BREXIT

[Raja Clavata]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

No , can you provide evidence, labour and the 'rebels' are acting in the democratic will of the people  ?

No but I can assert that they were democratically elected.

[JRDS]

10 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

No but I can assert that they were democratically elected.

No they weren't, the vast majority stood on Manifestos to respect and enact the result of the Referendum.  They have broken the contracts on which they were elected and should be fired or made to stand as independents in bye elections.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

No but I can assert that they were democratically elected.

They were 2 years ago, on a LEAVE ticket ! Now what ?

If youre trying to insinuate that Brexiter MPs dont have the support of the majority, then why dont the leavers let us have an election ?
Oh , but Boris cant be trusted they say, he ll change the date !

Well pass a bill to stop him doing that ! You seem to be good at such things 

[welsh1]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

And let's not forget the PM was not elected by the public 

And the next PM will not be elected by the public, or the one after that , come on this is politics basics.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, welsh1 said:

And the next PM will not be elected by the public, or the one after that , come on this is politics basics.

Its left wing remainer politics and democracy, its different 😂

[Raja Clavata]

6 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

And the next PM will not be elected by the public, or the one after that , come on this is politics basics.

Are you suggesting nobody votes in a GE on the basis of favouring the party whose leader they prefer and therefore wish to be PM?

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its left wing remainer politics and democracy, its different 😂

Must be centrist too. Cheap shot mind.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Are you suggesting nobody votes in a GE on the basis of favouring the party whose leader they prefer and therefore wish to be PM?

I thought you voted for an MP ?

Whose loyalties could change at any moment , as has been seen ....

Elizabeth Jones.

EU Law trumps all national laws of EU Member States, in the event of conflict or divergence or uncertainty. The Treaty on European Union (TEU) consolidating all the Treaties up to and including the last, The Treaty of Lisbon (2007), declares that "law adopted by the EU has primacy over the law of Member States". (A,S3,Art4,Clause17, TEU 2007). The TEU also contains the EU Law for a Member State to withdraw legally from EU membership, in Article 50.

Article 50 has 5 short Clauses. Clause 1 grants Member States the right to withdraw if proper national procedures take place to justify such a decision. This was fulfilled in the UK by the June 2016 Referendum.

Clause 2 states that the withdrawing Member must then invoke Article 50 by official written notification to the European Council, which was done on 29 March 2017 by Mrs May.

A 2-year period starts from that exact date of invocation, during which both parties can seek to agree terms and conditions for the withdrawal, subject to approval by the EU Council and Parliament. If no such agreement is reached by the end of the 2-year period, the withdrawing State can request an extension, and the EU Council can agree but only unanimously.

This has happened twice earlier this year, at Mrs May's request and with unanimous approval by the European Council. The new expiry date is 31 October 2019, at precisely 23:00 Hours British Time.

Without an agreement, approved on the EU side, or without any further UK request for an extension, or without a unanimous approval of such a UK extension request, then the UK's membership of the EU expires automatically on 31st October 2019 at 23:00 Hours British Time. For the UK, the EU Treaties fall away and membership ceases from that moment on.

Therefore even if the EU offers the UK a further time extension beyond 31 October 2019, and/or agrees to or offers any changes to the existing draft Withdrawal Agreement entered into with Mrs May, there is only one person who can stop the UK's membership from expiring on 31 October 2019 and that is the UK Prime Minister. Without action along these lines by him to the European Council, withdrawal is the legally enshrined result of the UK's invocation of the TEU's Article 50 Law.

This is the rigid extent of the EU's scope for manoeuvre. They note the UK government has been required under its own laws, to secure Parliamentary approval of any Withdrawal Agreement. However there is absolutely no obligation upon the EU or requirement from the EU on the UK government, for the UK government to have secured such approval. As far as the EU is concerned if the UK government signs up to an agreement with the EU over its withdrawal, within the terms of Article 50, that is fine.

I would argue at this point, that were this to have happened, the UK would have had no choice but to accept that withdrawal agreement, irrespective of the Supreme Court ruling in the Miller case re: putting the matter to a vote in Parliament. EU and UK government agreement would be imbued by the authority and supremacy of the EU law, whatever way a UK Parliament voted, under the Miller judgment.

In effect, it is also EU Law which creates the so-called 'No Deal' outcome, not as an option, but as an unassailable inevitability. No legal process can be sustained if there can be no end to the process ever in certain circumstances. Article 50 sets out the end-game.

In my view, any UK Statutory Law(s) or UK Court judgments imposing restrictions on the powers of the UK government such as those being sought both in Parliament and in UK Courts currently, could not stop the inevitable outcome of Article 50, which trumps any such putative UK jurisprudence.

