Jump to content

UK PM May to seek Brexit consensus after winning confidence vote


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The EU has not said that we can change our mind and stay on the same terms as before.

 

It was the European Court of Justice which made that ruling.

 

Opinions are fine, but if you are going to comment on actual facts at least try and get those facts right!

The ECJ is the supreme court of the EU. It is part of the EU.  It is the EU. Fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 You are very fond of asking others for links to verify their claims; yet very reluctant to provide such yourself.

 

I wonder why!

 

What The EU Really Thinks About Brexit

 

Addendum.

The 27 did, of course, have a choice in the matter. What you forget, or more likely choose to ignore, is that any deal between the UK and EU has to be unanimously agreed by the other 27. May's deal was; will the next one be?

No noise........ no links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The ECJ is the supreme court of the EU. It is part of the EU.  It is the EU. Fact.

Yet again, you display the ignorance common among so many Brexiteers.

 

The ECJ is an EU institution, in the same way that the courts in the UK are UK government institutions.

 

But, like the judiciary in the UK is independent of the government, the ECJ is independent of the EU.

 

For example, it can be used to sue the EU; any person or company who has had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can take action against them through the Court.

 

One such action being the Article 50 case, where the court found in favour of the claimants and against the EU.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yet again, you display the ignorance common among so many Brexiteers.

 

The ECJ is an EU institution, in the same way that the courts in the UK are UK government institutions.

 

But, like the judiciary in the UK is independent of the government, the ECJ is independent of the EU.

 

For example, it can be used to sue the EU; any person or company who has had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can take action against them through the Court.

 

One such action being the Article 50 case, where the court found in favour of the claimants and against the EU.

 

The European Court of Justice is not an impartial court and has no role to play in post-Brexit EU-UK relations

 

What can be said, however, and said categorically, is that any EU-UK trade or wider collaboration agreement which, directly or indirectly, assigns the settlement of any disputes to the ECJ will not be worth having, because that agreement would invariably and consistently be  construed in the EU’s favour and against the UK. Such an agreement would not be worth the paper it is written on because the ECJ will never be as an impartial arbiter in the settlement of disputes involving the EU. It sees itself and has always acted as the judicial agent of ‘ever closer union.’

 

https://policyexchange.org.uk/gunnar-beck-the-european-court-of-justice-is-not-an-impartial-court-and-has-no-role-to-play-in-post-brexit-eu-uk-relations/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^

 

An anonymous article from a right wing, anti EU think tank; bound to be unbiased!

 

Even so, if you read the whole article instead of just cherry picking you will find that even it's anonymous author isn't completely convinced the ECJ is the puppet of the Commission some people want us to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

^^^^^^^

 

An anonymous article from a right wing, anti EU think tank; bound to be unbiased!

 

Even so, if you read the whole article instead of just cherry picking you will find that even it's anonymous author isn't completely convinced the ECJ is the puppet of the Commission some people want us to believe.

Had you looked closer you would have seen it was not anonymous but written by Dr Gunnar Beck. He is a Reader in Law at SOAS University of London and a practicing Barrister. 

 

As for Policy Exchange being an anti establishment think tank can I quote from wiki

"Policy Exchange is a British centre-right[1] think tank, created in 2002 and based in London. It has been variously described as "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right", in The Daily Telegraph.[2] The Washington Post said Policy Exchange's reports "often inform government policy in Britain."[3] In covering Policy Exchange's 2017 report 'The New Netwar: Countering Extremism Online', Con Coughlin of the Telegraph called Policy Exchange "One of London's most effective think tanks, which has done ground-breaking research on the emerging jihadi threat.[4]

The policy ideas developed by the think tank which have been adopted as government policy include free schools, Police and Crime Commissioners, Garden Villages and protecting the armed forces from ‘lawfare’"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Yet again, you display the ignorance common among so many Brexiteers.

 

The ECJ is an EU institution, in the same way that the courts in the UK are UK government institutions.

 

But, like the judiciary in the UK is independent of the government, the ECJ is independent of the EU.

 

For example, it can be used to sue the EU; any person or company who has had their interests harmed as a result of the action or inaction of the EU or its staff can take action against them through the Court.

