In article , pamela
writes
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.

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

So it would be better if they didn't know our "must" position?
However the problem with your approach is that the only Must position on
the ballot paper was leave the EU, no ifs, no buts, just leave.
Now obviously the one thing we would like to keep if we can is
unfettered access to the single market for goods and services. The EU
knows that and will try to exploit that with demands for freedom of
movement and budget contribution even though they haven't demanded that
of Canada. We need to spread as much discord as possible amongst the
other member states to improve our chances of getting as close as
possible to what we want.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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.

Financial services were based in London long before the euro came into
existence. One services company has just announced it is moving out of
the EU to Switzerland to escape all the regulation which constantly
streams out of Brussels.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
charles wrote:
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.

and, of course, it's these service that give the UK a positive Balance of
Payments. Once they leave, how does the country pay its way?

The economy appears to be of no concern to BREXITEERS. After all, they
were warned by those actually in charge of it what was likely to happen.
But didn't believe experts as they are not always right.

The economy is doing quite nicely.
Of course, not even experts can fully predict things about the economy.
So an optimist will just keep his head firmly in the sand.

Like remainers do with the trajectory of the EU economy.
--
bert

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.
--
bert

In article , Moron Watch
writes

"pamela" wrote in message
...


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a formal
negotiation:

You appear to be overlooking one important thing.

All the Eurocrats who've been asked the question, have all
agreed on one thing. That in accordance with the provisions
of the Lisbon Treaty, there can be no negotiations prior
to Article 50 being invoked. And then only with the EU as
a whole. As in the recent case with Canada.

agreed
Given which, quite what MP's Parliament are supposed to be
discussing is a moot point.

agreed
Basically as things stand May can't give any assurances at
all to Parliament as to what might happen after invoking
article 50. As that's solely in the hands of the EU.

I would say largely rather than solely
And they've all made it more than plain that its not in their
interests to help her, or the UK out.

So far. It's a question about how much self-interest will surface as
reality of the impact on them of trade tariffs begins to sink home.
I think this point is being rather overlooked. To put it mildly.





--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 14:03 6 Nov 2016, Moron Watch wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...


I was taught to determine three positions before starting a
formal negotiation:

You appear to be overlooking one important thing.

All the Eurocrats who've been asked the question, have all
agreed on one thing. That in accordance with the provisions of
the Lisbon Treaty, there can be no negotiations prior to Article
50 being invoked. And then only with the EU as a whole. As in
the recent case with Canada.

Given which, quite what MP's Parliament are supposed to be
discussing is a moot point.

Parliament probably wants to discuss what Britain's opening
proposals to the EU should be. As you say, it's for use a much
later time.
We all know what the opening proposal will be and what the EU's opening
response will be.

Basically as things stand May can't give any assurances at all
to Parliament as to what might happen after invoking article 50.
As that's solely in the hands of the EU.

And they've all made it more than plain that its not in their
interests to help her, or the UK out.

I think this point is being rather overlooked. To put it mildly.

I ownder how much has been learned from watching the way the EU
handled Grexit.

Admittedly the parties were different, the stakes were different
and the desired outcomes were different. However the Grexit
posturing, the public statements, the private agreements, the
duplicity, the reneging, the recourse to a referendum might be of
interest to the UK to avoid the same pitfalls.
Who avoided the pitfalls, the Greeks or the EU?
--
bert

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.


Your grasp of the UK constitution and history suggests....

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.

--

Roger Hayter

In article , pamela
writes
On 11:10 5 Nov 2016, Roger Hayter wrote:

That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that
Parliament is sovereign and can overrule either the Government,
the Courts or a referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless
immediately followed by a general election.

Some Brexiteers were so jubilant that they worked themselves up into
a frenzy in which they believed all their demands were now going to
be met - no matter how irrational, unlawful or unconstitutional.

Usual ridiculous remainer exaggeration
They're being brought back to earth.

Anyone else could see it had all got a bit out of hand and needed a
reality check.

--
bert

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , pamela
writes
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.

