May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[nauseus]

51 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

What matters here is what is passed in law (legislated) and voted on (read the small print). What the PM said can be lined up on the mantelpiece together with that little slogan on the Leaver Battlebus. How the democratic process actually works seems to pass some people by.

How the democratic process actually works seems to pass some people by! Doesn't it just!  

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Fourteen months on, Remoaners still can't believe or accept the vote. They cannot get their heads round it! They pick up any bit of news to continue their doom theories in the hope of getting out of it. The main reasons for the out vote are still valid. A trade agreement is preferable but any arrangement that allows free movement of people to the UK, and EU law primacy over it, does not constitute a meaningful exit.

You are perfectly entitled to argue what you consider to be a meaningful Brexit. The form of Brexit is in play right now as we follow the negotiations. What you cannot assume is that what you want has a legal foundation other than the words written on the referendum. You may wish to see the arguments as a re-run of leave/remain but again that is an interpretation and not something more. Unless you are a member of the Supreme Court and being asked for a ruling.

[SheungWan]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

How the democratic process actually works seems to pass some people by! Doesn't it just!  

Certainly for the team that brought us Royal Prerogative as their standard bearer.

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Both sides promised and threatened everything.  And politicians on the same side even contradicted each other.

 

My impression is that many people decided to vote leave thinking it would not mean leaving the single market, eg, have your cake and eat it too. 

 

But that is yesterday's skirmish. The only thing decided for sure is what was written on the ballot paper.  Everything else is up for grabs.  It doesn't matter what anyone said, PM or not.

 

Common sense will come in to it.  People did not vote leave to invite a bugger's muddle, or make themselves and the country poorer.  Bozo Clown might want it all his own way, but 99% of normal people will probably agree that pragma must be a determining factor, as well as the needs of business, and the will of the people of course.

 

 

Exactly.  The devil is in the detail.

 

The Scottish government published a 650 page white paper months before their referendum, how much detail did the UK independence campaign provide.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Fourteen months on, Remoaners still can't believe or accept the vote. They cannot get their heads round it! They pick up any bit of news to continue their doom theories in the hope of getting out of it. The main reasons for the out vote are still valid. A trade agreement is preferable but any arrangement that allows free movement of people to the UK, and EU law primacy over it, does not constitute a meaningful exit.

Quite.

 

There is a HUGE difference between 'common trade agreement' and 'single trade agreement' - although the difference has been easily confused by those against the leave vote.

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

If you can watch this for a couple of minutes and accept a majority vote (for a change), then the single market issue was made clear by all of the main campaigners before the vote.

A vote leave staffer acknowledges that vote leave did not advocate leaving the single market

[dick dasterdly]

22 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

A vote leave staffer acknowledges that vote leave did not advocate leaving the single market

The 'single' market - or the EEU?

 

I've no doubt that most Brits. would prefer to remain part of the common market (EEC) - but they're obviously not happy with the EU for differing reasons.

Edited August 29, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Some TV posters me included are bored S****ss of the same oh what a mistake we have made, we should have a second referendum. Its not what people voted for blah, blah, blah, There is a reason the thread has got to 614 pages. Most of it is the same rehashed rhetoric, so what is the point of debating it all over again and again. I have stopped posting as really there has been nothing new of any value discussing.

Because it's the most important issue for the UK since WW2. If you're not interested, fine. Some of us take the matter extremely seriously.

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

A vote leave staffer acknowledges that vote leave did not advocate leaving the single market

I expect they were hoping for EEC terms - rather than EU terms....

[AlexRich]

4 hours ago, pitrevie said:

And that is exactly what Boris told us, leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market and his side won. 

I think the phrase he used was "having your cake and eat it" ... why? Because they need us more than we need them, and they'll be tripping over themselves to give us what we want. A big lie from a big liar.

 

But most of the brexiteers voted on immigration fears, and really gave little thought to the economic impact ... with GBP getting closer to parity with the Euro, that will increasingly become more of an issue.

[pitrevie]

57 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

A vote leave staffer acknowledges that vote leave did not advocate leaving the single market

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, pitrevie said:

 

 

Much as I dislike Boris (and so can't be bothered to watch the 'clip') - I assume he was talking about the common market rather than the 'single market'?

 

But I could well be wrong on this point as, let's face it, Boris is amusing - but as trustworthy as a '9 bob note'!  (Translated for those younger - a 90 pence note.)

[pitrevie]

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Much as I dislike Boris (and so can't be bothered to watch the 'clip') - I assume he was talking about the common market rather than the 'single market'?

 

But I could well be wrong on this point as, let's face it, Boris is amusing - but as trustworthy as a '9 bob note'!  (Translated for those younger - a 90 pence note.)

Nope he was quite clear it was the single market as the caption makes quite clear.

[SheungWan]

59 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Much as I dislike Boris (and so can't be bothered to watch the 'clip') - I assume he was talking about the common market rather than the 'single market'?

 

But I could well be wrong on this point as, let's face it, Boris is amusing - but as trustworthy as a '9 bob note'!  (Translated for those younger - a 90 pence note.)

A 9 bob note would be a 45 pence note. Can any Brexiteers count?

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

The 'single' market - or the EEU?

 

I've no doubt that most Brits. would prefer to remain part of the common market (EEC) - but they're obviously not happy with the EU for differing reasons.

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/2017/08/there-is-no-real-mandate-to-leave.html

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, pitrevie said:

 

 

I thought that changing your mind was supposed to be all part of democratic freedom. This clip is from 2013! 

[Khun Han]

45 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/2017/08/there-is-no-real-mandate-to-leave.html

 

But there was no mandate for us to enter in the first place because Heath took us in illegally.

[pitrevie]

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

But there was no mandate for us to enter in the first place because Heath took us in illegally.

I believe he received parliamentary approval which is the way things are done in the UK. A few years later when Labour proposed a referendum on the matter this was opposed in the Commons by Margaret Thatcher who was opposed to such things and thought it was for parliament to decide. Nevertheless a referendum was held and a massive majority was in favour of remaining in the EEC.

 

[nauseus]

23 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

I believe he received parliamentary approval which is the way things are done in the UK. A few years later when Labour proposed a referendum on the matter this was opposed in the Commons by Margaret Thatcher who was opposed to such things and thought it was for parliament to decide. Nevertheless a referendum was held and a massive majority was in favour of remaining in the EEC.

 

 

Ted Heath pushed The European Communities Act, which was passed by parliament in 1972. Heath signed the UK into the EEC in January 1973. Heath and others pushed the EEC as the Common Market, as purely a trading arrangement, with no essential loss of sovereignty. As we all know now, the loss of sovereignty bit was a complete lie and Heath eventually admitted to that on British television in the 80's.

 

The Harold Wilson government continued the lie but they ran the confirmation referendum because they were worried that there had not been one in the first place and that this could have actually been seen as constitutionally illegal. But by 1975 the British economy was so shot they couldn't lose and the result was a yes (but for a common market). 

 

But the legality of the whole thing is still debatable and still claimed as to be constitutionally illegal by many. Heath did not want a referendum in 1972 because it was likely that the country would have said NO.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Ted Heath pushed The European Communities Act, which was passed by parliament in 1972. Heath signed the UK into the EEC in January 1973. Heath and others pushed the EEC as the Common Market, as purely a trading arrangement, with no essential loss of sovereignty. As we all know now, the loss of sovereignty bit was a complete lie and Heath eventually admitted to that on British television in the 80's.

 

The Harold Wilson government continued the lie but they ran the confirmation referendum because they were worried that there had not been one in the first place and that this could have actually been seen as constitutionally illegal. But by 1975 the British economy was so shot they couldn't lose and the result was a yes (but for a common market). 

 

But the legality of the whole thing is still debatable and still claimed as to be constitutionally illegal by many. Heath did not want a referendum in 1972 because it was likely that the country would have said NO.

 

Correct. Any change in UK law which gives away any sovereignty requires formal approval by the population. That's why Heath lied about sovereignty when he took us in, and why Wilson held the retrospective referendum (Which still left the status of our original entry as illegal).

