May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Khun Han]

47 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I'm sure Sandy would be referring to the English flag; the St George's cross frequently seen on vests in low rent bars and flying proudly outside council houses?

 

It's such a pity that so many Brexiteers failed to see the cultural richness and strong social society the characterises much of the EU and reflects so poorly on our beloved homelands

 

You really do have a hard-on for non-English Europeans, don't you? . What you're fawning over must be the reasons why these other countries have done so much better than the UK economically, and their 'togetherness' must by why they've always managed to fend off aggressors. Oh, wait a minute.....only Germany does better than us economically, and the rest of Europe has been repeatedly savaged by them militarily. And it's us, Brits, who have historically played the biggest European role in pulling those 'culturallly great, strong social societies' out of the  sh1t. Can't imagen how we've ever managed to do that, what with our crappy culture and dysfuncional society. Take off the rose-tinted glasses man.

[SheungWan]

Sterling drops as jump in industrial output fails to ease Hard Brexit fears: (figs from Bloomberg). Sterling now $1.20+

 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by SheungWan

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

You really do have a hard-on for non-English Europeans, don't you? . What you're fawning over must be the reasons why these other countries have done so much better than the UK economically, and their 'togetherness' must by why they've always managed to fend off aggressors. Oh, wait a minute.....only Germany does better than us economically, and the rest of Europe has been repeatedly savaged by them militarily. And it's us, Brits, who have historically played the biggest European role in pulling those 'culturallly great, strong social societies' out of the  sh1t. Can't imagen how we've ever managed to do that, what with our crappy culture and dysfuncional society. Take off the rose-tinted glasses man.

 

 

Are we all English now? There are three other countries in the UK who are non-English Europeans. 

[Laughing Gravy]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 What you actually said was

You later said

 

Opining that some people believe the EU is better than sliced bread is one thing; that's your opinion and no more or less valid than anyone else's.

 

But claiming people have said things which they have not is completely different. No one here has said the parts I have highlighted above; and you know it.

 

Did you not have to apologise to sandyf for claiming that he had?

 

Be an adult and admit your were wrong.

 

That is rich coming from you. I guess you simply don't read what I said and to sandyf and what people put in the threads. If you have nothing new to say to me just ignore me as I will be doing that to you.

 

[Laughing Gravy]

13 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

I'm sure Sandy would be referring to the English flag; the St George's cross frequently seen on vests in low rent bars and flying proudly outside council houses?

 

It's such a pity that so many Brexiteers failed to see the cultural richness and strong social society the characterises much of the EU and reflects so poorly on our beloved homelands

I can't speak for sandyf on this matter but I can myself. I am proud to have the St. George's flag, St Andrews flag, The Northern Irish flag, the St. David's Welsh Dragon flag and even the Eire flag, as my roots are there. I still believe in the Union jack. I certainly see the cultural richness and strong social society within the UK. That is one of my points that the UK is so culturally bonded and similar. Very different from the rest of the EU, such as Germany, France and Italy as some examples. it is not only language but customs and traditions. Other EU countries especially the recent members are miles apart with not only different cultures but religions and customs way different.

[sandyf]

23 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually sandyf it is still the British flag (union jack). it was uncharted waters joining the EU and it has failed. We will be just fine and there many other countries willing to do Business with the UK and also within the EU once they realize they will be damaging their already shaky economy.

As a brexiteer I have every interest in the countries you mention. They are still part of the United Kingdom and will continue to be

 

The idea that it is just to difficult to do business with the EU outside the single market just makes it more important to get out. I am sure the EU will find a way to do business as it will benefit them.

 

The EU is the one that has more to lose than the UK. Its behavior before and since the referendum has only made people realize we should have got out earlier.

You obviously missed the implication. By the time the country, for want of a better name, is out of the EU there may not be a British flag to fly. The government is doing its best to drive Scotland and Northern Ireland from the Union.

[nontabury]

 

8 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You obviously missed the implication. By the time the country, for want of a better name, is out of the EU there may not be a British flag to fly. The government is doing its best to drive Scotland and Northern Ireland from the Union.

 

 Amazing, from where do you get that idea? You could have also mentioned London, as the people in that city also voted for remain. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by nontabury

[sandyf]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

 Amazing, from where do you get that idea? You could have also mentioned London, as the people in that city also voted for remain. 

Don't you read the news on Northern Ireland? My friend who lives in Belfast says there is growing talk of reunification.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-political-crisis-will-not-delay-article-50-says-theresa-may-a7521661.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-northern-ireland-dup-votes-peace-process-a7519106.html

 

As for Scotland, the first minister has thrown down the gauntlet on leaving the single market.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38546002

[jpinx]

13 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Don't you read the news on Northern Ireland? My friend who lives in Belfast says there is growing talk of reunification.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-political-crisis-will-not-delay-article-50-says-theresa-may-a7521661.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-northern-ireland-dup-votes-peace-process-a7519106.html

 

As for Scotland, the first minister has thrown down the gauntlet on leaving the single market.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38546002

There's been talk of re-unification for years now -- nothing new happening.

