UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[steveT350C]

Mr Snap said:

steveT350C said:

The article you linked to said it is unwritten.

No. It says it's "unwritten". See those little quotation marks? They mean it's not "written" on one piece of paper like the American Constitution. But it is written in thousands of bits and pieces dating back to Magna Carta and beyond. How do you think the country gets run?

Do you think it's like a fairytale and King Nigel will ascend to the throne by divine right and be allowed to make stuff up as he goes along? The last bloke who tried that on suddenly found that his head and body were in different places. The people of the United Kingdom take very unkindly to their rulers acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Now, unless you also want me to explain why Magna Carta didn't die in vain, give yourself a rest.

Yes please explain.

Magna Carta, I bet the Junkers of the EU want to rip that up too!

[Mr Snap]

steveT350C said:

Yes please explain.

Magna Carta, I bet the Junkers of the EU want to rip that up too!

I sincerely hope this short historical video is explanation enough for you. If not, God help you.

(I dunno. Maybe Junckers has a thing for brave Hungarian peasant girls).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs

[steveT350C]

Lord Lawson on Cameron's renegotions with the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10960447/...

[FiF]

In essence Lawson's view is similar to something I expressed a few pages ago. Some things will be negotiable but whether anything of significance will come of it is imo unlikely. There will be some minor things and anything more major, e.g. movement of people, right to settle, social payments as just some examples will be time limited.

Could of course be completely wrong but that's my view.

As for Cameron campaigning for out I don't think that will happen. There will be weasel words along the lines of 'nevertheless despite the disappointing result of the negotiations I still believe that on balance' or some other b-s justification. Again just my opinion and could be wrong. I think Lawson is wrong in saying Cameron will have to support a vote for out etc.

[Mrr T]

Mr Snap said:

Constitutional change requires constitutional lawyers. A document discussing such radical constitutional change has everything to do with constitutional law. Brexit represents a constitutional change - from the current EU treaty to a new constitution for the UK.

If we don't require any constitutional change to leave the EU, why are we being told repeatedly that our constitution is being undermined by membership of the EU? If the constitution would remain totally unaffected, what is Farage on about in the first place?

You would appear to have shot Nigel's fox.

I will say it again:
1. We do not need any constitutional change to leave the EU.
2. Nigel has no idea about how the EU works and how we will leave.

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

I will say it again:
1. We do not need any constitutional change to leave the EU.
2. Nigel has no idea about how the EU works and how we will leave.

Sorry, but 2. just isnt credible.Compared to most people he is an expert on how the EU works, being an MEP for many years has enabled him to find out exactly how the EU works. And I am preety sure he knows article 50 of the Lisbon treaty inside out.

[Mr Snap]

Mrr T said:

I will say it again:
1. We do not need any constitutional change to leave the EU.
2. Nigel has no idea about how the EU works and how we will leave.

1) You can say it again until you're blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong. At present, according to the Lisbon Treaty, of which we are signatories, EU law supersedes all UK Law. This creates an enormous constitutional problem should our parliament attempt to pass legislation to end the treaty. Why? Because EU Law supersedes all UK Law.

This means that the UK parliament could pass legislation to leave the EU but our very own UK courts would be forced to repeal it because our courts are bound to find according to EU law not UK law. This is not a moot point about referring to EU law, it happens regularly in UK courts.

To leave the EU we are beholden to the EU to pass new legislation allowing us to leave the EU. And, until they did that, our parliament would be powerless to do anything. UKIP could win the referendum and every seat in the next parliament and still be denied the right to leave the EU: And not because of bloody mindedness on the EU's part but because the legislation does not exist. Article 50 only provides a pathway not legislation.

Should this, yet to be written, EU legislation come to pass, the UK parliament could only then repeal the Acts of Treaty and redraft all the legislation regarding the sovereignty of the UK and all the existing legislation pertaining to the enshrined principle that EU law supersedes UK law: These might include: Who would be the new supreme court of the UK instead of the European court; How the sovereignty of the UK is effectively returned to the UK parliament; And, finally, where will the buck stop in every field that was previously ceded to the EU.

Like I said earlier, our current legislation doesn't have a reset button. Once the EU has legislated for us to leave, our constitution will be full of holes which used to be filled by the EU. These voids will need to be filled with new legislation because the old stuff with anything referring to the EU will be unfit for use. The task will be immense and the smallest error could be utterly disastrous. If you don't believe me, read about the lead up to the English Civil War and the Putney Debates. Even the common soldiers understood that changing of the constitution was of critical significance.

