Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by zara View Post
    We already have control of our borders though... Were not in Schengen, we can refuse anyone except EU citizens and we have checks for everyone coming into and out of the country.
    Because we have to admit all and sundry from the EU means we really don't control our borders.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
      I'll give the EU that. It's not a kleptocracy. I also think that the UK would be better off staying right where it's at in the EU.

      Having said that, a large part of me is glad that an enormous middle finger was raised eastward on June 23rd.
      I must agree with kato on where the finger should rightly be pointed regarding migration;

      Click image for larger version

Name:	migration_by_nationality_rltuVog.png
Views:	2
Size:	29.9 KB
ID:	1469662

      not that migration ever really bothered me apart from the rabid Islams who are bound to slip through any system of vetting you care to devise occasionally. Britain was very happy to have Poles fighting in the RAF in the battle of Britain and I do not have problem with fellow law abiding migrants in general. I do recognise that they present strains on the health, housing and education markets but these are not insurmountable problems and by and large it is far preferable to having a declining population and is, if anything, a compliment to the British way of life. I myself am a second generation product of the WW2 migration/refugee influx and have served HMG and the country to the best of my ability and contributed far more in tax than I have taken from the exchequer. Nor would my debt to the UK be repayed if I were to renounce my allegiance to the Crown; I consider my 'Britishness', my education and understanding, as a privileged benefit of having grown up and been educated in the UK and will never lose my allegiance totally. Indeed I would certainly want any children God may grant me to have a British private school education as I did and for them to feel same affinity for Britain as I do though I would hope they return to their native land as I have done and where we need our younger generations far more. The thing about migration is that the more successful a country is the more migrants you will attract; over 50% of 'foreign' students in Poland are now Ukrainian and again I do not regard as a problem but rather a good thing as when they return, better educated and with a wider understanding, they will (hopefully) always think of Poland well and perhaps bring Polish investment etc with them. I do not want them to lose their affinity to their native lands of course but by and large I regard this as beneficial to greater understanding both in the individuals and with regard to larger country to country understanding since they will be the leaders of tomorrow.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by snapper View Post
        I must agree with kato on where the finger should rightly be pointed regarding migration;

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]42472[/ATTACH]

        not that migration ever really bothered me apart from the rabid Islams who are bound to slip through any system of vetting you care to devise occasionally. Britain was very happy to have Poles fighting in the RAF in the battle of Britain and I do not have problem with fellow law abiding migrants in general.
        I do recognise that they present strains on the health, housing and education markets but these are not insurmountable problems and by and large it is far preferable to having a declining population and is, if anything, a compliment to the British way of life. I myself am a second generation product of the WW2 migration/refugee influx and have served HMG and the country to the best of my ability and contributed far more in tax than I have taken from the exchequer. Nor would my debt to the UK be repayed if I were to renounce my allegiance to the Crown; I consider my 'Britishness', my education and understanding, as a privileged benefit of having grown up and been educated in the UK and will never lose my allegiance totally. Indeed I would certainly want any children God may grant me to have a British private school education as I did and for them to feel same affinity for Britain as I do though I would hope they return to their native land as I have done and where we need our younger generations far more. The thing about migration is that the more successful a country is the more migrants you will attract; over 50% of 'foreign' students in Poland are now Ukrainian and again I do not regard as a problem but rather a good thing as when they return, better educated and with a wider understanding, they will (hopefully) always think of Poland well and perhaps bring Polish investment etc with them. I do not want them to lose their affinity to their native lands of course but by and large I regard this as beneficial to greater understanding both in the individuals and with regard to larger country to country understanding since they will be the leaders of tomorrow.
        Agreed , and also muslims , sihks, etc etc

        Comment


        • What's pathetic to me is not the immigration from one country to another but the immigrants insisting on bringing their culture and "way of life" from the the place they came from which probably caused the the country they came from to become a hell hole they want to leave in the first place.

          In other words, stop trying to impose Sharia law or your culture into The UK or wherever because it probably fucked up the country you came from, making you want to leave it in the first place.

