The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
mx5nut said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Surely if it was OK for the Sovereign Parliament to take the UK into the EU, Gina Millers legal action was not required, as it should also have been equally OK for the Sovereign Parliament to take the UK out of the EU, in the same way
That's exactly what her legal action ensured, yes.Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
B'stard Child said:
Breadvan72 said:
Harsh, dude, you still gotta eat.
You don't know what my original hourly rate was 
PS: how do I calculate the VAT on double bupkiss?
PPS: has anyone said yet what VAT is going to be called after it isn't VAT any more? Freedom Tax?
Pan Pan Pan said:
If that is the case, then the fact that the same legal process was not applied to way the UK was taken into the EU, must surely mean that the governments action then was illegal, and our apparent membership has consequently been illegal.
I look forward to your legal challenge to the Heath government's actions of 1972 setting out to achieve what many might describe as pumping the water under the bridge back up the river.Breadvan72 said:
In that case, fugg off and take yer fatcat bonus with you!
Ahh no bonus until 200 months served Breadvan72 said:
PS: how do I calculate the VAT on double bupkiss?
I thought you would have to pay income tax on earnings per post
Breadvan72 said:
PPS: has anyone said yet what VAT is going to be called after it isn't VAT any more? Freedom Tax?
45 million people will probably expect it to be still called VAT - EUfreeVAT VAT3ofEU nah it'll still be VATPan Pan Pan said:
If that is the case, then the fact that the same legal process was not applied to way the UK was taken into the EU, must surely mean that the governments action then was illegal, and our apparent membership has consequently been illegal.
Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
You seem to be genuinely confused about this topic so I am genuinely trying to help dispel the confusion. The exact same legal process applied to EEC entry as now applies to EU departure. Parliament legislated for EEC entry. Parliament therefore had to legislate for EU departure. Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
Miller made her challenge because the UK Government was seeking to depart the EU without involving Parliament.
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum on anything. As it happened, the decision to enter the EEC was approved by a referendum in 1975 in which the majority then voting opted to stay in, but that referendum was optional.
I add that a few ultra-Brexiteers have for years run various flawed arguments that the entry into the EEC was illegal. They have argued that the Queen and the PMs were and are guilty of treason, and all sorts of tinfoil stuff like that.
The answer to these fruitloop arguments is always Parliamentary Sovereignty, the very thing that many Brexiteers get very het up about. Parliament lawfully took the UK in to the EEC. Parliament approved successive treaties amending the earlier treaties. Parliament is lawfully taking us out of the EU. It had always reserved the power to do so. If May had given the Article 50 notice without the approval of Parliament, she would have been acting unlawfully.
The answer to these fruitloop arguments is always Parliamentary Sovereignty, the very thing that many Brexiteers get very het up about. Parliament lawfully took the UK in to the EEC. Parliament approved successive treaties amending the earlier treaties. Parliament is lawfully taking us out of the EU. It had always reserved the power to do so. If May had given the Article 50 notice without the approval of Parliament, she would have been acting unlawfully.
Breadvan72 said:
In that case, fugg off and take yer fatcat bonus with you!
PS: how do I calculate the VAT on double bupkiss?
PPS: has anyone said yet what VAT is going to be called after it isn't VAT any more? Freedom Tax?
Do you need to add value to be eligible for VAT?PS: how do I calculate the VAT on double bupkiss?
PPS: has anyone said yet what VAT is going to be called after it isn't VAT any more? Freedom Tax?
I pay nothing, as my posts add nothing to the debate.
Breadvan72 said:
Parliament lawfully took the UK in to the EEC. Parliament approved successive treaties amending the earlier treaties. Parliament is lawfully taking us out of the EU. It had always reserved the power to do so. If May had given the Article 50 notice without the approval of Parliament, she would have been acting unlawfully.
I was glad Gina Miller subjected the process to scrutiny - can you imagine the s
t storm we would be in (well bigger st storm) if the PM had given Article 50 notice and then a challenge to it came in?? I fully accept that it may or may not have been her motive but she did everyone a bloody big favour
It also bought some breathing time to prepare although I'm not 100% confident that it was wisely used but time will tell
B'stard Child said:
can you imagine the st storm we would be in (well bigger st storm) if the PM had given Article 50 notice and then a challenge to it came in??
