EU-BREXIT - Page 287 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15043612
BeesKnee5 wrote:Johnson

He will be locked up soon enough. The police have asked the various other entities involved in the misconduct in public office/Jennifer Acuri case to suspend their inquiries so as not to prejudice a criminal prosecution.
By B0ycey
#15043613
BeesKnee5 wrote:The legal obligation was to seek an extension using the wording supplied in the act, this was done. Nothing says it has to be signed, just that it must come from the government.

The issue is padfield which says a minister cannot frustrate the statue. As Tusk has accepted the request then clearly the statute has not been frustrated.


I never mentioned the signature. Just that Johnson is obliged by law to seek an extention. The law doesn't favour deviance and just like prologuing parliament that ultimately was illegal but not touted as such prior to the ruling, Johnson has ultimatey broken the law by undermining the letter. The second letter clearly isn't seeking an extention which he is legally obliged to do and something I am repeating in every post I have written and something you haven't addressed as you just mention the first letter.

I think we will agree to disagree on this, whilst accepting Johnson and his cronies are devious and nasty pieces of work.


Well can agree here.
By SolarCross
#15043614
B0ycey wrote:It is a real law and Johnson has just broken it. Sub section 4 of the Benn act specifically says that the PM must seek an extention. It is the very first line. By sending the second letter he undermines the first letter that is law. In other words, he isn't seeking an extention.

He will be in court by the end of the week and lose.

Although I do hope that the EU takes the letter from parliament seriously, signature or no signature. It is parliament that is sovereign and the PM is merely its figure head. So it is parliament not Johnson that the EU should work with and let the Clown pass the letters over. I knew this snake was not to be trusted. Someone should have forced him out of office by bringing forward a no confidence bill against him. But because they couldn't agree an intern leader we now have this clusterfuck. Lib Dems and Labour need to work together if the aim is to stop 'No Deal' Brexit and who cares who is leader for a month or two?

It is not a real law because technically all acts of parliament are just corporate policy "acting" like law. Statutes of parliament are law substitutes, like saccharin is fake sugar.

Real laws are things like "thou shalt not kill", not "thou must write a letter against your conscious because of the treachery of foreign shills."

Parliament is not a bought off section of the commons FYI. Parliament is "sovereign" because Her Maj has an Independent armed forces staffed by the citizens of the UK. "Parliament" by which you mean the commons, is just a middle man staffed by temporary flunkies and is nothing at all without either Her Sovereign Majesty or the People.

#notmyparliament
Last edited by SolarCross on 20 Oct 2019 10:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15043615
B0ycey wrote:The second letter clearly isn't seeking an extention which he is legally obliged to do and something I am repeating in every post I have written and something you haven't addressed as you just mention the first letter.


This is clearly the point we disagree on.
The second letter doesn't need to seek an extension. It has been worded in a way so as to not reverse the first but to offer opinion on it (deliberately ). If the EU had said they couldn't accept the first letter or needed clarification due to the second letter then it would be a clear breach of the law. As it is the extension request has been accepted it makes it difficult to prove the second letter undermined the first and that's why I don't believe the courts will do more than offer displeasure at the method used.
By B0ycey
#15043617
SolarCross wrote:It is not a real law because technically all acts of parliament are just corporate policy "acting" like law. Statutes of parliament are law substitutes, like saccharin is fake sugar.


Parliament pass acts that become laws. Today you have learnt something new I guess.
Last edited by B0ycey on 20 Oct 2019 12:35, edited 1 time in total.
By B0ycey
#15043618
BeesKnee5 wrote:This is clearly the point we disagree on.
The second letter doesn't need to seek an extension. It has been worded in a way so as to not reverse the first but to offer opinion on it (deliberately ).


Sure, and perhaps you are missing the point again. The second letter doesn't need to seek an extention and I never said it did. It is Johnson who is legally obliged to. The wording might have been deliberately chosen to offer an opinion rather than a course of action, but anything that is seen as undermining the extention request will be frowned upon by the court because the law specifically says that Johnson has to seek an extention and the letter definitely says that an extention isn't what he is looking for (seeking). Or in layman terms, he is breaking the law.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043619
B0ycey wrote:What are you talking about. Until the UK leave the EU they are subject to their laws. Article 50 is merely a process to leave the EU not an exclusion of their laws until they do.

Although I should add that Johnson has broken UK law not European law when sending the second (third) letter(s).

Nonetheless I suspect Atlantis was being flippant when calling for article 7. But it is clear that Johnson is a law to himself and has broken it twice in as many months so was right to address it. He isn't PM material and personally I think a spell in Wandsworth is the only way to get the message across that deliberately breaking the law should not be tolerated regardless of who the individual is.


Lisbon Treaty 1 Dec 2009

Article 218(3) - Procedure-

3/
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Failure of negotiations
This system provides for a negotiated withdrawal, rather than an abrupt exit from the Union. This preference for a negotiated withdrawal is based on the expected complexities of leaving the EU (including concerning the euro) when so much European law is codified in member states' laws. However, the process of Article 50 also includes a strong implication of unilateral right to withdraw. This is through the fact the state would decide "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" and that the end of the treaties' application in said state is not dependent on any agreement being reached (it would occur after two years regardless).In other words, the European Union can not block a member state from leaving.
If negotiations do not result in a ratified agreement, the seceding country leaves without an agreement, and the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to the seceding country, without any substitute or transitional arrangements being put in place. As regards trade, the parties would likely follow WTO rules & tariffs on trade.

Also, a withdrawing state cannot be involved in any E.U decisions during it's procedure in withdrawing following an A50 notification.

That is plainly the case for obvious reasons, which is why, under the withdrawal procedure, we are no longer(unless we revoke) involved in the the internal laws of the E.U from the date of parliament passing the deal.
For logical reasons, due to the actions of the remainer tendency in parliament, whom introduced the 'no-deal' Amendment , the logic is that they trapped themselves into the leave paradigm, defaulting on voting against the deal, proves their intention not to deliver the implementation of Brexit.

So, for all of the remainer MP's smoke & mirrors, it will have got them nowhere, but cost the country £Billions, but, with one positive outcome, their personal political careers are going to be terminated in the main.

BoJo did what was required of him by the law, nothing more, nothing less, it did not require him to sign it, indeed, he could have,as he did, not sign it, because the letter is on behalf of the parliament & not the government.
It is for parliament to sign such a letter written on it's behalf, the only pratical way,of which would be for all of the MP's opposed to Brexit, to sign that letter, for which mit would then be read for all & sunder to see as a political 'suicide note'.

It is beyond the realm of reason for any judicial court to convict a person who has been subjected to 'threats' or 'blackmail', 'duress' or whatever.
Last edited by Nonsense on 20 Oct 2019 11:07, edited 1 time in total.
By B0ycey
#15043620
If you haven't realised yet @Nonsense, we haven't got a WA and we have had a couple of extentions. Thanks for the pointless nonsense I guess.
#15043621
B0ycey wrote:
Sure, and perhaps you are missing the point again. The second letter doesn't need to seek an extention and I never said it did. It is Johnson who is legally obliged to. The wording might have been deliberately chosen to offer an opinion rather than a course of action, but anything that is seen as undermining the extention request will be frowned upon by the court because the law specifically says that Johnson has to seek an extention and the letter definitely says that an extention isn't what he is looking for (seeking). Or in layman terms, he is breaking the law.


Your previous response to me was to say the second letter wasnt seeking an extension that he is obliged to do. I was clarifying that it doesn't need to and you are agreeing on.

Yes it will be frowned upon but unless it can be proven to have actually undermined the first then you cannot say he has broken the law. The reality here is that the second letter is nothing that we or the EU didn't already know was the view of the prime minister and doesn't alter the point that the request has been made and accepted. This is what will be put to the courts and is expected to be frowned upon but that's about it.

The reality here is the double letter and court case are a dead cat to distract attention from the point that Boris claimed he would die in a ditch before sending the letter and he has now sent it. What matters is that it has been accepted.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043622
B0ycey wrote:If you haven't realised yet @Nonsense, we haven't got a WA and we have had a couple of extentions. Thanks for the pointless nonsense I guess.


The 'nonsense' is all yours BOycey, you are of course, a serial offender in such matters, your protestation that we haven't signed a W.A yet is soon to be rectified.
I guarantee that,' who laugh's last, laugh's longest & that will not be 'remainers'. :lol: ad infintum :lol: .

Forr someone who has appalling literary 'skills' BOycey, you seem to display a certain arrogance when determining whether someone(BoJo)has 'broken' the law. :knife:

Personally, I would say that 'bad' law, deserves the proper response, for which BoJo has delivered it, by driving a 'coach & horses' through that particular legal ransom note.

Just remember this, no 'parliament is bound by it's predecessor', anything this parliament dictates, can be undone by the next parliament when BoJo wins that election, which he will, because CORBYN is political toast, of the burnt variety.
Last edited by Nonsense on 20 Oct 2019 11:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By BeesKnee5
#15043623
Nonsense wrote:.BoJo did what was required of him by the law, nothing more, nothing less, it did not require him to sign it, indeed, he could have,as he did, not sign it, because the letter is on behalf of the parliament & not the government.
.


Regardless of opinion the letter was from the prime minister and in accordance with the legislation. He did not need to sign it for this to be legally recognised as from him.
#15043624
BeesKnee5 wrote:Your previous response to me was to say the second letter wasnt seeking an extension that he is obliged to do. I was clarifying that it doesn't need to and you are agreeing on.


You best quote this as I have never said that.

I have said the second letter breaks the law because it undermines the first letter and it is Johnson himself that is obliged to seek an extention.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043625
BeesKnee5 wrote:Regardless of opinion the letter was from the prime minister and in accordance with the legislation. He did not need to sign it for this to be legally recognised as from him.



Correct BeesKnee5, it's good to see someone that understands these matters, as opposed to some self-appointed 'legal eagle' that spout vast quantities of nonsense.
By B0ycey
#15043626
Nonsense wrote:The 'nonsense' is all yours BOycey, you are of course, a serial offender in such matters, your protestation that we haven't signed a W.A yet is soon to be rectified.


It was nonsense because you said that the UK wasn't bound by EU law, quoted me saying that it was and then published that the UK is no longer bound by EU law once we have a WA or leave without an extention after two years. Or in Layman terms proved that you are wrong.
#15043627
B0ycey wrote:You best quote this as I have never said that.

I have said the second letter breaks the law because it undermines the first letter and it is Johnson himself that is obliged to seek an extention.


You are talking more nonsense BOycey, it is not BoJo that's seeking an extension, it is parliament & they are attempting to use BoJo as their agent.

They do so, because they are not the government, Treaties are made through government's-not-parliament's, they are only signed off(passed)by parliament's.
#15043628
Nonsense wrote:You are talking more nonsense BOycey, it is not BoJo that's seeking an extension, it is parliament & they are attempting to use BoJo as their agent.

They do so, because they are not the government, Treaties are made through government's-not-parliament's, they are only signed off(passed)by parliament's.


Johnson doesn't want an extention but he is legally obliged to seek one. There is a difference. It is the same as me saying that I don't want to pay taxes but still do. However like if I stop paying taxes is breaking the law, when Johnson stops seeking an extention that too is breaking the law.
User avatar
By fokker
#15043629
Given the official extension request, the EU should grant the UK a generous half year extension of EU membership to give it sufficient time to sort things out :lol:
By foxdemon
#15043632
fokker wrote:Given the official extension request, the EU should grant the UK a generous half year extension of EU membership to give it sufficient time to sort things out :lol:



So basically, the UK is a member of the EU until one of the other EU states decides to veto an extension. Will Spain threaten to veto a future extension request if they don’t get Gibraltar? Will Ireland threaten to veto a future extension request if they don’t get N Ireland?

This weakness on the behalf of the British political establishment can only serve to further infuriate the public.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043633
B0ycey wrote:It was nonsense because you said that the UK wasn't bound by EU law, quoted me saying that it was and then published that the UK is no longer bound by EU law once we have a WA or leave without an extention after two years. Or in Layman terms proved that you are wrong.


No, because a 'full' member of the E.U is fully entitled to participate at all levels in the E.U parliament or Council of Ministers, the U.K is a leaving member & they do not continue to have those full rights & privileges.

That is why the recent euro elections had the number of available seats up for elections reduced under the implementation of ,'degressive proportianality', but minimising any losses to other members from the reduction in seat numbers.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15043634
fokker wrote:Given the official extension request, the EU should grant the UK a generous half year extension of EU membership to give it sufficient time to sort things out :lol:


You little 'fokker'. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
  • 1
  • 285
  • 286
  • 287
  • 288
  • 289
  • 305
Ukrainegate

Republicans are trying to bury the crime in vapid[…]

1. It does not just harm protesters. Anybody hav[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/119652946[…]

I think these are ideal for people with mobilit[…]