Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know that we are not allowed to talk about it and are constantly told that it no longer affects us, the economy or our daily lives but .. Jacob Reese-Mogg (the dear chap) appears to be up in arms, citing that Sunak has broken his word over EU laws. They were supposed to be scrapped by the end of this year but now the deadline has been moved to 'indefinately'. Makes a lot more sense to me but obviously not to the Moggster." In fairness to Mogg. How are they supposed to start removing workers rights, environmental protection, safety standards etc until they do this. Brexit wasn't just about billionaires avoiding taxes. It was so that big corporations could pollute more, treat employees more poorly etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them." How were we “ruled by them”? More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them. How were we “ruled by them”? That's where the EU is headed - a federalist superstate, no doubt about it. Or why else would they need a president, a parliament, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors, a flag, an anthem?? That sounds more like a state than a trade bloc to me. More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them." Lots of people were confused about the EU "ruling" over the UK as if it was some external body we had nothing to do with. I thought that had been cleared up years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them. How were we “ruled by them”? That's where the EU is headed - a federalist superstate, no doubt about it. Or why else would they need a president, a parliament, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors, a flag, an anthem?? That sounds more like a state than a trade bloc to me. More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch!" If you reply within the quote it is not easy to see what you have said (not being rude just a tip) The irony is that Brexit makes a USE more likely. It would never have happened had the UK remained in the EU. So really that was a non-argument for Brexit. The EU did not and would not have ever “ruled over” the UK. I’m surprised that now after several years and far more knowledge being out there, that anyone still thinks this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them. How were we “ruled by them”? That's where the EU is headed - a federalist superstate, no doubt about it. Or why else would they need a president, a parliament, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors, a flag, an anthem?? That sounds more like a state than a trade bloc to me. More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch! If you reply within the quote it is not easy to see what you have said (not being rude just a tip) The irony is that Brexit makes a USE more likely. It would never have happened had the UK remained in the EU. So really that was a non-argument for Brexit. The EU did not and would not have ever “ruled over” the UK. I’m surprised that now after several years and far more knowledge being out there, that anyone still thinks this." The EU did in fact 'rule over the UK' and other member States in certain circumstances. "The principle of the primacy (also referred to as 'precedence' or 'supremacy') of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail." I know, I know, 'we' helped to write said EU laws, that doesn't take away the fact that the claim is true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know that we are not allowed to talk about it and are constantly told that it no longer affects us, the economy or our daily lives but .. Jacob Reese-Mogg (the dear chap) appears to be up in arms, citing that Sunak has broken his word over EU laws. They were supposed to be scrapped by the end of this year but now the deadline has been moved to 'indefinately'. Makes a lot more sense to me but obviously not to the Moggster." JRM obviously didn’t know what he was voting for  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them. How were we “ruled by them”? That's where the EU is headed - a federalist superstate, no doubt about it. Or why else would they need a president, a parliament, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors, a flag, an anthem?? That sounds more like a state than a trade bloc to me. More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch! If you reply within the quote it is not easy to see what you have said (not being rude just a tip) The irony is that Brexit makes a USE more likely. It would never have happened had the UK remained in the EU. So really that was a non-argument for Brexit. The EU did not and would not have ever “ruled over” the UK. I’m surprised that now after several years and far more knowledge being out there, that anyone still thinks this. The EU did in fact 'rule over the UK' and other member States in certain circumstances. "The principle of the primacy (also referred to as 'precedence' or 'supremacy') of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail." I know, I know, 'we' helped to write said EU laws, that doesn't take away the fact that the claim is true. " Are there, however, examples when member states just said “fuck that” and did their own thing? Poland and Hungary? That isn’t rhetorical, I honestly do not know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know that we are not allowed to talk about it and are constantly told that it no longer affects us, the economy or our daily lives but .. Jacob Reese-Mogg (the dear chap) appears to be up in arms, citing that Sunak has broken his word over EU laws. They were supposed to be scrapped by the end of this year but now the deadline has been moved to 'indefinately'. Makes a lot more sense to me but obviously not to the Moggster." I caught a bit on the tv about this. It seems to stem from promises Sunak made when he was running for the leadership. The video was of someone putting the EU laws through the shredder and Sunak promising they will be either modified or binned by the end of 23. This