PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Brexit process
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 311, 312, 313 ... 332, 333, 334  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1114
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:
Mark wrote:
If it was an easy 30 billion extra cash for the UK, why is nearly every organisation against Hard Brexit ?


If it was an easy 30 billion extra cash for the UK, why is nearly every, lobbyist group that represents an industry being kept afloat by free printed money is against Hard Brexit ?


Why do you think they're against it?


Do you really believe this - or are you just being radical/controversial ?
30 billion (presumably a year ?), just growing on trees and waiting to be plucked....
All we have to do is go Hard Brexit ??
Blimey, I can't wait.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7094
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, while Remainers in Parliament as well as the usual suspects in the MSM go apoplectic with rage following Johnson's announcement the will ignore the new bill which orders him to seek an extension and prevent us leaving on October 31st, the question is, can he actually do this?

It turns out he most certainly can. Here is the legal position which gives him that right:

In December 2016 Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50 and set in motion the process of leaving. This is a two year process which means that a member state will leave after two years with or without a deal, providing that no extension has been asked for and agreed. The Article 50 process was then formally triggered on 29th March 2017. Following that, two extensions were asked for and agreed, and the current one is due to expire at the end of this month.

Article 50 rules, which are subject to E.U law, state that the decision on whether or not to request any extension rests with solely with the executive. Which is the Prime Minister in our case. Our own Parliament have rushed through a new act compelling Johnson to ask for another extension, but as we are still a full member of the E.U, then the article fifty rules legally supersede any acts or laws passed unilaterally in the UK Parliament which seek to amend this.

Since parliament did not also seek to rescind Article 50, which they now cannot do without the express permission of the other member states, the current act, which is now law, is overridden by the E.U Article 50 law, and is therefore effectively worthless, and so the Prime Minister can just ignore it as the E.U law takes precedence in this matter, and therefore the decision of whether or not to ask for any further extension is his and his alone.

In short, no act of the British Parliament can change or amend any aspect of A50.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7094
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cue UE to come on here and tell us how all of the above would be a "constitutional outrage".... Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9996
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
So, while Remainers in Parliament as well as the usual suspects in the MSM go apoplectic with rage following Johnson's announcement the will ignore the new bill which orders him to seek an extension and prevent us leaving on October 31st, the question is, can he actually do this?

It turns out he most certainly can. Here is the legal position which gives him that right:


Nothing gives the Prime Minister the right to break the law. Parliament is sovereign. It makes laws, and the government has to abide by them. It's that simple.

There's no point in arguing about this. Johnson won't try to break this law. Even if he was tempted to do so, he knows parliament will intervene again if he tries to go down that path. He can't win this battle.

Your complaint against parliament is a moral one, not a legal one. Parliament has a moral duty to implement the result of the referendum. It does not have a legal duty to do so, because it can change the law. And the Prime Minister cannot use a morality-based justification for breaking the law.


Last edited by UndercoverElephant on Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7094
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No it's not "that simple". Don't be so bloody silly. Parliament cannot legislate to change EU law. EU law takes precedent over UK Law. And this is especially true in matters relating to the UK's contractual relationship with the EU. So, are you now about to suggest that the UK Parliament can legislate to have an extension without the EU's agreement as well? Seems to me you are suffering from magical thinking.

Oh...I see you've edited the post after you have managed to have a little think about it.

Okay then, explain, in terms, how parliament will stop Johnson from choosing to ignore the new UK law on the basis of the supremacy of A50? Because, as things stand, so far as I can see, the only way they could do that would be by revoking A50. And the stupid, spineless ***** have left it too late for that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9996
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
No it's not "that simple". Don't be so bloody silly. Parliament cannot legislate to change EU law. EU law takes precedent over UK Law. And this is especially true in matters relating to the UK's contractual relationship with the EU. So, are you now about to suggest that the UK Parliament can legislate to have an extension without the EU's agreement as well? Seems to me you are suffering from magical thinking.


I really can't be bothered to have this debate with you. Boris Johnson is not going to attempt to break this law, because he knows it won't work. The MPs who want to block no deal are not going to back down now. They will do whatever it takes to enforce their collective will, and ultimately a majority in parliament has more power than a Prime Minister who is 40 seats short of a majority.

