Latest EU negotiations

Mind knowing politicians thats what gets shoved up the chocolate tunnel most nights

I used to think that about politicians but that was before the great british/english public had the right to have a say.

I think it's 51% of the public with a pineapple up its arse.

A really long article here but an interesting read. It doesn't really (as far as I can see) take sides in the Brexit uproar, but it does show magnificently just what a steaming heap of useless c**ts our political parties are, whatever their Brexit persuasion. When it talks about "Brexit disaster" in the title, it doesn't refer to the vote (even though it was a disaster) but to the whole stinking mess of British poiltics.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... the-making

Interesting legal development - legal action has been initiated to ensure that the triggering of A50 is taken by Parliament rather than some random "Aye, we're off" from the next PM (Leadsom I'm looking right at you). This isnt a challenge to the referendum, just an assurance that its got to go to Parliament. Which will be interesting getting an act through given a) The utter fuckedupness of both major parties and b) A lot of MPs are Remain supporters.

http://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016

As has been said before, we live through interesting times.

If parliament decided we should remain, where does Cameron stand?

As a backbencher?

I think you are confusing a normal country with the shitstream that is British politics for the last 50 years.
I'm not sure who the pathetics are going to blame once the EU ogre loses validity as an argument.

I may be wrong, but I do have a sister-in-law who is a Swiss MP and who loves extolling referenda to me, so I don't guarantee being wrong.
The Swiss referendum is their House of Lords/Senate/<whoever has the last word>. It gets to veto laws and that's all (which is already more than we have).
Now it might require 66% approval for constitutional changes (which Brexit would be classed as if the notion of constitution actually existed in the UK), but generally speaking, for run-of-the-mill stuff, if the referendum approves by 0.1% then parliament gets what they wanted
Transposed to the Brexit situation, what would have needed to happen was for parliament to vote to leave the EU first; followed by a referendum to confirm or reject that decision. If the vote had been for example to increase petrol tax, a simple majority would be enough to approve it. Leaving the EU on the other hand would have needed a much bigger popular vote to approve the decision. But if parliament hadn't voted FIRST to leave the EU, the referendum would never have happened.

Article 50 not needed. Repeal the 1972 European Communities act and we are out immediately. Not that none of it matters, the next Conservative leader WILL be triggering Brexit as all the runners in the race for leadership have already stated. So all the hysterics, tantrums, foot-stamping and marches by the sore losing left can soon stop.

You've not actually added anything with any content to the debate, accusing people of being 'sore losers' is a bit pathetic it's a not a football match we all live here, most of us pay taxes most of us have jobs to keep and bills to pay. It's not a case of winners and losers this is real life and we all have to deal with the consequences of this farce whatever they may be. Some of us even work for companies based in the EU. I've not seen any hysterics or tantrums, people have genuine concerns and questions to raise moving forward.

You DO realise, dont you, that this wasnt a vote bewteen left and right, and there was a minimal number of MP's on both left and right that wanted to leave?

Now that we have established that, can you answer any of the questions put on this thread, all of which have been put eloquantly without any hint of threats or name calling?

Just to repeat a couple:

How to you expect leaving the EU to work?

Who do you expect to instigate it? The tories, whodont want it, or Labour, who, errrrrrr, dont want it either.

And what happened to your heroes, Boris and Nigel? Where did they both scurry off to?

So many questions remain unanswered.

Does anyone think that any MP is keen to instigate Article 50? It will suely be the act that will end their political career. No career MP will do it.

Michael Gove may be the only one, but he is already damaged goods.

No one from Labour ever will.

Nigel Farage will never have power. Any power.

Its all very very funny, yet dangerously sad.

Since when did politics stop after a poll? Do we, after every general election, stop debate and discussion on matters that were in the manifesto of the party who won? Do the opposition continue to make their arguments, or do they give up until the next election? The claim that those who want to remain are being 'childlike' seem to have a very childlike view of politics; big questions are never answered 'once and for all'.

If it was an election and the party promptly denied everything in its manifesto I'm sure a few people would be up in arms.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I think in this case the leave voters just want us all to shut up, and then someone fullfil the act they so desire.

The problem is, the act was never thought out, especially by those promoting it, and they all seem to have fled the scene. So what the leavers now want is those that remain in power, bizarrely nearly all remainers, to carry out their wish. A wish that has noplan, and never has had.

I am just bemused why none of them can come on here and tell us who, exactly, they want to carry out the deed.

I have read somwhere that people actually voted for him, and are a little upset he has retired.

It takes all sorts I suppose.

Ask Nick Clegg!

Ask Nick Clegg!

TBF he was never as funny without Foggy and Compo (not the Bunkers Compo)!

To be fair asda has always had crap exchange rates, Ramsdens always give a better exchange rate


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

On the other side once we reach parity we can merge with the Euro with no fiscal penalty. .Maybe this was Boris's plan all along ..

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Just out of interest, the coroner in the awful Alice Gross case, Fiona Wilcox, is expected to make recommendations on the ability of immigrants with criminal records to enter the country.

Surely the same recommendations would have been made by the coroner irregardless of the Brexit result, he was a convicted killer a fact our authorities had no record of. That obviously needs seriously looking at shouldn't happen. I fail to see the link or relevance and why the name of Alice Gross was even mentioned in this context.

Edited for accuracy.

Theresa May is getting slammed for her stance on EU nationals resident in the UK and I can see why. The thing is, she is the only one so far to even mention UK nationals resident in Europe. All the others seem perfectly willing to completely forget about us.
Good look to the NHS resources with half a million pensioners potentially returning to Britain.

TM is spot on with this.

Cameroon should have used her to negotiate with the EU instead of him and we may have got a deal that avoided a Leave vote.

But despite numerous denials we all know the leave vote was about immigration.

Cameron should just have never offered the referendum.

Indirectly, immigration WAS a factor, but only because that came under the greater matter being a return of sovereignty.

What does return to sovereignty mean? The EU doesn't have a fucking king or queen does it? So how in the name of fuck is our sovereignty returned by Brexit?

You obviously don't understand what Sovereignty is - It's the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources, a King or Queen doesn't come into it.

If that is true then I suspect few countries either have it or have ever had it.

That's the rub, in general terms a "sovereign state", is a place with its own borders and completely independent government, but as you say the question of which places count as sovereign states without outside interference can be controversial.

Sovereign state?

If anyone believes that the vast majority of the people that voted leave have any idea at all what the above means is utterly deluded.

But for the record, the UK has always been a sovereign state.

As have most democratic countries.

Including Germany.

So the sovereign state comments are just fucking pointless.

This is turning into a Monty Python sketch Ah the sweet anarchic joy of not giving a flying f**k.

no it isnt

You're not the Messiah.

never said I was. I was just after a 5 minute argument.

Your lucks in. I can do you a fifteen minute early bird argument , but I have to drive to Stockton at 7 O' clock.

To have an argument you need to have someone to present a counter argument however invalid it is, unless of course you're in the Conservative Party...

No you don't.

To have an argument all you need is yourself and an empty room. That way you always get to win.

I dont

Read the thread, the sovereign state comment was simply to clarify that "Sovereignty" was not about a King or Queen. However, to state such comments "are just fucking pointless" shows your naivety. The UK may be a sovereign state, but by virtue of her membership of the "EU", Britain is not an independent sovereign state, by virtue that:

It does not have the power to exercise its citizens' sovereignty through the ballot box - no vote of MPs in the House of Commons, however overwhelming, can affect, change or block decisions taken by EU bodies. Even a landslide vote in a British General Election for a party with a radical manifesto would have a minimal impact on decision-making by EU institutions and their implementation in Britain.

It does not have the power to revoke treaties – at the heart of the EU is a one way ratchet where Community law is irrevocable and irreversible. Under present arrangements, in the most crucial areas of national life, so long as she remains a member of the EU, Britain is powerless to revoke treaties or treaty obligations. She is ceasing to be self-governing.

It does not have the power to legal self-sufficiency - The law under which we live in Britain is increasingly made and interpreted by foreigners outside Britain. The ultimate court of appeal for Britons, the European Court of Justice, is situated in a foreign country, Luxembourg. Britain is always, by definition, in a small minority in the European Council, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice itself. The occasions on which she can legally exercise a veto are few and diminishing. The Westminster Parliament no longer makes the law. The law is made - and interpreted - overseas.

So it's not "fucking pointless"

Yes, yes it fucking is.

You mention radical manifesto above, well thank fuck for the EU stopping radical manifestos eh?

We have, or had, opt out clauses for nearly everything in the EU, even good things they do, so again, its fucking pointless.

I suggest to you that currently the EU is protecting us from our own radged MP's, very few of which are fit to govern.

Up the EU.

Even more pointless now too ..at least MrI will have another female tory Primeminister to fantasise over..

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Yeah, right up the EU!

As I suspect you're aware, the sovereignty state comments are not pointless. Yes, the country has the ability to return full sovereignty to its own parliament but only by leaving the EU. And that's a reason many people chose to vote Leave. It's really not complicated or a far-fetched notion.

The above comment perfectly encapsulates the current scenario.

(I assume you are of the left persuasion) People on the left do not agree with democracy when the result doesn't go their way. Similar wailing took place after last year's general election too.

It saddens me to see so many people wanting the UK to fail instead of joining up to work together to help the country. Why is it seemingly a trait of those on the left? I don't get it.

Whatever your political persuasion, if you haven't got the arguments to persuade people to your way of thinking, you need to review your arguments.

Mr Hart so you except that it is OK to tell a pack of lies to be elected? ?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

No-one was being elected and no-one told a pack of lies.

Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom were not even cabinet ministers. Gisela Stuart is a Labour MP. Can you explain how anyone could possibly think they had power to enact anything post-vote?

They made suggestions on what could happen after a Leave vote. The binary EU referendum question was much simpler to understand than the options in a General Election.

I, for example, would have voted Leave on the sovereignty issue alone (that trumps all for me) but, in addition, everything else that being in the EU provides can be provided by the UK parliament if the people of the UK want it to be, i.e. if democracy determines that's what should happen.

Now this leads to another point made by many about FPTP not being democratic (enough). I voted for the change to AV. The proposal wasn't perfect but it was a step in the right direction because I truly believe the method of 'democracy' should be as close to direct democracy as possible - even if this would have created difficulty for my traditional party of choice (Tory) being given a mandate in future.

I was disappointed and frustrated at the time that people voted for no change but I guess people like the idea of the certainty of the two party system. Would another vote give a different result now? I don't think it would and at least we have already chosen that via direct democracy.

Back to the pack of lies comment - you seem to be overlooking the genuine Remain 'lies'. Osborne went from an emergency budget to increase taxes if we voted Leave to suggesting taxes would be cut after we had voted Leave. That truly is a shocking piece of deceit/scaremongering.