Article 50 Discussion

[London1971]

11 hours ago, buckthorn said:

You keep on accusing Maharg1 of not answering questions???

so I thought I would give you “10 reasons for leaving the EU “ for a start.

 

 1.a hush up     Cabinet papers pre-1970 show the Heath government to have had full knowledge of the EEC being along term plan for a unitary European State with its own currency; but the facts were supressed by this and succeeding governments with the deliberate intention of keeping the nation in the dark. In other words the people of the UK never knew at that time what they were voting for, it was a con;

2.”surrender of sovereignty”    On the 14^th December 1960 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, Britain’s senior legal officer, warned Heath of the implications of signing the Treaty of Rome: “To  satisfy the requirements of the treaty, parliament could enact legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by … the Community … It is clear that the Council of Ministers could eventually make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes… This is the first step on the road to a federal state … I must state that in my view the surrender of our sovereignty is extremely, why would I or anybody wish to be governed by a foreign unelected click.

3.”end of Britain”     The consequence of joining the EU have now been realised by most clear thinking people, it was also realised in 1962 in Westminster by Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, who identified “the desire of those, who created the European Community, for a political federation. “That is what they meant, that was what they were after” he added that this would bring about “the end of Britain as an independent European State…and that means a thousand years of our history up the creek without a paddle.

4.”now we come to the big lie”     Edward Heath’s 1971 White Paper on joining the EEC deceived Parliament, and the people with a false statement that “there is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”, and that Britain’s sovereignty would somehow be “enlarged” by “sharing” in my opinion that makes the whole thing a down right lie and illegal.

 

 5.”ministry of propaganda”  Between 1970 and 1972 the Heath government directed a secret propaganda offensive, known as the Connaught Breakfast, in which Cabinet ministers, Foreign Office heads of Departments, civil servants, media managers and journalists, in conjunction with the European Movement, carried on a TV, radio and newspaper campaign to swing round strongly opposed public opinion to accept the EEC, to finance this they used  public money, in other words tax payers money for propaganda, may as well have been living in a Communist state, theft of our tax money.

 

 6.unconstitutional…1  The 1072 Act which took Britain into the EEC was in breach of the Constitution, in that the government allowed no prior consultation, of the electorate by a special  General Election or Referendum , as is  required under the Constitution for Parliament measures involving constitutional change, the president being those of 1831/2 & 1910.

 7.unconstitutional..2   By passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament unconstitutionally attempted to renounce its legal sovereignty, so as to make the British people subject to enactment of outside agencies, and ending its own ability to put into effect the expressed wishes of the electorate.

 

 8.unconstitutional…3     In doing so, it deliberately and wrongfully denied the ultimate sovereignty of the people, of which Parliament is constitutionally both servant and defender, and which at the end of each Parliament’s term is returned to its possessors. Us the people.

 

9.unconstitutional…4  It is a cornerstone of the Constitution that no Parliament is or can be bound by enactment of its predecessors; but the Act of 1972 unconstitutionally purported (section 2.4) to be mandatory upon all succeeding Parliaments. that is to my mind a crime against the people of this country, and the people responsible should have been jailed.

 

 10.unconstitutional.. 5   What I am saying is that the Act of 1972 was completely unconstitutional in wider respect that falsehood and deception was employed to secure its enactment, contrary not only to the spirit of the Constitution, but all legislative procedures whatsoever.

 

 In other words our joining the EU was big con; and the sooner we are out, and can become a sovereign independent country again the sooner the better. by the way I voted not to join the common market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paranoid conspiracy nonsense .Not = to good reasons

[tobyjugg2]

too true, I glanced at it but it seemed little more than:

 

A 'response to the massive trade deals list we benefit from as part of the EU as defined by the CBI, which is actually little more than whining that:

a)     Some British politicians lie to the British public – which seems rather rich coming from supporters of 'father of Lies'  Johnson and the leave campaign lies

b)     That negotiating alongside partners from a position of strength and common benefit is giving up sovereignty

c)     That ‘England wont always get all its own way when negotiating with and for its partners, friends, associates, or enemies whoever they may be – also rather rich given the USA’s stated negotiation objectives with the UK

d)     that those deals I listed are a bit out of date – Yep – NOW it’s a much bigger list of EU trade benefits we are throwing away with NOTHING of consequence to replace them

 

So yes, I thought it was just another couple of pungent brown nuggets pooped on the floor fit only to be stepped over not waded through.

Interesting only in that no actual benefits countering those stated trade benefits were given.

