FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Real Democracy
Real Democracy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers." I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ? | |||
 | |||
 | |||
"Don't like Teresa May, but I hear she will use some kind of Royal Decre if BREXIT comes under threat. I don't understand this fully, but it seems that if this move is made, it overrides parliament, the courts, everything. Section 50 will happen, parliament will not get the chance to stop it. The people voted for this and that is that. Thank fucking God! "I hope your right I really do. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't like Teresa May, but I hear she will use some kind of Royal Decre if BREXIT comes under threat. I don't understand this fully, but it seems that if this move is made, it overrides parliament, the courts, everything. Section 50 will happen, parliament will not get the chance to stop it. The people voted for this and that is that. Thank fucking God! "Keep up with the news. This "secret" arrangement that the government didn't want to make public in case it faced a legal challenge had to be revealed. And it will now of course be challenged and Scotland will certainly have something to say about it. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"To be honest I'm totally lost on what all this is about lol Can anyone be bothered to explain it "The British government on Wednesday released “secret” Brexit documents after being ordered to do so by a judge. The documents reveal why the government thinks that they don't need to let parliament have a say in how and when the U.K. leaves the European Union. In a victory for campaigners against the way that is Brexit is being handled, a judge at the High Court in London said Tuesday that the government had to reveal “secret” legal arguments in which it has argued that parliament won’t need to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50 and begin divorce proceedings from the EU. In the newly-released documents, lawyers for the government say it is “constitutionally impermissible” for parliament to be given the authority rather than the prime minister. They also dismiss any idea that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will have any say in the divorce process. In effect, an English Prime Minister riding roughshod over MP's from Scotland, Wales and N Ireland on the pretext that they are irrelevant. The government wanted these documents to remain locked away but the judge disagreed, saying: “Against the background of the principle of open justice, it is difficult to see a justification for restricting publication of documents which are generally available under [court] rules.” The contents of the Govt argument include submissions that Brexit has nothing constitutionally to do with the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved governments and that the UK parliament should have ‘clearly understood’ it was surrendering any role it might have in a future Brexit by passing the original EU Referendum Act and that Parliament has no control over making and withdrawal from treaties. *********** This is fairly explosive stuff and now that it is in the public domain, it will no doubt be scrutinised and enable Lawyers including the House of Lords to debate the merits of this future argument long in advance of it being used as a fait accompli. You can be sure that the Scottish and Welsh will feel annoyed even those that might be pro Brexit. What sort of United Kongdom is it when Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are seen as irrelevant? (Taken largely from articles in the Independent and a Reuters web page). | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. " Theresa May is no less elected than any other prime minister. We elect a party, not a president. | |||
"To be honest I'm totally lost on what all this is about lol Can anyone be bothered to explain it
The British government on Wednesday released “secret” Brexit documents after being ordered to do so by a judge. The documents reveal why the government thinks that they don't need to let parliament have a say in how and when the U.K. leaves the European Union.
In a victory for campaigners against the way that is Brexit is being handled, a judge at the High Court in London said Tuesday that the government had to reveal “secret” legal arguments in which it has argued that parliament won’t need to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50 and begin divorce proceedings from the EU.
In the newly-released documents, lawyers for the government say it is “constitutionally impermissible” for parliament to be given the authority rather than the prime minister. They also dismiss any idea that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will have any say in the divorce process. In effect, an English Prime Minister riding roughshod over MP's from Scotland, Wales and N Ireland on the pretext that they are irrelevant.
The government wanted these documents to remain locked away but the judge disagreed, saying: “Against the background of the principle of open justice, it is difficult to see a justification for restricting publication of documents which are generally available under [court] rules.”
The contents of the Govt argument include submissions that Brexit has nothing constitutionally to do with the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved governments and that the UK parliament should have ‘clearly understood’ it was surrendering any role it might have in a future Brexit by passing the original EU Referendum Act and that Parliament has no control over making and withdrawal from treaties.
***********
This is fairly explosive stuff and now that it is in the public domain, it will no doubt be scrutinised and enable Lawyers including the House of Lords to debate the merits of this future argument long in advance of it being used as a fait accompli. You can be sure that the Scottish and Welsh will feel annoyed even those that might be pro Brexit. What sort of United Kongdom is it when Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are seen as irrelevant?
(Taken largely from articles in the Independent and a Reuters web page)."Well Scotland and N Ireland devolved governments shouldn't have taken part in any referendum should they then and then they might have a claim to being 'relevant'. They knew the deal before the referendum. This isn't explosive at all, it is 'irrelevant' | |||
 | |||
"The way I see it at the moment "Brexit" will be nothing more than a footnote in a much bigger catastrophe. The EU is fucked. The politicians may bang on about how it is so wonderful and that Britain can't do without it, but the whole rotten edifice is in its death throes. As I have said before the coming Italian referendum on the new constitution is scaring the shit out of Brussels a lot more than Brexit ever did. Add to that the unfolding German banking crisis that could see the Euro implode and anyone can see that the shit is getting very close to the fan. Give it six months and even the most die hard remainer will think that Britain has really dodged a bullet. Remember you heard it here first. "Could you be specific about what events you thinking will happen? I'm hunting for questions for the brier score game round 3... | |||
| |||
"The way I see it at the moment "Brexit" will be nothing more than a footnote in a much bigger catastrophe. The EU is fucked. The politicians may bang on about how it is so wonderful and that Britain can't do without it, but the whole rotten edifice is in its death throes. As I have said before the coming Italian referendum on the new constitution is scaring the shit out of Brussels a lot more than Brexit ever did. Add to that the unfolding German banking crisis that could see the Euro implode and anyone can see that the shit is getting very close to the fan. Give it six months and even the most die hard remainer will think that Britain has really dodged a bullet. Remember you heard it here first.
