BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 03:57 PM

That should have read "I have already made my points" Sorry.

To remind those who cannot be bothered to look back the points were

1. The fact remains that the referendum was never legally binding.
2. The judges have ruled, quite correctly, that parliamentary procedure must be followed.
3. Many promises were made by politicians that have now been broken. The only surprise there is that some people seem shocked by this.

Whether parliament will override the result of the referendum is yet to be seen but there is no conspiracy by 'The elite' to keep us in the EU. Simply laws that have been enshrined for hundreds of years that cannot and should not be broken.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 05:35 PM

That's right, Mike. The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided. The judges, far from being the enemies of the people, were protecting the people against the possibility of government by edict. We fought a civil war to stop that and have spent centuries establishing a democracy in which parliament has sovereignty. It's ironic to see angry brexiteers, who have complained for decades about our conceding sovereignty to the EU, attacking the very people who are now trying to defend it against politicians whose expediency drives them to undermine it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 05:47 PM

I made perfectly clear in my post that there is a distinction between the legal situation, which has always meant that the referendum was purely advisory, and the political reality that it has been, and will be treated as binding. Evidently that's how you see it too. What's to argue about in that?

Where there is room for argument is about what that actually implies. The referendum merely asked about membership of the EU, nothing else. The outcome was that the UK should leave the EU.

However though a lot of people might have been motivated to vote that way by ideas about cutting out freedom of movement, that wasn't in the question. Nor was anything about leaving the single market.

If it came to a choice between staying in the single market and removing the right to freedom of movement, it would in no way be defying the result of the referendum if the choice was made to retain freedom of movement, and stay in the single market, while leaving the EU. (A Norway style solution). And the same would apply if that deal was arranged for the parts of the UK which voted against Brexit- Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The significant bit about the court decision is that, though it seems pretty likely that the government would be likely to see depriving us of free movement as the priority, rather than staying in the single market, it is by no means certain that they could get a majority of MPs to reliably back that. So it makes a difference whether Parliament makes that kind of decision or the "Crown in Parliament", ie the Prime Minister.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 16 - 07:32 PM

Can Parliament provide a do over ?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 04:07 AM

Don't ya just love it.
Getting what you wish for, and a whole lot more.
Theresa May talks trade to India. India talks immigration to May.

What do the Brexiters have to say this time?

Of course they aren't about immigration, well not this very moment. And certainly not racist. In a lexicographical sense anyway.

And you won't pin them down, except Farrage had to admit on TV when pressed that the referendum was only advisory. I calls that a pin.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 04:46 AM

"The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided. The judges, far from being the enemies of the people, were protecting the people against the possibility of government by edict. We fought a civil war to stop that and have spent centuries establishing a democracy in which parliament has sovereignty. It's ironic to see angry brexiteers, who have complained for decades about our conceding sovereignty to the EU, attacking the very people who are now trying to defend it against politicians whose expediency drives them to undermine it."

Absolutely spot-on correct, Steve.
I have to smile that the Brexiteers and other sundry numpties are incapable of seeing the irony! You couldn't make it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:03 AM

BWM, you call me a cunt for telling you that when I click on your link it takes me to the start page.
That is a fact and Kevin found the same. Is he a cunt too?

That was just a side issue anyway.
My point was and is that the government assured the country that it would implement the decision, even though the Bill you keep on about said it did not have to.
Labour also promised a binding in/out referendum.

Steve,
The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided

Spot on Steve, except that the decision is disputed and will be appealed. I am not qualified as you presumably are to know if they got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:04 AM

There's a piece by Hugh Muir in today's Guardian (you'll have to google it as I don't know how to do links) which suggests that MPs, if they get to vote, should follow their instincts, not the party line or "the will of the people" and vote against brexit if they judge that it will be a disaster for the country. Why would they deliberately vote for a catastrophe to happen?

Who else would be expected to do that? Imagine an airline pilot instructed by unhappy passengers to crash the plane. Or a surgeon, convinced in a belief that an operation will kill the patient, being ordered to do it by family members. Which constructor would be told to erect a building they know will fall to earth? Which captain would be ordered to sea in a ship they feel sure will sink? It isn't elitist to acknowledge that – for all the populist disdain of experts – we still expect those we rely on to deploy good judgment on our behalf.

