[Politics] Brexit

[Westdene Seagull]

Nope. According to Brexiteers once you vote on someting you can not have another vote ever. Voting out the toriesonce we voted them in would be undemocratic loonery.

And yet strangely the LAW states we vote every 5 years for a new government ...... how looney is that !!!!

 

[Baldseagull]

So, for example, our government could agree to join the Euro, and we wouldn't get a referendum.

No, we would get a referendum, because an article 48 (6) is "The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties."


Part 3 of the treaty includes economic and monetary policy, which includes the Euro, and for us to adopt the Euro we would have to propose to remove from the treaty those parts creating our opt out, because leaving it in place would not allow the controls the EU would require or the voting rights we would require.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

[tweet]1092555929676058626[/tweet]

They won, hope they are happy.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Just look at this, and wonder why people keep pointing to corruption in the EU.


[tweet]1092796694650073089[/tweet]

I imagine we will be seeing a lot of cases brought against the Government in the next few years.

 

[Baldseagull]

We are entering into the world of psychedelia, you are equalising the conduct of Juncker who facilitated tax evasion from global corporates, banks et al for the benefit of the RICH with a trade unionist like Crow who acted in the interests of his members who are WORKING CLASS.

In a way I am not surprised you cant understand the difference........you are defending the indefensible. You are so consumed with your zeal for the EU and the likes of Juncker that if he took a shit in your bed you would find a way to justify it.

I am not consumed with zeal, nor a particular fan of Juncker, but he isn't the bloody anti-christ either. Just trying to provide some balance to your blind hatred of the man. What would you have done to improve the fortunes of tiny Luxembourg?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The fragile Tory truce over Brexit has been shattered after Theresa May admitted there is “no suggestion” of scrapping the Irish backstop – triggering fresh anger from her anti-EU MPs.

Under pressure from business leaders in Belfast, the prime minister let slip that she will only seek “changes” to the controversial backstop – not its removal – in fresh talks in Brussels on Thursday.

The comment was seen as backtracking on last week’s Commons vote that it should be “replaced with alternative arrangements”, which Ms May had ordered Conservative MPs to support.

 

[pb21]

This answer has no bearing on my previous question.

For the third time ... How do you vote out those that inflicted crushing austerity in Greece? We can vote out the Tories.

Any other #teameucrew Europhiles feel free to jump in and rescue TBolt.

Can Greece unilaterally decide to leave the EU?

 

[CHAPPERS]

The fragile Tory truce over Brexit has been shattered after Theresa May admitted there is “no suggestion” of scrapping the Irish backstop – triggering fresh anger from her anti-EU MPs.

Under pressure from business leaders in Belfast, the prime minister let slip that she will only seek “changes” to the controversial backstop – not its removal – in fresh talks in Brussels on Thursday.

The comment was seen as backtracking on last week’s Commons vote that it should be “replaced with alternative arrangements”, which Ms May had ordered Conservative MPs to support.

Deals reneged on, promises broken, bungs, pay offs. She's got herself in a bit of a pickle.

 

[Triggaaar]

Part 3 of the treaty includes economic and monetary policy, which includes the Euro, and for us to adopt the Euro we would have to propose to remove from the treaty those parts creating our opt out, because leaving it in place would not allow the controls the EU would require or the voting rights we would require.

You've linked to cases where treaty or Article 48(6) decision attracts a referendum, sections 1a) to 1m). Which of those are you suggesting applies, were we to want to join the Euro?

 

[The Clamp]

Leave voters are responsible for a looming staffing crisis in the NHS.

 

[Baldseagull]

You've linked to cases where treaty or Article 48(6) decision attracts a referendum, sections 1a) to 1m). Which of those are you suggesting applies, were we to want to join the Euro?

i) j) for sure and possibly h)

You're not giving up easily on this are you?

 

[Triggaaar]

i) j) for sure and possibly h)

i) the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom...
I don't see how it would be imposing a requirement if the UK has asked for it.

j) the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom;
Sanctions? How would the UK requesting to join the Euro a sanction being imposed on us?

You're not giving up easily on this are you?

It's just not making sense to me. I don't remember others saying what you're saying. Presumably if you're correct there are countless articles out there stating that we can't join the Euro without a referendum?