Could you be specific about what events you thinking will happen? I'm hunting for questions for the brier score game round 3... "Firstly Deutsche bank is in serious shit and Commerze bank isn't far behind. Merkel has made it clear that she will not step in for a bailout (at least) before the next German general election. Deutsche bank is now being "shorted" on the markets and you could quite easily see it hit the buffers before the end of the year. Should that happen it is "tilt, game over" for the Euro. Ditto Commerze bank. The Italian referendum is to put a new constitution to the people of Italy. Renzi wants a yes vote and should he win then the Italian banking crisis (trust me there is one) will be kicked down the road for a while. However, should he lose (and the polls are all over the place at the moment) most commentators and economists are predicting an Italian banking crash within days (if not hours) which will start a domino effect into already weakened banks in Germany and France (among others) Oh just to remind everybody, the Greek tragedy hasn't gone away, it's just sleeping for a while. They may not care to admit it, on second thoughts they are scared shitless to admit it, but the EU is well and truly in the shit. And I've not even got on to the migrant crisis yet. | |||
"So if i can just summarize .... The whining MINORITY want the MP's (who the majority cannot be arsed to vote for in a general election....) to decide the outcome when the MAJORITY of the UK have already decided ..... This same MINORITY were happy to vote IN THE REFERENDUM therefore by implication willing to accept the outcome ( but only as long as they won !!!) and despite the fact a MAJORITY ELECTED government has made a decision in line with the MAJORITY of the population .... Its considered a good result when an UNELECTED JUDGE makes this decision , ...... JUST SAYING ....... Lets just keep voting till we all lose the will to live !!!!" Yep. That's the EU way of doing things. Keep voting until you get the right answer. | |||
| |||
"Reuters today. Nissan wants Britain to pledge compensation for any tax barriers resulting from its decision to leave the European Union, or the Japanese automaker could scrap a potential new investment in the country's biggest car plant, its CEO said on Thursday. Carlos Ghosn's remarks indicate growing concern among global carmakers that Britain could be heading towards a so-called 'hard Brexit', which would leave them paying tariffs to export UK-assembled cars to EU markets." Ironically that what the most controversial part of TTIP that sent the looney lefts piss boiling | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. " I've voted in every general election I could... not once have I voted for a Prime Minister, nor have I ever been asked to on a ballot paper. I have, however, always voted for the party I would like to govern the country. Even the electorate in a party leader's own constituency don't vote for that person to be prime minister, they vote for that person to be their MP, and they vote for the party that person represents to govern the country. | |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers. I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ? " If parliament does not vote on the article 50 issue then the whole BREXIT thing will be constantly open to legal challenge. Parliament is legally sovreign in this country (despite what BRECITers would have us believe) and, if it does not vote on article 50 and the executive tries to enact it using the royal prerogative it could, and probably would, be challenged, even after we think we've left. If the triggering mechanism for BREXIT is not correctly done then a good argument could be made that it was not done at all. Everyone seems to have got this one the wrong way round. If you want to be sure that BREXIT happens and is absolutely and beyond question, legally valid then a vote in parliament (ideally by both the Lords and Commons) is essential. If on the other hand you don't really want BREXIT then not having a vote in parliament should be what you want because that leaves the door open to a legal challenge to the whole BREIXIT project, including through the European court of Justice, and even after we may think we've already left. | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. I've voted in every general election I could... not once have I voted for a Prime Minister, nor have I ever been asked to on a ballot paper. I have, however, always voted for the party I would like to govern the country. Even the electorate in a party leader's own constituency don't vote for that person to be prime minister, they vote for that person to be their MP, and they vote for the party that person represents to govern the country." Now now, don't be bringing facts to the politics section. People might learn something. | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. I've voted in every general election I could... not once have I voted for a Prime Minister, nor have I ever been asked to on a ballot paper. I have, however, always voted for the party I would like to govern the country. Even the electorate in a party leader's own constituency don't vote for that person to be prime minister, they vote for that person to be their MP, and they vote for the party that person represents to govern the country." 
OK so would it be better if I said a Prime Minister that is trying to avoid due legal process by acting like a Dictator?
We either have a legal process or we don't. If we do, then the law applies to everyone equally.
Happy now? | |||
 | |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers. I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ? If parliament does not vote on the article 50 issue then the whole BREXIT thing will be constantly open to legal challenge. Parliament is legally sovreign in this country (despite what BRECITers would have us believe) and, if it does not vote on article 50 and the executive tries to enact it using the royal prerogative it could, and probably would, be challenged, even after we think we've left. If the triggering mechanism for BREXIT is not correctly done then a good argument could be made that it was not done at all. Everyone seems to have got this one the wrong way round. If you want to be sure that BREXIT happens and is absolutely and beyond question, legally valid then a vote in parliament (ideally by both the Lords and Commons) is essential. If on the other hand you don't really want BREXIT then not having a vote in parliament should be what you want because that leaves the door open to a legal challenge to the whole BREIXIT project, including through the European court of Justice, and even after we may think we've already left." So your saying that the two Government Houses should decide whether we invoke Article 50 or not. If so what was the point of the Referendum? All the people of the UK had the chance to vote and the result of that vote must stand other wise it will be the end of democracy in the UK | |||
"Real democracy? Thats a laugh. And this is so popular that 16 million people have managed to raise £32,000 for legal costs. Well done "Wow......that works out at 0.2p each.....massive endorsement? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers. I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ? If parliament does not vote on the article 50 issue then the whole BREXIT thing will be constantly open to legal challenge. Parliament is legally sovreign in this country (despite what BRECITers would have us believe) and, if it does not vote on article 50 and the executive tries to enact it using the royal prerogative it could, and probably would, be challenged, even after we think we've left. If the triggering mechanism for BREXIT is not correctly done then a good argument could be made that it was not done at all. Everyone seems to have got this one the wrong way round. If you want to be sure that BREXIT happens and is absolutely and beyond question, legally valid then a vote in parliament (ideally by both the Lords and Commons) is essential. If on the other hand you don't really want BREXIT then not having a vote in parliament should be what you want because that leaves the door open to a legal challenge to the whole BREIXIT project, including through the European court of Justice, and even after we may think we've already left. So your saying that the two Government Houses should decide whether we invoke Article 50 or not. If so what was the point of the Referendum? All the people of the UK had the chance to vote and the result of that vote must stand other wise it will be the end of democracy in the UK " The point is is that, legally, parliament is sovereign. It's got nothing to do with whether you're a BREXITer or BREMAINer. Also, legally, the referendum is only advisory, not binding. The only way you can be sure that article 50 and BREXIT actually happens and is legally unchallengeable is if it is voted on in parliament. Anything else simply leaves the door wide open to legal challenge. We may not have a written constitution but we do have a constitution and that constitution says parliament (the legal term is 'The Queen/King in Parliament') is sovereign above all. If BREXIT is going to work (and I'll admit I didn't want it and hope we don't actually do it) then it must be done legally by following due process and the correct constitutional conventions. | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article." I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? " Forget the consent of parliament as for a start its full of bigoted snp who have no political notion beyond theyre hatred of England, the majority of the country has given there permission and in a democratic country thats all that should matter, get us out and if it is illegal well atleast then we can change our laws and make it legal. | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? " it is and if they voted on it we would still leave. Respect the majority | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. " This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? " So basically you want to shut the stable door because the horse has bolted and the vote did,nt go your way. Nice way of doing things not.  | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now" Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns." and your last line says unity does it? | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns." "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote. | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote. "In terms of this thread. What is your last contribution supposed to be saying? | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote.
