Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

The Brexit Arms. All welcome.

999 replies

surferjet · 30/07/2017 21:06

So.....how are we all?
Wine

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Carolinesbeanies · 14/08/2017 13:13

Socialist sex anyone? Researchers "marvelled" at east europeans having twice as many orgasms as western europeans....Grin Marvelled....lol. (Pulls on fluffy slippers and Brew)

howabout · 14/08/2017 13:14

Tell that to the LSE and their prophesies of doom Grin

howabout · 14/08/2017 13:22

Have you not seen Vlad with his shirt off Caroline? Brew

Sadly most of my Polish friends have migrated because they are not great fans of the changes at home. They do indeed have fully emancipated DMs who brought them up while maintaining successful careers and personal independence.

bathildabagshot1 · 14/08/2017 13:37

Picking peanuts out of poo there Caroline.

If you are a lexiter there is no hope for you.

RandomlyGenerated · 14/08/2017 13:50

Nice try caroline, but the cases you refer to (mispellings aside) concern collective bargaining, workers rights and temporary postings to other EU member states and are nothing to do with the EU education policies that you linked to.

And the Italy crucifix case was an ECHR case, so nothing to do with the EU either.

bathildabagshot1 · 14/08/2017 13:59

I love it when people conflate the ECHR with the EU.

Carolinesbeanies · 14/08/2017 17:33

Im aware of that random (I quoted them) and whilst Id love to agree with you, unfortunately the Lisbon Treaty brought into legal effect The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Whilst the 2 operate separately, the EU Charter of FR overarches the ECHR. There is absolute sovereignty in Brussels, not Strasbourg, and its sovereignty we're debating.

Just off to find Vlad......shirtless......Bike Smile

bathildabagshot1 · 14/08/2017 17:56

Funny that the Soveregnty you are debating only exists in these cases when there is international scope.

It will be the same kind of sovereignty that will be decided by dispute courts in the wonderful trade deals that you all exalt.

No mention of your erroneous claims there either.

Sad.

bathildabagshot1 · 14/08/2017 18:00

I'm off to drink my wieght in Polish vodka.

Carolinesbeanies · 14/08/2017 18:29

Not at all Bathilda. (Though I again dont quite get the point your making). I assume youre still talking education? Lets take 'creationism'. Do we teach it or dont we? That can be answered by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1580. No we cant, in a scientific setting. Yes we can in a religious setting.

The point is, we needed to be told. Hmm

Really dont get your point on trade, but theres certainly only one kind of sovereignty in Brexitland, our own. Enjoy your vodky Wine

RandomlyGenerated · 14/08/2017 18:38

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Whilst the 2 operate separately, the EU Charter of FR overarches the ECHR.

It isn't quite that simple - most (but not all) of the ECHR has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, the Charter of Fundamental Rights includes those missing parts but only applies to matters concerning EU Law.

The following is interesting in that it outlines the issues :

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/979/979.pdf

CardinalSin · 14/08/2017 19:05

Finally, something makes sense! Brexiteers advocate the teaching of Creationism!

It all fits!

Carolinesbeanies · 14/08/2017 19:14

I agree its an utter mess Random. However, all us little people can do is look at how we are impacted on a day to day basis. I will read your link, its right up my street, and I still scratch my head as to how the CJEU end up enforcing PACE resolutions......

Be back when Ive done so....and finished with Vlad....

RandomlyGenerated · 14/08/2017 19:16

I once overheard a very interesting conversation between two geology lecturers on the mental gymnastics required for teaching creationalist palaeontology.

In the style of Dawkins, perhaps we should coin the term "Honest Brexiteers"?

RandomlyGenerated · 14/08/2017 19:17

caroline good luck with that - it's almost incomprehensible Smile

bathildabagshot1 · 14/08/2017 19:22

"That can be answered by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1580."

The PACE is different to the EU, we are not leaving the council of Europe so will still have to abide by its resolutions. The council of Europe has 7 members not 28.

Another example of how you don't know what you are talking about.

Further, you do give up some sovereign decisions when you become part of trade agreements. For example being a member of the WTO means that you have to agree what trade terms you offer all members, and how much you can subsidise and give tax breaks to industry. Break these terms, or schedules as they are known, and you are subject to WTO court rulings.

So not leaving ECHR, not leaving PACE, joining WTO.

We will be giving up some sovereignty to do all of these things, and gaining very little.

CardinalSin · 14/08/2017 23:01

Sums up Brexit

howabout · 15/08/2017 06:38

Lberty explaining the retention of parliamentary sovereignty in the application of the ECHR via the HRA. They contrast with the position under the EU Act which applies in the case of the ECJ applying the Fundamental Charter to EU law operating in the UK.

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/how-human-rights-act-works

This is a fab primer in the operation of International Law in trade dispute settlement. It takes a great long canter through the ECJ's approach to EU law and International law all the way back to the banana case. In so doing it very clearly explains the loss of sovereignty under the EU.

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/garnet/workingpapers/7009.pdf

howabout · 15/08/2017 06:42

Ball looks to be firmly back with the EU re transition and the Customs Union. Looking forward to the next round of technocratic blinking.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40922177

Carolinesbeanies · 15/08/2017 09:56

Warning: Potential long dull and boring post. (You guys are going to me barred from The Arms, and Im rather fond of barhanging round here.)

Random, Ive read it. Its utterly depressed me, but heres my Obs.

So layman obs (which arent a bad thing in my book, as anyone should be able to pick up a parliamentary paper and understand it) from an utterly insignificant MN poster. (I know my place)

Firstly, I got stuck with the header title. It tickled me. In the context of the EU, the UK is indeed a State of confusion. This was however, the last time I found any humour in any of this.

Anyway, ob 2. This is 2014, and Im simply staggered this document exists. We objected to Lisbon in very public terms at the time, but between being given 'assurances', and not given a formal voice, (referendum) we all shoved it under the mattress and cracked on. Fait accomplis and all that.

(Why is this point worth going over again? Because the depth of feeling goes back to Lisbon. To understand todays 'leaver' needs some understanding of how we got there)
Heres a view from the time.

http://www.heritage.org/europe/report/the-eu-lisbon-treaty-gordon-brown-surrenders-britains-sovereignty

What should be pointed out, under this point is, the Judge whose comments prompted this parliamentary paper, said this.

"It can be seen that the legal basis of the claimant’s claim rests in part on alleged violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. When I read this in the skeleton argument on his behalf I was surprised, to say the least, as I was sure that the British government (along with the Polish government) had secured at the negotiations of the Lisbon Treaty an opt-out from the incorporation of the Charter into EU law and thereby via operation of the European Communities Act 1972 directly into our domestic law. "

He went on to say;

"The constitutional significance of this decision can hardly be overstated. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into our domestic law large parts, but by no means all, of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some parts were deliberately missed out by Parliament. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contains, I believe, all of those missing parts and a great deal more. Notwithstanding the endeavours of our political representatives at Lisbon it would seem that the much wider Charter of Rights is now part of our domestic law. Moreover, that much wider Charter of Rights would remain part of our domestic law even if the Human Rights Act were repealed."

My points, on Obs 2 is, the next time any pro-eu, remainer, anti-brexit fanatic, wishes to berate the so called ignorance of a leave voter, remember this Judge. He was a tad surprised.

And Im just going for a beer before Obs 3. It gets worse. Wine

Carolinesbeanies · 15/08/2017 10:02

Obs 3. So as ministers cluck around said Judges comments, they all hung their hats on Protocol 30. Sadiq Khan and others, called it an "Opt out", the ministers of the time then confirmed it wasnt an 'opt out' it was a protocol to ensure The Charter was only applicable to EU law. Both are incorrect.

The penny is starting to drop regards Tony Bliar, who whilst still PM, said in a statement to the House in June 2007 re the Lisbon Treaty, said:

"It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs. "

Why did he lie about Protocol 30? Why is that man in the thick of this, yet again? How did we, as a nation, get strung along for so long by such a duplicitous and scheming bastard who clearly has no compunction to tell the truth to Parliament, never mind UK citizens? He was a pupil Barrister and read Jurisprudence at Oxford. He will have known every comma of every line in Protocol 30. He absolutely knew the language he was going to use to Parliament, and the phrase 'opt out' was his choice of words. As Lord Goldsmith, whilst being clear he wouldnt have used the words 'opt out' goes on to say, Protocol 30 wasnt even neccesary. It was a political comfort blanket.

