Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Esk said:
So Parliament does what is right for the country. That's my only interest to be honest.
Click to expand...

One would need to define what is right for the country. I take it you mean ignoring the people as that would not be right for the country.

Parliament is there to do the bidding of the country.
 
Tried to distill this into a succinct question. Failed.

So here's the long winded one: how many Commons seats will May lose if she allows Brexit to be thwarted? How many will she lose if she pushes it through?

How many seats will Labour lose if it is seen to be undermining Brexit?

Looking at the electoral map and polling, the "It's in your best interests" remainers are on a catastrophic path.
 
The Esk said:
I asked about the ability to overturn Article 50 as it may form part of the Supreme Court hearing.

One of the principles of contract law is that you can't be held to the terms of the contract unless there is agreement on both sides. Thus if we decided that the exit terms offered to Britain were not suitable, then we would not be obliged to accept them within the time limit imposed by Article 50, or we could withdraw our Article 50.

The reason why this is important is that it could sway the Supreme Court into rejecting the High Court ruling as there is no certainty that British citizens rights will be removed because there is no certainty that Article 50 will be invoked.

This is very significant in my view, as it shows once and for all that Brexit does not mean Brexit. It only means that Brexit means Brexit when Parliament agrees to the terms of exit either before or after invoking the article,

So which ever way we look at it Parliament is going to get its say and there is no certainty that Brexit will occur. It maybe that Parliament has two further bites at the cherry, before invoking and before conclusion.
Click to expand...
What contract, please explain
 
The Esk said:
It is the principle I am talking of.

"It is a cardinal legal principle that a party is not bound by a contract or treaty until agreement has been reached,”

Professor Paul Craig, Oxford University.
Click to expand...
So you could say that in fact Brexit does mean Brexit. After all the people agreed during the referendum, if we vote leave we leave, if we vote stay we stay.
There's no way of knowing what way the supreme court will look at it.
It will be interesting, that's for sure.

The thing is, you see these courts give some bizarre decisions, I have no idea whatsoever what way it will go.
 
This complete farce reminds me of a Jonathan Swift novel.

We had a vote. Someone won, so that is good. Decisive.

Except no one knows what we have to do now, cos no one asked.

So the MPs have to vote on it, cos thats the protocol, and they have to represent their constituants, who many disagree with how they voted. And if the courts cant decide if they have to vote on it, cos the Government appealed their 1st decision, it will get referred to another court, which may or may not overturn the decision. And if they dont, the court in the body that we voted to leave will decide if we we can, or cannot, leave. Maybe.

Cos nobody knows.

I posted about 24 hours after the original vote, "We havnt really thought this through have we?"

For once, I was spot on.
 
The Esk said:
Yes I agree with your post, my point was you can't say definitively that Brexit is Brexit as much as the Government likes to say so.
Click to expand...
True, what I wonder is that, ok, if parliament agrees that we'll ask for this that and the other, and then we invoke article 50, (as agreed) what happens if the EU don't agree to this that and the other.
I can see this going on forever and a day.
 
Seathestars said:
True, what I wonder is that, ok, if parliament agrees that we'll ask for this that and the other, and then we invoke article 50, (as agreed) what happens if the EU don't agree to this that and the other.
I can see this going on forever and a day.
Click to expand...

Gives me flashbacks to my divorce "settlement" that.

Yeah, it still rankles.....
 
roydo said:
This complete farce reminds me of a Jonathan Swift novel.

We had a vote. Someone won, so that is good. Decisive.

Except no one knows what we have to do now, cos no one asked.

So the MPs have to vote on it, cos thats the protocol, and they have to represent their constituants, who many disagree with how they voted. And if the courts cant decide if they have to vote on it, cos the Government appealed their 1st decision, it will get referred to another court, which may or may not overturn the decision. And if they dont, the court in the body that we voted to leave will decide if we we can, or cannot, leave. Maybe.

Cos nobody knows.

I posted about 24 hours after the original vote, "We havnt really thought this through have we?"

For once, I was spot on.
Click to expand...
The was a simple mindset on any vote on the ballot paper agreed by our sovereign house of Parliment 6-1 in or out Out won end of it's not the out voters fault Day and Gideon thought they would win, and had no Brexit plan in place ???
Insult to injury Gideon picked up a gong for it today no wonder the people vote the establishment OUT!
Then the people who lose rebel on the street if they had won the out campaign by now would have accepted it and been punished by the bully boys of the EU!
Men or mice the men won the out decision how it course takes will be leaving the EU END OF!
In years to come the EU will splinter!
 
Mrs May had hoped to focus on trade and investment. The Indian ministers and business people she met with, however, were fully aware that Britain will be in no position to negotiate significant bilateral deals until it has sorted out its disentanglement from the European Union.

India’s government, meanwhile, has shown scant interest in trade deals. Talks on a free-trade agreement with the EU that began in 2007 have been stalled since 2013. India last year shied away from joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which now itself looks doomed). And earlier this year Delhi told 57 countries that it wishes to scrap and renegotiate its bilateral investment-protection treaties with them. Its new “model” treaty would compel foreign investors to seek redress in India’s clogged courts before doing it via international arbitration.

Rather than freer trade with Britain, what Indian officials pressed for was greater freedom of movement. Small wonder. During Mrs May’s six-year tenure as home secretary, the number of Indian students in British universities plummeted from 68,000 to 12,000, largely due to her tightening of visa rules. To Mrs May’s discomfort those rules tightened further a few days before her visit. Foreign companies will now find it harder to bring over staff for short-term postings in their British subsidiaries; Indian tech firms had accounted for 90% of migrants in one of the affected categories.

“It seems that the UK is mainly interested in greater market access for its goods in India and in getting investments from India, but not in attracting talented Indian services professionals and students,” sniffed Nirmala Sitharaman, a minister with portfolios in trade and finance. Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, was just as blunt. Education, he declared at a public meeting with Mrs May, would “define our engagement in a shared future.”

http://www.economist.com/news/brita...nded-her-first-long-haul-jaunt-cooler-climate

So India are rolling back trade deals around the world, and are more interested in their students and workers coming here than in any trade deal.

Ideology meet real world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top