Brexit?

[jake]

Perhaps those with a romantic view of the EU.

Those who think they carry the rights of its citizens in equal measure and at its forefront.

Peehaps they should view it through Greek eyes.

No longer is the basic right of democracy respected.

Even Frances Macron had his wings clipped when trying to alleviate the austerity imposed.

Kid yourself on that freedom of movement is anything other than making it easier for companies to access labour.

Kid yourself on that the people i live and work beside would be here on sites in kitchens in hotels if their own economies were doing well.

The EU being paraded as some kind of vanguard for the people is a nonsense.

As if there are no cases of worker exploitation here or in europe under the EU banner.

UK law should supersede all laws in this country as we live in a democracy.

As much as a farce that is it must be the starting point.

If we want a fairer society then we have to vote for it.

The EU is as self serving to its stronger economies as westminster is to the south east of the uk.

It squashes any dissent.

Greece being the example of this.

So excuse me while i boak at the romantic view.

[jake]

Freedom of movement.

This is what it actually means for citizens rights.

 

https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike

 

 

 

Far from protection it is as ive said nothing more than the keeping down of wages.

The deal struck with Greece did not mean a better return in cash for the EU rather that the european citizen footed the bill as opposed to German banks who had already took a massive hit from its american investments.

 

So lets not please romantacise about the EU and its position on peoples rights.

And im not saying our very own tory govt is any better.

[jake]

Can we turn it around and ask , as a comparison : what is to happen to UK immigrants in Europe eg Spain, lots of whom have been there for decades ?

 

Will they have rights of citizenship , rights of domicile , rights to healthcare ? Who protects their rights - UK courts ? Why has the UK media been so quiet on this ? Why is immigration seen only as a problem in the UK ?

 

It's no wonder EU negotiators are taking a no nonsense stand on this - it is sheer hypocricy. They will be demanding EU law because they can't trust the UK govt on anything. Brexit was a battleground that was fought and won on immigration but now the Tories are dumping everything on this - not only are we not getting rid of the 3 million who came here, we are going to allow anyone who has been here 5 years the right to stay ? So, the numbers could keep on climbing beyond what we have now ?

 

This isn't what Brexiters voted for , is it ?

 

Many who voted brexit did so for different reasons.

Your assertion that this was fought and won on immigration is at least a move from the usual accusation of being thick.

In Scotland we have no idea in comparison to english cities what the result of uncontrolled migration has meant.

Its no doubt been a factor but the truth is as long as the economy needs people they will come.

The issues are infrastructure .

Schools hospitals etc.

And its not just little white englanders that complain.

 

As far as i can recollect the uk sought to clarify early on the rights of people here and uk citizens abroad.

Do you really hold the bureaucrats of the EU in such high regard?

 

You say the EU cannot trust the uk government.

As if the EU is to be trusted.

Implying the greeks were lazy etc to justify ignoring their democratic wishes.

Ignoring different options to their debt management was to protect the ruling elite.

And in particular German banks.

Leaving the european taxpayer to fund the debt at a worse return.

So please instead of reducing this to similar argument like the greeks are lazy and the brits are racist take of the rose tinted glasses when viewing the EU.

Its economically unviable and ignores the wishes of nations .

It prohibits local economic levers which could help out the poorest and drives people especially yoing to seek employment in the richer nations.

Often working below their skill set .

[jake]

You're not insulting me, you're insulting the EU position - and WADR, you are doing it for no other reason than that it's different to yours (probably coupled with some degree of political naivety).

 

UK Brexit negotiators have been criticised because so far the other side have run rings around them on the sequencing issue. Some UK commentators have been criticised because they think the EU needs the UK more than it does, but they aren't negotiating on the UK's behalf, and in any case as Angela Merkel has pointed out the EU27 has other priorities and higher priorities.

 

I can see from the tone and language of your posts that you couldn't care less how negotiations work, and in fairness it looks like negotiations of such a high-stakes nature aren't really all that interesting to you. But that doesn't really matter. The British government does care, and the EU does care - and they don't generally have the luxury of throwing out pejorative remarks as if they were chancers posting on a football message board. And speaking as someone with a wee bit more than a rudimentary understanding of both negotiating and European law, these people do understand how high-stakes political negotiations work, and so far they're doing just fine, at least on our side of the table.

 

You are also missing a fundamental point of the EU's relationship with non-EU countries. No-one gets unrestricted access to our Customs Union and Single Market unless they accept the fundamental principles of European Union law, and unless they have acceptable measures for the transposition of EU law into domestic law. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have all had to find ways of making sure that can be done, and they have done so. The position of the EU is that the UK will have to do the same, or else it will have to pay for heightened access to the Union. The UK's position is somewhat different.

