UK PM May to seek Brexit consensus after winning confidence vote

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

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!

Not talking about "most of your posts". I'm talking about this ECJ sub-thread. You haven't proved a thing.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

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!

[7by7]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not talking about "most of your posts". I'm talking about this ECJ sub-thread. You haven't proved a thing.

Well, I must have proven that the ECJ is an EU institution to your satisfaction because you agreed with me!

 

Despite his believing to the contrary, anyone who has read aright's linked to article in full can see that even it's author agrees that the ECJ is independent of and at times rules against the EU.

 

With regard to the Article 50 ruling: from the judgement itself

Quote

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

……...

–   the Council of the European Union, by H. Legal, J.-B. Laignelot and J. Ciantar, acting as Agents,

–   the European Commission, by L. Romero Requena, F. Erlbacher and K. Banks, acting as Agents,

 

 

You should, of course, read the whole judgement, but I refer you to paras 25 and 26 in particular in which the EU commission argues that the court has no jurisdiction over this matter; an argument the court dismissed. There are other examples throughout the judgement of the court dismissing the arguments and observations of the commission.

 

Why would the court have ruled against the arguments and observations of the commission if, as you believe, the court is the puppet of the commission?

[aright]

34 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Despite his believing to the contrary, anyone who has read aright's linked to article in full can see that even it's author agrees that the ECJ is independent of and at times rules against the EU.

 

You have a problem...….you can smell the coffee unfortunately you can't find a cup.

The article says as I quoted

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.’

This is what Gunnar Beck said. Can you point me to the piece in his article which says "the ECJ is in real terms independent" and being partial by definition does not include or exclude it from siding with the EU when traffic dictates.   

 

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Well, I must have proven that the ECJ is an EU institution to your satisfaction because you agreed with me!

 

Despite his believing to the contrary, anyone who has read aright's linked to article in full can see that even it's author agrees that the ECJ is independent of and at times rules against the EU.

 

With regard to the Article 50 ruling: from the judgement itself

 

You should, of course, read the whole judgement, but I refer you to paras 25 and 26 in particular in which the EU commission argues that the court has no jurisdiction over this matter; an argument the court dismissed. There are other examples throughout the judgement of the court dismissing the arguments and observations of the commission.

 

Why would the court have ruled against the arguments and observations of the commission if, as you believe, the court is the puppet of the commission?

The ECJ is an institution of the EU. I know that and proved that too. Formally. 

 

You ignore the primary reason for the A50 ruling request, which I have given.

 

Any argument between the EC and ECJ about the ruling or release of same is a side issue to what we were discussing. You just threw it into the mix and succeeded in creating yet more confusion.

 

 

[7by7]

15 hours ago, aright said:

You have a problem...….you can smell the coffee unfortunately you can't find a cup.

The article says as I quoted

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.’

This is what Gunnar Beck said. Can you point me to the piece in his article which says "the ECJ is in real terms independent" and being partial by definition does not include or exclude it from siding with the EU when traffic dictates.   

 

That is what the part you have quoted says, and it is his opinion. Whilst the author's bias is obvious throughout the article, he does not say that the ECJ always finds in favour of the EU.

 

The recent Article 50 case being an example. I'll ask you the same question I asked nauseus: "

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Why would the court have ruled against the arguments and observations of the commission if, as you believe, the court is the puppet of the commission?

As you cans see from his post above, nauseus has adopted the usual Brexiteer tactic when faced with awkward questions and dodged it.

 

Will you do the same?

 

Meanwhile, have a read of The European Court of Justice and its political impact (You wont have to go searching through the IP address to find the authors; unlike your source they are not afraid to put their names to the document.)

Quote

We start by discussing studies that show a considerable congruence between the Court’s rulings and member state preferences.

"Member state's preferences" not EU preferences. I'm sure you'll agree that the two are very often at odds!

 

There are many other independent scholarly articles saying the same; far more, in fact, than ones which agree with your anti EU source.

 

Indeed, The judiciary as legislator? How the European Court of Justice shapes policy-making in the European Union cogently argues that the ECJ's rulings shape EU policy, rather than the other way round!

 

 

[7by7]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

The ECJ is an institution of the EU. I know that and proved that too. Formally. 

Indeed you did; so a big thank you for formally proving something which I had earlier stated!

 

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

You ignore the primary reason for the A50 ruling request, which I have given.

The primary reason for the ECJ granting the request was that it did not break any conditions of the relevant treaty(ies). I can neither remember nor be arsed to go back and see if that is what you said, so will take your word that it was.

 

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

Any argument between the EC and ECJ about the ruling or release of same is a side issue to what we were discussing. You just threw it into the mix and succeeded in creating yet more confusion.

Not a side issue at all. We are discussing whether or not the ECJ is the puppet of the EU. That it ruled against arguments put by the EU emphatically shows that it is not.

 

Try and sideline that fact as much as you like; but it is still a fact. 

 

Going to answer the question

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Why would the court have ruled against the arguments and observations of the commission if, as you believe, the court is the puppet of the commission?

now?

 

Or will you, as usual, simply ignore it because the answer doesn't suit your beliefs?

[Basil B]

On 1/16/2019 at 9:29 PM, nauseus said:

Yes, even the HB Club has its limits I suppose.

But they missed there chance there, with first the Tories trying to form a new government within 14 days then an GE, 3 weeks, then a hung parliament and no government and possibly another GE and another 3 weeks we would be out of the EU by default with no deal.

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, aright said:

The ECJ is the EU's creature ; an enforcer of the EU Commissions strategic imperatives and enforcement officer on the road to a Federal EU Super state

ECJ=EU Just another EU mouthpiece and therefore incapable of being impartial between the EU and member states.

 

 

 

You can ignore all the independent evidence and repeat the above as often as you like in as many different colours and fonts as you like.

 

Wont make it true.

 

Addenda:

Sorry, didn't immediately see your, against the forum rules, additions to my post in the quote of same, even though they too are in red. But I have answered your questions previously.

 

BTW, I did not say that your favoured article ever says "the ECJ is in real terms independent" because, being biased, it doesn't. It does, though, acknowledge that the court does not always rule in favour of the EU.

 

In response to your first comment; if you can't be bothered to read your own source, I'm not going to do it for you.

 

Your second; please tell me which questions i have not answered and i will answer them But I mean those I have not answered, not the ones where you don't like the answer.

 

For your third; not an answer. The court ruled in favour of the request, despite the EU arguing that it should do otherwise. That it ruled quickly, time being of the essence, doesn't alter that.

 

I will finish by saying that I have provided two scholarly articles which present numerous references to back up their assertions.

 

You have presented one article from an anti EU source in which supporting references are few and far between!

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

I only used colour to make it simple for you. I am disappointed you were unable to answer my questions.

I agree however in one respect, this argument has done it's dash.

As I say in my edit above, even though you used red, I did miss the parts where you broke the forum rules and edited your quote of my post by adding comments.

Quote

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post.

 

I have now edited my post to address those comments.

[7by7]

 

1 minute ago, aright said:

Are you calling me a liar?

The statement

 

20 minutes ago, aright said:

The ECJ is the EU's creature ; an enforcer of the EU Commissions strategic imperatives and enforcement officer on the road to a Federal EU Super state

ECJ=EU Just another EU mouthpiece and therefore incapable of being impartial between the EU and member states.

is completely untrue; so if the cap fits...…..

[aright]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

As I say in my edit above, even though you used red, I did miss the parts where you broke the forum rules and edited your quote of my post by adding comments.

 

I have now edited my post to address those comments.

Pathetic. By all means contact the mods if it makes you feel better

[7by7]

1 minute ago, aright said:

Pathetic. By all means contact the mods if it makes you feel better

Merely pointing out the rules and, more importantly, explaining that I was editing my post while you were replying to it and why I needed to so do.

 

Had you not broken the rules, I would not have needed to so do.

 

I was trying to be courteous; but it seems that word is not in your vocabulary.

[Scott]

Post removed.   Do not alter anyone's quotes and don't used colored font.

 

[nauseus]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Indeed you did; so a big thank you for formally proving something which I had earlier stated!

 

The primary reason for the ECJ granting the request was that it did not break any conditions of the relevant treaty(ies). I can neither remember nor be arsed to go back and see if that is what you said, so will take your word that it was.

 

Not a side issue at all. We are discussing whether or not the ECJ is the puppet of the EU. That it ruled against arguments put by the EU emphatically shows that it is not.

 

Try and sideline that fact as much as you like; but it is still a fact. 

 

Going to answer the question

now?

 

Or will you, as usual, simply ignore it because the answer doesn't suit your beliefs?

You said that the ECJ is independent (your post 66) - I say that that is impossible as it is much a part of the EU itself, as the Commission, Parliament and Councils - it is not the same as the UK Supreme Court.

 

Yes, it may rule for or against other institutions of the EU but it is not independent of them. Any serious cases of this happening, really, ever??

 

The the case concerning the possibility of revoking Article 50 was heard by the ECJ due to a reference from the Scottish Court of Session on behalf of a group of parliamentarians seeking a declaration on “whether, when and how” the UK’s Article 50 notification can be unilaterally revoked. It was not an action against any element of the EU.

 

The representatives of the EU were not forced to be there or forced to challenge any part of the case. If the ECJ was truly independent, it could have barred the EC and Council lawyers from the hearing, or accepted a challenge from them post-verdict for separate hearing. 

 

The ECJ merely rejected an argument from the Council of the EU and the European Commission that the UK could only take back its Article 50 notification with the unanimous consent of the European Council, on the grounds that that would inconsistent with the EU’s values. That is what I referred to as the side-issue. 

 

That the court gave its ruling much more quickly than usual, on 10th December, and on the day before the "meaningful vote" was supposed to have taken place, seemed far too coincidental to me. So (and I know I can't prove this) it is my suspicion that that the timing was meant to influence the "meaningful vote" and that the challenge to the ECJ by the Commission and Council was merely a ploy, as the EU really does not want the UK to leave.

 

In any case (pun intended) the ECJ cannot be independent of the EU. It is fully part of it. It is a political court. No further questions m'laud.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

You said that the ECJ is independent (your post 66) - I say that that is impossible as it is much a part of the EU itself, as the Commission, Parliament and Councils - it is not the same as the UK Supreme Court.

 

Here in the UK, we have three branches of government.

1. The legislative; Parliament.
2. The executive; the Prime Minister, Cabinet, government departments and civil service.
3. The judiciary; from local magistrates all the way up to the Supreme Court.

For more detail, see What are the branches of government in the UK and what are their key functions?

 

This is essentially the same as the branches of government in the EU. 

1. Legislative: Council and Parliament.
2. Executive; Commission, EU departments, EU civil service.
3. Judiciary; the ECJ.

So, if you believe that the ECJ cannot possibly be independent of the EU legislature or executive, then you must also believe that the UK Supreme Court cannot possibly be independent of the UK legislature or executive.

 

Which, as any 'A' level student of the UK's constitution will tell you, is ballocks.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Here in the UK, we have three branches of government.

1. The legislative; Parliament.
2. The executive; the Prime Minister, Cabinet, government departments and civil service.
3. The judiciary; from local magistrates all the way up to the Supreme Court.

For more detail, see What are the branches of government in the UK and what are their key functions?

 

This is essentially the same as the branches of government in the EU. 

1. Legislative: Council and Parliament.
2. Executive; Commission, EU departments, EU civil service.
3. Judiciary; the ECJ.

So, if you believe that the ECJ cannot possibly be independent of the EU legislature or executive, then you must also believe that the UK Supreme Court cannot possibly be independent of the UK legislature or executive.

 

Which, as any 'A' level student of the UK's constitution will tell you, is ballocks.

After recent changes, the UK Supreme Court is about as neutral and independent as it can be. 

But the ECJ is not the same. Look at this from the European Commission's own page:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en

 

Particularly this extract from the Commission's own statement on what it actually does:

Enforces EU law

• Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.

 

 

[damascase]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

..............

Particularly this extract from the Commission's own statement on what it actually does:

Enforces EU law

• Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.

 

‘Together’ in this context does not necessarily mean ‘in co-operation with’. It is part of the Commission’s brief to ensure that the law is properly applied - hence all kinds of audits etc. - but in situations where the member country has a differerent view of what is ‘properly’, or neglects the duties following from the law, the case at hand can be put into the hands of the Court. Not unlike what’s happening internally in member countries, I think.

[RickG16]

Can someone offer a summary of where it all stands today? (Monday) Cheers ????

[melvinmelvin]

19 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Can someone offer a summary of where it all stands today? (Monday) Cheers ????

parliament debating Plan-B, way forward not clear, yet

 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

After recent changes, the UK Supreme Court is about as neutral and independent as it can be. 

But the ECJ is not the same. Look at this from the European Commission's own page:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en

 

Particularly this extract from the Commission's own statement on what it actually does:

Enforces EU law

• Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.

 

 

Yes, that is the function of the ECJ; duh!

 

But, just as the UK Supreme Court can only rule on matters of UK law, the ECJ can only rule on matters of EU law.

 

EU law covers a wide range of subjects, but it is just a minor part of the law in all member states.

 

UK law: What proportion is influenced by the EU?

Quote

In brief: Simply counting laws does not consider that some laws have more impact than others. Quoted figures have varied wildly from under 10% to 70%. It's possible to justify many of these, depending on which definition of 'UK law' you look at, but those at the higher end count EU rules that aren’t really laws in any meaningful sense.

The higher end figures also count the repeal or amendment of EU laws as 'new' laws.

 

But it doesn't matter what I say; you are going to continue to believe against all the evidence that the ECJ is the puppet of the Commission; so I'll leave it there.

 

You may count that as a victory if you wish.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, that is the function of the ECJ; duh!

 

But, just as the UK Supreme Court can only rule on matters of UK law, the ECJ can only rule on matters of EU law.

 

EU law covers a wide range of subjects, but it is just a minor part of the law in all member states.

 

UK law: What proportion is influenced by the EU?

The higher end figures also count the repeal or amendment of EU laws as 'new' laws.

 

But it doesn't matter what I say; you are going to continue to believe against all the evidence that the ECJ is the puppet of the Commission; so I'll leave it there.

 

You may count that as a victory if you wish.

You didn't read the link I think but never mind. I was talking about the relative levels of independence of each court. I was not talking about their respective jurisdictions, proportions of EU law or anything like that. You have just added these in, as you always add in irrelevancies for nebulous effect. 

 

You have not shown any evidence, let alone "all" of it. 

 

Victory accepted.

[Grouse]

Continued arrogance from May. Hubris comes before a fall and I expect parliament to deliver the coup de grace soon.

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, RickG16 said:

Can someone offer a summary of where it all stands today? (Monday) Cheers ????

Basically May is saying she'll have further talks across Parliament (even with Corbyn if he stops throwing his toys out of the pram) seeking a more acceptable backstop arrangement that would bring about a majority vote for her deal. She would then take the conclusions to the EU. It seems that to get parliamentary support for the deal the EU would need to agree to a 'sunset' on the backstop arrangement, i.e. it would expire after say 5 years. 

She also scrapped the £65 fee for EU citizens applying for settled status. 

 

Corbyn responded by saying May is offering nothing new. He also said he (Labour) would support an amendment being tabled next week that would make 'no-deal' an impossibility. Thus handing the EU all the cards in negotiations. (he didn't say that last bit, I did) 

[melvinmelvin]

my usual source didn't broadcast this debate so I missed it, alas

 

has parliament finished debating for now or will the

debate continue Tuesday/Wednesday?

[aright]

5 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

my usual source didn't broadcast this debate so I missed it, alas

 

has parliament finished debating for now or will the

debate continue Tuesday/Wednesday?

Debate has finished I believe until a vote next week

I hope this is helpful

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brexit-mps-business-leaders-protest-192708196.html

[welovesundaysatspace]

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

He also said he (Labour) would support an amendment being tabled next week that would make 'no-deal' an impossibility. Thus handing the EU all the cards in negotiations. (he didn't say that last bit, I did) 

Maybe Corbyn is smart enough to realize that no-deal is not a negotiation card, and that the UK never held any cards in this negotiation but could only choose between worse, even more worse and worst. 

[dick dasterdly]

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Basically May is saying she'll have further talks across Parliament (even with Corbyn if he stops throwing his toys out of the pram) seeking a more acceptable backstop arrangement that would bring about a majority vote for her deal. She would then take the conclusions to the EU. It seems that to get parliamentary support for the deal the EU would need to agree to a 'sunset' on the backstop arrangement, i.e. it would expire after say 5 years. 

She also scrapped the £65 fee for EU citizens applying for settled status. 

 

Corbyn responded by saying May is offering nothing new. He also said he (Labour) would support an amendment being tabled next week that would make 'no-deal' an impossibility. Thus handing the EU all the cards in negotiations. (he didn't say that last bit, I did) 

"He also said he (Labour) would support an amendment being tabled next week that would make 'no-deal' an impossibility. Thus handing the EU all the cards in negotiations. (he didn't say that last bit, I did)"

 

A completely ridiculous stance to take, for the reasons you point out.

[Grouse]

9 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

my usual source didn't broadcast this debate so I missed it, alas

 

has parliament finished debating for now or will the

debate continue Tuesday/Wednesday?

Next week

[nauseus]

50 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Maybe Corbyn is smart enough to realize that no-deal is not a negotiation card, and that the UK never held any cards in this negotiation but could only choose between worse, even more worse and worst. 

What a silly thing to say.