Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

a serious question to all remainers, and i'm not winding anyone up, if as  you all want we turn and say sorry can we come back in, would we be able to rejoin , on what kind of terms,  at what price? we'd loose our rebate for sure... 

   Only serious answers please, and before anyone comments on my reasons, as maggie said "i'm not for turning"...

We would almost certainly have to adopt the euro 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well said Neville.

Grammar.

The uproar over the migrants arriving in their inflatable rafts makes me absolutely piss myself. I'm sure I'd be labelled a naive loony lefty for the fact that I feel desperately sorry for anybody who

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Davebrad said:

a serious question to all remainers, and i'm not winding anyone up, if as  you all want we turn and say sorry can we come back in, would we be able to rejoin , on what kind of terms,  at what price? we'd loose our rebate for sure... 

   Only serious answers please, and before anyone comments on my reasons, as maggie said "i'm not for turning"...

In 10 years  it would depend on whether they want us back. The likes of Hungary and Poland may, but  Germany and France may be happy enjoying their independence from us. The world may be entirely different by  then  ruled by dictators or  by the people  with democratic elections.  Obviously a disastrous Brexit would speed things up, but we would be cap in hand having pratted around for so long in our pretend negotiations.

Share this post


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

a serious question to all remainers, and i'm not winding anyone up, if as  you all want we turn and say sorry can we come back in, would we be able to rejoin , on what kind of terms,  at what price? we'd loose our rebate for sure... 

   Only serious answers please, and before anyone comments on my reasons, as maggie said "i'm not for turning"...

What do you mean, what price Dave? Surely you should be the one to tell us that? With all these benefits being gained from Brexit, it would be a pretty heavy price indeed I'm sure, maybe you could elaborate.

We'd lose our sovereignty for sure. The golden goose. The will of the people. We'd have to start kow-towing to Brussels. Who knows where it could end - prawn cocktail crisps, bananas, German manufacturing. 

We'd lose out on the 0.07% GDP boost from the Japanese FTA too. The shoemakers of Northern England would be devastated.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The_godfather said:

What do you mean, what price Dave? Surely you should be the one to tell us that? With all these benefits being gained from Brexit, it would be a pretty heavy price indeed I'm sure, maybe you could elaborate.

We'd lose our sovereignty for sure. The golden goose. The will of the people. We'd have to start kow-towing to Brussels. Who knows where it could end - prawn cocktail crisps, bananas, German manufacturing. 

We'd lose out on the 0.07% GDP boost from the Japanese FTA too. The shoemakers of Northern England would be devastated.

by "at what price" i just meant how many hoops etc, would Gib be involed, would we be a full member or associate,  would we be welcomed or tolerated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn't like a border in the Irish Sea you'll love one in the River Thames.

Absolutely farcical. Stupidity of the highest order. It's hard to believe what is happening to our country. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The_godfather said:

RB, I only have 24hrs in a day, so unfortunately I just don't have time to rebut line by line the ill-informed nonsense that you continue to put on here, whatever the best intentions are. I do actually appreciate that you continue to try and piece together some sort of argument, even as I find it within it as many holes as the A500. It wasn't a tactic. I picked the central point of your post/argument to refute. If you would like me to elaborate on it, I will do so.

No issue in relation to the content of your copy and paste. No issue in relation to acknowledgment that Clause 38 of the WAB does indeed state that Parliament is 'sovereign'. The key word in that paste is "notwithstanding" - it's doing a lot of heavy lifting.

It means "even though". It's a posthumous addition of 'sovereignty'. The Withdrawal Agreement was already signed. The terms were agreed upon, deemed 'oven ready' indeed. Even though we signed it and agreed to it, we've decided internally after that we can just override it and change it. Our law is now incompatible, and we can do what we like.

Flip it 180 degrees. The UK agree something, anything with someone, anyone. Then after, the other party internally decide - "well, look even though we've signed it, we've decided to change our mind". You'd be screaming bloody murder. How dare they? It's enshrined in law, blah blah blah. Go further. What's the point in having any kind of agreement, for anything? We'll just override the bit we don't like, we're sovereign don't you know? It's a graceless, limited argument. Even if you win the battle, so what? The war will be lost.

In short, you cannot argue in good conscience, only in bad, that breaking the law is somehow a matter of choice based on culture.

You cannot then, as evidence to back that up, say - "look Germany are doing it, you're not mentioning that!" (OK, I will do so.  Germany break law. Germany bad. EU not punish Germany for break law. EU bad. Do you feel better now?)
 
In particular, you cannot, to back your point up, cite as evidence a couple of especially poor supposed examples of this.

First example

Your first link to the Spectator article was written by a lawyer. While he says that Germany broke international law, and the EU have not yet done anything about it, he also says the following:

1) "There are endless examples of breaches of international law by the 193 nations. The UK is, rightly, one of the good guys. It is my view that the solution is to simply copy Germany. Germany’s constitution puts international law on the highest footing – at least expressly, because if I am right and ours moves to copy it them then ours will too."

