Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

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

  • Originally posted by Toby View Post
    I would politely ask you to remove your comments now as others may not see them as entirely true either other wise they will stand
    It is not so much whether I or anyone else agrees or disagrees but rather that the refutation of the statement would be a separate and off topic discussion in itself and having digressed regarding British isolationism once I did not wish to have to do so again. Thank you and I hope you understand.

    Comment


    • Good news for the remoaners , and as for freedom of movement , a proven disaster , just whats wrong with the old passport system , it worked better than the open border rubbish , the single mkt haaa , scaremongering , the world will not stop trading with the UK , the EU is scared stiff over potentially losing our input .


      Theresa May is facing yet another legal challenge to her Brexit plans as campaigners prepare to petition the High Court for Britain to stay in the single market.

      The claimants, including one Remain and one Leave voter, are seeking a judicial review into Ms May's potential decision to honour Brexit – meaning foregoing access to the single market in exchange for withdrawing Britain from freedom of movement for European citizens.

      Such a review could give the Remain dominated MPs the power of veto over the terms of the UK's exit.
      as you know this will mean we can not take back control of our laws, borders, sovereignty or trading rights. This would effectively mean NO BREXIT AT ALL.

      Couple this with the potential for a Lords rebellion and the Supreme Court ruling expected in January, Brexit is now clearly hanging on a thread.

      This entire anti-Brexit campaign is an insult to the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in our political process.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Toby View Post
        Germany would hardly be interested in NY either. I should also point out that replicating a city like London or New York in terms of finance is a massive under taking , not impossible but highly unlikely.
        Don't argue with me, argue with the Economist, the Financial Times, Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs. If London loses bank passporting they've made clear they will look at alternatives. Dublin is struggling to cope with the volume of licence applications from British banks and financial companies, and Amsterdam and Paris are embarking on building new office spaces to accomodate them. Even with all this they are still looking at New York.

        I think a big part of Londons appeal was the bank passporting. New York of course only has equivalence (something that David Davis is argueing should be enough to keep the banks here), but the banks are still preparing for an exodus.

        Comment


        • Reuters has a nice lengthy article on that: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKBN1321BC

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kato View Post
            Reuters has a nice lengthy article on that: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKBN1321BC
            Interesting article.. Feels like Germany is on the rise while the vultures are circling round the soon-to-be corpse of the British economy. Sucks to be us.

            I had hoped Dublin would be the prime beneficiary seeing its english speaking and very similiar culture to London, but guess it's a tall order to compete with an truly internationalist city like Frankfurt.

            Comment


            • The latest distraction to leaving the EU!

              Do you want a personal EU citizenship?

              I get that some people are unhappy that they lost a vote, but why try to break up a nation to get what you personally want.... you can have EU membership, anyone can, its called dual citizenship.

              So much divisive banter has been spewed, I read over the week end that this (personal EU citizenship) could be a life line for the younger generation, well lets look at that, when the politico's of the day, irrelevant of party colours decided the EEC was best for us, way back when I remember voting AGAINST it then, the same rhetoric was flying, but the government of the day never once mentioned what we had to give up to start this creation of state. We all know what we lost, fishing, coal, steel, ship building all which we in the UK were the best in.
              Now, lets get back to this younger generation push shall we and realistically look at it, back in the 70's I was, as all of us were then "the younger generation" how are WE better off now, 40 years hence? And, would someone please explain to me how the next 40 years is going to be any different to the last? Improvement, where?

              This European Union has had 40 years, it has increasingly become more of a dictatorship state than IMO the USSR ever was. It is a failed project, run by unelected, self serving power hungry elitist's. It is time to go back to individual nations determining there own future, whereby democracy means something, diplomacy becomes integral to negotiations and first and foremost the people of the individual nations come first. respecting our own laws created by our own government and legal system.
              There will never be such a thing as a 100% agreed vote on anything, but splitting a nation apart because one side lost is unacceptable.
              Its real simple, you can live anywhere you want to live, and be a citizen of any country you want to be....... just do it the right way!

              Bugler ,,play the last post .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                you can have EU membership, anyone can, its called dual citizenship.
                We already have a EU citizenship. Since 1993.

                "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship."
                Article 20, Maastricht Treaty. See also http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/

                There's 500 million of us. Come Article 50 it'll still be 440 million. And 60 million former citizens, with zero rights with regard to the union.

                Originally posted by tankie View Post
                We all know what we lost, fishing, coal, steel, ship building all which we in the UK were the best in.
                That infers that you lost it to the Union. You didn't. Like all of us you lost it to China.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kato View Post
                  We already have a EU citizenship. Since 1993.

                  "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship."
                  Article 20, Maastricht Treaty. See also http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/

                  There's 500 million of us. Come Article 50 it'll still be 440 million. And 60 million former citizens, with zero rights with regard to the union.


