Off Topic UK / EU Future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
oldfrenchhorn said:
So when you put in your first planning application that was rejected, it should have been set in stone, and you should not have had the right to change it for something different?
Click to expand...

Silly analogy, they have different rules, both backed by the UK parliament.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
But they do not follow the rules otherwise they would not be in the position where they could be held to be in contempt of Parliament.
Click to expand...

That is a different legal issue although I do know what kind of penalty could be dished out to either May or the government. Maybe somebody has researched it? Where's our resident civil servant, maybe he can advise.
 
superhorns said:
sorry 'do not know'
Click to expand...

I do not know either for sure, but some informed opinion suggested that Liddington could be suspended from the house as it was him who had his proposal rejected.
If the information that has been leaked is correct, ie the country would be tied to the EU for years to come, then it would help the May proposal get through, as the no deal option has been rejected by the vast majority on all sides.
 
superhorns said:
Silly analogy, they have different rules, both backed by the UK parliament.
Click to expand...
Not silly at all. What is the rule , backed by the UK parliament, that says that only one referendum can be held on a subject, or that a government mustn't change its mind ? Or to take it one stage further, are you saying that between elections, there are rules that say the governing party can only ever carry out the wishes of its manifesto ? Nothing else is allowed ? No changes at every budget. No new policies, bills, etc ?
It is perfectly acceptable for you to believe that the world stopped in June 2016, and must be frozen in time for ever, but to most of us it's just plain daft. And of course, if the decision of june 2016 was such a good idea, then another vote would simply confirm that, wouldn't it ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yorkshirehornet
J T Bodbo said:
Not silly at all. What is the rule , backed by the UK parliament, that says that only one referendum can be held on a subject, or that a government mustn't change its mind ? Or to take it one stage further, are you saying that between elections, there are rules that say the governing party can only ever carry out the wishes of its manifesto ? Nothing else is allowed ? No changes at every budget. No new policies, bills, etc ?
It is perfectly acceptable for you to believe that the world stopped in June 2016, and must be frozen in time for ever, but to most of us it's just plain daft. And of course, if the decision of june 2016 was such a good idea, then another vote would simply confirm that, wouldn't it ?
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy to have regular referendums on EU membership every 40 years. I will not bother voting next time.
 
J T Bodbo said:
I guess that response says it all. Perhaps you would like elections to be held every 40 years too ?
Click to expand...


I expect the Tories to be in power most of the next 40 years anyway so not really required. A precedent has already been set for EU membership every 40 years so I'm ok to carry on with that.
 
I would be interested to hear what justification can be put forward for saying that the country will spend £5 billion on a satellite system to replace our involvement in the Galileo project. The EU rules are quite clear about military aspects of the project, and we must have known about them. Offers were made to allow the country to use the system, except for the secure areas that are only to be used by EU countries. The UK clearly has experienced companies that have contributed to the project, but they will be no longer able to use their experience without huge investment, which most commentators who have looked at the situation say the UK would not be able to carry out as a single country. These secure areas are designed to assist Europe with security, something that is becoming more of a problem for the UK as because of Brexit we are going to be on the fringe of many successful systems we helped to set up.
So at a time when our public services are being disbanded in some places, how can one commit to spending vast sums for something that will not be ready for years, against staying within the EU and having a system available in 2020?
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
I would be interested to hear what justification can be put forward for saying that the country will spend £5 billion on a satellite system to replace our involvement in the Galileo project. The EU rules are quite clear about military aspects of the project, and we must have known about them. Offers were made to allow the country to use the system, except for the secure areas that are only to be used by EU countries. The UK clearly has experienced companies that have contributed to the project, but they will be no longer able to use their experience without huge investment, which most commentators who have looked at the situation say the UK would not be able to carry out as a single country. These secure areas are designed to assist Europe with security, something that is becoming more of a problem for the UK as because of Brexit we are going to be on the fringe of many successful systems we helped to set up.
So at a time when our public services are being disbanded in some places, how can one commit to spending vast sums for something that will not be ready for years, against staying within the EU and having a system available in 2020?
Click to expand...
In three years time we'll be the richest country on Earth so none of us needs to worry where the money is coming from..
 
Even the hapless Oliver Robbins warned May that her customs backstop is a bad outcome. how anybody seriously support this lousy deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back