 

One such action being the Article 50 case, where the court found in favour of the claimants and against the EU.

 

I know that the ECJ is an EU institution. It is an informal name for the CJEU and listed as an institution together with the other main institutions that form the Union itself, including: Councils, the Commission, Parliament, Central Bank etc.... as the first item of Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty (below).

 

The ECJ is certainly not independent of the EU, it is as much a part of the Union as the Parliament is and its primary role is to "ensure that the interpretation and application of the (EU) Treaties the law is observed" (from Article 19). 

 

 

 

Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union

 

1. The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.

 

The Union’s institutions shall be:

 

– the European Parliament,

 

– the European Council,

 

– the Council,

 

– the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’),

 

Court of Justice of the European Union,

 

– the European Central Bank,

 

– the Court of Auditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I know that the ECJ is an EU institution. It is an informal name for the CJEU and listed as an institution together with the other main institutions that form the Union itself, including: Councils, the Commission, Parliament, Central Bank etc.... as the first item of Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty (below).

 

The ECJ is certainly not independent of the EU, it is as much a part of the Union as the Parliament is and its primary role is to "ensure that the interpretation and application of the (EU) Treaties the law is observed" (from Article 19)

 

 

 

Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union

 

1. The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.

 

The Union’s institutions shall be:

 

– the European Parliament,

 

– the European Council,

 

– the Council,

 

– the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’),

 

Court of Justice of the European Union,

 

– the European Central Bank,

 

– the Court of Auditors.

Small correction to the bolded para. Couldn't edit it.

 

The ECJ is certainly not independent of the EU, it is as much a part of the Union as the Parliament is and its primary role is to "ensure that in the interpretation and application of the (EU) Treaties the law is observed" (from Article 19)

 

= = = =

 

PS - Your Article 50 "case" was a request for a ruling from the ECJ from the Scottish Court of Session on behalf of a group of MPs. It was not an action against the EU.

 

Feeling ignorant yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tragedy is unfolding for the UK right now. No one in Westminster appears to have the faintest clue what to do, let alone what is going to happen next. Politicians have failed us, with the exception of those few like the Greens who have no influence. Jeremy Corbyn is playing games, (and at the same time barely managing to hide his personal desire to leave the EU), instead of attempting to help find some common ground that could lead us out of this mess. I'm not sure how arguing about the jurisdiction of the ECJ, or how much of a disaster a WTO rules Brexit would be, really helps anymore.

The Daily Mash puts it well, and kindly note this article has neither a pro or anti Brexit stance. It simply says we are in bloody awful situation, and the politicians have lost the plot.

 

THE UK’s political leaders have ruled out the Brexit deal, a no-deal Brexit, a second referendum, a general election, remaining in the EU and continuing the current situation. 

The prime minister and the leader of the opposition have agreed that none of the options available to them are tenable and must all be dismissed before any progress can be made.

Jeremy Corbyn said: “The British people are sick of their humdrum range of limited choices.

“Nobody wants a second referendum. Nobody wants a no-deal exit. The only deal on the table has been resoundingly rejected, and though I claim to want a general election I’d actually rather just take over but there’s not the support.

“But I can say categorically that we reject all the options so far raised, and indeed anything confined by the arbitrary limits of the merely possible.

“Perhaps we could exist in a quantum state both in and out of the EU. Perhaps Britain splits into a thousand warring factions. Perhaps we wink out of reality to return for one day every hundred years.

“Either way, we’re resolutely opposed to doing anything that we could actually do. Your move, universe.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

A tragedy is unfolding for the UK right now. No one in Westminster appears to have the faintest clue what to do, let alone what is going to happen next. Politicians have failed us, with the exception of those few like the Greens who have no influence. Jeremy Corbyn is playing games, (and at the same time barely managing to hide his personal desire to leave the EU), instead of attempting to help find some common ground that could lead us out of this mess. I'm not sure how arguing about the jurisdiction of the ECJ, or how much of a disaster a WTO rules Brexit would be, really helps anymore.

