Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
For a few minutes there I was enjoying my status of not being an EU citizen.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
It would come down to whether the Lisbon treaty abridged the existing rights of the citizens of this country.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
So the learn'd justices were not Europhiles after all
Tomorrow's newspapers will do a volte-face when they learn that the EU has been abolished, and will be comparing the Judges to Churchill, Wellington, and Nelson.
So the learn'd justices were not Europhiles after all
Tomorrow's newspapers will do a volte-face when they learn that the EU has been abolished, and will be comparing the Judges to Churchill, Wellington, and Nelson.
Heh, reminds me of that bit from Blackadder
Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!
Darling: And, fortunately, one of *our* spies--
Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!
Darling: ...has discovered that the leak is coming from the Field Hospital.
FFS another BBC report crow barring Fabic nightclub into a story...they are totally obsessed by the fact it got closed down for repeated serious issues with drugs. I can only presume it was the favourite venue for bbc employees.
I read far more whining about the BBC writing a story about Fabric closing down than I read stories about Fabric closing down. It's like the 'Outrage Bus' in that respect - I read more posts whining about people jumping on said bus than I do posts featuring people actually climbing aboard.
Fabric was a belting club in its day. I can see your hands waving from here.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
It would come down to whether the Lisbon treaty abridged the existing rights of the citizens of this country.
Pretty sure Blair gave away some of Maggie's rebate in the process.....
He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)
If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.
Playing follow the leader? UKIP waited a long time and then won.
Purely on that point, I remain to be convinced that Tim Farron has the motivational ability and star quality of Nigel Farage.
Millions loathe Farage, but millions more are willing to give him a hearing. Farron, on the other hand, is just an obscurity.
"And if forced to bet, she would probably go with Hillary so as not to be placed “in the awkward spot of feeling dirty for cashing in on something that hurts others.” "
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.
If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
It seems generally treaties with implications for UK domestic law have been submitted to the UK Parliament, through a number of European Communities (Amendment) Acts. The UK signed up to the Social Chapter in the 1993 version, if I am correct, but opted out of its provisions at the same time. Blair's decision in Amsterdam was a commitment to enact the chapter into UK domestic law within two years. There was no immediate legal effect.
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
He is a QC alledged to be earning £750,000 pa over 212 days while acting as an MP in a high leave constituency. At GE in 2015 I doubt he would have been selected if he had not expressed support for leave whether he believed in or not.
At least his constituents will get a full time replacement
on those who think LDs will get nowhere supporting EU membership, can I remind you that polls put LDs nationally on around 8% and 48% voted to remain. And no-one else appears to be fishing in those waters, in England at least.
And Leave polled 52%, but that doesn't indicate the theoretical extent of backing for Ukip.
I would contend that militancy about the EU vote, one way or the other, is not a characteristic of the majority of the electorate - and that, insofar as it is, there are many more people who loathe the EU than love it. If Ukip bumps around the low to mid teens in the polls, then a position of 8% for the Lib Dems doesn't look so very far from what one might expect if they really are going to major as the anti-Ukip going forward.
I don't think rejoining the EU is a prospect for decades after Brexit. They do not want a disruptive euro-hokey-cokey any more than we do!
It is however an indication of a party that is seriously interested in participating in international agencies outside the humdrum of trade, important as that is. Whether EEA, or the UN, or Fair Trade, human rights, debt relief, climate change or development issues. It is important to have a party that takes a positive approach to the world and its peoples, and to Britain's active engagement with them.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
That's fair enough Richard. Hope you are well sir.
I used to think the Catholics were fairly clear on what they belived but Archbishop Vincent is as wishy washy as Welby
Damn, best me to it!
Mind you, it's no surprise. I think that it's BBC editorial policy to have at least one Anti-Brexit propaganda broadcast per day. Say how horrid everyone and everything has become since the referendum, drop in a reference about the mythical hate crime spike, and then make a couple of assertions to the effect that everything would be a little less horrid if we adopted some left-wing social policies (e.g., in this case, more open door migration.)
On Monday I expect to see the head of the RSPCA telling us that Brexit will lead to more pets being abandoned by their owners because of the massive Brexit recession and 375% inflation on dog food; that it has already resulted in a brutal wave of triumphalist kitten drownings; and that all of this would be made a little more bearable if only the Government would petition North Carolina to provide more toilets for transgendered people.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
It would come down to whether the Lisbon treaty abridged the existing rights of the citizens of this country.
