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 |
"What have the UK people been prevented from doing by the EU over the last 40 years that we really, really didn't want to? What have we been forced to do that we didn't want to?" Been covered on the European Court of Justice thread. A couple of examples there being The Surinder Singh ECJ judgement which allows foreign nationals to circumvent our own domestic immigration rules and the Factortame Ltd ECJ ruling which lead to our own Parliament admitting that EU law is Supreme over UK law in Britain. They are both clear cases of UK sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. Notice you and other remainers have completely ignored these posts on the other thread and have instead resorted to ad hominem attacks instead, but can't say I'm surprised by that at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What have the UK people been prevented from doing by the EU over the last 40 years that we really, really didn't want to? What have we been forced to do that we didn't want to? Been covered on the European Court of Justice thread. A couple of examples there being The Surinder Singh ECJ judgement which allows foreign nationals to circumvent our own domestic immigration rules and the Factortame Ltd ECJ ruling which lead to our own Parliament admitting that EU law is Supreme over UK law in Britain. They are both clear cases of UK sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. Notice you and other remainers have completely ignored these posts on the other thread and have instead resorted to ad hominem attacks instead, but can't say I'm surprised by that at all. " You have not in any way answered my questions. What have the UK people been prevented from doing by the Surinder Singhe judgement? What has the Factortame judgement prevented them from doing? It's not clear to me. What have either of these decisions forced you to do? You are also wrong about the other thread. You have feet of clay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the principle of sovereignty as well.....but maybe you don't understand that." Ah yes. There is no arguing against "principle". A decisive argument. What is the "principle" with WTO disputes? Should no country be answerable for its actions? How about the "principle" of a nation enacting a law saying it cannot be sued? A national court could only apply the law as it exists. How do you fight that? Straight to revolution? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the principle of sovereignty as well.....but maybe you don't understand that." Actually, why not just answer the question first? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the principle of sovereignty as well.....but maybe you don't understand that. Actually, why not just answer the question first?" I get that. I saw it in Scotland for years. Its an ideology, a blind faith in vein ruled by your own folk. Scottish nationalism is as legitimate an aspiration as British nationalism. The problem with both is there is a fine line between thinking you are standing up for your country on one hand, and blaming others for all your ills on the other. With some of the Scottish nationalists, it is an irrational fear of the English, that everything is a conspiracy by Westminster to disadvantage Scotland. With some of the British nationalists, it is an irrational fear of Johnny Foreigner, that everything is a conspiracy by Brussels to disadvantage Britain. Both are equally as corrosive and damaging to the legitimate aspects of their cause. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the principle of sovereignty as well.....but maybe you don't understand that." Why don't you give us the definition that you use then when you are talking about sovereignty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the principle of sovereignty as well.....but maybe you don't understand that." Is that the principle that our democratic systems and judiciary are sacrosanct until they make decisions within their remit that are not in line with the thinking of hard line Brexiteers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody able to demonstrate that the British people have been prevented from doing something or forced to do something? I asked a while ago if Brexit was logical or emotional. No leaver felt able to respond even though both options are politically valid. What is being demonstrated by an inability to respond to very simple questions about fundamental planks of the Leave campaign is that there is no logical context for Brexit improving anyone's life in any way. The political campaign phrases are being shown to be hollow. The current system is not helping the poor as it should, but that is our own fault as a people and the government we choose. Brexit will not deliver a better life. Now saying that it will take a generation to come good is a con. Jam tomorrow, today's pain is transient yet the shift of blame from the EU (and immigrants in general) to remainers for all the country's has already begun." Inability to respond???? Brexiters have responded about our sovereignty both on this thread and the European Court of justice thread, it's just that you don't agree with the answers given. Just because you don't agree it doesn't make the other posters opinions invalid. Don't say there has been an inability to respond when there clearly has. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody able to demonstrate that the British people have been prevented from doing something or forced to do something? I asked a while ago if Brexit was logical or emotional. No leaver felt able to respond even though both options are politically valid. What is being demonstrated by an inability to respond to very simple questions about fundamental planks of the Leave campaign is that there is no logical context for Brexit improving anyone's life in any way. The political campaign phrases are being shown to be hollow. The current system is not helping the poor as it should, but that is our own fault as a people and the government we choose. Brexit will not deliver a better life. Now saying that it will take a generation to come good is a con. Jam tomorrow, today's pain is transient yet the shift of blame from the EU (and immigrants in general) to remainers for all the country's has already begun. Inability to respond???? Brexiters have responded about our sovereignty both on this thread and the European Court of justice thread, it's just that you don't agree with the answers given. Just because you don't agree it doesn't make the other posters opinions invalid. Don't say there has been an inability to respond when there clearly has." Liar, liar pants on fire. It's impossible to hold that line when you compare the question to the "answers". I restated the two salient questions in this thread again about the effect on the British people. Still no answer. You are a politician. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody able to demonstrate that the British people have been prevented from doing something or forced to do something? I asked a while ago if Brexit was logical or emotional. No leaver felt able to respond even though both options are politically valid. What is being demonstrated by an inability to respond to very simple questions about fundamental planks of the Leave campaign is that there is no logical context for Brexit improving anyone's life in any way. The political campaign phrases are being shown to be hollow. The current system is not helping the poor as it should, but that is our own fault as a people and the government we choose. Brexit will not deliver a better life. Now saying that it will take a generation to come good is a con. Jam tomorrow, today's pain is transient yet the shift of blame from the EU (and immigrants in general) to remainers for all the country's has already begun. Inability to respond???? Brexiters have responded about our sovereignty both on this thread and the European Court of justice thread, it's just that you don't agree with the answers given. Just because you don't agree it doesn't make the other posters opinions invalid. Don't say there has been an inability to respond when there clearly has." It seems like some people are struggling to understand this question (and many others) maybe we should make it a little simpler. What are the top 3 worst decisions made by the ECJ that have had a personal impact on you? What have you purposely had to start or stop doing as a result of an ECJ ruling, and what impact has this had on your life? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody able to demonstrate that the British people have been prevented from doing something or forced to do something? I asked a while ago if Brexit was logical or emotional. No leaver felt able to respond even though both options are politically valid. What is being demonstrated by an inability to respond to very simple questions about fundamental planks of the Leave campaign is that there is no logical context for Brexit improving anyone's life in any way. The political campaign phrases are being shown to be hollow. The current system is not helping the poor as it should, but that is our own fault as a people and the government we choose. Brexit will not deliver a better life. Now saying that it will take a generation to come good is a con. Jam tomorrow, today's pain is transient yet the shift of blame from the EU (and immigrants in general) to remainers for all the country's has already begun. Inability to respond???? Brexiters have responded about our sovereignty both on this thread and the European Court of justice thread, it's just that you don't agree with the answers given. Just because you don't agree it doesn't make the other posters opinions invalid. Don't say there has been an inability to respond when there clearly has. It seems like some people are struggling to understand this question (and many others) maybe we should make it a little simpler. What are the top 3 worst decisions made by the ECJ that have had a personal impact on you? What have you purposely had to start or stop doing as a result of an ECJ ruling, and what impact has this had on your life?" Good luck with getting anything resembling a coherent answer to that one, like most other questions regarding any benefit to Brexit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody able to demonstrate that the British people have been prevented from doing something or forced to do something? I asked a while ago if Brexit was logical or emotional. No leaver felt able to respond even though both options are politically valid. What is being demonstrated by an inability to respond to very simple questions about fundamental planks of the Leave campaign is that there is no logical context for Brexit improving anyone's life in any way. The political campaign phrases are being shown to be hollow. The current system is not helping the poor as it should, but that is our own fault as a people and the government we choose. Brexit will not deliver a better life. Now saying that it will take a generation to come good is a con. Jam tomorrow, today's pain is transient yet the shift of blame from the EU (and immigrants in general) to remainers for all the country's has already begun." Just accept we are leaving, gone .like it or not . It's away from you . . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody able to demonstrate that the British people have been prevented from doing something or forced to do something? I asked a while ago if Brexit was logical or emotional. No leaver felt able to respond even though both options are politically valid. What is being demonstrated by an inability to respond to very simple questions about fundamental planks of the Leave campaign is that there is no logical context for Brexit improving anyone's life in any way. The political campaign phrases are being shown to be hollow. The current system is not helping the poor as it should, but that is our own fault as a people and the government we choose. Brexit will not deliver a better life. Now saying that it will take a generation to come good is a con. Jam tomorrow, today's pain is transient yet the shift of blame from the EU (and immigrants in general) to remainers for all the country's has already begun. Just accept we are leaving, gone .like it or not . It's away from you . . " Well done not answering the question. Would you like "people like me" to leave then? 48% of the population? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe that the objections to the EU (beyond the knee jerk reactions prompted by the Murdoch Press et al) are a) The erosion of Sovereignty of Parliament (we fought a civil war to confirm the sovereignty of the people via their elected representatives in Parliament) b) The primacy of British Courts (vs the ECJ) c) The mass immigration of workers competing for jobs and the concomitant pressure on the social fabric of the country. d) the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and their impact on Britain's food production industry. I don't think that personalising the argument into "How has it affected YOU" is particularly helpful (though I have definitely been directly affected by point c, as have most of the people I know) because points a, b and d effect all of the decisions and judgements made by or for us... I don't really have a dog in the fight because I've emigrated (and I left before the vote was called), ideologically I'd have been a remainer, but I think the quality of debate from both sides is really poor..... 2p" I don’t disagree ... but do see 1 and 2 as being a point of principle rather than because it is damaging at the moment. It’s more a case of *it could* and brexit appeared to be a one off opportunity to voice a concern. I must admit I’m light on details on CAP. But the common fisheries seemed to be a small point in the wider scheme of arguments. In my mind I was trading this off against concerns about impact on wider economy, erosion of choice, and if I’m honest, I see some of the Eu rulings as being a lot more positive than those taken by the uk. Imo there is something to be said about having a more collaborative system to law making. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe that the objections to the EU (beyond the knee jerk reactions prompted by the Murdoch Press et al) are a) The erosion of Sovereignty of Parliament (we fought a civil war to confirm the sovereignty of the people via their elected representatives in Parliament) b) The primacy of British Courts (vs the ECJ) c) The mass immigration of workers competing for jobs and the concomitant pressure on the social fabric of the country. d) the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and their impact on Britain's food production industry. I don't think that personalising the argument into "How has it affected YOU" is particularly helpful (though I have definitely been directly affected by point c, as have most of the people I know) because points a, b and d effect all of the decisions and judgements made by or for us... I don't really have a dog in the fight because I've emigrated (and I left before the vote was called), ideologically I'd have been a remainer, but I think the quality of debate from both sides is really poor..... 2p" I very deliberately asked how it affects individuals. I asked because I want to know whom the "principle" benefits. Who has suffered? If nobody then what's the point? What is the "principle" of sovereignty? What are the wider implications? First world problems? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe that the objections to the EU (beyond the knee jerk reactions prompted by the Murdoch Press et al) are a) The erosion of Sovereignty of Parliament (we fought a civil war to confirm the sovereignty of the people via their elected representatives in Parliament) b) The primacy of British Courts (vs the ECJ) c) The mass immigration of workers competing for jobs and the concomitant pressure on the social fabric of the country. d) the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and their impact on Britain's food production industry. I don't think that personalising the argument into "How has it affected YOU" is particularly helpful (though I have definitely been directly affected by point c, as have most of the people I know) because points a, b and d effect all of the decisions and judgements made by or for us... I don't really have a dog in the fight because I've emigrated (and I left before the vote was called), ideologically I'd have been a remainer, but I think the quality of debate from both sides is really poor..... 2p" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this. Point B, the primacy of British Courts. There are international courts and binding arbitration bodies all over world for a variety of things from sports to war crimes. British Courts are part of a legal system, but they are not the be all and end all of it. If you want them to be, then fair enough, argue for that point, but you can't just single out the ECJ, you also need to argue for all UK sports to pull out of the Court of Arbitration For Sport, to leave the ECHR, to leave the ICC and many many more. You would have to argue that we were wrong to conduct the Nuremburg trials and argue that it should have been left to the German legal system. Point C, immigration have been proven to have been a net benefit to this country. It is also a fact that millions of Britons have taken advantage of this freedom to work in other countries in the EU, and that leave voters voted to strip rights away from British citizens. The UK for millennia has been a cultural melting pot and just today I was driving along a road first built by the Romans. Immigrants are not straining the fabric of our society, they are woven into it. Look at the disaster facing the NHS with 35,000 nurses vacancies and a decline of EU nurses registering to work in the UK by 98% since the referendum. Look at the social care system and you will see the vital role filled by the immigrants, the same as the hospitality industry and in farming. Point D, the CAP and CFP, the farmers rely on the payments from the CAP, and yet I believe the government have only confirmed that they will pay these until 2020. Without those payments farmers will go bust, and the countryside that they manage will be severely damaged. Many will lose their jobs, and you and I will either be forced to pay more for our food, or accepted lower quality foods and animal standards. With regards to the CFP, the UK sells fishing rights to other countries because we don't have enough fishermen of our own. The fishermen we do have rely to selling their catches to Europe. If their market dries up, the ability to catch more fish is of no value. They will not spend time and money catching fish they cannot sell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" d) the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy and their impact on Britain's food production industry." Yep, totally agree. How dare the EU stop our farmers from turning the UK into a dust-bowl and who do they think they are imposing fishing quotas on all EU waters allowing fish stocks to recover from being on the point of commercial extinction to us now having a sustainable fishery. Just who do they think they are, saving us from the greed of the agri-chem giants like Monsanto and the fish processing industry? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this." ] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. " In 1992 the ECJ, as part of its ruling on the European Economic Area Agreement, stated; “An international treaty is to be interpreted not only on the basis of its wording, but in the light of its objectives. … The Rome Treaty aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union.... the Single European Act makes it clear that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progress towards European unity. It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the Rome Treaty on free movement and competition, far from being an end in themselves, are only means for attaining those objectives. … As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. " The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. " Where does anyone get the idea the EU "steals" sovereignty or democracy? It is a club of countries whose rules of membership require strict adherence to democratic norms, such as separation of the state and judiciary, human rights etc. Its rules are set by the members. The members are free to leave whenever they want if they do not like it. Apart from the UK, the only territory I am aware of that has ever exercised that right is Greenland. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. " Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty?" https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. In 1992 the ECJ, as part of its ruling on the European Economic Area Agreement, stated; “An international treaty is to be interpreted not only on the basis of its wording, but in the light of its objectives. … The Rome Treaty aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union.... the Single European Act makes it clear that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progress towards European unity. It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the Rome Treaty on free movement and competition, far from being an end in themselves, are only means for attaining those objectives. … As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals.” " This sidebar is not the question in hand. I don't care at all about legal definitions of "sovereignty". I want to know what the practical outcome has been. I asked: "What have the UK people been prevented from doing by the EU over the last 40 years that we really, really didn't want to? What have we been forced to do that we didn't want to?" Could you please give that a go before going of piste? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Crimea was not invaded. When the USSR dissolved, Ukraine and Russia agreed that Russia could keep a naval base there. The agreement included the stationing of troops at the base with the ability to protect the installation for a radius of 3 miles. The coup in Ukraine brought to power some unsavoury characters with a deep-seated hatred of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. All sorts of threats to prohibit Russian culture, language etc. That inspired some pretty atrocious attacks by Ukrainian extremists on Crimea, such as the cinema fire. Gangs of armed thugs of Ukrainian ethnicity moving in on Crimea. That was when the troops came out of the naval base. Those troops were there legitimately. There was no invasion. The least surprising thing was the overwhelming desire of the ethnic Russians, using the ballot box, to escape ethnic cleansing and seek protection from the Russian state. " As a broader discussion about sovereignty isn't this colonialism? Crimea was been seeded with ethnic Russians as were the Baltic states. This provides a convenient pretext for annexation to "protect" Russians living in another country by removing it from the control of that state. It was not handed over voluntarily. Ukrainian gangs, Russian gangs, Russian military "securing" their installation by seizing an entire region from a foreign state? Ethnic Ukranians and Tartars have been treated appallingly in the past. Driven off their lands and not allowed to return. This is going back a long way but the Tartar population was 84% in 1839, 36% in 1897, 20.7% in 1937 and now 12.1%. The Russian population is 59%, down from 66% in 1989 when they were the colonial power. Given Russian actions in Georgia and it's work destabilising the West, I would be wary in seeing this in anything like as clear-cut a manner as you seem to be. This is equally, if not more so, a reassertion of the Russian empire. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 " But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions?" You've obviously only just watched this, from BEFORE the referendum.. and realised that not one person interviewed said anything about our sovereignty being 'stolen'...you now say 'don't get hung up on the word 'stolen'', when it was you, and only you, that said 'the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty'. You assert that we have not lost any of our sovereignty, and yet in the clip you gave the link too, many times over people have said our sovereignty is being eroded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions?" If, as you assert, we have neither lost nor given away any sovereignty, then are you saying that the ECJ lied when they stated, in 1992, "...As the (European) Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions? You've obviously only just watched this, from BEFORE the referendum.. and realised that not one person interviewed said anything about our sovereignty being 'stolen'...you now say 'don't get hung up on the word 'stolen'', when it was you, and only you, that said 'the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty'. You assert that we have not lost any of our sovereignty, and yet in the clip you gave the link too, many times over people have said our sovereignty is being eroded. " My position is that sovereignty lies with institutions, parliament in our case, and it hasn't lost any sovereignty because we have the power to leave. That's pretty clear and straight forward, let's here your position.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions? You've obviously only just watched this, from BEFORE the referendum.. and realised that not one person interviewed said anything about our sovereignty being 'stolen'...you now say 'don't get hung up on the word 'stolen'', when it was you, and only you, that said 'the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty'. You assert that we have not lost any of our sovereignty, and yet in the clip you gave the link too, many times over people have said our sovereignty is being eroded. My position is that sovereignty lies with institutions, parliament in our case, and it hasn't lost any sovereignty because we have the power to leave. That's pretty clear and straight forward, let's here your position. "So you think the ECJ lied then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions? You've obviously only just watched this, from BEFORE the referendum.. and realised that not one person interviewed said anything about our sovereignty being 'stolen'...you now say 'don't get hung up on the word 'stolen'', when it was you, and only you, that said 'the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty'. You assert that we have not lost any of our sovereignty, and yet in the clip you gave the link too, many times over people have said our sovereignty is being eroded. My position is that sovereignty lies with institutions, parliament in our case, and it hasn't lost any sovereignty because we have the power to leave. That's pretty clear and straight forward, let's here your position.
