More Tory lies

[ri Alban]

20 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

Why would the English banish the Tories?

As in elect Labour. Political terms. Banished from office, punted, run out of town. 

This place at times, ffs,

[Victorian]

Big team bonding away day at Chequers tomorrow for the arseholes.    Wonder how much that's all costing in the way of security,  etc.     For a bunch of utter shitehouses who have no intention of signing up to any form of cabinet responsibility.     Maybe all arrive in time for elevenses before a quick pagger at paintball.    Stop for a hearty banquet and resume in the afternoon to try and agree a date for the next Chequers jolly.

[jambo lodge]

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Big team bonding away day at Chequers tomorrow for the arseholes.    Wonder how much that's all costing in the way of security,  etc.     For a bunch of utter shitehouses who have no intention of signing up to any form of cabinet responsibility.     Maybe all arrive in time for elevenses before a quick pagger at paintball.    Stop for a hearty banquet and resume in the afternoon to try and agree a date for the next Chequers jolly.

Perhaps they are trying to reach an agreement as to how the Government of the UK carries out the democratic wishes of the UK electorate.

[Victorian]

10 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

Perhaps they are trying to reach an agreement as to how the Government of the UK carries out the democratic wishes of the UK electorate.

 

 

Aye.     Aye that's what it is presented as.

 

Tell you another piece of creative presentation.      That of any sort of hard,  damaging Brexit being legitimised as the democratic will of the population.     It's just an arrogant,  obtuse dismissal of the legitimate views,    not only of remain voters,    but also of many people who did vote to leave.

 

The simple democratic referendum result does not allow an absolute blank cheque to wreak havoc.     Sadly there are people all too happy to allow it and for the carnage to pass under the convenient banner of democracy.

[jambo lodge]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

 

Aye.     Aye that's what it is presented as.

 

Tell you another piece of creative presentation.      That of any sort of hard,  damaging Brexit being legitimised as the democratic will of the population.     It's just an arrogant,  obtuse dismissal of the legitimate views,    not only of remain voters,    but also of many people who did vote to leave.

 

The simple democratic referendum result does not allow an absolute blank cheque to wreak havoc.     Sadly there are people all too happy to allow it and for the carnage to pass under the convenient banner of democracy.

Democracy is a terrible thing when you dont like the result.....just ask the hoardes of Nats on here.

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, jambo lodge said:

Democracy is a terrible thing when you dont like the result.....just ask the hoardes of Nats on here.

 

 

Another glib,  obtuse comment.

 

The result is valid.    The contemptuous,  negligent,   self-serving mismanagement can never be justified or legitimised by the notion that it simply democracy being acted out.      It's an abuse of democracy.

 

At every general election,   we vote for our constituency representatives who in turn contribute to the forming of a government.      Winning that contest doesn't mandate the government to willfully damage the best interests of the country.      You don't vote for chaos then and the same applies at a referendum.    

[Victorian]

Boris and his gang of ***** having a pre-Chequers huddle at his offices tonight.     An indication of a willingness to agree and sign up to a permanent government position?     Quite the opposite.      

 

Pagger imminent.     Hope it's bloody.

[jambo lodge]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Another glib,  obtuse comment.

 

The result is valid.    The contemptuous,  negligent,   self-serving mismanagement can never be justified or legitimised by the notion that it simply democracy being acted out.      It's an abuse of democracy.

 

At every general election,   we vote for our constituency representatives who in turn contribute to the forming of a government.      Winning that contest doesn't mandate the government to willfully damage the best interests of the country.      You don't vote for chaos then and the same applies at a referendum.    

Apart from Lib Dems and Greens, all other parties are split on what is best for Brexit.No party is willfully doing damage to the country but one thing for sure is the press stir up divisions big time. And if you think we have an undivided Europe think again on the migrant issue. Madam Merkel is being sidelined by the "populist" movements in most other countries.Time will tell whether the EU in its current format will even survive.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

Apart from Lib Dems and Greens, all other parties are split on what is best for Brexit.No party is willfully doing damage to the country but one thing for sure is the press stir up divisions big time. And if you think we have an undivided Europe think again on the migrant issue. Madam Merkel is being sidelined by the "populist" movements in most other countries.Time will tell whether the EU in its current format will even survive.

 

Yes,  quite.    So I would suggest that the UK would be much better to have the maximum possible allignment with all that is good or useful about the EU and it's treaties before things fundamentally change.     