The Lisbon Treaty removed veto rights from countries in about 30 areas and so reduced their ability to block EU legislation. But I am not sure that would count.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
It's not that far removed from hardcore hard brexiters who perceive their wishes not coming fully to fruition as a betrayal of the vote - soft brexiters are losing the war to define Brexit is all.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
He is a QC alledged to be earning £750,000 pa over 212 days while acting as an MP in a high leave constituency. At GE in 2015 I doubt he would have been selected if he had not expressed support for leave whether he believed in or not.
At least his constituents will get a full time replacement
Yes, meanwhile he can spend more time with his money
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
ITV just did a report from Buxton at the anger amongst the voters at the Judges decision yesterday.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
Anyone know a nice hotel in Abu Dhabi with an outdoor pool? Not too far from the airport?
Just been told I have a 20 hour layover en route to Perth, Australia. The tourist bods cocked it up.
Nowhere in AbuDhabi is too far from the airport, I have been there a half dozen times, staying with my brother. The airport is modern and efficient, but fairly souless. The Corniche is qhite pleasant at night, and the Emirates Palace looks very nice, but I have only been in the bar.
on those who think LDs will get nowhere supporting EU membership, can I remind you that polls put LDs nationally on around 8% and 48% voted to remain. And no-one else appears to be fishing in those waters, in England at least.
And Leave polled 52%, but that doesn't indicate the theoretical extent of backing for Ukip.
I would contend that militancy about the EU vote, one way or the other, is not a characteristic of the majority of the electorate - and that, insofar as it is, there are many more people who loathe the EU than love it. If Ukip bumps around the low to mid teens in the polls, then a position of 8% for the Lib Dems doesn't look so very far from what one might expect if they really are going to major as the anti-Ukip going forward.
and clearly that's why we went to 30% in Witney... not.
Not expecting to get all the 48% you nana, but a significant percentage of them may consider voting Lib Dem as a consequence of our attitude to Europe.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
ITV just did a report from Buxton at the anger amongst the voters at the Judges decision yesterday.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
There has to be a second referendum regarding the terms of the final settlement. Otherwise, a government can agree on a settlement with more or less the exact situation like now but outside the EU - like Norway.
How can Norway be acceptable but staying in the EU not ? We need a second referendum
Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"
That's a very good question.
Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!
More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.
I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.
Calm down everybody, the EU exists.
What about the Lisbon Treaty though ?
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
Looking at Gardner's article, what he's saying is more subtle than the quotation above made it appear. What he is saying is that the government's agreement to the treaties preceded the primary legislation, so - if the judgment were correct - in some sense they would not have had the authority to agree to them.
It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I think that was precisely the point HYUFD was making. It's not possible to honour the result of the vote without understanding that something needs to be done about immigration.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or ?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I have no doubt you played your part in the Leave victory but Leave would almost certainly not have got over 50% of the vote without the support of voters who wanted to control immigration, that was a key plank of your side's campaign platform, you cannot now disown it completely because it is no longer convenient I am afraid
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
Precisely. The fight of the type of Brexit is still on and legitimate (technically the fight to prevent Brexit is too, but that one has far less support I'd wager)
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
ITV just did a report from Buxton at the anger amongst the voters at the Judges decision yesterday.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
There has to be a second referendum regarding the terms of the final settlement. Otherwise, a government can agree on a settlement with more or less the exact situation like now but outside the EU - like Norway.
How can Norway be acceptable but staying in the EU not ? We need a second referendum
Because there is a huge difference between being in EFTA and being in the EU. It is sad that after all this time you don't actually realise that.
It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I think that was precisely the point HYUFD was making. It's not possible to honour the result of the vote without understanding that something needs to be done about immigration.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
ITV just did a report from Buxton at the anger amongst the voters at the Judges decision yesterday.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
It seems to be Clegg, Farron and Owen Smith. Idiots (even though I'm a Remainer.)
