Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

The definition of insanity!
Are people expecting different answers or something?

 

Heard it on radio 4 this morning. Apparently he was asked if taxes would rise and public spending cuts follow. He replied 'absolutely'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647948

"He also warned there would have to be tax rises and spending cuts to safeguard the public finances."

He's not going to be chancellor for long so it's not his decision it's just his opinion

 

So he wouldn't have a mandate to come back with a deal akin to what Norway and Switzerland negotiated then?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

So, inform me then. Why can the implementation not be delayed?

You're just a know nothing ****wit who knows better than everybody.

When you have something worthwhile to contribute, come back.

 

I haven't said it'd be a mandatory legal requirement, I asked whether he would have a mandate from the populous to come back from Brussels with a deal akin to Norway i.e. 85% of what we already pay per capita and free movement of people - in exchange for free trade for the EU - yes or no?

 

Because certain ****wits keep asking the same stupid questions, hoping to get different answers!...

 

It is written down in various places.
"Acts of Parliament are bills which have received the approval of Parliament – that is, the Monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. On rare occasions, the House of Commons uses the "Parliament Acts" (the Parliament Act 1911 and the Parliament Act 1949) to pass legislation without the approval of the House of Lords. It is unheard of in modern times for the Monarch to refuse to assent to a bill, though the possibility was contemplated by George V in relation to the fiercely controversial Government of Ireland Act 1914.[9] Acts of Parliament are among the most important sources of the constitution. According to the traditional view, Parliament has the ability to legislate however it wishes on any subject it wishes. For example, most of the iconic mediaeval statute known as Magna Carta has been repealed since 1828, despite previously being regarded as sacrosanct. It has traditionally been the case that the courts are barred from questioning any Act of Parliament, a principle that can be traced back to the mediaeval period.[10] On the other hand, this principle has not been without its dissidents and critics over the centuries, and attitudes among the judiciary in this area may be changing.[11][better source needed] One consequence of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that there is no hierarchy among Acts of Parliament: all parliamentary legislation is, in principle, of equal validity and effectiveness. However, the judgment of Lord Justice Laws in the Thoburn case in 2002 indicated that there may be a special class of "constitutional statutes" such as Magna Carta, the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972, the Act of Union and Bill of Rights which have a higher status than other legislation. This part of his judgment was "obiter" (i.e. not binding) – and, indeed, was controversial. It remains to be seen whether the doctrine will be accepted by other judges.

Treaties do not, on ratification, automatically become incorporated into UK law. Important treaties have been incorporated into domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, was given "further effect" into domestic law through the preamble of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also, the Treaty of Union of 1707 was important in creating the unitary state which exists today. The treaty was between the governments of England and Scotland and was put into effect by two Acts of Union which were passed by the Parliaments of England and Scotland, respectively. The Treaty, along with the subsequent Acts, brought into existence the Kingdom of Great Britain, uniting the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland.

Common law legal systems exist in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales but not in Scotland which has a hybrid system (see Scots law) which involves a great deal of Common Law. Court judgments also commonly form a source of the constitution: generally speaking in English Law, judgments of the higher courts form precedents or case law that binds lower courts and judges; Scots Law does not accord the same status to precedent and judgments in one legal system do not have a direct effect in the other legal systems.[12] Historically important court judgments include those in the Case of Proclamations, the Ship money case and Entick v Carrington, all of which imposed limits on the power of the executive. A constitutional precedent applicable to British colonies is Campbell v. Hall, which effectively extended those same constitutional limitations to any territory which has been granted a representative assembly.

Many British constitutional conventions are ancient in origin, though others (like the Salisbury Convention) date from within living memory. Such conventions, which include the duty of the Monarch to act on the advice of his or her ministers, are not formally enforceable in a court of law; rather, they are primarily observed "because of the political difficulties which arise if they are not."[13]

Works of authority is the formal name for works that are sometimes cited as interpretations of aspects of the UK constitution. Most are works written by nineteenth- or early-twentieth-century constitutionalists, in particular A. V. Dicey, Walter Bagehot and Erskine May."
It's very simple if you care to make an effort.
Your behaviour is like that of a child.

 

Just saw Farage speaking to the European Parliament. It's ****ing embarrassing that the **** is allowed to be any kind of face for England and Wales. Marie Le Pen spoke after him. Two peas!

 

I know.
Some people are for, some are against.
Not really sure why we are arguing about it on a football forum, the vote has been cast and it is done.

Makes for fun I suppose.
I gave my reasons.
Ironically I have been far more measured in real life discussions that I have been on here, maybe because familiarity breeds contempt (and also no one can kick off ).

I respect people that voted remain.....I nearly did myself, at the last minute I faltered, purely because I knew the major issue that the leave camp was campaigning on was bullshit (immigration), there is no way we agree an FTA with the EU and they don't add the admittance of EU passport holders as a condition of that agreement, its unfathomable. so our policy on immigration will remain the same.

It was only when I realised that the EU really is trying to force integration between Europe's countries and mesh them all. They hold to the ideal that in order to be integrated, we have to give up everything that made us different, and I have never, and will never hold to that ideal. I can love and respect other cultures for their differences and accept them as human beings, and not reject them just because they speak a different language or have different customs.
Willing co-operation will always be better than forced integration.

But you know.....racism....and stocks, like...........

 

Why hasn't the USA accepted the EU rules on immigration and paying into the EU coffers during their negotiations over TTIP?

 

And Tobes you have hit a new low today......just read properly....you started on the whiskey early today I take it?

 

Nice one, Tobes; you've just blown your credibility straight out the ****ing window.

CODIFYING – OR NOT CODIFYING – THE UNITED KINGDOM CONSTITUTION: THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION

 

Well done for posting yet more wiki, but convention, law and our democratic process does not combine to give us a defined and specific constitution.

We don't have one in the sense that many other nations do e.g. the US.

 

He's an MEP. What do you mean by "face for England and Wales"

 

OUCH!!

 

He was elected by voters in England. Therefore, he represents the UK in the European Parliament.

 

The issue of whether we should have a written constitution has been debated for years.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46308.htm

Yet another issue you know ****e all about it seems mate.

 

Only a complete egg in the grid moment for the lad

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46308.htm

#ouch

 

No change there then!...