This of course leads to the question posed by Edmund Burke: are MPs delegates, elected to gauge and reflect the popular view; or individuals selected for their intellect and good judgment? It's a bit of both, for we know that parliament does act as a check on populist impulses. Without it – if one believes years of opinion polling – we would still be deploying the gallows.

Well I don't want my MP to be my delegate. I want him (mine's a "he," a Tory one unfortunately) to dedicate himself to being a damn sight more knowledgable about the intricacies of the issues of the day than I am so that he can come to better decisions than I could. That's his job, not to make relatively uninformed opinions his priority in judging how he should proceed. The referendum vote is a prime example of just that. People were asked to make an epoch-making decision regarding the EU when most of them don't even know the name of their MEP (they certainly didn't come out in droves to vote for him, did they?). It's like getting the villagers to vote to decide on whether or not to sack the bowling green keeper for doing a bad job when most of them don't play bowls, don't know the rules of the game and don't know where the bowling green is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:10 AM

My OP statements again.

"We were told before the referendum that its result would be binding and it implementation immediate.
Now we are told that it is illegal to do that, and the referendum was only "advisory" anyway."

After days of abusive and insulting replies, we find that none of you dispute those statements!
You now all agree with me!

I finished by saying, "The establishment elite are determined to get their way regardless. "

That was just my take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:11 AM

You don't have to be qualified in order to be able to read their judgement, which is expressed in plain English. You just need to be able to read. I don't have to be any good at football to know what a great player Philippe Coutinho is, I don't have to be a fiddle virtuoso to know that the Pastoral Symphony is great music and I don't have to be a Wordsworth in order to appreciate the poems of John Donne. In other words, blow it out yo' ass, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:16 AM

Steve,
There's a piece by Hugh Muir in today's Guardian (you'll have to google it as I don't know how to do links) which suggests that MPs, if they get to vote, should follow their instincts, not the party line or "the will of the people" and vote against brexit if they judge that it will be a disaster for the country. Why would they deliberately vote for a catastrophe to happen?

Watching the Sunday political shows, it seems that most MPs will not challenge Brexit. Labour has said that they won't.
It appears that my fears about the ruling elite were wrong.
Apart from some London MPs and SNP, the only challenge is likely to be from the unelected Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:17 AM

Your opening post was sour grapes and tendentiousness personified. You clearly intended to put across your view that the judgement is an irritating obstacle in the way of your getting what you want. Well some of us want to see our politicians subject to the rule of law, just like the rest of us are. Do try not to be so disingenuous and dishonest. The facts are the facts, words are words, but your sentiment stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:33 AM

No Steve.
As ever, you ignore what I actually say and address what you would prefer to believe that I meant.

I said,
"We were told before the referendum that its result would be binding and its implementation immediate.
Now we are told that it is illegal to do that, and the referendum was only "advisory" anyway."

What part of that did I get wrong Steve?
Which bit was "ignorant" and not "truthful" Steve?

Remember that you too believed that the referendum decision would be irrevocable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

Sorry to those who feel that the politicians lied to them. That is what they do for a living. Welcome to reality.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:40 AM

Correct, Dave. It is all right if I speak to Keith only via you? Any chance of you telling him to bugger off? Do that and I promise to never mention those bingo balls ever again...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:45 AM

Dave, do you think we should placidly accept our government lying to us?
Is it wrong to challenge and complain about it?

Why should we let them get away with it?
Are you really saying that it does not matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:46 AM

Politicians and bingo halls. Whatever next? Ayes down for a full house of...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:03 AM

No one should ever accept anyone lying to them. Nor should they accept misrepresentations or ascribing unspoken sentiments. What people do about it is a matter of personal choice and the choice I make is just that. Personal. What other people do is entirely up to them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:19 AM

Once again I point out that the referendum said nothing about anything other than leaving the European Union. That is the only thing on which the public can be seen as having instructed parliament.