Sadly the only valid referendum now is on the form of the Exit Treaty.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or ?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I have no doubt you played your part in the Leave victory but Leave would almost certainly not have got over 50% of the vote without the support of voters who wanted to control immigration, that was a key plank of your side's campaign platform, you cannot now disown it completely because it is no longer convenient I am afraid
I disowned it all the time we were actually fighting it. Go back and look at my comments on here. We should I suddenly sign up to it when we won when I didn't while we were still campaigning? Sorry but you are just letting your own bigoted view of Leavers colour your comments.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
ITV just did a report from Buxton at the anger amongst the voters at the Judges decision yesterday.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
There has to be a second referendum regarding the terms of the final settlement. Otherwise, a government can agree on a settlement with more or less the exact situation like now but outside the EU - like Norway.
How can Norway be acceptable but staying in the EU not ? We need a second referendum
If Parliament is to decide on A50 Parliament will get the vote on the final deal as already stated by David Davis. There will be no second referendum, indeed the labour leader in the HOL said today they would not support the proposition for a second referendum
on those who think LDs will get nowhere supporting EU membership, can I remind you that polls put LDs nationally on around 8% and 48% voted to remain. And no-one else appears to be fishing in those waters, in England at least.
And Leave polled 52%, but that doesn't indicate the theoretical extent of backing for Ukip.
I would contend that militancy about the EU vote, one way or the other, is not a characteristic of the majority of the electorate - and that, insofar as it is, there are many more people who loathe the EU than love it. If Ukip bumps around the low to mid teens in the polls, then a position of 8% for the Lib Dems doesn't look so very far from what one might expect if they really are going to major as the anti-Ukip going forward.
I don't think rejoining the EU is a prospect for decades after Brexit. They do not want a disruptive euro-hokey-cokey any more than we do!
It is however an indication of a party that is seriously interested in participating in international agencies outside the humdrum of trade, important as that is. Whether EEA, or the UN, or Fair Trade, human rights, debt relief, climate change or development issues. It is important to have a party that takes a positive approach to the world and its peoples, and to Britain's active engagement with them.
One can do all that without being a member of the EU. Believing in membership of the EU is a fallible indicator of virtue.
Edit: the problem of using a iPad. Abu Dhabi has more in common with Middlesbrough than they might want to admit being in essence a petrochemical plant with a city attached to it (although I like Etihad). Dubai is only 90 minutes away....
Was there any CAP reform such that farmers were disadvantaged (relative to previous) in any of the treaties subsequent to EEC membership ?
IT'S ABOUT RIGHTS, not about being financially better off or worse off. I am not a legal expert, so if there is one reading this, feel free to correct this, but I imagine the issue to be things like the right to free movement. I don't know if it includes things we got later on, like working time directive rights or holiday entitlements etc etc.
It is however an indication of a party that is seriously interested in participating in international agencies outside the humdrum of trade, important as that is. Whether EEA, or the UN, or Fair Trade, human rights, debt relief, climate change or development issues. It is important to have a party that takes a positive approach to the world and its peoples, and to Britain's active engagement with them.
The UK is very active in the UN, through the Security Council and various agencies, and also through the Commonwealth. The UK wants to remain a leading member of NATO. The UK may choose to develop other, as yet unidentified, initiatives internationally after leaving the EU. The UK is a major force in overseas aid, with a commitment to spending that few other nations match. The UK is committed to decarbonisation of the energy supply, and is likely to remain so after leaving the EU.
The UK is not simply disappearing from the international stage, although to be frank it will be helpful to have Prime Ministers, going forward, who actually spend a little less time politicking in Brussels and a bit more time at home. We do also have a number of intractable problems at home that really need more attention.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
ITV just did a report from Buxton at the anger amongst the voters at the Judges decision yesterday.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
Yes, the liberal elite lost for once and will just have to accept the result of the referendum
It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I think that was precisely the point HYUFD was making. It's not possible to honour the result of the vote without understanding that something needs to be done about immigration.
That will be decided by Parliament at the time they have to vote for the new arrangement. That has always been the only way this will be resolved. But one side or another is going to be disappointed. I would not be at all surprised if I am on the losing side of that argument but that doesn't mean I should not be fighting that corner and nor does it mean that the Remainers' caricatures of Leavers is in any way accurate.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted .
Given the focus of much
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I do not agree with HYFUD much, but I too am a former Remainer turned hard Brexit. Immigration, ending payments and stopping foreigners having a say over our laws are what clinched it. If we get less than hard Brexit the cries of betrayal from the bitter-enders will poison our politics for years.
