Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Yes but Brexiteers, including Boris, seem obsessed with Sovereignty.  Dave has clarified that he means Parliment when he talks about Sovereignty.  However, the government tried to over ride the desired sovereign parliment last year, fortunately the law prevented this.

However, Boris seems to think his government has autonomous power rather than Parliment as a whole.

As such I find it quite funny that the OVF Boris fan club are chomping at the bit about a Sovereign Parliment and yet fail to recognise that in fact they are cheer leading a government that doesn't actually want Parliment to scrutinise anything they do...

Of course they will twist and wriggle and desperately scramble about to find creadbility rather than finally admit they have backed a complete charlatan.

Where is my popcorn 🍿 

the government is part of parliament, but with a 80 seat majority, even you must agree the bigger part...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's a difference between not accepting the result and not agreeing with the result.  I accepted it would happen but that doesn't make me think it's the right thing to do.  The Brexiteers have been

Grammar.

I hope Brexit is everything that has been promised.  I am long enough in the tooth to realise that the people making those promises have made a career from telling lies without shame. The result

Posted Images

Nofinikea, hope you have enough pop corn-

The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.

 

— Professor AV Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution

From <https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2014/10/15/1000-words-parliamentary-sovereignty/>

 

 

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

From <https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/>

 

 

The Bill also includes a clause specifically about Parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 36 states that ‘it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign’ despite clauses 1, 5 and 6 of the WAB, and that nothing in the Act ‘derogates’ from this sovereignty. 

 From <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-withdrawal-agreement-bill-sovereignty-special-status-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/>

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

Nofinikea, hope you have enough pop corn-

The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.

 

— Professor AV Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution

From <https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2014/10/15/1000-words-parliamentary-sovereignty/>

 

 

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

From <https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/>

 

 

The Bill also includes a clause specifically about Parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 36 states that ‘it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign’ despite clauses 1, 5 and 6 of the WAB, and that nothing in the Act ‘derogates’ from this sovereignty. 

 From <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-withdrawal-agreement-bill-sovereignty-special-status-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/>

 

 

 

But Johnson still agreed a border  in an International agreement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

But Johnson still agreed a border  in an International agreement

a lot was agreed in WAB, but as we know a lot as long gone, this the protocol-

 

"The [solution] that we have agreed allows Northern Ireland to remain in the UK customs territory and, at the same time, benefit from the single market.

[It’s] a workable system, build to last."

- Michel Barnier, 27 January 2020, Belfast

 

Very early on in the negotiations ahead of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, both the United Kingdom and the EU acknowledged the unique situation of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They agreed that a specific solution was needed to reconcile the different interests at play.

This solution was found in the form of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which:

  • Avoids a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and safeguards the all-island economy and the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement in all its dimensions;
  • Preserves the integrity of the EU’s single market, along with all the guarantees it offers in terms of consumer protection, public and animal health, or combatting fraud and trafficking,
  • Maintains Northern Ireland in the UK customs territory so that it may benefit from future Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that the UK may conclude with third countries.

I hav'nt a source apart from I think UK/GOV...?

 that agreement contain also a requirement for both sovereign states to take part in Meaningful negotiations? up till boris signing the treaty, Teresa backed down in all the talks, now that boris and frost are dealing with them, and not giving a inch(note not a cm), the eu are screaming unfair... a level playing field uh can't they take competition, Whats this about stateaid? if our companies need help our govt. can give it, why should we have to ask... screw them, walk away...

 

Edited by Davebrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davebrad said:

Nofinikea, hope you have enough pop corn-

The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.

 

— Professor AV Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution

From <https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2014/10/15/1000-words-parliamentary-sovereignty/>

 

 

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

From <https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/>

 

 

The Bill also includes a clause specifically about Parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 36 states that ‘it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign’ despite clauses 1, 5 and 6 of the WAB, and that nothing in the Act ‘derogates’ from this sovereignty. 

 From <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-withdrawal-agreement-bill-sovereignty-special-status-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/>

 

 

 

But you have dodged the point havent you.  Johnsons government tried to bypass the sovereign parliment that you value so highly and yet its ok?