The Daily Mash puts it well, and kindly note this article has neither a pro or anti Brexit stance. It simply says we are in bloody awful situation, and the politicians have lost the plot.

 

THE UK’s political leaders have ruled out the Brexit deal, a no-deal Brexit, a second referendum, a general election, remaining in the EU and continuing the current situation. 

The prime minister and the leader of the opposition have agreed that none of the options available to them are tenable and must all be dismissed before any progress can be made.

Jeremy Corbyn said: “The British people are sick of their humdrum range of limited choices.

“Nobody wants a second referendum. Nobody wants a no-deal exit. The only deal on the table has been resoundingly rejected, and though I claim to want a general election I’d actually rather just take over but there’s not the support.

“But I can say categorically that we reject all the options so far raised, and indeed anything confined by the arbitrary limits of the merely possible.

“Perhaps we could exist in a quantum state both in and out of the EU. Perhaps Britain splits into a thousand warring factions. Perhaps we wink out of reality to return for one day every hundred years.

“Either way, we’re resolutely opposed to doing anything that we could actually do. Your move, universe.”

 

My view is that it was very unfortunate that TM survived first the Tory internal and later the parliament

non conf motions.

Even so, I am reasonably confident that she will come up with a possible path that can be pursued

as part of the so called Plan-B.

 

Not necessarily a brilliant new path that will fill parliament and voters with joy and awe but still smth

that might result in smth palatable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, aright said:

Had you looked closer you would have seen it was not anonymous but written by Dr Gunnar Beck. He is a Reader in Law at SOAS University of London and a practicing Barrister.

When I click on your link, all it says regarding the author is 

Author

 

Policy Exchange

Policy Exchange

When I click on 'Read Full Bio" I'm taken to a list of articles by various authors; some named, some not, some attributed to Dr. Beck, most, including the one you linked to and quoted from, not.

 

So forgive me for not knowing who the author is when the site does it's best to hide their identity!

 

16 hours ago, aright said:

 

As for Policy Exchange being an anti establishment think tank...…...

I did not call them an anti establishment think tank; I called them a

 

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

a right wing, anti EU think tank

which, according to the Wikipedia article you linked to and quoted from, is the truth!

 

But as I said before

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

if you read the whole article instead of just cherry picking you will find that even it's anonymous author isn't completely convinced the ECJ is the puppet of the Commission some people want us to believe.

But, I will replace 'it's anonymous author' with 'Dr. Beck' even though I still cannot see that he is named as such on the Policy Exchange site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nauseus, I am not going to quote your entire posts, because although you have gone to great lengths and taken great glee in 'correcting' me; all you have really done is repeat what I originally said in a feeble attempt to prove me wrong!

19 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The ECJ is an EU institution, in the same way that the courts in the UK are UK government institutions.

As we are both saying the same thing, then if I am wrong then so are you!

 

The ECJ, or as you correctly say, officially the CJEU, is part of but independent from the EU. It is not answerable to the Commission, it is not answerable to the European Parliament and it is not answerable to the Council of Ministers.

You say

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

its primary role is to "ensure that the interpretation and application of the (EU) Treaties the law is observed" (from Article 19). 

which is obvious; in the same way as the role of the judiciary in the UK is to ensure that UK law is observed!

 

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

PS - Your Article 50 "case" was a request for a ruling from the ECJ from the Scottish Court of Session on behalf of a group of MPs. It was not an action against the EU.

Lawyers for the EU argued that the request be turned down by the court. It refused them and granted the request.

 

Even @aright's article acknowledges that the court does find against the EU.

 

So much for the claim that the ECJ is the servant of the EU who always obeys it's master.

 

Feeling educated yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

When I click on your link, all it says regarding the author is 

Author

 

Policy Exchange

Policy Exchange

When I click on 'Read Full Bio" I'm taken to a list of articles by various authors; some named, some not, some attributed to Dr. Beck, most, including the one you linked to and quoted from, not.

 

So forgive me for not knowing who the author is when the site does it's best to hide their identity!

 

I did not call them an anti establishment think tank; I called them a

 

which, according to the Wikipedia article you linked to and quoted from, is the truth!

 

But as I said before

But, I will replace 'it's anonymous author' with 'Dr. Beck' even though I still cannot see that he is named as such on the Policy Exchange site.

 

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

When I click on your link, all it says regarding the author is 

Author

 

Policy Exchange

Policy Exchange

When I click on 'Read Full Bio" I'm taken to a list of articles by various authors; some named, some not, some attributed to Dr. Beck, most, including the one you linked to and quoted from, not.

 

So forgive me for not knowing who the author is when the site does it's best to hide their identity!

 

I did not call them an anti establishment think tank; I called them a

 

which, according to the Wikipedia article you linked to and quoted from, is the truth!

 

But as I said before

But, I will replace 'it's anonymous author' with 'Dr. Beck' even though I still cannot see that he is named as such on the Policy Exchange site.

His name is in the link

https://policyexchange.org.uk/gunnar-beck-the-european-court-..............................

 

I would regard your "anti  EU" phrase to be synonymous with "anti Establishment" especially for someone who supports the EU's (your establishment) ambitions. 

Wiki's description is centre-right.

"Policy Exchange is a British centre-right[1] think tank, created in 2002 and based in London...………...

I have no problems with that or right or left wing , all legitimate positions...…..extreme right /left however can be far less desirable and another issue. Do you only accept links from a centrist position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

@nauseus, I am not going to quote your entire posts, because although you have gone to great lengths and taken great glee in 'correcting' me; all you have really done is repeat what I originally said in a feeble attempt to prove me wrong!

As we are both saying the same thing, then if I am wrong then so are you!

 

The ECJ, or as you correctly say, officially the CJEU, is part of but independent from the EU. It is not answerable to the Commission, it is not answerable to the European Parliament and it is not answerable to the Council of Ministers.

You say

which is obvious; in the same way as the role of the judiciary in the UK is to ensure that UK law is observed!

 

Lawyers for the EU argued that the request be turned down by the court. It refused them and granted the request.

 

Even @aright's article acknowledges that the court does find against the EU.

 

So much for the claim that tc who always obeys it's master.

 

Feeling educated yet?

Educated, by you? Funny.

 

No great lengths.No particular glee. Little agreement with what you said. We are not saying the same thing. All you've done is twisted and added words and irrelevances to try to mask your errors.  

 

Byeee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Educated, by you? Funny.

 

No great lengths.No particular glee. Little agreement with what you said. We are not saying the same thing. All you've done is twisted and added words and irrelevances to try to mask your errors.  

 

Byeee

All these threads are going the same way in the mistaken belief that by stifling the views of the opposition the silver medalists and their cheer leaders are somehow going to make a difference in the real world.

They aren't. All they're likely to achieve is to kill the boards & ensure that the click$ dry up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

All these threads are going the same way in the mistaken belief that by stifling the views of the opposition the silver medalists and their cheer leaders are somehow going to make a difference in the real world.

They aren't. All they're likely to achieve is to kill the boards & ensure that the click$ dry up.

Maybe the ECJ could intervene? ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, aright said:

His name is in the link

https://policyexchange.org.uk/gunnar-beck-the-european-court-..............................

 

Well, pardon me for expecting to see the author's name attached to the actual article! I didn't realise I had to search through an IP address to find it!

 

22 hours ago, aright said:

I would regard your "anti  EU" phrase to be synonymous with "anti Establishment" especially for someone who supports the EU's (your establishment) ambitions. 

You can regard what you like; but 'anti establishment' is not the same as 'anti EU.'

 

As you like Wikipedia so much, Anti-establishment

Quote

An anti-establishment view or belief is one which stands in opposition to the conventional social, political, and economic principles of a society

 Not the same as Anti EU at all; except to someone desperate to cover up a deliberate misquote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

Educated, by you? Funny.

One can lead a horse to water,

But one can't make it drink.

One can lead a person to knowledge,

But one can't make them think.

 

I said the ECJ was an EU institution; you 'corrected' me by saying the ECJ is an EU institution!