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

So it would be better if they didn't know our "must" position?
However the problem with your approach is that the only Must position on
the ballot paper was leave the EU, no ifs, no buts, just leave.
Now obviously the one thing we would like to keep if we can is unfettered
access to the single market for goods and services. The EU knows that and
will try to exploit that with demands for freedom of movement and budget
contribution even though they haven't demanded that of Canada.

We need to spread as much discord as possible amongst the other member
states to improve our chances of getting as close as possible to what we
want.

Not even possible.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 11:10 5 Nov 2016, Roger Hayter wrote:

That is a very big political quandary, but not in the least a
constitutional one. There is absolutely no doubt that
Parliament is sovereign and can overrule either the Government,
the Courts or a referendum.

That said, it would be a bit of a political disaster unless
immediately followed by a general election.

Some Brexiteers were so jubilant that they worked themselves up into
a frenzy in which they believed all their demands were now going to
be met - no matter how irrational, unlawful or unconstitutional.

Mainly because of the outright lies or implied 'benefits' from the likes
of Farage. A vast number of UKIP supporters after being wound up by him
believed all EU immigrants would be deported soon after the referendum.
As that is exactly what they wanted - and he was very careful never to
actually say this wouldn't happen.
Because the EU will not commit to not repatriating UK citizens currently
in the EU even though there is an international convention on acquired
rights. (Franc hasn't signed up to it) Their excuse is "no negotiation
before A50 is invoked" causing much uncertainty to EU citizens, but they
don't give a s*** about that because they can't be voted out.


They're being brought back to earth.

Anyone else could see it had all got a bit out of hand and needed a
reality check.


--
bert

In article , Bob Martin
writes
in 1536703 20161105 111024 (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.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?

Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."
Won't hurt a bit. Just you wait and see.
--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/11/16 08:02, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536703 20161105 111024 (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.

Even if his constituency clearly voted Remain, as many did?


A minority. Most *English* constituencies voted leave.


Does anyone know what the result would have been if run on the lines
of a General Election? How many constituencies voted Remain?

I really don't understand Theresa May's attitude. It seems to be
"you voted Leave and you are bloody well going to get it no matter how
much it hurts."

What an extraordinary statement.

Theresa merely is saying 'the nation voted: Its our job to implement'

Her job, and that of the party of whom she is leader, is to govern the
country. That involves acting in the best interests of the country - in the
long term. What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT. Remember "Boaty McBoatface".

And the best long term interest of the UK lies outside the EU.
--
bert

In article , Moron Watch
writes

"charles" wrote in message
...

What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT.


But as I understand it the UK will have no real say in the matter.
Basically the rest of them decide amongst themselves what to
offer and the UK either takes it or leaves it. And if the latter
then its back to square one.
Not quite. Under A50) after 2 years unless the deadline is extended by
mutual consent we're out.

According to the Doomsayers at least, if the UK leaves the
EU then the EU will most likely implode.

Nope. The EU will implode whether we are in or out, starting with the
collapse of the euro which is being forecast even by its original
architect.
But if the other member states even suspect this might happen
They don't' believe it for one minute.
then they're unlikely to agree terms which would enable
the UK to leave at all. At least without penalties which
would be totally crippling.

The only penalty they can apply is to allow trade under WTO terms and
tariffs are on average about 3%, a cost amounting to less than our
current bet contribution - but I haven't done the maths myself.
Following Article 50 being invoked the negotiations were supposed to
go on for two years, possibly with extensions. But presumably
all during this time the UK is still paying what its paying now
and accepting EU citizens.
Yes we are full members until either an agreement is signed or the two
year period elapses and there is no agreed extension.
So supposing agreement can't be
reached, which seems likely given then prospect of
a feared EU collapse.

I don't think the fear of an EU collapse is so universal as to have an
impact on the negotiations.
What happens then ? Can the UK just stop paying the spondoolix
and deport all the Poles without ending up in Court ?

We have signed up to the international convention on acquired rights.
Because if the Govt use the same barristers as they used
in the Royal Prerogative Case then things don't look to
rosy to me.

In fact it looks like War,




I think we can rely on the Belgians not to allow the EU to vote for war.
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 06/11/16 09:23, Moron Watch wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...