Resignations over financial mishandling are nothing to do with Brexit.

Scotlands FM has been spouting this for some time now, and there's even a thread in here devoted to that topic in a more up-to-date way.

 

 

[sandyf]

On 1/12/2017 at 10:47 AM, jpinx said:

There's been talk of re-unification for years now -- nothing new happening.

Resignations over financial mishandling are nothing to do with Brexit.

Scotlands FM has been spouting this for some time now, and there's even a thread in here devoted to that topic in a more up-to-date way.

 

 

You are quite free to believe that political crisis and brexit have nothing to do with the the people of Northern Ireland and that there has been no change in Belfast City Council in recent years, its up to you.

You are quite right, the NS statement is a week old now, hardly up to date.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You are quite free to believe that political crisis and brexit have nothing to do with the the people of Northern Ireland and that there has been no change in Belfast City Council in recent years, its up to you.

You are quite right, the NS statement is a week old now, hardly up to date.

OK -- for the last time -- NS has been spouting this rhetoric for months now, and there have been numerous talks at many levels about irish re-unification over the last few years. 

Please keep up before posting :)

[sandyf]

Many seem to forget it is not just the right of parliament that the courts will decide.

 

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be entitled to approve Ms May’s plans to trigger Article 50.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-northern-ireland-crisis-stormont-assembly-delay-theresa-may-illegal-article-50-a7526126.html

[nontabury]

12 hours ago, sandyf said:

Many seem to forget it is not just the right of parliament that the courts will decide.

 

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be entitled to approve Ms May’s plans to trigger Article 50.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-northern-ireland-crisis-stormont-assembly-delay-theresa-may-illegal-article-50-a7526126.html

 

 

Regarding Scotland, is that the official position this week,and is so will it change next week?

[jpinx]

12 hours ago, sandyf said:

Many seem to forget it is not just the right of parliament that the courts will decide.

 

The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be entitled to approve Ms May’s plans to trigger Article 50.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-northern-ireland-crisis-stormont-assembly-delay-theresa-may-illegal-article-50-a7526126.html

The supreme court is currently considering the appeal against the high court ruling.  They are not looking at Scotland and N.Ireland - that will need a separate action to be raised, and they're running out of time.  All parts of UK are represented in Westminster by elected MP's, so doubling up by getting a vote from the assembly would be ridiculous

Edited January 14, 2017 by jpinx

[sandyf]

41 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

Regarding Scotland, is that the official position this week,and is so will it change next week?

You can spin it any way you want with items that have no date.

This is from the Andrew Marr show on 8th Jan 2017.

 

The Scottish First Minister hinted that a hard Brexit could see a vote on independence within five years, but insisted that she was offering a “compromise solution” to the Prime Minister.

Ms Sturgeon has indicated that soft Brexit could take the issue of a second referendum on Scottish independence off the table in the short term.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-says-she-isnt-bluffing-over-scottish-independence-referendum-a7515551.html

 

Only the narrow minded would ignore the possibility that brexit could lead to a break up of the United Kingdom.

[sandyf]

50 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The supreme court is currently considering the appeal against the high court ruling.  They are not looking at Scotland and N.Ireland - that will need a separate action to be raised, and they're running out of time.  All parts of UK are represented in Westminster by elected MP's, so doubling up by getting a vote from the assembly would be ridiculous

You really should keep up to date before posting.

 

"If devolution was a problem then the government can only blame itself. The submissions in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were considered by the Supreme Court only because the government chose to appeal against the high court decision. The worst result for the government would be a decision that adversely affected the royal prerogative generally and limited the power of both government and parliament in respect of the devolved administrations. That would be a severe and partly self-inflicted constitutional wound for the government."
 

https://www.ft.com/content/a9f839ac-bade-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

 

[jpinx]

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

You really should keep up to date before posting.

 

"If devolution was a problem then the government can only blame itself. The submissions in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were considered by the Supreme Court only because the government chose to appeal against the high court decision. The worst result for the government would be a decision that adversely affected the royal prerogative generally and limited the power of both government and parliament in respect of the devolved administrations. That would be a severe and partly self-inflicted constitutional wound for the government."
 

https://www.ft.com/content/a9f839ac-bade-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

 

If the decision is to uphold the rights of government above the royal prerogative, then the rights of the assembly would also be subservient.  We only have a short time to wait and see what the decision is.

[jpinx]

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 

Regarding Scotland, is that the official position this week,and is so will it change next week?

What a strange piece.  NS does not lead the Green Party, and the voters must be very easily fooled because they've been voting for NS again and again.......

