland ref. were, but by your understanding these other referendums too are simply opinion polls and can be voided too, yes? They weren't were they, and that is the key point.

The 1979 Scotlanx referendum was not implemented

[cleopatra2]

1 minute ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues'

 

'due to the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be very difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.'

 

-- On 24 January 2017 the Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case that the process could not be initiated without an authorising act of Parliament, and unanimously ruled against the Scottish government's claim in respect of devolution. Consequently, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017empowering the prime minister to invoke Article 50 was enacted in March 2017 and Parliament voted it into law' --

 

Fair enough. Point taken (that you have answered my request to point to written info pre: June 2016) - it is written in parliamentary publication, albeit regarding referenda on constitutional issues and since we have no written constitution it has little grounding, but still - I'll submit on this point.

 

However this doesn't refute the fact that it wasn't once - either in print (in all the leaflets delivered to each household for example) or vocalised publically by the then government that any decision came to would not be binding/enacted. The opposite was delcared unequivocally. Article 50 ratified it and passed it into UK law.

 

The point I'm making is that :

 

'DC and the Tories / Labour + everyone else that was working for both the official and unofficial campaigns as hard as they were and spending the amounts of cash (taxpayers and private) were doing so to win 'an opinion poll' - that had no legitimacy after it was delivered'

 

and that

 

'This referendum was implemented by the government, not by the people - such as other national referendums like the Scottish independence ref. and the United Ireland ref. were, but by your understanding these other referendums too are simply opinion polls and can be voided too? They weren't were they, and that is the key point'.

 

 

When the act was going through parliament the government minister stated the referendum was advisory. This was in response to an amendment proposed by Alex Salmond

[welovesundaysatspace]

7 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Confirmed by Tilbrook himself here:

 

What a big surprise that it was rejected. Not that everyone hasn’t told you so. Only armchair lawyers with a bachelor in nothing and a master in dreaming could believe a UK court could rule an agreement in international law to be terminated; but you were expecting the press would join you making a fool of yourself? 

[NightSky]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

PS - your banana is bendy and is illegal according to EU rules.

 

Lets leave my banana out of this...

 

..actually that was a stupid rule..

 

BREXIT IT IS!

 

[beautifulthailand99]

1 Pound sterling equals
38.43 Thai Baht

 

Keep cheering the Bo Jo car crash #nothingtodowithbrexit or #remainersdidit.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

 

PS - your banana is bendy and is illegal according to EU rules.

 

21 minutes ago, NightSky said:

 

Lets leave my banana out of this...

 

..actually that was a stupid rule..

 

BREXIT IT IS!

 

 

Of course the irony here is that the bendy bananas story was a piece of fake news invented by a certain Boris Johnson when he was a reporter.

 

He was a liar even then !

 

If you were to use brexit as the plot of a movie, people would say it was unrealistic....

[Jip99]

7 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

1 Pound sterling equals
38.43 Thai Baht

 

Keep cheering the Bo Jo car crash #nothingtodowithbrexit or #remainersdidit.

 

 

You seem to be gloating, you horrible man.

 

Thai Baht strength not a factor - or does that not suit your agenda?

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

 

Of course the irony here is that the bendy bananas story was a piece of fake news invented by a certain Boris Johnson when he was a reporter.

 

He was a liar even then !

 

If you were to use brexit as the plot of a movie, people would say it was unrealistic....

Not fake news. See (EC) No. 2257/94 (abnormal curvature).

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, NightSky said:

Fact, Article 50 can be revoked.

 

Fact, The referendum poll is non binding. 

 

Fact, A question to obtain a view point is all it was.

 

Fact, You are clutching at straws mate.

Quite, but unfortunately the only fact that counts is that MP's supported David Cameron in his referendum bill and and human nature being what it is they dug a bigger hole supporting Article 50. Bottom line is they haven't got the guts to admit they got it wrong.

The UK is already a 3rd world country, the brexiteers won't be happy till it's a 4th.

