The Independent Group

[Ban-jani]

Listen to this squirming piece of shit.

 

[goalmole]

Their aim being what though? I mean stopping no deal Brexit is the single most fundamental aim all sensible politicians should have. So if that’s their initial goal then great.

I guess what will be interesting is what they do after that? What’s their long term goal, if any, post Brexit?

If they are sick of the binary choice that we have at the moment as we are, then a party to the centre of both parties might be a good ambition to have.

 

[Cheesy]

Listen to this squirming piece of shit.

Has anyone ever seen Chris Williamson and The Perfect Fumble in the same room?

 

[johnnytapia]

There was an 80 seat swing towards Labour from the Tories regardless which lead to a cut in the overall majority from over 100 to about 20. Although the polls got their figures wrong, the Labour party lead most of them or were neck and neck. Despite the result, it was the first positive campaign for a long time and proved they were going in the right direction.

That last bit's true, it showed Labour could mount a decent challenge, but they were still a long, long way off getting a majority, despite how it felt at the time. Turnout was extremely high 77%, which partly helps explain the record number of votes gained by the Tories.

 

[scousemanc]

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Has anyone ever seen Chris Williamson and The Perfect Fumble in the same room?

I’ve noticed fumble never posts when Williamson’s having a shit.

 

[Henkeman]

This was before the defection of the three Tories. This is important because as (then) an all Labour group, it was always going to split the Labour vote. It will be interesting to see the latest polling.

 

[Chris in London]

Is that a sovereign decision to go out or ore you acting under the directive of Mrs CiL? We need to know.

Ha!

The best questions are the ones where you already know the answer.

:)

 

[Chris in London]

The Supreme Court does not. They slightly modified an earlier ruling (which explicitly accepted the supremacy of EU law) to acknowledge that it could be arguable that certain fundamental principles enshrined within such matters as Royal Charters were not abrogated by the European Communities Act 1972. It repeated the fundamental principle that EU Law has supremacy in UK law. And doesn't for a single second accept your claim that the UK can choose to vary from EU if it wishes to do so.

It is a reference to saying the EU might (might) not be able to override something like habeas corpus which is fundamental to UK principles, not that the UK is free to ignore the latest directive passed by the EC and EP.

You either know this, in which case your claim is mendacious, or you do not, in which case it is ignorant.

Oh dear.

This is a direct verbatim quote from para 43 of the Miller judgment:

“Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution, as was conclusively established in the statutes referred to in para 41 above. It was famously summarised by Professor Dicey as meaning that Parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, no person or body is recognised by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" - op cit, p 38.””

The words ‘any law whatsoever’ really could not be clearer. EU law can be overridden by Parliament if it chose to do do, because Parliament’s legal authority to make law in the UK is unlimited. It could make it a crime to be Donald Tusk if it wanted. It can do anything including disapply repeal or amend any EU law.

Not satisfied by the word of the highest court in the land, the ultimate authority on what is the law in the UK? Okay let’s try something else.

Here are the opening words of section 2 of the Government white paper on Brexit, formally titled ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and future relationship with the European Union’:

“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. “

Do you see that second sentence?
“Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU”? I really can’t explain it any simpler than that. That is why I say that at here has been no loss of sovereignty at all. Because there hasn’t been.

By all means don’t take my word for it, but if you think the Supreme Court and the Government are both talking shit about a basic constitutional principle I can’t help you any more.

Oh and by the way, the nasty little ad hominem attack at the end? Drop it or you will get it back with interest.

 

[Henkeman]

Oh dear.

This is a direct verbatim quote from para 43 of the Miller judgment:

“Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution, as was conclusively established in the statutes referred to in para 41 above. It was famously summarised by Professor Dicey as meaning that Parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, no person or body is recognised by the law as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" - op cit, p 38.””

The words ‘any law whatsoever’ really could not be clearer. EU law can be overridden by Parliament if it chose to do do, because Parliament’s legal authority to make law in the UK is unlimited. It could make it a crime to be Donald Tusk if it wanted. It can do anything including disapply repeal or amend any EU law.

Not satisfied by the word of the highest court in the land, the ultimate authority on what is the law in the UK? Okay let’s try something else.

Here are the opening words of section 2 of the Government white paper on Brexit, formally titled ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and future relationship with the European Union’:

“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. “

Do you see that second sentence?
“Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU”? I really can’t explain it any simpler than that. That is why I say that at here has been no loss of sovereignty at all. Because there hasn’t been.

By all means don’t take my word for it, but if you think the Supreme Court and the Government are both talking shit about a basic constitutional principle I can’t help you any more.

Oh and by the way, the nasty little ad hominem attack at the end? Drop it or you will get it back with interest.

No, not "oh dear" at all, the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the right to reject the EU supremacy by virtue of deciding to leave the EU which asserts it.

If you want me to quote verbatim the point the Supreme Court made about the constitutional settlement that the UK chose to cede legal supremacy, I am quite content to do so, because it is both entirely clear, and an acknowledged point of principle.

I stand by every word, and it's not ad hominem, it is accurate.

The fundamental principle was asserted thus:

"If the supremacy within the European Community of Community Law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law."

The modification referred entirely and solely to collisions between fundamental UK principle in law and charter, not, as you claimed, the ability to reject EU law when we chose to. If you try to claim otherwise, that is absolutely mendacious, for you cannot point to a single instance where it has happened.