BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

You do know how a union works, right?

I'm not really sure you're taking the political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

I can't speak for TBB here, but the point isn't to say "Unions shouldn't work this way" or "The EU doesn't require pooling of sovereignty" etc. It is to say that decisions taken by the government of a member state re ratifying a treaty reduce the flexibility in legal terms (i.e. some combinations of preferences are simply not possible legally) that future governments of that country have to operate unilaterally.

This ends the centuries-old state in the UK that "no Parliament can bind its successor". If that really bothers you then you'll want to leave the EU. If it bothers you a bit but you want to stay in the EU for the wider benefits then you shrug your shoulders and carry on.

I think you're also not taking political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

You need to understand how to manage a union of 27/28 countries and the political reality of that, and then see how the legal framework fits into that reality.

This discussion is irrelevant without considering why the EU did work in that particular way.

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

TheBigBean

It is easy to see from this discussion how remain lost.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

It is easy to see from this discussion how remain lost.

They didn't explain this succinctly how parliamentary sovereignty hadn't been lost?

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

It is easy to see from this discussion how remain lost.

They didn't explain this succinctly how parliamentary sovereignty hadn't been lost?

Arguing the irrelevant to avoid admitting the obvious. Another example is that the UK did have the ability to restrict EU immigration in some limted cases.

Bonus marks if it is done in a patronising way.

ddraver

TheBigBean said:

It is easy to see from this discussion how remain lost.

Come now bean, I think we're all losers here...

pblakeney

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

I really don't care, and can't see why anyone else does. I've never been under the illusion that previous parliaments were binding. Couldn't have budgets if they were.

wallace_and_gromit

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

I really don't care, and can't see why anyone else does.

I don't. I'm just passing time before the Tour starts. We all have an interest in debating irrelevant issues as we wouldn't be Cakestoppers otherwise!

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

I particularly like this bit, with my clarifying text in []: "These developments [including joining the EU] do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

The "in theory at least" is rather telling. In theory, pre-Brexit, Parliament could have revoked the law relating to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, which would have made lots of Brtexity types very happy. In practice, that would be reneging on an international treaty, which is generally considered the preserve of a "rogue state" and not something that is an option for a western democracy.

So the simple statement that we never lost sovereignty whilst in the EU is somewhat disingenuous, as it omits the "so long as you don't mind breaking international law" caveat.

pangolin

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

I particularly like this bit, with my clarifying text in []: "These developments [including joining the EU] do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

The "in theory at least" is rather telling. In theory, pre-Brexit, Parliament could have revoked the law relating to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, which would have made lots of Brtexity types very happy. In practice, that would be reneging on an international treaty, which is generally considered the preserve of a "rogue state" and not something that is an option for a western democracy.

So the simple statement that we never lost sovereignty whilst in the EU is somewhat disingenuous, as it omits the "so long as you don't mind breaking international law" caveat.

Does it say we could repeal them and stay in the EU?

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

I really don't care, and can't see why anyone else does.

I don't. I'm just passing time before the Tour starts. We all have an interest in debating irrelevant issues as we wouldn't be Cakestoppers otherwise!

It's a bit of a 'shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted' debate, but then again this thread has been like that for a long time now

kingstongraham

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

I particularly like this bit, with my clarifying text in []: "These developments [including joining the EU] do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

The "in theory at least" is rather telling. In theory, pre-Brexit, Parliament could have revoked the law relating to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, which would have made lots of Brtexity types very happy. In practice, that would be reneging on an international treaty, which is generally considered the preserve of a "rogue state" and not something that is an option for a western democracy.

So the simple statement that we never lost sovereignty whilst in the EU is somewhat disingenuous, as it omits the "so long as you don't mind breaking international law" caveat.

Does it say we could repeal them and stay in the EU?

Obviously this.

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

It is...

sungod

TheBigBean said:

It is easy to see from this discussion how remain lost.

because leave lied and the gullible/stupid* believed the lies

* it's not patronising, they were gullible and/or stupid

TheBigBean

sungod said:

TheBigBean said:

It is easy to see from this discussion how remain lost.

because leave lied and the gullible/stupid* believed the lies

* it's not patronising, they were gullible and/or stupid

I'm sure that sentiment will persuade leave voters they were wrong.

rick_chasey

It’s all very well being accused of being patronising but can you help it when people are largely so stupid? ;-)

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/Jack_Blanchard_/status/1664515704274526209?t=XaMb5HWjLWxYhHXDjPIjVQ&s=19

wallace_and_gromit

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

I particularly like this bit, with my clarifying text in []: "These developments [including joining the EU] do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

The "in theory at least" is rather telling. In theory, pre-Brexit, Parliament could have revoked the law relating to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, which would have made lots of Brtexity types very happy. In practice, that would be reneging on an international treaty, which is generally considered the preserve of a "rogue state" and not something that is an option for a western democracy.

So the simple statement that we never lost sovereignty whilst in the EU is somewhat disingenuous, as it omits the "so long as you don't mind breaking international law" caveat.

Does it say we could repeal them and stay in the EU?

I think that is just "cakeism". Though it would have been interesting had this occurred whilst the UK was still a member state.

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

I particularly like this bit, with my clarifying text in []: "These developments [including joining the EU] do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

The "in theory at least" is rather telling. In theory, pre-Brexit, Parliament could have revoked the law relating to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, which would have made lots of Brtexity types very happy. In practice, that would be reneging on an international treaty, which is generally considered the preserve of a "rogue state" and not something that is an option for a western democracy.

So the simple statement that we never lost sovereignty whilst in the EU is somewhat disingenuous, as it omits the "so long as you don't mind breaking international law" caveat.

Does it say we could repeal them and stay in the EU?

I think that is just "cakeism". Though it would have been interesting had this occurred whilst the UK was still a member state.

The point is that it doesn't say that.

pangolin

wallace_and_gromit said:

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.

Which is correct, as acknowledged by https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

I particularly like this bit, with my clarifying text in []: "These developments [including joining the EU] do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes."

The "in theory at least" is rather telling. In theory, pre-Brexit, Parliament could have revoked the law relating to Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, which would have made lots of Brtexity types very happy. In practice, that would be reneging on an international treaty, which is generally considered the preserve of a "rogue state" and not something that is an option for a western democracy.

So the simple statement that we never lost sovereignty whilst in the EU is somewhat disingenuous, as it omits the "so long as you don't mind breaking international law" caveat.

Does it say we could repeal them and stay in the EU?

I think that is just "cakeism". Though it would have been interesting had this occurred whilst the UK was still a member state.

Yeah so the implication is we can repeal any of the laws but would have to leave as part of that. Which is what we have done. What's unclear?

TheBigBean

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

Consider the author's politics as per any opinion pieces.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

Consider the author's politics as per any opinion pieces.

Are you saying she might not have a balanced view?

rick_chasey

Wtf is capx as a publication?

TheBigBean

It would be a very different thread if posting was limited to balanced opinions only.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

Have you seen her CV or Twitter feed? The possibility of her admitting anything negative about Brexit is zero. Also retweets conspiracy theory nonsense.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

I read that as saying that the "sell out" was done before the dinner, done on purpose and not on the hoof by Boris. The article seems to say that this is a good thing because it would reduce the UK's reliance on the EU for agricultural goods.

I'm not saying this was a good or bad thing, because I don't know. Do we get a lot of lamb and beef from the EU?

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

I read that as saying that the "sell out" was done before the dinner, done on purpose and not on the hoof by Boris. The article seems to say that this is a good thing because it would reduce the UK's reliance on the EU for agricultural goods.

I'm not saying this was a good or bad thing, because I don't know. Do we get a lot of lamb and beef from the EU?

Sounds like a reasonable summary. Also, that NZ and Aus have dropped all their tariffs on imports from the UK.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

I read that as saying that the "sell out" was done before the dinner, done on purpose and not on the hoof by Boris. The article seems to say that this is a good thing because it would reduce the UK's reliance on the EU for agricultural goods.

I'm not saying this was a good or bad thing, because I don't know. Do we get a lot of lamb and beef from the EU?

Looking at the author's Twitter feed she appears to have a bit of an axe to grind against UK farming, be virulently pro-Brexit and a free-market absolutist. The idea that this was all some clever strategic move seems a bit of a stretch.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

Alternative view on Aus trade deal and the dinner with Johnson

https://capx.co/no-boris-didnt-sell-out-british-farmers-with-the-australia-trade-deal/

I read that as saying that the "sell out" was done before the dinner, done on purpose and not on the hoof by Boris. The article seems to say that this is a good thing because it would reduce the UK's reliance on the EU for agricultural goods.

I'm not saying this was a good or bad thing, because I don't know. Do we get a lot of lamb and beef from the EU?

Sounds like a reasonable summary. Also, that NZ and Aus have dropped all their tariffs on imports from the UK.

I am struggling to find a value for food exports to Aus/;NZ as it does not appear in lists of top exports. Could it really be as low as £100m?