[SheungWan]

As I previously said, our happy forum Hard Brexiteers point blank refuse to engage in the debate as to the form of Brexit that will emerge from the current negotiations but rather hunker down with their Conspiracy Theories and sticking pins into the various voodoo dolls representing all the Enemies of The People and Traitors to the National Interest. And right on time the loony tune battle bus heaves into view (see above). Only one more step chaps from calling for a Nationalist Revolution but then that's where some of them have been heading all along. As for the legal/illegal gig their supported side have lost nearly every single legal challenge since the referendum, but then their appeal has never essentially been about legal process but rather raison d'etre for going ballistic.

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

As I previously said, our happy forum Hard Brexiteers point blank refuse to engage in the debate as to the form of Brexit that will emerge from the current negotiations but rather hunker down with their Conspiracy Theories and sticking pins into the various voodoo dolls representing all the Enemies of The People and Traitors to the National Interest. And right on time the loony tune battle bus heaves into view (see above). Only one more step chaps from calling for a Nationalist Revolution but then that's where some of them have been heading all along. As for the legal/illegal gig their supported side have lost nearly every single legal challenge since the referendum, but then their appeal has never essentially been about legal process but rather raison d'etre for going ballistic.

 

Love the flowery writing style. Content's a bit wooden and formulaic though.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Love the flowery writing style. Content's a bit wooden and formulaic though.

Jetlagged in HK is my excuse.

[SheungWan]

Its strange. On the one side we are hearing that the Government is tip-toeing towards some sort of transitional arrangements for post-brexit. The other side is that the UK team is still shambolic and not quite knowing what it wants. DD always seems to be smiling but that's about it. Not sure if TM is holding them together. She seems more focussed on business-bashing right now. Maybe Corbyn has given her the heebie-jeebies.

[pitrevie]

8 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Correct. Any change in UK law which gives away any sovereignty requires formal approval by the population. That's why Heath lied about sovereignty when he took us in, and why Wilson held the retrospective referendum (Which still left the status of our original entry as illegal).

Perhaps you could give a link to the Statute that supports that statement.

 

Heath received Parliamentary approval for the UK's accession to the EEC all quite legal and above board.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, pitrevie said:

Perhaps you could give a link to the Statute that supports that statement.

 

Heath received Parliamentary approval for the UK's accession to the EEC all quite legal and above board.

Parliament passed the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the HoC but constitutional convention requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The constitution is unwritten but it is codified in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. Parliament is required to consult the electorate directly, where constitutional change will affect their political sovereignty.

[Orac]

Parliament passed the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the HoC but constitutional convention requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The constitution is unwritten but it is codified in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. Parliament is required to consult the electorate directly, where constitutional change will affect their political sovereignty.

Intriguing. So you are saying there needs to be either a general election or referendum held to approve the deal that David Davis comes to with the EU.

Heath clearly had an intention to join the EEC if the terms were right since it was included in his 1970 manifesto. If you are arguing that there was a constitutional requirement that those terms needed the approval of the electorate after negotiation then we could be in for an interesting time.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Parliament passed the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the HoC but constitutional convention requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The constitution is unwritten but it is codified in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. Parliament is required to consult the electorate directly, where constitutional change will affect their political sovereignty.

The argument is irrational

How did parliament passing the EEC act , prevent future parliaments revoking the act

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The argument is irrational

How did parliament passing the EEC act , prevent future parliaments revoking the act

Not irrational - you need to read back through the string to get the context entirely.

Any of this does not prevent future parliaments revoking the 1972 act, quite the opposite really.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Parliament passed the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the HoC but constitutional convention requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The constitution is unwritten but it is codified in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. Parliament is required to consult the electorate directly, where constitutional change will affect their political sovereignty.

The Magna Carter for constitutional purposes an historical orniment, a piece of history displaying the change of supremacy from the King to parliament.

Magna Carter was an agreement between the King , who ruled at that time, and the Barons , which limited the kings ability to do whatever they liked.

 

The Bill of Rights placed firmly that Parliament was supreme