[jambo lodge]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yes,  quite.    So I would suggest that the UK would be much better to have the maximum possible allignment with all that is good or useful about the EU and it's treaties before things fundamentally change.     

Think close alignment is what the Government want to acheive. Whether the EU will agree to it without a major injection of democracy is doubtful. Although UK MEPs all publish their expenses a proposal for all MEPs to do likewise was voted down this week. Not a good example of the EU at work.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, jambo lodge said:

Think close alignment is what the Government want to acheive. Whether the EU will agree to it without a major injection of democracy is doubtful. Although UK MEPs all publish their expenses a proposal for all MEPs to do likewise was voted down this week. Not a good example of the EU at work.

 

Boris,  Rees-Morgue and the other millionaire psychopaths wont allow it.    They'll bring down the whole Big Top first.      

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

Think close alignment is what the Government want to acheive. Whether the EU will agree to it without a major injection of democracy is doubtful. Although UK MEPs all publish their expenses a proposal for all MEPs to do likewise was voted down this week. Not a good example of the EU at work.

Expenses? Tell me the about Wm MPs expenses scandal again.  You know the last bastion of democracy, truth and hope. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by ri Alban

[jake]

10 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

 

Aye.     Aye that's what it is presented as.

 

Tell you another piece of creative presentation.      That of any sort of hard,  damaging Brexit being legitimised as the democratic will of the population.     It's just an arrogant,  obtuse dismissal of the legitimate views,    not only of remain voters,    but also of many people who did vote to leave.

 

The simple democratic referendum result does not allow an absolute blank cheque to wreak havoc.     Sadly there are people all too happy to allow it and for the carnage to pass under the convenient banner of democracy.

If we align in all but name with the EU.

A soft brexit .

Would that not signify that our vote counted for nothing.

Convenient banner of democracy is a convenient excuse for those who wish to ignore the result of the referendum.

 

Regardless of the deal we manage to get short term this question will now shape politics for decades.

 

Constant scare stories will abound.

Any negative economic news seized upon .

 

But time will tell .

Imo we are better unravelled now and thank feck we didn't adopt the euro.

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, jake said:

If we align in all but name with the EU.

A soft brexit .

Would that not signify that our vote counted for nothing.

Convenient banner of democracy is a convenient excuse for those who wish to ignore the result of the referendum.

 

Regardless of the deal we manage to get short term this question will now shape politics for decades.

 

Constant scare stories will abound.

Any negative economic news seized upon .

 

But time will tell .

Imo we are better unravelled now and thank feck we didn't adopt the euro.

Brexit means brexit 

 

 

 

[jambo lodge]

Listened to Mike Russel pontificating on Radio Scotland this morning about Brexit. Must be hard for such a long winded politician to know there is nothing he can do to influence anything about Brexit.Desperately hoping for a hard Brexit so the SNP can have yet another excuse to talk up a referendum.

[ri Alban]

26 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

 To know there is nothing he can do to influence anything about Brexit.

And there lies the truth. Elected Scottish governments with no say in how their country is run by foreign people. 

EU membership was guaranteed by voting no, well it isn’t, now let's ask Scotland again about independence. 

[MacDonald Jardine]

9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

And there lies the truth. Elected Scottish governments with no say in how their country is run by foreign people. 

EU membership was guaranteed by voting no, well it isn’t, now let's ask Scotland again about independence. 

I get the point you're making but is membership of the EU not precisely that?

[ri Alban]

9 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

I get the point you're making but is membership of the EU not precisely that?

No, I don't think so. Its Sovereign states with agreements and disagreements. The EU certainly doesn't control UK sovereignty in the way The UK controls ours. 

I do realise others disagree, that's fine. EU membership isn't a must for me trade is, but if EU membership turns out to be important, independence is the only way we can join. 

Let it play out. 

 

Oh, one last thing the UK government is about to piss all over the supreme Court if it comes down on the side of the SG. The nuclear option as it's known as.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by ri Alban

[Justin Z]

Yeah. The EU has effectively zero sovereign control over any member state. Any state that doesn't wish to adopt an EU law doesn't have to. Any a member state does wish to adopt, it does so through its own parliamentary process, which is wholly independent for each member state, whose parliaments derive their power from their governments alone.

