Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[Laughing Gravy]

23 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If you were to offer more than anecdotes of you and your friends, or a solid explanation of why you consider yourself to the the trusted face of UK public opinion, I might believe you. However the BBC disagrees with you, and I think they are better informed than you:

 

"Remain campaigner Angela Eagle may have told her opponents to "get that lie off your bus" but polling suggests it gained traction and was the single most remembered figure from the campaign, with many people believing that money handed over to the EU to be a member should be spent in the UK instead.

In that sense, it served as a powerful illustration of how the UK could be better off outside the EU."

Well I can't change what you perceive. I mentioned myself and my friends which are over a hundred worldwide. So were did I say I was the trusted face of the UK public opinion? I look forward to that. I am however the trusted face of myself and friends. It is the BBC and alike that have been telling me and the UK for far too long ,what is better for us. Thankfully I will be my own judge of that.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

They can't, other than make references that we should stay in and have influence to do so. It's become obvious that he EU will only change when it faces a big enough crisis to force it to do so.

Maybe Brexit is a big enough crisis?

[Laughing Gravy]

Just now, jpinx said:

Maybe Brexit is a big enough crisis?

You would off thought so but the arrogance and stance so far, suggests to me the exact opposite. It is business as usual. Do as we say (EU) or else. It is often referred to as bullying.

[Laughing Gravy]

32 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

However the BBC disagrees with you, and I think they are better informed than you:

The BBC who promoted the remain campaign with such vigor and showed such bias. Well it must be true then.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You would off thought so but the arrogance and stance so far, suggests to me the exact opposite. It is business as usual. Do as we say (EU) or else. It is often referred to as bullying.

That leaves no choice but to get out and then negotiate the relationship in the way that we want

 

[vaultdweller0013]

26 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Once again myself and my fiends didn't even consider the 350 million as a reason for leaving the EU. It has been said again and again, politicians say many things. This 350 million a week was not a vote changer and if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.. People have had enough of the EU, laws, rules and immigration. That's why they voted to leave. Not because of some bus and slogan.  I can't understand why people can't accept that. Again people I know had made their minds up, way before the remain and leave campaign happened.

 

You know what the ultimate irony would be: the 2 arrangements that have been made for non-EU members to have access to the common market are the EEA/Nordic and Swiss arrangements. Both of these require free movement of people. Both of these require contributions to the EU budget. Both of these require incorporation of significant portions of EU law into their countries' legal codes. However, neither one provides for any sort of binding representation of the countries within the EU. Based on this, if the UK wants to remain in the common market, there is a good chance the UK will end up with the same or almost similar obligations, but with less actual control over immigration and the EU laws that apply within the UK because they will have given up their representation (and in some cases veto) within the EU.

 

I'm not pointing this out to disparage pro-Brexit votes. I am honestly interested to know what reasonable negotiating plan was considered that would result in the EU giving up some of its fundamental principles while still allowing the UK access to the common market. Alternatively, I would be interested to know whether a lot of pro-Brexit voters feel that regaining control over immigration and eliminating the EU laws and rules was more important than access to the common market.

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

 

You know what the ultimate irony would be: the 2 arrangements that have been made for non-EU members to have access to the common market are the EEA/Nordic and Swiss arrangements. Both of these require free movement of people. Both of these require contributions to the EU budget. Both of these require incorporation of significant portions of EU law into their countries' legal codes. However, neither one provides for any sort of binding representation of the countries within the EU. Based on this, if the UK wants to remain in the common market, there is a good chance the UK will end up with the same or almost similar obligations, but with less actual control over immigration and the EU laws that apply within the UK because they will have given up their representation (and in some cases veto) within the EU.

 

I'm not pointing this out to disparage pro-Brexit votes. I am honestly interested to know what reasonable negotiating plan was considered that would result in the EU giving up some of its fundamental principles while still allowing the UK access to the common market. Alternatively, I would be interested to know whether a lot of pro-Brexit voters feel that regaining control over immigration and eliminating the EU laws and rules was more important than access to the common market.

Unfortunately you are not entirely incorrect, but there has to be another deal with the EU which the threat of Brexit can lever.  Tusk and his minions are all being stoney-faced, but is that a mask hiding fear, and would they actually cave in when Art50 is invoked and Brexit is not a question of "if" anymore?

[Grouse]

28 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

They can't, other than make references that we should stay in and have influence to do so. It's become obvious that he EU will only change when it faces a big enough crisis to force it to do so.

 

Well how's this for a crisis:

 

Toblerone are reducing the number of mountain peaks in bars to reduce cost in order to keep the chocolate affordable for poor Brits. GBP has collapsed 20% against CHF! The bears of Bern!

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

 

Well how's this for a crisis:

 

Toblerone are reducing the number of mountain peaks in bars to reduce cost in order to keep the chocolate affordable for poor Brits. GBP has collapsed 20% against CHF! The bears of Bern!

but, but, but.....  that's Switzerland, not in the EU  ; )

....besides - I'm on a diet --  too much desk-time these days ; )

Edited November 8, 2016 by jpinx

[Grouse]

25 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The BBC who promoted the remain campaign with such vigor and showed such bias. Well it must be true then.

 

Arrogance and bullying seem to be a big deal with you. Do you feel many people are arrogant, overbearing, biased?

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

but, but, but.....  that's Switzerland, not in the EU  ; )

....besides - I'm on a diet --  too much desk-time these days ; )

 

Who was it that stated using a single forex pair was misleading? 

 

We will see lots more of this kind of thing. I'll bet imported cereal boxes will remain the same but have less contents! Want to bet?

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Who was it that stated using a single forex pair was misleading? 

 

We will see lots more of this kind of thing. I'll bet imported cereal boxes will remain the same but have less contents! Want to bet?

Oh NO !!!   but what's a cornflake or two between friends ? ; )

Seeing as I'm at the keyboard most of the day these days, I'll see if I can write a script to get FX rates against a "basket case" selection.  Any suggestions - pm me .

Edited November 8, 2016 by jpinx

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Arrogance and bullying seem to be a big deal with you. Do you feel many people are arrogant, overbearing, biased?

That is extremely rich coming from you. Where am I bullying? Biased of course. Aren't you.

All I asked to show me where I had mentioned I was speaking for the rest of the UK. I wasn't that is not bullying. Asking were I had put it in my statement, is not bullying, far from it.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Laughing Gravy]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If you were to offer more than anecdotes of you and your friends, or a solid explanation of why you consider yourself to the the trusted face of UK public opinion, I might believe you. However the BBC disagrees with you, and I think they are better informed than you:

 

"Remain campaigner Angela Eagle may have told her opponents to "get that lie off your bus" but polling suggests it gained traction and was the single most remembered figure from the campaign, with many people believing that money handed over to the EU to be a member should be spent in the UK instead.

In that sense, it served as a powerful illustration of how the UK could be better off outside the EU."

Just to put this to rest. I live in Thailand. Most of my friends do also, or live on another country. A minority in the UK. So the fact that I don't get exposed to the UK media and the BBC as I refuse to watch it. Your theory and the BBC's really does not exist for me and my friends.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

Alternatively, I would be interested to know whether a lot of pro-Brexit voters feel that regaining control over immigration and eliminating the EU laws and rules was more important than access to the common market.

A simple answer for me on this is yes. I still believe that we can trade and deal with the other EU countries but not just on the terms the EU are demanding, especially so far.

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

That is extremely rich coming from you. Where am I bullying? Biased of course. Aren't you.

 

Stick and wrong end of come to mind ?

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Arrogance and bullying seem to be a big deal with you. Do you feel many people are arrogant, overbearing, biased?

Please enlighten me to my bullying. Arrogance is debatable with anyone when they strongly believe and are passionate about a subject. It is just an adjective that can be seen from two sides.

Now if I am getting the wrong end of the stick, then I just don't get this statement.

BTW I hate toblerone and I was always a Yorky man before they went extinct.

[chiang mai]

13 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Just to put this to rest. I live in Thailand. Most of my friends do also, or live on another country. A minority in the UK. So the fact that I don't get exposed to the UK media and the BBC as I refuse to watch it. Your theory and the BBC's really does not exist for me and my friends.

 

If so isolated from exposure to UK media, how do you get the essential data you need to help you make decisions and stay informed on current events and issues, your friends?

[RuamRudy]

Just to put this to rest. I live in Thailand. Most of my friends do also, or live on another country. A minority in the UK. So the fact that I don't get exposed to the UK media and the BBC as I refuse to watch it. Your theory and the BBC's really does not exist for me and my friends.

In Post #199 you stated clearly and confidently that people did not vote because of a slogan in a bus, and I queried the basis of your confidence.

In hindsight, perhaps you should have specified that, in fact, you were only able to speak of the people within your little bubble as not being persuaded by Boris' bus, but that you have no idea as to what motivated the vast majority of Brexiters. Then I would not have had to spell that out to you over several posts.

[7by7]

11 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

On ‎07‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:08 PM, 7by7 said:

It seems that even Nicola Sturgeon has given up on the idea of a second independence referendum for the time being, partly because she wants to continue receiving English taxpayers money to bail her government out!

So very much is that is simply incorrect about this statement. After a summer of liberal sentiments from you, a febrile undercurrent of Little Englander arrogance is clearly still there. 

 

English taxpayers' money, like Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers' money goes to the UK exchequer, which then allocates the money according to government mandated rules. Whilst you clearly consider England and the UK as being synonymous, you are wrong - it is UK money that finds the regions. 

 

Unless you live in the South East of England, it is actually the Scots who are subsidising you. As has been proven countless times, Scotland contributes more the the UK exchequer than any other region of the UK with the exception of London and the South East - so rather than trying to paint us as scroungers, accept the fact that we subsidise you and show some gratitude for once. 

 

Tell that to Sturgeon as the dire fiscal mess the Scottish economy is in is one of the reasons she has given for abandoning plans for another independence referendum for the time being!

 

You seem to be saying that you are happy for Scotland to be part of the UK when it comes to allocating UK taxpayers money from the UK exchequer; but want it to be independent for everything else!

 

BTW, as I have already said; I do live in the South East. I await your expression of gratitude for my tax money being spent in Scotland.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You would off thought so but the arrogance and stance so far, suggests to me the exact opposite. It is business as usual. Do as we say (EU) or else. It is often referred to as bullying.

 

Negotiations have yet to begin, and wont until Article 50 is triggered. I suspect that the EU stance will be that if the UK wants access to the single market then it can have it on the same terms as other European non member states; i.e. the EEA states and Switzerland.

 

The three main conditions being:

1. Continuing to accept and be party to the Freedom of Movement Directive; i.e. the situation we have now.
2. Contributing to the EU budget at an agreed rate; without any say over how the money is spent. Norway, for example, currently contributes more per head than the UK does.
3. Being subject to EU laws and regulations without having any influence over those laws and regulations; certainly no more veto.

Whether or not the UK government will be able to negotiate a better deal than this is open to question; only time will tell. But the belief of many Brexiteers that we would be able to retain all the advantages of membership whilst ditching all the disadvantages was, and still is, pure fantasy.

 

 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

In Post #199 you stated clearly and confidently that people did not vote because of a slogan in a bus, and I queried the basis of your confidence.

In hindsight, perhaps you should have specified that, in fact, you were only able to speak of the people within your little bubble as not being persuaded by Boris' bus, but that you have no idea as to what motivated the vast majority of Brexiters. Then I would not have had to spell that out to you over several posts.

 

I was clearly referring to myself and my little bubble how else can I talk about what other people do/think. You do that. I can give my opinion on what other people believe, that is it. You can also, along with the BBC article you mentioned.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Laughing Gravy]

10 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

If so isolated from exposure to UK media, how do you get the essential data you need to help you make decisions and stay informed on current events and issues, your friends?

It is called independent research but I thought it would have been obvious that living in Thailand, there was no bus that I saw with the 350 million pound slogan, that is being refereed to. Once again, I made my mind up way before the referendum voting day. The stranglehold the EU has on the European countries and the dictatorship that they enforce on the countries, eradicating their culture and identity the remain campaign could never have changed my mind.

 

Plus as someone who is very interested in politics, the UK public are not aware the way the many treaties and laws have been put in through the back door, which has in effect saw their sovereignty taken away. The fishing and agriculture industries have, as they have been directly affected by the EU.

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is called independent research but I thought it would have been obvious that living in Thailand, there was no bus that I saw with the 350 million pound slogan, that is being refereed to. Once again, I made my mind up way before the referendum voting day. The stranglehold the EU has on the European countries and the dictatorship that they enforce on the countries, eradicating their culture and identity the remain campaign could never have changed my mind.

 

Plus as someone who is very interested in politics, the UK public are not aware the way the many treaties and laws have been put in through the back door, which has in effect saw their sovereignty taken away. The fishing and agriculture industries have, as they have been directly affected by the EU.

How are treaties put through the back door?

[Laughing Gravy]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

How are treaties put through the back door?

I have mentioned this before. if you find it fascinating like I do, read and research on the Lisbon treaty and Maastricht treaty for starters.

The start of the European common market was and is not what it was stated to be.

Then look at the Amsterdam and Nice treaty and this is causing so many problems with immigration.

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/treaties/eu-treaties-treaty-on-european-union-maastricht-treaty-of-nice-lisbon-treaty.html

 

Great and fascinating stuff. Nobody had a referendum on these or a vote. They were ushered in.

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I have mentioned this before. if you find it fascinating like I do, read and research on the Lisbon treaty and Maastricht treaty for starters.

The start of the European common market was and is not what it was stated to be.

Then look at the Amsterdam and Nice treaty and this is causing so many problems with immigration.

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/treaties/eu-treaties-treaty-on-european-union-maastricht-treaty-of-nice-lisbon-treaty.html

 

Great and fascinating stuff. Nobody had a referendum on these or a vote. They were ushered in.

I think this kills your argument

'  In the UK, ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and its new provisions on the amendment of the founding Treaties was subject to the requirements of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. 1 The European Union Act 2011, 2 which received Royal Assent on 19 July 2011, provided various additional safeguards to protect the UK from further transfers of power from the UK to the EU, including the possibility of a national referendum on proposed Treaty changes. The EU Treaty amendments that have been adopted since Lisbon came into force have all required an Act of Parliament but have not been deemed to attract a referendum in the UK.'

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06503#fullreport

 

[RuamRudy]

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Tell that to Sturgeon as the dire fiscal mess the Scottish economy is in is one of the reasons she has given for abandoning plans for another independence referendum for the time being!

 

Dire Scottish economy? No more dire than the UK economy as a whole, but unfortunately stymied by being shackled to a larger country which is incapable of electing a decent government - and Scotland being forced to endure it.

 

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

You seem to be saying that you are happy for Scotland to be part of the UK when it comes to allocating UK taxpayers money from the UK exchequer; but want it to be independent for everything else!

 

Happy? Do you not recall our arguments during the independence referendum? There are few thing I wish for more than to unburden my country from the deadweight that is the UK, and the arrogance of you people who see England as the UK (although I am glad to see that you corrected yourself here and acknowledged that England is not the sole font of UK funds - was it a painful admission?). 

 

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

BTW, as I have already said; I do live in the South East. I await your expression of gratitude for my tax money being spent in Scotland.

 

I can't say that I noticed / recalled you mentioning where specifically you reside, but as a UK citizen I am grateful for all the positive contributions of all my fellow citizens. It is just a shame that some people have such innate arrogance when they talk about, for example, English money funding the UK. I appreciate that you have been thinking along those lines all your life and that you are unlikely to change (until the UK, at least, reaches its demise) but it is as incredibly irritating as it is incorrect. 

[Laughing Gravy]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I think this kills your argument

'  In the UK, ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and its new provisions on the amendment of the founding Treaties was subject to the requirements of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. 1 The European Union Act 2011, 2 which received Royal Assent on 19 July 2011, provided various additional safeguards to protect the UK from further transfers of power from the UK to the EU, including the possibility of a national referendum on proposed Treaty changes. The EU Treaty amendments that have been adopted since Lisbon came into force have all required an Act of Parliament but have not been deemed to attract a referendum in the UK.'

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06503#fullreport

 

How does that the kill the argument. Have you read the treaties yet and how they came to be introduced. If not never mind. I enjoyed researching them. It took me more then 10 minutes though.

 

Read all the links here. Here is a start to some of the EU treaties.

http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/maastricht.htm#1993-1996

Edited November 9, 2016 by Laughing Gravy
To help the TV Poster with research.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I was clearly referring to myself and my little bubble how else can I talk about what other people do/think. You do that. I can give my opinion on what other people believe, that is it. You can also, along with the BBC article you mentioned.

 

Allow me to refresh your memory:

 

18 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

This 350 million a week was not a vote changer and if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.. People have had enough of the EU, laws, rules and immigration. That's why they voted to leave. Not because of some bus and slogan.  I can't understand why people can't accept that. Again people I know had made their minds up, way before the remain and leave campaign happened.

 

I do not know your friends so why should you expect me to be able to provide any evidence as to what provoked your friends to vote as they did? It would seem to me that you were implying that yours and your friends' scepticism was reflective of Leave voters in general. 

 

But just so we are clear, do you agree that you have no idea whether the Big Red Bus of Brexit Lies was crucial in the Leave vote winning the referendum?

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

How does that the kill the argument. Have you read the treaties yet and how they came to be introduced. If not never mind. I enjoyed researching them. It took me more then 10 minutes though.

 

Read all the links here. Here is a start to some of the EU treaties.

http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/maastricht.htm#1993-1996

But you fail to acknowledge the UK signs them.