                  That infers that you lost it to the Union. You didn't. Like all of us you lost it to China.
                  Long sighhhhh .Do you ever read posts properly
                  Bugler , play the last post .
                  Last edited by tankie; 13 Dec 16,, 21:54.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zara View Post
                    Don't argue with me, argue with the Economist, the Financial Times, Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs. If London loses bank passporting they've made clear they will look at alternatives. Dublin is struggling to cope with the volume of licence applications from British banks and financial companies, and Amsterdam and Paris are embarking on building new office spaces to accomodate them. Even with all this they are still looking at New York.

                    I think a big part of Londons appeal was the bank passporting. New York of course only has equivalence (something that David Davis is argueing should be enough to keep the banks here), but the banks are still preparing for an exodus.
                    I'm sure Mark Carney checks them before making any decisions.....Not!.....As the old saying goes"today's newspaper, tomorrow's fish n'chip paper"
                    YAWN!

                    Comment


                    • EFTA membership would solve the Irish border problem, the Scottish Independence problem, the banking problem and the Gibraltar problem.

                      Daniel Hannan arch brexiteer before the referendum (also known as 'the man that brought you Brexit')

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6xfdMPUoLg
                      Last edited by zara; 14 Dec 16,, 00:49.

                      Comment


                      • Norway already said no to that though.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by kato View Post
                          Norway already said no to that though.
                          That's true, but there's a court case beginning in January to determine whether leaving the EU means you automatically leave the EEA (Which I think is the same as EFTA). If that succeeds we could be in it by default.
                          If not, there must be a way to convince Norway to let us in... Perhaps if we pay their fees or something. Its gotta be easier than getting a deal with the 27 EU states!

                          Obviously it's not as good as just remaining in the EU, but if we really are intent on the masochism that is Brexit, EFTA would be the least damaging option.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by zara View Post
                            That's true, but there's a court case beginning in January to determine whether leaving the EU means you automatically leave the EEA (Which I think is the same as EFTA). If that succeeds we could be in it by default.
                            While the EEA is publically portrayed as basically a union of the EU and EFTA, that's actually not the case. Each member of the EU and EFTA signed the treaty separately as contracting partners in addition to the EU (but not EFTA, since it isn't a state body); Article 127 of the EEA Treaty defines how to withdraw from it (notify 12 months ahead), while Article 128 defines that accession to the EEA is required for EU members and optional for EFTA members. Basically, unless the UK formally withdraws from the EEA as per Article 127 it remains a contracting party to the EEA even if not a member of the EU or EFTA.

                            The fun part about that is that since the EEA is technically meant as a union of EU and EFTA, all its mechanisms are laid out (worded) such that you have to be a member of either EU or EFTA to be able to influence anything; even complaints and disputes can not be brought forward without being a member of either. In addition, and that's where the real fun starts, while the UK would have to keep applying the four freedoms with regard to EU and EFTA nationals, the rest of the EEA would not have to do the same with regard to UK nationals or organizations.

                            The court case will likely rather turn out to be about whether the Brexit referendum - and possibly the EU Leave vote in parliament yet to come - gives the government a mandate to also withdraw from the EEA. There'll probably be a couple more similar cases in the next couple years, since most European treaties that the UK is party to are structured like that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kato View Post
                              While the EEA is publically portrayed as basically a union of the EU and EFTA, that's actually not the case. Each member of the EU and EFTA signed the treaty separately as contracting partners in addition to the EU (but not EFTA, since it isn't a state body); Article 127 of the EEA Treaty defines how to withdraw from it (notify 12 months ahead), while Article 128 defines that accession to the EEA is required for EU members and optional for EFTA members. Basically, unless the UK formally withdraws from the EEA as per Article 127 it remains a contracting party to the EEA even if not a member of the EU or EFTA.

                              The fun part about that is that since the EEA is technically meant as a union of EU and EFTA, all its mechanisms are laid out (worded) such that you have to be a member of either EU or EFTA to be able to influence anything; even complaints and disputes can not be brought forward without being a member of either. In addition, and that's where the real fun starts, while the UK would have to keep applying the four freedoms with regard to EU and EFTA nationals, the rest of the EEA would not have to do the same with regard to UK nationals or organizations.

                              The court case will likely rather turn out to be about whether the Brexit referendum - and possibly the EU Leave vote in parliament yet to come - gives the government a mandate to also withdraw from the EEA. There'll probably be a couple more similar cases in the next couple years, since most European treaties that the UK is party to are structured like that.
                              If what you say is true (and I'm reading it right) then Im going to be a very happy girl!

                              So we are still in the EEA after we leave the EU, but we have no voting power in its institutions and the EU and EFTA countries do not have to apply the rules to us?

                              I dont think parliament will vote to leave the EEA. No chance. We'd in effect be moving from half in the EU to half out lol!

                              Thanks Kato, you've put me in a very good mood this morning! That is effectively checkmate on the Brexiteers!
                              Last edited by zara; 14 Dec 16,, 13:34.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zara View Post
                                If what you say is true (and I'm reading it right) then Im going to be a very happy girl!

                                So we are still in the EEA after we leave the EU, but we have no voting power in its institutions and the EU and EFTA countries do not have to apply the rules to us?

                                I dont think parliament will vote to leave the EEA. No chance. We'd in effect be moving from half in the EU to half out lol!

                                Thanks Kato, you've put me in a very good mood this morning! That is effectively checkmate on the Brexiteers!
                                Do you really think so , look zara , you obviously hate democracy and will willingly embrace anarchy and civil disruption , which is a reflection on your selfish attitude , the vote was out but the remoaners still crying into their spilt milk and schnapps will never accept it ,democracy works in your mind if you get the vote you want !! read this below , which sadly has not been implemented thro the corruption of govt whingers etc etc who never got the vote they expected .Labour party MP is now accusing Russia of fixing the brexit results , hahahahahaha .

                                https://youtu.be/XcmFIiXSCkM


                                Repeal ECA 1972 NOW !
                                Posted on December 13, 2016 by A Roving Reporter in Editorial, EU Referendum // 21 Comments


                                As Nigel Farage pointed out on Question Time on 8 December, the UK could leave the EU in two weeks. It is neither a complex nor a difficult thing to do. As he said, we simply tell them we are out, and offer free trade. The way in which this should be done, however, is one of which the High Court would have approved.

                                The short point is that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (“ECA 1972”) is what must happen; it should have happened on 24 June, and would have happened then if the government had contemplated the possibility of a vote to leave the EU. The repeal would kill the litigation, and the linked hostility from the Welsh and Scottish Governments and from the LibDems, who have 100 peers in the Lords.


                                It will be recalled that Gina Miller’s lawyers based their whole case on the ECA 1972. It would also restore sovereignty to the UK Parliament, and make the Article 50 negotiations much easier. In particular, we could stop paying money to the EU whenever we liked, and regain control of our borders when and how we chose.

                                Why is it not being done? There are two parts to the answer, which might conveniently be called respectively “Whitehall” and “Westminster”.

                                Whitehall, and in particular the legal departments, have lived and breathed the idea of the UK as local government under the EU for 43 years. They really cannot envisage at all the concept of the UK leaving the EU, and prior to the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed into existence in December 2009, the only way the UK could do that was by repealing the ECA 1972. Perhaps more importantly, civil servants are past masters at creating jobs for themselves; at the last count it was reported that they had 500 Brexit “projects” going! Furthermore, of course, there a cries for thousands more civil servants on the job.

                                There is a written record of the Whitehall view which was published online after 10,000 signatures of an “original” ECA 1972 repeal e-petition, which was launched 3 months before the vote. There are three strands to this view:

                                That the repeal would be a breach of international law
                                that the only way of leaving the EU is via Article 50;
                                and that repeal would antagonise our European partners.
                                This is why nobody in Whitehall is advising Westminster to do this repeal.

                                The Whitehall view is wrong. There is no principle of “entrenchment” in English law, and the Government can repeal any statute. This is always exclusively a matter of domestic law, and nothing to do with international law at all. It has always been possible to leave the EU by repealing ECA 1972; all that Article 50 does is to add a layer of EU bureaucracy on top of that. Finally, our “European partners” are already cheesed off by the popular UK vote to leave the EU, and are making hostile noises about it, most significantly from Herr Schäuble (German Finance Minister). The repeal would go virtually unnoticed, except by EU lawyers who would be horrified that the tables had been turned.

                                Turning now to the Westminster view, this is based on a terrible mistake about the effect of repealing the ECA 1972, viz that so to do would automatically repeal all the directives, regulations, treaties, statutes and statutory instruments that have been made pursuant to it over the last 43 years. That is false, the repeal repeals the statute only, and nothing else at all.


                                This false belief is evidenced by two matters of record. The one which is most widely known is the proposal for a Grand Repeal Bill after the end of the Article 50 process, something which does not make sense as a matter of law,
                                and is the most extreme example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted (and indeed had time to circumnavigate the globe) that I have ever come across. The other was the 2.5 hour debate in Westminster Hall on 17 October, where everyone (with the possible exception of Mr Scott who summed up for the government at the end, spouting verbatim the Whitehall line) was clearly under the said mistaken apprehension. The true situation is that the UK would have the rest of earthly time to do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, with any of those rules.

                                The combined effect of these twin lies is to cripple the UK and jeopardise the entire Brexit process. Heads must be banged as a matter of urgency!


                                Finally, clearly some thought must be given to the mechanics of the thing. The government has a majority of 13 and should employ a three line whip. Potential rebels should be approached on the basis of democratic principles and having to answer to their constituencies. The DUP MPs can be relied on, as can the Labour Leave MPs (and indeed, it now seems, most of the PLP) and the UKIP MP. The whole House could be reminded that this simply gives effect to the majority vote in the referendum. The repeal would be by statutory instrument, which is easier to get through than a statute. The Lords would not present any intractable problem.

                                Repeal ECA 1972 NOW!

                                Bugler ,,play , and play loud ,
                                Last edited by tankie; 14 Dec 16,, 19:28.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X