In terms of this thread. What is your last contribution supposed to be saying? "That your ignoring REAL Democracy and your behaviour is child like. | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote.
In terms of this thread. What is your last contribution supposed to be saying?
That your ignoring REAL Democracy and your behaviour is child like. "How am I ignoring democracy? Very much like the nature of the Brexit campaign the argument about democracy is far deeper than most supporters of the Brexit campaign would like to believe. We live in a democratic society and it is imperative that the due process of the law of the land is followed. The Brexit supporters want to think that there had been a referendum so someone please press a button and then we can quickly get what we want. It doesn't work like that because in a genuine democracy there are checks and balances provided for in the laws that protect us all. Why would even the most ardent of Brexit supporters not want to be absolutely sure that the process to exit and therefore it's finality is lawful and in accordance with all of the requirements set down over centuries by law makers in this country? At the moment we have a PM and three Ministers who are trying to shape a way forwards for 65,000,000 and they are clearly struggling. There is no consistency in their messages and many comments are being met with astonishment by other European leaders and Mrs May herself. The country needs a broad based and cross party Brexit commons committee that will prepare an exit blueprint that can and should be voted on in both houses. This means that ultimately it will be a compromise because no one will get everything that they want. This is real democracy. | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote.
In terms of this thread. What is your last contribution supposed to be saying?
That your ignoring REAL Democracy and your behaviour is child like.
How am I ignoring democracy? Very much like the nature of the Brexit campaign the argument about democracy is far deeper than most supporters of the Brexit campaign would like to believe.
We live in a democratic society and it is imperative that the due process of the law of the land is followed. The Brexit supporters want to think that there had been a referendum so someone please press a button and then we can quickly get what we want. It doesn't work like that because in a genuine democracy there are checks and balances provided for in the laws that protect us all.
Why would even the most ardent of Brexit supporters not want to be absolutely sure that the process to exit and therefore it's finality is lawful and in accordance with all of the requirements set down over centuries by law makers in this country?
At the moment we have a PM and three Ministers who are trying to shape a way forwards for 65,000,000 and they are clearly struggling. There is no consistency in their messages and many comments are being met with astonishment by other European leaders and Mrs May herself.
The country needs a broad based and cross party Brexit commons committee that will prepare an exit blueprint that can and should be voted on in both houses. This means that ultimately it will be a compromise because no one will get everything that they want. This is real democracy."No it is not | |||
| |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table." So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say?" they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say?" When you are sitting at the table, you do not show your cards. | |||
| |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? When you are sitting at the table, you do not show your cards." This is irrelevant. The three stooges have all made statements that have been shot down by May. They have all made statements that show no common thread, no similarity of thought and demonstrate different ideas. If these people were able to at least present a united front between the four of them, we might all feel more confident. As it is, they are tripping each other up, making completely false statements and each suggesting different directions to the degree that May has had to slap them down individually. | |||
| |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? When you are sitting at the table, you do not show your cards. This is irrelevant. The three stooges have all made statements that have been shot down by May. They have all made statements that show no common thread, no similarity of thought and demonstrate different ideas. If these people were able to at least present a united front between the four of them, we might all feel more confident. As it is, they are tripping each other up, making completely false statements and each suggesting different directions to the degree that May has had to slap them down individually." It certainly is not irrelevant. If you were playing cards, would you show them to the other players? | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? So basically you want to shut the stable door because the horse has bolted and the vote did,nt go your way. Nice way of doing things not. "Actually, on BREXIT itself, I'm quite happy if there is no vote in parliament because, without a vote in parliament, it makes the whole BREXIT project much more easy to challenge and possibly over turn. From a constitutional and legal point I'm pointing out that parliament alone is sovereign and it could, and no doubt will be, argued that by not having a vote in parliament on triggering article 50 it might well be that it is not actually triggered, even if we think it has. You seem to be getting my opposition to BREXIT confused with my opposition to what could be considered legally an unconstitutional act. They are related but they are not the same. My personal feeling is that, if the matter was put before the commons now, in view of the result of the referendum, it would probably vote to invoke article 50. It might be harder to get it through the lords but, while ideally a vote in favour in both houses would be better and less likely to face any possible legal challenge, a vote in favour in the commons alone would probably be enough to see of any legal challenge. If no vote is taken in parliament and article 50 is invoked without it a legal challenge could be made to it at any time. We could find ourselves 5 or 10 years down the BREXIT road only to find that, because the original article 50 was not correctly and legally invoked, that it was never actually invoked at all. What that would mean is that, despite what we all might have thought at the time, we would still actually be in the EU even though we would have thought we'd left 3 or 7 years earlier. Is that level of uncertainty what you really want? I think not. | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? So basically you want to shut the stable door because the horse has bolted and the vote did,nt go your way. Nice way of doing things not.
Actually, on BREXIT itself, I'm quite happy if there is no vote in parliament because, without a vote in parliament, it makes the whole BREXIT project much more easy to challenge and possibly over turn.
From a constitutional and legal point I'm pointing out that parliament alone is sovereign and it could, and no doubt will be, argued that by not having a vote in parliament on triggering article 50 it might well be that it is not actually triggered, even if we think it has.
You seem to be getting my opposition to BREXIT confused with my opposition to what could be considered legally an unconstitutional act. They are related but they are not the same.
My personal feeling is that, if the matter was put before the commons now, in view of the result of the referendum, it would probably vote to invoke article 50. It might be harder to get it through the lords but, while ideally a vote in favour in both houses would be better and less likely to face any possible legal challenge, a vote in favour in the commons alone would probably be enough to see of any legal challenge.
If no vote is taken in parliament and article 50 is invoked without it a legal challenge could be made to it at any time. We could find ourselves 5 or 10 years down the BREXIT road only to find that, because the original article 50 was not correctly and legally invoked, that it was never actually invoked at all. What that would mean is that, despite what we all might have thought at the time, we would still actually be in the EU even though we would have thought we'd left 3 or 7 years earlier.
