- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
I wasn't trying to be clever although I can see how that interpretation may be made in your case.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
I wasn't trying to be clever although I can see how that interpretation may be made in your case.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Remainers should give up attempts to sabotage Brexit
You better tell that to the many, many Remain MP's who seem to think all those powers returning to the UK are so important that parliament should get a direct say on any changes to them. if they didn't matter or exist why the fuss?
No loss of sovereignty indeed ...
A leading light from last year’s Britain Stronger in Europe campaign complained to me recently that not enough parliamentary time was being given to debating post-Brexit arrangements. “After all,” he insisted, “Brexit touches on nearly every single public policy issue facing the government.”
I thought that was a bit rich, given that for the last couple of decades EU-enthusiasts like him have been dismissing pronouncements from Eurosceptics like me about how the laws foisted on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels impinge on virtually every area of our lives. At least I can take some satisfaction in a tardy acceptance that I was correct in my analysis of the EU’s reach.
But the Europhiles who are now seeking in some way to scupper, hinder or block Brexit outright with their reams of amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are rather late converts to the cause of robust parliamentary scrutiny. Where were they over the past 40 or so years when thousands upon thousands of EU directives and regulations became the law of the land without a moment of debate in our supposedly sovereign parliament?
The withdrawal bill, which began its committee stage in the House of Commons yesterday, is the first of a number of bills designed to unpick those four decades of Brussels control over the British statute book. And it should surprise no one that this disentanglement is a complicated process. But it is a process that is happening and those parliamentarians who think that either voting down or unhelpfully amending the government’s Brexit legislation can prevent the UK’s exit from the EU are deeply misguided.
The mandate for Brexit is threefold. First of all, more people voted Leave in last year’s referendum than have ever voted for anyone or anything in British electoral history. Then there was the vote by MPs to trigger Article 50 in February, carried by a majority of 372, which started an irrevocable two-year countdown on our withdrawal. And finally, there was the general election in June, at which more than 80 per cent of voters cast their ballots for parties committed to delivering the referendum result.
Any attempt to stop Brexit by those still unhappy with the result would be to defy the will of the people. Moreover, opposition to essential legislation risks leaving the country without a functioning statute book on exit day, potentially causing the chaotic Brexit which Remainers claim they want to avoid. Wouldn’t their energy be better spent trying to persuade their friends in Brussels to end their intransigence over moving the Brexit talks on to trade?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...-give-up-attempts-to-sabotagebrexit-g8p92x8jf
You better tell that to the many, many Remain MP's who seem to think all those powers returning to the UK are so important that parliament should get a direct say on any changes to them. if they didn't matter or exist why the fuss?
No loss of sovereignty indeed ...
A leading light from last year’s Britain Stronger in Europe campaign complained to me recently that not enough parliamentary time was being given to debating post-Brexit arrangements. “After all,” he insisted, “Brexit touches on nearly every single public policy issue facing the government.”
I thought that was a bit rich, given that for the last couple of decades EU-enthusiasts like him have been dismissing pronouncements from Eurosceptics like me about how the laws foisted on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels impinge on virtually every area of our lives. At least I can take some satisfaction in a tardy acceptance that I was correct in my analysis of the EU’s reach.
But the Europhiles who are now seeking in some way to scupper, hinder or block Brexit outright with their reams of amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are rather late converts to the cause of robust parliamentary scrutiny. Where were they over the past 40 or so years when thousands upon thousands of EU directives and regulations became the law of the land without a moment of debate in our supposedly sovereign parliament?
The withdrawal bill, which began its committee stage in the House of Commons yesterday, is the first of a number of bills designed to unpick those four decades of Brussels control over the British statute book. And it should surprise no one that this disentanglement is a complicated process. But it is a process that is happening and those parliamentarians who think that either voting down or unhelpfully amending the government’s Brexit legislation can prevent the UK’s exit from the EU are deeply misguided.
The mandate for Brexit is threefold. First of all, more people voted Leave in last year’s referendum than have ever voted for anyone or anything in British electoral history. Then there was the vote by MPs to trigger Article 50 in February, carried by a majority of 372, which started an irrevocable two-year countdown on our withdrawal. And finally, there was the general election in June, at which more than 80 per cent of voters cast their ballots for parties committed to delivering the referendum result.