 

The UK doesn't have to deal with this issue if it doesn't want to. For example Russia doesn't, China doesn't, the United States doesn't, and Japan doesn't, and they are all exporting away to their hearts' content. Of course those countries don't want the level of unrestricted access to the EU27's market that Britain wants, so that might have some influence on the UK's take on the matter.

 

Some wee chancers on a football forum.

Lol.

 

Do you include yourself in that description i wonder ?

[Rocco_Jambo]

Some wee chancers on a football forum.

Lol.

 

Do you include yourself in that description i wonder ?

 

 

He doesn't seem capable of understanding the difference between the UK implementing/maintaining EU laws in it's legal system and the ECJ as a foreign court enjoying supremacy over UK courts in relation to it's own citizens. So after chastising me about being insulting he then throws out insults.

[MacDonald Jardine]

There are four million people in the Union who have rights, particularly rights derived from the four freedoms, that are ultimately vindicated by the ECJ. Taking that away from them is a deprivation of their rights, and the Union doesn't want that to happen, which means it wants some solution to be found.

 

That means it isn't a nonsense. It's a major concern about the deprivation of the civil rights of millions of people, including three million of our people who live in the UK, and that concern has to be addressed in the negotiations by one means or another.

 

 

 

In other news, Andrea Leadsom has called on broadcasters to be "more patriotic" when reporting on Brexit.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-tory-mp-leadsom-says-broadcasters-should-be-patriotic

 

 

 

It's an absolute nonsense.

That would give EU nationals living in the UK rights UK nationals don't.

If we're coming out of the EU we can't remain subject to the ECJ.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Francis Albert]

It's all about trust.

 

The EU obviously doesn't trust the UK Judiciary to uphold the rights of EU citizens and for the UK's part we are fiercely proud of the independence of our Judiciary.

 

So when the EU calls into question the impartiality and independence of the UK's Judiciary to uphold EU citizens rights, even when those rights will be written into UK law, we then the British, quite rightly feel aggrieved at that slur, whether intended or not, it is nonetheless a slur on the British Judicial System, little wonder then that's it's a complete non starter in the eyes of the British.

 

The solution will be a joint judicial panel made up of an equal number of UK & EU judges who will sit on a case by case basis, of course this panel will be the final adjudicator when cases can't be resolved through the normal UK judicial system.

The panel has to have both UK & EU judges, it's the only way that both the UK and EU would accept the rulings on cases passed down from the panel.

 

Personally I can't see any other solution which would satisfy the sovereignty of either the UK or the EU.

I don't think that addresses the issue.  What law would this judicial panel be adjudicating under - UK or EU?

[Francis Albert]

Can we turn it around and ask , as a comparison : what is to happen to UK immigrants in Europe eg Spain, lots of whom have been there for decades ?

 

Will they have rights of citizenship , rights of domicile , rights to healthcare ? Who protects their rights - UK courts ?  Why has the UK media been so quiet on this ? Why is immigration seen only as a problem in the UK ? 

 

It's no wonder EU negotiators are taking a no nonsense stand on this - it is sheer hypocricy. They will be demanding EU law because they can't trust the UK govt on anything. Brexit was a battleground that was fought and won on immigration but now the Tories are dumping everything on this - not only are we not getting rid of the 3 million who came here, we are going to allow anyone who has been here 5 years the right to stay ? So, the numbers could keep on climbing beyond what we have now ? 

 

This isn't what Brexiters voted for , is it ? 

 

Apart from a right of domicile (which the UK government immediately after the Brexit vote proposed along with reciprocal rights for EU citizens living in the UK ) why should UK citizens in the EU be in a different position post-Brexit from Americans or Russians living in the EU? The EU's position on this is an excellent example of the case for Brexit.

[MacDonald Jardine]

You're not insulting me, you're insulting the EU position - and WADR, you are doing it for no other reason than that it's different to yours (probably coupled with some degree of political naivety).

 

UK Brexit negotiators have been criticised because so far the other side have run rings around them on the sequencing issue. Some UK commentators have been criticised because they think the EU needs the UK more than it does, but they aren't negotiating on the UK's behalf, and in any case as Angela Merkel has pointed out the EU27 has other priorities and higher priorities.