It is like a couple divorcing. Years later it is possible to be civil, but not while the lawyers divvie up the assets. In a decade or so time we may be ready to have a more positive attitude, but the near future is not going to happen.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
That sort of proves HYUFD's point.
How many times was EEA-style Brexit mentioned in the run-up to the referendum compared to IMMIGRATION?
True, it was on here, but in the media and in the leave campaigns that would have cut-through to the general population?
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
It's not that far removed from hardcore hard brexiters who perceive their wishes not coming fully to fruition as a betrayal of the vote - soft brexiters are losing the war to define Brexit is all.
I doubt hard Brexiteers will get all they want either, May will likely do some free movement compromise to try for a free trade deal but she will try to get at least some control over it and correctly so
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted .
Given the focus of much
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I do not agree with HYFUD much, but I too am a former Remainer turned hard Brexit. Immigration, ending payments and stopping foreigners having a say over our laws are what clinched it. If we get less than hard Brexit the cries of betrayal from the bitter-enders will poison our politics for years.
It is like a couple divorcing. Years later it is possible to be civil, but not while the lawyers divvie up the assets. In a decade or so time we may be ready to have a more positive attitude, but the near future is not going to happen.
The thing I'm worried about is it not poisoning our politics, but it poisoning our society.
Was there any CAP reform such that farmers were disadvantaged (relative to previous) in any of the treaties subsequent to EEC membership ?
IT'S ABOUT RIGHTS, not about being financially better off or worse off. I am not a legal expert, so if there is one reading this, feel free to correct this, but I imagine the issue to be things like the right to free movement. I don't know if it includes things we got later on, like working time directive rights or holiday entitlements etc etc.
Why should the right to free movement (which I happen to be in favour of) trump the right of a farmer to sell his apples or of a fisherman to catch fish. There are many people who had their rights (and their livelihoods) curtailed by the EU. They have just as much right to be heard as someone who wants to retire to Alicante.
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or ?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted and campaigned for a soft Brexit. There are more than a few of us on here who want exactly that - an EEA type relationship with the EU. Just because it is not what you wanted doesn't mean it is not a respectable wish. And one that is entirely possible. Indeed I have a £100 bet with Richard Nabavi on that very outcome. I know Phillips wanted that because I campaigned alongside him.
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many
I have no doubt you played your part in the Leave victory but Leave would almost certainly not have got over 50% of the vote without the support of voters who wanted to control immigration, that was a key plank of your side's campaign platform, you cannot now disown it completely because it is no longer convenient I am afraid
I disowned it all the time we were actually fighting it. Go back and look at my comments on here. We should I suddenly sign up to it when we won when I didn't while we were still campaigning? Sorry but you are just letting your own bigoted view of Leavers colour your comments.
That was part of the platform of the Vote Leave campaign, whether you personally disliked it or not that was a pivotal campaign of the Leave programme and you knew it when you voted for it and that there was a high likelihood it would be implemented if Leave won
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted .
Given the focus of much
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave.
I do not agree with HYFUD much, but I too am a former Remainer turned hard Brexit. Immigration, ending payments and stopping foreigners having a say over our laws are what clinched it. If we get less than hard Brexit the cries of betrayal from the bitter-enders will poison our politics for years.
It is like a couple divorcing. Years later it is possible to be civil, but not while the lawyers divvie up the assets. In a decade or so time we may be ready to have a more positive attitude, but the near future is not going to happen.
Yes, the fury of the tabloids and Kippers and white working class if nothing was even attempted in regards to controlling immigration would be a sight to behold and potentially dangerous
Given the focus of much of the Leave campaign on immigration, which was crucial in taking them over the line in many white working class areas, the idea May can just throw that in the bin after a Leave victory with no attempt to control free movement at all because the upper middle class Leavers no longer have any need for the plebs is a complete non-starter as she has correctly made clear. For the record I voted Remain
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
That sort of proves HYUFD's point.
How many times was EEA-style Brexit mentioned in the run-up to the referendum compared to IMMIGRATION?
True, it was on here, but in the media and in the leave campaigns that would have cut-through to the general population?
Yes, 'Vote Leave to have fewer widget regulations but keep immigration as high as now' does not have quite the same ring to it does it?
