Will Govt. win in Supreme Court?

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

You seem to be struggling with this concept. Let me restate it for you.

It has always been the case that parliament will scrutinise and debate the brexit negotiation.

Always.

Never has it been on the cards that the govt would be able to railroad through a deal.

Never.

Exactly the same principle of parliamentary democracy that works fine for all other government activity for hundreds of years.
If MPs do not like the terms they can vote the government down. Just like they could have last week regarding article 50. They chose not to on that occasion.
If people like Ken Clarke want to stick rigidly to their beliefs and vote against the govt then that is fine by me. Just as it is fine if parliament do all their due diligence and we end up with the softest brexit imagineable.
I, you and everybody else will then get their chance to pass judgement on that at the next GE. Just like we always have done.

So there is no problem then!

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Try reading the Treaty of Rome which we signed in 1972. The Treaty was written and signed by the six founder members in 1957 and we spent the next 15 years trying to join it.

ARTICLE 3 For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein
(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods,
and of all other measures having equivalent effect;

clearly this has failed

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries;

this protectionism has done harm to both the people of europe (higher prices) and the people of poor developing countries.

(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital;

clearly failed as there isn't a free market in services

(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;

a disaster, leading to poor land management, higher prices for consumers and lots of money for landowners

(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;

is this what gave us the VW scandal

(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted;
(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;

surely a joke.

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market;
(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living;

obviously unaware of the unemployment in many EU countries

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;
(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Try reading the Treaty of Rome which we signed in 1972. The Treaty was written and signed by the six founder members in 1957 and we spent the next 15 years trying to join it.

Was a very different Europe in 1957 than it is today. Easy to forget the complexities that the world then faced.

Matt_L

The problem i have is the fact that every politician i watched campaign to remain in the EU drilled home that this was a one off vote. They drummed it into us that if we vote to leave then we leave, we leave everything, no ifs no buts no second chances. They threatened that we would be out of the single market, that there would be no going back.. They explained in depth how much worse off we would be, the loss of jobs, loss of income, loss of benefits, loss rights. They told us how much worse off each family would be, how the economy would stagnate or even go into recession..

Yet despite all this we still voted to leave, for me partly because i didn't believe the doom and gloom, but i did believe them when they explained we would be out of the single market (or will no longer be a member)...

Since the vote many of those that threaten that leaving would mean leaving are now back tracking and desperately trying to keep the status quo.

Just watch Clegg when Andrew Neil plays him a clip of himself campaigning to remain, it boils my blood..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYdht0hg1ik

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Was a very different Europe in 1957 than it is today. Easy to forget the complexities that the world then faced.

I agree it was, very different.

My point was simply that the assertion (by CONRAD) that in 1972 it was unknown that the intention of the EEC was greater integration and harmonisation, freedom of movement for goods, services, people and capital is wrong.

The UK spent more than a decade trying to join an organisation that had these aims. Whether we should have signed the Treaty in 1972, whether those Aims were achieved etc are a separate issue.

I was in no doubt in 1972 that this was what the EEC was intended to become and Article 3 makes this clear in terms of the four freedoms at 3(c).

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I agree it was, very different.

My point was simply that the assertion (by CONRAD) that in 1972 it was unknown that the intention of the EEC was greater integration and harmonisation goods, services, freedom of movement and capital is wrong.

The UK spent more than a decade trying to join an organisation that had these aims. Whether we should have signed the Treaty in 1972, whether those Aims were achieved etc are a separate issue.

I was in no doubt in 1972 that this was what the EEC was intended to become and Article 3 makes this clear in terms of the four freedoms at 3(c).

indeed what is clear is not always understood
just as a vote to leave meant 'leave' : many remain people didn't understand that.

principles are indeed important but so are actual out turns.

BobQ

Matt_L wrote: »

The problem i have is the fact that every politician i watched campaign to remain in the EU drilled home that this was a one off vote. They drummed it into us that if we vote to leave then we leave, we leave everything, no ifs no buts no second chances. They threatened that we would be out of the single market, that there would be no going back.. They explained in depth how much worse off we would be, the loss of jobs, loss of income, loss of benefits, loss rights. They told us how much worse off each family would be, how the economy would stagnate or even go into recession..

Yet despite all this we still voted to leave, for me partly because i didn't believe the doom and gloom, but i did believe them when they explained we would be out of the single market (or will no longer be a member)...

Since the vote many of those that threaten that leaving would mean leaving are now back tracking and desperately trying to keep the status quo.

Just watch Clegg when Andrew Neil plays him a clip of himself campaigning to remain, it boils my blood..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYdht0hg1ik

Politicians said all sorts of things during the campaign but the only question was to Leave or Remain. So yes we should and will Leave. But there were different views on what Leave meant beyond the fact of leaving and these have now been exposed in the infighting that is going on in the Government.

I have a question for you. At some point in the future, let us say 1 Jan 2019, we will leave the EU as you want and as we collectively voted to do. Do you want to leave on the best terms for the UK or do you want to leave on the worst possible terms for the UK? In fact do you accept that some terms would be better for us that others?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed what is clear is not always understood
just as a vote to leave meant 'leave' : many remain people didn't understand that.

principles are indeed important but so are actual out turns.

Yes indeed, what does leave mean?

Conrad

Moby wrote: »

Hmmm lots of christmas cheer to you as well. Remember just because a vote has taken place it doesn't mean that people should just say....oooh the 52% are now in control of our future so we just bow out and accept whatever happens. We have voted to leave but the destination is still unknown and people in a democracy are fully entitled to have a view on that. That doesn't make them a 'moaner' or a 'bitter'. There is a lot to play for ....hard, soft brexit etc. I'm not going to leave that decision to people I have no respect for! I wonder if Farage etc would have shut their gobs if the result had gone the other way!

The issue for me is too many Remainers see Britain as an impotent weak petitioner. As such they are factually ignorant and ignoring the many reasons Europe will want to keep us as good friends and trading partners. All this talk of us as a little dog to be offered what wer'e given is just ludicrous delusion. Committed Remaoners always talk in terms of the mighty EU handing down punishments, it's so damned tedious.

Even if we were snubbed by the EU, all will be well, we will adapt and fast, we aren't idiots on a tide of indiference



Because Remaoners start out wig a profound misconception thier thoughts just are muddled and wrong, so it's very hard to play along with nonsense theories

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

Politicians said all sorts of things during the campaign but the only question was to Leave or Remain. So yes we should and will Leave. But there were different views on what Leave meant beyond the fact of leaving and these have now been exposed in the infighting that is going on in the Government.

I have a question for you. At some point in the future, let us say 1 Jan 2019, we will leave the EU as you want and as we collectively voted to do. Do you want to leave on the best terms for the UK or do you want to leave on the worst possible terms for the UK? In fact do you accept that some terms would be better for us that others?

Your best terms are based on the fraudulent notion we are a weak beggar ready to be whipped. It's an upside down back to front view.

We will be a soverign nation like any other, we will be steadfast and sure footed, all Remaoner hysterics clutter up very simple principles