EU-BREXIT - Page 281 - 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 Nonsense
#15042765
x2 post,sry.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15042772
Nonsense wrote:There was a case, the 'DUBLIN' Case

Wrong case!

Judgment in Case C-621/18
Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to
withdraw from the EU.

Such a revocation, decided in accordance with its own national constitutional requirements, would
have the effect that the United Kingdom remains in the EU under terms that are unchanged as
regards its status as a Member State.



:lol:
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15042774
Atlantis wrote:It doesn't matter what Juncker said. The decision is not up to him. The 27 heads of state will decide on any future extension in the Council. After all these years, I would have thought you had learned at least the basics about the EU. Apparently not. What is it you do all day?

Anyways, I don't think it'll pass parliament.


It does matter what JUNCKER says, he is still in the hot seat he has occupied since before the Lisbon Treaty.

He has also said that the EU27 will not grant any further extension to the U.K, if JUNCKER says such a thing, then he must have good reason to do so.


That being the case, it's time to put up, or shut up, because we will be leaving on 31 October, with a deal or without a deal.

As to what I do all day, just avoiding the nonsense that I am currently responding to, is just a fraction of my daily activities. :eek: :roll:
User avatar
By Beren
#15042779
JohnRawls wrote:Wow, what did Junker/Barnier made Johnson sign? His soul or something? EU is threatening the UK with no deal if they don't ratify it in the parliament :eek:

I know its the 1st version of Mays deal that was never put to a vote. But there must be a catch somewhere.

The EU is not threatening the UK with anything, Juncker can't speak for the EU27 simply because he doesn't have the authority to do so. He's only a clerk, not a decision maker and whatever he says on the extension is just his opinion the EU27 can ignore anytime, and he's going out anyway. However, his remark may have been part of the deal with Johnson.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15042781
ingliz wrote:Wrong case!

Judgment in Case C-621/18
Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to
withdraw from the EU.

Such a revocation, decided in accordance with its own national constitutional requirements, would
have the effect that the United Kingdom remains in the EU under terms that are unchanged as
regards its status as a Member State.



:lol:



No, the right case, but, which preceeded the case that you quote.

However, "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements.
This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council".


What that actually means is, were any request for an extension not granted unaminously by the E.U27, then the U.K would simply not have sufficient time before 31 October to hold a referendum, which would be required to revoke A50, another referendum would be required, because that is the process by which A50 was initially invoked in the first place.
I'm not saying that parliament could not revoke, just that there are consequences for doing so without consulting the people, given the current mistrust, with distaste for politicians, such an action would be unforgivable, but more pragmatically & realistically will simply not happen.
Last edited by Nonsense on 17 Oct 2019 17:27, edited 1 time in total.
By Presvias
#15042782
Beren wrote:The EU is not threatening the UK with anything, Juncker can't speak for the EU27 simply because he doesn't have the authority to do so. He's only a clerk, not a decision maker and whatever he says on the extension is just his opinion the EU27 can ignore anytime, and he's going out anyway. However, his remark may have been part of the deal with Johnson.


(shrugs) Exactly.

Why does everyone think the oft-exaggerated statements by Juncker etc are to be taken absolutely literally. Anyone who's even half closely followed EU machinations knows that they're very rhetorical beings. Although I do like Juncker's humour.
User avatar
By Beren
#15042787
Presvias wrote:(shrugs) Exactly.

Why does everyone think the oft-exaggerated statements by Juncker etc are to be taken absolutely literally. Anyone who's even half closely followed EU machinations knows that they're very rhetorical beings. Although I do like Juncker's humour.

He's just doing his job and did what BoJo probably asked him to do as a part of their deal. I wouldn't believe it makes a difference in Westminster, but the blame will be on parliament again for a fiasco.
User avatar
By Beren
#15042803
Here is Juncker contradicted by one of his own colleagues:

The Guardian wrote:Tusk refuses to rule out EU granting further Brexit extension, despite Juncker saying earlier it would not happen

Q: What compromises has the EU made? And what will happen if the UK votes against the deal?

Tusk says the EU has been willing to consider compromises.

He says the EU intends to work towards ratification. This was a clear decision.

He says the EU is prepared for ratification, logistically and politically.

He has “no idea” what will happen in the debate. He goes on:

    "If there is a request for an extension, I will contact member states to see how to react."

He won't contact member states, he will rather ask them how to react.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15042807
Nonsense wrote:This unequivocal and unconditional decision

Everyone bar Johnson and the EU says the deal is shit and No-deal worse.

Rationally, given a choice between losing 6.7 or 9.3% of GDP (UK government figures), the only decision to be made is when to revoke Art. 50.


