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
    India have already said they want free movement of labour in the UK for their millions of IT workers in return for a trade deal.
    What?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zara View Post
      So you dont want ANY kind of deal with Europe? Not even a Canadian style FTA? Or do you just not want deals with any country?
      zara , you know exactly what i mean , world trade , not pay to deal with corrupt EU , do you think Germany for one will not want to trade with us , mercedes / audi /vw / seimens / bratwursts / herforder pils etc etc

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pedicabby View Post
        What?
        See https://www.theguardian.com/politics...xit-trade-deal

        It's not about freedom of movement from India, but about Indian national students in the UK who India wants to be able to also search for a job there after graduating. May signed a policy preventing that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tankie View Post
          zara , you know exactly what i mean , world trade , not pay to deal with corrupt EU , do you think Germany for one will not want to trade with us , mercedes / audi /vw / seimens / bratwursts / herforder pils etc etc
          Honestly, I didnt know what you meant. So an FTA is fine, but outside of the customs union and single market? Is that what your saying?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kato View Post
            See https://www.theguardian.com/politics...xit-trade-deal

            It's not about freedom of movement from India, but about Indian national students in the UK who India wants to be able to also search for a job there after graduating. May signed a policy preventing that.
            Its more than just students

            http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit...-india-2016-10

            Comment


            • soz , links wont work .
              Last edited by tankie; 06 Dec 16,, 18:36.

              Comment


              • BoE Governor Mark Carney lecture in Liverpool at John Moore Uni for anybody that's interested

                Comment


                • Give this brave woman a knighthood.

                  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38237517

                  Comment


                  • yawwwwwwwwnnn

                    Another whos only interest is in the trough , instead of a k/hood , how about deport her back to Guyana ,and revoke her citizenship

                    IAIN DUNCAN SMITH: Why it's crucial that the judges who could decide the fate of Brexit ARE scrutinised
                    By IAIN DUNCAN SMITH FOR THE DAILY MAIL
                    PUBLISHED: 01:25, 7 December 2016 | UPDATED: 07:11, 7 December 2016


                    To great fanfare, and for the first time, a hearing in the Supreme Court has been running live on the news channels all week.

                    The proceedings were carried for the most part in full, with the broadcasters scouring the country for self-styled legal commentators to pontificate on the proceedings. Personally, I thought the whole thing was like watching paint dry.

                    Yet, in a world too often dominated by the inane chatter of Twitter and 24-hour news, the ponderous proceedings now playing out in the court have dominated the agenda for weeks. I have even been stopped more than once by constituents who asked me what I think will happen in 'that court case'.

                    As the courts stray more into political territory, I believe it becomes imperative that we know more about those placed in such positions of power, writes Iain Duncan Smith
                    As the courts stray more into political territory, I believe it becomes imperative that we know more about those placed in such positions of power, writes Iain Duncan Smith

                    The judges are, of course, considering an appeal by the Government which is seeking to overturn a recent High Court judgment that there must be a vote in Parliament before Article 50 can be triggered to begin our exit from the EU.

                    Motivation

                    The Prime Minister wants to fire the starting gun for us to leave, and only after that start to debate the details of exactly how our departure will take shape.

                    All of that means the decision the Supreme Court will make — which it's due to announce in January — puts the 11 Justices hearing the case in the middle of the most vital constitutional question: which body is supreme, the Law Lords or Parliament? Do unelected judges (about which the public know almost nothing) have the right to supersede the wishes of the elected members of Parliament, and through them the Government?

                    The chosen ones: Members of the Supreme Court, back row from left, Lord Carnwath, Lord Sumption, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge. Front row from left: Lord Kerr, Deputy President Lady Hale, President Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance and Lord Clarke
                    The chosen ones: Members of the Supreme Court, back row from left, Lord Carnwath, Lord Sumption, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge. Front row from left: Lord Kerr, Deputy President Lady Hale, President Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance and Lord Clarke

                    Iain Duncan Smith says courts should not decide Gov business.

                    /




                    More importantly, what is known of their interests and motivation, and what previous views have they expressed?

                    The Supreme Court deliberations are important not because of some obscure legal argument, but because in the EU referendum in June (at which the turnout was the largest ever), 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union, and they expect the Government to deliver on that decision.



                    D-Day for May: Theresa prepares to go into battle with rebel...

                    How fascinating, then, that as the media have peeled away the anonymity that cloaked the Supreme Court judges to reveal a number who have strong associations with EU institutions, a howl of protest has arisen from the Westminster establishment.

                    The faux anger of some politicians and lawyers about the personal interests of the judges being made public, as though they were omnipotent, is close to risible. After all, it's not as though this present legal structure is a centuries-old edifice that has stood the test of time.

                    It is worth reminding ourselves that the Supreme Court was created in June 2003 — when I was Tory leader — right in the middle of a botched Cabinet reshuffle by Tony Blair.




                    With little thought for the constitutional proprieties, and partly because he wanted to get rid of his troublesome Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine — who opposed the creation of a Supreme Court — he sought to get rid of the post of Lord Chancellor and move the Law Lords out of Parliament to create a Supreme Court that was both legally and physically separate from Westminster.

                    In one stroke of his all-too-regal pen, Tony Blair dispensed with centuries of constitutional balance. No thought, it seems, was given to the constitutional arrangement that had prevailed until then, that by having the nation's supreme appeal court actually within Parliament, the supremacy of Parliament was assured.

                    Of all the many ill-considered arrangements made by the Blair government, this had to be among the least considered and most chaotic. Instead of a careful debate about the supremacy of Parliament and the role of the judiciary, or even how that delicate relationship should be settled, Blair rushed the proposal through to resolve his own political difficulties.


                    An pro-Brexit supporter burns an EU flag outside the Supreme Court as an anti-Brexit campaigner holds his protest poster
                    An pro-Brexit supporter burns an EU flag outside the Supreme Court as an anti-Brexit campaigner holds his protest poster

                    When MPs attacked him, saying what he had done was without thought and amounted to constitutional vandalism, he flippantly replied that he believed it was time to get rid of the men in tights. In response, one Tory MP suggested that instead of tearing up the constitution, Mr Blair could try giving the judges some trousers.

                    The result is that we now have a Supreme Court, and after a number of major adjustments, we are having to learn to live with the notion of a separation of powers and, yes, location.

                    This has coincided with another huge development. Ever since we joined the EU and accepted that European law was supreme, our judges have moved progressively more towards practising judicial activism (that is, rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law).

                    One of the main reasons for this is that European human rights legislation — enshrined in British law by Tony Blair's Human Rights Act — is so broadly worded that it allows judges considerable latitude for interpretation.

                    All of this matters because it helps explain why this current Supreme Court process matters. When the High Court decided that the EU referendum in fact had only been advisory, it strayed into political territory and in doing so triggered a constitutional clash.

                    Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Keen, says that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon cannot veto triggering Article 50
                    James Eadie QC - known as the 'Treasury Devil' because he argues the Government's most crucial cases - has insisted that the verdict of the people on June 23 should be binding
                    Legal battle: Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Keen, left today, says devolved powers do not extend to stopping Brexit while James Eadie QC, right - known as the 'Treasury Devil' because he argues the Government's most crucial cases - has insisted that the verdict of the people on June 23 should be binding

                    Just imagine if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court's decision, and Parliament is required to vote on the triggering of Article 50. What if Parliament rejects the invoking of that article and so stops Britain from leaving the EU at all?

                    Betrayal

                    You can be sure there are plenty in Labour and the Lib Dems — and indeed some on the Tory benches — who would dearly love to see that outcome.

                    Yet that would be the most appalling betrayal of the will of the people. It simply cannot be allowed. During the passage of the Referendum Bill which set out the terms of the EU vote, it was made crystal clear that the British public's decision would be acted on by the Government.



                    But if the Supreme Court rules against the Government, and then Article 50 is halted, or mired in endless amendments, as Nick Clegg and his allies would like, then the judges will have set Parliament against the people and brought the constitution to a point of crisis.

                    There was a good reason why, when England's Bill of Rights was crafted in 1689, article nine made plain that proceedings in Parliament must not be overruled in any court or place outside Parliament. It was to stop such an event as this — a democratic referendum being derailed — coming to pass.


                    The Government's determination to use the prerogative powers of the Crown to invoke Article 50 — without first holding a Parliamentary vote — stems from the desire to avoid such a constitutional debacle.

                    That said, Tony Blair's messy reform has given us the Supreme Court we have today and there is no going back. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't think carefully about how we can find a constitutional balance between the court and Parliament.

                    Assault

                    As the courts stray more into political territory, I believe it becomes imperative that we know more about those placed in such positions of power.

                    It is no good railing against newspapers for seeking to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding the interests and backgrounds of our Justices, as though this were some sort of assault on the independence of the court.