It really is that simple. Even with the FTPA messing things up, the bottom line is that effective power lies with whoever can control a parliamentary majority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7094
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, fine, what are they going to do if he ignores it?

I'll make this really simple for you:

EU law supersedes UK law when the two are in conflict on the same matter.

A50 states, explicitly, that the decision to ask for an extension lies solely with the executive of a nation. In our case, that is the prime minister.

If Parliament does not revoke A50 (with the agreement of the EU) before October 31st and/or does not replace Johnson with a prime minister before October 31st who will voluntarily do their bidding with regards to asking for an extension (that the EU must agree to), how is parliament going to stop Johnson from ignoring the UK act on the basis of A50 taking precedence over it

Specifics if you please. Also, bear in mind, the clock is now ticking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9996
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
Okay, fine, what are they going to do if he ignores it?


Recall parliament, VonC him and replace him. Bercow has already stated he will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the UK does not leave without a deal unless parliament explicitly agrees to it. I see no reason to doubt him on that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49683797

Quote:

John Bercow has vowed "creativity" in Parliament if Boris Johnson ignores a law designed to stop a no-deal Brexit.

The Commons Speaker also said in a speech that the only possible Brexit was one backed by MPs.


Quote:

I'll make this really simple for you:


I don't need you to simplify it for me, thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7094
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you think these f***ing traitors will then want to hold a GE immediately afterwards do you?....Laughing

Irrespective, either way would be fine with me because that means we get one of two outcomes in short order:

1) Remainers in parliament will continue to show the complete gutless, spinelessness they have shown for three years and will not have the balls to be seen to commit the final, naked act of betrayal against the people and Brexit will happen on October 31st.

Or

2) Remainers in Parliament will finally be forced to find a backbone and no longer be able to hide behind three years of obfuscation and bullshit and will be seen to commit the final, naked act of betrayal against the people and Brexit will happen shortly after the next GE. Additionally, if this takes the form of a VoNC on Johnson's government, he will call an election for 1st of November and Brexit will happen on October 31st. Or, if Remainers in parliament vote through an amendment to the fixed term parliament act to ensure Johnson cannot decide the date of an election following a VoNC, they will just be digging their graves even deeper come the next GE.


Last edited by Little John on Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 4761
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi LJ, interesting analysis. Do you have an link to a constitutional law source on that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

Seems to be differing opinion on primacy of eu law over parliament acts.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 442
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
stumuz1 wrote:
Mark wrote:

You need to do some serious referencing.
More sweeping statements, with numbers plucked from seemingly nowhere.


Would you an like academic paper from a professor from a leading economics dept? or one of those lobbyists groups you are so fond of?


No doubt that some nutty professor somewhere has come up with a paper and posted it on line to get his 5 minutes of fame.
I haven't even heard BoJo or Farage come out with that kind of twaddle...
Meanwhile, back in the real world.....


One thing I've noticed in my debates with you, is, you never answer a question.

You will obfuscate, you will abuse (nutty professor) but will not engage with a debate beyond posting a lobbyist's groups press statement.

So, in the spirit of honest debate a couple of fundamentals that must be answered to make any progress on the 30 billion question (or twaddle as you put it)

1/ Do you think that a professor of economics of a top Russelgroup University, multiple published author on the EU, is someone who's opinion is valid and the postulates given in the academic work, worthy of consideration?

2/ Do you accept that world prices are lower than EU internal market prices?

Now these are two very simple questions.

Let's see how you get on with them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 9996
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
And you think these f***ing traitors will then want to hold a GE immediately afterwards do you?....Laughing


Obviously they will, yes. There will be a VonC within hours of article 50 being extended.

Quote:

Irrespective, either way would be fine with me because that means we get one of two outcomes in short order:

1) Remainers in parliament will continue to show the complete gutless, spinelessness they have shown for three years and will not have the balls to be seen to commit the final, naked act of betrayal against the people and Brexit will happen on October 31st.