Its hypocritical to demand parlimentary sovereignty and then try to bypass it.  Its even worse to try and excuse it but I understand that some of you are so invested in the idea of Sovereignty that you don't actually want to believe that you are being sold down the river by the very people you champion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

But Johnson still agreed a border  in an International agreement

 

7 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

But Johnson still agreed a border  in an International agreement

 and that agreement contained also a requirement for both sovereign states to take part in meaningful negotiations

 

59 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

But you have dodged the point havent you.  Johnsons government tried to bypass the sovereign parliment that you value so highly and yet its ok?

Its hypocritical to demand parlimentary sovereignty and then try to bypass it.  Its even worse to try and excuse it but I understand that some of you are so invested in the idea of Sovereignty that you don't actually want to believe that you are being sold down the river by the very people you champion.

 

that was then,   this time  he's followed the law  and is setting out a bill to stop the eu taking revenge for daring to leave the family of european nations... now go on defend the eu...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

 

 and that agreement contained also a requirement for both sovereign states to take part in meaningful negotiations

 

that was then,   this time  he's followed the law  and is setting out a bill to stop the eu taking revenge for daring to leave the family of european nations... now go on defend the eu...

Deflection tactics, the EU is playing by the book. Johnson conned the nation with his false deal.   There  has to be a border  between Ireland and Britain whether it is on land or sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davebrad said:

 

 and that agreement contained also a requirement for both sovereign states to take part in meaningful negotiations

 

that was then,   this time  he's followed the law  and is setting out a bill to stop the eu taking revenge for daring to leave the family of european nations... now go on defend the eu...

I get it now.  We demand sovereign parliment until its not convenient to the governments agenda when its then ok to run roughshod over that sovereignty.  The irony obviously being that Borises band of Brexiteers were adamant that it was the EU running roughshod over our sovereignty.

This is brilliant 👏 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

 There  has to be a border  between Ireland and Britain whether it is on land or sea.

The stupidity of all of this is that no one actually mentioned this before the referendum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

Yes but Brexiteers, including Boris, seem obsessed with Sovereignty.  Dave has clarified that he means Parliment when he talks about Sovereignty.  However, the government tried to over ride the desired sovereign parliment last year, fortunately the law prevented this.

However, Boris seems to think his government has autonomous power rather than Parliment as a whole.

As such I find it quite funny that the OVF Boris fan club are chomping at the bit about a Sovereign Parliment and yet fail to recognise that in fact they are cheer leading a government that doesn't actually want Parliment to scrutinise anything they do...

Of course they will twist and wriggle and desperately scramble about to find creadbility rather than finally admit they have backed a complete charlatan.

Where is my popcorn 🍿 

Quite a ridiculous argument.

 

The Government gets its power from Parliament, Parliament is the sovereign law maker in the UK but they get their power from the people.

 

In 2019 Parliament was working against the wishes of the people, that is undeniable and is evidenced by the 2019 general election result. Boris Prorogued and the judiciary determined it was not lawful and therefore quashed it. That is our constitution in action. Government runs the country, Parliament legislates, the Judiciary keeps them in check.

 

When we talk about being a sovereign nation, we're not saying "we want Parliament to sovereign over the Government" - it already is. We are saying we want our legislature to be sovereign over existing soveriegn legislature of the EU. I've proven that with the EU's own website - they had the ability to fine us if the UK created a law which was not compatible with theres. Again, an undeniable fact.

 

You are attempting to box brexiteers on as being pro Parliament and therefore anti-Government/judiciary, that's not what anyone is arguing about here.

 

I don't think any brexit based argument is asking for a change in our constitution, we're in actual fact asking for our constitution to be upheld.

 

A final point, what happened when the prorogation was deemed unlawful? Did brexit supporters cry about it for 4 years and demand that it be overturned or did we get on with it, wait for an election and then used our democratic will to remove the people who refused to represent us?

 

 

It's perfectly reasonable to understand that Parliament is sovereign and at the same time be disgusting with the lack of democracy and the anti-british sentiment within our own parliament. We will just <ovf censored> you off in the next election.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Quite a ridiculous argument.

 

The Government gets its power from Parliament, Parliament is the sovereign law maker in the UK but they get their power from the people.

 

In 2019 Parliament was working against the wishes of the people, that is undeniable and is evidenced by the 2019 general election result. Boris Prorogued and the judiciary determined it was not lawful and therefore quashed it. That is our constitution in action. Government runs the country, Parliament legislates, the Judiciary keeps them in check.