Was there any CAP reform such that farmers were disadvantaged (relative to previous) in any of the treaties subsequent to EEC membership ?
IT'S ABOUT RIGHTS, not about being financially better off or worse off. I am not a legal expert, so if there is one reading this, feel free to correct this, but I imagine the issue to be things like the right to free movement. I don't know if it includes things we got later on, like working time directive rights or holiday entitlements etc etc.
Why should the right to free movement (which I happen to be in favour of) trump the right of a farmer to sell his apples or of a fisherman to catch fish. There are many people who had their rights (and their livelihoods) curtailed by the EU. They have just as much right to be heard as someone who wants to retire to Alicante.
On fishing, which has been mentioned several times on here today: I was surprised a few weeks ago to see figures that indicated that whilst the trawler fleet and jobs have been decimated, the catch in tonnes has not decreased anywhere near as much.
It'd be good to see more figures. Certainly, (1) seems to show tonnages static since 2005 - though figures before that date would be useful. Might a large part of the story being a chnaging way of life due to new technologies, rather than just the EU?
(I'm not excusing some of the fishery policies, such as the restrictions on the size of fish that can be landed).
Well we can hardly do otherwise than make the most of it now, short of some major event changing minds.
On this Phillips business, I've never heard of the man, but given there seem to be plenty of MPs and party members so at odds with their parties and their direction that it seems silly how tribally supportive they remain (even if only refusing to back anyone else even if objectively they seem to suit them more), it's almost refreshign to see someone just be clear, the label they were elected under no longer fits them.
Mind you he also says he supported Leave, ridiculous! I mean I can understand Remainers who want soft Brexit at all costs or even to try and keep us in the EU and I can understand Leavers who want hard Brexit and to end free movement and leave the single market but I really cannot understand those who campaigned for Leave and are now furious that the free trade, soft Brexit nirvana they wanted may not come fully to fruition. What on earth did they think would happen after a Leave vote?
There are a lot of us who like Phillips wanted .
Given the focus of much
I am well aware you voted remain. We discussed it enough before the vote. But you like many others make the mistake of ascribing your own views of the vote to those who actually voted leave. One could just as easily say that without those like myself - who voted on the principle of sovereignty, free trade and a continuing cordial relationship with the EU and for whom immigration was not an issue - Leave would not have won. It took all sorts of people to get that result and no one section has the right to claim victory as their own whilst ignoring the others.
I do not agree with HYFUD much, but I too am a former Remainer turned hard Brexit. Immigration, ending payments and stopping foreigners having a say over our laws are what clinched it. If we get less than hard Brexit the cries of betrayal from the bitter-enders will poison our politics for years.
It is like a couple divorcing. Years later it is possible to be civil, but not while the lawyers divvie up the assets. In a decade or so time we may be ready to have a more positive attitude, but the near future is not going to happen.
That's a pretty good analogy.
I hope it would be rather sooner than a decade before a more positive relationship can b created.
I voted LEAVE and I want EEA or EFTA, or as close as.
Yes but you are a wealthy thriller writer leaving in Camden, I may be wrong but I don't think it was wealthy novelists living in central London who won the referendum for Leave, welcome though your support was but working and lower middle class voters in the North and Midlands
I voted LEAVE and I want EEA or EFTA, or as close as.
Yes but you are a wealthy thriller writer leaving in Camden, I may be wrong but I don't think it was wealthy novelists living in central London who won the referendum for Leave, welcome though your support was but working and lower middle class voters in the North and Midlands
Irrespective, it is the job of the government to find the exit that gets the support of 70% of the populations, not 51% of Leave voters.
Comments
I trust one of our legal eagles will answer this in a purely factual manner...
maybe Cleggy will get another referendum
The one we were promised on Lisbon
BREAKING: Media report: Jury finds Rolling Stone defamed University of Virginia administrator in discredited story about gang rape.
Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to
eliminate all these German spies.
Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!
Darling: And, fortunately, one of *our* spies--
Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!
Darling: ...has discovered that the leak is coming from the Field Hospital.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-37872929
Fabric was a belting club in its day. I can see your hands waving from here.
But why does he think Clinton does not like the UK?
