Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
No. It wasn't clear ;-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I will have to work on my joshing techniques;-)No. It wasn't clear ;-)
We were talking about refugees.who said work, ?
I think we know that for some people, any is too many.
depends if they pay their way.
How do they pay their way if they don't work?
Bill
Well-Known Member
they bring money.We were talking about refugees.
How do they pay their way if they don't work?
Like Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes and Abu Dhabi football club owners? I see where you're coming from. Yes to the rich, no to Syrian doctors who've lost everything to get here and ended up as taxi drivers (though a lot of areas now have proper schemes to get them into the NHS).they bring money.
I've read the judgement of the German constitutional court. The judges recognise the principle of ECJ precedence and why.
"If any Member State could readily invoke the authority to decide, through its own courts, on the validity of EU acts, this could undermine the precedence of application accorded to EU law and jeopardise its uniform application. Yet if the Member States were to completely refrain from conducting any kind of ultra vires review, they would grant EU organs exclusive authority over the Treaties even in cases where the EU adopts a legal interpretation that would essentially amount to a treaty amendment or an expansion of its competences. Though cases where EU institutions exceed their competences are exceptionally possible, it is to be expected that these instances remain rare due to the institutional and procedural safeguards enshrined in EU law. Nevertheless, where they do occur, the constitutional perspective might not perfectly match the perspective of EU law given that, even under the Lisbon Treaty, the Member States remain the ‘Masters of the Treaties’ and the EU has not evolved into a federal state. In principle, certain tensions are thus inherent in the design of the European Union; they must be resolved in a cooperative manner, in keeping with the spirit of European integration, and mitigated through mutual respect and understanding. This reflects the nature of the European Union, which is based on the multi-level cooperation of sovereign states, constitutions, administrations and courts."
But the judges reckon the ECB asset purchase programme is ultra vires because they have not demonstrated proportionality (and make a distinction between monetary effects and political effects e.g. reducing interest rates for savers). But the judges are not just having a go at the ECJ for insufficient scrutiny of ECB policy; they are telling the German government and Germany's central bank and the German Parliament what to do to put it right.
It's rather like Farage (or some anti-capitalist group for that matter) got our supreme court to tell our government and the Bank of England to rethink the policy (Gordon Brown's) that got us out of a meltdown after the crash.
I can almost guarantee that those enjoying this judgement the most were calling our judges "enemies of the people" and support the Tories' plan to curb judicial review of government policy.
"If any Member State could readily invoke the authority to decide, through its own courts, on the validity of EU acts, this could undermine the precedence of application accorded to EU law and jeopardise its uniform application. Yet if the Member States were to completely refrain from conducting any kind of ultra vires review, they would grant EU organs exclusive authority over the Treaties even in cases where the EU adopts a legal interpretation that would essentially amount to a treaty amendment or an expansion of its competences. Though cases where EU institutions exceed their competences are exceptionally possible, it is to be expected that these instances remain rare due to the institutional and procedural safeguards enshrined in EU law. Nevertheless, where they do occur, the constitutional perspective might not perfectly match the perspective of EU law given that, even under the Lisbon Treaty, the Member States remain the ‘Masters of the Treaties’ and the EU has not evolved into a federal state. In principle, certain tensions are thus inherent in the design of the European Union; they must be resolved in a cooperative manner, in keeping with the spirit of European integration, and mitigated through mutual respect and understanding. This reflects the nature of the European Union, which is based on the multi-level cooperation of sovereign states, constitutions, administrations and courts."
But the judges reckon the ECB asset purchase programme is ultra vires because they have not demonstrated proportionality (and make a distinction between monetary effects and political effects e.g. reducing interest rates for savers). But the judges are not just having a go at the ECJ for insufficient scrutiny of ECB policy; they are telling the German government and Germany's central bank and the German Parliament what to do to put it right.
It's rather like Farage (or some anti-capitalist group for that matter) got our supreme court to tell our government and the Bank of England to rethink the policy (Gordon Brown's) that got us out of a meltdown after the crash.
I can almost guarantee that those enjoying this judgement the most were calling our judges "enemies of the people" and support the Tories' plan to curb judicial review of government policy.
Last edited:
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
delusion beyond belief , even for you.
We have taken very few refugees from war torn countries .... Camerons constituency has taken two ...
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
depends if they pay their way.
Under our current legislation ... if a worker from the Eu is unemployed for a period of three months or more then we have the right to ask them to return home .
We just didnt bother .
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,946
I've read the judgement of the German constitutional court. The judges recognise the principle of ECJ precedence and why.