 

[Triggaaar]

They promised...

View attachment 104371

Who's they? That's not a promise. It was a suggestion of an option by people who weren't going to be in government if the country voted leave

 

[Baldseagull]

i) the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom...
I don't see how it would be imposing a requirement if the UK has asked for it.

j) the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom;
Sanctions? How would the UK requesting to join the Euro a sanction being imposed on us?

It's just not making sense to me. I don't remember others saying what you're saying. Presumably if you're correct there are countless articles out there stating that we can't join the Euro without a referendum?

i) We would be conferring on them the power to impose

j) The euro comes with budgetary rules, Italy could face sanctions for setting a budget outside of those rules, the same would apply to us.

I don't know if others have said it, I am thinking it was a mistake to not raise the existence of this act during the campaign, as it does seem to allay many of the fears of some Leave voters. I found this just now, "Section 6, in contrast, sets out a series of trigger events, which will automatically require approval by Act of Parliament and at a referendum. Most of these trigger events relate to changes in the EU’s voting rules – in particular, certain extensions of QMV – but a number of specific decisions which would significantly affect the UK-EU relationship (such as joining the euro, the removal of border controls under the Schengen Protocol, or participation in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office) would also attract a referendum under section 6."

This is from here https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/12/mike-gordon-the-european-union-act-2011/

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't know if others have said it, I am thinking it was a mistake to not raise the existence of this act during the campaign, as it does seem to allay many of the fears of some Leave voters. I found this just now, "Section 6, in contrast, sets out a series of trigger events, which will automatically require approval by Act of Parliament and at a referendum. Most of these trigger events relate to changes in the EU’s voting rules – in particular, certain extensions of QMV – but a number of specific decisions which would significantly affect the UK-EU relationship (such as joining the euro, the removal of border controls under the Schengen Protocol, or participation in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office) would also attract a referendum under section 6."

This is from here https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/12/mike-gordon-the-european-union-act-2011/

Reading that suggests that you're right, and that we can't do those things without a referendum. If that's true, why can't I find it highlighted in newspapers?

 

[beorhthelm]

The fragile Tory truce over Brexit has been shattered after Theresa May admitted there is “no suggestion” of scrapping the Irish backstop – triggering fresh anger from her anti-EU MPs.

Under pressure from business leaders in Belfast, the prime minister let slip that she will only seek “changes” to the controversial backstop – not its removal – in fresh talks in Brussels on Thursday.

The comment was seen as backtracking on last week’s Commons vote that it should be “replaced with alternative arrangements”, which Ms May had ordered Conservative MPs to support.

this is the sort of nonsense i dont understand - it was clear that was the intention a week or two ago, to make amendments to the backstop, not get rid of it outright. some of the hardline even suggested so. but theres enough not said that some can paint their own picture. then there's something said in a different way and suddenly the canvas is ripped up. and they, all of them, have been doing this same shit for over 2 years.

 

[pastafarian]

The govenment now has a Minister for Suicide

You keep moaning about this, but when asked wont answer why you object to it. What do you have against a Minister for Suicide Prevention?

Just look at this, and wonder why people keep pointing to corruption in the EU.


[tweet]1092796694650073089[/tweet]

What has this got to do with corruption in the EU.?
Do you think the NHS is made of money?

NHS England offered £500million for the use of the drug Orkambi for 5 years
The largest ever commitment by the NHS
The drug company refused the offer and want the NHS to pay £105,000 per patient per year.
There are 10,400 people in the UK with Cystic fibrosis
The drug company is American

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47115039

In the meantime, this racist government has a specially chartered plane taking 50 Windrush generation children to the West Indies, where they have maybe only lived for four or five years of their entire lives.

Shameful, and started by Theresa May in the Home Office.

Deliberately destroying landing card records from the Windrush is not a mistake. She is still compounding that by chartering a plane to deport 50 of them this very week.

May has not chartered a plane, this has got nothing to do with windrush and nothing to do with brexit. Start a windrush thread if you think it is related.

What has been reported by sensible outlets and what was said in the House today do not match what you have decided is the truth.



Sajid Javid.