[Jase1982]

Sadly the Conservative government still think it's the industrial revolution and building a new railway will reduce timescales so much that it will boost the economy.  The improvements made today are so minuscule though, that it will have little impact, but cost us an absolute fortune.  They should set about improving what we currently have and modernising existing track before giving their mates multi million pound contracts.  Still don't see the point of privatisation when it's the taxpayer footing the bill (partially or in full)

[Maharg1]

2 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 – Yep – NOW it’s a much bigger list of EU trade benefits we are throwing away with NOTHING of consequence to replace them

 

 

So yes, I thought it was just another couple of pungent brown nuggets pooped on the floor fit only to be stepped over not waded through.

 

What trade benefits, you keep on saying this but never explain what they are ??

 

Do you always have to be so disgusting with your language

[London1971]

49 minutes ago, Maharg1 said:

What trade benefits, you keep on saying this but never explain what they are ??

 

Do you always have to be so disgusting with your language

 

You still haven't provided any real, tangible benefits to leaving the EU. I'd respect you more if you simply admitted that there are none. 

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, Maharg1 said:

What trade benefits, you keep on saying this but never explain what they are ??

 

They are quite detailed in the PDF attached to the post - if you are genuinely so ignorant of them.

Let us know when you've read them and looked up the details - they are extensive and comprehensive

 

Still waiting for some evidence of the great Brexit deals you have referred to but seems to be able to define.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Maharg1 said:

 

Do you always have to be so disgusting with your language

 

I find little more offensive than lies, deceit and avoidance,

although you clearly think differently - they are NOT protected characteristics ... unless you area member of parliament that is

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

typo correction:

 

Still waiting for some evidence of the great Brexit deals you have referred to but seem to be entirely unable to define

[fletch70]

All I hear from Brexit voters are things like

 

It will all be ok in the end- IF so we will all be dead and buried by then

 

They need us more than we need them - yeah right. By sheer numbers they can take any hit more than we can

 

Foreign judges taking away our sovereignty- then vote for a party who want to reduce the powers of uk judges 

 

We can trade with the rest of the world - erm don’t we do that now? 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

 

 

A little old now but actually even more valid with the extra deals on great terms agreed by us with our EU partners and the rest of the world.

Site has fubar'd the PDF so:

 

 

10 facts about EU trade deals

As a member of the European Union, UK business benefits from easy access to a single market of 500 million consumers. As well as opening up markets on the UK’s doorstep, the EU facilitates trade further afield with EU trade deals providing preferential access to global markets, from South Africa to South Korea.

While being in the EU means that the UK doesn’t sign its own trade deals, the facts suggest that, as part of the world’s biggest trading bloc...

 

 

 

...the UK has access to more markets

1.      As a member of the EU, UK business has easier access to 1/3 of the world’s markets by value

As a member of the European Union, British business benefits from being able to trade easily within the single market and with many other countries. This provides UK business with easier access to 1/3 of the world’s market by value.

2.      The EU gives UK business preferential market access to over 50 countries outside of the EU

The EU is effective at opening up global markets, with trade deals in force that cover over 50 countries - from South Africa, to Colombia, to South Korea.'

3.      The EU gives the UK access to more markets than Switzerland, Canada or Australia - who have 38, 15 and 15 trade deals respectively

Many who advocate leaving the EU, do so on the basis that the UK would be able to increase access to global markets. Switzerland - commonly cited as a country the UK should look emulate - has trade deals providing access to 38 countries, excluding the EU, the majority of which are negotiated through the European Free Trade Association."

Canada and Australia - both advanced economies signing trade deals independently - have access to significantly fewer countries, with 15 ratified deals

 

each. The recently signed Trans-Pacific Partnership will increase this number once ratified but only marginally so.

...the UK gets better trade deals

4.      The EU gets the UK a better deal - eliminating tariffs with South Korea almost 4 times quicker than Australia’s deal

As part of the EU, Britain doesn’t just benefit from more deals but also from better deals. As a partnership of 28 countries, it can take the EU time to negotiate trade deals that are good for all member states. But, with the weight of a 500 million person market, the EU often negotiates better deals - more comprehensive in scope than those signed by countries outside the EU.