So you think the ECJ lied then? "Come on, I have been quite clear in my position. Would you like to give yours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions? You've obviously only just watched this, from BEFORE the referendum.. and realised that not one person interviewed said anything about our sovereignty being 'stolen'...you now say 'don't get hung up on the word 'stolen'', when it was you, and only you, that said 'the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty'. You assert that we have not lost any of our sovereignty, and yet in the clip you gave the link too, many times over people have said our sovereignty is being eroded. My position is that sovereignty lies with institutions, parliament in our case, and it hasn't lost any sovereignty because we have the power to leave. That's pretty clear and straight forward, let's here your position.
So you think the ECJ lied then?
Come on, I have been quite clear in my position. Would you like to give yours? "Oh, your position is crystal clear....you believe that our sovereignty has not been eroded at all by our membership of the EU, and that the ECJ was lying when they stated.. "As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Point A, there has been no loss of sovereignty, none. An elected government decided to join, and an elected government decided to leave. If we had indeed lost any sovereignty, we wouldn't have had a say in either matter. If you want to look at a loss of sovereignty, then look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is what a loss of sovereignty looks like, not this.] I'd suggest what happened in Crimea is exactly the opposite. Crimea is 95 per cent ethnic Russian. The population voted overwhelming to leave Ukraine and become part of Russia. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the institutions that govern them. Crimea is an example of it. The vote was after they were invaded, hardly a democratic norm. But putting that to one side, if the people are sovereign, and not institutions, then the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty. Where has anybody said thay've stolen our sovereignty? https://news.sky.com/story/is-the-european-union-stealing-our-sovereignty-10321304 But don't try and get hung up on the word stolen, do you believe that sovereignty lies with the people, or with institutions? You've obviously only just watched this, from BEFORE the referendum.. and realised that not one person interviewed said anything about our sovereignty being 'stolen'...you now say 'don't get hung up on the word 'stolen'', when it was you, and only you, that said 'the EU can't have stolen our sovereignty'. You assert that we have not lost any of our sovereignty, and yet in the clip you gave the link too, many times over people have said our sovereignty is being eroded. My position is that sovereignty lies with institutions, parliament in our case, and it hasn't lost any sovereignty because we have the power to leave. That's pretty clear and straight forward, let's here your position.
So you think the ECJ lied then?
Come on, I have been quite clear in my position. Would you like to give yours?
Oh, your position is crystal clear....you believe that our sovereignty has not been eroded at all by our membership of the EU, and that the ECJ was lying when they stated..
"As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member-States but also their nationals.”
"So what is your position? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Every member of the EU gives up something in return for a benefit. Take the freedom of movement. Each country gives up the right to exclude or limit the movement of people into their country. In return, the citizens of this country get the freedom to live and work in any country they want. I'd call it pooling of sovereignty to remove the barriers between populations. We'll discover quite soon what accompanies the reclamation of sovereignty - the automatic re-erection of all the barriers that came down over the last 20 odd years. " Freedom of movement only applies for the first 90 days in the EU after 90 days you have to register in the host country. There are rules for registration and several categories. Here they are 1. Got to have sufficient income or capital not to be a burden on the host state. 2. Got to have comprehensive medical cover so that your not a burden on the host state. 3. Not be a security risk. If you don't meet ALL the requirements you can be refused right to remain. An example: if someone from the UK owns a property in another EU state and is going to spend over 90 days at their place they need a visa. The rules are not enforced at the moment but once we become a third country and our passports stamped it will be another bit of beaurocracy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