“The right hon. Gentleman mentions the deportations of foreign national offenders. I think the information that he referred to, if I have understood him correctly, is about a charter flight to Jamaica of foreign national offenders only—every single one of them convicted of a serious crime. The UK Borders Act 2007, which he supported, requires that the Home Secretary issues a deportation order for anyone who is a foreign national offender. It does not matter which part of the world they are from, whether it is the United States, Jamaica, Australia or Canada. That is a legal requirement. If he does not want that to happen, he is asking me to break the law, and he is also saying that a person who is convicted of a serious offence as a foreign national offender should be allowed to stay in this country, so either he has changed his mind or he does not know what he is talking about.”

"None of those being deported are British citizens or members of the Windrush generation, who are exempt under section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971."

“The hon. Gentleman mentioned foreign national offenders. I want to make it very clear that the flight in question, assuming he is talking about the same flight as the right hon. Member for Tottenham, is to Jamaica and that everyone on it who is being deported is a foreign national offender from Jamaica. All of them have been convicted of serious crimes, such as rape, murder, firearms offences and drug trafficking, and we are required by law, quite correctly, to deport anyone with such a serious conviction. This law applies universally to all foreign national offenders.
The hon. Gentleman should know that most liberal democracies around the world have similar laws in place. British offenders in foreign states are often deported back to the UK, including from Jamaica, which has in the past deported British nationals who have committed serious offences back to the UK.”

"I want to be clear again about the flight to Jamaica mentioned by hon. Members: not a single person being deported is British—a person cannot be deported and be British; they are all foreign national offenders, and under the 2007 Act, where someone is given a sentence of at least one year, the Home Secretary is required to make a deportation order, and where it is four years or more, the Home Secretary is required by law to order a deportation.

“The wording of the hon. Gentleman’s question seemed to suggest that he knew who was on the flight and who was not. Let me say gently to him that the flight has not happened yet, but the deportation of anyone who is on it will be carried out absolutely according to the law. Ultimately, this is about public safety, because these are individuals who have committed serious offences. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that if we did not carry out the law, we would not only be breaking the law. Let us imagine what would happen if one of these people—someone, say, who had been convicted of murder—were allowed to stay in the UK and then committed that act again, against one of our constituents. What would the hon. Gentleman be saying to me then?”

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...79-2771-437A-B169-2CDC0BB48480/WindrushScheme


What is racist about deporting foreign nationals with criminal convictions? Do you maybe just shout racist at the drop of a hat?

 

[Baldseagull]

Reading that suggests that you're right, and that we can't do those things without a referendum. If that's true, why can't I find it highlighted in newspapers?

It's old news, it was there since 2011, and it's not true right now, the withdrawal act repealed it, but it was in force when we had the Leave/Remain referendum. I guess the Leave campaign would just say the act could be repealed by a Government that wanted to avoid it, as it has been for the purposes of avoiding a referendum on any final deal, however if we were remaining, it would be politically bloody difficult to remove.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Voting for MEPs has a bearing on what happens in the EU Parliament. MEPs vote for the EU leadership.
Yes, my mistake the leaders are in the EU council not Commission. The EU Commission has 28 members, one from each country.

This answer has no bearing on my previous question. If Greek MEP's could have stopped crushing imposed austerity they would if the Greek Leader in the EU Council could have stopped crushing imposed austerity he would. The Greek people even voted in a government to end austerity, they also voted in a referendum specifically to end austerity all to no avail. They were then presented with an impossible choice, endure horrendous economic consequences of enforced austerity by countries that had also broken Eurozone membership rules (but faced no penalty) or face being kicked out of the club and endure horrendous economic consequences.

Getting back to the rank hypocrisy in your argument if the Tories had enforced these levels of shocking pain and suffering on a region of, or nation, within the UK for breaking fiscal rules you and numerous other hypocrites on this thread would be (rightly) screaming the board down saying how unacceptable and callous it was.

 

[Baldseagull]

this is the sort of nonsense i dont understand - it was clear that was the intention a week or two ago, to make amendments to the backstop, not get rid of it outright. some of the hardline even suggested so. but theres enough not said that some can paint their own picture. then there's something said in a different way and suddenly the canvas is ripped up. and they, all of them, have been doing this same shit for over 2 years.

I think the term "alternative arrangements" was sufficiently vague to allow all to attach their own desires to what the alternative might be. It's becoming a familiar tactic.