[rockingrobin]

10 hours ago, jpinx said:

The supreme court is currently considering the appeal against the high court ruling.  They are not looking at Scotland and N.Ireland - that will need a separate action to be raised, and they're running out of time.  All parts of UK are represented in Westminster by elected MP's, so doubling up by getting a vote from the assembly would be ridiculous

The supreme court is looking at Scotland, NI, and Wales submissions along with others

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

If the decision is to uphold the rights of government above the royal prerogative, then the rights of the assembly would also be subservient.  We only have a short time to wait and see what the decision is.

 

You might need to reword the above. The government is riding on the royal prerogative not above it. If the government wins then the assemblies issues will still have been considered by the Supreme Court but overridden by the Government's case.

[jpinx]

44 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The supreme court is looking at Scotland, NI, and Wales submissions along with others

How did they by-pass the high court?  I thought the supreme court was only used when the high court could not sort things out

[jpinx]

Just now, SheungWan said:

 

You might need to reword the above. The government is riding on the royal prerogative not above it. If the government wins then the assemblies issues will still have been considered by the Supreme Court but overridden by the Government's case.

Point taken, but it's not entirely clear what is being contested, other than the pecking order of the royal prerogative and the government. The government have sway over the assemblies, when push comes to shove - no?

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The supreme court is looking at Scotland, NI, and Wales submissions along with others

 

17 minutes ago, jpinx said:

How did they by-pass the high court?  I thought the supreme court was only used when the high court could not sort things out

NI had already been to the High Court, Scotland and others asked SC permission to intervene, 

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

 

NI had already been to the High Court, Scotland and others asked SC permission to intervene, 

Ah -- ok   I had missed that bit of news in amongst the chaff that is flying around this whole pantomime.

[rockingrobin]

19 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Point taken, but it's not entirely clear what is being contested, other than the pecking order of the royal prerogative and the government. The government have sway over the assemblies, when push comes to shove - no?

The RP traditionally cannot be used to alter, repeal or create domestic law, that competence lies with parliament and not government. 

If the government possessed such domestic powers then what is the purpose of some 600+ MPs 

[SheungWan]

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Point taken, but it's not entirely clear what is being contested, other than the pecking order of the royal prerogative and the government. The government have sway over the assemblies, when push comes to shove - no?

 

It is the UK parliament that has the priority over certain issues as far as the regional assemblies are concerned. The argument is that the government is attempting to usurp parliament's authority and ipso facto regional interests by its resort to royal prerogative. 'Parliament' and 'The Government' are not synonymous terms.

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

It is the UK parliament that has the priority over certain issues as far as the regional assemblies are concerned. The argument is that the government is attempting to usurp parliament's authority and ipso facto regional interests by its resort to royal prerogative. 'Parliament' and 'The Government' are not synonymous terms.

Astute note. I was confused over the use of the term "Government" in these discussions as I think of Government to mean the Executive Branch (PM and Cabinet) PLUS Parliament Members. Both have separate authority, albeit the PM is the Head of Government as a titular title.

[jpinx]

17 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The RP traditionally cannot be used to alter, repeal or create domestic law, that competence lies with parliament and not government. 

If the government possessed such domestic powers then what is the purpose of some 600+ MPs 

Has to be said --  one wonders about that anyway

[7by7]

5 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The RP traditionally cannot be used to alter, repeal or create domestic law, that competence lies with parliament and not government.  

 

Correct; but it can be, and has been, used to make, amend or break international treaties, such as membership of international organisations such as the EU.

 

When the UK joined the EC back in 1972, Heath used the Royal Prerogative to sign the treaty. However, an Act of Parliament, the European Communities Act 1972, was required to bring the UK's domestic laws etc. into line with it's treaty obligations.

 

The same has happened since; the government have agreed to various EU regulations with the other member states, but an Act of Parliament has been required to bring those agreements into UK law.

 

For example the Maastricht Treaty. Major used the Royal Prerogative to sign the treaty, but it needed an Act of Parliament, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, to bring the provisions of that treaty into UK law. 

 

There is no constitutional reason why the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to break the UK's treaties with the EU by  triggering Article 50. Once an agreement has been reached with the other 27, an Act of Parliament would be required to repeal or amend those UK domestic laws which have derived from our membership of the EU so that they meet the requirements of any agreement reached.

 

For more on this, see Thomas Fairclough: Article 50 and the Royal Prerogative 

 

Of course, whether or not the Supreme Court agrees with this, we will find out when they give their judgement.

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

It is the UK parliament that has the priority over certain issues as far as the regional assemblies are concerned. The argument is that the government is attempting to usurp parliament's authority and ipso facto regional interests by its resort to royal prerogative. 'Parliament' and 'The Government' are not synonymous terms.

That is the here and now, but even if the courts rule that Article 50 will have no impact on the devolved administration agreements, the problems do not go away.

 

EU funding for the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement are major obstacles and the Irish,collectively speaking, are never going to agree to a border.

 

During the Scottish independence referendum the Tory party promised Scotland if they voted NO they would be guaranteed a voice in Europe, Nicola Sturgeon is not going to let that be pushed to one side.