          Yeah, call me racist or whatever, but I would leave the EU on that one principle alone.

          Merkel and her kind are friggin idiots.

          Comment


          • Well said, Yellow.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
              What's pathetic to me is not the immigration from one country to another but the immigrants insisting on bringing their culture and "way of life" from the the place they came from which probably caused the the country they came from to become a hell hole they want to leave in the first place.

              In other words, stop trying to impose Sharia law or your culture into The UK or wherever because it probably fucked up the country you came from, making you want to leave it in the first place.

              Yeah, call me racist or whatever, but I would leave the EU on that one principle alone.

              Merkel and her kind are friggin idiots.
              Have you seen this one yella, seeems to put your post into perspective ,

              The Muslim immigrants Are Not Happy!
              They're not happy in Gaza.
              They're not happy in Egypt.
              They're not happy in Libya.
              They're not happy in Morocco.
              They're not happy in Iran.
              They're not happy in Iraq.
              They're not happy in Yemen.
              They're not happy in Afghanistan.
              They're not happy in Pakistan.
              They're not happy in Syria.
              They're not happy in Lebanon.

              So, where are they happy?

              They're happy in Australia.
              They're happy in England.
              They're happy in France.
              They're happy in Italy.
              They're happy in Germany.
              They're happy in Sweden.
              They're happy in the USA.
              They're happy in Norway.
              They're happy in every country that is not Muslim.

              And who do they blame?
              Not Islam.
              Not their leadership.
              Not themselves.
              THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
              AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY.

              Excuse me, but how dumb can you get?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by zara View Post
                The rights of citizens can only be extinguished by legislature.
                Well done Judges
                Well said PM May.

                6 November 2016 at 9:58am
                May: I won't allow Remain supporters to tie my hands in Brexit negotiations
                Theresa May has warned she will not allow Remain-backing MPs to "tie [her] negotiating hands" in pursuing Brexit.
                Theresa May has warned her hands will not be 'tied'
                Theresa May has warned her hands will not be 'tied' by Remain supporters Credit: PA
                After High Court judges ruled she must seek the approval of Parliament before triggering Article 50 - which launches the official process of leaving the EU - she said MPs and peers must "accept what the people decided" rather than try to block it.

                Speaking ahead of a trade mission to India, she said she was sticking to her timetable of triggering Article 50 by March next year - and insisted she would not give in to calls from Labour and other parties to spell out her negotiating strategy for withdrawal talks.
                While others seek to tie our negotiating hands, the government will get on with the job of delivering the decision of the British people.

                It was MPs who overwhelmingly decided to put the decision in their hands.


                The result was clear. It was legitimate. MPs and peers who regret the referendum result need to accept what the people decided.

                And now we need to turn our minds to how we get the best outcome for our country. That means sticking to our plan and timetable, getting on with the work of developing our negotiating strategy and not putting all our cards on the table - that is not in our national interest and it won't help us get the best deal for Britain.

                THERESA MAY

                Comment


                • And the other side of the coin is !!! And not a judge in sight to point out The illegality of it , straaaaaaange huh.



                  Specific Talkshop Google site search

                  Vernon Coleman: Was Britain taken into the EU illegally?

                  Posted: June 17, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, government, History, Legal, People power, Politics, propaganda, Robber Barons

                  This is a followup to a post about the issue of sovereignty and Britain’s membership of the EU I put up a while back. These are weighty issues the public needs to consider. Needless to say, the BBC won’t be promoting in depth debate about the matter, so it’s up to bloggers and journalists to do the job. Actually, not many journo’s seem to want to raise their heads above the parapet either. I know it’s dull stuff, but please read and think about this. It’s up to us to let the political class know we don’t take kindly to having our liberties, fought for since Magna Carta, signed away to an unelected foreign commissariat which subjects us to summary extradition through European arrest warrants, dictates how we (dis)organise flood defences, and forces us to put the ‘human rights’ of criminals before those of their victims.

                  edward-heath-treason

                  Was Ted Heath committing treason when he signed Britain into the EU?
                  Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?
                  by Vernon Coleman – 2011

                  Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn’t actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid.