 

When we talk about being a sovereign nation, we're not saying "we want Parliament to sovereign over the Government" - it already is. We are saying we want our legislature to be sovereign over existing soveriegn legislature of the EU. I've proven that with the EU's own website - they had the ability to fine us if the UK created a law which was not compatible with theres. Again, an undeniable fact.

 

You are attempting to box brexiteers on as being pro Parliament and therefore anti-Government/judiciary, that's not what anyone is arguing about here.

 

I don't think any brexit based argument is asking for a change in our constitution, we're in actual fact asking for our constitution to be upheld.

 

A final point, what happened when the prorogation was deemed unlawful? Did brexit supporters cry about it for 4 years and demand that it be overturned or did we get on with it, wait for an election and then used our democratic will to remove the people who refused to represent us?

 

 

It's perfectly reasonable to understand that Parliament is sovereign and at the same time be disgusting with the lack of democracy and the anti-british sentiment within our own parliament. We will just <ovf censored> you off in the next election.

 

 

Keep it up RB.  Sovereignty means Sovereignty until Brexiteers don't want it to mean Sovereignty and then you don't necessarily support parliment...

I think you have turned yourself inside out feller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

There  has to be a border  between Ireland and Britain whether it is on land or sea.

Does it have to be a hard boarder?

I suspect we are talking about a boarder between North and South?

There has to be a boarder between all countries, not necessarily a hard boarder, but some demarcation lines. Just as there has to be a boarder between the UK and France,  England and Scotland etc.

Let's not assume that because we believe one side of the argument does something wrong the other side does everything right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geosname said:

Let's not assume that because we believe one side of the argument does something wrong the other side does everything right.

No-one is assuming that, no-one is saying that.

It's clear, it's in black and white and it's agreed by both parties that a border is required. It depends on the detailed nature of what is agreed in the trade deal, which, at a high level, has already been agreed, and which the government is now pretending that it needs to change. It's only the British government that insists, contrary to the agreement (for the absence of confusion - deal, 2 parties having signed it after negotiation) in place:

  • Goods don't need to be checked regardless of whether there is any kind of border.
  • Magical, non-existent technology can replace established processes for customs.

That points to a physical border, unless you want to get Trump's sharpie out and just draw a dotted line somewhere. That would be pretty advanced for this government.

From a purely trade perspective, when you add in:

  • a severe shortage of trained (that is to say, trained, but completely inexperienced) customs agents to fill in all the extra red tape that has been created,
  • a lack of business knowledge, understanding and preparation because government consultation, communication and engagement is non-existent.
  • Freight IT system that might just be ready on time, if it works and doesn't run even later.

It doesn't take a superforecaster to see that it's likely to be a clusterf*ck. Who could possibly have any trust that there is any competence to deal with it? You can't culture war your way to an efficient trade system.

A hard, hard rain is coming people.

Edited by The_godfather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_godfather said:

No-one is assuming that, no-one is saying that.

It's clear, it's in black and white and it's agreed by both parties that a border is required. It depends on the detailed nature of what is agreed in the trade deal, which, at a high level, has already been agreed, and which the government is now pretending that it needs to change. It's only the British government that insists, contrary to the agreement (for the absence of confusion - deal, 2 parties having signed it after negotiation) in place:

  • Goods don't need to be checked regardless of whether there is any kind of border.
  • Magical, non-existent technology can replace established processes for customs.

That points to a physical border, unless you want to get Trump's sharpie out and just draw a dotted line somewhere. That would be pretty advanced for this government.

From a purely trade perspective, when you add in:

  • a severe shortage of trained (that is to say, trained, but completely inexperienced) customs agents to fill in all the extra red tape that has been created,
  • a lack of business knowledge, understanding and preparation because government consultation, communication and engagement is non-existent.
  • Freight IT system that might just be ready on time, if it works and doesn't run even later.

It doesn't take a superforecaster to see that it's likely to be a clusterf*ck. Who could possibly have any trust that there is any competence to deal with it? You can't culture war your way to an efficient trade system.

A hard, hard rain is coming people.

I don't disagree with your post.

It only becomes necessary if there is a no deal scenario. Threatening blockades isn't a negotiating tool. If there is an agreement on standards there shouldn't be much of a problem, but the standards agreement must go both ways. If (it's a big if) UK standards exceed EU standards the EU must raise their standards in alignment.

From the little I've read the new bill transitioning through parliament does not break any laws...... the implementation of the new law might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy