This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 DANGERCLOSE  London 25 Sep 19 11.32am |
|
|---|---|
[Tweet Link]
|
|
Teddy Eagle  25 Sep 19 11.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is absolutely semantics. The highest Court in the UK has spoken. You can put whatever twist you want to on it as a way of justifying your own position, as Johnson and his bunch are now doing, but there is nowhere else now to go, legally. The only way to change the law is through Parliament and I doubt very much whether there is much support there for such a change at the moment. So semantics and enforceable it is. It isn’t semantics because unlawful and illegal have, as Becky highlighted, have different definitions. Had Johnson committed an illegal act he could go to prison. He didn’t. And once again he was acting on advice from the Attorney General.
|
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 25 Sep 19 11.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Simple. You wouldn't be voting for either. The UK retains sovereignty and control over whether it participates in such things. Plus, as I've mentioned before, the amusing thing is that referendums would need to be held on things like joining the Euro and signing up to an EU Army. So they'll never happen now. BTW those who think the EU Army thing is a real and present danger should really do some reading. For starters, we have a military veto. The EU can't propose laws about security and defence. The fantasy army would also require unanimous approval from all member states. Current operations require cooperation between individual armies from different member states. Nothing new here. The need for greater, more pro-active defence cooperation is hardly cause for concern. In fact it's perfectly reasonable and sound. Project fear exists on both sides, let's not pretend that isn't the case. Helpful to know some facts before getting all worked up by the latest tweet posted by our resident twitter propagandist.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 25 Sep 19 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
It isn’t semantics because unlawful and illegal have, as Becky highlighted, have different definitions. Had Johnson committed an illegal act he could go to prison. He didn’t. And once again he was acting on advice from the Attorney General. Advice that rather unusually he did not see fit to share with the rest of his cabinet. It was a stunt, he tried his hand, he got found out. Next move.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Plus, as I've mentioned before, the amusing thing is that referendums would need to be held on things like joining the Euro and signing up to an EU Army. So they'll never happen now. BTW those who think the EU Army thing is a real and present danger should really do some reading. For starters, we have a military veto. The EU can't propose laws about security and defence. The fantasy army would also require unanimous approval from all member states. Current operations require cooperation between individual armies from different member states. Nothing new here. The need for greater, more pro-active defence cooperation is hardly cause for concern. In fact it's perfectly reasonable and sound. Project fear exists on both sides, let's not pretend that isn't the case. Helpful to know some facts before getting all worked up by the latest tweet posted by our resident twitter propagandist. The problem you don't seem to be recognising here is that unless we leave all these 'vetos' you talk about are subject to decisions by the EU commission based upon what treaty there is. EU leaders have already made it plain that an EU military separate from NATO is how they want to go.....Are you seriously suggesting that when the time for a vote on that comes they are going to have vetos? Pray tell me, what opportunity was the public given on any of the treaties UK governments signed up to? Yet it's clear to see that there was never popular support for most of the later ones. Hell the public only received this referendum opportunity via a Prime Minister trying to shore up internal support....there was zero parliamentary will for giving the public a say on the EU at all. The longer we leave...leaving as it were then the more beaten down and demographically shifted the country becomes. Unless the UK leaves now, it's not going to get that opportunity again. Then all your talk about no EU army and veto this or veto that soon becomes antiquated.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 25 Sep 19 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The Attorney General did. As he accepts. He also accepts the Judges were entirely correct to create new Law in this circumstance.
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 25 Sep 19 11.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Many of them are in their seventies so it's not surprising as they may well be senile Well their age group drove Brexit. What does that tell us?
|
|
| Teddy Eagle 25 Sep 19 11.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
As he accepts. He also accepts the Judges were entirely correct to create new Law in this circumstance. Once again. Whose legal advice should Johnson have sought if not the Attorney General?
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Sep 19 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Then Parliament should step up and take full responsibility. It has the right to ignore the result of June 23rd. That damages its credibility with absolute justification for our anger at it but at least it is taking the blame. It does no such thing. It massively reinforces it's credibility and gives you no justification whatsoever for any anger. I am watching the opening question in Parliament as I write this and Geoffrey Cox, for the government, has said pretty much the same as me. But to then go back to us with another referendum makes no sense what so ever. Because if it refuses to implement the first, why on earth would a second one have the slightest shred of credibility? In fact, there should be no more referendums full stop. Total agreement with the last sentence. However there is the option of a GE. Let the partys declare their positions (and both Labour and the Lib-Dems have dramatically changed their stances) and put themselves to the scrutiny of the electorate in a manner that is binding in terms how the HoC is made up. I genuinely struggle to understand why anybody would object to that in these circumstances. If you don't trust the PM and his colleagues to act legally and that they might attempt to force their own views through a backdoor then you need to be circumspect and act with due caution. We had a referendum on our future in the EU. Parliament has refused to implement it and parties representing a huge part of its members have changed their stance. Defend that at the ballot box. Let us see Parliamentary democracy in action. Let it regain some credibility. Surely that is the most positive option available. Wrong. Parliament has NOT refused to implement it. It has been unable to agree HOW to implement it. We will have a GE and a new Parliament will then decide whether they can agree. Let's all hope so.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Sep 19 12.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
Parliament, but they are not above the law. It’s really not that difficult. It obviously is for some people!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 25 Sep 19 12.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Simple. You wouldn't be voting for either. The UK retains sovereignty and control over whether it participates in such things. Dont vote for anything/anyone....complete waste of time and effort...they will just ignore your vote if they dont like the result
|
|
| Teddy Eagle 25 Sep 19 12.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It obviously is for some people! Still waiting for a reply on whose decision the lawfulness of prorogation would have been prior to the establishment of the Supreme Court. Would it not have been the House of Lords?
|
|
cpfc_chap  koh samui 25 Sep 19 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Well their age group drove Brexit. What does that tell us? A lot of remain voters will be pushing up daisys to...
|
|
 becky over the moon 25 Sep 19 12.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
As he accepts. He also accepts the Judges were entirely correct to create new Law in this circumstance. Judges cannot create new law - Parliament creates Law, judges enforce it. God, I'm beginning to sound like Wisbeach now
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 12.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Well their age group drove Brexit. What does that tell us? Well youth are more ignorant and less knowledgeable of the world yet vote majority left. What does that tell us?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 25 Sep 19 12.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The problem you don't seem to be recognising here is that unless we leave all these 'vetos' you talk about are subject to decisions by the EU commission based upon what treaty there is. EU leaders have already made it plain that an EU military separate from NATO is how they want to go.....Are you seriously suggesting that when the time for a vote on that comes they are going to have vetos? Pray tell me, what opportunity was the public given on any of the treaties UK governments signed up to? Yet it's clear to see that there was never popular support for most of the later ones. Hell the public only received this referendum opportunity via a Prime Minister trying to shore up internal support....there was zero parliamentary will for giving the public a say on the EU at all. The longer we leave...leaving as it were then the more beaten down and demographically shifted the country becomes. Unless the UK leaves now, it's not going to get that opportunity again. Then all your talk about no EU army and veto this or veto that soon becomes antiquated. This isn't entirely true. The mooted common defence policy, again if you do some reading, is very very different to a Federal army. Also, any treaty that forced all member states to sign up to an EU Army system would never pass. Yes, on something as sensitive as eliminating member states independent armed forces, there would be vetos, and it would need to be 100% agreed, at least to implement it as a EU wide policy. To say otherwise is unrealistic, fantasy and fearmongering. I assume you're referring to the Lisbon treaty, the facts of which have been massively abused by various influencers for the usual ad clicks and follows. Main points being • The UK also doesn’t have to participate in EU legislation relating to justice and home affairs, but can choose to opt-in if it wants to. • On issues that require unanimity, it’s the case that simply abstaining from a vote does not stop it passing (the Lisbon Treaty did not change this), but states can still veto by voting against. • The UK still has an opt out on the Euro • Nowhere in the Lisbon treaty is an 'EU Army' or 'Federal Army' mentioned. To add, given the significant amount of grief this entire process has caused politics and politicians, if you really believe that a UK govt would simply go 'Yeah, alright, let's do it without telling anyone', surely you're mad. Or a little too partisan, at least on this particular issue. The public feeling on retaining our own identity, let alone currency/army, would be loud and challenging. Whoever passed those little doozys without so much as a thought to due process would be voted out straightaway. It would be political suicide.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Sep 19 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Her Majesty walked right into this didn't she? Can she sack Johnson? She is involved now and its her own fault. A written constitution would hopefully end the monarch's role in other than PR matters.
She did no more and no less than her constitutional duty. She followed the advice given to her, as by convention she must, and it is that advice alone that has been determined as illegal. So I don't believe she is involved in any way.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 12.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
This isn't entirely true. The mooted common defence policy, again if you do some reading, is very very different to a Federal army. Also, any treaty that forced all member states to sign up to an EU Army system would never pass. Yes, on something as sensitive as eliminating member states independent armed forces, there would be vetos, and it would need to be 100% agreed, at least to implement it as a EU wide policy. To say otherwise is unrealistic, fantasy and fearmongering. I assume you're referring to the Lisbon treaty, the facts of which have been massively abused by various influencers for the usual ad clicks and follows. Main points being • The UK also doesn’t have to participate in EU legislation relating to justice and home affairs, but can choose to opt-in if it wants to. • On issues that require unanimity, it’s the case that simply abstaining from a vote does not stop it passing (the Lisbon Treaty did not change this), but states can still veto by voting against. • The UK still has an opt out on the Euro • Nowhere in the Lisbon treaty is an 'EU Army' or 'Federal Army' mentioned. To add, given the significant amount of grief this entire process has caused politics and politicians, if you really believe that a UK govt would simply go 'Yeah, alright, let's do it without telling anyone', surely you're mad. Or a little too partisan, at least on this particular issue. The public feeling on retaining our own identity, let alone currency/army, would be loud and challenging. Whoever passed those little doozys without so much as a thought to due process would be voted out straightaway. It would be political suicide. Well I always enjoy reading your posts and I agree that as things are currently we can veto an 'EU Army'. Still, pretty much what I stated is valid. Unlees we leave in some fashion now.....it's going to happen and 'vetos' and all the rest of it will become things of the past as this EU empire looks to concrete itself in. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 12.38pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Attachment: | Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Sep 19 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
The highest court has not spoken as the highest court is the Houses of Parliament. The Privvy Council would be the highest court. Parliament is not a Court and nor is the Privy Council. Parliament makes the law. The Courts apply the law. The European Court does not, so far as I am aware, get involved in the national law of any EU member so would not be available in this matter. I think the buck has stopped unless and until Parliament decides to kick it again.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.