What those are is open to debate, but is unlikely to be be a
full BREXIT.


But as I understand it the UK will have no real say in the matter.
Basically the rest of them decide amongst themselves what to
offer and the UK either takes it or leaves it. And if the latter
then its back to square one.

According to the Doomsayers at least, if the UK leaves the
EU then the EU will most likely implode.

But if the other member states even suspect this might happen
then they're unlikely to agree terms which would enable
the UK to leave at all. At least without penalties which
would be totally crippling.


They do not have the power.

Large numbers of Europeans would rather see the EU implode than ****
all over a Britain that is a major trading partner. Even if they could.

What should the EU do? Ban all imports from the UK?

And have the UK do the same?


Neither party can do that and be members of WTO.


Snip
--
bert

On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 16:51:18 GMT, pamela wrote:

snip

We should have thought more carefully about this when we voted.

Some of us did, realised we didn't have enough facts to determine the
correct decision (as in 'better for the majority') but turned up at
the polling station and spoilt our papers.

I didn't care how much difference that made (or didn't) but it was the
only thing I could possibly have done under the circumstances.

But then that's generally me. If I know the chances of me making a
reasonably good job of something (and often by my own standards, not
what it seems to be acceptable by many today), I'd rather not do it at
all.

"If a job's worth doing it's worth doing well." ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Trying to bring it back to d-i-y for a sec ... Which isn't
ignoring the fact that few can do (or want / expect to do)
*everything* perfectly first time, it's all to do with being familiar
/ experienced enough *in general* to put a 'likelihood of success'
rating on any job you are about to tackle. Nothing to do with never
even trying to do anything for fear of getting it wrong as suggested
he

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...is-worth-doing

So, I might take on fixing a PC or welding up gate for a friend
because I know there is a reasonable chance of success with both. I
wouldn't take on fixing a Mainframe or welding up a steering linkage
for a racing car (or any road / large vehicle for that matter) because
I *don' know* my skills are up to that (this is all when a positive
outcome IS the point of course, you aren't just doing / trying
something for the S&G's).

So, I'm happy to give 'most things a try', if I understand what it
going to be expected of me (and what tools I might require) and what
the consequences of failing might be. Now in the real world, the
general line I'm offered is 'well it's already broken so what have I
got to lose by you trying to fix it' and the answer to that ranges
from 'next to nothing' to 'a huge amount' ( when they may not have
considered the extent of what may also go wrong etc).

I'm pretty sure all the above are std thoughts for any (most?) of us
who do stuff (inc 'd-i-y' level stuff) for ourselves and others. ;-)

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.

Would seem they are words which mean just what they wanted them to mean.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 06/11/16 19:27, 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.


Oh dear. Another man with too much imaginatiuon and no sense of duty to
truth.





--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 06/11/16 19:27, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Parliament cannot relinquish sovereignty.

Which presumably renders the Act of Union of 1707 enabled by the
"Union with England Act" passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland,

Along with the Act of Union of 1800 enabled by the 'Act for the Union of Great
Britain and Ireland' passed in 1800 by the Irish Parliament both equally invalid then ?

Or didn't that crackpot website where you boned up on your British History go
back quite that far ?



Ireland and scotland did not have the same constitution that the United
Kingdom has.

Moron.


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 07/11/16 07:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/j...sed-uk-rights/

Is another view by a professor of law.

His view?

The judgement breaks precedent and is dangerously illogical.




--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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 'the United Kingdom'

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.

Your grasp of the UK constitution and history suggests....

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.

A grand-sounding sentiment with little foundation in constitutional law.
You have to rely on things like the European Convention on Human Rights
or various UN declarations to prove this.


2) Every 5 years or so, at an election, we loan that sovereignty to
Parliament for them to make laws concerning governing the country.

We choose the MPs, but we don't give them sovereignty. From the date of
the election they have mainly a formal commitemt to the Sovereign and
Parliament rather than to the electorate. And don't forget Parliament
includes the HoL.




3) Now, it seems, from time to time Parliament gives us back that
sovereignty in the guise of a referendum.

