Teenage Boy Killed In Samurai Sword...
News0 min ago
Excuse Me Ms Miller But 15,188,406 People Voted To Leave The Eu In The Official Poll That Being The Referendum.
37 Answers
https:/
/// The true patriots are making their voices heard too, in the phenomenal on-line petition to revoke Article 50 which I have no doubt will pass the 5 million mark soon and keep rising. Opinion poll after opinion poll is making the same point just as powerfully: since the start of 2018, 113 out of 125 polls have favoured remaining in the European Union. Only three polls have shown a majority wanting to leave, with nine
tied. ///
/// The true patriots are making their voices heard too, in the phenomenal on-line petition to revoke Article 50 which I have no doubt will pass the 5 million mark soon and keep rising. Opinion poll after opinion poll is making the same point just as powerfully: since the start of 2018, 113 out of 125 polls have favoured remaining in the European Union. Only three polls have shown a majority wanting to leave, with nine
tied. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Talking of the Soros funded Miller...….How come there was no "Parliamentary" debate and vote when May colluded with the EUSSR for an extension? Surely based on the argument used by her "legal team" it should have been...………….therefor meaning that the extension, planned by the Remainiacs, itself is illegal.
https:/
https:/
//On Friday, she(May[Togo edit]) instructed Sir Tim Barrow, our man in Brussels, to write a letter to the EU which formally agrees to Article 50 being extended to April 12 (at least), without first waiting for Parliament to approve the extension.
The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 governs our exit from the EU. It says that “exit day” will be on March 29. After that day, the European Communities Act 1972 – which gives effect to EU treaty obligations in UK domestic law – will be repealed.
But the 2018 Act also allows “exit day” to be changed – by a special piece of legislation called a “statutory instrument” (SI) – so long as a draft of the SI is approved by a vote in each House of Parliament.”//
Do keep up.
The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 governs our exit from the EU. It says that “exit day” will be on March 29. After that day, the European Communities Act 1972 – which gives effect to EU treaty obligations in UK domestic law – will be repealed.
But the 2018 Act also allows “exit day” to be changed – by a special piece of legislation called a “statutory instrument” (SI) – so long as a draft of the SI is approved by a vote in each House of Parliament.”//
Do keep up.
Did you digest that bit Ichy? Bit at time for you then.
//Note well: this SI needs the votes of both the HoC and the HoL. For your information, in an aside, the indomitable Sir John Redwood writes in his diary this morning that he will not vote for such SI – read the whole thing!
“Those votes on the SI are expected this week. But the government is claiming that because of Sir Tim’s letter, the extension has already happened.
Nothing Parliament can say or do can stop it. All that will happen if the SI is voted down, says the government, is that the UK’s internal law will be not be changed to match the new exit date which has been internationally agreed.
So voting down the SI will cause legal chaos because the UK’s internal law will not conform with our international obligations, but won’t actually prevent us from still being an EU member state and bound by the EU treaties for this extra period of time.”
Let that sink in for a moment. It gets worse://
//Note well: this SI needs the votes of both the HoC and the HoL. For your information, in an aside, the indomitable Sir John Redwood writes in his diary this morning that he will not vote for such SI – read the whole thing!
“Those votes on the SI are expected this week. But the government is claiming that because of Sir Tim’s letter, the extension has already happened.
Nothing Parliament can say or do can stop it. All that will happen if the SI is voted down, says the government, is that the UK’s internal law will be not be changed to match the new exit date which has been internationally agreed.
So voting down the SI will cause legal chaos because the UK’s internal law will not conform with our international obligations, but won’t actually prevent us from still being an EU member state and bound by the EU treaties for this extra period of time.”
Let that sink in for a moment. It gets worse://
The choker for May and the Remainiacs being.
//“This is contrary to long standing constitutional convention and practice. Whenever the government proposes to enter into an international law obligation which would require Parliament to change the UK’s internal law, it will not finalise that obligation until Parliament has passed the necessary legislation.
This longstanding practice avoids putting Parliament in the invidious position of being faced with a fait accompli: where it either has to pass the legislation, or take the serious step of bringing the UK into breach of the international obligations which have been assumed by the government.”
Read that again, please – this is what Ms May and her Whitehall Remain handlers have actually created.//
Democracy? EUSSR Style!
//“This is contrary to long standing constitutional convention and practice. Whenever the government proposes to enter into an international law obligation which would require Parliament to change the UK’s internal law, it will not finalise that obligation until Parliament has passed the necessary legislation.
This longstanding practice avoids putting Parliament in the invidious position of being faced with a fait accompli: where it either has to pass the legislation, or take the serious step of bringing the UK into breach of the international obligations which have been assumed by the government.”