[welovesundaysatspace]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not fake news. See (EC) No. 2257/94 (abnormal curvature).

Fake news. Did you actually bother to read the regulation? EC No. 2257/94, apart from being a repealed regulation anyway, did not include anything that would ban bent bananas. 

[stephenterry]

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

Interestingly a case claiming that UK left on 29 March has unearthed a number of points including one that says May's extension beyond that date was illegal and has explained why.

MSM are avoiding the entire shooting match but thankfully haven't succeeded in preventing detail reaching the public.

Your point being? At this stage it has been rejected, and even if not, I have no issues with May's WAG. 

[stephenterry]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

They were seated Dick, they were asked to stand by one of the EU bigwigs and I paraphrase "respect the States National Anthem"

Your point being? Please expand.

[stephenterry]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

It was prevented by a Parliamentary majority, which voted down this WAG, which is rubbish.

get real.

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Fake news. Did you actually bother to read the regulation? EC No. 2257/94, apart from being a repealed regulation anyway, did not include anything that would ban bent bananas. 

Not fake and I read it. It barred abnormally curved (i.e. bendy) bananas of "Extra" class. "Class 2" bananas were exempt but "Class 1" were allowed to have only slight defects of shape. I know it was repealed and can only assume that that was because they realized what a particularly dumb regulation it was - even for the EU - hurrah for the democratic bendy rights of bananas!

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

get real.

The reality is that the WAG should not be signed off by any national government worthy of that name. 

[stephenterry]

4 hours ago, sanemax said:

Yes, that is clear .

But was I stated was also correct . 

Had just one E.U member state vetoed the UK's request to have an extension , the UK would have left the EU as scheduled .

Yes, the Tory Gov requested the extension . but the EU agreed to that request , even after Nigel pleaded with them to reject it   

Your point being? For god's sake man would you expect any EU country to reject May's request?

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

The reality is that the WAG should not be signed off by any national government worthy of that name. 

get real.

 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

get real.

 

Get a new needle.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Your point being? For god's sake man would you expect any EU country to reject May's request?

Yes, I would expect every E.U. Country to respect the UK electorates votes and to reject the UK Governments request for an extension , my point was that the E.U. politicians  are the reason as to why the UK is still in the EU  

[tebee]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not fake and I read it. It barred abnormally curved (i.e. bendy) bananas of "Extra" class. "Class 2" bananas were exempt but "Class 1" were allowed to have only slight defects of shape. I know it was repealed and can only assume that that was because they realized what a particularly dumb regulation it was - even for the EU - hurrah for the democratic bendy rights of bananas!

 

 

 

 

Very fake 

 

All bananas are curved 

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-bananas-shaped-the-way-they-are

 

There is a world of difference between abnormally curved and naturally curved . 

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

 

Have you ever seen a perfectly straight banana in the shops ?

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Get a new needle.

Okay, I will. The  WAG agreement was the only deal on offer. That MPs didn't like it resulted in it being rejected. if they had passed it, the UK would have left already.

 

Whatever the non-merits of the deal, it is a FACT that Tory ERG members rejected the opportunity to enact Brexit.

 

That is the bottom line, whichever way you try to spin it.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Your point being? Please expand.

The point being I was responding to anothers members post, however if you want my honest opinion or my thoughts on the whole issue, which I'm sure you will disagree with me wholeheartedly on.

When The Brexit Party remained seated when the performance of the 'Ode to Joy Quintet' began they felt (I would assume) that they had no duty to stand for this piece of music or any other for that matter. 

The European Parliaments president Antonio Tajani said to them if you listen to an anthem of another country, you rise to your feet, suggesting that they consider the EU a Country. Many would disagree with that interpretation, the EU is not a country, although as one member pointed out it has it's own flag, money and anthem. So whether they sat, stood or flew around the gallery, they were not disrespecting a country although I am sure many in the EU would like it to be one.