No it doesn't. All the referenda I have heard of have been explicitly
advisory. In theory Parliament could cede sovereignty to the
electorate but since Parliament has to implement the decision it would
be a bit of a charade. And they could withdraw it at any time.





The question of whether parliament had the right to join us to the
Scots is moot - we had a much different form of constitution at that
point in history.

Neither am I interested in arguments that other Treaties we sign (say,
double taxation or extradition) involve ceding sovereignty: the amount
involved is too small, unlike with the EU Treaties which have a much
more profound impact.


--

Roger Hayter

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?
If not then you have it wrong.

What the people do have is the law, this applies to everyone.
It would appear that some want to change this so it doesn't apply to
everyone but this is just wrong!

On 07/11/2016 08:58, pamela wrote:


So Brexit gives us fewer Polish workers but more Indians. That's no
improvement at all.



It is for the bigots, they can spot the Indians more easily.
They can't tell the difference between Poles, Lithuanians, etc.

On 07/11/2016 07:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/11/16 07:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/j...sed-uk-rights/


Is another view by a professor of law.

His view?

The judgement breaks precedent and is dangerously illogical.






Who cares he is just an expert and brexiteers keep telling us that they
can be wrong just as he is now.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/16 07:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/j...sed-uk-rights/

Is another view by a professor of law.

His view?

The judgement breaks precedent and is dangerously illogical.

It doesn't break precedent at all

Here's how he summarises his argument

quote

But rights acquired by virtue of s. 2(1) ECA are not "statutory
rights enacted by Parliament". They are rights under the treaty
law we call EU law, as it stands "from time to time". They are
thus subjected to alteration by decisions made in the international
realm by EU or EU-related bodies and processes, in which the Crown
participates by exercise of its prerogative, for the most part
without restraint or pre-authorization by Parliament, let alone
by statute.

/quote

Put simply, the Treaty of Rome, Maasricht, Lisbon, etc were indeed
international treaties. And once signed by the PM etc. using the
Royal Prerogative vested in the P.M. they "could" have come into
operation straightaway without the need for any Parliamentary scrutiny
or vote. And then indeed Professor Finnis would have been correct.

" But rights acquired by virtue of s. 2(1) ECA are not "statutory
rights enacted by Parliament". They are rights under the treaty
law we call EU law, as it stands "from time to time"."

However this isn't what happened. And that's the point. These three
treaties were subject to vigorous debates and votes in Parliament
before being implemented. The ECA formed a template on which
Parliament voted. It was Parliament passing the relevant Bills
which indeed turned rights contained in the ECA into statuary
rights.

Heath signed the Treaty of Rome a full year before the UK
joined the EEC and only after 300 hours of debate and votes
in both Houses

The fact that in strict accordance with the Constitution the PM's
at the time needn't have sought Parliamentary ratification for the
3 Treaties is neither here nor there. The fact is that they did.

And as soon as they made that decision and treaties were voted
on, those rights were acquired by virtue of the Parliamentary
vote. Or put another way what would have been the position
once the decision has been taken to put them to a vote, if
Parliament had rejected those treaties ? Would UK citizens
have still have acquired those rights nevertheless ?
Or would the Government have fallen instead, and a new
Government taken its place which in accordance with
the constitution wouldn't have been bound by treaties
signed by its predecessor ?

As to the altering of double tax agreements without prior
Parliamentary approval, which thus might deprive UK citizens
of rights. If such rights were enshrined in the 3 treaties
then possibly they're open to challenge in Court. The fact
that nobody has chosen to challenge the legality of such
alterations in Court possibly as a result of their passing
unnoticed doesn't in any way mean they can't be challenged.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
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.

And it remains to be seen what she does about that pressure.

So Brexit gives us fewer Polish workers but more Indians.

You don’t know that yet.

That's no improvement at all.

You don’t know that either if its only the skilled
Indians that get to come to Britain temporarily.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
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. :-)

I just don’t believe that May would be that stupid.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Referendums are a relatively new device for this country. So I agree
that precisely how things work in constitutional terms is a bit unclear
but will, I expect, become clearer.

By having the word "advisory" change its meaning to "mandatory" or
"legally binding", presumably by Royal Prerogative, you mean ?


That's how our constitution evolves.

By changing the meaning of simpler words such as "advisory",
their meaning "evolving" so as to mean the exact opposite of
what they did before ?

Si its 1984 all over again.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and advisory is legally
binding

On 07/11/16 11:41, Moron Watch wrote:


Si its 1984 all over again.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and advisory is legally
binding

...and 'a referendum on whether to leave the EU isn't a referendum on
whether to leave the EU, merely a wankfest of opinion


I assume your nym refers to the fact that you wear a Rolex..




--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/16 11:41, Moron Watch wrote:


Si its 1984 all over again.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and advisory is legally
binding

..and 'a referendum on whether to leave the EU isn't a referendum on whether to leave
the EU, merely a wankfest of opinion

No it's an exercise to test public opinion. To guage the strength of feeling.

What's being claimed is that the result was too close for the advice to be
followed directly, before being discussed in Parliament.

I'm sorry old chap, but to all appearences at least, just as with your
equivalent from down-under, you appear to be both not very bright
and to have rather a lot of time on your hands,.

So that while I might well respond to any linked material you post,
any atttempt at engaging you in reasonable conversation
appears doomed to failure.

So that's a plonk of a kind I'm afraid.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 09:34 7 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:
On 21:32 6 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:

Does it have the right to do that?
1) The people are sovereign.

Where did you get that from? It may make for a good slogan and
appeal to the heart but it isn't how it works.
To further pursue where sovereignity lies then the most sovereign
power in the UK is the, er, sovereign and not the people.

Only in the Head of State sense. We have a constitutional monarchy,
not an absolute one. That's how things have evolved over the last 200
years and more. Perhaps you haven't noticed.
The EU, however, remains in the 18thC.

It's been said that the French president acts like a monarch and the
British monarch acts like a president.
Maybe we're all conflicted! :-)

Humph. Yes, the British Monarch is just like a ceremonial president
with no significant power other than to warn and advise, or whatever it
is. She's Head of State. Teresa May is Head of Government.

In the US, they also have the 18thC model where the Prez is HoS *and*
HoG. Just like good ole King George back in the day, and the EU today.
My impression is that the French do the same - Hollande and his
predecessors seem to do both the HoS role and the HoG role (you never
seem to hear of the French PM).


I think it's interesting that the Italians had someone to whom they
could turn when they decided it was time to get rid of Mussolini,
whereas the Germans didn't.

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
2) Every 5 years or so, at an election, we loan that sovereignty to
Parliament for them to make laws concerning governing the country.

We choose the MPs, but we don't give them sovereignty. From the date of
the election they have mainly a formal commitemt to the Sovereign and
Parliament rather than to the electorate. And don't forget Parliament
includes the HoL.

And all new legislation has ultimately got to be approved by guess who?
Our sovereign, The Queen. Not 'the people'.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Only in the Head of State sense. We have a constitutional monarchy, not
an absolute one. That's how things have evolved over the last 200 years
and more. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

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

This from one who went on an on about 'unelected' aspects of the EU.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

3) Now, it seems, from time to time Parliament gives us back that
sovereignty in the guise of a referendum.

No it doesn't. All the referenda I have heard of have been explicitly
advisory. In theory Parliament could cede sovereignty to the
electorate but since Parliament has to implement the decision it would
be a bit of a charade. And they could withdraw it at any time.

Referendums are a relatively new device for this country. So I agree
that precisely how things work in constitutional terms is a bit unclear
but will, I expect, become clearer. That's how our constitution
evolves.

Very few countries indeed make use of referendums. For the very good
reason that they know that they rarely if ever give the true wishes of the
public. Only those who can be bothered to vote. And even those who can are
often influenced by pressure groups with their own agenda.

You need look no further than our own recent referendum to realise this.
People on both sides of the argument complained about lies and half truths
being told. For a referendum to make the best choice would require those
voting to have a decent grasp of facts.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 07/11/16 12:37, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/16 11:41, Moron Watch wrote:


Si its 1984 all over again.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and advisory is legally
binding

..and 'a referendum on whether to leave the EU isn't a referendum on whether to leave
the EU, merely a wankfest of opinion

No it's an exercise to test public opinion. To guage the strength of feeling.