Millions loathe Farage, but millions more are willing to give him a hearing. Farron, on the other hand, is just an obscurity.
http://www.lifestuff.xyz/blog/gambling-as-pain-relief
...only to find The Economist this evening tweeting that its 1843 magazine has had the same idea...
https://www.1843magazine.com/ideas/the-daily/bet-on-trump-to-ease-the-stress
[Freckin' Scouse [MODERATED]!!!]
I used to think the Catholics were fairly clear on what they belived but Archbishop Vincent is as wishy washy as Welby
What is this "feeling" ?
Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/OS-GA-General-11.4.16.pdf
"The ECA 1972 has been amended by primary legislation with each change to the Community Treaties to extend the scope of competence and modes of law-making within the Communities and, as it eventually became, the European Union."
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
Clinton 24 .. Trump 33 .. McMullin 28
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865666429/New-poll-shows-voter-uncertainty-about-Trump-lead-in-Utah.html
That's who Brexiters want Britain to be.
https://goo.gl/images/kAuuIT
At least his constituents will get a full time replacement
It is however an indication of a party that is seriously interested in participating in international agencies outside the humdrum of trade, important as that is. Whether EEA, or the UN, or Fair Trade, human rights, debt relief, climate change or development issues. It is important to have a party that takes a positive approach to the world and its peoples, and to Britain's active engagement with them.
Mind you, it's no surprise. I think that it's BBC editorial policy to have at least one Anti-Brexit propaganda broadcast per day. Say how horrid everyone and everything has become since the referendum, drop in a reference about the mythical hate crime spike, and then make a couple of assertions to the effect that everything would be a little less horrid if we adopted some left-wing social policies (e.g., in this case, more open door migration.)
On Monday I expect to see the head of the RSPCA telling us that Brexit will lead to more pets being abandoned by their owners because of the massive Brexit recession and 375% inflation on dog food; that it has already resulted in a brutal wave of triumphalist kitten drownings; and that all of this would be made a little more bearable if only the Government would petition North Carolina to provide more toilets for transgendered people.
Or from Vernon Bogdanor about the mess his former star pupil has caused ?
One thing which I do feel clearer about is that Charles's anecdote about the French bafflement re Cameron's negotiating style was correct.
Cameron really wasn't a 'details man'.
Anyone who thinks they can frustrate the will of the people including Clegg's and Farron's idiotic idea of a second referendum are going to get a very rude awakening from the voters
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5968.html
Not expecting to get all the 48% you nana, but a significant percentage of them may consider voting Lib Dem as a consequence of our attitude to Europe.
How can Norway be acceptable but staying in the EU not ? We need a second referendum
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419
Sadly the only valid referendum now is on the form of the Exit Treaty.
Edit: the problem of using a iPad. Abu Dhabi has more in common with Middlesbrough than they might want to admit being in essence a petrochemical plant with a city attached to it (although I like Etihad). Dubai is only 90 minutes away....
The UK wants to remain a leading member of NATO.
The UK may choose to develop other, as yet unidentified, initiatives internationally after leaving the EU.
The UK is a major force in overseas aid, with a commitment to spending that few other nations match.
The UK is committed to decarbonisation of the energy supply, and is likely to remain so after leaving the EU.
The UK is not simply disappearing from the international stage, although to be frank it will be helpful to have Prime Ministers, going forward, who actually spend a little less time politicking in Brussels and a bit more time at home. We do also have a number of intractable problems at home that really need more attention.
It is like a couple divorcing. Years later it is possible to be civil, but not while the lawyers divvie up the assets. In a decade or so time we may be ready to have a more positive attitude, but the near future is not going to happen.
How many times was EEA-style Brexit mentioned in the run-up to the referendum compared to IMMIGRATION?
True, it was on here, but in the media and in the leave campaigns that would have cut-through to the general population?
Per the PDF.
It'd be good to see more figures. Certainly, (1) seems to show tonnages static since 2005 - though figures before that date would be useful. Might a large part of the story being a chnaging way of life due to new technologies, rather than just the EU?
(I'm not excusing some of the fishery policies, such as the restrictions on the size of fish that can be landed).
(1): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Total_catches_in_selected_fishing_regions,_2005–2015_(¹)_(thousand_tonnes_live_weight)_YB16.png
Edit: chart 1 of researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02788/SN02788.pdf also seems useful.
I hope it would be rather sooner than a decade before a more positive relationship can b created.