2) Neither you or Nigel knows anything about constitutional change.

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Sorry, but 2. just isnt credible.Compared to most people he is an expert on how the EU works, being an MEP for many years has enabled him to find out exactly how the EU works. And I am preety sure he knows article 50 of the Lisbon treaty inside out.

I am sure Nigel can find his way to every bar and club in Brussels. I am equally sure he has never read any of the treaties, directives or regulations. He is famous for not doing detail.

[Mrr T]

Mr Snap said:

1) You can say it again until you're blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong. At present, according to the Lisbon Treaty, of which we are signatories, EU law supersedes all UK Law. This creates an enormous constitutional problem should our parliament attempt to pass legislation to end the treaty. Why? Because EU Law supersedes all UK Law.

This means that the UK parliament could pass legislation to leave the EU but our very own UK courts would be forced to repeal it because our courts are bound to find according to EU law not UK law. This is not a moot point about referring to EU law, it happens regularly in UK courts.

To leave the EU we are beholden to the EU to pass new legislation allowing us to leave the EU. And, until they did that, our parliament would be powerless to do anything. UKIP could win the referendum and every seat in the next parliament and still be denied the right to leave the EU: And not because of bloody mindedness on the EU's part but because the legislation does not exist. Article 50 only provides a pathway not legislation.

Should this, yet to be written, EU legislation come to pass, the UK parliament could only then repeal the Acts of Treaty and redraft all the legislation regarding the sovereignty of the UK and all the existing legislation pertaining to the enshrined principle that EU law supersedes UK law: These might include: Who would be the new supreme court of the UK instead of the European court; How the sovereignty of the UK is effectively returned to the UK parliament; And, finally, where will the buck stop in every field that was previously ceded to the EU.

Like I said earlier, our current legislation doesn't have a reset button. Once the EU has legislated for us to leave, our constitution will be full of holes which used to be filled by the EU. These voids will need to be filled with new legislation because the old stuff with anything referring to the EU will be unfit for use. The task will be immense and the smallest error could be utterly disastrous. If you don't believe me, read about the lead up to the English Civil War and the Putney Debates. Even the common soldiers understood that changing of the constitution was of critical significance.

2) Neither you or Nigel knows anything about constitutional change.

Which article is that in?

Also a case where a UK court has overturned an act of Parliament because of EU law.

[steveT350C]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Sorry, but 2. just isnt credible.Compared to most people he is an expert on how the EU works, being an MEP for many years has enabled him to find out exactly how the EU works. And I am preety sure he knows article 50 of the Lisbon treaty inside out.

I am sure Nigel can find his way to every bar and club in Brussels. I am equally sure he has never read any of the treaties, directives or regulations. He is famous for not doing detail.

Lawyers are employed to deal with the detail.

[Mr Snap]

Mrr T said:

Which article is that in?

Also a case where a UK court has overturned an act of Parliament because of EU law.

It's not in one article, it's discussed in hundreds of articles re UK/EU sovereignty in constitutional law. The principle to "override" has been enshrined in UK law since R vs Secretary of State for Transportex Parte Factortame Ltd (2) (1990).

In his judgement Lord Bridge said: my bold.

"Some public comments on the decision of the European Court of Justice, affirming the jurisdiction of the courts of Member States to override national legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. But such comments are based on a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of Member States was not always inherent in the E.E.C. Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the Act of 1972 it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law … Thus there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply …"

So, when you say 'Nigel doesn't do detail' you couldn't be more wrong. He can't do the big stuff either. The possibility of the courts being required, by statute, to override the wishes of parliament on a constitutional issue would make the Abdication Crisis look like a teddybear's picnic.

[AW111]

So if Britain were to leave the EU, will you say to the commonwealth nations "We're very sorry we cut you off, can we be a trading bloc again?"

[Scuffers]

AW111 said:

So if Britain were to leave the EU, will you say to the commonwealth nations "We're very sorry we cut you off, can we be a trading bloc again?"

so we don't deal with India/NZ/AUS/Canada/Nigeria/Singapore/Malaysia/Malta/etc now then?

[AW111]

Scuffers said:

so we don't deal with India/NZ/AUS/Canada/Nigeria/Singapore/Malaysia/Malta/etc now then?

Ok course you do.
The difference is that pre-common market, the commonwealth was more of a trading bloc than it is now.
IIRC New Zealand's dairy industry suffered a serious decline when Britain joined the ECM.