What's being claimed is that the result was too close for the advice to be
followed directly, before being discussed in Parliament.

I'm sorry old chap, but to all appearences at least, just as with your
equivalent from down-under, you appear to be both not very bright
and to have rather a lot of time on your hands,.

So that while I might well respond to any linked material you post,
any atttempt at engaging you in reasonable conversation
appears doomed to failure.

So that's a plonk of a kind I'm afraid.


Thank Clapton for that.

Unable to handle losing eh?



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 07/11/16 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/11/16 12:37, Moron Watch wrote:

Thank Clapton for that.

Unable to handle losing eh?

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/16 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/11/16 12:37, Moron Watch wrote:

Thank Clapton for that.

Unable to handle losing eh?

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

quote

Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be
written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution
is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified
in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill
of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament
to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which
would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect.

/quote

Given that Universal Suffrage for men and women over the age of 21 was
only introduced into the UK in 1928, by that reasoning all those changes
which would have affected the political sovereignty of those unqualified
to vote prior to 1928,* were thus rendered invalid. Or "illegal" as Coleman
prefers to put it.

And please don't understand my suggestion that I might well respond to
any linked material you post, as being a firm undertaking on my
part to comment on all the rubbish you might succeed in dredging
up, given the unlimited time you apparently have at your disposal.


*The (Great Reform Act of Act of 1832) increased the electorate from
about 500,000 to 813,000, with about one in five adult males allowed
to vote, from a total population (including women and children) of
some 14 million (about 5.8% of the total population)

On 07/11/16 14:48, Moron Watch wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/16 13:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/11/16 12:37, Moron Watch wrote:

Thank Clapton for that.

Unable to handle losing eh?

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

quote

Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be
written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution
is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified
in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill
of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament
to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which
would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect.

/quote

Given that Universal Suffrage for men and women over the age of 21 was
only introduced into the UK in 1928, by that reasoning all those changes
which would have affected the political sovereignty of those unqualified
to vote prior to 1928,* were thus rendered invalid. Or "illegal" as Coleman
prefers to put it.

And please don't understand my suggestion that I might well respond to
any linked material you post, as being a firm undertaking on my
part to comment on all the rubbish you might succeed in dredging
up, given the unlimited time you apparently have at your disposal.


*The (Great Reform Act of Act of 1832) increased the electorate from
about 500,000 to 813,000, with about one in five adult males allowed
to vote, from a total population (including women and children) of
some 14 million (about 5.8% of the total population)


So you lied about killfiling me as well



--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On 03/11/2016 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?


who cares

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.

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 09:34 7 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:
On 21:32 6 Nov 2016, Tim Streater wrote:

Does it have the right to do that?
1) The people are sovereign.

Where did you get that from? It may make for a good slogan and
appeal to the heart but it isn't how it works.
To further pursue where sovereignity lies then the most sovereign
power in the UK is the, er, sovereign and not the people.

Only in the Head of State sense. We have a constitutional monarchy,
not an absolute one. That's how things have evolved over the last 200
years and more. Perhaps you haven't noticed.
The EU, however, remains in the 18thC.

It's been said that the French president acts like a monarch and the
British monarch acts like a president.
Maybe we're all conflicted! :-)

Humph. Yes, the British Monarch is just like a ceremonial president
with no significant power other than to warn and advise, or whatever it
is. She's Head of State. Teresa May is Head of Government.

In the US, they also have the 18thC model where the Prez is HoS *and*
HoG. Just like good ole King George back in the day, and the EU today.
My impression is that the French do the same - Hollande and his
predecessors seem to do both the HoS role and the HoG role (you never
seem to hear of the French PM).


I think it's interesting that the Italians had someone to whom they could
turn when they decided it was time to get rid of Mussolini, whereas the
Germans didn't.

In practice they just strung him up to a light post.

The krauts were too organised for that to happen with Adolf.