EU, UK to step up Brexit talks to try to close 'significant gaps' over trade deal

[Loiner]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

That you believe that only shows that you have no knowledge or understanding of our constitution. Either that or you want to do away with it!

 

As with all Parliamentary, common law democracies, the UK has three branches of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

 

The executive comprises the Crown and the government, including the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. The executive formulates and implements policy. The legislature, Parliament, comprises the Crown, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The judiciary comprises the judges and other officers of the courts and tribunals of the three UK legal jurisdictions, overseen by the Supreme Court. Senior judicial appointments are made by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission.

 

Some of the measures of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 were:

• placing a duty on government Ministers to uphold the independence of the judiciary, barring them from trying to influence judicial decisions through any special access to judges;
• reform of the post of Lord Chancellor, transferring the judicial functions of the post to the President of the Courts of England and Wales – a new title given to the Lord Chief Justice who is now responsible for the training, guidance and deployment of judges and representing the views of the judiciary of England and Wales to Parliament and Ministers;
• the establishment of an independent Supreme Court, separate from the House of Lords, with its own independent appointments system, staff, budget and building;
• the creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, responsible for selecting candidates to recommend for judicial appointment to the Secretary of State for Justice. The Judicial Appointments Commission ensures that merit remains the sole criterion for appointment and that the appointments system is modern, open and transparent.

You also display little or no, knowledge of the separation of the legislature and the judiciary.

 

In cases before the courts judges are required to interpret legislation in line with the intention of Parliament.  Judges can be influential in the way they interpret and apply legislation but they may not challenge the validity of an Act of Parliament. They may declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights but may not strike it down for this reason.

 

Although judges are responsible for the development of the common law, Parliament may legislate to overturn or modify the common law, thus overriding the judge made law.

 

So, if you do understand all that; with what would you replace it?

 

 

The laws could stay if they were administered by independent and impartial judges. As they and the processes were corrupted by biased Remainers, it's the crooked judiciary I would replace.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

The laws could stay if they were administered by independent and impartial judges. As they and the processes were corrupted by biased Remainers, it's the crooked judiciary I would replace.

 

So who, in your opinion, in the judiciary is corrupt and crooked?

 

What evidence do you have to support your accusations?

[polpott]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

So who, in your opinion, in the judiciary is corrupt and crooked?

 

What evidence do you have to support your accusations?

Brexiteers don't need evidence. If they say it then it is. Got it?

[RayC]

3 hours ago, Loiner said:

Would Theresa May have sent the letter to invoke Article 50 without being legally forced to get approval of Parliament first? Gina's Law.

The letter to invoke Article 50 was essential if the UK were to leave the UK. Are you suggesting May would not have sent the letter to invoke Article 50 without Gina Miller's intervention? Clearly, we Remainers have been looking at the wrong people to blame. It's all Miller's fault that we are leaving.

3 hours ago, Loiner said:

Read the Hansard records of the EU Withdrawal Acts for 2018 and 2019. Remainers legal run arounds.

But it was Johnson's Withdrawal Act (2020) which was completely different from May's. At least, that we've been told all along.

3 hours ago, Loiner said:

Yes my opinion again for you - the judiciary and Supreme Court is corrupt.

An opinion without any evidence to support it, and which many disagree with.

3 hours ago, Loiner said:

If you really need direction for another dictionary definition you will not get one from me.

No surprises there then

3 hours ago, Loiner said:

The Supreme Court was not independent but running wick with Remainers.  

As before opinion with no evidence to support it.

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 I'm surprised a Brexiteer hasn't responded with their usual "no one will force you to buy it" nonsense.

 

Forgetting that to boycott chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef and other foods currently banned under EU food safety standards, such foods will have to be labelled as such!

 

Will they need to have such labels? Not according to the government guidance Food and drink labelling changes from 1 January 2021.

 

Although for beef, veal, lamb, mutton, pork, goat, poultry, fish, shellfish and some other foods the country of origin must still be shown.

Yes. all part of the slippery slope. The UK would prefer to kick C of O and GI protection rules into touch.

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

FOM was never a question for the Canada FTA, and rightly so. And FOM is not a question anymore in the UK's FTA talks. And rightly so. 

 

Free trade agreements are not negotiated based on airmiles. In fact, near neighbours should arguably offer each other better terms. 

FOM is only a question for a percentage of the brexit voters, not for those that wanted to leave under an EFTA agreement.

 

Of course distance is an issue, failure to recognise that indicates no intention of listening to what the EU has to say.

[transam]

9 hours ago, polpott said:

Brexiteers don't need evidence. If they say it then it is. Got it?

Strange comment, Brexit was voted for by the electorate, yet remainers did everything they could to stop it. The only thing that fixed it was a general election, the electorate voted for it again.....Well didn't they..?

It seems to me that you and others here have been ducking and diving with daft comments over what the electorate has actually voted for.....Very starange...????