"If any Member State could readily invoke the authority to decide, through its own courts, on the validity of EU acts, this could undermine the precedence of application accorded to EU law and jeopardise its uniform application. Yet if the Member States were to completely refrain from conducting any kind of ultra vires review, they would grant EU organs exclusive authority over the Treaties even in cases where the EU adopts a legal interpretation that would essentially amount to a treaty amendment or an expansion of its competences. Though cases where EU institutions exceed their competences are exceptionally possible, it is to be expected that these instances remain rare due to the institutional and procedural safeguards enshrined in EU law. Nevertheless, where they do occur, the constitutional perspective might not perfectly match the perspective of EU law given that, even under the Lisbon Treaty, the Member States remain the ‘Masters of the Treaties’ and the EU has not evolved into a federal state. In principle, certain tensions are thus inherent in the design of the European Union; they must be resolved in a cooperative manner, in keeping with the spirit of European integration, and mitigated through mutual respect and understanding. This reflects the nature of the European Union, which is based on the multi-level cooperation of sovereign states, constitutions, administrations and courts."
But the judges reckon the ECB asset purchase programme is ultra vires because they have not demonstrated proportionality (and make a distinction between monetary effects and political effects e.g. reducing interest rates for savers). But the judges are not just having a go at the ECJ for insufficient scrutiny of ECB policy; they are telling the German government and Germany's central bank and the German Parliament what to do to put it right.
It's rather like Farage (or some anti-capitalist group for that matter) got our supreme court to tell our government and the Bank of England to rethink the policy (Gordon Brown's) that got us out of a meltdown after the crash.
I can almost guarantee that those enjoying this judgement the most were calling our judges "enemies of the people" and support the Tories' plan to curb judicial review of government policy.
Agree - the judgement basically acknowledges that EU law has limits (something we have always known), and as it has limits there will be times when cases may push up against the limit of the authority or go beyond it "cases where EU institutions exceed their competences are exceptionally possible". If you believe everything that Farage tells you these courts have no limits to their powers and we are already in a federal system.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
We just didnt bother .
not only did we not bother we blamed them for our not bothering
Another encouraging sign that the UK is indeed planning to hold its positions declared as 'genuine red lines' - so getting a TA with the EU will require them to move to accommodate them:
https://www.lse.co.uk/news/uk-posts...it-trade-deal-with-japan-2rd4fstzq43vf3g.html
And further signs, following the bleating of Barnier and commencement of negotiations with the US and now Japan, that the UK might actually indeed be resolved is beginning to sink in to the anxieties of affected parties in key EU nations - this from Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s BDI industry federation:
“British government negotiators are not taking talks on the U.K.’s future relationship with the European Union seriously enough and failure to seal an agreement by the end of this year could provoke an “economic catastrophe,” according to Germany’s main business lobby. The latest round of discussions started Monday via video link. Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s BDI industry federation, said that progress before Monday had been “completely inadequate” and that “it’s a realistic prospect that the lead negotiators will again be left empty-handed at the end of this week.”
“The coronavirus crisis has already cost very many jobs across Europe,” Lang said Monday in an emailed statement. “If the Brexit transition phase expires without an agreement at the end of the year, it would turn an already difficult economic situation into a catastrophe.”
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has repeatedly ruled out extending the deadline to reach a deal beyond Dec. 31, when negotiations are due to end. He has signalled he is prepared to leave the transition period without a trade deal and accept the return of quotas and tariffs rather than the EU’s demands.
The tactics of the British government are not appropriate considering the seriousness of the situation,” Lang said. “Our companies need a clear willingness from London to solve existing problems together. The British government must take into account the legitimate concerns of industry on both sides of the Channel.”
https://bdi.eu/position/news/verhandlungsfortschritt-ist-absolut-unzureichend/
Such stakeholders had not previously needed to be concerned during the tenure of the hapless May and Robbins.
What a waste of 3 years!! If this approach had been taken from the outset we would now be an independent nation and free to focus on the recovery from the Covid-19 catastrophe.
May and Robbins have so much to answer for!! But - at least we now should be able to (eventually) start the recovery as an independent nation.
https://www.lse.co.uk/news/uk-posts...it-trade-deal-with-japan-2rd4fstzq43vf3g.html
And further signs, following the bleating of Barnier and commencement of negotiations with the US and now Japan, that the UK might actually indeed be resolved is beginning to sink in to the anxieties of affected parties in key EU nations - this from Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s BDI industry federation:
“British government negotiators are not taking talks on the U.K.’s future relationship with the European Union seriously enough and failure to seal an agreement by the end of this year could provoke an “economic catastrophe,” according to Germany’s main business lobby. The latest round of discussions started Monday via video link. Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s BDI industry federation, said that progress before Monday had been “completely inadequate” and that “it’s a realistic prospect that the lead negotiators will again be left empty-handed at the end of this week.”
