UK General Election 2017 |OT2| No Government is better than a bad Government

Status
Not open for further replies.
The EU offer is extremely generous in comparison. Lifetime rights for everyone who has exercised their rights of residence as an EU national. No idea why the UK side is so obsessed with getting rid of the ECJ. I wonder if study is considered as exercising your rights, because technically one could reside for 2 months primarily to learn the language, but not need to register since it is under 3 months, for example.
 
It's a check on the powers of Her Majesty's Government, and has embarrassed May personally. So obviously it needs to go.
 
Anyone know when corbyn will appoint his shadow cabinet team? It's been relatively quiet In the labour camp, would be interested what kind of cabinet he's formed with mps apprently falling in line
 
TimmmV said:
I brought that up as a hypothetical really

When people make the point that it was only the electorate who decided this, they're not really making the point on behalf of the abstainers, they're making the point on behalf of everyone who is affected by it, but weren't able to vote for whatever reason (so, under 18's/EU residents/UK residents living in the EU/etc etc)



Times change. I don't really have a problem with the idea that just because it was acceptable whenever devolution happened, it therefore has to be forever

I thought the whole point of devolution is that their power is still ultimately derived from Westminster, so if there is an issue big enough then yeah they do still have to follow what Westminster doesn't agree with
Click to expand...

It's not really a matter of "when it was devolved" because the NI assembly could legislate to change it at any time. The reality is that the various parties in NI don't actually differ in opinion that much, so it doesn't.

As the guys below have pointed out though, it's not really a matter of devolution anyway because I'M AN IDIOT.

JonnyDBrit said:
Well, that's a fair enough point and gets into a wider debate on how far devolution can go without basically being the ceding of central governance in all but name.

Thing is, in this case it's not strictly a matter of devolved powers. The amendment isn't trying to force the Northern Irish government to permit abortions wholesale in the country. It's about allowing Northern Irish citizens to be able to receive abortions in England - which can be argued as one of the things they're entitled to as citizens of the UK.

Now, is it a spit in the DUP's face? Absolutely. But it's not a matter of devolution.
Click to expand...

Crab said:
I mean, my personal opinion is that abortion is a basic human right that ought never to have been devolved in the first place. I do think that Westminster broadly ought to respect the devolved domains, but this ought not to have been a devolved domain to begin with; I have no problem that it being 'repatriated' and then legislated on by Westminster accordingly. Otherwise, I do generally agree with the principle of non-interference even in those things you disapprove of.

This isn't really relevant though, since this isn't changing NI abortion law, it's adjusting English law.
Click to expand...

Yup, you're right.
 
MrMysterio said:
Who gave the Tory/DUP the mandate to negotiate that kind of Brexit?
Click to expand...
How can you leave the EU without leaving the EU?

Newline said:
That's what i've never understood. 48% of people didn't want brexit at all yet T.May constantly spouts that she is trying to enact the 'will of the people'. So is she suggesting everyone that voted leave voted for this hard Tory / UKIP version of brexit?
Click to expand...
There should be wider consensus on these matters and they lack of majority aids that but really people did vote to leave. The criteria for the referendum should have been higher though that's on Cameron though.

CyclopsRock said:
That's what I thought.

This is a genuine question and not just baiting: Do we think there should be limits on devolution when the devolved assemblies and parliaments do things we don't want them to? Or, rather, what's the point in devolving the jurisdiction over abortion if we're going to just say "Yeah, but not that" when they do something Westminster doesn't agree with?
Click to expand...
No, but this isn't even a devolution matter. This is about whether England and Wales can provide services NHS NI don't want to provide to NI citizens. Basically what NI doesn't want is women to travel to England for abortions.

Royal_Phalanx said:
We're getting one section of the electorate making decisions on behalf of another section of the electorate on the rights they can possess. In this case the rights afforded by holding EU citizenship. This is unprecedented since the fall of the Soviet Union. I wish international law made that illegal to be honest. It's an injustice.
Click to expand...
Well this is democracy in a nutshell. Lack of a written constitution/bill of rights is an issue.
 
Royal_Phalanx said:
We're getting one section of the electorate making decisions on behalf of another section of the electorate on the rights they can possess. In this case the rights afforded by holding EU citizenship. This is unprecedented since the fall of the Soviet Union. I wish international law made that illegal to be honest. It's an injustice.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is a point that hasn't been given as much attention as it deserves. Even some Brexit supporters I know were given pause when I pointed out that Brexit isn't just a matter of international politics, it's also a matter of stripping people of their rights, my rights, without their permission.
 
May trying to haggle over citizens rights is disgusting.

Despite being a complete cuntferret, Osborne gets it right here:
"It would be ... an act of national self-interest dressed up as a gesture of international generosity. It would almost certainly force the hand of European governments to offer the same to Britons. Morally right, economically sound and diplomatically smart: such opportunities don't come along very often in life, and we should grab them."

EDIT: That abortion amendment. That's clever. A way to say fuck you to the DUP coalition without any rebellious Tories having to actually vote against the Queen's speech. I hope it passes.
 
Camp Freddie said:
May trying to haggle over citizens rights is disgusting.

Despite being a complete cuntferret, Osborne gets it right here:
"It would be ... an act of national self-interest dressed up as a gesture of international generosity. It would almost certainly force the hand of European governments to offer the same to Britons. Morally right, economically sound and diplomatically smart: such opportunities don't come along very often in life, and we should grab them."
Click to expand...
If her trouble with the DUP is any indication Theresa May is a terrible negotiator.

MrMysterio said:
As you said before, whatever the law will be post-Brexit, is what the law will be. If it includes having citizens within the UK who are being covered by the ECJ, then that's what it is.
Click to expand...
When the UK leaves the EU's jurisdiction legal jurisdiction, the ECJ will be a foreign court.
There is nothing preventing them to try and sue the UK government in the ECJ.
But similarly they will have to obey the law of the land. I don't know how you think it is possible to protect certain citizens under the ECJ and not others without keeping the UK in the ECJ's jurisdiction. That's a pretty silly argument to have anyway though because in truth the ECJ does not have the power to sanction the UK government anyway which is what annoyed me with brexiteers to begin with. UK law always had supremacy and a repeal of the European Communities act is all that's needed to remove EU law that parliament can just do. At just a tremendous economic and diplomatic penalty.
 
Theonik said:
If her trouble with the DUP is any indication Theresa May is a terrible negotiator.
Click to expand...
It's not like this has been a suprise if you look back at the past year since the Brexit referendum.

She's been making rookie mistakes concerning Brexit negotiations since she's PM
 
MrMysterio said:
As you said before, whatever the law will be post-Brexit, is what the law will be. If it includes having citizens within the UK who are being covered by the ECJ, then that's what it is.
Click to expand...

It's wrong to only have immigrants be ruled under the ECJ. As I am British I'll technically be ex-EU too, and I'd rather be under the set of laws with established human rights on their side, rather than Maybot's idea of pureblood British sheeple.
 
The proper thing to do is agree to the EU's proposals and drop the baseless objections to the ECJ. Would simplify the whole process immensely. Then meaningful work can be done on deciding how to implement it.
 
Royal_Phalanx said:
The proper thing to do is agree to the EU's proposals and drop the baseless objections to the ECJ. Would simplify the whole process immensely. Then meaningful work can be done on deciding how to implement it.
Click to expand...

Through her whole career, May has been against the ECJ. It's a sodden shame she is able to push her agenda through this whole situation.
 
Has this not been posted?, the thread moves fast.

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-inside-the-secretive-tory-election-call-centre
The Conservative Party contracted a secretive call centre during the election campaign which may have broken data protection and election laws, a Channel 4 News investigation has found.

The investigation has uncovered what appear to be underhand and potentially unlawful practices at the centre, in calls made on behalf of the Conservative Party. These allegations include:

● Paid canvassing on behalf of Conservative election candidates – banned under election law.

● Political cold calling to prohibited numbers

● Misleading calls claiming to be from an ‘independent market research company' which does not apparently exist
Click to expand...
Not really shocking to say the least, and i bet nothing will happen over it.
 
Royal_Phalanx said:
The proper thing to do is agree to the EU's proposals and drop the baseless objections to the ECJ. Would simplify the whole process immensely. Then meaningful work can be done on deciding how to implement it.
Click to expand...
It's not baseless though. How do you suppose it's going to work if the UK leaves the single market but EU laws that the UK has no part in writing continue to be in force in the UK?

Even as person that considers Brexit to be a colossal waste of everyone's time and a net loss for all parties involved, I have to admit how morally reprehensible this is. That's some Colonialism level shit.
 
Theonik said:
When the UK leaves the EU's jurisdiction legal jurisdiction, the ECJ will be a foreign court.
There is nothing preventing them to try and sue the UK government in the ECJ.
But similarly they will have to obey the law of the land. I don't know how you think it is possible to protect certain citizens under the ECJ and not others without keeping the UK in the ECJ's jurisdiction. That's a pretty silly argument to have anyway though because in truth the ECJ does not have the power to sanction the UK government anyway which is what annoyed me with brexiteers to begin with. UK law always had supremacy and a repeal of the European Communities act is all that's needed to remove EU law that parliament can just do. At just a tremendous economic and diplomatic penalty.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the loop of: Then why pretend that there'll be any rights negotiations?

I'm not the one trying to argue that a hard Brexit makes any sense.
 
MrMysterio said:
Which brings us back to the loop of: Then why pretend that there'll be any rights negotiations?

I'm not the one trying to argue that a hard Brexit makes any sense.
Click to expand...
Hard Brexit makes sense. No Brexit makes sense and is ideal. Anything in between is varying levels of impossible.

With regards to rights there will be negotiations and relevant treaties will be agreed to which will settle the framework for future UK immigration law. The UK will agree to a treaty that will protect the right for existing EU citizens to stay at the condition of reciprocity.

As long as neither side breeches this treaty nothing will happen but UK citizens living is say Spain will be subject to Spanish and EU law, Spanish Citizens in the UK will be subject to UK law. EU can unilaterally then change EU laws that will affect UK citizens living abroad UK can do the same to EU citizens. Which part doesn't make sense to you?
 
Theonik said:
Hard Brexit makes sense. No Brexit makes sense and is ideal. Anything in between is varying levels of impossible.

With regards to rights there will be negotiations and relevant treaties will be agreed to which will settle the framework for future UK immigration law. The UK will agree to a treaty that will protect the right for existing EU citizens to stay at the condition of reciprocity.

As long as neither side breeches this treaty nothing will happen but UK citizens living is say Spain will be subject to Spanish and EU law, Spanish Citizens in the UK will be subject to UK law. EU can unilaterally then change EU laws that will affect UK citizens living abroad UK can do the same to EU citizens. Which part doesn't make sense to you?
Click to expand...

Actually, you are right and I agree. Hard Brexit / no brexit makes sense, pretending otherwise will probably just lead to disappointment for the effected parties.

Makes no sense for me as an EU citizen in the UK to hope this will lead to anything else than a major hit to my rights within the UK, but I've decided to return to the EU already anyway, so I'll be fine.
 
Don't talk the economy down, don't talk the country down, don't ask so many questions, but do be more patriotic and do understand that while only 52% of the voting public wanted Brexit, you're all fucked so let's come together and wank each other off while we throw ourselves into the abyss.
 
Miles Quaritch said:
Don't talk the economy down, don't talk the country down, don't ask so many questions, but do be more patriotic and do understand that while only 52% of the voting public wanted Brexit, you're all fucked so let's come together and wank each other off while we throw ourselves into the abyss.
Click to expand...

Nationalism
 
Beefy said:
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/878313024657948672
Click to expand...

Jesus. Don't like scrutinise our government you should be you know cheering on UK UK like these other knuckledraggers.

RedShift said:
Every time some leave voting twat says we have to 'pull together' and eat the shit sandwich they made I want to punch someone.
Click to expand...

Right? Hey we've made you turd in the hole. Enjoy your meal! I have a shite allergy so asked for no shite in my dinner thanks, off you fuck.
 
The way she smiles as she says these crazy things makes her seem so calculating.
But then you listen to what she's saying, and you realise she's an idiot.
 
Nationalism/patriotism is a plague on this world. All it does is whitewash atrocities and allow bigotry and inequality to continue to exist.

We teach kids & adults of all of our success, often twisting/lying about the truth and also cover up the horrible actions we have/will do.

This leads to a population under educated with ideals & memories based on lies and falsehoods. That's how brexit and everything Tory happens
 
DDBYnmLWAAA_unA.jpg


Leading Brexit campaigner says 'vacuous' referendum should never have been called

Haven't even a clue what she's on about here. Reads like the ramblings of a mad woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[UK] Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
2
76
5K
Paasei replied
Grok is so much better than ChatGPT now
45
1K
sono replied
Was there a better stage diver than Eddie Vedder?
25
2K
UltimaKilo replied
Are the people ready to be governed by AI
Science 
31
615
ReasonBeing replied
Is there a better flavor combo than Grilled cheese and tomato soup?
2
93
3K
CokeDiet replied
Top Bottom