The question therefore moot right now is - could such a UK Law or Court judgment force a UK government to request a further extension to Article 50, to stop the Article 50 default outcome, automatic UK withdrawal? Could a UK Prime Minister not argue that in the absence of any reference to or recognition in the TEU Article 50 allowing for national law or court judgment to alter or overrule the substance of the TEU's Article 50 - in other words to change an EU Law - that no Member State government could be so shackled by national law or court ruling when EU Law must take precedence over all subsidiary Member State law in all cases?

The UK, and all EU Member States, have a right to leave the EU, enshrined in the TEU Article 50, and a process is set down which such a Member State must obey, and no subsidiary jurisdiction or jurisprudence has the power to alter, amend or deny to its own Government, that right in EU Law. The UK Supreme Court, the UK Parliament and The Crown are all subsidiary to the EU's Laws. As such the EU has ultimate sovereignty as an obligatory part of membership. There is nothing an individual Member State can do legally to undo this unless it leaves the EU.

If I am right, everything else is an elaborate dance, a performance on stage, a swansong for some, a prelude to a General Election in the UK for others, a huge nonsense, a Mad Hatter's Tea Party down the rabbit hole.

[welsh1]

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Are you suggesting nobody votes in a GE on the basis of favouring the party whose leader they prefer and therefore wish to be PM?

 

If you were paying attention you vote for a person who you believe will best represent your interests in parliment , sometimes you don't get the person you voted for, that's how our democratic system works.
As you have noticed leaders of parties change, some are voted in to their position by members of that party, others (gordon brown) appear to get the position by default without a ballot of members.

I will reitterate, it's really basic politics.

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

If you were paying attention you vote for a person who you believe will best represent your interests in parliment , sometimes you don't get the person you voted for, that's how our democratic system works.
As you have noticed leaders of parties change, some are voted in to their position by members of that party, others (gordon brown) appear to get the position by default without a ballot of members.

I will reitterate, it's really basic politics.

I have been paying attention and of course you vote for a person who you want to be your MP but there are other factors that come into play in deciding who you vote for. It shouldn't really need explaining but...

37 minutes ago, JRDS said:

No they weren't, the vast majority stood on Manifestos to respect and enact the result of the Referendum.  They have broken the contracts on which they were elected and should be fired or made to stand as independents in bye elections.

OK, thanks.

[Kalahari]

We could learn a bit from today's news. I have posted this in another thread but it deserves to go here as well.

 

Mugabe subverted democracy from the outset. It was known that the election was not fair or democratic but the British Government would not say so. So we allow people to subvert democracy at our peril. There are people in Britain doing exactly the same thing, they might not be like Mugabe but once you allow democracy to be subverted you set a precedent for evil people to use the same mechanisms for their own ends. Democracy is quite a frail plant and people inside and outside parliament are trampling all over it.

David.

[Rewulf]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

I have been paying attention and of course you vote for a person who you want to be your MP but there are other factors that come into play in deciding who you vote for. It shouldn't really need explaining but...

What 'other factors' their political leanings ? Sex ? Oral oratory skills ? 😐

Just say I voted for Anna soubry in 2015, because shes a tory, and Im a righty.
She gets a bit gobby about the referendum result in 2016, but shes still the tory candidate and says she will support leaving the EU at the 2017 election, so I vote for her  , again.

2 years later, not only is she no longer a tory, but she ardently opposes Brexit in any way shape or form, and ignores the majority leave voters, well, ANY voters , in her constituency !
A person with integrity would call for a by election, but no, she not only DOESNT represent Broxtowe as a tory , she doesnt represent the 55 % who wanted out, who IS she representing ?
While she cops her £80k a year wages and £200k a year expenses.

Your argument is largely without merit.

[Raja Clavata]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

What 'other factors' their political leanings ? Sex ? Oral oratory skills ? 😐

Just say I voted for Anna soubry in 2015, because shes a tory, and Im a righty.
She gets a bit gobby about the referendum result in 2016, but shes still the tory candidate and says she will support leaving the EU at the 2017 election, so I vote for her  , again.

2 years later, not only is she no longer a tory, but she ardently opposes Brexit in any way shape or form, and ignores the majority leave voters, well, ANY voters , in her constituency !
A person with integrity would call for a by election, but no, she not only DOESNT represent Broxtowe as a tory , she doesnt represent the 55 % who wanted out, who IS she representing ?
While she cops her £80k a year wages and £200k a year expenses.

Your argument is largely without merit.

I'm not sure you've interpreted my argument correctly, what do you think it is?

[Yellow Bear]

19 minutes ago, Kalahari said:

We could learn a bit from today's news. I have posted this in another thread but it deserves to go here as well.

 

Mugabe subverted democracy from the outset. It was known that the election was not fair or democratic but the British Government would not say so. So we allow people to subvert democracy at our peril. There are people in Britain doing exactly the same thing, they might not be like Mugabe but once you allow democracy to be subverted you set a precedent for evil people to use the same mechanisms for their own ends. Democracy is quite a frail plant and people inside and outside parliament are trampling all over it.

David.

I suspect many in the momentum ranks would like to emulate Mugabe given the whisker of a chance.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Can you provide any evidence that no deal on 31st October 2019 is the democratic will of the people

Yes...the referendum result! Which, as remainers consistently try to ignore, was that the UK people voted to leave the EU....no other questions, just leave the EU..........it didnt stipulate the condition "only if we got a deal" or "only if remainer MP's agreed" 

[welsh1]

33 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I have been paying attention and of course you vote for a person who you want to be your MP but there are other factors that come into play in deciding who you vote for. It shouldn't really need explaining 

 

Now we are getting there.

[Raja Clavata]

7 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Now we are getting there.

Still no closer to delivering Brexit though.

[welsh1]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

Still no closer to delivering Brexit though.

But you are a little bit closer to understanding the basics of politics #babysteps

[Raja Clavata]

1 minute ago, welsh1 said:

But you are a little bit closer to understanding the basics of politics #babysteps

Indeed. You need to change your hook length material because I am not biting.

[welsh1]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

Indeed. You need to change your hook length material because I am not biting.

Lol, really, i would look back at the thread, i think that not only did you bite i landed you and threw you back  #i'mnotbitingbutkeepreplyingtoyourpost #inabarrel

But on a serious note at least you have learnt the basics about who you vote for #everydayisalearningday 

[Rewulf]

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm not sure you've interpreted my argument correctly, what do you think it is?

Im not going round in circles about the definitions of why we vote for MPs, some people will vote for someone because they have nice hair , or teeth, others because they have voted for that party all their life, and would put jimmy saville into a seat if he stood, cos their dad did !
But its irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

What is relevant is the facts of WHY we are here.
Labour and tory MPs by vast majority OK ed a referendum.
Labour and tory MPs by vast majority voted to trigger A50 , with a clear end date.
No one harped on about no deal being 'unacceptable' then.
Gina Miller backed with soros money takes the government to court , wins the case for parliamentary approval for ANY DEAL put forward.
This leaves a default position, as always, of NO deal.
Not one MP seems to have an issue with this.
Mays deal, the only deal tabled, causes widespread anger BEFORE its even put to the house.She is told its doomed to fail.
She tables it anyway, 3 times, massive majority against it every time.
No other deals offered, EU says thats all youre getting.
The default date comes into view , and delayed.
Default position as its always been, leave with no deal, now MPs start screaming about democracy and how we cant allow this to happen !
They made it happen.

All they are doing is using it as an excuse to cancel Brexit, and cancel out the wishes of the people.
How can you defend it ?

[Yellow Bear]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

How can you defend it ?

Easily - he does not want out so anything goes 

[Rewulf]

Just now, Yellow Bear said:

Easily - he does not want out so anything goes 

Like this ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49605019/thornberry-on-brexit-i-d-negotiate-a-deal-but-campaign-against-it

[Raja Clavata]

28 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Lol, really, i would look back at the thread, i think that not only did you bite i landed you and threw you back  #i'mnotbitingbutkeepreplyingtoyourpost #inabarrel

But on a serious note at least you have learnt the basics about who you vote for #everydayisalearningday 

Nah, you bit on the fact I chose the words i did instead of saying the PM was not the leader of the party at the last general election 😛 

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Im not going round in circles about the definitions of why we vote for MPs, some people will vote for someone because they have nice hair , or teeth, others because they have voted for that party all their life, and would put jimmy saville into a seat if he stood, cos their dad did !
But its irrelevant to this discussion anyway.

What is relevant is the facts of WHY we are here.
Labour and tory MPs by vast majority OK ed a referendum.
Labour and tory MPs by vast majority voted to trigger A50 , with a clear end date.
No one harped on about no deal being 'unacceptable' then.
Gina Miller backed with soros money takes the government to court , wins the case for parliamentary approval for ANY DEAL put forward.
This leaves a default position, as always, of NO deal.
Not one MP seems to have an issue with this.
Mays deal, the only deal tabled, causes widespread anger BEFORE its even put to the house.She is told its doomed to fail.
She tables it anyway, 3 times, massive majority against it every time.
No other deals offered, EU says thats all youre getting.
The default date comes into view , and delayed.
Default position as its always been, leave with no deal, now MPs start screaming about democracy and how we cant allow this to happen !
They made it happen.

All they are doing is using it as an excuse to cancel Brexit, and cancel out the wishes of the people.
How can you defend it ?

You did not answer the question as to why MPs must accept either no deal or the lousy WA.

The point is why are probably not going to leave so the whole episode will have been a self harming pointless undertaking - reinforcing the opinion that the referendum was a very bad idea in the first place. A pandoras box has been opened and nobody knows an acceptable way to put the lid back on it.

[Raja Clavata]

17 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Easily - he does not want out so anything goes 

That works on the flip side too though doesn't it. Again it's all about perspectives.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Again it's all about perspectives.

My perspective is that your posts make little sense.  😉