                  In enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath’s Government breached the constitutional convention which requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate. (Britain has no straightforward written constitution. But, the signing of the Common Market entrance documents was, without a doubt, a breach of the spirit of our constitution.)


                  Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people’.

                  However, when it came to it Heath didn’t have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.

                  Some MPs have subsequently claimed that `Parliament can do whatever it likes’. But that isn’t true, of course. Parliament consists of a number of individual MPs who have been elected by their constituents to represent them. Political parties are not recognised in our system of government and Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain’s constitution. We have (or are supposed to have) an elective democracy not an elective dictatorship. Parliament may, in law and in day to day issues, be the sovereign power in the state, but the electors are (in the words of Dicey’s `Introduction for the Study of the Law of the Constitution’ published in 1885) `the body in which sovereign power is vested’. Dicey goes on to point out that `in a political sense the electors are the most important part of, we may even say are actually, the sovereign power, since their will is under the present constitution sure to obtain ultimate obedience.’ Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign’.

                  In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament’s legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn’t just another Act of Parliament. Heath’s Bill used Parliament’s legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate.

                  Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.’ Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.)

                  So, for example, Parliament was dissolved in 1831/2 to obtain the electorate’s authority for the Reform Bill and again in 1910 following the Lord’s rejection of the Liberal Finance Bill.

                  In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined’.

                  Wilson’s referendum was inspired solely by the realisation that the consent of the electorate ought first to have been obtained before we joined the EEC. The lack of legitimacy of the European Communities Act brought about the decision by the incoming Prime Minister and Labour leadership that a referendum should be held in preference to yet another general election.

                  But, almost inevitably, the question asked in the referendum was also illegal since voters were asked: `Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?’

                  The problem was that since Heath had ignored the constitution duties and requirements of Parliament and had signed the entrance documents illegally the words `stay in’ were deceptive. We couldn’t stay in the EEC because, constitutionally, we had never entered. We couldn’t enter the Common Market because Parliament did not have the right to sign away our sovereignty.

                  The referendum Wilson organised to remedy Heath’s constitutional breach misled the electorate on a simple constitutional issue and was, therefore, itself illegal. (Wilson’s referendum was passed after a good deal of very one-sided propaganda was used to influence public opinion. If the nation had voted against our `continued’ membership of the EEC the political embarrassment for all politicians would have been unbearable.)

                  Attempts through the courts to annul our membership of the European Union on the basis that Parliament acted improperly have failed because Parliament, through its legal sovereignty, is the source of the law in Britain and the courts are, therefore, unable to challenge any Parliamentary Act.

                  Only Parliament can reclaim the legislative powers that Heath and subsequent Prime Ministers have handed to the European Union.

                  And so, only when Parliament is filled with honest politicians (not inevitably an oxymoron) who are not controlled by the private party system will the mistake be rectified and our membership annulled.

                  Britain’s entry into the Common Market (later to be transformed into the EU) was also illegal for another reason. The Prime Minister who signed the entry documents, Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty.

                  Heath told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was a lie. Astonishingly, Heath said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth. Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association. But he was lying through his teeth. He knew that the original members of the EEC had a long-standing commitment to political union and the step by step creation of a European superstate.

                  Edward Heath received a substantial financial bribe for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. (Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official 25,000 for details of Harold Wilson’s election tactics.) The reward of 35,000, paid personally to Heath and at the time a substantial sum of money, was handed over to him (in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize) for signing the Treaty of Rome.

                  Because of Heath’s dishonesty we never actually joined the Common Market. And so all the subsequent treaties that were signed were illegal.

                  Britain’s Treason Act (1351) is (at the time of writing) still in place. It states `that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm’.

                  And under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if `any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

                  Our membership of the European Union will mean the end of the United Kingdom. So, since our membership of the European Union will doubtless `deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom’ Britain’s entry into the Common Market, under Edward Heath’s signature, was null and void.