Issues such as whether we should stay in the single market or whether there should be any change to existing free movement were not addressed in the referendum, and parliament has been given no instructions by the referendum.

There is no kind of moral imperative on MPs to comply with the wishes of the government in regard to such issues, or see them as required by a proper respect of the popular vote. It is false to claim that "the British public has spoken" on such issues.Or even "the English people".

What determines events are political considerations, and worries by MPs about career prospects.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 09:22 AM

Your very last phrase there is the key one, Kevin. Very few MPs will have the guts to vote against brexit in the House even though most of them supported remain and know full well what a catastrophe faces us. They would lose their seats in droves and UKIP would have a field day. If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court and it comes to a vote, just observe the spectacle of a huge flock of turkeys all voting for Christmas. There really is very little room left for vision and principled judgement in all this. As Cameron had been so certain he'd win the vote, I'll have to put that down to unintended consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 09:39 AM

Kevin, the public did not 'instruct' the government about anything. The referendum was advisory - the public simply expressed a wish, a preference if you will. An expression of preference is not the same thing as an instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:25 AM

I'd tend to use the terms instruct and advise to mean essentially the same thing. If I buy some flatpack furniture it will contain instructions as to how to put it together. If I choose to ignore those instructions I can do so. They are only advisory.
...................

There's a letter in todays Guardian which very clearly indicates that in all this business with the court decision the government hasn't got a clue. Read the two bits in bold. Straight out of Yes, Prime Minister. But I'd challenge Sir Humphrey to reconcile those two sentences...:

• Neither your news reports nor letters from readers have made mention of perhaps the most relevant text on the referendum. This is a clear statement by government on parliament's role, found in the "Government response to the report on Referendums in the United Kingdom", comprising a report by the House of Lords select committee on the constitution (HL Paper 99), published on 30 September 2010, replying to the committee report issued on 7 April that year.

In a letter to the committee, Mark Harper MP wrote: "I welcome the report … and, given the profile and importance of the subject, the government has considered its response carefully in light of the recent introduction of the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill."

In its substantive response to recommendations the government asserted: "Under the UK's constitutional arrangements parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result."

Yet Downing Street's response to the high court judgment was to say: "The government is disappointed by the court's judgment. The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by act of parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment."
Dr David Lowry
Stoneleigh, Surrey

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:52 AM

As I said earlier in response to one of Steve's posts, "You couldn't make it up"!

The irony is that, if the result had been 52% Remain v. 48% Leave, the Brexiteers would have been protesting exactly the reverse direction to their current protests.

I'm in agreement with Steve - in exactly the same way that 25% Of voters foisted this obscene Tory government on the rest of the UK's electorate, the Brexiteer 37% Leave-voters have foisted their will on the vast majority who didn't vote Leave. I hope that our servants, the MPs, do the right thing and kick Brexit into touch.

But, sadly, I don't expect them to have the spine to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 10:58 AM

Yep, good batch of letters this morning. I really must resurrect the golden days of my Guardian letter-writing. I think my first one was lamenting the first election of George Bush in combination with the threat of William Hague becoming PM. I suppose I needn't have worried on the latter score. My mum always goads me whenever Keith Flett gets one in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 11:28 AM

"Dave, do you think we should placidly accept our government lying to us?
"Isn't that what Parliamentary democracy is based on?
No Government has ever adhered to its electoral promises - not ever
Even if they were intending to, any major actions carried out have to be agreed by Parliamentary vote - which is what the ruling pointed out.
The Government and the press have attempted to undermine the rule of law in Britain and have been exposed as openly doing so.
As Brexit was inveigled through on a racist ticket, the greatest dangers is that the more neanderthal of the population will take the law into their own hands and increase their pressure on immigrants and refugees to leave - this has been happening since the result of the referendum was announced.
"Keith Flett gets one in."
Ah, the golden days of The Guardian!!
Is he still writing?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 11:31 AM

the Brexiteer 37% Leave-voters have foisted their will on the vast majority who didn't vote Leave.

Wrong wrong wrong!
Those eligible to vote had the choice to vote or not to vote. Of those that voted the majority voted for exit. Whistle and moan as much as you like but just accept the majority vote. FOR EXIT

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 11:46 AM

For exit from the EU, not for or against anything else.

And in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, against that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 12:06 PM

Mg of H
If you go buy a box of chocolates you don't just buy the pretty box- hopefully there are chocolates inside. Same with exit from the EU. Since first joining a lot of EU legislation has been put in place.
How much of that needs review and/or repeal, modification is anybodies guess.
The whole procedure has been reduced to farce because the Tories were so confident the remain vote would win that the implications and procedures that would follow an exit vote obviously were not even considered.
As many have already stated in british law there is no provision for a legally binding referendum. For this to occur Parliament would have to become subordinate. As I understand it even with our unwritten constitution, Parliament cannot abrogate it's responsibilities to enact legislation.
What the Tories have managed to create is potentially a constitutional nightmare. By giving the people a referendum and then not confirming that vote in Parliament seriously questions their legitimacy. Forcing through a vote with a majority at this time is an unlikely scenario. Interesting times!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 12:44 PM

As you said "anybody's guess".

There's an old saying, "Never buy a pig in a poke". Naturally, if you do so and the pig isn,t there you might get upset. But there's another saying "Cave emptor" - buyer beware.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

Interesting Radio 4 "Law in Action" today talking about the extent of complications involved. Passing the Great Repeal Act is only the start of the process and there are an unknown number of laws that will still be linked to EU processes and procedures, so it could well take - my interpretation here - a decade or more to sort the bulk of it, not including various EU standards we agree to for practical reasons, not because we bound to by agreement. It is worth a listen for anyone who thinks the exit from EU law is easy, or even just moderately complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

Yes we were asked a simple question and were, in general, and not unreasonably, expected to realise that there were implications whichever way we went. The whole point of the campaign should have been to educate the electorate as to the issues and to inform it of their intricacies and complications. This did not happen. All we got was over-simplified populist grandstanding, sloganising, fearmongering, racism and a pack of lies. The electorate were grossly patronised and insulted yet most of them didn't realise it. We ended up no better educated by polling day than we were before it all kicked off. It's almost as if both sides had decided that they couldn't educate pork but they could convince it that it was beef. The whole thing was a total disgrace and made a mockery of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

MG of H
I would not disagree with you. There were many rabid articles for and against Brexit. However I cannot recall seeing any of the real issues concerning Brexit ever being discussed.I get the impression the entire process was wheezed up in a 3rd form common room for all the care that was taken. A shambolic process from start to end. Hardly a recommendation for the party in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:19 PM

BWM,
Kevin, the public did not 'instruct' the government about anything. The referendum was advisory

Yes, but the government made it clear that they would accept the advice whatever it was.
They made it clear that the result would be taken as an instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:23 PM

And Jim, it was not an election pledge.
It was a pledge made by the elected government, after the election, about the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:27 PM

The government can't "accept advice" from the public that would involve its changing laws without consulting parliament first. Parliament is not the government. That should have been made crystal clear at the outset. Not only was it not, but Theresa May appeared to be ignorant of the constitutional law when she tried to get Article 50 through by the back door.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:35 PM

Hi Steve

<"That's right, Mike. The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided">

Many thanks for the explanation. Now in my 80's I don't keep abreast of politics and things that go with it. I don't try to worry about things they I can't effect.

As to your Coutino comment - I do know a good footballer when I see one and in today's arena he is one hell of a player. He is just one in the current Liverpool team. I have watched them (on TV) many times this year and I believe they are in their rightful place at the top of the League. They are going to take some stopping. I went to see them play United and although the result was good for United I was mortified to see them play a totally negative game.

Not only are Liverpool the best team at the moment they are playing very attractive football to watch.

regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 02:48 PM

You're an exceptionally gracious man, Mike, and I'm over the moon to tell you that you're 110% correct! 😊

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 05:03 PM

Whether before or after election, government pledges are equally disposable. They keep them because it's convenient, break them if that's convenient. No different from the way most people behave when it comes to promises or pledges, even when those were sincerely meant at the time. Consider the divorce statistics...