 

I see that you have completely ignored the evidence that the ECJ is not the servant of the EU; not surprised. The rest of your post

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

No great lengths.No particular glee. Little agreement with what you said. We are not saying the same thing. All you've done is twisted and added words and irrelevances to try to mask your errors.  

 

Byeee

is a typical cop out when you have been confronted with evidence you cannot refute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

All these threads are going the same way in the mistaken belief that by stifling the views of the opposition the silver medalists and their cheer leaders are somehow going to make a difference in the real world.

They aren't. All they're likely to achieve is to kill the boards & ensure that the click$ dry up.

 You obviously find it extremely annoying that we are not convinced by your endless propaganda pieces from various twitter accounts and other sources plus you continuous childish insults directed at those who disagree with you.

 

Your last sentence shows that you are also obviously annoyed that those of us who disagree with you are allowed to post at all!

 

Maybe if you presented cogent arguments of your own you may have more success; you'd certainly have more respect.

 

I disagree on this subject with others, such as @dick dasterdly but she does present rational arguments and rarely, if at all, resorts to the sort of juvenile abuse you are so fond of. Therefore whilst I disagree with her, she does have my respect.

 

No doubt your response will be that my respect is not something you have any wish for!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Well, pardon me for expecting to see the author's name attached to the actual article! I didn't realise I had to search through an IP address to find it!

 

You can regard what you like; but 'anti establishment' is not the same as 'anti EU.'

 

As you like Wikipedia so much, Anti-establishment

 Not the same as Anti EU at all; except to someone desperate to cover up a deliberate misquote!

I had no problem finding his name you obviously missed the obvious. As for the rest of your response, no attempt to address the issues you raised and my reply just muddled semantic irrelevances and an unanswered question. Bye

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aright said:

I had no problem finding his name you obviously missed the obvious.

The obvious would have been to attach his name to the article, not hide it in an IP address!

 

11 minutes ago, aright said:

As for the rest of your response, no attempt to address the issues you raised and my reply just muddled semantic irrelevances and an unanswered question. Bye

It seems you are now in agreement with me on that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 You obviously find it extremely annoying that we are not convinced by your endless propaganda pieces from various twitter accounts and other sources plus you continuous childish insults directed at those who disagree with you.

 

Your last sentence shows that you are also obviously annoyed that those of us who disagree with you are allowed to post at all!

 

Maybe if you presented cogent arguments of your own you may have more success; you'd certainly have more respect.

 

I disagree on this subject with others, such as @dick dasterdly but she does present rational arguments and rarely, if at all, resorts to the sort of juvenile abuse you are so fond of. Therefore whilst I disagree with her, she does have my respect.

 

No doubt your response will be that my respect is not something you have any wish for!

 

Tweaking your tail was fun until I realized you couldn't keep up & gave it a rest around a fortnight ago. Since then you have taken to cyber stalking across multiple boards in the hope of triggering 'the cuckoo effect'.

I won't be supplying the bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Tweaking your tail was fun until I realized you couldn't keep up & gave it a rest around a fortnight ago. Since then you have taken to cyber stalking across multiple boards in the hope of triggering 'the cuckoo effect'.

I won't be supplying the bait.

Your massive ego obviously thinks you are so important to me that I am stalking you across cyber space; but I have far better ways of spending my time. 

 

Difficult though you obviously find it to live with; the truth is you are not the centre of my universe; extremely far from it in fact. 

 

Although the way you react to my posts indicates that I may very well be a lot closer to the centre of yours!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

One can lead a horse to water,

But one can't make it drink.

One can lead a person to knowledge,

But one can't make them think.

 

I said the ECJ was an EU institution; you 'corrected' me by saying the ECJ is an EU institution!

 

I see that you have completely ignored the evidence that the ECJ is not the servant of the EU; not surprised. The rest of your post

is a typical cop out when you have been confronted with evidence you cannot refute.

And you can read your ditties all night but you haven't provided any "evidence" of anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And you can read your ditties all night but you haven't provided any "evidence" of anything.

 

Apart from numerous links to scholarly articles, newspaper and other media and official documents to support my arguments in most of my posts, you mean?

 

Such links to support your arguments in your posts are as rare as hen's teeth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...