Brexit

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Karl]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/03/government-must-ask-parliament-trigger-article-50-high-court-rules/

The Government will appeal against the decision. However, there is no need to trigger article 50, there never was, it's simply a political retraction giving two years to decide not to leave. We can tear up the EU treaty and that's that. The Government has a mandate from the people to do that, but article 50 was always going to be a stumbling block because it requires negotiation, which re-engages paliament in the process-exactly what I referred to previously in the definition of Brexit which May ( a remainer) has refused to define.

[Apech]

Parliament is sovereign ... which is one of the campaign points of the Leave group.  So the High Court has simply affirmed this fact.  A Government is accountable to a sovereign Parliament and cannot bypass their responsibility by an appeal to the electorate through referendum.  Whether the Supreme Court will uphold this I don't know - but they should.

[Karl]

Parliament is sovereign ... which is one of the campaign points of the Leave group. So the High Court has simply affirmed this fact. A Government is accountable to a sovereign Parliament and cannot bypass their responsibility by an appeal to the electorate through referendum. Whether the Supreme Court will uphold this I don't know - but they should.

It isn't sovereign. We gave away our sovereignty-illegitimately. If we have parliamentary sovereignty then we aren't in the EU and never were. Therefore, we can tear up any treaties completely legally because they were never legal in the first place and the courts confirmed it. He he, what a laugh this is. This is a forced attack on May to pull the trigger-which she doesn't want to do. This is kind of a last ditch, burn the bridges attack, which is fair enough, If I was a remainer then that's the tactic I would use.

 

I can't remember if I posted the petition to review the legality of giving away sovereignty to the EU ? However, this was what we were looking towards -on exactly the terms the remainers are using which effectively proves the illegality of the later treaties. We didn't have the cash to do what the remainers have done. The EU treaty was always an experiment in soft sovereignty, a twisted legal concept that was accepted by parliament.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Karl

[Apech]

It isn't sovereign. We gave away our sovereignty-illegitimately. If we have parliamentary sovereignty then we aren't in the EU and never were. Therefore, we can tear up any treaties completely legally because they were never legal in the first place and the courts confirmed it. He he, what a laugh this is. This is a forced attack on May to pull the trigger-which she doesn't want to do. This is kind of a last ditch, burn the bridges attack, which is fair enough, If I was a remainer then that's the tactic I would use.

 

I can't remember if I posted the petition to review the legality of giving away sovereignty to the EU ? However, this was what we were looking towards -on exactly the terms the remainers are using which effectively proves the illegality of the later treaties. We didn't have the cash to do what the remainers have done. The EU treaty was always an experiment in soft sovereignty, a twisted legal concept that was accepted by parliament.

 

Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:

• The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
• The Human Rights Act 1998.
• The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.
• The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.

These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

 

 

 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

 

 

Parliament, not the Government is sovereign in Britain.  Therefore the Government cannot act, even after consulting the people through referendum, without the approval of Parliament.  The UK is a Parliamentary democracy not a plebiscite.

 

I would have thought that a General Election with concrete proposals for Brexit should take place at some juncture.  

[joeblast]

So no matter what the people vote, its got to be approved by parliament?  The people said GTFO the EU, and what if Parliament says sorry its in OUR best interests to stay?  Wait for next elections?

[Apech]

So no matter what the people vote, its got to be approved by parliament?  The people said GTFO the EU, and what if Parliament says sorry its in OUR best interests to stay?  Wait for next elections?

 

 

The referendum was advisory.  Whatever is done must comply with British Law.  This was British judges interpreting British law as it applies to Britain.  No Brexiteer can object to that.

[joeblast]

legal mumbo jumbo merely spells out the ways in which the populace can get f*d whilst being led to believe they're getting what they want

[Miffymog]

This does make things interesting. But I thought that if this did happen, what's to stop May just telling the EU we want to leave anyway. Ignoring the ruling may be a controversial act, but if the EU accept May's request to leave the block because they want some kind of closure and for this all to be over, then surely that's what will happen. May says - we want to leave, EU says - that's fine by us. What effect would this judicial ruling then have?

 

I guess it's partly a question of whether May would go against it?

 

And what if it does go to parliament, a vote to stay and then what?

 

Or we have an election and it becomes a election issue?

 

 

 

Anyway, I don't mind my attention being diverted from the presidential election for a short while ...

[Miffymog]

Right, I've had a little think.

 

I reckon the judgement will be upheld on appeal, if so ...

I reckon this will lead to a general election.

 

May would probably like to be elected by the people, and there's a good chance her majority will increase (Labour are still in a position where their leader quite likes leaving but the rest of the party not so much).

 

Brexit makes a nice clear issue for the Conservatives to put forward while simultaneously exposing the contradiction between the Labour leadership and their back benches, which gives the remainers a dilemma as to whom to vote for

 

Lib Dems will make a small comeback.

 

With a better majority, Brexit should then get through parliament.

 

It could be that, if the judicial decision is upheld, May tries to go straight to parliament without an election, but I doubt it

[Jetsun]

If a party with an electable leader stood firm on the basis of not leaving the EU they would probably win a general election. There is no love for the Tories and even less love for the Brexiters within the party. The majority of people who voted Brexit don't usually vote in general elections. Problem is the Labour are screwed by the SNP and Corbyn so we need a new party.

[Karl]

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

 

 

Parliament, not the Government is sovereign in Britain.  Therefore the Government cannot act, even after consulting the people through referendum, without the approval of Parliament.  The UK is a Parliamentary democracy not a plebiscite.

 

I would have thought that a General Election with concrete proposals for Brexit should take place at some juncture.

 

They don't have the right to give away sovereignty to another entity, that it treason. The 1973 action of Ted Heath was a cover to secede power to Brussels in what they like to call -shared sovereignty. Now, as I'm a lover of logic and definitions you might see that I see this is a contradiction in terms. This is what I meant by 'soft sovereignty'. If you don't grasp this, then let me help, the twin towers were not brought down by a couple of terrorists in hijacked planes, Britain's Parliament is backed by the sovereignty of its people- in which the true sovereignty lies (not that you would know it), by election through democracy. The referendum was just a reverse engineered coup-similarly illegal, but no less illegal than that which went before. All that parliament is allowed to do is to make trade deals and protect the country from attack/protect interests. It cannot surrender to a foreign power outside of a war defeat.

 

A General election will make no difference. It doesn't matter if May gets a huge mandate, the problem continues to exist. The EU was always a lie, our getting out of it is equally a lie. It's the four freedoms that are packaged together with the 'free trade area agreement' that has allowed this twisting to continue. We are in a trading partnership, that means we have to obey the trading laws, which means a central group composed of euro MPs that can only have minimal power, not to make laws, but to vote on laws.

[Apech]

They don't have the right to give away sovereignty to another entity, that it treason. The 1973 action of Ted Heath was a cover to secede power to Brussels in what they like to call -shared sovereignty. Now, as I'm a lover of logic and definitions you might see that I see this is a contradiction in terms. This is what I meant by 'soft sovereignty'. If you don't grasp this, then let me help, the twin towers were not brought down by a couple of terrorists in hijacked planes, Britain's Parliament is backed by the sovereignty of its people- in which the true sovereignty lies (not that you would know it), by election through democracy. The referendum was just a reverse engineered coup-similarly illegal, but no less illegal than that which went before. All that parliament is allowed to do is to make trade deals and protect the country from attack/protect interests. It cannot surrender to a foreign power outside of a war defeat.

 

A General election will make no difference. It doesn't matter if May gets a huge mandate, the problem continues to exist. The EU was always a lie, our getting out of it is equally a lie. It's the four freedoms that are packaged together with the 'free trade area agreement' that has allowed this twisting to continue. We are in a trading partnership, that means we have to obey the trading laws, which means a central group composed of euro MPs that can only have minimal power, not to make laws, but to vote on laws.

 

Did you read the link?

 

Parliament is sovereign and not 'the people' - this has always been so.

 

PS.  I got an A grade in 'O' Level British Constitution -  thank you and good night sir.

[Karl]

Did you read the link?

 

Parliament is sovereign and not 'the people' - this has always been so.

 

PS. I got an A grade in 'O' Level British Constitution - thank you and good night sir.

One man, one vote. No one is above the law. Therefore, political sovereignty is in the hands of the people and legal sovereignty in the hands of parliament.

 

Now you see the sleight of hand. We end up complying with trading laws from the EU, but we don't elect the EU. Parliament at present is not truly sovereign, it's a twist. It can make its laws, but the trading laws are applied to people (free movement), financial (free movement) and goods (free movement).

 

We get to elect the MEPs that's all and those MEPs can only vote on whatever the bureaucrats decide. In theory the UK could reject each law, but in practice it would be contravening it's access to the single market.

 

We are a vassal state of the EU. Our parliament is substantially powerless and it seems to me that it has been so long since they lost sovereignty that they hardly know how to resurrect it. The people that knew are pretty much gone, or retired.

[Miffymog]

PS.  I got an A grade in 'O' Level British Constitution -  thank you and good night sir.

 

'O' level - what's one of those ...

[blackstar212]

The Government will appeal against the decision. However, there is no need to trigger article 50, there never was, it's simply a political retraction giving two years to decide not to leave. We can tear up the EU treaty and that's that. The Government has a mandate from the people to do that, but article 50 was always going to be a stumbling block because it requires negotiation, which re-engages paliament in the process-exactly what I referred to previously in the definition of Brexit which May ( a remainer) has refused to define.

I doubt highly that brexit happens.

 

https://governmentsandmarkets.com/why-brexit-probably-wont-happen-ce8261bd50fc#.fhine472t

[joeblast]

Did you read the link?

 

Parliament is sovereign and not 'the people' - this has always been so.

 

PS.  I got an A grade in 'O' Level British Constitution -  thank you and good night sir.

That's as I understood things - the people can say what the want, and parliament can decide if its in their best interests to go along with the people, or is it in their best interests to go along with the paymasters of london.

 

Crook by design, methinks.

[Miffymog]

Well American's I have some sympathy with the emotional roller coaster ride that you're going through with the election, as I'm going through one with this Brexit malarkey.

 

There I was this morning reading the 4 aspects of Brexit that the leader of our opposition was going to demand from negotiations given that our parliament now gets to vote on whether it goes ahead or not. These would have resulted in a very soft Brexit which would only be agreed upon by the EU if we still made massive contributions to their budget.

 

The out come, we'd still be contributing to the EU, but not get invited to any meetings, so our limited influence would completely disappear, i.e. we'd be much worse off than we were before the referendum

 

I felt that what he was doing was actually quite astute, as it means that if a general election was held, Labour would, effectively represent the remain vote, therefore making a general election about the leave or remain – and a very interesting vote that would have been indeed.

 

But, what do I read just 4 hours later? Well, the deputy leader of the opposition totally disagrees with his boss and says that of course the Labour opposition will up hold the outcome of the referendum when it comes down to a parliamentary vote.

 

This small comment completely changes the situation as to whether a general election will have to be called in order to get the Brexit motion past. Why all this confusion though with in the same party? Well, each person is actually only making statements that further their own particular agenda. The leader wants to stay leader and his statements make him quite electable, the deputy wants nothing more than to get rid of his boss.

 

But what about me as I read the Sunday websites drinking my cup of tea? Where am I left in all these mixed messages? What am I to do? Well, it's simply to find out how things are going on with the chaos on the other side for the Atlantic.

 

Oh dear...

[Karl]

The other side of the Atlantic probably has a lot to do with wherever Brexit is headed. The EU was always an American/Israeli project. It's interesting that the US global security report 2016 never mentioned Britain, only the EU. That was of course before this current upset. We are seeing the start of a massive power shift of which Brexit is one corner.

[joeblast]

The EU is a globalist project to undermine sovereignty of the member states.

 

Sorta like the ways in which the us fedgov has been utilized to trojan horse its way through gov perversions, doing things like the unconstitutional 17th amendment that was a huge fracture point in the breaking of the US government.

[Karl]

The EU is a globalist project to undermine sovereignty of the member states.

 

Sorta like the ways in which the us fedgov has been utilized to trojan horse its way through gov perversions, doing things like the unconstitutional 17th amendment that was a huge fracture point in the breaking of the US government.

 

That's a simplification. The EU is an American/Israeli project, but that was before the Arab states, China and Russia changed so dramatically. It was once a large global chip which has been steadily losing influence and decaying. Funnily enough it has the hall marks of a state dependent poor person. It's leaders have become so blinded by the US super state that they no longer care too much to defend themselves. The result has been the rise of internal nationalism, particularly in response to the crazy leftist Zionist plans of Soros and the Democrats.

 

It's hard to keep up with the sheer volume of influence and change that is affecting Europe from all sides, but we still are a major league industrial area with London as the banking centre. Europe and the USA are in a state of flux and Israel is in a state of turmoil as it begins to see an Eastern powerhouse rising up-although fragile, it's clearly beginning to coalesce whilst the USA loses significance. Europe cannot remain neutral. It is struggling to position itself in this new paradigm. The East has always been a sleeping giant blighted by bureacracy and latterly communism, but that is ending.

 

Where does Britain sit ? It is seen by the US as a force of change in the EU. However, if you look at the EU it is going nowhere, it is spinning aimlessly and is useless as as US ally - Trump has made it clear what is expected, no more Soros (do yer hear, those Mexicans are getting a wall, the lefty liberal zionisist crap has caused a terrible softening of resolve); no more reliance on the US military as its time to pay our way and end the big welfare plans that have been such a huge part of the EU socialist policy.

 

Britain is the catalyst for EU re-definition in the new age under management. At least this appears to be the thinking. Funnily enough Rome went through a short period of sustainable growth and re-emergence before it finally collapsed in the West. We won't be allowed to leave the EU, we are supposed to aim a gun to its head and tell it to change.

[Jetsun]

Not sure where the idea that the EU is an American/Israeli idea has come from, historically the people who were instrumental in creating the EU were Europeans who did it to try to prevent Germany and France from going to war ever again, and so far at least on that level it has been a success. Really the main American influence into the EU came from Britain, who was seen as a US cheerleader and usually put forward US interests, so there are quite a few in the EU especially on the French side are happy that Britain is leaving as it helps to nullify American pressure and strengthen their own position. More than likely Britain leaving will mean a closer union between the other states rather than a disintegration and is still the trading block just about every other country on the planet is trying to get access to, so its going to be around for some time yet. 

[Karl]

Not sure where the idea that the EU is an American/Israeli idea has come from, historically the people who were instrumental in creating the EU were Europeans who did it to try to prevent Germany and France from going to war ever again, and so far at least on that level it has been a success. Really the main American influence into the EU came from Britain, who was seen as a US cheerleader and usually put forward US interests, so there are quite a few in the EU especially on the French side are happy that Britain is leaving as it helps to nullify American pressure and strengthen their own position. More than likely Britain leaving will mean a closer union between the other states rather than a disintegration and is still the trading block just about every other country on the planet is trying to get access to, so its going to be around for some time yet.

:-) None of that is correct. Its a nice story though, but totally wrong. Go back to the First World War and the relationship between the US, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Japan.

 

Several people here have touched on the Jewish lobby as if it were a homogenous mass of like minded tribesman, but that isn't true, it's as fractionalised as any other people.

 

Go forward to the Second World War and the changing relationship between Britain and USA. Britain were not cheerleaders by any stretch of the imagination, we were as defeated as Germany and the rest of Europe. Russia brought down the Iron curtain and China was disappearing into obscurity. Britain had to pretend the 'special relationship' but the reality was that the USA demanded a Kings ransom from Britain and took it. We lost our empire almost overnight.

 

Anyway, just to start you off: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

 

If you are interested in this stuff-I delve in and out of it because I can't afford the time, but it's fascinating never the less-I can set you away on some books that have been hidden from view by those who don't want the truth revealed. I have the PDF of an unedited version of one of these books which will open your eyes like nothing else.

[Jetsun]

:-) None of that is correct. Its a nice story though, but totally wrong. Go back to the First World War and the relationship between the US, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Japan.

 

Several people here have touched on the Jewish lobby as if it were a homogenous mass of like minded tribesman, but that isn't true, it's as fractionalised as any other people.

 

Go forward to the Second World War and the changing relationship between Britain and USA. Britain were not cheerleaders by any stretch of the imagination, we were as defeated as Germany and the rest of Europe. Russia brought down the Iron curtain and China was disappearing into obscurity. Britain had to pretend the 'special relationship' but the reality was that the USA demanded a Kings ransom from Britain and took it. We lost our empire almost overnight.

 

Anyway, just to start you off: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

 

If you are interested in this stuff-I delve in and out of it because I can't afford the time, but it's fascinating never the less-I can set you away on some books that have been hidden from view by those who don't want the truth revealed. I have the PDF of an unedited version of one of these books which will open your eyes like nothing else.

 

I am a History graduate who did my dissertation on the US and UK relations after the war  That article is full of speculation and short of evidence, and while the US may have wanted a unified Europe as a strategic interest during the Cold War that doesn't mean that the EU an American project, if it had that much control and influence it wouldn't have such difficulty passing its trade agreements with the EU today. While Israel was only founded in 1948, it is hard to see that it had such influence and power so quickly that it could suddenly shape the entire European continent around its wishes.

 

Its not that hard to believe the official story, that people who had first hand witnessed the utter devastation of the World Wars wanted to find a way for it to never happen again, far more likely than some sort of Zionist conspiracy.

 

Its true that the US tried to bleed the UK dry after the war but that also changed with the rise of the Cold War as it was in American interests that what was left of the British Empire was strong. While I don't believe in the "special relationship" you will find that is was almost always British lawyers, politicians and policy makers who would lobby on behalf of the Americans and their business inside the EU, and Britain who does much of the spying on the European leaders and countries on behalf of the Americans. Why do you think Obama wanted us to stay so much?

[joeblast]

ah yes, people bicker and argue, and leave the internationalists out of the whole conversation, heh.

 

sovereign unto themselves and beholden to no nation, with hooks in a great many via central banks, american and european used as their own respective tools for the job.

 

isreal may have been created only in 1948, but they were discussing how to get it accomplished as early as the 1870s, and likely for quite some time before that.  doesnt quite make logical sense to dismiss nations in such ways and act as if they are completely sovereign an beholden to no one and no pocketbook. 

 

humans have *never* stopped trying to take over the world.