But the actual point isn't whether the referendum outcome will be treated as binding. It's whether that should be taken as meaning anything more than was actually contained in that referendum question.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:16 PM

So how much responsibility should each individual voter have for recognising the complications underlying that simple question? I do agree with you, but I'm being devil's advocate in saying that because it's a point that has been vehemently made by the leave camp. Yes it was a simple yes-no question, but, they say, only a complete numpty wouldn't understand that the arguments underlying it were not black and white. My own view is in accord with yours, that we shouldn't read any more into the electorate's response to that question than the simple yes-no. I think that it was the responsibility of the campaign to inform people (both sides being in complete dereliction of that duty, in my view). Many people have claimed that the result reflected in large part a racist campaign agenda, or that the immigration issue was key. I think that they are valid claims, but, as you maintain, we simply can't say for sure because those questions were not asked.

What a mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:36 PM

I wasn't suggesting that it might be accurate to read more into the vote than the vote actually said. It was that it is not justifiable to claim that "the British people" have voted for those things.

There will undoubtedly have been people who voted for Brexit because of sovereignty and democracy issues, without necessarily having any particular concerns about immigrattion and so forth.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 07:50 PM

But the thing is, we just don't know. We know that some people would have had this, that or the other in mind when they voted, but we don't know how many. I think that it's valid to argue for another referendum once the this, that and the other have been clarified in the negotiations. Mind you, I don't agree with referendums anyway under any circumstances at all, but, as Julius Caesar might have said, we do find ourselves in medias res...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 16 - 08:04 PM

And Jim, it was not an election pledge.
The referendum was an election and both the winners and the loses set out their stalls as to why they should get the people's vote - those who voted for a change proposed to control the incoming of foreigners - it was an election pledge.
Unfortunastely, they forgot to mention the fact that, by law, that pledge has to be passed by parliament and since that has now been made clear the Government and the media have attempted to ride roughshod over British law - and have been forced to back down.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:17 AM

There is much discussion about Parliament having to ratify any proposed legislation. It is also said that Parliament cannot give up any of these rights or bind future Parliaments.
I would ask are we actually in the EU. IF so those that voted us in are guilty of treason and bound the future to legislation that should have been challenged at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:21 AM

That old chestnut has been done to death Iains. Magna Carta and all that. No parliament has given up any rights.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:48 AM

D the G

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/6198513/EU-is-Britain-still-a-sovereign-state.html


Another point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 03:57 AM

I presume you did actually read the article, Iains? If so you must have noticed this very significant sentence early on

The shorthand description of these as "laws from Brussels" is slightly misleading: the bureaucrats of the European Commission may well set many laws in motion by promulgating new directives; but they still need to be agreed by politicians from each member state, even if some are outvoted under the rules.

To answer the question posed in the article header. Yes, Britain is still a sovereign state.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 04:18 AM

D the G
I will beg to differ with you. However should Brexit ever occur(that I doubt) I will accept your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:01 AM

Dave,
"The shorthand description of these as "laws from Brussels" is slightly misleading: the bureaucrats of the European Commission may well set many laws in motion by promulgating new directives; but they still need to be agreed by politicians from each member state, even if some are outvoted under the rules. "

Those "politicians from each member state" would be the EU Parliament.
Our members could not outvote all the others, so in what sense does that give us sovereignty?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:16 AM

"Those "politicians from each member state" would be the EU Parliament."
Sort of like Britain being ruled from London - by elected representatives from all parts of the Country (or in the case of the E.U., from the continent)
Can't see anything wrong with either
One thing's certain - we'll have s.f.a. say in what goes on in Europe now we're and the ordinary person will have as much say in what goes on in Britain as we've always had - precisely none.
Once their elected, they're untouchable for five years, and so on, ad infinitum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 16 - 07:44 AM

Silly, Keith. First, we have accepted without demur all but a handful of EU laws, enshrining them into our own domestic laws. Second, it isn't us versus 27 of them. That's just you being a little Englander. It a collaboration among 28 states in which we have a significant voice. Third, our "sovereignty" is permanently compromised by big corporations which have a massive hold over us. Fourthly, we will still have to abide by a huge tranche