Read that again, please – this is what Ms May and her Whitehall Remain handlers have actually created.//
Democracy? EUSSR Style!
Yes, there was a good article by Martin Howe, QC, in the press today on this topic. Essentially without the "Statutory Instrument" (SI) to extend Article 50 beyond next Friday being passed by Parliament The Withdrawal Bill cannot be amended and we leave on 29th March. Mr Barrow's letter to the EU is therefore of no effect if that SI is not agreed by both Houses. Mrs May's attitude is that Parliament "must" pass the SI or chaos will ensue. She has taken on the role of a dictator who is telling the Commons (and the Lords) what they must do under the threat of chaos and is doing so with a blatant disregard for Parliamentary procedures. Such is the mess that she has created for herself (and the rest of us).
//The way it works is: you debate, you vote then you pass or amend the legislation,//
Almost correct. Then why is parliament, and the Remainiacs, acting as if the SI is already a given? Has May for ever ruined the constitutional precedents by committing to extend A50 with an action that is doomed to be challenged in law if it is successful?
Almost correct. Then why is parliament, and the Remainiacs, acting as if the SI is already a given? Has May for ever ruined the constitutional precedents by committing to extend A50 with an action that is doomed to be challenged in law if it is successful?
//The way it works is: you debate, you vote then you pass or amend the legislation,//
And then - only then - do you write to the EU to tell them their truly magnanimous offer to extend Article 50 has been accepted because I [Mrs May] did not have the authority to make such an acceptance until both Houses of Parliament had "debated, voted and passed the legislation". It is indeed that simple.
And then - only then - do you write to the EU to tell them their truly magnanimous offer to extend Article 50 has been accepted because I [Mrs May] did not have the authority to make such an acceptance until both Houses of Parliament had "debated, voted and passed the legislation". It is indeed that simple.
The wording of the relevant legislation seems important here. The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 specifies that exit day is March 29th, 2019, but (20(4)) that the Brexit Minister may amend that definition to "ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the [EU] Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom".
So, on that reading, until an alternative date was agreed with the EU, the government would have had no power to table the necessary amendment, because it was conditional on the Government and the EU coming to an agreement first.
All this mess could, and should, have been avoided by not specifying a date, which was an attempt to placate Hard Brexiteers, and has anyway now failed utterly in all of its aspects. And, of course, has had the ironic effect of handing even more power to the EU: Parliament, in an attempt to ensure that we left this Friday, deliberately passed legislation that attempted to tie its own hands, and required the EU to untie them for us.
Make no mistake, though, this situation over March 29th and the Statutory Instrument was entirely due to Hard Brexiteers in Parliament.
So, on that reading, until an alternative date was agreed with the EU, the government would have had no power to table the necessary amendment, because it was conditional on the Government and the EU coming to an agreement first.
All this mess could, and should, have been avoided by not specifying a date, which was an attempt to placate Hard Brexiteers, and has anyway now failed utterly in all of its aspects. And, of course, has had the ironic effect of handing even more power to the EU: Parliament, in an attempt to ensure that we left this Friday, deliberately passed legislation that attempted to tie its own hands, and required the EU to untie them for us.
Make no mistake, though, this situation over March 29th and the Statutory Instrument was entirely due to Hard Brexiteers in Parliament.
Yes, it's all a mess, isn't it?
I think we need a reform of the electoral system in order to avoid a re-occurrence of this kind of crisis. One way is to abolish referendums. But that doesn't necessarily prevent all cases.
The present rules have allowed the wishes of a majority (albeit a narrow one) to threaten Britain's current prosperity and the future prospects of its children. This majority consists largely of poorly educated and easily influenced people, many old people who have no stake in Britain's long-term future, and, of course, quite a few
backward-looking bigots.
The easiest and cheapest solution, I suggest, is to extend the franchise to more young people I think sixteen is probably about the right age. Young people of that age have a keen sense of civic and moral responsibility, and, by observation, the modern education system is far more effective at developing the capacity for critical thought than it used to be.
I think we need a reform of the electoral system in order to avoid a re-occurrence of this kind of crisis. One way is to abolish referendums. But that doesn't necessarily prevent all cases.
The present rules have allowed the wishes of a majority (albeit a narrow one) to threaten Britain's current prosperity and the future prospects of its children. This majority consists largely of poorly educated and easily influenced people, many old people who have no stake in Britain's long-term future, and, of course, quite a few
backward-looking bigots.
The easiest and cheapest solution, I suggest, is to extend the franchise to more young people I think sixteen is probably about the right age. Young people of that age have a keen sense of civic and moral responsibility, and, by observation, the modern education system is far more effective at developing the capacity for critical thought than it used to be.
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
News31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
ChatterBank40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.