Or

2) Remainers in Parliament will finally be forced to find a backbone and no longer be able to hide behind three years of obfuscation and bullshit and will be revealed as committing the final, naked act of betrayal against the people and Brexit will happen shortly after the next GE.


Brexit will only happen shortly after the election if the tories win it.

They will lose it. The reason you hate Labour so much is that you fear their brexit positioning will lead to the removal of the tories from government. Most remainers will vote Labour in lab-tory marginals in order to keep the tory out, and most Labour leavers will not defect to the tories.

There is going to be a referendum. As explained yesterday, Labour's problem is going to be having their "credible leave option" taken seriously. The risk is that there are more spoiled ballot papers than votes for whatever deal they come up with, which leave it with no credibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 1114
Location: NW England

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stumuz1 wrote:
One thing I've noticed in my debates with you, is, you never answer a question.

You will obfuscate, you will abuse (nutty professor) but will not engage with a debate beyond posting a lobbyist's groups press statement.

So, in the spirit of honest debate a couple of fundamentals that must be answered to make any progress on the 30 billion question (or twaddle as you put it)

1/ Do you think that a professor of economics of a top Russelgroup University, multiple published author on the EU, is someone who's opinion is valid and the postulates given in the academic work, worthy of consideration?

2/ Do you accept that world prices are lower than EU internal market prices?

Now these are two very simple questions.

Let's see how you get on with them.


That's rich - you posted the 30 billion claim, so the onus is on you to reference it, otherwise it remains meaningless twaddle
I have no idea who the gentleman is you mention - you haven't give us that info, and I'm certainly not going on a wild goose chase to find out.
The fact that nobody is rushing to back you up probably speaks volumes.

Tariffs vary wildy depending on the product/sector/country concerned, so point (2) is yet another sweeping generalisation...
Why do you think nearly every country in the world tries to avoid trading on some/all WTO rules by putting Trade Agreements in place ?

I hardly think that 'nutty' is abusive either - suspect I hit a raw nerve when I called you out on this before ?
Granted, you've still got a way to go to match LJ... Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7094
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
stumuz1 wrote:
One thing I've noticed in my debates with you, is, you never answer a question.

You will obfuscate, you will abuse (nutty professor) but will not engage with a debate beyond posting a lobbyist's groups press statement.

So, in the spirit of honest debate a couple of fundamentals that must be answered to make any progress on the 30 billion question (or twaddle as you put it)

1/ Do you think that a professor of economics of a top Russelgroup University, multiple published author on the EU, is someone who's opinion is valid and the postulates given in the academic work, worthy of consideration?

2/ Do you accept that world prices are lower than EU internal market prices?

Now these are two very simple questions.

Let's see how you get on with them.


That's rich - you posted the 30 billion claim, so the onus is on you to reference it, otherwise it remains meaningless twaddle
I have no idea who the gentleman is you mention - you haven't give us that info, and I'm certainly not going on a wild goose chase to find out.
The fact that nobody is rushing to back you up probably speaks volumes.

Tariffs vary wildy depending on the product/sector/country concerned, so point (2) is yet another sweeping generalisation...
Why do you think nearly every country in the world tries to avoid trading on some/all WTO rules by putting Trade Agreements in place ?

I hardly think that 'nutty' is abusive either - suspect I hit a raw nerve when I called you out on this before ?
Granted, you've still got a way to go to match LJ... Very Happy
Oh yeah... and how many countries can you name with trade agreements where part of that agreement is the supranational political control of the judiciary, legislature and borders of one side of that trade agreement by the other side?

Stop pretending this is about trade agreements. It's f***ing pathetic. Trade agreements can be sorted out or not according to mutual or diverging economic interests. What this is about is political integration on the journey to a United States of Europe which, in turn, is about the German domination of Europe by other means. And it always has been.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
stumuz1



Joined: 07 Jun 2016
Posts: 442
Location: Anglesey

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:


That's rich - you posted the 30 billion claim, so the onus is on you to reference it,


Right, so two very simple fundamental questions you have failed or won't answer, then on que, you go straight into 'whataboutery'

Sorry, until you can answer these simple questions, It is pointless debating with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 311, 312, 313 ... 332, 333, 334  Next
Page 312 of 334

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group