Article 50 ruling due now
Discussion
WinstonWolf said:
SilverSixer said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Oh no, Silver has found another reason Brexit was a con job, along with the big red bus.
No no, you misunderstand as usual. I always knew the sovereignty argument was a lie. And, in fact, "Let'stake back control" was in the smaller print near the sills of the Big Red Bus, just under the £350m lie. It's edifying now to have David Davis admit the lie openly, and I'm wondering how that makes people who voted on that basis feel.Are you one of those defrauded Leave voters?
You're currently at stage 5, it'll pass.
HTH.
SilverSixer said:
alock said:
SilverSixer said:
You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
People use the word sovereignty to mean slightly different things. Whether that's right or wrong is not the point of the argument. You have to be fairly sad to argue something as important as this on the exact definition of a word.Let me quote something else from the white paper:
Whitepaper said:
The Government’s general approach to preserving EU law is to ensure that all EU laws which are directly applicable in the UK (such as EU regulations) and all laws which have been made in the UK, in order to implement our obligations as a member of the EU, remain part of domestic law on the day we leave the EU.
EU regulations are directly applicable in the UK without going through UK parliament. This is what people mean by sovereignty. Some people recently took the government to court for thinking it could bypass parliament. Other people voted leave because the EU was repeatedly creating EU regulations which bypassed our parliament.SilverSixer said:
I'm not going anywhere other than where I started, namely to point out that we had no sovereignty to recover, as we'd never lost it.
The point is, as stated in David Davis's White paper today, that we always had sovereignty and hadn't lost it to the EU, and there's no good reason to believe that was ever going to change, despite incorrect Leave claims of some plot to take us in to the ever closer union which the others may pursue, having an opt out from it and all that.
You know this, surely? You knew this in June last year, surely? You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
The people always had their own directly accountable parliament via the ballet (sic) box, as is self-evident from the current situation. If we'd lost sovereignty to the EU, we wouldn't be leaving it.
(Sorry about the ballet box thing, just struck me as a very amusing typo.)
The point is, as stated in David Davis's White paper today, that we always had sovereignty and hadn't lost it to the EU, and there's no good reason to believe that was ever going to change, despite incorrect Leave claims of some plot to take us in to the ever closer union which the others may pursue, having an opt out from it and all that.
You know this, surely? You knew this in June last year, surely? You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
The people always had their own directly accountable parliament via the ballet (sic) box, as is self-evident from the current situation. If we'd lost sovereignty to the EU, we wouldn't be leaving it.
(Sorry about the ballet box thing, just struck me as a very amusing typo.)
- too much typing whilst looking over my shoulder at work.Yes, I knew all this and still voted for leave. The decision to vote is not predicated on 1 issue for me, and I suspect for very few others, it's more complex than that. But this specific point for me was around recovering our own control, which we now have. Where the EU was and where it's going in the future does not appeal; ever greater integration, army, Turkey, continuing emancipation of PIGS economies, kicking the financial can, lack of audited accounts, gravy train, etc...
Aa you've noted there was always a promise that any further devolution of power to the EU would require a referendum and that sounds like it would give us a get out clause if ever we needed it, but the EU would not put itself into a position where the 'wrong' result could be voted in, they are too politically astute and willing to play the looonnngggg game. When the next requirement came to hand more powers over the EU, the alternatives would have been worse, a manufactured Hobson's choice would have been presented.
Slowly , silently sovereignty slips away, as it has done for the last 20 years or so.
SilverSixer said:
Fair comment and thanks for approaching this sensibly. My response would be that our sovereign parliament legislated to allow the situation you describe, and is now acting to stop it. In other words, sovereignty was there all the time, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now. Which negates any argument anyone made about taking back control or regaining sovereignty. It was all a big obfuscation for ideological ends and, frankly, a lie. We always had control as we can see now that we are using that control. I disagree with the policy our control is being used to implement, and in a democracy that's how it should be - legitimate dissent is the only driver of change.
We had control in the sense that Parliament could just repeal the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally which would end in effect our EU membership but they never had control over things on an individual basis.As a member you either enact all of it or you leave, get chucked out or taken to court. It is as simple as that. Parliament could not reject or amend individual laws.
I think when "take back control" was used it refereed to control and/or influence over day-to-day laws not the fact that Parliament still had a technical Sovereign right to vote to bomb Brussels.
SilverSixer said:
Fair comment and thanks for approaching this sensibly. My response would be that our sovereign parliament legislated to allow the situation you describe, and is now acting to stop it. In other words, sovereignty was there all the time, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now. Which negates any argument anyone made about taking back control or regaining sovereignty. It was all a big obfuscation for ideological ends and, frankly, a lie. We always had control as we can see now that we are using that control. I disagree with the policy our control is being used to implement, and in a democracy that's how it should be - legitimate dissent is the only driver of change.
If you asked me why I voted leave, I would answer 'to restore our sovereignty' because most people don't want the long answer and this is close enough even if it's technically wrong.If you questioned my answer, I would ask the questioner to first explain the differences between EU regulations, directives & decisions. If they couldn't then they wouldn't understand my long answer. If they could then I would explain that I used the term 'to restore our sovereignty' as short-hand for 'removing the power of EU regulations to bypass our parliament'.
SilverSixer said:
My response would be that our sovereign parliament legislated to allow the situation you describe, and is now acting to stop it. In other words, sovereignty was there all the time
The claim is that because parliament accepted its responsibilities when giving up elements of sovereignty to the EU as a well-behaved EU member, in fact sovereignty was there all along because politicians used sovereignty to give parts of it up? Righto.
We've been through the issue of sovereigty so many times that the initial question was more vexatious than meaningful, and it's all water
And what a magnificent majority there was after last night's A50 division, in spite of an irrelevant handful of Labour and SNP miserable bleaters.
Greg66 said:
don4l said:
Do you realise that we are invoking Article 50 on the tenth of March? That is only 36 days away.
Oh, really? Are we? What's article 50? Will it make a difference? I'll still be able to bring back a small tanker of cheap red wine from a Calais hypermarket, won't I? I came to terms with the fact we were leaving the morning after the vote. Life moves on. Although unlike you, I haven't been walking around with a hard-on that's got "Farage" written on one side and "Brexit" on the other (in very very small writing, obviously, probably hyphenated onto a second line) for the last seven months.
Perhaps you should take a short break from the Internet???
Piersman2 said:
SilverSixer said:
I'm not going anywhere other than where I started, namely to point out that we had no sovereignty to recover, as we'd never lost it.
The point is, as stated in David Davis's White paper today, that we always had sovereignty and hadn't lost it to the EU, and there's no good reason to believe that was ever going to change, despite incorrect Leave claims of some plot to take us in to the ever closer union which the others may pursue, having an opt out from it and all that.
You know this, surely? You knew this in June last year, surely? You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
The people always had their own directly accountable parliament via the ballet (sic) box, as is self-evident from the current situation. If we'd lost sovereignty to the EU, we wouldn't be leaving it.
(Sorry about the ballet box thing, just struck me as a very amusing typo.)
The point is, as stated in David Davis's White paper today, that we always had sovereignty and hadn't lost it to the EU, and there's no good reason to believe that was ever going to change, despite incorrect Leave claims of some plot to take us in to the ever closer union which the others may pursue, having an opt out from it and all that.
You know this, surely? You knew this in June last year, surely? You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
The people always had their own directly accountable parliament via the ballet (sic) box, as is self-evident from the current situation. If we'd lost sovereignty to the EU, we wouldn't be leaving it.
(Sorry about the ballet box thing, just struck me as a very amusing typo.)
- too much typing whilst looking over my shoulder at work.Yes, I knew all this and still voted for leave. The decision to vote is not predicated on 1 issue for me, and I suspect for very few others, it's more complex than that. But this specific point for me was around recovering our own control, which we now have. Where the EU was and where it's going in the future does not appeal; ever greater integration, army, Turkey, continuing emancipation of PIGS economies, kicking the financial can, lack of audited accounts, gravy train, etc...
Aa you've noted there was always a promise that any further devolution of power to the EU would require a referendum and that sounds like it would give us a get out clause if ever we needed it, but the EU would not put itself into a position where the 'wrong' result could be voted in, they are too politically astute and willing to play the looonnngggg game. When the next requirement came to hand more powers over the EU, the alternatives would have been worse, a manufactured Hobson's choice would have been presented.
Slowly , silently sovereignty slips away, as it has done for the last 20 years or so.
confused_buyer said:
SilverSixer said:
Fair comment and thanks for approaching this sensibly. My response would be that our sovereign parliament legislated to allow the situation you describe, and is now acting to stop it. In other words, sovereignty was there all the time, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now. Which negates any argument anyone made about taking back control or regaining sovereignty. It was all a big obfuscation for ideological ends and, frankly, a lie. We always had control as we can see now that we are using that control. I disagree with the policy our control is being used to implement, and in a democracy that's how it should be - legitimate dissent is the only driver of change.
We had control in the sense that Parliament could just repeal the European Communities Act 1972 unilaterally which would end in effect our EU membership but they never had control over things on an individual basis.As a member you either enact all of it or you leave, get chucked out or taken to court. It is as simple as that. Parliament could not reject or amend individual laws.
I think when "take back control" was used it refereed to control and/or influence over day-to-day laws not the fact that Parliament still had a technical Sovereign right to vote to bomb Brussels.
SilverSixer said:
Plapable nonsense. Were we in the Euro? etc etc etc...........
That's a different thing and you know it. You know full well I am referring to directives and regulations which DO have to be enacted by Parliament and HMG. Either automatically in the case of regulations or by whatever means achieves them in the case of directives. You can't just chuck one out or ignore it.
WinstonWolf said:
SilverSixer said:
alock said:
SilverSixer said:
You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
People use the word sovereignty to mean slightly different things. Whether that's right or wrong is not the point of the argument. You have to be fairly sad to argue something as important as this on the exact definition of a word.Let me quote something else from the white paper:
Whitepaper said:
The Government’s general approach to preserving EU law is to ensure that all EU laws which are directly applicable in the UK (such as EU regulations) and all laws which have been made in the UK, in order to implement our obligations as a member of the EU, remain part of domestic law on the day we leave the EU.
EU regulations are directly applicable in the UK without going through UK parliament. This is what people mean by sovereignty. Some people recently took the government to court for thinking it could bypass parliament. Other people voted leave because the EU was repeatedly creating EU regulations which bypassed our parliament.SilverSixer said:
Again revealing more about you. I'm not sure where I've said in this thread that we aren't leaving. I'm saying it's a mind blowingly stupid decision, made by the electorate based on a pack of lies, being taken to an unnecessarily destructive extreme by an incompetence and craven administration, driven by far-right ideology and dogma, supported by disingenuous MPs. Expressing dissent is not the same as denial. You do realise that?
So, to sum up, are you for or against it?SilverSixer said:
WinstonWolf said:
SilverSixer said:
alock said:
SilverSixer said:
You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
People use the word sovereignty to mean slightly different things. Whether that's right or wrong is not the point of the argument. You have to be fairly sad to argue something as important as this on the exact definition of a word.Let me quote something else from the white paper:
Whitepaper said:
The Government’s general approach to preserving EU law is to ensure that all EU laws which are directly applicable in the UK (such as EU regulations) and all laws which have been made in the UK, in order to implement our obligations as a member of the EU, remain part of domestic law on the day we leave the EU.
EU regulations are directly applicable in the UK without going through UK parliament. This is what people mean by sovereignty. Some people recently took the government to court for thinking it could bypass parliament. Other people voted leave because the EU was repeatedly creating EU regulations which bypassed our parliament.
................
Have you sold those 2 properties yet?
SilverSixer said:
WinstonWolf said:
SilverSixer said:
alock said:
SilverSixer said:
You may have had other reasons to vote Leave (if you did, I don't know you), and that's fine, but this (sovereignty) isn't and never was a valid reason to vote Leave, and even David Davis says so now.
People use the word sovereignty to mean slightly different things. Whether that's right or wrong is not the point of the argument. You have to be fairly sad to argue something as important as this on the exact definition of a word.Let me quote something else from the white paper:
Whitepaper said:
The Government’s general approach to preserving EU law is to ensure that all EU laws which are directly applicable in the UK (such as EU regulations) and all laws which have been made in the UK, in order to implement our obligations as a member of the EU, remain part of domestic law on the day we leave the EU.
EU regulations are directly applicable in the UK without going through UK parliament. This is what people mean by sovereignty. Some people recently took the government to court for thinking it could bypass parliament. Other people voted leave because the EU was repeatedly creating EU regulations which bypassed our parliament.You need to move on to acceptance. Dissent/denial, whichever way you package it you will become bitter. It's time to embrace your new found singledom.
Gargamel said:
Or being overuled by the ECHR, IE British Courts having decisions overturned at ECHR - Abu Qatada sprinds to mind
The Crown wanted him deported to Jordan, he went to ECHR won and was awarded costs !
Our Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty were thereby diminished.
And, er where is he now?The Crown wanted him deported to Jordan, he went to ECHR won and was awarded costs !
Our Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty were thereby diminished.
WinstonWolf said:
Stupid? My share portfolio has gone through the roof since June, I only wish we'd left sooner. Which reveals *even more about you*. (WTaF)
You need to move on to acceptance. Dissent/denial, whichever way you package it you will become bitter. It's time to embrace your new found singledom.
I'll bet you never said a dickie bird between the two Europe referendums, did you? Not once in 40 odd years. Just accepted it and moved on. Of course.You need to move on to acceptance. Dissent/denial, whichever way you package it you will become bitter. It's time to embrace your new found singledom.
You can not equate dissent with denial. A democracy can not exist without dissent.
SilverSixer said:
WinstonWolf said:
Stupid? My share portfolio has gone through the roof since June, I only wish we'd left sooner. Which reveals *even more about you*. (WTaF)
You need to move on to acceptance. Dissent/denial, whichever way you package it you will become bitter. It's time to embrace your new found singledom.
I'll bet you never said a dickie bird between the two Europe referendums, did you? Not once in 40 odd years. Just accepted it and moved on. Of course.You need to move on to acceptance. Dissent/denial, whichever way you package it you will become bitter. It's time to embrace your new found singledom.
You can not equate dissent with denial. A democracy can not exist without dissent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff