Forum Sponsors

www.takeflightacademy.co.uk
xxxx
https://m.facebook.com/cariadpets/photos

All Round Renovation

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Which pubs, bars, restaurants and take-aways do you avoid?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...5556575859606162636465Next
Current Page: 63 of 65
messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Angelina November 29, 03:38PM

I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

May's deal is a bit hokey cokey

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL November 29, 04:45PM

The EU in 2021 will be bringing in a waiver system rather like the US ESTA - They're calling it ETIAS.

[www.etiasvisa.com]

The US is quite harsh (nobody with a single drugs conviction for instance is allowed in the US), I'm not sure what the requirements to enter the EU would be - except in typical EU fashion - you will need a passport and a debit or credit card (that will hit some)

We shared our databases with the EU remember too smiling smiley.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by malumbu November 29, 07:38PM

For a more detailed look at all of this (this thread seems to be reflecting the malaise of the general population and has lost the big debate) this if pretty good
[www.politico.eu]

The 'leaked' roadshow schedule was the lead yesterday, and it looks at a variety of related issues from different perspective, a sort of additional layer/dimension to some of the good stuff Peston raises. Doesn't cheer me up though!

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Alan Medic November 30, 12:42PM

Angelina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pretty much sums it up. I think she's pretending
> to Leave but is not driven to.

You obviously haven't heard 'brexit means brexit' and 'delivering on the will of the British people' often enough.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by robbin November 30, 02:29PM

My favourite was "red, white and blue Brexit"

Meaningless drivel.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge November 30, 03:12PM

Buried among the madness there are still little gems like this...smiling smiley

Fittingly the interview, carried out in Argentina where the PM is at a meeting of the G20, is accompanied by the chattering of wild animals ...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL November 30, 03:35PM

Hillary Benn and a few others (Labour and Tory's) have submitted an amendment to the bill that means if Theresa May loses the vote then Parliament will direct things from here on in and a no deal is off the cards.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

'The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg says it supports what "some in Number 10 suspect - that is vote falls, Parliament essentially takes over from the executive".'

Parliament is giving out little signals "Trust us - No Deal will not happen"

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by robbin November 30, 04:47PM

Pure fantasy. What are these so-called representatives smoking?

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL November 30, 04:57PM

Survation are trying to explain why Theresa May's Daft EU deal may be gaining ground (supposedly it has in the last 2 weeks)

[www.survation.com]

If there was a referendum tomorrow, with the following 3 options on the ballot paper, which would you support?

first Choice second Choice Total saying first or second
Remain in the EU 454 97 551
Leave no deal 296 243 539
Theresa's daft deal 222 485 707

But I say the following might get similar support

first Choice second Choice Total saying first or second
Remain in the EU 454 97 551
Leave no deal 296 243 539
hand in the fire 222(mad people) 485 707

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 01, 12:09PM

Just me and my shadow

[www.independent.co.uk]

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 04, 08:34AM

Sky just said it looks like the EU court advocate general agrees that Article 50 can be withdrawn unilaterally. A hint towards how the court will rule.

[twitter.com]

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Shaggy December 04, 09:24AM

Not a hint. The court follows the AG in the majority of cases, and this ruling isn’t even controversial. It would be very surprising if the full court found different.

Of course, if the UK government had accepted this obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina Miller would have lost her case.

[curia.europa.eu]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was december 04, 09:28am by Shaggy.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris December 04, 09:56AM

Shaggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course, if the UK government had accepted this
> obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina Miller
> would have lost her case.

Why do you say that? Her case was to establish the principle that the UK government could not implement Article 50 without final approval from the UK parliament; this ruling states that the UK government may abandon Article 50 without approval from the EU parliament. Two entirely different cases, one related to internal UK procedures and one to international EU law.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 04, 10:23AM

rendelharris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shaggy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Of course, if the UK government had accepted
> this
> > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina
> Miller
> > would have lost her case.
>
> Why do you say that? Her case was to establish
> the principle that the UK government could not
> implement Article 50 without final approval from
> the UK parliament; this ruling states that the UK
> government may abandon Article 50 without approval
> from the EU parliament. Two entirely different
> cases, one related to internal UK procedures and
> one to international EU law.

Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last November

[www.independent.co.uk]

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris December 04, 10:37AM

JohnL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rendelharris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shaggy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Of course, if the UK government had accepted
> > this
> > > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina
> > Miller
> > > would have lost her case.
> >
> > Why do you say that? Her case was to establish
> > the principle that the UK government could not
> > implement Article 50 without final approval
> from
> > the UK parliament; this ruling states that the
> UK
> > government may abandon Article 50 without
> approval
> > from the EU parliament. Two entirely different
> > cases, one related to internal UK procedures
> and
> > one to international EU law.
>
> Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last
> November
>
> [www.independent.co.uk]
> xit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irre
> versible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065
> 591.html

Exactly, the Supreme Court didn't pass any judgement on the current issue as it had no bearing on what Miller was asking.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Shaggy December 04, 10:38AM

Miller's case was entirely predicated upon Article 50 being irreversible. If Article 50 is irreversible, triggering it destroys laws passed by the UK Parliament such as those governing UK elections to the European Parliament. The PM cannot make laws and and cannot destroy laws. Therefore the PM cannot trigger A50 without Parliament's consent. That was Gina Miller's case, simply put.

The government's argument was that the PM makes treaties, not Parliament. So the PM can trigger A50 as part of the powers the PM has usurped from the monarchy.

At the end of the first day of the hearing, the judge stated Miller's case hung on the reversibility of A50. The judge requested to hear submissions on that point and suggested that Luxembourg might end up being the final arbiter.

The government asked to take instructions overnight. On the next day of the hearing, the government stated that it would not make submissions, and the court should proceed assuming A50 can't be reversed.

Now we know that, had the Government addressed the point about reversibility, this case would have been heard in Luxembourg much earlier as part of the Miller case, and the outcome may have been different.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 04, 10:42AM

Shaggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miller's case was entirely predicated upon Article
> 50 being irreversible. If Article 50 is
> irreversible, triggering it destroys laws passed
> by the UK Parliament such as those governing UK
> elections to the European Parliament. The PM
> cannot make laws and and cannot destroy laws.
> Therefore the PM cannot trigger A50 without
> Parliament's consent. That was Gina Miller's case,
> simply put.
>
> The government's argument was that the PM makes
> treaties, not Parliament. So the PM can trigger
> A50 as part of the powers the PM has usurped from
> the monarchy.
>
> At the end of the first day of the hearing, the
> judge stated Miller's case hung on the
> reversibility of A50. The judge requested to hear
> submissions on that point and suggested that
> Luxembourg might end up being the final arbiter.
>
> The government asked to take instructions
> overnight. On the next day of the hearing, the
> government stated that it would not make
> submissions, and the court should proceed assuming
> A50 can't be reversed.
>
> Now we know that, had the Government addressed the
> point about reversibility, this case would have
> been heard in Luxembourg much earlier as part of
> the Miller case, and the outcome may have been
> different.

The independent article distinguishes won't and can't

We still assume the government won't revoke article 50.

“To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did not rule on the legal position regarding its revocability."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was december 04, 10:43am by JohnL.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Shaggy December 04, 10:47AM

The quote is an interesting summary, and one that assumes much prior knowledge:

"To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did not rule on the legal position regarding its revocability.

“Once again, I am grateful to this House for the opportunity to make a statement. I recognise that my comments have caused confusion and I apologise to the House.”


This is true because, on day two of the High Court hearing, the court agreed to proceed on the (untested) basis that Article 50 was irreversible because neither side chose to argue the point, despite the judge asking them to do so.

So the case proceeded, from day two, on a false premise.

I'm not raising a major new point. On day two of the hearing, all of us in court were incredibly surprised to see the government duck a vital point in the case.

They were told, pretty much in terms "If A50 is reversible, you win. Would you like to argue that A50 is reversible?" And the gov said "no thanks".



JohnL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rendelharris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shaggy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Of course, if the UK government had accepted
> > this
> > > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina
> > Miller
> > > would have lost her case.
> >
> > Why do you say that? Her case was to establish
> > the principle that the UK government could not
> > implement Article 50 without final approval
> from
> > the UK parliament; this ruling states that the
> UK
> > government may abandon Article 50 without
> approval
> > from the EU parliament. Two entirely different
> > cases, one related to internal UK procedures
> and
> > one to international EU law.
>
> Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last
> November
>
> [www.independent.co.uk]
> xit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irre
> versible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065
> 591.html



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit was december 04, 10:59am by Shaggy.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 04, 10:53AM

I've got a headache as a non lawyer - seems like Catch 22 - and even more so if for some reason (a second vote) A50 got revoked. smiling smiley

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge December 04, 10:55AM

Once again David Allen Green is the go to person in such matters, check out his Twitter and how he has to correct so called journalists who have wrongly commented on the AG's opinion piece. It's staggering that one BBC journalist said it was a ruling that the UK can unilaterally extend A50...not even close.
DAG also highlights that there are conditions attached with the AG's opinion, e.g. if it is approved by the EUCJ, the UK Parliament will still need to pass an Act to implement the unilateral withdrawal, and also it has to be done in ''good faith and sincere cooperation'', meaning that the UK can't simply stop the clock in order to carry on re-negotiating, otherwise the 2 year cycle could start all over again...and again... and again. The UK must want to cancel Brexit period... [twitter.com]

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris December 04, 10:59AM

Shaggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The quote is an interesting summary, and one that
> assumes much prior knowledge:
>
> "To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the
> Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the
> basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did
> not rule on the legal position regarding its
> revocability.
>
> “Once again, I am grateful to this House for the
> opportunity to make a statement. I recognise that
> my comments have caused confusion and I apologise
> to the House.”
>
>
> This is true because, on day two of the High Court
> hearing, the court agreed to proceed on the
> (untested) basis that Article 50 was irreversible
> because neither side chose to argue the point,
> despite the judge asking them to do so.
>
> So the case proceeded, from day two, on a false
> premise.

But you're presupposing that had the government introduced the reversibility argument the Supreme Court would have accepted that reversibility was sufficient to allow A50 to be passed without consulting parliament, and that's in no way guaranteed. Effectively the government would have been saying OK, we still want the right to abolish sovereign UK legislation without consulting parliament but we would retain the right to change our minds. Several legal opinions I've seen have said that would not have been regarded as sufficient.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Shaggy December 04, 11:29AM

Yep, Rendelharris, you are quite right. I am presupposing that point, though I'm presupposing it because that is what Lord Thomas also presupposed at the start of the hearing, prompting the three judges hearing the case to ask for submissions on the issue. It was a logical assumption on their part, but not a ruling.

You are also quite right that had the (now clearly sensible) issue of reversing A50 been addressed in Miller instead of deliberately being ducked by the Government, the case could have taken a different route to the same result. The act of leaving the EU still destroys domestic law.

But we all would have know three years ago that A50 could be reversed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was december 04, 12:12pm by Shaggy.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris December 04, 11:36AM

Fair point.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 04, 11:50AM

So whats the current likely scenarios if Theresa May loses her vote

May deal fails - Hilary Benn has an amendment to ensure no deal is blocked - might pass might fail.
May has 21 days to re-submit something - I hear she may even submit the same thing (after a market/financial crash)
Corbyn will submit his no confidence motion (expected to fail but DUP are unpredictable)
Labour move to support a peoples vote (but there isn't time before end of march)
..

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge December 04, 12:18PM

Shaggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But we all would have know three years ago that
> A50 could be stopped.

The Gov with their constant attempts (11 times if I'm not mistaken) to have this A50 revocation case not heard, shows how they didn't want it to be known that A50 could be stopped. Thus it suited them to act as they did during the Miller case. For all their protestations of 'taking back control' and 'sovereignty', May's Gov (the Executive) has continually tried to ride roughshod over Parliament and it's procedures, e.g, the Miller case, the meaningful vote, and even as recent as yesterday with the legal advice debate. I don't think I'm using hyperbole when I say that this Gov has shown fascistic leanings in how it has conducted itself and the contempt it has for Parliamentary procedure since the Referendum...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL December 04, 12:25PM

Another amendment in similar to Hilary Benn but supported by some of Theresa May's backers and the Nick Boles faction (Norway+). Again about parliament instructing Theresa May.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge December 04, 01:22PM

You'll drive yourself nuts John going through all the potential outcomes if May's deal is voted down. Assuming it does get voted down, if the numbers are as big as has been estimated by some, then she may simply quit there and then, and we'll be in an even bigger constitutional crisis than we are now. "Events, my dear boy, events"...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge December 04, 01:29PM

Quote of the day... There really is not enough popcorn in the world for the shit that is going to go down in parliament today.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Alan Medic December 04, 01:31PM

diable rouge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again David Allen Green is the go to person
> in such matters, check out his Twitter and how he
> has to correct so called journalists who have
> wrongly commented on the AG's opinion piece. It's
> staggering that one BBC journalist said it was a
> ruling that the UK can unilaterally extend
> A50...not even close.
> DAG also highlights that there are conditions
> attached with the AG's opinion, e.g. if it is
> approved by the EUCJ, the UK Parliament will still
> need to pass an Act to implement the unilateral
> withdrawal, and also it has to be done in ''good
> faith and sincere cooperation'', meaning that the
> UK can't simply stop the clock in order to carry
> on re-negotiating, otherwise the 2 year cycle
> could start all over again...and again... and
> again. The UK must want to cancel Brexit period...
> [twitter.com]

DAG also wrote that it would be hard to see an Act of that nature (giving up on Brexit) being passed in time i.e by March 29th.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge December 04, 01:55PM

Yep, DAG always states what has to happen legally as things currently stand, obviously things can change e.g. EU approves an extension of time to A50 for passing of such an Act.

On John's subject of amendments, looks like Dominic Grieve has out-trumped them all with his...

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...5556575859606162636465Next
Current Page: 63 of 65

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum