INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#421 Post by animist » August 28th, 2016, 9:28 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by not giving MPs a Brexit vote
The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.
it's good to see MPs starting to assert themselves, but would they have the guts to actually deny the triggering of Article 50? The article is wrong to say that it's unclear whether the referendum result was meant to be binding: it was NOT meant to be binding, only advisory, but this was not apparent from either side in the referendum campaign. The author is also wrong to call Article 50 "legislation" - it isn't, and the Government's claim to be able to trigger it without parliamentary approval depends on the old concept of Royal Prerogative - how democratic is that? Anyway, Parliament at some stage will have to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act in order to complete the secession of Britain from the EU, so why all the fuss about excluding it now?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#422 Post by Alan H » August 28th, 2016, 9:59 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by not giving MPs a Brexit vote
The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.
it's good to see MPs starting to assert themselves, but would they have the guts to actually deny the triggering of Article 50? The article is wrong to say that it's unclear whether the referendum result was meant to be binding: it was NOT meant to be binding, only advisory, but this was not apparent from either side in the referendum campaign. The author is also wrong to call Article 50 "legislation" - it isn't, and the Government's claim to be able to trigger it without parliamentary approval depends on the old concept of Royal Prerogative - how democratic is that? Anyway, Parliament at some stage will have to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act in order to complete the secession of Britain from the EU, so why all the fuss about excluding it now?
Indeed. What a mess.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#423 Post by Alan H » August 28th, 2016, 2:33 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#424 Post by Gottard » August 29th, 2016, 8:49 am

Alan H wrote:Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by not giving MPs a Brexit vote
The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.
......
“Parliament cannot be sidelined from the greatest constitutional change our country has debated in 40 years.”
Is the matter of Brexit (art.50) comparable to a declaration to invade a foreign country (in this case a retreat), when a parliament vote is required ? If the level of importance is equatable then, in my opinion, MPs are entitled to "their say".
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#425 Post by Alan H » August 29th, 2016, 9:52 am

Gottard wrote:
Alan H wrote:Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by not giving MPs a Brexit vote
The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.
......
“Parliament cannot be sidelined from the greatest constitutional change our country has debated in 40 years.”
Is the matter of Brexit (art.50) comparable to a declaration to invade a foreign country (in this case a retreat), when a parliament vote is required ? If the level of importance is equatable then, in my opinion, MPs are entitled to "their say".
There are several hurdles to overcome if May used the Royal Prerogative, not least - I hope - would be a revolt by the House of Commons because their power was being usurped.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#426 Post by Gottard » August 29th, 2016, 10:29 am

Alan H wrote:
Gottard wrote:
Is the matter of Brexit (art.50) comparable to a declaration to invade a foreign country (in this case a retreat), when a parliament vote is required ? If the level of importance is equatable then, in my opinion, MPs are entitled to "their say".
There are several hurdles to overcome if May used the Royal Prerogative, not least - I hope - would be a revolt by the House of Commons because their power was being usurped.
And should the event prove right, i.e. use of Royal prerogative, the following could easily instil the doubt about the kingdom adequacy in the 21st century.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#427 Post by Alan H » August 29th, 2016, 10:49 am

Gottard wrote:And should the event prove right, i.e. use of Royal prerogative, the following could easily instil the doubt about the kingdom adequacy in the 21st century.
If it precipitates a vote of no confidence in May, that could be the end of her. Who then would want to take the poisoned chalice?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#428 Post by animist » August 29th, 2016, 12:40 pm

I think that the relevant word is "plans". The Cabinet still has no idea of what it wants - scarcely surprising in view of the fact that its leader was/is a Remain supporter! I doubt that all 27 of the remaining EU states, several of whom currently export labour to the UK, will accede to Britain's dream ticket of access without migration

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#429 Post by Alan H » August 29th, 2016, 1:36 pm

animist wrote:
I think that the relevant word is "plans". The Cabinet still has no idea of what it wants - scarcely surprising in view of the fact that its leader was/is a Remain supporter! I doubt that all 27 of the remaining EU states, several of whom currently export labour to the UK, will accede to Britain's dream ticket of access without migration
It could end up a head-to-head battle between May and Merkel. It will be bloody. May will not win.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#430 Post by Alan H » August 29th, 2016, 4:39 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#431 Post by Gottard » August 29th, 2016, 4:45 pm

The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#432 Post by Alan H » August 29th, 2016, 4:46 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#433 Post by Alan H » August 30th, 2016, 8:22 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#434 Post by Nick » August 30th, 2016, 11:51 pm

"Tabloid, muckraking style...." I wouldn't even wrap fish and chips in it.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#435 Post by Alan H » August 31st, 2016, 12:06 am

Nick wrote:"Tabloid, muckraking style...." I wouldn't even wrap fish and chips in it.
But seriously, what do you think the British High Commissioner meant when she said:
So I want to explain where we stand and what we are doing about it.

First, Brexit means Brexit.

Second, we will make a success of it.

Third, Britain remains Britain.

Britain is a great country, thriving and prospering on the world stage.

Indeed we have just proved how globally competitive we are achieving second place in the medals table at the Rio Olympics.

No one should ever under-estimate us nor write us off.

Nor doubt our resolve.
And what was mucky about it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#436 Post by Nick » August 31st, 2016, 1:03 am

Just quoting the site itself, Alan. If it's true, then it's true. If it isn't, then we can't take them seriously anyway.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#437 Post by Alan H » August 31st, 2016, 7:48 am

Nick wrote:Just quoting the site itself, Alan. If it's true, then it's true. If it isn't, then we can't take them seriously anyway.
Regardless of what you might or might not do with the paper if it were to be printed on any, perhaps you would like to comment of the substance of the article, viz, the words attributed to the British High Commissioner?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#438 Post by Alan H » August 31st, 2016, 7:52 am

David Allen Green poking fun at May and her cronies this morning on Twitter:
Today the Cabinet are having an away day, where they will "brainstorm" (horrendous verb) what they mean by Brexit.

Seriously
You can almost imagine the Prime Minister standing there with a white flipchart and marker pens, trying to get the awkward silences to end.
"Brexit" is written on the top of the first sheet of the flipchart, with the "t" a little crushed, as not enough room had been left for it.
Under the word "Brexit" the rest of the sheet of the flipchart, of course, remains blank.
"Well, lets think about what Brexit does not mean," says May.

Silence.

"Does it mean...not....Brexit?" ventures one minister.
Suddenly the prime minister takes a new marker pen, and draws a line across the flipchart sheet.

"This is our red line," she says proudly
"Let's have coffee and resume this shortly."

Everyone nods.

In the conference room the flipchart is ignored.

"I do like these biscuits."
It'd make a good Spitting Image sketch.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#439 Post by Alan H » August 31st, 2016, 9:17 am

Brexit divisions emerge as Whitehall draws up leave scenarios
Civil servants have been asked to assess the impact of a wide range of Brexit scenarios, from full membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) to a system under which some Europeans would need visas just to holiday in Britain.

Theresa May gathers her cabinet at Chequers on Wednesday with Brexit at the top of the agenda, and the scenarios exercise has already started to expose potential divisions in government.

The scenario planning is taking place across government with reports expected to be fed into the Brexit department run by David Davis. However, the findings are likely to remain internal.

Some officials at the Foreign Office are pushing for “as much Europe as possible” while others in the Home Office are reluctant to consider full EEA membership or single market access because their priority is an immigration clampdown, according one Whitehall source.

They said government departments were thinking of the possible forms that Brexit could take along a “continuum” stretching from heavy access to the single market with limited restrictions on immigration to stringent border controls alongside trade tariffs imposed under WTO rules.

May has asked every cabinet minister, most of whom campaigned to remain in the EU, to set out how Brexit could be a success in their areas, and will be expecting them to report back on Wednesday.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#440 Post by Tetenterre » August 31st, 2016, 9:46 am

"Brexit means Brexit" is exactly as informative as "Splingeblat means Splingeblat". The end.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#441 Post by animist » August 31st, 2016, 8:17 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... the-job-o/

"Brexit brainstorm" - a contradiction in terms! This article in the Telegraph indicates how Terri May is trying to dragoon (by issuing "marching orders") reluctant civil servants, despite the total conceptual chaos surrounding Brexit. But maybe the Civil Service will escape being frogmarched into all this timewasting. I am hoping that the legal case being prepared by law firm Mishcon de Reya, and due to be heard in the Supreme Court in October, will prevent the government from invoking Article 50 without parliamentary approval - then it's up to the MPs to earn their money by voting for what they believe in

Post Reply