:lol:
By snapdragon
#15042810
Oh, please god. I’ll be marching on Saturday with one of my daughters and me mates. We need a confirmatory referendum and not a general election
User avatar
By Beren
#15042824
snapdragon wrote:Oh, please god. I’ll be marching on Saturday with one of my daughters and me mates. We need a confirmatory referendum and not a general election

You'll have to have a general election because your government doesn't have a majority in parliament, on the other hand there won't be anything to confirm since BoJo's deal won't pass parliament most likely.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15042828
Beren wrote:there won't be anything to confirm

There is Theresa May's agreement (See Benn Act as amended).


:)
User avatar
By Beren
#15042837
ingliz wrote:There is Theresa May's agreement (See Benn Act as amended).


:)

But Theresa May's agreement still should pass parliament, shouldn't it?
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15042839
ingliz wrote:Everyone bar Johnson and the EU says the deal is shit and No-deal worse.

Rationally, given a choice between losing 6.7 or 9.3% of GDP (UK government figures), the only decision to be made is when to revoke Art. 50.


:lol:


:lol: :lol: Keep trolling ingliz, it doesn't make any difference.

Just wait until election day results come in, there will be hundreds of headless chickens(former MP's) running around Westminster, looking for BBC presenters,protesting about a 'rigged' election that forced them out of office.

I just hope that no employer ever takes such people under their wings in giving them a job.

One knows that the 'remainers' have lost the argument when, on BBC Question Time, they make a lot of noise when applauding any answer that accords with their undemocratic views, it stands out that such audiences are 'hand-picked' for the purpose in hand.
User avatar
By Beren
#15042843
ingliz wrote:There is Theresa May's agreement (See Benn Act as amended).


:)

Source, please? I don't find anything about it actually.
By snapdragon
#15042845
Beren wrote:You'll have to have a general election because your government doesn't have a majority in parliament, on the other hand there won't be anything to confirm since BoJo's deal won't pass parliament most likely.


Very likely, but there doesn't need to be a majority government for an MP to table a proposal for vote on holding a confirmatory referendum.
User avatar
By Beren
#15042852
snapdragon wrote:Very likely, but there doesn't need to be a majority government for an MP to table a proposal for vote on holding a confirmatory referendum.

But what do you want a confirmatory referendum on? ingliz seems to suggest there could be one on May's deal, but he finished his post with a smiley rather than some useful links or something unfortunately.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15042855
Beren wrote:You'll have to have a general election because your government doesn't have a majority in parliament, on the other hand there won't be anything to confirm since BoJo's deal won't pass parliament most likely.


Your question illuminates the ridiculous position of a parliament that is attempting to run the country as a mutinous rabble on a so-called, 'democratic' ship.

They are prepared to take over the ship, but will not make the captain walk the plank by calling a 'no-confidence' vote, that is what is preventing closure to Brexit & no matter what concessions are made they will continue to the bitter end when an election is held.

There is a limit to what they can do though, you cannot tell a government what to do by passing an Act of Parliament on every single issue, that is why there is a need for reform in the way that parliament operates.

The logic of the outcome of the current agreed deal, is that the 'remainer' MP's have nowhere to hide, nowhere to run, so, they may well oppose the deal, in order to gain more time for themselves before they are crushed out of political existence at the coming election.

Labour, when faced with a hole, they dig,dig,not on any principal, but purely out of self-interest that their paymaster unions have made them dependent on, the hole just keeps growing deeper & deeper.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15042862
Beren wrote:But what do you want a confirmatory referendum on? ingliz seems to suggest there could be one on May's deal, but he finished his post with a smiley rather than some useful links or something unfortunately.


Why indeed, it was always expected, because, that is what the government planned at the time of the A50 notification debate, to allow parliament to vote on the deal.

I don't see any 'problem' relating to ammendment's on the issue of the debate in parliament, providing such ammendment's relate only to the content of the deal & not those which are extraneous like 'workers rights'.

Considering the above, there is no rhyme or reason to hold a 'confirmatory' referendum, which is just a fig-leaf for Labour to put the option to 'Remain' on the ballot paper before an election is called.
Knowing that, were it in their manifesto, that they would be crushed politically, so, by doing it within the current parliament, they think wrongly, that the British public are fools & won't see what their game is on circumventing political accountability.
  • 1
  • 279
  • 280
  • 281
  • 282
  • 283
  • 305
Another school shooting

this is the exact line in the constitution Th[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

I don't know him personally, but he's remarkably […]

It is not about winning or losing. A free dialo[…]

Ukrainegate

The former top Europe and Russia expert at the Nat[…]