Disliked{quote} ... We bremainers have to be careful not to cheer every time the economy stumbles or the pound falls or RBS loses another billion. .Ignored
Strategies Follow Rules, But Rules Are Made To Be Broken 1 reply
Consequences of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform for forex traders 16 replies
Rules .. where are the Rules located 7 replies
Trade what you have, take responsibility, and enjoy the consequences 10 replies
Underleverage and the consequences 8 replies
Disliked{quote} ... We bremainers have to be careful not to cheer every time the economy stumbles or the pound falls or RBS loses another billion. .Ignored
DislikedI some how missed this UK government publication published in April last, which seeks to provide a factual reference to address the huge ignorance gap about the EU and the UKs participation as a member, that weve seen in much of the dialogue and debate both per- and post- the UK referendum decision on 23rd June. Its entirely factual, and equips the reader with a basic understanding of what is a highly complex subject. Its an important read both for UK citizens and for interested parties around the world who want to establish an understanding of...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Do you think the people voting to Leave, or Remain, are more likely to be ignorant of the EU?Ignored
And what impact they believed would result from a Brexit result...
QuoteDislikedHi @VERV
QuoteDisliked
The clarity of your description of the connect between the Immigration issue and Sovereignty, in the public mind is interesting. As is your note of the distinction between Sovereignty and democratic accountability, and its confusion in many minds.
Some thoughts on this sovereignty business.
1. The UK is and remains a sovereign state, and were it not so it would not be able to Leave the EU. Unlike for example Texas, which cannot devolve from the United States. So membership of the EU implies NO basic infringement of the UKs sovereignty.
2....
QuoteDislikedIt was in the EU by choice. The problem was that a large portion of people felt that an inability to control UK borders was a loss of sovereignty that people were fed up with.
QuoteDisliked5 To look at an analogy, I ask myself what reaction the UK would get from its NATO partners, were it to decide by advisory referendum to seek derogation from its commitment to Article 5? Or to suddenly refuse to allow SACEUR (always an American) command and control over NATO mission assigned UK military assets?
QuoteDislikedMy point is that some principles in all organisations are RED LINE. FoM is so deeply embedded in the core principles of the EU treaties that its simple not negotiable with out a new treaty and the unanimous agreement of all 28 members.
QuoteDisliked6. At each stage in the evolution of the EU, it has been the unanimous view of successive democratically elected UK governments, and (ironically) continues to be the view of the current UK government, (i.e. the considered view of the majority of democratically elected MPs in parliament - notwithstanding Mays commitment to abide to the results of an advisory referendum, to revoke its membership) that these revocable dilutions of sovereignty, are worthwhile tradeoffs to the overall interests to the Nation of EU membership. There are and have been...
QuoteDislikedFinally its worth remembering that the vast majority (over twothirds) of MPs of the current UK parliament, elected just one year before the referendum, opposed Brexit on the grounds of the National Interest. Irrespective of declarations of "respecting the will of the People" and Mays "Out is Out" mantra, these people have not changed their convictions. Given that MPs are "Representatives" Not "Delegates" and as such have a triple mandate in the UK constitutional tradition. and while the views of constituents must be considered, the actions of MPs...
Disliked{quote}{quote} The point you are making in (1.) is that sovereignty was given, not taken. The second point you are making is that if sovereignty can be reclaimed, then there is no loss of sovereignty issues at all. I can see where you are coming from. However I dont agree with the conclusion. For me it doesnt matter if that handing of sovereignty was given by choice, what matters was that there was a transfer of powers from the UK parliament to the EU, and that is a loss of sovereignty.Ignored
Disliked{quote}And it was because the EU wouldnt budge on some issues that the only decision was to Leave. .Ignored
Disliked{quote} This is where I have very strong disagreements. I fully accept that in terms of the written law, referendums are only advisory but in practice all previous referendums in this country have been followed by parliament. Cloudrider spoke about constitutional precedent in this country, I dont believe there has ever been a precedent for the parliament to allow a public referendum and then ignore it. The politicians of this country used an act of parliament to enable a nationwide referendum fully aware of what the result might mean. This act was...Ignored
Given that Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval these are real and present issues.
My second question is some what more cynical.. and is why the Referendum was not enacted specifically as a legally binding referendum?
Note: for those interested the most recent challenge to this interpretation of the MPs role and Duty related to John Redwood
DislikedThank you for your thoughtful reply. {quote} Our point of difference here appears to rest on your last sentence which clearly states that you object to any and all transfers of power. On that basis NO major Treaty defined association in the world., would be accessible to the UK. (WTO, NATO, etc) IMHO this position untenable. IMHO discussions on Sovereignty often miss or confuse the difference between the Absolute Sovereignty of the UK, and those Elements of Sovereignty that the UK Government pools (temporally and conditionally) to international...Ignored
Disliked{quote} I believe we had already covered this. Freedom of Movement is a central pillar of The EU package. Just as Collective Defense is a central pillar of NATO. The principle is not negotiable except through a major redefinition of the Treaties signed by all 28 Nation members. Can it be changed .. Yes by treaty change. How long does that take.. 3-5 years.*** The Government KNEW this. Cameron went to the Council of Ministers to demand changes that were impossible to deliver under current treaty agreement. In fact he did very well by getting the...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hi Cliff, I don't object to transfer of sovereignty, I object to transferring sovereignty without first asking the people.Ignored
Disliked{quote} I don't believe politicians should have the ability to transfer the sovereignty of their own backs.Ignored
DislikedRegarding the rest of your passage I largely agree, there is a difference between absolute sovereignty and the definitions talked about.Ignored
Disliked{quote} The brake is just a can kick. It will not satisfy any Brexiters who voted on lines of immigration. I don't have any disagreements with you here, free movement is what the EU asks for. You either abide by that and have a treaty, or you don't.Ignored
Disliked. {quote} I apologize for raising this somewhat off-message paragraph in my earlier post. I too believe that the UK needs a written constitution. ( I think UK is one of only 4 or 5 countries that dont have one). Im not making any POINT here. or arguing in any sense from a Remain agenda perspective. Im simply interested in exploring the moral and legal dilemma facing MPs who in the vast majority, and in their best judgement of what would be best for their Nation, Constituents and Party, were overwhelmingly against Brexit. What is the MPs democratic...Ignored
QuoteDislikedSo given that the advisory referendum clearly if narrowly advocated that the UK leave the EU...
* Should those MPs vote IN their best judgement and refuse to enforce that advisory plebicite?
* Should they resign en mass and precipitate a General Election?
* Or simple vote against their best judgement to enact a policy that they sincerely believe damaging to the interests of their Nation?
Given that Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval these are real and present issues. My second question is some what more cynical.. and is why the Referendum was not enacted specifically as a legally binding referendum?
Disliked{quote} Were we asked about the UKs NATO Treaty pooling of sovereignty? No ? Then an immediate NATO referendum is clearly necessary.Ignored
QuoteDislikedIm truely confused?. Are you seriously disputing the essence of Parliamentary democracy? The right of Parliament and Government to delegate sovereignty in the interests of the Nation? {quote}
QuoteDislikedNP.. not my points.. we got there together.
PS.. If you are interested .. try to get hold of an old (1970) and very funny and satirical film called " The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" A satirical treatment of the whole issue of democracy and the manipulation of public perceptions. Stars Peter Cook.. Say no more Lol
Disliked{quote} Isnt that what I said? The Brake was never more than a temporary solution to the UKs immediate problem. Treaty change is the answer. And then I compared the time span Brexit creates before any relief can be expected to the problem? 3-5 years And compared that to the timescale for a Treaty change solution .. 3/5 years. Whereas I believe the Brake could have been applied within months. Problem solving requires an open mind. When the only tool in your box is a hammer.. then all jobs require a hammer.Ignored