“The coronavirus crisis has already cost very many jobs across Europe,” Lang said Monday in an emailed statement. “If the Brexit transition phase expires without an agreement at the end of the year, it would turn an already difficult economic situation into a catastrophe.”
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has repeatedly ruled out extending the deadline to reach a deal beyond Dec. 31, when negotiations are due to end. He has signalled he is prepared to leave the transition period without a trade deal and accept the return of quotas and tariffs rather than the EU’s demands.
The tactics of the British government are not appropriate considering the seriousness of the situation,” Lang said. “Our companies need a clear willingness from London to solve existing problems together. The British government must take into account the legitimate concerns of industry on both sides of the Channel.”
https://bdi.eu/position/news/verhandlungsfortschritt-ist-absolut-unzureichend/
Such stakeholders had not previously needed to be concerned during the tenure of the hapless May and Robbins.
What a waste of 3 years!! If this approach had been taken from the outset we would now be an independent nation and free to focus on the recovery from the Covid-19 catastrophe.
May and Robbins have so much to answer for!! But - at least we now should be able to (eventually) start the recovery as an independent nation.
Last edited:
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Another encouraging sign that the UK is indeed planning to hold its positions declared as 'genuine red lines' - so getting a TA with the EU will require them to move to accommodate them:
https://www.lse.co.uk/news/uk-posts...it-trade-deal-with-japan-2rd4fstzq43vf3g.html
And further signs, following the bleating of Barnier and commencement of negotiations with the US and now Japan, that the UK might actually indeed be resolved is beginning to sink in to the anxieties of affected parties in key EU nations - this from Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s BDI industry federation:
“British government negotiators are not taking talks on the U.K.’s future relationship with the European Union seriously enough and failure to seal an agreement by the end of this year could provoke an “economic catastrophe,” according to Germany’s main business lobby. The latest round of discussions started Monday via video link. Joachim Lang, managing director of Germany’s BDI industry federation, said that progress before Monday had been “completely inadequate” and that “it’s a realistic prospect that the lead negotiators will again be left empty-handed at the end of this week.”
“The coronavirus crisis has already cost very many jobs across Europe,” Lang said Monday in an emailed statement. “If the Brexit transition phase expires without an agreement at the end of the year, it would turn an already difficult economic situation into a catastrophe.”
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has repeatedly ruled out extending the deadline to reach a deal beyond Dec. 31, when negotiations are due to end. He has signalled he is prepared to leave the transition period without a trade deal and accept the return of quotas and tariffs rather than the EU’s demands.
The tactics of the British government are not appropriate considering the seriousness of the situation,” Lang said. “Our companies need a clear willingness from London to solve existing problems together. The British government must take into account the legitimate concerns of industry on both sides of the Channel.”
https://bdi.eu/position/news/verhandlungsfortschritt-ist-absolut-unzureichend/
Such stakeholders had not previously needed to be concerned during the tenure of the hapless May and Robbins.
What a waste of 3 years!! If this approach had been taken from the outset we would now be an independent nation and free to focus on the recovery from the Covid-19 catastrophe.
May and Robbins have so much to answer for!! But - at least we now should be able to (eventually) start the recovery as an independent nation.
We don’t have any resolve. What we have is no bloody clue. Even our stance is contradictory. On one hand we say we need to be ‘free’ to strike new deals that reflect a post covid 19 world and then we are aiming to strike deals with the EU, US and Japan by the end of the year, deals which will lock us into terms when the shape of the post covid 19 world will be largely unknown. How does that make sense?
And how do we reflect some of the new trade thinking which is the promotion of regionalisation over globalisation? Shorter supply chains and greater control of those supply chains? The recognition that no one country can produce all it needs but a bloc of countries working together can. Where does the UK fit into this?
Then we have the growing conflict between the US and China. The US introducing demands that state any trade deal with them means you can’t do one with China or use China in any key or vital infrastructure projects. Is our plan to isolate ourselves from Europe and alienate China by getting into bed with the US and in return getting what exactly? What are our objectives in a US trade deal?