 

I can see from the tone and language of your posts that you couldn't care less how negotiations work, and in fairness it looks like negotiations of such a high-stakes nature aren't really all that interesting to you. But that doesn't really matter. The British government does care, and the EU does care - and they don't generally have the luxury of throwing out pejorative remarks as if they were chancers posting on a football message board. And speaking as someone with a wee bit more than a rudimentary understanding of both negotiating and European law, these people do understand how high-stakes political negotiations work, and so far they're doing just fine, at least on our side of the table.

 

You are also missing a fundamental point of the EU's relationship with non-EU countries. No-one gets unrestricted access to our Customs Union and Single Market unless they accept the fundamental principles of European Union law, and unless they have acceptable measures for the transposition of EU law into domestic law. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have all had to find ways of making sure that can be done, and they have done so. The position of the EU is that the UK will have to do the same, or else it will have to pay for heightened access to the Union. The UK's position is somewhat different.

 

The UK doesn't have to deal with this issue if it doesn't want to. For example Russia doesn't, China doesn't, the United States doesn't, and Japan doesn't, and they are all exporting away to their hearts' content. Of course those countries don't want the level of unrestricted access to the EU27's market that Britain wants, so that might have some influence on the UK's take on the matter.

Yes and the UK could establish that by guaranteeing these fundamental rights.

However, they have to be interpreted by the British courts not the ECJ.

I have no doubt ECJ jurisprudence will be highly persuasive but it can't be binding.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[MacDonald Jardine]

Is the UK demanding its Supreme Court be the ultimate arbiter for Spanish courts in these cases? No, no it isn't.

 

Also, for Ulysses to say this is about protecting Irish rights as much as anyone else is disingenuous. Irish citizens have never been classed as "foreigners" by the United Kingdom at any time since 1920 and beyond.

No they haven't but the ridiculous Brexit vote has created this situation.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[MacDonald Jardine]

Many who voted brexit did so for different reasons.

Your assertion that this was fought and won on immigration is at least a move from the usual accusation of being thick.

In Scotland we have no idea in comparison to english cities what the result of uncontrolled migration has meant.

Its no doubt been a factor but the truth is as long as the economy needs people they will come.

The issues are infrastructure .

Schools hospitals etc.

And its not just little white englanders that complain.

 

As far as i can recollect the uk sought to clarify early on the rights of people here and uk citizens abroad.

Do you really hold the bureaucrats of the EU in such high regard?

 

You say the EU cannot trust the uk government.

As if the EU is to be trusted.

Implying the greeks were lazy etc to justify ignoring their democratic wishes.

Ignoring different options to their debt management was to protect the ruling elite.

And in particular German banks.

Leaving the european taxpayer to fund the debt at a worse return.

So please instead of reducing this to similar argument like the greeks are lazy and the brits are racist take of the rose tinted glasses when viewing the EU.

Its economically unviable and ignores the wishes of nations .

It prohibits local economic levers which could help out the poorest and drives people especially yoing to seek employment in the richer nations.

Often working below their skill set .

I'm not at all clear what these reasons were though other than anti immigration and general jingoism.

What about the EU created this groundswell of opinion against it?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[frankblack]

No they haven't but the ridiculous Brexit vote has created this situation.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

Explain how Brexit created this ludicrous demand for the ECJ to override our Supreme Court?  You haven't answered the post you quoted with an answer that is relevant to the context.

 

Remain lost - time to move on mate.

[jake]

I'm not at all clear what these reasons were though other than anti immigration and general jingoism.

What about the EU created this groundswell of opinion against it?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I dont doubt that immigration swayed votes.

But the argument for remaining is weak.

Lets start with immigration.

Englands cities and major towns have seen major demographic changes in recent years.

Resulting in education and health services often unprepared.

Housing which is a particular problem also under pressure.

This is reflected in Edinburgh as well with ridiculously high private rents .

 

These are the real things that people notice.

And if they complained were dismissed as thick racists.

Especially northern english who had the added ingredient of the authorities ignoring crimes against english white children.

So i concede that this was a factor.

 

 

Thats not why i voted brexit.

Nor i suspect the 33% of independence voters.

I for one see through the corrupt EU.

Its dealings with the Greeks.

As an aside i work beside Romanians who had previously worked in Greece.

All to a man decrie the EU.

 

The model in which the EU works is unviable.

You cannot have a currency set for the economy of Germany that suits the whole of europe.

I think ive explained why the EU is bad for the working class.

Why it erodes the rights of workers.

Why freedom of movement is nothing more than the keeping down of wages.

 

Its deflationary and allows no different region to pull economic levers to suit its micro economy.

Its going to collapse but you can bet your last euro those that have vested interests will flog it like a dead horse.

 

 

Whats laughable is arguments from the so called left.

Who profess to care about workers from abroad with statements like

 

"Who else will do the dirty jobs"

 

While all the while dismissing the northern english as thick who dont understand politics.

Northern english not understanding the brunt of politics.

 

 

Whose thick?

[Unknown user]

Whose thick?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I don't think that addresses the issue.  What law would this judicial panel be adjudicating under - UK or EU?

 

They would both be the same, wouldn't they?

 

Once the relevant parts of EU law guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens are written into British Law, then both British & EU law would be the same on this matter.

 

I think.

 

 

[Ulysses]

 

[Ulysses]

Also, for Ulysses to say this is about protecting Irish rights as much as anyone else.....

 

Did I say that?  I don't recall saying that, though I'm sure you'll be able to point the text out to me.  The only reference to Ireland I can recall making in this discussion was a reference to the rights of English people I know who work here.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Explain how Brexit created this ludicrous demand for the ECJ to override our Supreme Court? You haven't answered the post you quoted with an answer that is relevant to the context.

 

Remain lost - time to move on mate.

It created the circumstances which allowed the ludicrous demand to be made.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[MacDonald Jardine]

I dont doubt that immigration swayed votes.

But the argument for remaining is weak.

Lets start with immigration.

Englands cities and major towns have seen major demographic changes in recent years.

Resulting in education and health services often unprepared.

Housing which is a particular problem also under pressure.

This is reflected in Edinburgh as well with ridiculously high private rents .

 

These are the real things that people notice.

And if they complained were dismissed as thick racists.

Especially northern english who had the added ingredient of the authorities ignoring crimes against english white children.

So i concede that this was a factor.

 

 

Thats not why i voted brexit.

Nor i suspect the 33% of independence voters.

I for one see through the corrupt EU.

Its dealings with the Greeks.

As an aside i work beside Romanians who had previously worked in Greece.

All to a man decrie the EU.

 

The model in which the EU works is unviable.

You cannot have a currency set for the economy of Germany that suits the whole of europe.

I think ive explained why the EU is bad for the working class.

Why it erodes the rights of workers.

Why freedom of movement is nothing more than the keeping down of wages.

 

Its deflationary and allows no different region to pull economic levers to suit its micro economy.

Its going to collapse but you can bet your last euro those that have vested interests will flog it like a dead horse.

 

 

Whats laughable is arguments from the so called left.

Who profess to care about workers from abroad with statements like

 

"Who else will do the dirty jobs"

 

While all the while dismissing the northern english as thick who dont understand politics.

Northern english not understanding the brunt of politics.

 

 

Whose thick?

I kind of read that as an acceptance that most of the out votes were for irrelevant reasons.

I'd also argue against your suggestion that the EU is bad for the rights of workers.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[MacDonald Jardine]

They would both be the same, wouldn't they?

 

Once the relevant parts of EU law guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens are written into British Law, then both British & EU law would be the same on this matter.

 

I think.

Not necessarily.

We could have the same laws but the Supreme Court could interpret them differently from the ECJ.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Not necessarily.

We could have the same laws but the Supreme Court could interpret them differently from the ECJ.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

That is why there would need to be judges from both the UK & EU thus both sides views and interpretations are represented on the panel.

[jake]

 

Really ?

Could you expand on that facepalm.

 

Bit lazy smithee please take on my points .

Because as a died in the wool socialist i am really sickened by the arguments put forward by so called left thinkers.

 

But hey your superior intellect must be able to point out why it is that the EU is the vanguard of immigrants and workers.

Facepalms dont cut it.

[jake]

 

Yeah.

So cool.

Thats why you keep losing .

[jake]

I kind of read that as an acceptance that most of the out votes were for irrelevant reasons.

I'd also argue against your suggestion that the EU is bad for the rights of workers.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

Irrelevant?

 

The greek people voted to reject EU austerity and were in fact delivered a worse package.

The portugese.

The spanish the irish.

All but not accepted.

 

For whom do you think the EU works.

 

Its failed in every foreign policy in and around its borders.

It serves banking and financial institutions.

 

How have we come to believe its so different.

[jake]

Its interesting that my so called thicko racist vote is met with pictures.

 

That whenever the liberal mindset is challenged its met with bigotry.

 

Laughable.

 

Any spelling mistakes uly.

 

As you have no substance

[Ulysses]

Is the UK demanding its Supreme Court be the ultimate arbiter for Spanish courts in these cases? No, no it isn't.

 

 

Of course not; the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in cases where EU law takes precedence over Spanish law, and that's exactly how it should be.

