On 07/11/16 17:50, bruce wrote:
On 2016-11-07 13:35:26 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) said:

And perhaps you've not noticed that all new laws etc have to get Royal
assent.


Not laws made by the EU. They have direct effect without consideration
by Parliament, or Royal Assent.

regulations, yes. Directives No.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

In article , pamela
writes
On 12:15 5 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

Since they (nearly all) belong to a Scottish party, were
elected under a ticket of remaining in the EU, and the Scottish
electorate supported this position in the referendum, I would
have thought they would be one group who could justify voting
against Brexit. Although I actually agree that it would be
somewhat anti-democratic for an English MP to do the same.

I don't quite see the logic of this. An MP's job is to look
after his constituency interests. In London, most constituencies
voted remain. Usually with a higher turnout than at an election.

The problem is the BREXIT means BREXIT dogma of some. Which is
so vague as to mean nothing.

Does that mean total disengagement from Europe including no
later free trade etc agreements? Or trying to retain those while
not being subject to any EU laws, immigration, and so on?

Total disengagement from the EU would almost certainly hit
London hard - given so many international companies have a
presence here because it gives them access to the EU as well as
the UK.

I'd expect London MPs to be well aware of this, and protect for
the interests of their constituency. And let those in
constituencies who voted to leave protect the interests of their
people.

And that is impossible if the very few cabinet ministers in
charge of the exit want to present them with a fait accompli.

Of course you could just trust them to do the very best for all.
If they did, it would be a first for any politician. Especially
the likes of Boris.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we left the EU but renewed every
agreement, every procedure, every statute, every commitment, every
treaty, every one of the "four freedoms" we had when we were a
member. :-)

Very interesting, but also very stupid.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 19:27 6 Nov 2016, Jack Johnson wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/16 16:47, Moron Watch wrote:
I notice you say "we" there. Whereas your very sketch grasp of
British History and
Constitutional
Matters might suggest to some people that you might be an
American attempting to pass
yourself

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

WE is 'te United Kingd9onm'

Parliament did not have powers to put us into the EU,
irrespective of debate. Parliament cannot relinquish
sovereignty.

Entering the EU was ultra vires for parliament.

Swivelled eyed loon ever day now.

Still havent noticed the tanks coming thru the chunnel as you
promised us yet.

On the other hand, Theresa May is currently being pressurised by
India to allow more of their workers into the UK.

A pressure she has resisted.
So Brexit gives us fewer Polish workers but more Indians. That's no
improvement at all.



--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
1) The people are sovereign.

Well at least that shows just why the BREXIT lot bandied about words like
'sovereign' and 'democracy' etc willy nilly without clue about what they
meant.

Its you that doesn't know what it means and you try to disguise your
stupidity by assigning your ignorance to everyone else.
Would seem they are words which mean just what they wanted them to mean.


--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 20:23 6 Nov 2016, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 11:43 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will
be made weaker by public debates about our stance in
Parliament. Bad though that is it's still not a sufficient
reason to deny Parliament and the people it represents
their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations start
on any new deal with the EU, it'll be public anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a
formal negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you
INTEND to get and what you MUST get. You open with your LIKE
position and walk away if you can't get your MUST position.

Sort of.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST
position but it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to
the other party then they can completely ignore proposals in
your opening LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a
strength if the other party wants a deal and accepts it can't
push you beyond your MUST position.

But you're forgetting we will also know what the EU wants.

Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

It does - but likely for different things. They basically sell
more goods to us than we do to them. So a pure trade deal
would be in their favour. When it comes to services, the
position is reversed. But then, many services are based in the
UK (London) because we have unfettered access to the EU.

It's probably not quite so simple because we don't know what
they want from us. I was also taught that in a simple two-sided
negotiation there are four important points of view.

Your perception about your own strengths.
Their perception of your own strengths.
Your perception about their strengths.
Their perception about their strengths.

These perceptions (none of which may actually be correct) will
change where you place your LIKE, INTEND, MUST positions.

Unfortunately the perceptions of Brexiteers about our strengths
and those of the EU seem be founded on their referendum bravado.
However we are now back in the real world.

The main strength of the EU negotiators will be that they
actually don't give a s*** about the well-being of their own
citizens as they cannot vote them out.

I imagine the EU will appoint negotiators from MEPs who, as we
know, have all been directly voted in by a public ballot in their
constituency.

You obviously don't follow EU politics very closely. The commission has
won that particular battle and appointed their chief negotiator.
--
bert

On 07/11/16 19:35, bert wrote:
Its you that doesn't know what it means and you try to disguise your
stupidity by assigning your ignorance to everyone else.

Classic description of a lefty****


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article , pamela
writes
On 19:41 7 Nov 2016, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 20:23 6 Nov 2016, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 11:43 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 00:13 6 Nov 2016, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
It looks as if our negotiating position with the EU will
be made weaker by public debates about our stance in
Parliament. Bad though that is it's still not a
sufficient reason to deny Parliament and the people it
represents their rights.

I really don't see how. As soon as real negotiations
start on any new deal with the EU, it'll be public
anyway.


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a
formal negotiation: what you would LIKE to get, would you
INTEND to get and what you MUST get. You open with your
LIKE position and walk away if you can't get your MUST
position.

Sort of.

Parliamentary debate would probably establish the MUST
position but it woul dbe done publicly. If that's known to
the other party then they can completely ignore proposals
in your opening LIKE position.

On the other hand, having your MUST position known can be a
strength if the other party wants a deal and accepts it
can't push you beyond your MUST position.

But you're forgetting we will also know what the EU wants.

Unfotunately I don't think the EU wants a deal
as much as we do.

It does - but likely for different things. They basically
sell more goods to us than we do to them. So a pure trade
deal would be in their favour. When it comes to services,
the position is reversed. But then, many services are based
in the UK (London) because we have unfettered access to the
EU.

It's probably not quite so simple because we don't know what
they want from us. I was also taught that in a simple
two-sided negotiation there are four important points of view.

Your perception about your own strengths.
Their perception of your own strengths.
Your perception about their strengths.
Their perception about their strengths.

These perceptions (none of which may actually be correct) will
change where you place your LIKE, INTEND, MUST positions.

Unfortunately the perceptions of Brexiteers about our
strengths and those of the EU seem be founded on their
referendum bravado. However we are now back in the real world.

The main strength of the EU negotiators will be that they
actually don't give a s*** about the well-being of their own
citizens as they cannot vote them out.

I imagine the EU will appoint negotiators from MEPs who, as we
know, have all been directly voted in by a public ballot in
their constituency.

You obviously don't follow EU politics very closely. The
commission has won that particular battle and appointed their
chief negotiator.

I posted about him a couple of months ago. He's an MEP. Fancy
that.

"The EU Parliament has appointed Verhofstadt as its lead
negotiator who "has been talking frankly about how difficult
he plans to make Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=147855352100

"He will participate in the talks along with negotiators from the
European Commission and the ministerial Council" - so not other MEPs
--
bert

in 1537400 20161107 094153 Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 06/11/2016 21:32, Tim Streater wrote:

As a sovereign body, I see no reason why Parliament cannot grant some of
its powers to another body, subject to its sovereign right to withdraw
that grant. Indeed, that seems to be what the case referred to in the
title seems to be about.

Does it have the right to do that?

1) The people are sovereign.

Have you got parliament to vote to make that so?

No, because it's already the case.

You seem to confuse how things are with how you'd like them to be.