keano77

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Negative Seabag. > > > > Try positive > > OK. Britain is most positively better off in > Europe. > > Is that better? At least you're trying Loz

Negative Seabag. Try positive

Shakes head. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink ...

Unbelievable. I suggest most of you go back and re-read your posts on this. Doom and gloom. Project Economic Disaster, Laughing Stock of Europe, the World etc. Where's the positivity? The British people have given you a chance, seize it.

I share your concerns Jenny1. Of course we'll need experienced, qualified, professionals and experts in many areas. I just don't understand your negativity. If many of the bleeding heart remainers stopped whinging and contributed positively this country would benefit greatly. An example here. There was much mirth among remainers recently at the staged photo of the heads of the negotiating teams at the last EU talks. The EU teams has big thick files on the table, the British no paperwork. Cue laughing stock of Europe donkey-like braying, we don't know what we're doing etc. In fact, the UK had some 90 odd civil servants in their team to the EU's 40-odd. One of the points that was examined by our dry civil servants was EU citizen access to the UK post-Brexit. So to take your example of EU Citizens fleeing Uncertain Britain above. Let's say, Helmut and Helga are two German doctors living and working in the NHS for the past five years, model Citizens, contributing fully. Their son Hansel, born in Berlin is now 15, lives with them here, goes to school here and is a popular pupil at school. Now, given the Brexit uncertainties, Helmut and Helga decide to take up different posts in, say, Paris, taking Hansel with them. After three years, Hansel, now 18, decides Paris is a bit dull and post-Brexit UK is where all the action is. Hansel has no obvious skills or expertise to go to the top of our immigration priorities list. Our dry civil servants asked the EU team the question - can Hansel just get off the Eurostar and demand the right to enter Britain because his parents worked here once as EU Citizens? No matter how much thumbing through those pristine files you saw in the photograph the EU team couldn't answer that question and will have to liaise internally to formulate a response. In short, we seem to be losing the PR war with the EU machine but I think you'll find that our negotiators are more than a match for Barnier and his cronies. Shame so many remainers seem to enjoy putting Britain down.

It's to do with working out our future immigration policy and is a perfectly sensible idea. It's easy to forget that after 40 years of being a subjugated nation to the EU dictatorship we've lost the habit of making our own rules. So we'll need x thousand pea pickers in Lincolnshire, asparagus in Cambridgeshire and fruit and veg harvesters all round the country for example. No problem, give them visas for the season as part of the immigration quota to be employed directly by the British Businesses concerned. With luck it will cut out the criminal gang masters who oversee much of this murky business. As an aside, I see one of the sticking points in the EU negotiations at the moment is the EU rejection of Britain's perfectly sensible suggestion that all EU Citizens entering The UK post Brexit be given criminal records checks. I wonder what the EU has to hide?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Secondly, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the phrase > (innocently) used above 'Not a life worth living'. > Who is to decide this? In some respects the > medical condition and its effects suffered by > Stephen Hawking could be described as a life not > worth living yet he's certainly put me to shame " > > Well after my mother had a stroke my sisters swore > they just said "we're turning it off now' not 'can > we turn it off'. > Maybe she had a living will I didn't know about. > > Hawking has an very abnormal slow progressing > version of motor neurone disease - so he could > plan what he wanted from a very young age - and as > an intelligent man he did and will have for the > future. Yes, I have read that sometimes medical teams can be a bit too cold and clinical when switching off life support. Maybe if you see death and hopeless cases on a daily basis you become a bit hard as we would view it. I mentioned 'quality of life' above not least because it is being used a lot now especially in discussions on the right to end your own life, but of course that is a different discussion.

I completely understand your unease jacks09 and I suspect most people would fight tooth and nail the protect their children. A few points though: The mother and father have already lost control of Charlie. He is only alive due to 24-hour medical care. The parents cannot take him home to look after him. Secondly, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the phrase (innocently) used above 'Not a life worth living'. Who is to decide this? In some respects the medical condition and its effects suffered by Stephen Hawking could be described as a life not worth living yet he's certainly put me to shame My third point is the notion of 'death' itself has changed in the way society views the concept. Due to medical advances death has become rarer. By this I mean, great grandparents and older grandparents remember losing brothers and sisters to 'colds'. People caught Spanish flu and died by the millions, people caught 'chills' and died. Death was a normal part of everyday life. Medicine has changed this for the moment although with the worrying resistance of bugs to last resort antibiotics we might find we go full circle on this. In short, the dilemma for Charlie's parents is because the medical teams are doing such a good job keeping him alive. This, in my opinion is making it so painful to let go and accept the inevitable.

Very sad case. Let him go. Quackery will not help.

Rendel quoted ETA and "all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." clearly shows it's still talking about council-requisitioned rent-controlled properties Contradiction here It's clear Labour in 1959 was hoping to change 'rent controlled' properties to 'rent restricted' properties. Legally (historically) a big difference here However, off topic

That's not like you Rendel, you're normally quite courteous. Anyway I find the whole thing distasteful and it will only increase BBC wages with both women and male colleagues seeking parity. That said I think Alex Jones is a very lucky lady to earn such a figure given no obvious talent

Ok I concede on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Corbyn's fantasy coalition probably wouldn't need to repeal it. Whether he could stop Article 50 Brexit talks and restart them might be more of a matter for the EU Parliament and ECJ than the UK Parliament though

No. My friend Gina's victory made it clear Article 50 could only be invoked with Parliament's authority, such authority been conferred on the PM by the said Act. I suspect with EU agreement the current Govt and PM might be able to stop the clock. My question is can a new coalition govt put Brexit on hold without repealing the Act that gave the PM authority to start Brexit talks and Parliament passing a new Act? In the meantime the Article 50 March 30 2019 deadline is ticking away

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Not quite that simple Loz. > > > > I understand your point but I think I'm right in > saying Corbyn's imaginary coalition government of > > June 2018 would need to repeal the European > Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. They > > couldn't agree to put Brexit on hold with the EU > until this had been done (can't stop clock). > > That bill is one paragraph that grants the PM > power to notify the EU of the intention to > withdraw the UK from the EU. Nothing more, > nothing less. I'm not sure about that Loz. Corbyn's fantasy coalition might need to repeal said Act above and introduce a new Bill European Union (Notification of Changed Our Mind Please Let Us Stay) Bill 2018.

My reference to the date 30 March 2019 refers to the cut off date for current Brexit talks at one minute past midnight on the 30 March 2019 which were initiated under the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Surely this Act would need to be repealed before hypothetically a different government could agree with the EU to stop the clock? I'm not referring to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19

Not quite that simple Loz. I understand your point but I think I'm right in saying Corbyn's imaginary coalition government of June 2018 would need to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. They couldn't agree to put Brexit on hold with the EU until this had been done (can't stop clock). Everything would need to be in place, passed all stages, Lords, Royal Assent etc, before midnight on 30 March 2019. Can't see that coalition achieving that - be like rats fighting in a sack

rendelharris wrote Three cheers for syphilitic adulterous murderer Henry VIII! Careful Rendel, if you think about it anyone who was prepared to give away the authority of his kingdom to foreign powers would have ended up with his or her head on a spike

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > open bracket 6 closed bracket gives you (6)...:) Thanks, that explains it

I take it edhistory that the evil looking emoticon above should be a reference to Section 7 Clause 6 rather than your disapproval of Clause 6? I.e., is the emotion an accidental mistake?

No of course those powers ought only to be used for minor matters and I don't see why Parliament shouldn't be kept abreast of those changes in case there is anything that might be contentious for Parliament to vote on. For example, if Henry VIII powers were used to try to rewrite EU regulations on bananas - that they should a) taste of bananas b) be as curly as possible and c) straight bananas should be re-classed as rejects - then as that is a matter of national importance Parliament should vote on it.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edhistory Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I've not read it but I've heard about the > Henry > > VIII clauses and not impressed with that. > > > > Have a look at what the "Henry VIII clauses" > are. > > > > You might change your mind. > > Parliament website: The Government sometimes adds > this provision to a Bill to enable the Government > to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act > of Parliament. The provision enables primary > legislation to be amended or repealed by > subordinate legislation with or without further > parliamentary scrutiny. Such provisions are known > as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute > of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII > power to legislate by proclamation. > > So the government can repeal or amend legislation > without having to have it passed by parliament - > in effect government by decree. Why would this be > seen as desirable? The purpose of using so-called 'Henry VIII' clauses is so as not to trouble Parliament with minor or trivial amendments. For example, hundreds if not thousands of pieces of EU legislation, directives and regulations will have the words European Union in them. As these matters will now be Incorporated into British Law those words need removing. However I can see why Remainers might want Parliament to do this as it would delay Brexit for several hundred years. Cue new court case from Gina Miller under the guise of 'Constitutional' concerns.

Annoyingly Rendel it looks as if I edited my post to correct a spelling but missed that howler. Sorry to let down standards folks.

Quite right Rendel, fat fingers or predictive text I'm afraid. Sorry

Seabag If you're referring to my reference to unemployment, pea picking, fruit picking etc post above, that was an example in a discussion with JoeLeg as to dole/housing benefit being a reason or disincentive why locals in such areas don't take available agricultural work while migrants do. Sorry I didn't make it clearer by using quotation marks. I'm employed and well renumerated, but thank you for your concern.

Can't be too specific I'm afraid titch as the negotiations are still going on and it'd be foolish to reveal our hand.