 

This is something that Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have managed to work through by agreement, and there's no reason why the UK can't work it through just as well, if not better.  The difference is that there is a risk of the removal of acquired rights from EU citizens, and the EU is insisting that those rights be protected in a defined and guaranteed way.  That makes things a little more complicated than in the cases of the EEA and EFTA countries, but it shouldn't be unmanageable.

 

 

I think my last post and all my posts previous to it related to the EU requesting its citizens in the UK have opportunity to have EU law supersede UK law in the ECJ and how it was nonsense. I'm struggling to see how any of your above post relates to this.

 

You seem to be adopting the politician "we care" approach or the cardboard "we want it now" approach as opposed actually addressing how this would actually work whilst not being incompatible with UK and EU law.

 

I'm not adopting a position; the EU is.  The EU's position is that the rights of citizens have to be protected.   If that position gives the UK a problem then it isn't our problem, it's the UK's problem.  In that situation, it is up to the UK to come up with an alternative, or else deal with it, or else walk away.  These are negotiations, not adjudications, and the parties to those negotiations are free and sovereign and well capable of figuring out what to do.

 

I don't care how those rights are protected, by the way, but I want them protected and I am trusting my side's negotiators to make sure that happens.  And as I've said, I want to see the rights of UK citizens living in the EU protected as well, and I expect the EU to take steps to ensure that happens - it can't and shouldn't be one-way traffic when it comes to rights.

 

 

It's all about trust.

 

It is, and of course trust works both ways.  The UK has to be sure - or at least you'd hope it has to be sure - that British citizens living and working in the EU have their rights upheld and not diminished.  The EU shouldn't be the only party making demands about rights.

 

 

He doesn't seem capable of understanding the difference between the UK implementing/maintaining EU laws in it's legal system and the ECJ as a foreign court enjoying supremacy over UK courts in relation to it's own citizens. So after chastising me about being insulting he then throws out insults.

 

Insults?  Chastising?  And that's after earlier posts referring to "ludicrous" and "audacity"?  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I can't really see why.  You look to me like someone who voted Leave.  If so you're on the winning side.  Why can't you enjoy being a winner instead of complaining?  The EU sees things differently to you.  So what?  Sod them, surely?

 

 

If we're coming out of the EU we can't remain subject to the ECJ.

 

Not quite, though.  In these matters the EU position is straightforward.  Where there is a clash between EU law and domestic law on any matter covered by EU law and by a treaty, then EU law takes precedence. 

 

Other countries have managed to get around this, and EU law including ECJ rulings take precedence - where relevant - without restricting the rights of national parliaments or courts.  I have no doubt that the UK can work out how to do this as well, or else the UK can just walk away from a deal if it thinks it has to.

 

 

I don't think that addresses the issue.  What law would this judicial panel be adjudicating under - UK or EU?

 

AFAIK, the position in EEA countries is that there is a separate EEA Court made up only of nominees from those countries, but that EU law and ECJ rulings have to take precedence at that court.  Something similar happens in Switzerland with its domestic courts.  So you'd imagine that UK court decisions would be entirely UK-based and operated, but would have to regard ECJ rulings on relevant matters as having precedent status in accordance with the legal principle of stare decisis.

 

 

Apart from a right of domicile (which the UK government immediately after the Brexit vote proposed along with reciprocal rights for EU citizens living in the UK ) why should UK citizens in the EU be in a different position post-Brexit from Americans or Russians living in the EU? The EU's position on this is an excellent example of the case for Brexit.

 

Why indeed?  Why can't the UK make a clean break and make its own decisions about these matters?

 

 

Yes and the UK could establish that by guaranteeing these fundamental rights.

However, they have to be interpreted by the British courts not the ECJ.

I have no doubt ECJ jurisprudence will be highly persuasive but it can't be binding.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

I won't repeat everything I said above, but in relevant matters the ECJ would have to be binding.  Of course, that can't compromise the independence of national courts, a point I'll get to below.

 

 

They would both be the same, wouldn't they?

 

Once the relevant parts of EU law guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens are written into British Law, then both British & EU law would be the same on this matter.

 

I think.

 

I think what would happen in practical terms is that in relevant matters European Union law (including ECJ decisions) would have precedence.  However the UK courts or indeed the UK parliament would be free to disregard that precedence as and when they wished.  In that case, the ECJ and/or European law would simply not have precedence.  The EU would probably have some form of intervention mechanism to seek to have EU law applied, and if that failed the agreements on access to the Single Market would be nullified.

 

There are variations of the above in operation between the EU and the four countries who are in the EEA or EFTA.  Switzerland does things differently to the others, but the effects are very similar.  Not all Swiss economic sectors get access to the Single Market, and not all EU industries get access to Switzerland's markets. EU law and the ECJ has to be applied in areas where EU law takes precedence over national law, but unlike in EU countries that is done indirectly rather than directly.  The UK might want to develop a specifically "UK" model for its access to the Single Market, in which case it will find ways of addressing these kinds of issues.  But equally the UK might not, or it might regard the price of a deal as too high, in which case it won't do a deal and the issues won't come up.

[Unknown user]

Really ?

Could you expand on that facepalm.

 

Bit lazy smithee please take on my points .

Because as a died in the wool socialist i am really sickened by the arguments put forward by so called left thinkers.

 

But hey your superior intellect must be able to point out why it is that the EU is the vanguard of immigrants and workers.

Facepalms dont cut it.

Hey all I did was point out how stupid you look when you say "whose thick?" at the end of a long rant basically accusing your opponents of being thick - intellectual karma that, chief.

 

Also, you don't know my position on either the long term future of the EU or Brexit, so please don't assume.

[Ulysses]

David Davis seems to think there'll be a deal.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40397312

 

 

I'm no supporter of the Tories, but if he thinks a deal is possible it means he thinks issues like the ones discussed above can be addressed - I doubt he's planning to roll over to anyone's demands any time soon.

[JamboX2]

Explain how Brexit created this ludicrous demand for the ECJ to override our Supreme Court? You haven't answered the post you quoted with an answer that is relevant to the context.

 

Remain lost - time to move on mate.

It never over rode our Supreme Court. Utter bollocks.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Insults?  Chastising?  And that's after earlier posts referring to "ludicrous" and "audacity"?  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I can't really see why.  You look to me like someone who voted Leave.  If so you're on the winning side.  Why can't you enjoy being a winner instead of complaining?  The EU sees things differently to you.  So what?  Sod them, surely?

 

What complete irrelevant waffle. Grow up for god's sake. Clearly the sun shines out the EU's arse in your view and rather than actually argue your point you simply choose the side of the EU in everything they do without even knowing what they are doing because they must be right even if they attempt to undermine the rule of law in other countries.

[jake]

Hey all I did was point out how stupid you look when you say "whose thick?" at the end of a long rant basically accusing your opponents of being thick - intellectual karma that, chief.

 

Also, you don't know my position on either the long term future of the EU or Brexit, so please don't assume.

 

Nae bother .

Im supposed to know where you stand on a facepalm.

Sound.

[jake]

It never over rode our Supreme Court. Utter bollocks.

 

Are you serious?

 

Take aside the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting the EU had not superseded any nations democratic will or national law?

[Ulysses]

...intellectual karma that, chief....

 

I think someone's dogma just got run over by their karma.

 

 

[jake]

Insults? Chastising? And that's after earlier posts referring to "ludicrous" and "audacity"? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I can't really see why. You look to me like someone who voted Leave. If so you're on the winning side. Why can't you enjoy being a winner instead of complaining? The EU sees things differently to you. So what? Sod them, surely?

 

What complete irrelevant waffle. Grow up for god's sake. Clearly the sun shines out the EU's arse in your view and rather than actually argue your point you simply choose the side of the EU in everything they do without even knowing what they are doing because they must be right even if they attempt to undermine the rule of law in other countries.

 

Try not to bite.

If you look at his posts they offer nothing.

He labels people because thats all he can do.

Its actually typically the response from those who are caught up in blairite politics.

He even refers to the EU as we.

[Ulysses]

Insults?  Chastising?  And that's after earlier posts referring to "ludicrous" and "audacity"?  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I can't really see why.  You look to me like someone who voted Leave.  If so you're on the winning side.  Why can't you enjoy being a winner instead of complaining?  The EU sees things differently to you.  So what?  Sod them, surely?

 

What complete irrelevant waffle. Grow up for god's sake. Clearly the sun shines out the EU's arse in your view and rather than actually argue your point you simply choose the side of the EU in everything they do without even knowing what they are doing because they must be right even if they attempt to undermine the rule of law in other countries.

 

The EU isn't undermining anyone's rule of law.  As I explained, other countries have managed this issue successfully, and it would appear that your Brexit Minister reckons Britain can do likewise.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter how often I type the words, the red mist has descended on you and it's not going to clear from around your head any time soon, so it's probably best I stop wasting my time on something that doesn't remotely resemble a debate.

[jake]

I think someone's dogma just got run over by their karma.

 

 

 

 

You know i know im not a heavyweight and im not particularly educated.

But one thing im not is governed by dogma.

Ive been slagged of on just about every thread because i think i always take the side of the underdog.

From the Syrian thread to the english white girls to greek portugese and spanish working class.

 

But you keep up the smileys and the pics after all anyone who disagreez with you is just a chancer.

 

We bow to you tonight .

 

Dogma is your editorial not mine.

 

My views are always skewed by who is affected.

Im sure you are not

[Rocco_Jambo]

The EU isn't undermining anyone's rule of law.  As I explained, other countries have managed this issue successfully, and it would appear that your Brexit Minister reckons Britain can do likewise.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter how often I type the words, the red mist has descended on you and it's not going to clear from around your head any time soon, so it's probably best I stop wasting my time on something that doesn't remotely resemble a debate.

 

No other country has managed this successfully. As I've explained you do not understand the difference between a state agreeing to implement EU laws then implementing them in a manner in accordance with ECJ law and the UK agreeing to the ECJ having jurisdiction and supremacy over the UK Courts.

 

No other non-EU state is subject to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

Don't worry though when you run out of things to say in your reply just throw in a few message board cliches like "chip on shoulder" "red mist" "angry at the world" etc, etc.

[jake]

The EU isn't undermining anyone's rule of law. As I explained, other countries have managed this issue successfully, and it would appear that your Brexit Minister reckons Britain can do likewise.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter how often I type the words, the red mist has descended on you and it's not going to clear from around your head any time soon, so it's probably best I stop wasting my time on something that doesn't remotely resemble a debate.

 

Piffle

[jake]

No other country has managed this successfully. As I've explained you do not understand the difference between a state agreeing to implement EU laws then implementing them in a manner in accordance with ECJ law and the UK agreeing to the ECJ having jurisdiction and supremacy over the UK Courts.

 

No other non-EU state is subject to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

Don't worry though when you run out of things to say in your reply just throw in a few message board cliches like "chip on shoulder" "red mist" "angry at the world" etc, etc.

 

Its so typical of the arguments thats lost the ground on tories.

Thats how the US got trump ffs.

Totally clueless.

It really worries me .

Blindly accepting.

[Unknown user]

Nae bother .

Im supposed to know where you stand on a facepalm.

Sound.

But I obviously wasn't putting forward a position, I was purely reacting to the two words that I quoted. In fact, I don't think I could have made it any clearer that I wasn't involving myself in the whole post, just the part where you kicked yourself in the bollocks.

It wasn't intended to be unfriendly either tbh although I'm probably a bit scunnered now.

[jake]

So this paragon of defence against right wing objective.

The EU.

It has imprisoned the economies of the poorer nations.

It imposed draconian fiscal policy on greece despite their referendum.

Threatened the opponents publicly stated that no nations vote could be above the bureaucrats .

And now we are to trust them ?

 

The only thing thats wrong here is the arguments been hijacked by the right wing.

 

Once again the english working class knowinglingly or not have perhaps come to rescue us all.

[jake]

But I obviously wasn't putting forward a position, I was purely reacting to the two words that I quoted. In fact, I don't think I could have made it any clearer that I wasn't involving myself in the whole post, just the part where you kicked yourself in the bollocks.

It wasn't intended to be unfriendly either tbh although I'm probably a bit scunnered now.

 

Smithee.

 

You grow .

 

That makes you sound in my book.

 

Dinnae be scunnered yer obviously sound

[JamboX2]

Are you serious?

 

Take aside the UK.

Are you seriously suggesting the EU had not superseded any nations democratic will or national law?

Yes. Very.

 

No national court need respect decisions of the ECJ. You can simply pay the penalty and move on. Italy did when it broke state aid rules and nationalised it's steel industry.

 

The idea of primacy of EU law only applies where you have national laws which breach EU law (which is crafted by national governments working together on the Commission). The UK courts in the Factortame case set out how this applies. It's then refined in later cases.

 

It is BRITISH courts who apply EU law in all parts of Britain. The laws they're applying are made by elected British governments, MEPs and our Commissioners at the EU level and therefore have our democratic consent.

 

It's all a consensual. It's all legitimate.

 

It's just wrong to say that the ECJ re-writes our laws. It's jurisdiction os advisory. The cases it gets from the UK go there with leave (approval) of UK courts to the ECJ.

[Unknown user]

Smithee.

 

You grow .

 

That makes you sound in my book.

 

Dinnae be scunnered yer obviously sound

took me a second to get what you mean there!

 

FWIW and IMO, the EU is utterly doomed to failure in the long term. There are too many different economies, points of views, self interests, different parties coming into power in different countries for it to ever go smoothly. The Euro will fail, for me it's just a case of when.