 

By contrast, the Scottish parliament derives its power only from powers it has been given by a larger body. It has no inherent power at all. More bluntly, the Scottish parliament exists at Westminster's pleasure, and all of its power is subject to full revocation at any time, for any reason.

 

Any argument that there is any kind of meaningful nexus between these two situations is a canard at the absolute best, and just flat out obfuscatory dishonesty at the worst.

[jambo lodge]

23 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

And there lies the truth. Elected Scottish governments with no say in how their country is run by foreign people. 

EU membership was guaranteed by voting no, well it isn’t, now let's ask Scotland again about independence. 

EU membership is for UK. If you want your country run by "foreign people" then vote for independence and join the EU as the SNP advocates.

[Justin Z]

. . . as per.

[Ministry MK2]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Expenses? Tell me the about Wm MPs expenses scandal again.  You know the last bastion of democracy, truth and hope. 

More whattaboutery. The same expenses nonsense goes on at Holyrood as well. 

[Ministry MK2]

1 hour ago, jambo lodge said:

Listened to Mike Russel pontificating on Radio Scotland this morning about Brexit. Must be hard for such a long winded politician to know there is nothing he can do to influence anything about Brexit.Desperately hoping for a hard Brexit so the SNP can have yet another excuse to talk up a referendum.

SNP had their chance to talk up an IndyRef 2 on the back of the EU Referendum result in 2016. Nippy went for it and then was roundly ignored - even by some of her own supporters. Lost a lot of credibility at that point. 

[Ministry MK2]

36 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Yeah. The EU has effectively zero sovereign control over any member state. Any state that doesn't wish to adopt an EU law doesn't have to. Any a member state does wish to adopt, it does so through its own parliamentary process, which is wholly independent for each member state, whose parliaments derive their power from their governments alone.

 

By contrast, the Scottish parliament derives its power only from powers it has been given by a larger body. It has no inherent power at all. More bluntly, the Scottish parliament exists at Westminster's pleasure, and all of its power is subject to full revocation at any time, for any reason.

 

Any argument that there is any kind of meaningful nexus between these two situations is a canard at the absolute best, and just flat out obfuscatory dishonesty at the worst.

EU Regulations must be adopted by the Member States to whom they effect. They supersede any national law that may contradict them. 

[Geoff the Mince]

25 minutes ago, Ministry MK2 said:

EU Regulations must be adopted by the Member States to whom they effect. They supersede any national law that may contradict them. 

All or some?  Could you name a couple?  

[Ministry MK2]

12 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

All or some?  Could you name a couple?  

All EU Regulations. 

 

Pretty sure you will will be aware of them unless you have been living under a rock. I will give you one you may have heard of to get the ball rolling - GDPR.

[Geoff the Mince]

46 minutes ago, Ministry MK2 said:

All EU Regulations. 

 

Pretty sure you will will be aware of them unless you have been living under a rock. I will give you one you may have heard of to get the ball rolling - GDPR.

It seems we are sticking with GDPR after Brexit .

 

I've tried to check if it supersedes UK law but I'm coming up short .

 

 

[Ministry MK2]

2 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

It seems we are sticking with GDPR after Brexit .

 

I've tried to check if it supersedes UK law but I'm coming up short .

 

 

Yeah I imagine we will be sticking with GDPR after Brexit. As mentioned it is an EU Regulation to which we had no choice but to adopt as we are still part of the EU. Now it is in place we might as well stick with it though. 

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Ministry MK2 said:

Yeah I imagine we will be sticking with GDPR after Brexit. As mentioned it is an EU Regulation to which we had no choice but to adopt as we are still part of the EU. Now it is in place we might as well stick with it though. 

The UK has opt outs, which they have never used. EU regs are negotiated between member states then debated thro sovereign Parliaments, either accepted or rejected. Not just forced on folk, like the poll tax on Scotland by the Tories. 

[Justin Z]

4 hours ago, Ministry MK2 said:

EU Regulations must be adopted by the Member States to whom they effect. They supersede any national law that may contradict them. 

 

That's oversimplified, but to be fair, so was my statement. You're right that EU-wide regulations take immediate effect, and override domestic law. But that's not targeted--it affects every member state--and each member parliament can deal with the effects thereof by drafting complementary law. Plus, each member state still is the one executing the regulation, meaning there is in effect very little exchange of sovereignty, because it's still each member deciding how to run its own affairs, just with an overarching framework that was already agreed by treaty.