And we still haven’t come to grips with our obligations in the Withdrawal Agreement, or the new NI protocols, or how we square our agreement to allow EU officials to over see custom checks in NI and not allow them to have an office or how we intend to set up and staff new regulatory bodies or how we intend to recruit and train the Govts estimate of 50,000 new custom agents and all of this by the end of the year? All this in the middle of a pandemic with no vaccine? With the Govt extending its furlough scheme to October to help support UK industry but no self awareness as to how threatening disruption of food and other supply chains from January 1st is unlikely to help? This is your idea of ‘resolve’? Does resolve now include being a drooling idiot?
Seriously pass the popcorn because I’m going to enjoy watching a lot of shit hitting a lot of fans as we tick down the months.
Apart from the usual and predictable carping/diatribe...……….We don’t have any resolve. What we have is no bloody clue. Even our stance is contradictory. On one hand we say we need to be ‘free’ to strike new deals that reflect a post covid 19 world and then we are aiming to strike deals with the EU, US and Japan by the end of the year, deals which will lock us into terms when the shape of the post covid 19 world will be largely unknown. How does that make sense?
And how do we reflect some of the new trade thinking which is the promotion of regionalisation over globalisation? Shorter supply chains and greater control of those supply chains? The recognition that no one country can produce all it needs but a bloc of countries working together can. Where does the UK fit into this?
Then we have the growing conflict between the US and China. The US introducing demands that state any trade deal with them means you can’t do one with China or use China in any key or vital infrastructure projects. Is our plan to isolate ourselves from Europe and alienate China by getting into bed with the US and in return getting what exactly? What are our objectives in a US trade deal?
And we still haven’t come to grips with our obligations in the Withdrawal Agreement, or the new NI protocols, or how we square our agreement to allow EU officials to over see custom checks in NI and not allow them to have an office or how we intend to set up and staff new regulatory bodies or how we intend to recruit and train the Govts estimate of 50,000 new custom agents and all of this by the end of the year? All this in the middle of a pandemic with no vaccine? With the Govt extending its furlough scheme to October to help support UK industry but no self awareness as to how threatening disruption of food and other supply chains from January 1st is unlikely to help? This is your idea of ‘resolve’? Does resolve now include being a drooling idiot?
Seriously pass the popcorn because I’m going to enjoy watching a lot of shit hitting a lot of fans as we tick down the months.
What actions do you suggest that the UK should take as at May 2020 with regard to arrangements with:
EU, US, Japan, China, Others...…...
I could guess - but let's hear from the horse's mouth
Have you anything positive and/or active to contribute or is your role just that of eating popcorn and carping?
Last edited:
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Apart from the usual and predictable carping/diatribe...……….
What actions do you suggest that the UK should take as at May 2020 with regard to arrangements with:
EU, US, Japan, China, Others...…...
I could guess - but let's hear from the horse's mouth
Right now? With the US and China I would do absolute nothing. Existing arrangements are fine so let’s see how the post covid-19 world shapes up first and then think about getting into talks.
With the EU we need a continuity deal as neither side will be in any condition to play silly buggers. It can be a temporary arrangement but we will need to be cooperating and working with our regional partners more than ever. Anyone arguing against that is promoting political dogma over reality.
Japan isn’t talking or even thinking about Brexit or the UK no matter what domestic puff piece Liz Truss is trying to sell today. Any deal we cut with Japan will be less than what it is now or will be available under the EU-Japan deal. With Japan we will take what we are given I suspect be it now or later.
The idea that any country is focusing on or even interested in fast tracking a trade deal by year end is just fantasy. The only way to get them interested is to offer to roll over and sell ourselves short.
My solution is protect what we have as best we can and don’t rush into any hasty deals just to score a few political points and get a positive headline in the Express and Mail.
Which of course we will probably do because we have voted for a moronic policy and elected morons to implement it.
Good luck. We’ll need it.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
And this, in a nutshell, is the future folks. Divided from Europe and dividing the country.Take a day off brexit Vic.
You fucking lost, we have left, get over it.
@BobKowalski
So you - it seems to me - are agreeing with all the actions that are being undertaken.
Re US - we have embarked on the initial stages of a dialogue. That does not commit us to 'doing anything' and if the parameters that emerge are wholly unsatisfactory - then we can just "....do absolute nothing." and continue with "Existing arrangements...." which you describe as being fine.
Re Japan - this is even more the case - are considering embarking on the initial stages of a dialogue. That does not commit us to 'doing anything' and if the parameters that emerge are wholly unsatisfactory - then we can just "....do absolute nothing." and continue with "Existing arrangements...." which you describe as being fine.
Re the EU - the current policy would appear to be spot-on. We have set out the parameters which are essential for the UK and we should just wait to see if they are willing to accommodate or not.