Obs 4. Luckily the vast meat on the bones in this paper, are what they are. Various views and opinions, witnesses etc. The scrutiny committee do appear to have scrutinised. So I got to the conclusions, and this

"It seems to us that this and the past Government indulge in wishful thinking about the true impact of the Charter in the UK. The consequence is, as we note in the first chapter of this Report, that the public can be misled."

Can I just say, no shit Sherlock.

But then this, (along with earlier references in the paper to 'sources' of law) explains how PACE got in there. I do now have better understanding of where and how they pull stuff under this Charter.

"Whilst it may be technically correct to say that the Charter is “declaratory” of, or “reaffirms”, pre-existing rights with the intention of making them more visible, the act of cementing disparate and sometimes obscure rights from different legal sources, with different legal statuses, many of which had not been considered by the ECJ, into a legally binding EU Charter is, we think, very significant indeed. "

Beer break Wine

Carolinesbeanies · 15/08/2017 10:06

Obs 5. The recommendations. All of them. Ignored. Specifically the need to amend the EC Act 1972.

Whilst a moot point now in light of the referendum, however, its an impossible position to now argue that DC and the remain campaign werent fully aware of the impact of the EU Charter on FR, across UK law. This paper spelled it out to them 2 years earlier, and provided the list of actions needed to resolve it.

For DC to then argue that his going to Brussels in Feb 2016, to resolve any question of 'sovereignty', utterly ignores the fact we could have resolved it ourselves, according to this paper, by amending our own EC Act of Parliament.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/03/eu-deal-david-cameron-uk-parliament-sovereignty-beyond-doubt-boris-johnson

The question is why? Why, having produced this paper, didnt Parliament act on it? One answer could be, the scrutiny committees recommendations were wrong. Amending our own Act, still wouldnt have resolved the sovereignty issue. But in the absence of a further Parliamentary paper, contradicting this paper, we have to take the position as its presented here.

What is therefore clear from this, is everyone in the House, in 2014, knew the position. Yet they campaigned for remain, ridiculing the suggestion that the UK doesnt have sovereignty. Calling leavers ignorant and racist. Repeating Blairs original 'opt out' lie.

Im sorry Random, Ive simply found this whole paper, utterly depressing. I thought I knew. Now I know I knew. And they (all MPs) did too.

Brexit has to restore integrity to the office of PM, and the integrity of Parliament. The scheming, slippery, back stabbing bunch of duplicitous bastards that hold sole responsibility for the subsequent utter division in the country, should be put in public stocks in town squares around the country.

You know, families have been divided like we havent seen since the miners strike. We have an accepted 'intergenerational' hatred between the despicable 'baby boomers stealing the youths future' etc etc etc. repeated by the BBC at regular intervals, it goes on and on and still they sit on this 'sovereignty' issue because 'politically' someone may lose their job? Bastards.

Can I get back to barhanging in The Arms now? Bastards. The lot of them.

Carolinesbeanies · 15/08/2017 11:05

.....and I depressingly note, that the current 'Westminsters: I cant believe its not butter' thread here on MN, is merrily marching on with 'leavers are racists, racists, racists, lalalalala..'

Dont know why I went to look. Perhaps a sliver of hope that 'information' is finally filtering through? Or perhaps one day, we may indeed make the accusation of racism, as wrong and legally accountable as racism itself. Today, depressingly, you can still merrily call anyone a racist with no fear of legal accountability. That is fundamentally and morally wrong.

Its a grim day.

Bearbehind · 15/08/2017 11:32

As ever you are only seeing what you want to see caroline

The WM thread is far more concerned with the fact we're back to the 'cake and eat it' plan than racism.

Instead of reverting to the tried and tested 'Remainers are all meanies' could you maybe explain how you think this plan is going to work in reality?

Do you honestly think the EU are just going to let us carry on as we were wrt EU trade i.e. No customs or tariffs whilst being able to negiotate deals with other countries?

bathildabagshot1 · 15/08/2017 11:37

Problem is Caroline that when you scratch the surface of a lot of leavers that's what you find, note " a lot".

There is some confusion over soveriegnty, but there is no telling that whether leaving the EU will bring it back, we will still be members of the EHRA,PACE, WTO etc

The fact that you link to Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank to back up your claims again shows your lack of scrutiny here, and we go further back and point out that you have already confused the ECcHR and PACE wth the EU.

Lets be honest, complex and minor reasons of sovereignty isn't why people voted to leave. Its immigration.