2) In the associated, linked Spectator article (yes, I do the reading!), Britain should back the EU in the argument, not Germany. Why?  Because "...what matters is that EU law is part of the international legal order. Honouring it is as important as honouring any other international treaty. Nobody in Britain should split here along any political fault line other than support for international law."

Are we getting it? A lawyer says we should support the EU, and copy Germany. So far, so good.

In addition, this example is just a bad one. I'm sure there are better ones. It relates to a legal ruling in Germany, from their court, relating to the European Central Bank's public sector purchase programme. It does not compare well to a very obvious and partisan political manoeuvre to try and escape from a deal that you yourself have negotiated, agreed, not properly ratified.  

Second example

The second article you linked to refers to a 2015 report on cross border bribery. It specifically states that Germany is 1 of the 4 countries, along with the UK, that come out BEST. Did you read it? 

So, to return to your post:
"I think we all know what is happening here...
...A bunch of people who don't care about international law suddenly care about international law because they think it harms brexit. It is a similar pattern of mud slinging, next week it will be something else and this heinous "illegality" will be completely forgotten about."

Actually this is the literal opposite of what is happening. What is happening is that a bunch of people who care about international law (i.e embodied by a transnational, rules based organization such as, say, the EU), continue to care about it, and are advocating sticking to it, because they think it harms Britain, its integrity, its reputation to ignore it in such a flagrant way. And they are right! Other countries may not stop trading with the UK, but they will certainly stop working as closely with them, or trust them. Is that the Brexit dividend?

And if something else comes up next week, it will probably be because next week the $hitshower in charge will find a new low to stoop to, a new/old target to blame for the latest cock-up (insert: No Deal preparation, customs, lack of trade readiness, immigrants as you see fit).

Your questions:

Why don't you tell me what law is sovereign in the UK, is it UK law or international law? We just had this discussion. We're sovereign baby. And who cares, really? The government don't worry about laws, so why should we?

Who punishes us if we break international law? The answer is, there should be a legally enforceable mechanism overseen by a supra-responsible body with either a) mutually agreed punishments for transgressions, or b) the authority to hand out punishments. But again, what does it matter? We're sovereign, yeah! 

How can I hold the people who create international law, accountable? You can't now. We are not subject to international law, remember? Who creates international law? It's a co-operation between different groups. In the case of the EU, you could have voted for your democratically elected MEP to assist. It's just a shame most of them were right-wing grifters like Farage that never turned up for work while robbing a living and not actually contributing.

How are you holding the current government accountable? They are laughing at you every single day for letting them do whatever the hell they want. Every. Single. Day. That must hurt a bit?

 

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you ignored the full context of my post due to not having time. Your first post was very different to your second. In your first post you seemed to be accusing me of advocating for the UK to beomce a rogue "tinpot dictatorship" which is obviously not what I said and obviously not what I meant. I wouldn't have posted an example article arguing the merits of international law whilst maintaining domestic sovereignty if I didn't recognise international law.

What kind of country doesn't have rules, you asked in your first post. You have seemingly dropped that completely from your second post.

Nevermind the authoritarian label chucked in for good measure. I'd argue that a strong constitution is far less authoritarian than a mystical "international law" for which you flippantly refused to answer when asked how I can vote against it and who I can hold accountable. Those questions are absolutely vital by the way because they're the EXACT reason that the UK Parliament MUST be sovereign over international law, ultimately. Either we want to live in a democracy or we don't. If we do, the power stems from the people and so the legislators who are elected by the people and accountable to the people should have the ultimate power.

 

It's quite staggering that you hypothetically ask me to consider the situation but flipped 180 degrees, considering that is EXACTLY what has happened. The EU threatened to break international law by changing their interpretation of the WA and injecting themselves into UK domestic operation, the transport of food from one part of the uk to another, no less. How can ANY nation ever stand for that? It would be absolutely sickening levels of treachary for a British citizen to think that it's acceptable for a foreign Government to dictate to us what parts of our own country we can and can't transport food to/from. But like I say, I don't believe that anyone actually holds that view because it's literally insane. The only reason anyone would purport to hold that view would be because they have some other agenda against the Government and/or brexit.

 

First example.

It's a selective quote again. The whole article discusses why international law is important but why, where it breaks constitutional law it must be set aside. You've included only the first half of that conclusion.

 

Here's an example:

Quote

The case was that Germany, with its unimpugnable commitment to international law, found as a matter of principle that it can over turn international law (break it), if an international law obligation asked Germany to do something which was a fundamental breach of its constitution.

The article starts by giving a UK legal precedent where the UK set aside an international law, in the middle it talks about Germany setting aside an international law, and at the end it summarises:

Quote

In practice that would mean modifying the Diplock line to say, as Germany does, the UK will uphold international law in principle, but break international law if it conflicts fundamentally with our constitution.

To apply this to the situation over the last few weeks - where a foreign Government threatens to annex part of our country when it comes to food supplies, our Government is perfectly within it's rights to set aside whatever <ovf censored> international law the foreign Government cites as its authority. There is no argument about that. It's done and dusted, no one in their right mind can possibly think that that would be ok for the EU to do.

That's not to say that you can't be unhappy or angry over your perception that the government was played, or reckless, or negligent when they signed the agreement, to be clear.

 

So I'd really have to question if you have done the reading considering you have plucked out the one selectively quoted line which gives the opposite message of the entire article and especially considering how pushed for time you are.

 

 

The second example was simply used to show that other countries break interntional law on a relatively common basis. No one is calling into the question the integrity of Germany, no one is calling into question the integrity of the EU, despite them having started this whole thing by pretty much threatening to break international law and annex part of our internal food supplie lines.

 

 

I think you really should try and justify the EU's actions in all of this next. They're really not the wealthy benevolent victims who just care for their subjects that the media and the remainers paint them to be. As the common expression goes though, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Edited by Regal Beagle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears the law scrutinistas are having a bad day/week/year/decade.

A number, don't know how large, of child abuse cases tried and concluded by magistrates are to be retried, as they are not eligible to be tried...... by magistrates..... they will now be moved up to the crown court.

Questions raised....... Will they be retried? Will the victims have to relive the experience yet again? Will sentences be increased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you didn't like a border in the Irish Sea you'll love one in the River Thames.
Absolutely farcical. Stupidity of the highest order. It's hard to believe what is happening to our country. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Will there be separate access for UK lorries entering Kent from England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Subjects of the EU ? What sort of rubbish is that?   

It's all rubbish, not just that one line.

Comparing noncompliance with a few internal EU regulations about water quality and air pollution to our breaking of a key important international treaty is almost as ridiculous as claiming that the EU are annexing part of the UK and going to starve people in NI. 

You cannot in good faith break an international treaty that you eagerly signed. None of us can break a legal agreement we entered into in good faith. A mortgage. A HP commitment. If you freely sign it then you must meet your obligations. It's not ambiguous or open to interpretation. 

There is a mechanism in the WA to solve disputes. And binding arbitration. The UK agreed to that too. We should use that if we think we're being treated unfairly. Any attempt to unilaterally break the Agreement is wrong on every level. 

We agreed to NI in part being part of the EU customs area, in order to avoid a hard border and threaten the GFA. That's what Johnson signed up to! But now he doesn't like it because it treats NI differently to the rest of the UK. Quelle surprise. That was why May didn't go down that route. 

We have to have a border somewhere and checks on some goods. If not in the Irish Sea, where?

 

Share this post


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

None of us can break a legal agreement we entered into in good faith. A mortgage. A HP commitment. If you freely sign it then you must meet your obligations. It's not ambiguous or open to interpretation. 

Not quite true mate.

I understand what you are getting at but if the above is true there would be no need for contract law or contract lawyers.

The law is always open to interpretation, even when it's long established.

Contract/agreement law can be difficult in some cases as both sides rely on what they thought they understood and what their intention was.

It may well go to an international law court, if there are no delays a decision may be made in 4/5 years. It's not as simple as you broke the law here is your punishment.

Although I would agree I should meet obligations I freely signed up to there have been circumstances where I chose not to. There were consequences, but the consequences of meeting them far outweighed the consequences of not meeting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, geosname said:

Another view.

Don't know the source.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/westmonster/

Founded in 2017 by Arron Banks, WestMonster is a London, England based website that promotes “pro-Brexit, pro-Farage, pro-Trump, anti-establishment, anti-open borders, anti-corporatism news.” Michael Heaver is the current editor.

Some media outlets have compared WestMonster to Breitbart and the Drudge Report, which we have rated as Questionable due to many failed fact checks.

Also:

Arron Banks, the former UKIP donor who bankrolled the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, is making a move into the media sector by backing an anti-establishment news website.

I can reveal that Westmonster is co-owned by Michael Heaver, former press adviser to Nigel Farage. The 27-year-old, who together with Mr Banks will own 50% of the website, will edit it day to day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Iron Curtain said:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/westmonster/

Founded in 2017 by Arron Banks, WestMonster is a London, England based website that promotes “pro-Brexit, pro-Farage, pro-Trump, anti-establishment, anti-open borders, anti-corporatism news.” Michael Heaver is the current editor.

Some media outlets have compared WestMonster to Breitbart and the Drudge Report, which we have rated as Questionable due to many failed fact checks.

Also:

Arron Banks, the former UKIP donor who bankrolled the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, is making a move into the media sector by backing an anti-establishment news website.

I can reveal that Westmonster is co-owned by Michael Heaver, former press adviser to Nigel Farage. The 27-year-old, who together with Mr Banks will own 50% of the website, will edit it day to day.

I start from the premise that news as we know it starts with a grain of truth, is expanded by bias and interpretation and delivered for effect.

Many form opinions based on whichever media outlet they follow and the media they follow generally supports their belief.

In my opinion the media are not the sayers of sooths, more the harbingers of doom.

A handful of kosher salt to them all.

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