Yes, the government would have been forced to have recourse to Parliament, where they would have prevailed, as they did anyway when challenged by Miller all of which loops back to the questionable judgement emanating from Downing street on a daily basis.t storm we would be in (well bigger st storm) if the PM had given Article 50 notice and then a challenge to it came in??Breadvan72 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If that is the case, then the fact that the same legal process was not applied to way the UK was taken into the EU, must surely mean that the governments action then was illegal, and our apparent membership has consequently been illegal.
Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
You seem to be genuinely confused about this topic so I am genuinely trying to help dispel the confusion. The exact same legal process applied to EEC entry as now applies to EU departure. Parliament legislated for EEC entry. Parliament therefore had to legislate for EU departure. Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
Miller made her challenge because the UK Government was seeking to depart the EU without involving Parliament.
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum on anything. As it happened, the decision to enter the EEC was approved by a referendum in 1975 in which the majority then voting opted to stay in, but that referendum was optional.
Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC, (especially as many extant then with ability to vote, would have been those who only a few years before had been fighting the very country which now controls the EU).
Gina Millers legal intervention, not forgetting the actual experience of living in the EU for 40 odd years, and the vast difference in information available to the voting public of the UK in 2016, means that the result of the 2016 referendum is in all probability much more sound than the fudged way the UK was slid into the EU via voting to remain in the EEC..
If the EU had truly been (or had even been perceived) as being good for the `majority' of the people of UK, the 2016 vote would have been for it to remain a member state, but what is now history has shown us, is that this was not in fact the case.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 24th October 10:49
Pan Pan Pan said:
Agreed, my question was somewhat rhetorical, but even you will have to admit that the 1975 EEC referendum was voted on by the UK citizens with only a tiny fraction of the information made available to the public then, than was available in 2016.
Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC, (especially as many extant then with ability to vote, would have been those who only a few years before had been fighting the very country which now controls the EU).
Gina Millers legal intervention, not forgetting the actual experience of living in the EU for 40 odd years, and the vast difference in information available to the voting public of the UK in 2016, means that the result of the 2016 referendum is in all probability much sound than the fudged way the UK was slid into the EU via voting to remain in the EEC..
If the EU had truly been (or had even been perceived) as being good for the `majority' of the people of UK, the 2016 vote would have been for it to remain a member state, but what is now history has shown us, is that this was not in fact the case.
Well put.........only to add - "if the EU had truly been (or had even been perceived) as being good for the `majority' of the people" - then after 40 odd years of membership it should have been a doddle for the remainers to have demonstrated it instead of resorting to insults and scaremongering.Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC, (especially as many extant then with ability to vote, would have been those who only a few years before had been fighting the very country which now controls the EU).
Gina Millers legal intervention, not forgetting the actual experience of living in the EU for 40 odd years, and the vast difference in information available to the voting public of the UK in 2016, means that the result of the 2016 referendum is in all probability much sound than the fudged way the UK was slid into the EU via voting to remain in the EEC..
If the EU had truly been (or had even been perceived) as being good for the `majority' of the people of UK, the 2016 vote would have been for it to remain a member state, but what is now history has shown us, is that this was not in fact the case.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC
Were we in possession of crystal balls back in 1975?TTwiggy said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC
Were we in possession of crystal balls back in 1975?http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/ted-heath...
Eddie Strohacker said:
TTwiggy said:
Were we in possession of crystal balls back in 1975?
Didn't need one. Alfie's been shown this many times & his best gold is it was printed in a paper no one read. The old shooting the piano player defence.
TTwiggy said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC
Were we in possession of crystal balls back in 1975?NO one in 1975 knew what joining the EEC would mean for the UK then, any more than people know now what leaving the EU will actually mean now.
Like it or not the decision to leave has been made, so all that any citizen of the UK can do is whatever they can to make the UK a success in its new position. There were no doubt people in 1975 who believed staying in the EEC was a mistake, but we did not see huge rally's, and hoards of moaners trying to subvert the democratic decision of the majority as we have seen now,
Doom mongering is so pitiful it has to, and can only be despised. by the `normal' people of the UK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff