Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Oh and I was watching something on the news a few months ago. They were saying that the laws would have to be updated by the UK but in many cases they may just adapt the EU laws that they have implemented.
They do not have to implement every EU law as each country are responsible for their own laws at the end of the day.
One of the depressing things is that people can no longer refer their cases to the European court of appeal which you can do as an EU member
 
golden_blunder said:
I was watching “making a murderer part 2” last night and they said that he’d been repeatedly denied/failed appeals at local court/state level. They were now escalating to the federal court. They pointed out that the federal court doesn’t hear the case as such - they just deal with if your rights in the constitution have been denied and if you can prove that they can order a retrial in state
Click to expand...

The highest courts also judge the procedure but generally not the facts, they will send you back to an appeal court for the facts.
 
JPRouve said:
The EU is not a country, you are comparing international law with domestic law, which is again irrelevant to this thread.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the EU could be a country.

We don't call it one by convention. Calling it one would change nothing.
 
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1019/1005373-backstop-tony-connelly/

The backstop was born on 8 November 2017.

It entered the world weighing just 66 words, one bullet point of six at the bottom of a "working paper" circulated that morning by Michel Barnier's team to officials from the 27 member states.

The bullet point read: "It consequently seems essential for the UK to commit to ensuring that a hard border on the island of Ireland is avoided, including by ensuring no emergence of regulatory divergence from those rules of the internal market and the Customs Union which are (or may be in the future) necessary for meaningful North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement."

This innocuous-sounding paragraph was the infant that would grow into the single most intractable source of conflict in the negotiations........
Click to expand...
 
rcoobc said:
To be fair, the EU could be a country.

We don't call it one by convention. Calling it one would change nothing.
Click to expand...

Legally the status of country has consequences in terms of rights given to institutions, territories and citizens, those rights are determined by the constitution of each countries. Currently the EU is a foreign policy enterprise, every legal aspect of it is treaty based and in the hierarchy of law is below national constitutions. In accordance with their constitution a government is free to unilaterally follow or not follow a treaty that he previously signed, he can repeal it whenever he wants.
Now in the case of an actual country, one major principle makes the difference obvious, the territory is defined and indivisible. Now we all know that legally and practically this isn't the case, that's why Brexit is legal and unilateral.
 
The last couple or pages are making my head hurt.

There's nothing wrong with not understanding something - we're all here to learn more - I know I am. But when you haven't a fecking banana, don't be lecturing the knowledgeable lads on what they're mistaken about!
 
diarm said:
The last couple or pages are making my head hurt.

There's nothing wrong with not understanding something - we're all here to learn more - I know I am. But when you haven't a fecking banana, don't be lecturing the knowledgeable lads on what they're mistaken about!
Click to expand...

The comforting thing is that he didn't vote in the referendum.
The scary part is that there were at least 17.4 million people who did vote who are probably even less informed than he is.
 
By the way 74 infringements is a very small number, it's around 0.002% of all EU secondary legal acts, I should have mentioned it yesterday. Also while some of them can be the fruit of laziness, there is also the likely reason that the legislator isn't sure about the wording that he is supposed to use and chose to wait for a court decision to be made first, from a national court or the ECJ itself.
 
JPRouve said:
Legally the status of country has consequences in terms of rights given to institutions, territories and citizens, those rights are determined by the constitution of each countries. Currently the EU is a foreign policy enterprise, every legal aspect of it is treaty based and in the hierarchy of law is below national constitutions. In accordance with their constitution a government is free to unilaterally follow or not follow a treaty that he previously signed, he can repeal it whenever he wants.
Now in the case of an actual country, one major principle makes the difference obvious, the territory is defined and indivisible. Now we all know that legally and practically this isn't the case, that's why Brexit is legal and unilateral.
Click to expand...

The territory of the EU is clearly defined.

It is no more divisible than the United States or China-Hong Kong.

If the US had an article in their treaty that one of the state's could leave if they so chose, would that make the US not a country? Of course not.

There are other countries that claim each others territory :- South Korea/North Korea, Russia/Ukraine. Does that make them not counties.. of course not
 
rcoobc said:
The territory of the EU is clearly defined.

It is no more divisible than the United States or China-Hong Kong.

If the US had an article in their treaty that one of the state's could leave if they so chose, would that make the US not a country? Of course not.

There are other countries that claim each others territory :- South Korea/North Korea, Russia/Ukraine. Does that make them not counties.. of course not
Click to expand...

No it's not, one of the reasons behind the indivisibility is the fact that the territory belongs to the nation as a whole not just the residents of a particular region. Even if you naively consider that for example the UK are merely a region/state of a larger country that would be the EU, in reality only UK nationals(or the Queen) have ownership of that land. If the EU was a country and the UK were part of its territory then every EU nationals would have a right on it and Brexit would be illegal.

What is defined by EU related legal acts are a travel, a custom and a trade area based on multilateral treaties.

Though from a constitutional law standpoint, it's interesting to point out that a part of the EU(Schengen area) has the attributes of a nation state without being one.
 
There is more that makes the EU a country, than makes the EU not a country.

Citizenship. The first and most obvious requirement for a country is to have citizens with citizenship. Does the EU have citizens and does it have citizenship? Yes! This can be seen in the legal status of how EU Citizens are treated by many countries - there are rules governing all the citizens of the EU, not constituent countries. EU citizenship gives certain rights.

Tax rules. Does the EU have a common tax policy? Yes! There is a minimum normal VAT rate of 15% and a minimum reduced VAT rate of 5%, with exemptions allowed for historic reasons and through treaties. Import duty is also paid directly to the EU.

Central budget. Does the EU have a central budget? Yes. It is collected and paid for by each member as well as paid for by import duties direct to the EU.

Is the EU a customs union? Again yes. There are countries that don't even have a harmonious customs border, but the EU does.

Foreign policy. Surely the EU doesn't have a foreign policy. Actually - yes it does. And a foreign minister.

Does the EU have anything else normally reserved to countries? How about membership to the WTO! And has "enhanced observer status" in the United Nations! (other non-member states include Palestine)

There is nothing that makes the EU *not* a country, except that we don't call it one by convention, and it doesn't want to be one.
 
rcoobc said:
There is more that makes the EU a country, than makes the EU not a country.

Citizenship. The first and most obvious requirement for a country is to have citizens with citizenship. Does the EU have citizens and does it have citizenship? Yes! This can be seen in the legal status of how EU Citizens are treated by many countries - there are rules governing all the citizens of the EU, not constituent countries. EU citizenship gives certain rights.

Tax rules. Does the EU have a common tax policy? Yes! There is a minimum normal VAT rate of 15% and a minimum reduced VAT rate of 5%, with exemptions allowed for historic reasons and through treaties. Import duty is also paid directly to the EU.

Central budget. Does the EU have a central budget? Yes. It is collected and paid for by each member as well as paid for by import duties direct to the EU.

Is the EU a customs union? Again yes. There are countries that don't even have a harmonious customs border, but the EU does.

Foreign policy. Surely the EU doesn't have a foreign policy. Actually - yes it does. And a foreign minister.

Does the EU have anything else normally reserved to countries? How about membership to the WTO! And has "enhanced observer status" in the United Nations! (other non-member states include Palestine)

There is nothing that makes the EU *not* a country, except that we don't call it one by convention, and it doesn't want to be one.
Click to expand...

Again it's not. There are three attributes to a nation state territory, sovereignty and population. The EU doesn't have its own territory, member states unilaterally granted rights to other members natural and moral persons, they can unilaterally cancel them when they want. The EU doesn't have its own population, the EU citizenship is supplementary and doesn't replace the national citizenship, you need the later to have the former. The EU doesn't have its own sovereignty, in some domains EU member states share their sovereignty with other members but they have the unilateral ability to take it back at any point.

All of that is stipulated in the treaties and is finalized by art.50 of the Lisbon treaty itself. What you are suggesting is a subject studied in constitutional law because it's true that if the 27 member states wanted to become a country, it could happen tomorrow, a relatively simple legal act and few amendments in the Lisbon treaty would make it happen but without these actions, the EU isn't a country from a legal or practical standpoint.
 
JPRouve said:
No it's not, one of the reasons behind the indivisibility is the fact that the territory belongs to the nation as a whole not just the residents of a particular region. Even if you naively consider that for example the UK are merely a region/state of a larger country that would be the EU, in reality only UK nationals(or the Queen) have ownership of that land. If the EU was a country and the UK were part of its territory then every EU nationals would have a right on it and Brexit would be illegal.

What is defined by EU related legal acts are a travel, a custom and a trade area based on multilateral treaties.

Though from a constitutional law standpoint, it's interesting to point out that a part of the EU(Schengen area) has the attributes of a nation state without being one.
Click to expand...
I don't know what means given that foreign nationals can indeed own land. What does "UK nationals (or the queen)" mean.
 
JPRouve said:
Again it's not. There are three attributes to a nation state territory, sovereignty and population. The EU doesn't have its own territory, member states unilaterally granted rights to other members natural and moral persons, they can unilaterally cancel them when they want. The EU doesn't have its own population, the EU citizenship is supplementary and doesn't replace the national citizenship, you need the later to have the former. The EU doesn't have its own sovereignty, in some domains EU member states share their sovereignty with other members but they have the unilateral ability to take it back at any point.

All of that is stipulated in the treaties and is finalized by art.50 of the Lisbon treaty itself. What you are suggesting is a subject studied in constitutional law because it's true that if the 27 member states wanted to become a country, it could happen tomorrow, a relatively simple legal act and few amendments in the Lisbon treaty would make it happen but without these actions, the EU isn't a country from a legal or practical standpoint.
Click to expand...
The EU does have its own territory and population. Being supplimentary or not, that may be your definition but I'd argue your are finding arbitrary items to make a point. The constitution countries of the UK have effective supplementary citizenship. The same is true of sovereignty.

Now if that is your definition, it is true that the EU is not a country and neither is England. But it's very arbirtary as if it was written into the constitution that England could leave the union whenever it wanted, the UK would not be a country... Which is clearly nonsense.

Again if England had sovreignty and let the UK government by consent.. the UK would not be a country. This is clearly nonsense
 
rcoobc said:
I don't know what means given that foreign nationals can indeed own land. What does "UK nationals (or the queen)" mean.
Click to expand...

To make it simple, the territory is still linked the its nation and sovereign. For example, when a foreign national owns the rights to a land in the UK, that part of the territory remains british it doesn't become the foreign national's territory. You can own the rights to the land but not the land itself.
 
rcoobc said:
The EU does have its own territory and population. Being supplimentary or not, that may be your definition but I'd argue your are finding arbitrary items to make a point. The constitution countries of the UK have effective supplementary citizenship. The same is true of sovereignty.

Now if that is your definition, it is true that the EU is not a country and neither is England. But it's very arbirtary as if it was written into the constitution that England could leave the union whenever it wanted, the UK would not be a country... Which is clearly nonsense.

Again if England had sovreignty and let the UK government by consent.. the UK would not be a country. This is clearly nonsense
Click to expand...

It's not my definition, it's the legal attributes of a nation state. I'm not daft enough to make that up.

The point about supplementary citizenship is the art 20 of the TEC and the point about the attributes is every constitutional courses you will find.
 
JPRouve said:
To make it simple, the territory is still linked the its nation and sovereign. For example, when a foreign national owns the rights to a land in the UK, that part of the territory remains british it doesn't become the foreign national's territory. You can own the rights to the land but not the land itself.
Click to expand...
Is that different to a UK citizen? No
 
rcoobc said:
Is that different to a UK citizen? No
Click to expand...

No it's the same, when you own a land it's still a british territory, it's not rcoobc territory, you are under the nation state's jurisdiction. Now regarding the EU, the EU has no claim on UK's or France's territory, all the rights are given/loaned by member states.
 
Brilliant from Fintan O'Toole

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/brexiters-theresa-may-northern-ireland
If you listen to some of the more anguished Brexiters, you might get the impression that the Irish border is a devious plot against the people of the neighbouring island, a snare invented by the Irish to trap Britain in European vassalage. In reality, it was created at Westminster, through the Government of Ireland Act, which became law in May 1921. It is, first and foremost, a British problem and a British responsibility. At the heart of the current impasse over Brexit is a shocking refusal to accept that responsibility
Click to expand...
 
Silva said:
jesus feck, that's the kind of thing you'd expect from an insipid FBPE shitposter not an actual campaign poster that someone was paid to think about
Click to expand...

Its the kind of thing you'd expect from campaigners well known for inciting outrage and using dirty tactics as tools to reach their goals...
 
Silva said:
randoms with placards are fine tbh, the only problem with those is that guy who clearly added the "this" after he'd written the rest of the sign, if you're gonna go for the hitler comparison you should commit to it
Click to expand...
:lol:

Shit I didn't notice that, your right.
 
And the award for worse sign goes to..................
3024.jpg
 
Some of these Europhiles really are every bit as unhinged as those royal loons who burst into tears every time they catch a whiff of fumes from a royal exhaust pipe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.