Trump dangles very big trade deal in front of Brexit Britain

[stephenterry]

12 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

EU law as primacy . A provision that Parliament accepted in 1972 .

However the ECJ cannot overule a national court.

See Lord Dennings comments about disregarding UK law

This has been aired many times. For someone whose field it is, doesn't realise that as far as the ECJ is concerned, the UK could override them, as is the current Immigration's stance that 'freedom of movement' needs to be granted before an EU citizen enters the UK.  

 

All in all a complete fallacy that the UK would 'reclaim' sovereignty. Go and ask your MP if you still question it. 

[Rookiescot]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:05 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

That's lamentably true! Wales voted to leave too. A considerable tranche of voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland also voted to leave.

 

But the Scottish Nationalists want to play up their racist anti English bigotry and pretend it's all the English dictating. Now the even dafter Welsh nationalists have done a u-turn and trying to jump on the same bandwagon. They're totally transparent.

Oh good grief.

Step away from the Daily Mail.

[Forethat]

39 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

EU law as primacy . A provision that Parliament accepted in 1972 .

However the ECJ cannot overule a national court.

See Lord Dennings comments about disregarding UK law

There is no need for ECJ to overrule a national court when the ECJ already ruled that member states cannot introduce or enforce national laws in case they are incompatible with EU law. 

 

 

Quote

One of the underlying principles of EU law is the principle of supremacy (or primacy). This principle requires that national law must be consistent with EU law and, to the extent that it is not, EU law must prevail over national law. This principle was first set-out in the 1964 European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment of Costa v ENEL. In that case, the Italian authorities sought to argue that an Italian court was forbidden from referring a question of compatibility of Italian law with Community law to the European Court of Justice. They argued that: a national court which is obliged to apply a national law cannot avail itself of art 177 [now TFEU, art 267]. The ECJ rejected this argument, saying that (emphasis added): The integration into the laws of each member state of provisions which derive from the Community, and more generally the terms and the spirit of the Treaty, make it impossible for the states, as a corollary, to accord precedence to a unilateral and subsequent measure over a legal system accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity. Such a measure cannot therefore be inconsistent with that legal system. The executive force of Community law cannot vary from one state to another in deference to subsequent domestic laws, without jeopardising the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty.6 And, crucially: The transfer by the states from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights.7 In subsequent case law, the ECJ affirmed that this principle applied to all national law, including constitutional law. In Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, the ECJ rejected the argument that, if an export licence scheme in Community law was incompatible with principles of German constitutional law, the latter should prevail (emphasis added): Recourse to the legal rules or concepts of national law in order to judge the validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the Community would have an adverse effect on the uniformity and efficacy of Community law. The validity of such measures can only be judged in the light of Community law. In fact, the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national law, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.

 

In clear text:

This principle requires that national law must be consistent with EU law and, to the extent that it is not, EU law must prevail over national law

Savvy?

 

Here you go:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-status-of-retained-EU-law.pdf

 

On a more serious note: what is that you lot don't understand? It's not that hard.

[Forethat]

double post

[mikebike]

12 hours ago, mania said:

I know that sounds logical but...........

 

I am a sport/hobby nut & spend much $$$  on my hobby.

I am in the US & my main 3 vendors I buy from are all in the UK.

 

I do not know how they do it but their prices are so much better that with delivery ( which many times is free)

are still better than what I can buy online here including places like Amazon etc Even if they use Royal Mail>USPS or DHL/UPS/FedEx etc.

 

So if they can ship my things (which are not tiny) either free or very cheaply as they do then I have to wonder if what you say is factual

Lastly remember I am buying small quantities of items for personal use. If anything the cost of shipping should be much less in bulk

 

Yeah. And I get stuff from China cheaper than retail. Your story has no point.

[cleopatra2]

8 minutes ago, Forethat said:

There is no need for ECJ to overrule a national court when the ECJ already ruled that member states cannot introduce or enforce national laws in case they are incompatible with EU law. 

 

 

 

In clear text:

This principle requires that national law must be consistent with EU law and, to the extent that it is not, EU law must prevail over national law

Savvy?

 

Here you go:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-status-of-retained-EU-law.pdf

 

On a more serious note: what is that you lot don't understand? It's not that hard.

Again you miss the point

UK parliament decided that UK laws would be consistent with EU laws when they accepted the 1972 provisions.

Thus it is Parliaments intention that relevant UK laws do not contravene EU laws.

When UK courts seek preliminary rulings from the ECJ they are simply following what Parliament wished. That the laws are consistent with the UK obligations.

If Parliament wishes to pass laws to contradict EU law they are free to do so. Lord Denning outlined in such circumstances the courts are obliged to uphold Parliaments intention

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Again you miss the point

UK parliament decided that UK laws would be consistent with EU laws when they accepted the 1972 provisions.

Thus it is Parliaments intention that relevant UK laws do not contravene EU laws.

When UK courts seek preliminary rulings from the ECJ they are simply following what Parliament wished. That the laws are consistent with the UK obligations.

If Parliament wishes to pass laws to contradict EU law they are free to do so. Lord Denning outlined in such circumstances the courts are obliged to uphold Parliaments intention

I think you're getting to the core here - most of the EU laws weren't written when the UK signed the Rome Treaty. I think most people are getting scared of the direction towards the Federated Nations of Europe. And thats's they voted out. That's my thought.

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

I'm not saying you're wrong from a financial perspective. Yet you seem to forget that there's the issue of sovereignty and national identity as well. Money isn't everything.

Just wanted to point that out. In fact, I'm rather confident a majority of leave-voters are willing to sacrifice quite a lot in order to get their sovereignty and national identity back. 

One week of tea shortages and all bets are off... ????????????

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, mikebike said:

One week of tea shortages and all bets are off... ????????????

Exactly. Or just wait for the super gonorrhea outbreak and Jean-Claude Juncker is your uncle.

[Mavideol]

On 8/26/2019 at 2:07 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

If you believe Trump to be stupid why aren't you a billionaire and POTUS? 

we know (unfortunately) he's the POTUS, he was placed there because he's the chosen one.....

but wouldn't assume he's a billionaire until he shows his taxes returns, maybe the debit is higher than the credit

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

There is no need for ECJ to overrule a national court when the ECJ already ruled that member states cannot introduce or enforce national laws in case they are incompatible with EU law. 

 

 

 

In clear text:

This principle requires that national law must be consistent with EU law and, to the extent that it is not, EU law must prevail over national law

Savvy?

 

Here you go:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-status-of-retained-EU-law.pdf

 

On a more serious note: what is that you lot don't understand? It's not that hard.

All economic treaties, if they are to be effective, require some surrender of sovereignty.  

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

[Laughing Gravy]

18 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

I sense a great deal of denial or is it desperation ?

Neither I would give your crystal ball a wipe as it clearly isn't working.

[mania]

16 hours ago, mikebike said:

Yeah. And I get stuff from China cheaper than retail. Your story has no point.

Well actually the things I am buying are high end cycling wheels & made in Italy so yeah there is the point that

I am making & it is about shipping costs which I was replying to

 

I have no horse in this hole Brexit or not deal....I was only replying to that post that shipping to US would kill

[mania]

20 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You've answered your own question with 'If anything the cost of shipping should be much less in bulk'. I'm unsure of what you are buying but whoever you are buying from obviously has your product produced en masse and therefore has the benefit of producing large quantities of it, therefore making it cheaper to export.

I would agree if that was the case but it is not & that is why I mentioned it based solely on shipping costs

 

Most of the parts I am buying are made in Italy & sold in the UK

These are specialty items not produced en masse

 

But I don't want to lead you folks too far off your topic & have no interest in Brexit or not.....I only mentioned as I saw your post saying shipping prices to US would kill deals

I don't think that is 100%

[Nigel Garvie]

16 hours ago, Forethat said:

I think you're getting to the core here - most of the EU laws weren't written when the UK signed the Rome Treaty. I think most people are getting scared of the direction towards the Federated Nations of Europe. And thats's they voted out. That's my thought.

Exactly, and the UK has played it's part in writing and agreeing all those since. The only laws that we have stood against (A tiny proportion) are often laws which threaten the tax avoidance schemes or require us to spend money on things Tories (Mainly)  don't care about. What's the point of being a Tory if you can't ensure that your friends avoid tax.  I don't have the details to hand, but they are easy to find and interesting to read. I've lost count of the number of times that Brexiteers have been asked on Radio or TV to tell us what EU laws they don't like, and have been unable to name one, not even one. 

 

The Federated Nations of Europe thing is a scare story, which might frighten children, but adults should be able to see it for what it is.

1) Yes a limited number of EU MEPs would like a closer Union.

2) They are a small minority.

3) We have a veto against further integration.

4) Going round the other countries of Europe you will find very limited enthusiasm for further integration.

There would have to be a VAST sea change in public opinion in the WHOLE of Europe for this to happen. We are certainly NOT the only EU country who has reservations on this matter.

 

However if people are determined to believe in the Bogie Wogie under the bed, the Nigel Farage school of fantasy threats will help confirm your beliefs.

[Nigel Garvie]

19 hours ago, candide said:

Divorced men often found out that these beautiful women were more rapacious than their previous wife.....

Ironic that the NHS that BJ and Co professed to care about (Lying bus etc) would be at the mercy of US contractors and insurers. Medical treatment unaffordable to the poor, that's the reality in the US. Farage at least admitted that he was in favor of an insurance based system (A conman otherwise). Trump is Putin's poodle, and now BJ is Trumps pet monkey.

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, mania said:

Well actually the things I am buying are high end cycling wheels & made in Italy so yeah there is the point that

I am making & it is about shipping costs which I was replying to

 

I have no horse in this hole Brexit or not deal....I was only replying to that post that shipping to US would kill

Yeah, you have a point, and I'm sure wherever you are there would be dearer and cheaper goods on offer than you could get at home. It also makes sense that the majority of goods shipped to the US would incur greater transportation costs than those sent to the EU.  

 

So be it. Higher costs all round.

[earlinclaifornia]

Living in the USA for 67 years let me tell you what Americans have purchased from England Alcohol and cars. That's it folks! 

[transam]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Living in the USA for 67 years let me tell you what Americans have purchased from England Alcohol and cars. That's it folks! 

And "real" cheese....????

[Mavideol]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Living in the USA for 67 years let me tell you what Americans have purchased from England Alcohol and cars. That's it folks! 

a spell check maybe california 555

[IAMHERE]

On 8/26/2019 at 10:44 AM, Victornoir said:

Trump has a lot flaws but he's not stupid.

Its goal is for the UK to completely cut the bridges with the EU so that it is totally subject to US goodwill.

The UK has plenty of other nations around the world that are friendly with it. Canada, India, and many others part of the commonwealth and such. The UK is not alone.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

The UK has plenty of other nations around the world that are friendly with it. Canada, India, and many others part of the commonwealth and such. The UK is not alone.

It's not even sure that India is "friendly" with the UK. Whatever that even means in the context of international relations. Whether "friendly" nations are inclined to give the UK a favorable deal, is another matter entirely.