But.......but.......once Article 50 was voted for "hard" Brexit was set in stone and nothing can stop it!!AngryAsWell wrote:Brexit Bill ‘On Hold’ Until The Autumn Amid Fears Of Tory Rebellion To Back A ‘Soft Brexit’
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/r ... witter.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have never said Brexit is "all Labour's fault". What I've been saying is that I feel hugely let down by our parliament as a whole and struggle to trust the judgement of any MP who actively voted for a poorly drafted referendum or, as I discovered yesterday, voted to prematurely withdraw from Eurotom.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I think you still misunderstand me. Please feel free to ignore all my postsWillow904 wrote:I know some wanted SpinningHugo banned and some didn't and left over that. My position was that it was up to Refitman.
@Adam @Willow
Well why do you think everyone left?
Other than that, I assume different people have left at different times for different reasons. Corbyn's election as leader has been pretty divisive within Labour and this forum has reflected that, although there wasn't always unanimity over Ed's leadership either.
We disagree over Corbyn and his approach to Brexit but I link and comment on other things that many on this forum are in agreement on and I don't see the problem really. What others respond to leads to discussion. Sometimes people don't respond to links other than to thank because there's not a lot to discuss. It may be the case that you feel I don't acknowledge you much because I am mostly drawn to this site because of the various links and you don't link articles as much as others. And yes, sometimes I vent when I'm frustrated and yes, I accept that it is boring for some, but I don't feel I do so every time I post here and I don't understand why my posts would be felt to be bullying. None of us, as individuals, have much control over the balance of contributors.
But EVERY time you post that Brexit is "all Labour's fault" without a qualifier (that IMHO may seem trite, but make a LOT of difference to some of us) you will upset me and a lot of other people, because we've taken the time and trouble to engage with this and discuss it with you (and with others).
Your arguments (and Hugo's) rest, understandably, on a highly legalistic view of the post-referendum world. My view, as evidenced by the shenanigans around the Lisbon treaty, is that the EU can and probably will be extremely flexible about Article 50 and the legal niceties can largely be ignored if the UK government engages positively around the mess we are in. Labour are quite capable of this. The Tories are not.
I'm very interested in your insights into the legal aspects of Brexit. I'm glad you post them. But can't you see that a narrow legal interpretation of Brexit probably falls short of reality? I can't quite remember the sorry story after Lisbon, but didn't some countries just keep voting until they got the right result?
Exactly.ephemerid wrote: The reason why the whole sorry performance is confusing is because this whole thing is incredibly complex. Labour's position reflects that, IMHO; it's the stupid simplicity of Davis and Co's approach that is causing confusion.
It would have been clearer if he'd said that the Tories opposition to the ECJ would prevent us from reaching any kind of new agreement with Eurotom once we've left. It was the implication May only chose to leave it because of the ECJ that confused me when I later discovered we have no choice in the matter if we leave the EU. But I'm starting to get my head around it now.adam wrote:I think the point about leaving Euratom from the government's perspective is that one of theirWillow904 wrote: It's said as if we can leave the EU without leaving Eurotom. He doesn't talk of the possibility of a new relationship with Eurotom but of membership and I think that misleading. It misled me, anyway. I did say he was right about the ECJ. I also said the Repeal Bill and Labour's reaction to it will hopefully be more robust.bugbears self-harming intents lunaticcore ideas is that we must end up outside of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and we can't be both in Euratom and outside the ECJ's jurisdiction.
Vote on Heathrow third runway postponed again, possibly until June 2018 (Politics Live, Guardian)
Strong and stable, strong and stable.PorFavor wrote:Vote on Heathrow third runway postponed again, possibly until June 2018 (Politics Live, Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ith-labour'Great repeal bill' human rights clause sets up Brexit clash with Labour
Government says it will not bring charter of fundamental rights into UK law, which would mean failing one of Starmer’s ‘six tests’ (Guardian)
AnatolyKasparov wrote:But.......but.......once Article 50 was voted for "hard" Brexit was set in stone and nothing can stop it!!AngryAsWell wrote:Brexit Bill ‘On Hold’ Until The Autumn Amid Fears Of Tory Rebellion To Back A ‘Soft Brexit’
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/r ... witter.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(spoiler - this of course isn't actually true, and never was)
I usually get Miss....sir.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well done on 1000 posts, sir
I can't find much detail anywhere yet. Is everyone still reading it?Brexit: Repeal bill published by the government
Its in this link I posted earlierWillow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40589510
I can't find much detail anywhere yet. Is everyone still reading it?Brexit: Repeal bill published by the government
I seems the Henry VIII powers are in, though.
Brexit: Labour threatens to defeat Theresa May over 'great repeal bill'
Thanks, but I'm waiting for other people to read it for me. I don't think I'd be able to make much sense of it myself.AngryAsWell wrote:Its in this link I posted earlierWillow904 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40589510
I can't find much detail anywhere yet. Is everyone still reading it?Brexit: Repeal bill published by the government
I seems the Henry VIII powers are in, though.
Scroll down to
"European Union (Withdrawal) Bill"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ith-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, thanks.AngryAsWell wrote:@Willow
Thread
David Allen Green @davidallengreen 1h1 hour ago
Read through the Bill. Only 19 clauses over 14 pages. The rest of the 60 odd pages are schedules.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The very same two extra years Theresa May sought to buy herself by holding a snap general election.David Allen Green @davidallengreen
·
1h
Looks like the government is seeking to get away with broad powers by saying they will be only for two years.
What larks.AngryAsWell wrote:Faisal IslamVerified account
@faisalislam
FMs Nicola Sturgeon & Carwyn Jones issue a joint statement saying they will refuse legislative consent to the the Repeal Bill, as it stands
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Newsnight played a clip of her at the Maidenhead count the other day, the first time I'd seen it, she looked completely wrecked.StephenDolan wrote:Afternoon all. Good to read posts from those that have been around less recently, hope you all stay. And PfY, don't even think about leaving, we need plenty of good posters and I consider you as one.
Newsthump on the money once again.
'Speaking to the BBC, the prime minister spoke of her disappointment, and how the emotions triggered certain physiological effects to prove those emotions were real.
She told interviewer Emma Barnett, “Small amounts of saline liquid were secreted from the tiny holes at the side of my front-facing human eyes. Not a huge amount, or enough for me to require replacement moisture from a perfectly normal source like the tap, but enough to demonstrate how my emotional state had deviated from the norm due to negative external stimuli.
“Just like we humans are wont to do.”
The revelation has convinced many voters who were on the fence about May’s leadership that she ‘really cares’.
Simon Williams, who considers himself left of centre politically but can’t bring himself to vote for the party that is left of centre, told us, “No-one who can cry when they realise they have fucked up in a massively public way can be all bad, can they?'
http://newsthump.com/2017/07/13/theresa ... human-eye/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There doesn't seem to have been a rush yetSpinningHugo wrote:For those with an enthusiasm for my thoughts on the law
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Viscount who offered money for killing of Brexit campaigner Gina Miller jailed for 12 weeks
Yes states have to agree to a form of freedom of movement as part of the single market. But there isn't even complete freedom of movement now is there? One of the few things that Dave did manage to negotiate was the laughable "emergency brake" - remember that?Willow904 wrote:I have never said Brexit is "all Labour's fault". What I've been saying is that I feel hugely let down by our parliament as a whole and struggle to trust the judgement of any MP who actively voted for a poorly drafted referendum or, as I discovered yesterday, voted to prematurely withdraw from Eurotom.
As for the idea that I'm being narrowly legalistic, I'm not sure what you mean. The reason why being in the single market means accepting the four freedoms is because the benefits of the market are partially as a result of those freedoms. I don't think the EU are bluffing when they say we have to accept them to benefit from the kind of access everyone is saying they want. So when Corbyn says things like he's not "wedded to the idea of freedom of movement" I take that as an indication that he is moving to a position of not remaining in the single market. When Ed Miliband said he thought we should put single market membership before curbing immigration that indicated to me the opposite. I'm basing my opinion on what people say. If you can show me things Corbyn has said that indicate he prefers to stay in the single market then I will believe it, but in the absence of him saying as much I don't really see how I can know what he favours or, as AK suggests, that EU membership is not important to him. How can I know these things if he doesn't clearly say them?
Oh yes, absolutely. But surely you have to be in the single market or at least express an interest in remaining in it in order to negotiate and benefit from any reforms to it?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Yes states have to agree to a form of freedom of movement as part of the single market. But there isn't even complete freedom of movement now is there? One of the few things that Dave did manage to negotiate was the laughable "emergency brake" - remember that?Willow904 wrote:I have never said Brexit is "all Labour's fault". What I've been saying is that I feel hugely let down by our parliament as a whole and struggle to trust the judgement of any MP who actively voted for a poorly drafted referendum or, as I discovered yesterday, voted to prematurely withdraw from Eurotom.
As for the idea that I'm being narrowly legalistic, I'm not sure what you mean. The reason why being in the single market means accepting the four freedoms is because the benefits of the market are partially as a result of those freedoms. I don't think the EU are bluffing when they say we have to accept them to benefit from the kind of access everyone is saying they want. So when Corbyn says things like he's not "wedded to the idea of freedom of movement" I take that as an indication that he is moving to a position of not remaining in the single market. When Ed Miliband said he thought we should put single market membership before curbing immigration that indicated to me the opposite. I'm basing my opinion on what people say. If you can show me things Corbyn has said that indicate he prefers to stay in the single market then I will believe it, but in the absence of him saying as much I don't really see how I can know what he favours or, as AK suggests, that EU membership is not important to him. How can I know these things if he doesn't clearly say them?
So my point is these things are negotiable, to a point. Ultimately the EU is a political beast and, if the politics allow it, it can happen.
Do you see what I mean?
So Corbyn has said he wants "tariff free access" to the single market.Willow904 wrote:Oh yes, absolutely. But surely you have to be in the single market or at least express an interest in remaining in it in order to negotiate and benefit from any reforms to it?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Yes states have to agree to a form of freedom of movement as part of the single market. But there isn't even complete freedom of movement now is there? One of the few things that Dave did manage to negotiate was the laughable "emergency brake" - remember that?Willow904 wrote:I have never said Brexit is "all Labour's fault". What I've been saying is that I feel hugely let down by our parliament as a whole and struggle to trust the judgement of any MP who actively voted for a poorly drafted referendum or, as I discovered yesterday, voted to prematurely withdraw from Eurotom.
As for the idea that I'm being narrowly legalistic, I'm not sure what you mean. The reason why being in the single market means accepting the four freedoms is because the benefits of the market are partially as a result of those freedoms. I don't think the EU are bluffing when they say we have to accept them to benefit from the kind of access everyone is saying they want. So when Corbyn says things like he's not "wedded to the idea of freedom of movement" I take that as an indication that he is moving to a position of not remaining in the single market. When Ed Miliband said he thought we should put single market membership before curbing immigration that indicated to me the opposite. I'm basing my opinion on what people say. If you can show me things Corbyn has said that indicate he prefers to stay in the single market then I will believe it, but in the absence of him saying as much I don't really see how I can know what he favours or, as AK suggests, that EU membership is not important to him. How can I know these things if he doesn't clearly say them?
So my point is these things are negotiable, to a point. Ultimately the EU is a political beast and, if the politics allow it, it can happen.
Do you see what I mean?
No emergency brake was agreed. The other member states refused. As they will again.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Yes states have to agree to a form of freedom of movement as part of the single market. But there isn't even complete freedom of movement now is there? One of the few things that Dave did manage to negotiate was the laughable "emergency brake" - remember that?Willow904 wrote:I have never said Brexit is "all Labour's fault". What I've been saying is that I feel hugely let down by our parliament as a whole and struggle to trust the judgement of any MP who actively voted for a poorly drafted referendum or, as I discovered yesterday, voted to prematurely withdraw from Eurotom.
As for the idea that I'm being narrowly legalistic, I'm not sure what you mean. The reason why being in the single market means accepting the four freedoms is because the benefits of the market are partially as a result of those freedoms. I don't think the EU are bluffing when they say we have to accept them to benefit from the kind of access everyone is saying they want. So when Corbyn says things like he's not "wedded to the idea of freedom of movement" I take that as an indication that he is moving to a position of not remaining in the single market. When Ed Miliband said he thought we should put single market membership before curbing immigration that indicated to me the opposite. I'm basing my opinion on what people say. If you can show me things Corbyn has said that indicate he prefers to stay in the single market then I will believe it, but in the absence of him saying as much I don't really see how I can know what he favours or, as AK suggests, that EU membership is not important to him. How can I know these things if he doesn't clearly say them?
So my point is these things are negotiable, to a point. Ultimately the EU is a political beast and, if the politics allow it, it can happen.
Do you see what I mean?
Yes you know that as a certainty of course. Having had a quick chat with Guy Verhofstadt and Michel Barnier when you saw them the other day?SpinningHugo wrote:No emergency brake was agreed. The other member states refused. As they will again.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Yes states have to agree to a form of freedom of movement as part of the single market. But there isn't even complete freedom of movement now is there? One of the few things that Dave did manage to negotiate was the laughable "emergency brake" - remember that?Willow904 wrote:I have never said Brexit is "all Labour's fault". What I've been saying is that I feel hugely let down by our parliament as a whole and struggle to trust the judgement of any MP who actively voted for a poorly drafted referendum or, as I discovered yesterday, voted to prematurely withdraw from Eurotom.
As for the idea that I'm being narrowly legalistic, I'm not sure what you mean. The reason why being in the single market means accepting the four freedoms is because the benefits of the market are partially as a result of those freedoms. I don't think the EU are bluffing when they say we have to accept them to benefit from the kind of access everyone is saying they want. So when Corbyn says things like he's not "wedded to the idea of freedom of movement" I take that as an indication that he is moving to a position of not remaining in the single market. When Ed Miliband said he thought we should put single market membership before curbing immigration that indicated to me the opposite. I'm basing my opinion on what people say. If you can show me things Corbyn has said that indicate he prefers to stay in the single market then I will believe it, but in the absence of him saying as much I don't really see how I can know what he favours or, as AK suggests, that EU membership is not important to him. How can I know these things if he doesn't clearly say them?
So my point is these things are negotiable, to a point. Ultimately the EU is a political beast and, if the politics allow it, it can happen.
Do you see what I mean?
Can't see the devolved parliament/assembly getting far with this. The SG were kicked back in their Supreme Court case over A50:gilsey wrote:What larks.AngryAsWell wrote:Faisal IslamVerified account
@faisalislam
FMs Nicola Sturgeon & Carwyn Jones issue a joint statement saying they will refuse legislative consent to the the Repeal Bill, as it stands
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David Allan Green has said he loves this stuff, legal/political messes, he's like a pig in shit.
Most of us would prefer a government that knew what it was doing.
It seems to me that even if the devolved governments refuse consent, Westminster can legally ignore them.Meanwhile, the Scottish government was also represented in the Supreme Court case, with Lord Advocate James Wolffe arguing Holyrood's consent should also be sought due to the "significant changes" Brexit would have on devolved powers.
Lawyers for the UK government rejected this, saying the argument was "fatally undermined" by the fact that powers over foreign affairs are reserved to Westminster.
The judges unanimously rejected Mr Wolffe's arguments, saying that the principle of legislative consent "does not give rise to a legally enforceable obligation".
Seconded.refitman wrote:Hope the PIP thing went okay Ephe.
I don't feel that it's necessary to go any further.More patients waiting too long in A&E despite it being NHS priority
Performance has declined since Jeremy Hunt (Guardian)
A 10 second google would do it for you. He got a concession on in-work benefits, but no brake at all on immigration numbersPaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Hugo
BTW I'm SURE you are correct but can you link me the "other states refused" stuff please?
It's all going terribly well...FT World NewsVerified account
@ftworldnews
Follow
More
Britain concedes it will have to pay EU exit bill
RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...
It's all going terribly well...FT World NewsVerified account
@ftworldnews
Follow
More
Britain concedes it will have to pay EU exit bill
Good to hear its not as bad as it might have been, if you get my drift.RogerOThornhill wrote:Meanwhile my other half who'd been coughing, short of breath, and was tired all the time was diagnosed as having fluid on the lung whereupon they carried out a chest drain and extracted about a litre and a half of liquid. Back home now and feeling a lot better although it's still a bit painful.
I went off to the library yesterday leaving her to go the GP, and returned to an empty house. Phone call a bit later saying "I'm still at the hospital...". Oh, that's where you got to!