[Scuffers]

AW111 said:

Scuffers said:

so we don't deal with India/NZ/AUS/Canada/Nigeria/Singapore/Malaysia/Malta/etc now then?

Ok course you do.
The difference is that pre-common market, the commonwealth was more of a trading bloc than it is now.
IIRC New Zealand's dairy industry suffered a serious decline when Britain joined the ECM.

so did all it's agri industry, however, don't you think they would be more than happy to sell us stuff again?

in the mean time, we have never stopped selling them stuff.

Trade is trade, and much as politicians like to think they have some right to control it, they really don't in any significant way.

[FiF]

Anchor dairy products have been exported from NZ to UK until 2013. Even when AFF the company set up to market the Kiwi products sold the brand to a UK company Arla in 2009 exports continued.

Arla decided to shift to UK production and exports stopped last year.

Judging by the number of people complaining about the new taste there could be a ready market again.

Not sure if worries about Kiwis not wanting to sell us dairy products should be taken seriously.

[powerstroke]

AW111 said:

So if Britain were to leave the EU, will you say to the commonwealth nations "We're very sorry we cut you off, can we be a trading bloc again?"

They could say f off!!! doubt they would though which would be
Very generous of them seeing how we shafted them when we shacked up with the abusive neighbors and ditched them our real friends and family , Heath was a along with the other traitorous scum that foisted the EU on us

[s2art]

Mr Snap said:

This means that the UK parliament could pass legislation to leave the EU but our very own UK courts would be forced to repeal it because our courts are bound to find according to EU law not UK law. This is not a moot point about referring to EU law, it happens regularly in UK courts.

Wrong. Parliament is still sovereign. The first thing it would do is repeal the 1972 european community act. That is the bedrock to the concept that the courts must find according to EU law (and in fact that is too simple a view, it doesnt always, common law can trump EU law in some cases). Once the act is repealed the courts must obey UK law. Of course there would be some tidying up to do where reference is made to EU directives and the like, but the contention that UK courts would be forced to repeal Parliament made law is wrong.

[Zod]

s2art said:

Mr Snap said:

This means that the UK parliament could pass legislation to leave the EU but our very own UK courts would be forced to repeal it because our courts are bound to find according to EU law not UK law. This is not a moot point about referring to EU law, it happens regularly in UK courts.

Wrong. Parliament is still sovereign. The first thing it would do is repeal the 1972 european community act. That is the bedrock to the concept that the courts must find according to EU law (and in fact that is too simple a view, it doesnt always, common law can trump EU law in some cases). Once the act is repealed the courts must obey UK law. Of course there would be some tidying up to do where reference is made to EU directives and the like, but the contention that UK courts would be forced to repeal Parliament made law is wrong.

Agreed. Total. Nonsense. The reason UK courts must give precedence to directly applicable EU law is our continued adherence to the EU Treaties. As soon as we abrogate those, EU law has no more role in UK law.

[Mrr T]

Mr Snap said:

Mrr T said:

Which article is that in?

Also a case where a UK court has overturned an act of Parliament because of EU law.

It's not in one article, it's discussed in hundreds of articles re UK/EU sovereignty in constitutional law. The principle to "override" has been enshrined in UK law since R vs Secretary of State for Transportex Parte Factortame Ltd (2) (1990).

Mr Snap you clearly have a very high opinion of yourself.
I asked the questions in response to a post you made I will not paste it in as you do not like that.
If we turn to questions.
You posted that “At present, according to the Lisbon Treaty, of which we are signatories, EU law supersedes all UK Law. This creates an enormous constitutional problem should our parliament attempt to pass legislation to end the treaty.”
I asked which article and you say all of them!!!
The answer of cause is it not in the Lisbon treaty. The provisions that EU law supersedes UK law is in the European Communities Act 1972.
I asked the second question not because there are no such cased but because you said they occurred “frequently”.
With regard to the case you quote. The case is from 1989/90 which shows how rare such cases are. The reason they are rare is because of the way the EU works. To understand this you need to read up on EU directives and regulations. This is how EU law is developed. What’s important, however, is that EU countries are required to pass such law into their own law. Therefore 95% of EU law has been made into UK by Parliament.
Therefore on leaving the EU there is very little if any law at European level which needs to be enacted into UK law.
Leaving the EU is not a constitutional problem it’s a problem of international treaties. Where the EU has competency, such as trade, aviation, road transport, we are represented on international bodies by the EU who have also signed up to international agreements on our behalf. Leaving the EU requires us to agree all these in our own name: this will take time.