The EU-South Korea deal is a good example of this, scrapping almost 99% of tariffs in just 5 years and including far-reaching liberalisation of trade in services.ⁱⁿ The South Korea-Australia trade deal takes almost 20 years to reach this level of tariff reduction.^[1]

5.      The Switzerland-China trade deal gives China immediate access to Swiss markets but Switzerland has to wait 15 years for access to Chinese markets

Switzerland, working mostly through the European Free Trade Association, has been effective in signing trade deals with important partners. But, it
isn’t just about signing any deal; the UK should focus on signing comprehensive and fair deals. In the China-Switzerland trade deal, as the much bigger partner, China has set the terms of trade. It is allowed more time to remove tariffs on Swiss goods - up to 15 years in some cases - than the Swiss, who have to let in Chinese goods tariff-free almost immediately.^{[2] [3] [4] iv [5]} It is also limited in scope; it does not cover cars or financial services - two major export areas for the UK.

6.      EU trade deals are comprehensive in scope - all deals signed in the last year include services

The EU is signing trade deals which are comprehensive in their scope covering both trade in goods and services. The last four trade deals signed by the EU - with Ecuador, Singapore, Canada and Vietnam - all include liberalisation of trade in services.

7.      The EU-South Korea deal boosted UK trade with South Korea by 57%

The EU-South Korea trade deal has been beneficial for UK business and trade. This deal saved EU businesses £1. 1 billion annually. In the year following the deal, UK goods exports to South Korea grew by more than half, hitting their highest level ever to reach £6.3 billion.^vi

8.      The EU-Canada trade deal will add £1.3bn to the economy

Opening up global markets breaks down barriers to trade for business and benefits the UK economy. The EU-Canada trade deal, which has been signed but is awaiting ratification, has the potential to increase trade by 29% and add £1.3bn to the UK economy.^vii

...the UK has potential to go further

9.      If the EU completes all deals currently under negotiation, 88% of the UK’s trade would be covered

The UK already benefits from preferential access to many global markets, but we must continue to push the European Union to go further to maximise the benefits for UK business. There has been progress, with deals concluded with Singapore, Ecuador, Canada and Vietnam and agreement to start negotiations with New Zealand and Australia launched in the last year alone.^viii

The EU must put more resource behind getting trade deals signed. The EU and its trade deals currently account for 60% of UK trade, rising to 88% if all trade deals currently under negotiation, were completed.^ix

10.   Completing the trade deals with just Japan and the US would give UK business easier access to 2/3 of the world’s markets by value

Priority must be given to completing the deals with Japan and the US - giving UK business easier access to 2/3 of the world’s markets by value.

The EU-US deal (TTIP) could add £10bn to the UK economy by attracting more investment, cutting red tape and increasing consumer choice. The deal would also set the bar for regulatory standards around the world.

Further information:

Jade Rickman, UK policy lead E: [email protected]

 

 

 

^v      Swiss Government, Factsheet: Free Trade Agreement between Switzerland and China, 2014

^vi      British Embassy Seoul, UK-Korea Trade, 2013

^vii_ UK Government, Government welcomes historic EU-Canada free trade agreement, 2013

^viii      European Commission, Trade for All: European Commission presents new trade and investment strategy, 2015

^ix        Open Europe, Trade set to be key battleground in EU referendum, October 2015

---

^[1]  Australian Government, Korea-Australia Free Trade

^[2] European Commission, Memo - The EU’s bilateral trade and investment agreements - where are we?, 2013

^[3] Switzerland:

http://www.seco.admin.ch/themen/00513/00515/01330/?lang=e n; Canada: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements- accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fta-ale.aspx?lang=eng:

Australia: http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/pages/trade- agreements.aspx

^[4]  European Commission, The EU-Korea Free Trade Deal, 2011

Agreement Fact Sheet, 2015

[fletch70]

Trade wise, I think it’s pretty fair to say that unless we stay in the single market we are pretty stuffed 

[honeybee13]

Are you able to expand on that please, fletch? It would be useful to have a reminder of what Bojo plans to give up, if memory serves.

[honeybee13]

I'm reading that businesses in Northern Ireland want £100 million in compensation [for now] because of the border down the Irish Sea. And I've also read about UK farmers being given £3 billion to compensate for the loss of subsidies from the EU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/06/northern-ireland-firms-could-seek-100m-brexit-compensation

[fletch70]

Well I’m not sure what BJ has planned but there again I’m not sure he knows. 
 

We need to use the EU as a gateway to both Europe but also the states they have deals with. 
 

A hard border in the Irish Sea just sounds stupid. If farmers are wanting money and NI also , any so called savings will soon go. Then if we don’t get a decent deal the economy will tank leading to less revenue, more expenses so even less money. 

[tobyjugg2]

So Long-past-time-Me-and-Corbyn-were-gone-Bailey has announced her candidacy with:

“I don’t just agree with the policies, I’ve spent the last four years writing them.”

 

Would that be those policies that drove the worst Labour defeat in living memory and a divisiveness that has brought the Party to the edge of ruin and dissolution?

... That 'won the argument'  - presumably the 2 minute argument between her, corbyn and Jase ... the one where Mcdonnel and Clucksky recused themselves?

 

 

Interesting that Yvette Cooper has announced she would not be running as she could be divisive ...

... to those divisive people who drove the self centred historic defeat and tried to run a pogrom to deselect the unbelievers while telling everyone else that only they knew what was right.

 

Now thats (Cooper) what you call a better person, democratic socialist and potential Labour leader demonstrating she is  precisely that - isn't it.

 

Lets hope for Labour and our futures sake Long-Bailey is soon Long-Gone-Bailey

Arrrr Jase lad, Pieces of eight.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[London1971]

Just looking through Twitter at some Long  Bailey supporter comments, I despair.  Like hoping she will tackle the 'zionist' lobby.  Not a mention of tackling the Anti Semitism that likely contributed to their drubbing at the polls.

[tobyjugg2]

Interesting that Labour allowed all the Corbynistas in at 3 quid a throw,

but then made it 25 quid and changed the rules to prevent an influx of people who might join 'just to stop corbyn ...

 

Cheapest party control buyout ever ...

Trumps jealous - he needed hundreds of millions of dollars.

Edited January 7, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

11 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

So Long-past-time-Me-and-Corbyn-were-gone-Bailey has announced her candidacy with:

“I don’t just agree with the policies, I’ve spent the last four years writing them.”

 

Would that be those policies that drove the worst Labour defeat in living memory and a divisiveness that has brought the Party to the edge of ruin and dissolution?

... That 'won the argument'  - presumably the 2 minute argument between her, corbyn and Jase ... the one where Mcdonnel and Clucksky recused themselves?

 

10 million people, and brexit.  That's all I'm saying.  Take 10 million people, get brexit done, and then in five years build on it when the Tory's have screwed all the northerners over.

 

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore facts all you like, but it doesn't change the fact the policies were popular.

[tobyjugg2]

10 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

10 million people, and brexit.  That's all I'm saying.  Take 10 million people, get brexit done, and then in five years build on it when the Tory's have screwed all the northerners over.

 

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore facts all you like, but it doesn't change the fact the policies were popular.

 

A FEW of the policies were popular - the overall policy and people package was NOT

 

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore facts all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Labour suffered a HISTORIC defeat with only around 20% of the possible votes for their policies and party despite having a few VERY popular policies.

 

.. and that pitiful vote total undoubtedly including vast amounts of people who thought a small chance of stopping Brexit was better than no chance.

 

 

Wrapping a massive cowpat around a small sausage - is still a small sausage covered in cowpat sandwich.

Edited January 7, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[London1971]

25 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

10 million people, and brexit.  That's all I'm saying.  Take 10 million people, get brexit done, and then in five years build on it when the Tory's have screwed all the northerners over.

 

You can stick your head in the sand and ignore facts all you like, but it doesn't change the fact the policies were popular.

 

It's as @tobyjugg2 says.

 

Some of the policies were excellent but unfortunately they were rejected by the very people they were supposed to attract.  In a way Boris Johnson copied those policies and sold them better.  They 'outlaboured' the Labour Party.

[tobyjugg2]

I genuinely think you are giving Johnson and his team too much credit for the result @London1971

 

all they really did was keep Johnson out of the way as much as possible

Edited January 7, 2020 by tobyjugg2

[London1971]

Yup and that's all they needed to to because Corbyn was lamentable.

[honeybee13]

Boris is still doing his best to be invisible, it seems. As someone tweeted, he continued sunbathing in Mustique while the crisis in the Middle East erupted and didn't comment for three days. Now he doesn't plan to brief MPs on the situation this afternoon. 

[London1971]

Boris can do as he pleases, he has a plus 80 seat majority and 5 years until the next election.

[honeybee13]

I know. I worry about our democracy and what will be done to it over the next five years. 

[tobyjugg2]

Worth the minute or two it takes to read whatever 'slant' might be considered applied to it.

 

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/12/20/boris-johnson-is-planning-radical-changes-to-the-uk-constitution-here-are-the-ones-you-need-to-know-about/