Any attempt to stop Brexit by those still unhappy with the result would be to defy the will of the people. Moreover, opposition to essential legislation risks leaving the country without a functioning statute book on exit day, potentially causing the chaotic Brexit which Remainers claim they want to avoid. Wouldn’t their energy be better spent trying to persuade their friends in Brussels to end their intransigence over moving the Brexit talks on to trade?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...-give-up-attempts-to-sabotagebrexit-g8p92x8jf
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
EU bot/troll who has contempt for our democracy complaining about foreign interference and contempt for our democracy ... brilliant
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,687
You better tell that to the many, many Remain MP's who seem to think all those powers returning to the UK are so important that parliament should get a direct say on any changes to them. if they didn't matter or exist why the fuss?
No loss of sovereignty indeed ...
I think you're confused and are of the opinion that because we chose to accept laws from the EU etc, we were therefore not sovereign. The very fact we have chosen to leave the EU should be enough for you to realise we have been a sovereign state all along.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
You would be wrong then. The person I was replying to suggested there was never any loss of sovereignty which is clearly nonsense. The very fact we have chosen to leave the EU has no bearing on the fact our soveignity has been 'pooled/'surrenderd over a number of decades without any specific mandate.
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
All you ever seem to find are screen captures of odd paragraphs from documents with no source
How about these,for example?Are they easy enough for you to see the source,or do you need extra help?Perhaps,one day,you might consider adding something to the thread,apart from put-downs and sarcastic comments.Then I might re-consider my opinion of you as a complete waste of oxygen.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,687
A state is either sovereign or not, there is no middle ground.
Currently we are a sovereign state and we will be just as sovereign a state after we have left the EU. The fact we are leaving the EU clearly has a bearing on our sovereignty; do you think if we weren't sovereign we would be able to say cheerio and leave the EU?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
This is almost correct, a resounding remain vote would have made it harder for Cameron to argue for change, which is also why his remain campaign did not really sell us the benefits of membership on the current terms, it was essentially a campaign that said, yes being in the EU is a bit crap, but not as bad as not being in the EU.
He could hardly sell the benefits to the environment and working conditions without highlighting that his party had fought against some of these measures.
It is in current British law that any new treaties giving the EU more powers would not be agreed to by Britain without a referendum, so you would still get a chance to refuse further closer union.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Have we pooled/surrendered any sovereignty while members of the EC/EU?
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Quite an old case,but it makes a point about sovereignty that even the most obtuse on here couldn't argue with,IMHO.
For the slower witted,the source is in the text.
For the slower witted,the source is in the text.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
23 members have agreed to a pooling of miliatry force, so not everyone is joining, and the arrangement seems to be heading towards a collaberation and an agreement on spending than an actual single force under the control of the EU.
The rules are being amended in regards to the "tampon tax" and is an example of the EU Parliament pushing an issue upstairs for the Commission to create policy.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
No it isn't.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Did this law exist in 2009? I seem to remember being promised a referendum before powers were signed away in the Lisbon treaty. Initially it was called the EU constitution.
Of course the referendum never happened because they knew it would never win in the UK. Instead they changed the name and called it a "tidying up exercise". Other referendum results were ignored. That was when the EU shows it's true colours.
Which would undoubtedly be carefully debated by all the pro-EU politicians in their Westminster bubble, who would then agree that it wasn't actually giving any powers to the EU, and would cover it up using labels like "Memorandum of Agreement" or "Concordat" or "Convention" - or something similar. They couldn't be trusted to actually hold a referendum if they thought they might lose it - they only held this one because they were so out of touch they assumed they would win at a canter.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
See also Cameron's pre-referendum negotiation 'guarantee' that we would be exempt from ever closer union ...
Baldseagull
Well-known member
It was not in force in 2009, it is the European Union Act 2011. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/contents
Interestingly, some think this act also means that we must have a referendum on the result of negotiaitions, you might be hearing a lot more about it in the coming months.
nicko31
Well-known member
Well. we need to something to salvage our reputation in Europe. We're not retreating into an absurd little enclave, honest...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41996872
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41996872
Baldseagull
Well-known member
It seems you are highly suspicious of the Parliament you wish to have greater sovereignty.
I must confess, I am too, I am highly suspicious of people like Rees Mogg and John Redwood who make their living off investment management, arguing for Brexit as a good move for Britain, whilst shifting their investments out of Britain.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
But if they reject the result of the negotiations we leave anyway. So it seems something of a pointless exercise
Baldseagull
Well-known member
It was stated by the EU after Daves chat, that none of the treaties we had signed to date obligated us to further union and that we would not be excluded from any existing arrangement just because we don't agree to any future one, but to make it crystal clear they would put this in the treaties if we returned a remain result.
So, it is already the case that we are we not obliged to closer union, nor can we be cut off from any existing arrangement we have, for refusing to go further.