Dr_Pangloss Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Chindie said: Government tying itself in knots today over the ECJ. Promising to end the 'direct jurisdiction' of the ECJ, which is a completely meaningless phrase and some half arsed political weaseling at best. Idiots. That just about describes everyone who voted to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 23, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2017 I couldn't possibly comment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 58 minutes ago, Chindie said: I couldn't possibly comment. Bet you could if you tried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 6 hours ago, Chindie said: Government tying itself in knots today over the ECJ. Promising to end the 'direct jurisdiction' of the ECJ, which is a completely meaningless phrase and some half arsed political weaseling at best. Not at all. It's the first sign in yonks that a grown-up might have had access to the controls. We've moved from the position being "jurisdiction of the ECJ" which was a politically impossible position to take, to "direct jurisdiction of the ECJ", which rather than being meaningless shows that somebody is now looking at the original position and understanding that it won't work, and needs a bit of nuance. So now, the EFTA court or something set up to basically follow the lead of the ECJ ("direct" jurisdiction is now the only thing that doesn't work) is back on the table where it wasn't before. And in turn, that helps frame the debate somewhere approaching compromise rather than the lunacy that we've seen up to now. The whole thing is still an absolute car-crash (the Continuity in the availability of goods etc paper was an incoherent embarrassment), but this bit is a marginally more positive sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Not at all. It's the first sign in yonks that a grown-up might have had access to the controls. We've moved from the position being "jurisdiction of the ECJ" which was a politically impossible position to take, to "direct jurisdiction of the ECJ", which rather than being meaningless shows that somebody is now looking at the original position and understanding that it won't work, and needs a bit of nuance. So now, the EFTA court or something set up to basically follow the lead of the ECJ ("direct" jurisdiction is now the only thing that doesn't work) is back on the table where it wasn't before. And in turn, that helps frame the debate somewhere approaching compromise rather than the lunacy that we've seen up to now. The whole thing is still an absolute car-crash (the Continuity in the availability of goods etc paper was an incoherent embarrassment), but this bit is a marginally more positive sign. You can tell it's a step in the right direction, John Redwood is moaning like hell about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, bickster said: You can tell it's a step in the right direction, John Redwood is moaning like hell about it Yup, any time that happens it's a pretty sure sign that you're doing the right thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 23, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Not at all. It's the first sign in yonks that a grown-up might have had access to the controls. We've moved from the position being "jurisdiction of the ECJ" which was a politically impossible position to take, to "direct jurisdiction of the ECJ", which rather than being meaningless shows that somebody is now looking at the original position and understanding that it won't work, and needs a bit of nuance. So now, the EFTA court or something set up to basically follow the lead of the ECJ ("direct" jurisdiction is now the only thing that doesn't work) is back on the table where it wasn't before. And in turn, that helps frame the debate somewhere approaching compromise rather than the lunacy that we've seen up to now. The whole thing is still an absolute car-crash (the Continuity in the availability of goods etc paper was an incoherent embarrassment), but this bit is a marginally more positive sign. It is a meaningless phrase. A court either has jurisdiction or it doesn't. Direct jurisdiction doesn't mean anything. The government is tying itself in knots as you have the PM doubling down on 'ECJ jurisdiction will end!' while there's a (welcome) paper saying 'direct jurisdiction will end'. You can guess at what they're trying to say, using a nonsense phrase to say it, which isn't what May is saying. I do agree the paper is good though. It basically hints a hard Brexit is less likely. It's a shame an awful lot of people with power are too stupid to listen. If that is what comes to pass, a lot of Brexiteers are going to have an almighty shit fit when they work out what it means. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Chindie said: It is a meaningless phrase. A court either has jurisdiction or it doesn't. Direct jurisdiction doesn't mean anything. The government is tying itself in knots as you have the PM doubling down on 'ECJ jurisdiction will end!' while there's a (welcome) paper saying 'direct jurisdiction will end'. You can guess at what they're trying to say, using a nonsense phrase to say it, which isn't what May is saying. I do agree the paper is good though. It basically hints a hard Brexit is less likely. It's a shame an awful lot of people with power are too stupid to listen. If that is what comes to pass, a lot of Brexiteers are going to have an almighty shit fit when they work out what it means. I was taking issue with the description of "half-arsed political weaseling at best". At best it's a sign that the morons and ideologues are being sidelined and we might not end up being completely broken. As I said, it's probably a forlorn hope as most of the other position papers are nonsense, but "at best" it's a great deal better than you describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Meanwhile in David Davis' office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 29, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 29, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 So, Labour wants you lot to stay in the single market and customs union. Meanwhile, the UK government is not making any progress on negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 29, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, Enda said: So, Labour wants you lot to stay in the single market and customs union. Meanwhile, the UK government is not making any progress on negotiations. ...for a longer transition period. Nothing said about staying in permanently to my knowledge (perhaps yet. Maybe. If they grow some bollocks). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Earthlings, I bring a message from the supreme council of the planet Gloog. Take me to your leader, that I may deliver it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 From the 'generous' proposals the UK made about the position of EU citizens in the UK back in June: Quote Legal status and enforceability 58) The arrangements set out above will be enshrined in UK law and enforceable through the UK judicial system, up to and including the Supreme Court. We are also ready to make commitments in the Withdrawal Agreement which will have the status of international law. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will not have jurisdiction in the UK. In the light of the recent bunch of (**** off) letters incorrectly sent to EU citizens by the Home Office and stories such as the one quoted underneath, why would any EU citizen have confidence in the above? Quote Home Office apologises for ordering man born in Britain to leave UK The Home Office has apologised after a 21-year-old man who was born and raised in Britain was wrongly told to leave the UK because he was not a British citizen. Shane Ridge, a joiner from Colne in Lancashire, received a letter from the Home Office last week informing him that his driving licence would be revoked as he had “no lawful basis to be in the UK” and that he faced a £5,000 fine or imprisonment if he didn’t leave within 10 working days. All of Ridge’s relatives are British, and his mother, who was born in Australia during a family holiday, has dual Australian and British citizenship. After extensive media coverage, the Home Office on Wednesday said it had established that Ridge was “automatically a British citizen”. A spokesperson added: “We have spoken with Mr Ridge to apologise for this error and the distress caused. When Mr Ridge applied for right of abode, we did not identify that his maternal grandmother was British and that as a result his mother had settled status in the UK at the time of his birth.” But Ridge expressed anger at only receiving a “quick apology” via email from the Home Office for the mistake, which he said had upset his family and friends. “It was a blunder on their part. They don’t even sound bothered, really. The amount of stress and stuff I’ve been through, it’s horrible,” he said. “I can’t believe they are just brushing it under the carpet. Fair enough they have sorted it now, which I’m really happy about, but it’s a bit poor on their side.” However, he said he was relieved by the outcome and couldn’t wait to “get home and give my family a big hug ... It’s blown my mind. I’m just so pleased it is sorted and want to thank everyone for the amount of support I received. “I’m annoyed that after all this stress and lack of sleep and panic, all it took was someone to ring me and say ‘sorry we missed something out’ and I’m suddenly a British citizen. “I hadn’t actually made any plans to leave my job or say goodbye to friends and family because it was all too surreal. I was just in denial, hoping it wouldn’t happen. I didn’t want to face the reality of it if it did. “I genuinely wouldn’t have known what to do. It would have truly broken me. I haven’t eaten or slept properly for the past week since I received the letter. It has been horrible.” ...more on link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 30, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 30, 2017 What do you expect with Elmer Fudd in charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 The bill should probably not be 90bn, I'd love to have access to the ledgers when it come to EU property and assets around Europe, I expect that it's probably somewhere around 20bn once these are all subtracted. Both sides are posturing, we've got clueless Davis and they've got Barnier and others who think that it's their God given right to lead some sort of EU superstate. If I lost the second largest member of my big boy's club I'd definitely try to find out why they were so unhappy that they left. I'm yet to see any admission or self-searching when it comes to the discontent that led to this train-crash. They can call it racist UKIP bigots but it was still a majority in our country and there's still a rather large EU skeptic sentiment in many other member states. What is the solution? More centralisation and pushing members into adopting the Euro. (according to Tusk) Who's right? I couldn't possibly say. I think we need another referendum on the final package agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 47 minutes ago, magnkarl said: The bill should probably not be 90bn, I'd love to have access to the ledgers when it come to EU property and assets around Europe, I expect that it's probably somewhere around 20bn once these are all subtracted. Go on then - let's see your working out. Otherwise you are literally pulling figures out of thin air. What are you taking into account (and not) to get you to either 90bn or 20bn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted August 31, 2017 Administrator Share Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, magnkarl said: Who's right? I couldn't possibly say. I think we need another referendum on the final package agreed. What would the question be for this referendum? If people voted "no" would we end up with no deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 28 minutes ago, limpid said: What would the question be for this referendum? If people voted "no" would we end up with no deal? How about a summary of the main points of the deal that is negotiated, followed by something like 1. Having considered the proposed arrangements for leaving the EU, do you now wish the UK to leave the EU or remain a member? 2. If the UK is to leave the EU, should it be on the basis of accepting the arrangements set out above, or rejecting them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts