|
Post by patty on Nov 4, 2016 17:40:05 GMT
I think I'll be a muppet..this legal stuff to complicated by far
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 4, 2016 19:12:45 GMT
who is the second "they" ? I think you haven't really got hold of the plot.or perhaps you aren't aware of the principle that the government executive and the judiciary are entirely separate. I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. er, no ..................... the judiciary are not 'in parliament'
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Nov 4, 2016 19:18:05 GMT
They shouldve triggered article 50 the day after the referendum
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 19:20:04 GMT
I think it should have been called a Plebiscite to put the plebs in their proper place !!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 19:35:13 GMT
I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. er, no ..................... the judiciary are not 'in parliament' I didn't say they were ...... you are splitting hairs. The judiciary are not self starting. They were involved only because of disaffected parliamentarians (They)
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 5, 2016 12:04:53 GMT
er, no ..................... the judiciary are not 'in parliament' I didn't say they were ...... you are splitting hairs. The judiciary are not self starting. They were involved only because of disaffected parliamentarians (They) so you are saying that there would never have been a judicial review if it weren't for certain parliamentarians, therefore the judiciary are part of parliament. nonsense logic.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 5, 2016 13:02:30 GMT
There was a comment a few posts back about the nationality of child abusers, the last one heard about was in Wales, so presumably Welsh, a chief constable and a pillar of society. (as was Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville). How many of you are, Welsh, consider yourselves Pillars of society, or chief constables? We need to know! Obviously you must be a kiddy fiddler. Or have I been reading to much of the Daily Mail, Express or the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 5, 2016 13:04:08 GMT
I didn't say they were ...... you are splitting hairs. The judiciary are not self starting. They were involved only because of disaffected parliamentarians (They) so you are saying that there would never have been a judicial review if it weren't for certain parliamentarians, therefore the judiciary are part of parliament. nonsense logic. Your logic to deduce that, from my posts is "nonsense logic" Of course there would not have been a judicial review if it had not been asked for..... I repeat the judiciary are not "self starting" Things are brought before the judiciary for review please note "brought before" Not "when they don't have much else on they look for something to review"
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 5, 2016 14:16:14 GMT
so you are saying that there would never have been a judicial review if it weren't for certain parliamentarians, therefore the judiciary are part of parliament. nonsense logic. Your logic to deduce that, from my posts is "nonsense logic" Of course there would not have been a judicial review if it had not been asked for..... I repeat the judiciary are not "self starting" Things are brought before the judiciary for review Β please note "brought before" Not Β "when they don't have much else on they look for something to review" Hmm. Who's a friend of Bishop Barclay then. So if no one sees a bear shit in the woods it hasn't shat in the woods. And it doesn't stink when you step in it!
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 5, 2016 15:06:35 GMT
There was a comment a few posts back about the nationality of child abusers, the last one heard about was in Wales, so presumably Welsh, a chief constable and a pillar of society. (as was Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville). How many of you are, Welsh, consider yourselves Pillars of society, or chief constables? We need to know! Obviously you must be a kiddy fiddler. Or have I been reading to much of the Daily Mail, Express or the Sun. With the best will in the world 1400 abused children in one area by one race is a real problem and if you read what they do and have done it will worry you that anything detracts from that enquiry. The ones that have been caught is just the tip of the iceberg, and before you shout racist when the old pakistani guy was murdered by to white druggies I would happily have put the noose around their necks and pulled the lever to hang them!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 5, 2016 15:55:49 GMT
There was a comment a few posts back about the nationality of child abusers, the last one heard about was in Wales, so presumably Welsh, a chief constable and a pillar of society. (as was Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville). How many of you are, Welsh, consider yourselves Pillars of society, or chief constables? We need to know! Obviously you must be a kiddy fiddler. Or have I been reading to much of the Daily Mail, Express or the Sun. With the best will in the world 1400 abused children in one area by one race is a real problem and if you read what they do and have done it will worry you that anything detracts from that enquiry. The ones that have been caught is just the tip of the iceberg, and before you shout racist when the old pakistani guy was murdered by to white druggies I would happily have put the noose around their necks and pulled the lever to hang them!! Not said "racist" just that you can't argue that one bad member of a group makes them all bad, unless that group is "murderers" of course. Or maybe toriesπ.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Nov 5, 2016 16:04:11 GMT
They shouldve triggered article 50 the day after the referendum I read an article here a week or so back that said what May planned to do was to have your parliament simply repeal the law that it passed years ago authorizing EU membership. Apparently, repealing that law would end your EU membership. A couple days later I then read that she was also planning on asking parliament to simultaneously pass a law that essentially said that all laws and agreements stemming from the EU would continue to remain in force after repealing the membership authorization law. I guess the Brexit negotiations with the EU would then take off from that point. This seems really foolish to me from a couple of standpoints. Why negotiate over how much of the yoke they will allow you to shed, rather than how much of the yoke you will agree to accept? WTF good does it do to leave the EU if you are then to still be governed by the laws and treaties that drove you out in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 5, 2016 16:27:45 GMT
They shouldve triggered article 50 the day after the referendum I read an article here a week or so back that said what May planned to do was to have your parliament simply repeal the law that it passed years ago authorizing EU membership. Apparently, repealing that law would end your EU membership. A couple days later I then read that she was also planning on asking parliament to simultaneously pass a law that essentially said that all laws and agreements stemming from the EU would continue to remain in force after repealing the membership authorization law. I guess the Brexit negotiations with the EU would then take off from that point. This seems really foolish to me from a couple of standpoints. Why negotiate over how much of the yoke they will allow you to shed, rather than how much of the yoke you will agree to accept? WTF good does it do to leave the EU if you are then to still be governed by the laws and treaties that drove you out in the first place? I guess because the alternative would be to have a whole raft of areas which would then have no law covering them. Vote all the laws back in for now and then start to unpick them one by one as they become priorities. Makes sense to me, no?
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Nov 5, 2016 17:14:43 GMT
I read an article here a week or so back that said what May planned to do was to have your parliament simply repeal the law that it passed years ago authorizing EU membership. Apparently, repealing that law would end your EU membership. A couple days later I then read that she was also planning on asking parliament to simultaneously pass a law that essentially said that all laws and agreements stemming from the EU would continue to remain in force after repealing the membership authorization law. I guess the Brexit negotiations with the EU would then take off from that point. This seems really foolish to me from a couple of standpoints. Why negotiate over how much of the yoke they will allow you to shed, rather than how much of the yoke you will agree to accept? WTF good does it do to leave the EU if you are then to still be governed by the laws and treaties that drove you out in the first place? I guess because the alternative would be to have a whole raft of areas which would then have no law covering them. Vote all the laws back in for now and then start to unpick them one by one as they become priorities. Makes sense to me, no? Dear god, you mean politicians might actually have to do their jobs and start working 10 and 12 hours/day with no overtime like all the other contract workers in the country? Oh, the humanity! All kidding aside, what I saw proposed was that all of the things like the free movement of cheap labor into your country would continue even after Brexit. What's the sense of having Brexit if it changes nothing but the value of the pound? For crying out loud, the UK is the second largest market in the EU. Why hang with old trade policies that benefit other countries more than they do you? The EU needs the UK much more than the UK needs the EU. Now is the time to re-negotiate all of your trade agreements with the EU, and to re-negotiate them in ways that favor the UK. I'm pretty sure you have plenty of laws on the books to ensure domestic tranquility, so that shouldn't be a big issue. Granted, we are talking about a monumental task that has to be accomplished in short order, and it is going to have to be accomplished with full disclosure of all details of all agreements lest the multinationals have their lobbyists write all the new laws and treaties to their exclusive benefit. However, if your elected representatives buckle down and actually work long hours writing laws and treaties, it can be accomplished. As an interim measure, it could be agreed that current regulations on trade, and a whole lot of mundane stuff, will be in effect until they are replaced, in a reasonable amount of time, with the new laws and treaties, but that in certain areas, such as worker movement, you would immediately take control. No one ever said Brexit would be easy. However, like any divorce, when that time comes you need to just move forward and get it done. Just a thought, here... Donald Trump is probably going to be looking for a new gig come next Wednesday. According to himself, he's the best negotiator that ever there was, and he's negotiated the bigliest deals ever. We could send Trump over to you and let him get you out of the EU bigly - under time and under budget.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 5, 2016 17:20:11 GMT
Trouble with getting Trump to negotiate for us is that we'd then get a reputation as bad payers...
|
|