 

Directives are even more forgiving. They require passage of national law to effectuate them. This is extremely flexible for national governments, and is arguably barely a sovereignty issue at all.

 

This is basically the exact opposite relationship of the Scottish parliament to the Union one, where with a single vote in Westminster, everything the parliament up here has ever done can be reversed. That's simply not possible for any country under the European-wide system, nor could it ever be. It's by design in the UK, though.

 

The EU derives its power from its member states having freely given it. The Scottish parliament derives its power from a supreme parliament having given it; it never possessed an inherent power or sovereignty which it could choose to give a tiny fraction of to another body. Again, trying to compare the two as if they are equivalent situations is at best extremely dishonest.

 

Edit: And yes, ri alban is being a bit dramatic, but is generally correct. Scotland "technically" had a say in whether the poll tax was forced on Scotland too, but more importantly, once the poll tax was implemented, Scotland had zero control over how. That's the exact opposite of how things work with the EU.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Justin Z

[Ministry MK2]

14 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

The UK has opt outs, which they have never used. EU regs are negotiated between member states then debated thro sovereign Parliaments, either accepted or rejected. Not just forced on folk, like the poll tax on Scotland by the Tories. 

The UK has 4 opt outs. One of these is with reference to monetary union - hence why we are not part of the common currency. 

 

EU Regulations are not debated by sovereign parliaments. They must be accepted by Member States unless a formal opt out is in place ( as mentioned above with reference to the Euro). 

 

You may be getting confused with EU Directives. EU Directives are debated by sovereign governments with the sovereign government having a period of 2 years to discuss how they will implement the Directive. 

 

[Ministry MK2]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

That's oversimplified, but to be fair, so was my statement. You're right that EU-wide regulations take immediate effect, and override domestic law. But that's not targeted--it affects every member state--and each member parliament can deal with the effects thereof by drafting complementary law. Plus, each member state still is the one executing the regulation, meaning there is in effect very little exchange of sovereignty, because it's still each member deciding how to run its own affairs, just with an overarching framework that was already agreed by treaty.

 

Directives are even more forgiving. They require passage of national law to effectuate them. This is extremely flexible for national governments, and is arguably barely a sovereignty issue at all.

 

This is basically the exact opposite relationship of the Scottish parliament to the Union one, where with a single vote in Westminster, everything the parliament up here has ever done can be reversed. That's simply not possible for any country under the European-wide system, nor could it ever be. It's by design in the UK, though.

 

The EU derives its power from its member states having freely given it. The Scottish parliament derives its power from a supreme parliament having given it; it never possessed an inherent power or sovereignty which it could choose to give a tiny fraction of to another body. Again, trying to compare the two as if they are equivalent situations is at best extremely dishonest.

I think you are dancing on the head of a pin here. If the EU decides on a Regulation to be adopted by member states - it has to be adopted. No ifs or buts - unless a formal opt out is in place for that particular member state with relation to that area of policy.

 

Call it an “over arching” framework if you like. But when an EU Regulation comes into force it automatically becomes law in the relevant member state. 

 

Not sure if your last sentance was aimed at me or just in general. But at no point have I compared the Uk-EU relationship with Scotland-UK relationship. I agree they are very different. 

[jack D and coke]

14 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

That's oversimplified, but to be fair, so was my statement. You're right that EU-wide regulations take immediate effect, and override domestic law. But that's not targeted--it affects every member state--and each member parliament can deal with the effects thereof by drafting complementary law. Plus, each member state still is the one executing the regulation, meaning there is in effect very little exchange of sovereignty, because it's still each member deciding how to run its own affairs, just with an overarching framework that was already agreed by treaty.

 

Directives are even more forgiving. They require passage of national law to effectuate them. This is extremely flexible for national governments, and is arguably barely a sovereignty issue at all.

 

This is basically the exact opposite relationship of the Scottish parliament to the Union one, where with a single vote in Westminster, everything the parliament up here has ever done can be reversed. That's simply not possible for any country under the European-wide system, nor could it ever be. It's by design in the UK, though.

 

The EU derives its power from its member states having freely given it. The Scottish parliament derives its power from a supreme parliament having given it; it never possessed an inherent power or sovereignty which it could choose to give a tiny fraction of to another body. Again, trying to compare the two as if they are equivalent situations is at best extremely dishonest.

 

Edit: And yes, ri alban is being a bit dramatic, but is generally correct. Scotland "technically" had a say in whether the poll tax was forced on Scotland too, but more importantly, once the poll tax was implemented, Scotland had zero control over how. That's the exact opposite of how things work with the EU.

 

Don’t spell it out like that man you’re supposed to subscribe to the idea we’d be giving up English rule, which is obviously the best seeing as we’d be unable to do it ourselves to some bleeding Johnny Foreigners. 

Silly sausage. 

[Justin Z]

8 minutes ago, Ministry MK2 said:

I think you are dancing on the head of a pin here. If the EU decides on a Regulation to be adopted by member states - it has to be adopted. No ifs or buts - unless a formal opt out is in place for that particular member state with relation to that area of policy.

 

Call it an “over arching” framework if you like. But when an EU Regulation comes into force it automatically becomes law in the relevant member state. 

 

Not sure if your last sentance was aimed at me or just in general. But at no point have I compared the Uk-EU relationship with Scotland-UK relationship. I agree they are very different. 

 

No, the last bit was definitely not aimed at you, just the idea you see out there that there's some equivalence between the two, when there's not. Thanks for helping flesh everything out more, because I definitely made a very incomplete statement at first. Also we haven't even gotten into the limitations for EU laws--they couldn't just come in and change everybody's internal taxation structures for example because there is no power granted them to do things like that; their legislative purview is very limited based on what's in the treaties.

 

I think we disagree a bit on just how much effect EU regulations must have, i.e. how much discretion member states are working with, but that's semantics in the end.

[Pans Jambo]

Esthey McVey...

 

[AuldReekie444]

On 04/07/2018 at 18:22, The Mighty Thor said:

The first part of that statement is utter bollocks. 

The Tory party, from parliament through to the constituencies has been a baw hair from imploding over Europe for the last 30 years. Finally now they've got their wish and they're still ripping themselves apart.

What on earth are they going to do when leaving Europe solves nothing and they're still presiding over a country disappearing round the u-bend?

That was my point. The Tories as a group, don't want to leave. Some Tories really want to leave.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Ministry MK2 said:

The UK has 4 opt outs. One of these is with reference to monetary union - hence why we are not part of the common currency. 

 

EU Regulations are not debated by sovereign parliaments. They must be accepted by Member States unless a formal opt out is in place ( as mentioned above with reference to the Euro). 

 

You may be getting confused with EU Directives. EU Directives are debated by sovereign governments with the sovereign government having a period of 2 years to discuss how they will implement the Directive. 

 

Maybe I am. I'll have a look. 

[Pans Jambo]

Are the tory voters not utterly ashamed?

 

Bedroom Tax

10 Years of imposed austerity

Rape clause

Universal Credit shambles

DWP shambles

Sanctions on the most vulnerable

Deciding the severely disabled are eligible for work. 

Scrapping the Human Rights act. 

The suicides

Denying disability benefit to 165,000

Alarming rise in Foodbank use

Scrapping child poverty targets

Selling off the NHS in England bit by bit

Record spending in WMD’s

The lies

Corruption

Trying to bring back fox hunting. 

Cutting inheritance tax for the rich

The cover ups

The expenses Scandal

Gove, May, Boris

2 years after the Brexit vote & still no plan

Brexit

Getting into bed with the DUP

£1Bn bribe for the DUP

The Trade Union Act

Mundell? What does he even do for Scotland?

Scrapping housing benefit for 18-21 yr olds. 

Legal Aid cuts

Calling £450,000 houses ‘affordable’. 

Slashing Green subsidies

Public pay sector freeze

 

If the folk that endorse that lot are not deeply ashamed...they bloody should be. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

17 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Are the tory voters not utterly ashamed?

 

Bedroom Tax

10 Years of imposed austerity

Rape clause

Universal Credit shambles

DWP shambles

Sanctions on the most vulnerable

Deciding the severely disabled are eligible for work. 

Scrapping the Human Rights act. 

The suicides

Denying disability benefit to 165,000

Alarming rise in Foodbank use

Scrapping child poverty targets

Selling off the NHS in England bit by bit

Record spending in WMD’s

The lies

Corruption

Trying to bring back fox hunting. 

Cutting inheritance tax for the rich

The cover ups

The expenses Scandal

Gove, May, Boris

2 years after the Brexit vote & still no plan

Brexit

Getting into bed with the DUP

£1Bn bribe for the DUP

The Trade Union Act

Mundell? What does he even do for Scotland?

Scrapping housing benefit for 18-21 yr olds. 

Legal Aid cuts

Calling £450,000 houses ‘affordable’. 

Slashing Green subsidies

Public pay sector freeze

 

If the folk that endorse that lot are not deeply ashamed...they bloody should be. 

 

You should really get a hobby, or a job, maybe a life outside here. 

[Ministry MK2]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

Are the tory voters not utterly ashamed?

 

Bedroom Tax

10 Years of imposed austerity

Rape clause

Universal Credit shambles

DWP shambles

Sanctions on the most vulnerable

Deciding the severely disabled are eligible for work. 

Scrapping the Human Rights act. 

The suicides

Denying disability benefit to 165,000

Alarming rise in Foodbank use

Scrapping child poverty targets

Selling off the NHS in England bit by bit

Record spending in WMD’s

The lies

Corruption

Trying to bring back fox hunting. 

Cutting inheritance tax for the rich

The cover ups

The expenses Scandal

Gove, May, Boris

2 years after the Brexit vote & still no plan

Brexit

Getting into bed with the DUP

£1Bn bribe for the DUP

The Trade Union Act

Mundell? What does he even do for Scotland?

Scrapping housing benefit for 18-21 yr olds. 

Legal Aid cuts

Calling £450,000 houses ‘affordable’. 

Slashing Green subsidies

Public pay sector freeze

 

If the folk that endorse that lot are not deeply ashamed...they bloody should be. 

Writing out a big list of perceived injustices. Just how I like to start my Saturday morning. Maybe time to take a break from this thread big fella.

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

You should really get a hobby, or a job, maybe a life outside here. 

Side step. 

Your comment on enforces what I think about tories. Ignore the truth and just move on. No shame. 

[Pans Jambo]

41 minutes ago, Ministry MK2 said:

Writing out a big list of perceived injustices. Just how I like to start my Saturday morning. Maybe time to take a break from this thread big fella.

“Perceived” aye?

 

Surely not a tory showing some concern? 

 

Be careful. Next you’ll be saying the tories care. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[Ministry MK2]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

“Perceived” aye?

 

Surely not a tory showing some concern? 

 

Be careful. Next you’ll be saying the tories care. 

Some of the list are perceived injustices. Just one example, I don’t see public sector pay freeze and necessarily an “injustice”. However you do. We perceive it differently. 

[Sir Vladimir of Romanov]

On 05/07/2018 at 18:59, Victorian said:

Tell you another piece of creative presentation.      That of any sort of hard,  damaging  neverendums  being legitimised as the democratic will of the population.     It's just an arrogant,  obtuse dismissal of the legitimate views,    not only of no voters,    but also of many people who did vote yes. 

 

You should post that in the referendum forum. 

[MacDonald Jardine]

On 06/07/2018 at 11:55, Justin Z said:

Yeah. The EU has effectively zero sovereign control over any member state. Any state that doesn't wish to adopt an EU law doesn't have to. Any a member state does wish to adopt, it does so through its own parliamentary process, which is wholly independent for each member state, whose parliaments derive their power from their governments alone.

 

By contrast, the Scottish parliament derives its power only from powers it has been given by a larger body. It has no inherent power at all. More bluntly, the Scottish parliament exists at Westminster's pleasure, and all of its power is subject to full revocation at any time, for any reason.

 

Any argument that there is any kind of meaningful nexus between these two situations is a canard at the absolute best, and just flat out obfuscatory dishonesty at the worst.

That's not true at all.

Directives are binding on EU member states, and directly enforceable against a state whether they enact legislation or not, or indeed if it's enacted deceptively.

[Cade]

Directives are an end result aim.

 

How each member state arrives at that end result is up to them.

 

Even then there is leeway in how the members interpret the Directive.

[MacDonald Jardine]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

Directives are an end result aim.

 

How each member state arrives at that end result is up to them.

 

Even then there is leeway in how the members interpret the Directive.

That's nonsense. 

Directives are the principal legislation. 

If they aren't introduced properly the domestic Regulations can be overturned. 

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

That's nonsense. 

Directives are the principal legislation. 

If they aren't introduced properly the domestic Regulations can be overturned. 

Veto 

[MacDonald Jardine]

Just now, ri Alban said:

Veto 

Eh?

[ri Alban]

Just now, MacDonald Jardine said:

Eh?

Wm never uses them, then moans like feck.