                  Heath committed an act of treason. He betrayed the Queen and he deliberately misled the British people.

                  Does any of this really matter to politicians?

                  Is there any hope that Parliament will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and restore sovereignty to the people? Not in the immediate future.

                  But the errors made by Heath and Wilson mean that when we want to leave the EU it will be very easy.

                  Because, officially, we never joined.

                  An independent British Parliament would simply have to pass one short Act of Parliament and give notice to the EU and we would be out of this accursed club.
                  Last edited by tankie; 07 Nov 16,, 11:21.

                  Comment


                  • Off with their heads ,, lovely chap was Olly , but since him , SFA has changed

                    Dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653.

                    "It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
                    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
                    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.And the bauble complete with dent is still used , haha warts n all.

                    In the name of God, go!"

                    Comment


                    • I've been playing with the numbers in parliament to see how this could play out..
                      I've guessed these figures based on things I've read, so may not be accurate at all.
                      Iv'e included Sinn Fein as they hinted they may take their seats to block Brexit.


                      Scenario 1:- Straight vote to activate A50

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	1.PNG
Views:	3
Size:	17.8 KB
ID:	1469666

                      Scenario 2:- Remainers demand that the PM guarantees single market membership (soft Brexit). PM refuses.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	2.PNG
Views:	1
Size:	16.8 KB
ID:	1469667

                      So seems implausible that Remainers will be able to block brexit entirely, but they have a good chance of blocking hard brexit if they come together. Even Corbyn indicated they may do this.

                      Comment


                      • Delaying is all thats happening , brexit will happen .May will invoke 50 next year , she cant afford not to , any mp who challenges will have their noses removed from the pig swill , out of a job . The electorate spoke .In the largest vote in the UK for zillions of years . lol.
                        Last edited by tankie; 07 Nov 16,, 11:53.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                          Delaying is all thats happening , brexit will happen .May will invoke 50 next year , she cant afford not to , any mp who challenges will have their noses removed from the pig swill , out of a job . The electorate spoke .In the largest vote in the UK for zillions of years . lol.
                          Probably, but Labour could perhaps force a soft Brexit.
                          We may yet be in for a 'long brexit'

                          https://www.ft.com/content/b558b024-...3-4351ce86813f

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by snapper View Post



                            not that migration ever really bothered me apart from the rabid Islams who are bound to slip through any system of vetting you care to devise occasionally. Britain was very happy to have Poles fighting in the RAF in the battle of Britain and I do not have problem with fellow law abiding migrants in general.

                            This was what i was lookin for before snapper

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	11208646_930365080346766_2426469068365900119_n.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	97.4 KB
ID:	1469672

                            Comment


                            • Basically I never had a problem with Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists if they want to go to Britain and do the best for themselves, their families and the country as long as they respect and obey British law and custom. I do have a problem with 'sharia law' being practiced etc when it is not the law the of the land. When in Rome do as the Romans.

                              Comment


                              • YF,

                                What's pathetic to me is not the immigration from one country to another but the immigrants insisting on bringing their culture and "way of life" from the the place they came from which probably caused the the country they came from to become a hell hole they want to leave in the first place.

                                In other words, stop trying to impose Sharia law or your culture into The UK or wherever because it probably fucked up the country you came from, making you want to leave it in the first place.

                                Yeah, call me racist or whatever, but I would leave the EU on that one principle alone.

                                Merkel and her kind are friggin idiots.
                                most of the issue with that isn't coming from first-generation immigrants, precisely for the reason you stated. they know how messed up it is.

                                the usual picture of radicalization nowadays is disaffected second-generation immigrants rejecting the conformation of their elders and looking into what they THINK are their roots (but in reality is oil-money funded wahhabism).

                                the main problem with EU/european immigration policy is that it's built on relatively liberal grounds but has less of the cultural melting pot experience that the US has, as they're more familiar with blood-and-soil type of patriotism.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X