 

[Phulublub]

49 minutes ago, transam said:

Strange comment, Brexit was voted for by the electorate, yet remainers did everything they could to stop it. The only thing that fixed it was a general election, the electorate voted for it again.....Well didn't they..?

It seems to me that you and others here have been ducking and diving with daft comments over what the electorate has actually voted for.....Very starange...????

 

So the electorate voted for no deal?  I think some may have voted for the oven ready deal

 

PH

[transam]

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

So the electorate voted for no deal?  I think some may have voted for the oven ready deal

 

PH

There ya go, yet another daft remainer comment....????

Now come on chap, you do not have to be reminded again, or do you ????, that the referendum asked yes or no to leave the EU, NO if ands buts or your add-ons......????

 

The leave vote happened twice, the second vote confirmed, that folk like you spouting about "deal" should go sit in a corner somewhere and pick your nose instead of picking on daft add-ons......

We are out of the EU....Fact.....

Get over it.....Fact.....

You spouting nonsense will not change anything....Fact....

It is raining outside, not cats and dogs.....Fact.....????

 

[Phulublub]

1 minute ago, transam said:

There ya go, yet another daft remainer comment....????

Now come on chap, you do not have to be reminded again, or do you ????, that the referendum asked yes or no to leave the EU, NO if ands buts or your add-ons......????

 

The leave vote happened twice, the second vote confirmed, that folk like you spouting about "deal" should go sit in a corner somewhere and pick your nose instead of picking on daft add-ons......

We are out of the EU....Fact.....

Get over it.....Fact.....

You spouting nonsense will not change anything....Fact....

It is raining outside, not cats and dogs.....Fact.....????

 

The General Election did not ask "Yes" or "No".  Did it?

 

Leavers voted to Leave; remainers did not.  Own the mess.

 

PH

[vogie]

15 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

So the electorate voted for no deal?  I think some may have voted for the oven ready deal

 

PH

In a nut shell, yes. If a deal wasn't to be agreed on, we leave with 'no deal' Prime Minister Cameron at the time told the whole country, it seems the leavers don't have a problem understanding this, so why should the remainers have a problem with it, maybe you don't want to believe it and cannot accept it.

The remainers in parliament had ample time to vote for something, they chose not to, so they are the reason where we are today and you either like it or you don't, so stop blaming everyone else, you thought you had a chance to stifle the democratic result and it has backfired on the remainers.

[transam]

11 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

The General Election did not ask "Yes" or "No".  Did it?

 

Leavers voted to Leave; remainers did not.  Own the mess.

 

PH

That is yet another daft post.........Are you not British, or do you not remember what was on the voting paper...?

Please answer my question.....Or perhaps not...????

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

FOM is only a question for a percentage of the brexit voters, not for those that wanted to leave under an EFTA agreement.

 

Of course distance is an issue, failure to recognise that indicates no intention of listening to what the EU has to say.

As even EFTA membership means accepting freedom of movement, then I don't know what percentage of Brexit voters wanted to leave under an EFTA agreement, if any. Admission to EFTA is not guaranteed and may be difficult anyway. 

 

If distance is an issue then the EU's "level playing field" is tilted to start with. Remember Tusk harping on about cakes, toppings and eating them? It is really the EU that has wanted their cake, with all their favourite toppings, to start with. The main reason for leaving is so that we don't have to listen to and do what the EU says.

[Phulublub]

19 minutes ago, transam said:

That is yet another daft post.........Are you not British, or do you not remember what was on the voting paper...?

Please answer my question.....Or perhaps not...????

Which question?  What was on the voting paper?  Different for each and every constituency in the Countryfor the GE as each had a unique set of candidates....but they all stood on a platform and (I think) the Conservatives stood on a platform that included an "oven ready deal"..

 

PH

[transam]

Just now, Phulublub said:

Which question?  What was on the voting paper?  Different for each and every constituency in the Countryfor the GE as each had a unique set of candidates....but they all stood on a platform and (I think) the Conservatives stood on a platform that included an "oven ready deal"..

 

PH

Gawd, the original Brexit voting paper....????

 

After ALL the remainer CR_P to stop Brexit a general election was called to sort it out one way or the other..

 

Now take your time......Why did Boris/Tories get a landslide victory.....?

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

Which question?  What was on the voting paper?  Different for each and every constituency in the Countryfor the GE as each had a unique set of candidates....but they all stood on a platform and (I think) the Conservatives stood on a platform that included an "oven ready deal"..

 

PH

Boris was actually quite specific on this. Deals, chickens and ovens weren't mentioned:

 

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

 

[polpott]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Strange comment, Brexit was voted for by the electorate, yet remainers did everything they could to stop it. The only thing that fixed it was a general election, the electorate voted for it again.....Well didn't they..?

It seems to me that you and others here have been ducking and diving with daft comments over what the electorate has actually voted for.....Very starange...????