Is that level of uncertainty what you really want? I think not."No confusion. Neither was there in the vote. Article 50 can start as soon as the government invokes it. Nothing in our constitution says otherwise. | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? So basically you want to shut the stable door because the horse has bolted and the vote did,nt go your way. Nice way of doing things not.
Actually, on BREXIT itself, I'm quite happy if there is no vote in parliament because, without a vote in parliament, it makes the whole BREXIT project much more easy to challenge and possibly over turn.
From a constitutional and legal point I'm pointing out that parliament alone is sovereign and it could, and no doubt will be, argued that by not having a vote in parliament on triggering article 50 it might well be that it is not actually triggered, even if we think it has.
You seem to be getting my opposition to BREXIT confused with my opposition to what could be considered legally an unconstitutional act. They are related but they are not the same.
My personal feeling is that, if the matter was put before the commons now, in view of the result of the referendum, it would probably vote to invoke article 50. It might be harder to get it through the lords but, while ideally a vote in favour in both houses would be better and less likely to face any possible legal challenge, a vote in favour in the commons alone would probably be enough to see of any legal challenge.
If no vote is taken in parliament and article 50 is invoked without it a legal challenge could be made to it at any time. We could find ourselves 5 or 10 years down the BREXIT road only to find that, because the original article 50 was not correctly and legally invoked, that it was never actually invoked at all. What that would mean is that, despite what we all might have thought at the time, we would still actually be in the EU even though we would have thought we'd left 3 or 7 years earlier.
Is that level of uncertainty what you really want? I think not.
No confusion. Neither was there in the vote. Article 50 can start as soon as the government invokes it. Nothing in our constitution says otherwise."We joined through an act of parliament, only parliament can repeal it. | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say?" Parliament did have a say... they voted by a majority of 6 to 1 to let the people decide on remaining or leaving the EU, that decision being made in a referendum. The people decided to leave the EU, so the fact that the result of the referendum is not legally binding should be a matter of a perfunctory rubber-stamping in parliament that the vote should be respected and stand. | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? Parliament did have a say... they voted by a majority of 6 to 1 to let the people decide on remaining or leaving the EU, that decision being made in a referendum. The people decided to leave the EU, so the fact that the result of the referendum is not legally binding should be a matter of a perfunctory rubber-stamping in parliament that the vote should be respected and stand. " I'm inclined to agree and believe it's what would happen if it was put to the house of commons. However, for it to be unchallengeable legally, it must be put before the house. | |||
| |||
"Parliament have never voted on what kind of exit we should have, and neither have the electorate. For example the public didn't get to vote on if we leave the single market or not. " they did and we are  | |||
"Parliament have never voted on what kind of exit we should have, and neither have the electorate. For example the public didn't get to vote on if we leave the single market or not. " Of course. It was leave or stay. We voted leave knowing that the terms were dependent on negotiation. Your problem? | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote.
In terms of this thread. What is your last contribution supposed to be saying?
That your ignoring REAL Democracy and your behaviour is child like.
How am I ignoring democracy? Very much like the nature of the Brexit campaign the argument about democracy is far deeper than most supporters of the Brexit campaign would like to believe.
We live in a democratic society and it is imperative that the due process of the law of the land is followed. The Brexit supporters want to think that there had been a referendum so someone please press a button and then we can quickly get what we want. It doesn't work like that because in a genuine democracy there are checks and balances provided for in the laws that protect us all.
Why would even the most ardent of Brexit supporters not want to be absolutely sure that the process to exit and therefore it's finality is lawful and in accordance with all of the requirements set down over centuries by law makers in this country?
At the moment we have a PM and three Ministers who are trying to shape a way forwards for 65,000,000 and they are clearly struggling. There is no consistency in their messages and many comments are being met with astonishment by other European leaders and Mrs May herself.
The country needs a broad based and cross party Brexit commons committee that will prepare an exit blueprint that can and should be voted on in both houses. This means that ultimately it will be a compromise because no one will get everything that they want. This is real democracy."Your OP isn't about democracy though is it? It is about trying to stop the UK leaving the EU as per the recent democratic referendum result. By all means stamp your feet, hope that some legal challenge means that the referendum result is overturned if you like. But don't dress it up as democracy. If you think that having just one party preparing an exit strategy is "struggling" I'd love to see how a cross party committee would be more successful. Labour can't even agree on party policy or a leader
Maybe everyone should calm down and wait and see just what the deal is and how the EU copes with the significant challenges it faces. Perhaps there wont be an EU to leave soon? | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table." | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people" And when they cast their own votes. | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people And when they cast their own votes. " The referendum wasn't about the terms of the exit. | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people And when they cast their own votes. The referendum wasn't about the terms of the exit. " Yes it was. Two choices. Leave the EU Remain in the EU What were the terms of remain then? | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people And when they cast their own votes. The referendum wasn't about the terms of the exit. Yes it was. Two choices. Leave the EU Remain in the EU What were the terms of remain then?" It was two choices, leave or remain, not about what should we do with EU citizens who are here, what will we do with the single market, or when should we leave. There was no date on it either, so maybe we leave the EU, but in 2040? | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people And when they cast their own votes. The referendum wasn't about the terms of the exit. Yes it was. Two choices. Leave the EU Remain in the EU What were the terms of remain then? It was two choices, leave or remain, not about what should we do with EU citizens who are here, what will we do with the single market, or when should we leave. There was no date on it either, so maybe we leave the EU, but in 2040? "Glad you agree it was two choices. Not a vote on the terms of either then  | |||
"Hang on are you saying that a Dictatorial edict issued by an unelected Prime Minister should take precedent over the law of the land? The whole Brexit argument was about alleged dictatorial edicts taking precedent over UK law and that taking back control meant a return to UK Law being final. How ironic then that whilst we are still in the EU, UK Law has over ridden a policy that an unelected Prime Ministet wanted to force through without due process. This unelected leader rubbish again you vote for a party not the leader did you complain when that slimeball brown took over from fellow slimeball blair besides which if there was an election tomorrow she would win with a bigger majority than now Look further down. Slime ball Brown was as unelected as May. That said, it is something of a moot point anyway. The issue at heart is about "taking back control - making UK Law absolute." That means that UK Law must take precedent over us the general public, politicians and Prime Minister (elected or otherwise). The absolute reality here is that there are just four people leading a country of 65,000,000 towards an EU exit and they appear to have no idea whatsoever what they are doing and they do not display any kind of co-joined train of thought/consistent message. Even the most ardent Brexiter must see the sense in the country being united in its exit concept and not be conducted in secret, by four people who can't agree on public about anything. Parliament needs to act and a very large cross party consultancy group needs to take precedent over May and her trio of clowns. "Take back control" I had to spell it out to you 3 times before you knew what CONTROL meant. The UK is split down the middle we had a demographic vote of ALL the people of the UK the majority voted to LEAVE. You can stamp your feet like a little child all you want it is not going to change the outcome of that vote.
In terms of this thread. What is your last contribution supposed to be saying?
That your ignoring REAL Democracy and your behaviour is child like.
How am I ignoring democracy? Very much like the nature of the Brexit campaign the argument about democracy is far deeper than most supporters of the Brexit campaign would like to believe.
We live in a democratic society and it is imperative that the due process of the law of the land is followed. The Brexit supporters want to think that there had been a referendum so someone please press a button and then we can quickly get what we want. It doesn't work like that because in a genuine democracy there are checks and balances provided for in the laws that protect us all.
Why would even the most ardent of Brexit supporters not want to be absolutely sure that the process to exit and therefore it's finality is lawful and in accordance with all of the requirements set down over centuries by law makers in this country?
At the moment we have a PM and three Ministers who are trying to shape a way forwards for 65,000,000 and they are clearly struggling. There is no consistency in their messages and many comments are being met with astonishment by other European leaders and Mrs May herself.
The country needs a broad based and cross party Brexit commons committee that will prepare an exit blueprint that can and should be voted on in both houses. This means that ultimately it will be a compromise because no one will get everything that they want. This is real democracy.
Your OP isn't about democracy though is it?
It is about trying to stop the UK leaving the EU as per the recent democratic referendum result.
By all means stamp your feet, hope that some legal challenge means that the referendum result is overturned if you like. But don't dress it up as democracy.
If you think that having just one party preparing an exit strategy is "struggling" I'd love to see how a cross party committee would be more successful. Labour can't even agree on party policy or a leader
Maybe everyone should calm down and wait and see just what the deal is and how the EU copes with the significant challenges it faces. Perhaps there wont be an EU to leave soon?" | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people And when they cast their own votes. The referendum wasn't about the terms of the exit. Yes it was. Two choices. Leave the EU Remain in the EU What were the terms of remain then? It was two choices, leave or remain, not about what should we do with EU citizens who are here, what will we do with the single market, or when should we leave. There was no date on it either, so maybe we leave the EU, but in 2040?
Glad you agree it was two choices.
Not a vote on the terms of either then "Yes well that was my original point. So as neither parliament, nor the electorate, got to vote on the terms, they should in the future. | |||
"OP, the majority voted to leave. Leave we will. I am afraid the negotiations themselves and the time at which Article 50 is invoked must be left to the government. I am a bit fed up with the "they have no strategy" crap. Of course the government does. Successful negotiators do not put their cards on the table. So it should be kept from parliament then? Parliament shouldn't have a say? they had a say when they agreed to a referendum and to carry out the wishes of the British people And when they cast their own votes. The referendum wasn't about the terms of the exit. Yes it was. Two choices. Leave the EU Remain in the EU What were the terms of remain then? It was two choices, leave or remain, not about what should we do with EU citizens who are here, what will we do with the single market, or when should we leave. There was no date on it either, so maybe we leave the EU, but in 2040?
Glad you agree it was two choices.
Not a vote on the terms of either then
Yes well that was my original point. So as neither parliament, nor the electorate, got to vote on the terms, they should in the future."But the terms of being in the EU have been substantially changing ever since we joined. We (the people), have never been given a vote on any of the changes or terms of treaties that the EU (in any of its guises), has forced on us. So in effect the referendum was one vote about all of that! I understand the argument "we do have a say, we have MEPs in a democratically elected EU parliament, our own parliament that ratifies, etc, etc", but at the same time our parliament voted 6 to 1 to have a 'Stay/Leave' referendum.... and the majority voted to leave. I would think a lot of MPs are shuddering at the thought of a vote to invoke article 50; on the one hand, they don't want to leave, but on the other, do they vote against the outcome of the referendum and potentially put their positions as MPs at risk in the next election? | |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers. I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ? "
And speaking of secrets...where are the transcripts of Cameron's pre-referendum 'negotiations' with EU and other world leaders like back-of-the -queue Obama!?
We finally got to know Blair was going to invade Iraq anyway...what was Dave promising Obama and Merkel for their support for his relentless EU grovelling!? | |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers. I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ?
And speaking of secrets...where are the transcripts of Cameron's pre-referendum 'negotiations' with EU and other world leaders like back-of-the -queue Obama!?
We finally got to know Blair was going to invade Iraq anyway...what was Dave promising Obama and Merkel for their support for his relentless EU grovelling!?"One of the deals he did was with Poland. In exchange for Poland supporting his reforms, the UK voted to support the permanent basing of NATO troops in Poland, to protect against Russian aggression. | |||
"Much of the Brexit argument was to "take back control" and enable British Law to take precedent over dictatorial decision making. Yesterday the Brexit voters saw British Law in action as the first step was taken to overturn a secret dictatorial decision that was about to be made without the approval of the Houses of our Government. A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal 'secret' legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning. Revelations about Scotland, Wales and N Ireland not having any "valid" input into negotiations are sure to ruffle feathers. I suppose the next step will be the European of human rights to try and overturn the referendum ?
And speaking of secrets...where are the transcripts of Cameron's pre-referendum 'negotiations' with EU and other world leaders like back-of-the -queue Obama!?
We finally got to know Blair was going to invade Iraq anyway...what was Dave promising Obama and Merkel for their support for his relentless EU grovelling!?
One of the deals he did was with Poland. In exchange for Poland supporting his reforms, the UK voted to support the permanent basing of NATO troops in Poland, to protect against Russian aggression. "Nothing anyone says on this forum is going to make any difference to anything, if you want to try to make a difference write to your MP for all the good it will do you. | |||
| |||
"The real democracy is when the people speak and the politicians listen. It doesn't happen very often, but following a National Referendum they have no other option. Article 50 will be signed around Xmas time methinks. I will be toasting it with good Champagne. " Sod that. A good bottle of English sparkling would be better. | |||
"The real democracy is when the people speak and the politicians listen. It doesn't happen very often, but following a National Referendum they have no other option. Article 50 will be signed around Xmas time methinks. I will be toasting it with good Champagne. Sod that. A good bottle of English sparkling would be better. "I don't care what I toast it with as long as it happens. | |||
"The real democracy is when the people speak and the politicians listen. It doesn't happen very often, but following a National Referendum they have no other option. Article 50 will be signed around Xmas time methinks. I will be toasting it with good Champagne. " Clearly you have not followed the thread. Host of legal challenges to deal with before then. Prime Minister May and her Three Brexiteers may wish to act like Dictators but the law of the land will ultimately ensure that democracy prevails. | |||
"The real democracy is when the people speak and the politicians listen. It doesn't happen very often, but following a National Referendum they have no other option. Article 50 will be signed around Xmas time methinks. I will be toasting it with good Champagne. Clearly you have not followed the thread. Host of legal challenges to deal with before then. Prime Minister May and her Three Brexiteers may wish to act like Dictators but the law of the land will ultimately ensure that democracy prevails." If democracy prevails (which I hope it does) we will be leaving the EU in just over 2years. | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article. I still think that by not involving parliament in invocating article 50 you're leaving the door open to endless legal challenge, possibility even after we think we've actually left. I also think that it sets a very dangerous president if the executive can take this sort of action without getting the consent of Parliament. If the referendum had been legally binding, which parliament could have made it if it had wanted, then that would be different but it didn't, parliament decided to make the referendum only advisory. So, while the government may have a mandate form the referendum to trigger article 50 it definitely does not have a sound legal bases for doing do. A sound, legally unchallengeable, bases for triggering article 50 can only be given by parliament because parliament alone is sovereign above all else in this country. I thought parliamentary sovereignty was what BREXIT was partly about? So basically you want to shut the stable door because the horse has bolted and the vote did,nt go your way. Nice way of doing things not.
Actually, on BREXIT itself, I'm quite happy if there is no vote in parliament because, without a vote in parliament, it makes the whole BREXIT project much more easy to challenge and possibly over turn.
From a constitutional and legal point I'm pointing out that parliament alone is sovereign and it could, and no doubt will be, argued that by not having a vote in parliament on triggering article 50 it might well be that it is not actually triggered, even if we think it has.
You seem to be getting my opposition to BREXIT confused with my opposition to what could be considered legally an unconstitutional act. They are related but they are not the same.
My personal feeling is that, if the matter was put before the commons now, in view of the result of the referendum, it would probably vote to invoke article 50. It might be harder to get it through the lords but, while ideally a vote in favour in both houses would be better and less likely to face any possible legal challenge, a vote in favour in the commons alone would probably be enough to see of any legal challenge.
If no vote is taken in parliament and article 50 is invoked without it a legal challenge could be made to it at any time. We could find ourselves 5 or 10 years down the BREXIT road only to find that, because the original article 50 was not correctly and legally invoked, that it was never actually invoked at all. What that would mean is that, despite what we all might have thought at the time, we would still actually be in the EU even though we would have thought we'd left 3 or 7 years earlier.
Is that level of uncertainty what you really want? I think not.
No confusion. Neither was there in the vote. Article 50 can start as soon as the government invokes it. Nothing in our constitution says otherwise.
We joined through an act of parliament, only parliament can repeal it. "Looks like I have been proved right, yet again. | |||
"Read article 50. It is barely over half a page so not too taxing. It states the government (not parliament) are the ones who invoke article 50. The majority of those who chose to vote, voted for the invocation of article 50. That in my mind is democracy. Regardless of who is the government or who voted for them...they have a duty to invoke the article." It actually says; “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The government is not doing it in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements. | |||
| |||
"Great to see this morning Teresa MAy confirming dates for invoking article 50 !!!" Yep Hurry up and get on with it . Mind you she only said it to get the hard Tories off her ass during conference. It will slip again soon. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Democracy and Law are getting confused here. Democracy gave us a decision in a vote. The decision was to leave the EU by invoking article 50. Article 50 is invoked by the government as elected at the time. There isn't even a clash between democracy and legality. We are currently still IN the EU. The law of the EU still takes precident over our laws. EU law in article 50 states the decision is the governments...not parliament or courts. The public democratic vote was for the government to invoke article 50. That's actually how simple it is. There are no real grounds for a legal challenge. Even if there was a vote in parliament the Labour Party have clearly stated that they respect the decision taken in the referendum. Other than the SNP any party saying otherwise would be cutting its own throat....it's a pointless argument. Article 50 will be invoked, by the government, before the end of March." | |||
"Democracy and Law are getting confused here. Democracy gave us a decision in a vote. The decision was to leave the EU by invoking article 50. Article 50 is invoked by the government as elected at the time. There isn't even a clash between democracy and legality. We are currently still IN the EU. The law of the EU still takes precident over our laws. EU law in article 50 states the decision is the governments...not parliament or courts. The public democratic vote was for the government to invoke article 50. That's actually how simple it is. There are no real grounds for a legal challenge. Even if there was a vote in parliament the Labour Party have clearly stated that they respect the decision taken in the referendum. Other than the SNP any party saying otherwise would be cutting its own throat....it's a pointless argument. Article 50 will be invoked, by the government, before the end of March." Are you familiar with the Good Friday Agreement? Here are the relevant sections that absolutely are 100% going to create a legal challenge to Brexit... CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo- Irish Agreement, they will: (i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland; (ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland; (iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii)above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish; A Brexit action by the United Kingdom will mean that if a future N Ireland chose to join Eire it would require the external approval of the then European Union which is an external impediment as defined in law (section ii) and at that time the United Kingdom being outside of the EU would not be able to fulfil its obligations under Section iv) | |||
"Democracy and Law are getting confused here. Democracy gave us a decision in a vote. The decision was to leave the EU by invoking article 50. Article 50 is invoked by the government as elected at the time. There isn't even a clash between democracy and legality. We are currently still IN the EU. The law of the EU still takes precident over our laws. EU law in article 50 states the decision is the governments...not parliament or courts. The public democratic vote was for the government to invoke article 50. That's actually how simple it is. There are no real grounds for a legal challenge. Even if there was a vote in parliament the Labour Party have clearly stated that they respect the decision taken in the referendum. Other than the SNP any party saying otherwise would be cutting its own throat....it's a pointless argument. Article 50 will be invoked, by the government, before the end of March. Are you familiar with the Good Friday Agreement? Here are the relevant sections that absolutely are 100% going to create a legal challenge to Brexit... CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo- Irish Agreement, they will: (i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland; (ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland; (iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii)above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish; A Brexit action by the United Kingdom will mean that if a future N Ireland chose to join Eire it would require the external approval of the then European Union which is an external impediment as defined in law (section ii) and at that time the United Kingdom being outside of the EU would not be able to fulfil its obligations under Section iv)" We heard all this before do you not think Teresa May knows about it, are the Irish going to wait until Article 50 has been invoked before saying anything I think not if they could and wanted to stop they would have done so by now. | |||
" We heard all this before do you not think Teresa May knows about it, are the Irish going to wait until Article 50 has been invoked before saying anything I think not if they could and wanted to stop they would have done so by now. "Do you follow the news? This was in court yesterday. The challenge is going ahead. | |||
" We heard all this before do you not think Teresa May knows about it, are the Irish going to wait until Article 50 has been invoked before saying anything I think not if they could and wanted to stop they would have done so by now.
Do you follow the news?
This was in court yesterday. The challenge is going ahead."We,ll see | |||
| |||
| |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point?" All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point?" Well why not go the whole way and let the government own all the companies and pick all the workers. Didn't have you down as a dirty communist!! | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ?" I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. " word.
| |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc." I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate" Would you rather have the government tell them how to run their businesses? | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate Would you rather have the government tell them how to run their businesses? " no, I don't know what the answer to that is but I've seen it myself where immigrants feel that they can't refuse overtime or extra work or whatever, often without extra pay because they fear losing their job | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate" What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate Would you rather have the government tell them how to run their businesses? no, I don't know what the answer to that is but I've seen it myself where immigrants feel that they can't refuse overtime or extra work or whatever, often without extra pay because they fear losing their job" The answer to that problem seems pretty simple. Don't allow businesses to sack people for refusing unpaid overtime. | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate Would you rather have the government tell them how to run their businesses? no, I don't know what the answer to that is but I've seen it myself where immigrants feel that they can't refuse overtime or extra work or whatever, often without extra pay because they fear losing their job The answer to that problem seems pretty simple. Don't allow businesses to sack people for refusing unpaid overtime. " so the government should get involved in some way then? And its often not a case of sacking them with the types of contracts they are on or agencies they work for, they simply say you won't be needed next week thank you | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. " then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate Would you rather have the government tell them how to run their businesses? no, I don't know what the answer to that is but I've seen it myself where immigrants feel that they can't refuse overtime or extra work or whatever, often without extra pay because they fear losing their job The answer to that problem seems pretty simple. Don't allow businesses to sack people for refusing unpaid overtime. so the government should get involved in some way then? And its often not a case of sacking them with the types of contracts they are on or agencies they work for, they simply say you won't be needed next week thank you" The government has a role to ensure there is good regulation to ensure the market functions properly. Regulation should prevent racism, sexism, abuses of power etc. This is a racist idea! Government should prevent racism not promote it. If companies don't want to hire British workers then the government should address the underlying reasons why (e.g High wages and shit productivity) | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job" What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. " Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you" I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK." many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work" No, no it doesn't. | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work No, no it doesn't. " of course it does, get in the real world. On a similar note but obviously smaller scale, I can remember years ago working at 2 large factories where the managers would often pocket a couple of grand as backhanders from pakistani guys on there to employ other members of their families and friends. Now were they the best for the job? Was it fair to the other applicants? No, but thats life | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work No, no it doesn't. of course it does, get in the real world. On a similar note but obviously smaller scale, I can remember years ago working at 2 large factories where the managers would often pocket a couple of grand as backhanders from pakistani guys on there to employ other members of their families and friends. Now were they the best for the job? Was it fair to the other applicants? No, but thats life" You should see how we recruit guys for offshore, would really open your eyes to "best man for the job" as that goes right out of the window education wise all depends on who you know and how you will fit in | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work No, no it doesn't. of course it does, get in the real world. On a similar note but obviously smaller scale, I can remember years ago working at 2 large factories where the managers would often pocket a couple of grand as backhanders from pakistani guys on there to employ other members of their families and friends. Now were they the best for the job? Was it fair to the other applicants? No, but thats life" Grow up will you, stop believing all these "foreigners are the boogeyman" stories that millionaire liars like Farage with his foreign wife, foreign passport and foreign homes tells you, it makes you look extremely naive and gullible. Foreigners who have got jobs for a variety of reasons like they are more experienced, better educated, harder working or are willing to do the jobs that Brits don't want to do. The majority aren't taking less salary than a Brit, or paying for a job. 10% of NHS Drs are from the EU, do you really believe that a brain surgeon is taking an envelope filled with cash with her to the interview? | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work No, no it doesn't. of course it does, get in the real world. On a similar note but obviously smaller scale, I can remember years ago working at 2 large factories where the managers would often pocket a couple of grand as backhanders from pakistani guys on there to employ other members of their families and friends. Now were they the best for the job? Was it fair to the other applicants? No, but thats life Grow up will you, stop believing all these "foreigners are the boogeyman" stories that millionaire liars like Farage with his foreign wife, foreign passport and foreign homes tells you, it makes you look extremely naive and gullible. Foreigners who have got jobs for a variety of reasons like they are more experienced, better educated, harder working or are willing to do the jobs that Brits don't want to do. The majority aren't taking less salary than a Brit, or paying for a job. 10% of NHS Drs are from the EU, do you really believe that a brain surgeon is taking an envelope filled with cash with her to the interview? " Brain surgeon? Jeez, and you say builders are a small part of the workforce. As usual you completely miss the point and hurl insults | |||
"So? is Home Secretary Amber Rudd right to defended plans to make firms do more to employ British people. Under her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals. she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better British behaviour does she have a point? All I can say is that if you go to any other country either EU or non EU they will employ locals before any foreigners. So why can't the U.K. Do the same ? I would like to think that most British companies will employ the best person for the job, rather than base their hiring policies on the country of birth of the applicant. I thought leaving the EU was meant to be reducing the amount of red tape for business, this seems as though its going to create a lot more. As it's not just about counting and publishing the numbers, but proving that the company has tried to develop local skills etc. I would like to think that too but often they will employ the cheapest most compliant/desperate What do you mean employ the cheapest? Every job I have ever had, had an advertised salary. Whoever got the job, got that salary. I have been interviewed a lot, and also interviewed a lot of people. I have never seen someone asked in an interview if they would work for less than the advertised rate, nor had any of my interviewees offer to accept less than the advertised rate. then you should get out more. And there are companies now who pay less than they were paying 10 years ago for the same job What are you talking about getting out more? A job has an advertised salary, the person who gets that job gets the salary. Saying that companies employ the cheapest person makes no sense at all. Well you obviously have no experience of the building trade for a start do you I have never worked in the trade, but don't many work as self employed sub contractors? So it is different from the vast majority of employement in the UK. many do but many don't but get taken on by offering to work for less than the advertised rate. That was just an easy example. It happens in all lines of work No, no it doesn't. of course it does, get in the real world. On a similar note but obviously smaller scale, I can remember years ago working at 2 large factories where the managers would often pocket a couple of grand as backhanders from pakistani guys on there to employ other members of their families and friends. Now were they the best for the job? Was it fair to the other applicants? No, but thats life Grow up will you, stop believing all these "foreigners are the boogeyman" stories that millionaire liars like Farage with his foreign wife, foreign passport and foreign homes tells you, it makes you look extremely naive and gullible. Foreigners who have got jobs for a variety of reasons like they are more experienced, better educated, harder working or are willing to do the jobs that Brits don't want to do. The majority aren't taking less salary than a Brit, or paying for a job. 10% of NHS Drs are from the EU, do you really believe that a brain surgeon is taking an envelope filled with cash with her to the interview? " This happened to me, a firm I had previously worked for 9 years ago asked me go for an interview. After an hour they offered the same salary I was on when I had left 9 years earlier when I asked why there had been no increase I was told I can get people to work for a lot less than that. So yes it does happen. | |||
| |||
"Brexit is not democratic, it have nazi politics at its roots, registering all the immigrants, like the jews back in ww2, good it didnt get through and now, make the disabled take the immigrants jobs, not very democratic, we will have less and less human rights. " Shag, you are lovely but a democratic vote to exit the EU is not comparable to a Nazi state. I am sure that, like me, many people voted to leave because we saw the EU as an outdated, over-bloated, unconstitutional organisation with no hope of reform. I have asked before but no remainer has answered. When did it last have it's accounts verified? | |||
"Brexit is not democratic, it have nazi politics at its roots, registering all the immigrants, like the jews back in ww2, good it didnt get through and now, make the disabled take the immigrants jobs, not very democratic, we will have less and less human rights. Shag, you are lovely but a democratic vote to exit the EU is not comparable to a Nazi state. I am sure that, like me, many people voted to leave because we saw the EU as an outdated, over-bloated, unconstitutional organisation with no hope of reform. I have asked before but no remainer has answered. When did it last have it's accounts verified? " That is good and yes, then by leaving having its own politics then europes ones, what kind of account verified question did you mean there? | |||
"Brexit is not democratic, it have nazi politics at its roots, registering all the immigrants, like the jews back in ww2, good it didnt get through and now, make the disabled take the immigrants jobs, not very democratic, we will have less and less human rights. Shag, you are lovely but a democratic vote to exit the EU is not comparable to a Nazi state. I am sure that, like me, many people voted to leave because we saw the EU as an outdated, over-bloated, unconstitutional organisation with no hope of reform. I have asked before but no remainer has answered. When did it last have it's accounts verified? That is good and yes, then by leaving having its own politics then europes ones, what kind of account verified question did you mean there?" It is a basic requirement of a company or organisation to be able to show the money it has received and the money that it has spent. The EU has not been able to do that for over a decade. Not good, eh? No accountant will verify the EU. | |||
" It is a basic requirement of a company or organisation to be able to show the money it has received and the money that it has spent. The EU has not been able to do that for over a decade. Not good, eh? No accountant will verify the EU." Perpetuating a lie does not make it true even ifb Newspapers repeat the lie. Try INFACT, FULL FACT etc for the true story: Myth: Auditors have refused to sign off EU accounts Eurosceptics hold it as an article of faith that the EU is so crooked that its auditors refuse to approve the annual accounts. The most copied and pasted falsehood is that “the EU budget is so wasteful and so corrupt that the Court of Auditors has not signed off the accounts for the last 20 years.” Not only is this incorrect, the error is repeated and stated as fact by the right wing tabloids and Eurosceptic politicians almost annually. In fact, the European Court of Auditors has signed off on the EU budget every year since 2007. Failure to do so before this has much to do with the way the EU budget is audited. In 2006, John Bourn, then comptroller and auditor general at the UK’s National Audit Office, said he too would have been unable to sign off the UK’s accounts if he had been required to audit them in the same way as the ECA does. That was because the year before he had issued a qualified opinion on 13 of the government’s 500 accounts. | |||
" It is a basic requirement of a company or organisation to be able to show the money it has received and the money that it has spent. The EU has not been able to do that for over a decade. Not good, eh? No accountant will verify the EU. Perpetuating a lie does not make it true even ifb Newspapers repeat the lie. Try INFACT, FULL FACT etc for the true story: Myth: Auditors have refused to sign off EU accounts Eurosceptics hold it as an article of faith that the EU is so crooked that its auditors refuse to approve the annual accounts. The most copied and pasted falsehood is that “the EU budget is so wasteful and so corrupt that the Court of Auditors has not signed off the accounts for the last 20 years.” Not only is this incorrect, the error is repeated and stated as fact by the right wing tabloids and Eurosceptic politicians almost annually. In fact, the European Court of Auditors has signed off on the EU budget every year since 2007. Failure to do so before this has much to do with the way the EU budget is audited. In 2006, John Bourn, then comptroller and auditor general at the UK’s National Audit Office, said he too would have been unable to sign off the UK’s accounts if he had been required to audit them in the same way as the ECA does. That was because the year before he had issued a qualified opinion on 13 of the government’s 500 accounts." Yup. I did look. Free from material errors? Never. And that is the official EU version. | |||
" Yup. I did look. Free from material errors? Never. And that is the official EU version." So you have looked, you do accept that the accounts have been signed off and you still perpetuate a complete myth rather than a full fact version of the truth. The accounts have been signed off and you say they haven't .... | |||
" Yup. I did look. Free from material errors? Never. And that is the official EU version. So you have looked, you do accept that the accounts have been signed off and you still perpetuate a complete myth rather than a full fact version of the truth. The accounts have been signed off and you say they haven't ...." Well, if you agree that they have never been signed off as free from material errors, then yes. It is a bit like saying, "Crap, really, we can't tell, but..." Tell you what? Try getting the HMRC to pass your company off as "Not free from material errors." | |||
| |||