Meanwhile, we should/can not simply do absolutely nothing as we have to make planning/preparations should - the EU not budge. This we should be doing with urgency and a small/indirect part of that would be commencing/preparing for dialogue with other partners.
It all makes sense.
In such matters you prioritise the 'prejudicial issues' - and right at the top of that list must be seen continued tie-in to the EU with regard to contributions and regulations.
Once the government has made this determination - which it seems it has - the rest - as difficult and sometimes likely unpalatable, as aspects might be follows.
So in this one area - congratulations to the government. I currently regard it to be a demonstration of resolve - I hope it is sustained.
That you say:
"We don’t have any resolve. What we have is no bloody clue...." for me just likely reflects your frustrations/irritations that the government is not being diverted to conform to the EU's demands.
That is understandable from 'your end of the telescope' - from mine I am taking ever-greater levels of encouragement.
So you - it seems to me - are agreeing with all the actions that are being undertaken.
Re US - we have embarked on the initial stages of a dialogue. That does not commit us to 'doing anything' and if the parameters that emerge are wholly unsatisfactory - then we can just "....do absolute nothing." and continue with "Existing arrangements...." which you describe as being fine.
Re Japan - this is even more the case - are considering embarking on the initial stages of a dialogue. That does not commit us to 'doing anything' and if the parameters that emerge are wholly unsatisfactory - then we can just "....do absolute nothing." and continue with "Existing arrangements...." which you describe as being fine.
Re China - we are not currently (openly) doing anything - and the strategies/plans we have for any future developments will be informed by the scope of the dialogues with the US. They can demand what they like - we can make our own decisions.
Re the EU - the current policy would appear to be spot-on. We have set out the parameters which are essential for the UK and we should just wait to see if they are willing to accommodate or not.
Meanwhile, we should/can not simply do absolutely nothing as we have to make planning/preparations should - the EU not budge. This we should be doing with urgency and a small/indirect part of that would be commencing/preparing for dialogue with other partners.
It all makes sense.
In such matters you prioritise the 'prejudicial issues' - and right at the top of that list must be seen continued tie-in to the EU with regard to contributions and regulations.
Once the government has made this determination - which it seems it has - the rest - as difficult and sometimes likely unpalatable, as aspects might be follows.
So in this one area - congratulations to the government. I currently regard it to be a demonstration of resolve - I hope it is sustained.
That you say:
"We don’t have any resolve. What we have is no bloody clue...." for me just likely reflects your frustrations/irritations that the government is not being diverted to conform to the EU's demands.
That is understandable from 'your end of the telescope' - from mine I am taking ever-greater levels of encouragement.
But only for a limited amount of time.And this, in a nutshell, is the future folks. Divided from Europe and dividing the country.
As events unfold and, so long as the Brexit journey is completed and the truth is allowed to be public, then I predict a good number of the public that still think we should Remain will have the character to express their thanks and appreciation to those that had the resolve.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
And if you predict wrongly?But only for a limited amount of time.
As events unfold and, so long as the Brexit journey is completed and the truth is allowed to be public, then I predict a good number of the public that still think we should Remain will have the character to express their thanks and appreciation to those that had the resolve.
Either way we're still divided from Europe. The youth of this country will not have the ability to 'get on their bikes' (remember that one?) to find work, adventure or a future in a wider world.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
And this, in a nutshell, is the future folks. Divided from Europe and dividing the country.
Only the case if you simply can not accept a democratic decision the country took and move on mate.
Fracture the Tory MPs' consensus to support stupidity is the main political task.Right now? With the US and China I would do absolute nothing. Existing arrangements are fine so let’s see how the post covid-19 world shapes up first and then think about getting into talks.
With the EU we need a continuity deal as neither side will be in any condition to play silly buggers. It can be a temporary arrangement but we will need to be cooperating and working with our regional partners more than ever. Anyone arguing against that is promoting political dogma over reality.
Japan isn’t talking or even thinking about Brexit or the UK no matter what domestic puff piece Liz Truss is trying to sell today. Any deal we cut with Japan will be less than what it is now or will be available under the EU-Japan deal. With Japan we will take what we are given I suspect be it now or later.
The idea that any country is focusing on or even interested in fast tracking a trade deal by year end is just fantasy. The only way to get them interested is to offer to roll over and sell ourselves short.
My solution is protect what we have as best we can and don’t rush into any hasty deals just to score a few political points and get a positive headline in the Express and Mail.
Which of course we will probably do because we have voted for a moronic policy and elected morons to implement it.
Good luck. We’ll need it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.