 

Not me. I agree that Boris Cummings would have won the election come what may but the landslide was down to Corbyn and his Notting Hill Gang. I'm resigned to the fact that we have a Conservative government for the foreseeable future (Starmer is part of the Notting Hill Gang) and that we are now out of the EU. A Labour government/return to the EU aren't on the horizon and not something I would campaign for. My sole wish is that we now sever ties with the EU with as little damage to our economy/jobs as possible. I really don't think Boris Cummings, Mogg et al share my aspirations.

 

The most disappointing part of the withdrawal for me is that, as someone from a fishing community, I'd hoped that our fishermen would secure a much better deal. That looks unlikely now.

 

To finish, there are no remainers or Brexiteers now, only ex remainers/brexiteers. We've left. Try to come to terms with that.

 

BTW. My comment wasn't related to the Brexit vote, it was a comment on the impartiality of the Supreme Court.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by polpott

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, polpott said:

Not me. I agree that Boris Cummings would have won the election come what may but the landslide was down to Corbyn and his Notting Hill Gang. I'm resigned to the fact that we have a Conservative government for the foreseeable future (Starmer is part of the Notting Hill Gang) and that we are now out of the EU. A Labour government/return to the EU aren't on the horizon and not something I would campaign for. My sole wish is that we now sever ties with the EU with as little damage to our economy/jobs as possible. I really don't think Boris Cummings, Mogg et al share my aspirations.

 

The most disappointing part of the withdrawal for me is that, as someone from a fishing community, I'd hoped that our fishermen would secure a much better deal. That looks unlikely now.

 

To finish, there are no remainers or Brexiteers now, only ex remainers/brexiteers. We've left. Try to come to terms with that.

OK.

[evadgib]

HMG getting on with it...

 

PM call with Chancellor Merkel of Germany: 11 October 2020

 

Business Secretary urges businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period

Edited October 12, 2020 by evadgib

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

HMG getting on with it...

 

PM call with Chancellor Merkel of Germany: 11 October 2020

 

Business Secretary urges businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period

Mixed messages there.

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Boris was actually quite specific on this. Deals, chickens and ovens weren't mentioned:

 

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

 

Are you seriously claiming Johnson did not campaign on a slogan of an  "Oven ready deal"?

Really?

[Loiner]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

So who, in your opinion, in the judiciary is corrupt and crooked?

 

What evidence do you have to support your accusations?

[Loiner]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

The letter to invoke Article 50 was essential if the UK were to leave the UK. Are you suggesting May would not have sent the letter to invoke Article 50 without Gina Miller's intervention? Clearly, we Remainers have been looking at the wrong people to blame. It's all Miller's fault that we are leaving.

But it was Johnson's Withdrawal Act (2020) which was completely different from May's. At least, that we've been told all along.

An opinion without any evidence to support it, and which many disagree with.

No surprises there then

As before opinion with no evidence to support it.

Who knows what Theresa May would have done with the Article 50 letter without Gina's law. Would she have sent it, or were they Remainers in collusion about delay and another opportunity for it to be blocked in Parliament?

Take off your Remainer selective blinkers and look at the perilous progress through Parliament of the two previous Withdrawal Bills of 2017 and 2018. How did they fare with Remainer legal twists and turns? 

Here's a hint, try the Oxford dictionary and take it from there.

In case you haven't understood my opinion, the judiciary and particularly the Supreme Court in their Brexit dealings.

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

How is that evidence?

You might as well have posted a page from the phone book.

[Loiner]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

How is that evidence?

You might as well have posted a page from the phone book.

Give them a call, but I doubt they will admit being corrupt over Brexit.

 

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

Give them a call, but I doubt they will admit being corrupt over Brexit.

 

Why would I phone them and ask them why are the corrupt?

I am not the one making that claim. You are.

All people have done is ask you to provide evidence of their corruption.

Something you have failed to do so far.

I'm starting to think you dont have any evidence. 

[Loiner]

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Why would I phone them and ask them why are the corrupt?

I am not the one making that claim. You are.

All people have done is ask you to provide evidence of their corruption.

Something you have failed to do so far.

I'm starting to think you dont have any evidence. 

The evidence was in their judgement go have a read of it. Nearly a hundred pages.

[Rookiescot]

7 minutes ago, Loiner said:

The evidence was in their judgement go have a read of it. Nearly a hundred pages.

A hundred pages that came to the conclusion parliament was sovereign not the UK government and therefor parliament should be able to debate the brexit bills. 

You should have been far more worried that any UK government should try to wrest control over parliament because you guys all love that sovereignty thing.

[polpott]

19 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I'm starting to think you dont have any evidence. 

The evidence is that the UK is a parliamentary democracy. The government tried to circumvent that basic tenent and were taken to court. The case was eventually kicked up to the Supreme Court who looked at the rules, heard witnesses. The Supreme Court found against the government, effectively cancelling the prorogation. Correct decision.

 

A clear case of commie supreme court judges staging a coup against the government.

[Loiner]

8 minutes ago, polpott said:

 

 

A clear case of commie supreme court judges staging a coup against the government.

A clear case of a corrupt Remainer judiciary trying to subvert the elected government delivering their mandated Brexit.