Having said that, a Euro failure will **** the pound up too, so whether we're in or out the crash will be the same and I don't really see the point of being outside the biggest trading club in our area.

 

But...

An antagonistic Brexit makes no sense at all and I think the uk (politicians, media, and populace) needs some perspective. One of the things I got asked most after the Brexit vote was "why is Britain always so angry?" - I usually answer "the weather", but the real answer escapes me.

 

EDIT maybe they need to grow themselves

[jake]

took me a second to get what you mean there!

 

FWIW and IMO, the EU is utterly doomed to failure in the long term. There are too many different economies, points of views, self interests, different parties coming into power in different countries for it to ever go smoothly. The Euro will fail, for me it's just a case of when.

Having said that, a Euro failure will **** the pound up too, so whether we're in or out the crash will be the same and I don't really see the point of being outside the biggest trading club in our area.

 

But...

An antagonistic Brexit makes no sense at all and I think the uk (politicians, media, and populace) needs some perspective. One of the things I got asked most after the Brexit vote was "why is Britain always so angry?" - I usually answer "the weather", but the real answer escapes me.

 

EDIT maybe they need to grow themselves

 

Scotland as we know grows healthy.

Yet we are still angry.

 

Angry for the right reasons is a good thing.

[jake]

Yes. Very.

 

No national court need respect decisions of the ECJ. You can simply pay the penalty and move on. Italy did when it broke state aid rules and nationalised it's steel industry.

 

The idea of primacy of EU law only applies where you have national laws which breach EU law (which is crafted by national governments working together on the Commission). The UK courts in the Factortame case set out how this applies. It's then refined in later cases.

 

It is BRITISH courts who apply EU law in all parts of Britain. The laws they're applying are made by elected British governments, MEPs and our Commissioners at the EU level and therefore have our democratic consent.

 

It's all a consensual. It's all legitimate.

 

It's just wrong to say that the ECJ re-writes our laws. It's jurisdiction os advisory. The cases it gets from the UK go there with leave (approval) of UK courts to the ECJ.

 

Jambox2.

 

You are a labour man.

 

How can you reconcile the concept of the EU with what has happened?

 

You surely see whose interests it serves no.

[Maroon Sailor]

The Irish

 

Anti British but blame the UK for creating a mess

 

The same British that bailed them out of a banking crisis

 

Love thy neighbour

[JamboX2]

Jambox2.

 

You are a labour man.

 

How can you reconcile the concept of the EU with what has happened?

 

You surely see whose interests it serves no.

It serves the people of Europe. It does so because it's run by the 27 member states governments. Who are all democratically elected.

 

How can you not see that there is no great conspiracy behind it.

 

You've failed to engage with my post and jumped further down the rabbit hole of some grand plan.

 

The social chapter forces British business to provide certain employment rights they never wanted to - paternity leave, maternity leave pay, paid holidays. What's bad about that?

 

UK governments up till Blair never consented or bothered with those rights for me and you. What interests do they serve?

[Ulysses]

The Irish

 

Anti British but blame the UK for creating a mess

 

The same British that bailed them out of a banking crisis

 

Love thy neighbour

 

I don't know how many Irish people you've listened to on the subject of Brexit, but I guess it must be quite a lot to allow you to claim you know the views of the entire population. 

 

I can only speak for my own experiences, and I can say that there are some anti-British among the Irish, but I'm not one of them, and there'd be more than a few who disagree with my take on things.

 

There's no mess, there's a debate.  Britain voted to leave, so let them leave.  The debate is happening for two reasons.  One is that there are EU citizens living in the UK and there are UK citizens living in the EU, so the question arises as to how to protect their rights.  The second is that the UK will only have restricted access to EEA markets, and the EEA will only have restricted access to UK markets, so the question arises as to whether and how that access can be improved.

 

So that's not a mess, it's a debate.  But the EU didn't cause the debate, the UK did, and no-one in their right mind questions that.

 

In this debate I'm not anti-British, I'm pro my own side.  Why shouldn't I be?

[jake]

It serves the people of Europe. It does so because it's run by the 27 member states governments. Who are all democratically elected.

 

How can you not see that there is no great conspiracy behind it.

 

You've failed to engage with my post and jumped further down the rabbit hole of some grand plan.

 

The social chapter forces British business to provide certain employment rights they never wanted to - paternity leave, maternity leave pay, paid holidays. What's bad about that?

 

UK governments up till Blair never consented or bothered with those rights for me and you. What interests do they serve?

 

Trade unions and the labour movement took that role.