was on topic as SKS was being criticised for U turning on promises he made whilst also running to be leader. From what I read today this policy is now changed to the MP's are to list 600 laws that they want looking at for either amending or scrapping or something like that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them. How were we “ruled by them”? That's where the EU is headed - a federalist superstate, no doubt about it. Or why else would they need a president, a parliament, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors, a flag, an anthem?? That sounds more like a state than a trade bloc to me. More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch! If you reply within the quote it is not easy to see what you have said (not being rude just a tip) The irony is that Brexit makes a USE more likely. It would never have happened had the UK remained in the EU. So really that was a non-argument for Brexit. The EU did not and would not have ever “ruled over” the UK. I’m surprised that now after several years and far more knowledge being out there, that anyone still thinks this. The EU did in fact 'rule over the UK' and other member States in certain circumstances. "The principle of the primacy (also referred to as 'precedence' or 'supremacy') of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail." I know, I know, 'we' helped to write said EU laws, that doesn't take away the fact that the claim is true. Are there, however, examples when member states just said “fuck that” and did their own thing? Poland and Hungary? That isn’t rhetorical, I honestly do not know." I'm sure examples could be found of states doing just that. I'm just pointing out that we see this argument that the EU didn't and never would have 'ruled over' the UK. That isn't true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suspect what has happened here is that Sunak realises that keeping EU rules allows the UK to be aligned on trade, travel etc. I see nothing wrong with that. It's good we co-operate with the EU, I just don't want to be ruled by them. How were we “ruled by them”? That's where the EU is headed - a federalist superstate, no doubt about it. Or why else would they need a president, a parliament, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors, a flag, an anthem?? That sounds more like a state than a trade bloc to me. More likely the analysis of the 000s of rules/laws that the UK helped to write/design as part of the EU showed that they turned out to actually be a good set of rules/laws that there was no good reason to ditch! If you reply within the quote it is not easy to see what you have said (not being rude just a tip) The irony is that Brexit makes a USE more likely. It would never have happened had the UK remained in the EU. So really that was a non-argument for Brexit. The EU did not and would not have ever “ruled over” the UK. I’m surprised that now after several years and far more knowledge being out there, that anyone still thinks this. The EU did in fact 'rule over the UK' and other member States in certain circumstances. "The principle of the primacy (also referred to as 'precedence' or 'supremacy') of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail." I know, I know, 'we' helped to write said EU laws, that doesn't take away the fact that the claim is true. Are there, however, examples when member states just said “fuck that” and did their own thing? Poland and Hungary? That isn’t rhetorical, I honestly do not know." Not sure if it's what you are referring to but a report in April said more than 160 infringements of EU law were recorded in the one month affecting all 27 member countries. Over 1800 cases of breaking EU law are actively being perused by the EU against the member countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know that we are not allowed to talk about it and are constantly told that it no longer affects us, the economy or our daily lives but .. Jacob Reese-Mogg (the dear chap) appears to be up in arms, citing that Sunak has broken his word over EU laws. They were supposed to be scrapped by the end of this year but now the deadline has been moved to 'indefinately'. Makes a lot more sense to me but obviously not to the Moggster. I caught a bit on the tv about this. It seems to stem from promises Sunak made when he was running for the leadership. The video was of someone putting the EU laws through the shredder and Sunak promising they will be either modified or binned by the end of 23. This was on topic as SKS was being criticised for U turning on promises he made whilst also running to be leader. From what I read today this policy is now changed to the MP's are to list 600 laws that they want looking at for either amending or scrapping or something like that" The idea was by Dec 31st 2023 any EU law that had not gone through the process of being accepted, amended or repealed would simply be removed. However, there was an extension baked into this and it became inevitable this extension would kick in a couple of months ago. Basically many departments still hadn't got on with assessing the relevant changes. The hard brexiteers such as Mogg basically thinks it is the fault of the civil service and they are deliberately undermining the government. Remember the Rabb bullying story? Exactly the same acquisitions. Sunak has used the extension like any sane person would, why throw whole departments and business into turmoil when a resolution is available. That is how I have read this, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to rip it up though  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In fairness to Mogg. How are they supposed to start removing workers rights, environmental protection, safety standards etc until they do this. Brexit wasn't just about billionaires avoiding taxes. It was so that big corporations could pollute more, treat employees more poorly etc." Sadly, I think there is an element of truth about your statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