                    In the U.S., such appointees undergo gruelling hearings in the Senate which pore over every aspect of their legal opinions and personal lives. Since our Supreme Court is modelled on that of America (albeit with some differences), I believe it's time for us to introduce a process of Parliamentary hearings to examine candidates for the Supreme Court when a vacancy has to be filled.

                    Remain figurehead Gina Miller is pictured leaving court after her QC Lord Pannick said it would be 'quite extraordinary' if Brexit was started by a 'minister acting without Parliamentary authority'
                    Remain figurehead Gina Miller is pictured leaving court after her QC Lord Pannick said it would be 'quite extraordinary' if Brexit was started by a 'minister acting without Parliamentary authority'

                    That way we would no longer have to rely on newspapers to tell us about the backgrounds of the Justices on whose shoulders rest so much of importance in our daily lives.

                    Whatever the outcome of the Government's appeal, this process has shone a light on the Supreme Court as never before, and has raised questions about the nature of the Court and the supremacy of Parliament which have until now been shrouded in obscurity. It is surely only right to recognise that, and to allow Parliament to question those who seek to sit in the highest court in the land.

                    In the meantime, those many millions who voted for Brexit will anxiously sit and wait to see whether the promises David Cameron's government made to them will ever come to pass.
                    Last edited by tankie; 07 Dec 16,, 13:52.

                    Comment


                    • What utter drivel from the Daily Fail.
                      They constantly use the phrase 'unelected judges'. It's hard to think of a more absurd idea than elected judges. Honestly, a teenager could tell you that.

                      As one of the judges said at the beginning, it is their job as the judiciary to put aside politics and emotion and apply the law. The referendum, legally speaking was a non-event, therefore irrelevant to the case before them.

                      And the fact Tony Blair created the supreme court? Of what pertinence is that? Even if he hadn't the High court's decision would still stand. It was decided centuries ago quite rightly, that the prerogative powers can't remove rights from citizens. Only Parliament can do that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zara View Post
                        What utter drivel from the Daily Fail..
                        Hahaha yea , I Thought it would be zara . wassup , doesnt it meet with your agenda and the type of democracy you want ??
                        Last edited by tankie; 07 Dec 16,, 17:08.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                          Thanks but no thanks , blood pressure is high enough without watching this stitch up .

                          PS Davies is sprouting that we may have to pay to trade in the EU , does that then mean they have to pay to trade with the UK ?? just asking .hohum


                          Heyyyyyy look , they must be reading WAB woohoooo ,,awwww bless em



                          Tory MP asks how much EU countries should be charged to access OUR market after Brexit
                          A TORY MP today asked the Government how much EU countries should be charged to access the UK’s own single market.

                          Leading eurosceptic Peter Bone seized on the recent revelation ministers are considering continuing to send British taxpayers’ cash to Brussels on order to gain preferable access to the EU’s Single Market after Brexit.
                          The Wellingborough MP asked Leader of the House of Commons David Lidington, who was standing in for the absent Theresa May during Prime Minister’s Questions, whether the EU should instead be asked whether they will pay up to access British markets.
                          Mr Bone said: “There has been much talk recently about paying for access to a tariff-free single market. I think that's a very good idea.
                          “Given that the UK is the fifth biggest economy in the world and we have a £70billion trade deficit with the EU will the excellent acting prime minister tell the House how much the EU should pay for tariff-free access to the UK single market?”
                          Mr Lidington, who was fulfilling Mrs May’s duties while the Prime Minister attended the Gulf Co-Operation Council in Bahrain, told Mr Bone he had made “a good point”.
                          He said: “A settlement at the end of our negotiation which maintains maximum access to and freedom to operate within the European market for UK companies elsewhere in Europe and European companies here is in our mutual interest.”
                          Mr Lidington expressed his hope that would “inspire negotiators on both sides” ahead of the upcoming Brexit talks.
                          Last week, Leave campaigners told Brexit Secretary David Davis he was “going weak at the knees” after the Cabinet minister admitted to MPs the Government could offer up UK taxpayers’ cash during exit negotiations.
                          Last edited by tankie; 07 Dec 16,, 17:09.

                          Comment


                          • Good look with that one Peter Bone..
                            May as well aim for Jupiter I guess

                            Comment


                            • Hows ya soggy chips , im not keen on the timetable tho ,and the inevitable she said he said B/S to come ,, but warayagorra do huh .

                              MPs voting
                              MPs have voted to back the government's plan to start formal talks on Brexit by the end of March next year.
                              They also supported a Labour motion calling for Parliament to "properly scrutinise" the government in its proposals for leaving the EU.
                              The votes followed a compromise between Labour and the Conservatives, who had argued over the questions to be put.
                              The House of Commons' decisions are not binding on ministers.
                              MPs backed Labour's motion, saying the government should publish a plan and it was "Parliament's responsibility to properly scrutinise the government" over Brexit, by 448 votes to 75 - a margin of 373.
                              This followed another vote over the government's amendment to the motion, which added the proviso that its timetable for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, getting formal talks with the EU under way, should be respected.
                              Rebels
                              MPs backed this by 461 votes to 89 - a margin of 372.
                              After Labour proposed its motion, Prime Minister Theresa May had reportedly faced a rebellion by up to 40 Conservative MPs.
                              So, on Tuesday she offered to support it, in return for the Labour leadership backing a compromise government amendment to support the Brexit timetable.
                              Analysis - Alex Forsyth, BBC political correspondent
                              Within minutes of the vote, one dedicated Brexiteer had labelled it an historic moment. Iain Duncan Smith said for the first time the majority of parliamentarians had voted to leave the EU.
                              Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent.

                              Some have accused pro-remain MPs of wanting to backtrack on Brexit, but tonight's result shows most parliamentarians are willing to respect the result of the referendum.

                              Instead the arguments are over exactly what Brexit will mean and the extent to which Parliament will have a say in shaping that.
                              In that respect, both the government and the opposition will claim victory over tonight's result: Labour for getting the government to agree to publish a Brexit plan of sorts which will be subject to scrutiny, ministers for getting MPs' backing for their timetable.
                              This was not a binding vote, but for both sides it counts. With further parliamentary skirmishes inevitable, positioning and political power play are vital - especially when the stakes are so high.
                              During Wednesday's debate, Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the government had refused "on every occasion" to give details of its plans, saying information about its negotiating stance was important because it "sets the scene" for Brexit.
                              He said there must not be "a situation where the government seeks a vote in a vacuum, or produces a late, vague plan".
                              But Brexit Secretary David Davis responded: "The simple fact is that the mandate (in June's referendum) was to leave the European Union - full stop. We need to keep that in mind when we are going through that process."
                              He added: "This is a negotiation; it's not a policy statement. And, therefore, where you are aiming for may not be the exact place you end up."
                              The government's amendment was opposed by 23 Labour MPs and one Conservative - former chancellor Ken Clarke.
                              Five Liberal Democrat MPs, three Plaid Cymru MPs and 51 SNP MPs also voted against it.
                              The government's Brexit timetable means the UK will leave the EU in 2019, with negotiations lasting up to two years.
                              In June's referendum, UK voters backed leaving the EU by 51.9% to 48.1%.
                              Last edited by tankie; 07 Dec 16,, 21:47.

                              Comment


                              • Breitbart

                                Ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttiimberrrrrrrrrr


                                SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

                                Following the results of the Italian referendum Sunday night, hundreds of protesters took to the streets of Rome demanding that Italy leaves the European Union.
                                Left wing protesters gathered outside the parliament of the Eternal City after it was confirmed that the No vote had defeated the government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and their plans to reform the Italian Senate. Protesters held banners telling the government to respect the vote, Today.it reports.


                                Many of the protesters also demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister, who at a press conference after the announcement of the result, said he would tender his resignation to Italian President Sergio Mattarella explaining, “When you lose, you cannot pretend that nothing has happened and go to bed and sleep. My government ends here today.”

                                The result of the referendum could lead to snap elections as early as February and the growing popularity of the Eurosceptic Five Star Movement has many worried the Italians could vote to leave the political bloc as Britain had done earlier in the year.

                                Tensions heated up between protesters and police stationed outside the parliament and ultimately the authorities decided to shut the protest down. Three individuals were taken into custody by police as other demonstrators yelled “shame on you” to the officers.

                                One of the student leaders of the protest, 27-year-old Michele Sugarelli, said: “Brexit was not a vote against Europe, it was a vote against the EU, which takes power from the people and makes decisions against their interest[s]. We want the same thing. We want change in Italy and in Europe.” He added: “We want opportunity for young people, and we want the EU to finish.

                                Another protester named Pietro described the police tactics saying: “They are being violent because they are afraid. Now is a moment when the elite could fall. People don’t want any more economic sacrifices while the government preserves the interests of the banks and big corporations.”

                                A student named Lorenzo, who spoke at the protest said: “Everyone talks about young people, but when we actually raise our voice, this is the result.” He went on to note: “I don’t think the EU will survive the next few years. In Italy, everyone hates this thing called the EU. It is falling apart and we hope it happens quickly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X