Gina Miller

Take the trouble to be better informed. Your anger and your ignorance feed off each other.
<snigger> So you were just making stuff up? If you had something you'd have posted it on top of your 2013 link giving old news.

I'm highly amused about this particular bit thanks.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Trying too hard. If parliament isn't sovereign there's not much point taking back powers
Sovereign over whom? I disagree that parliament should be sovereign over either the people or (to a certain extent) the government. My view is that we need sovereignty returned to Britain and then we can carry on with the constitutional processes that have worked for the last few centuries.

It's moot now but definitely not a "so what" case and your casual dismissal is amusing
So can you explain why it's a counter argument? I can't see why a case making a limited point (and in the case of the obiter an untested theoretical one) denies the broader point of fact that the UK defers to the ECJ on matters of EU law. If my dismissal is 'amusing' then presumably you have a pretty good reason for mentioning that case. As far as I can tell, you countered my argument that we cede powers to the EU by citing a case that says we don't cede ALL powers. That rather proves my point I think.

What exactly was the impolite bit?
'Get back to me when you've read X'. If you don't see how that's rude then I can't help you.

Case in point:

You missed the opt out from ever closer union?
I didn't miss it. I assumed a non-binding statement didn't mean anything in practice when the reality of the single market is that you have to conform to all of the rules, which makes avoiding ever closer union impossible in practice.

Missing questions and editing out anything I didn't like? Nope, that was you.
My sincere apologies, my lord, for not responding to every last part of your post. If you stayed on topic rather than bringing up multiple irrelevant lines of argument then I wouldn't be forced to choose which ones to answer. If there's any specific point you'd like me to address then do let me know and I'll be glad to answer.

You're just a classic remoaner who arrogantly assumes that everyone else is either stupid or ill informed. Take your head out of your arse, stop sneering at others and realise that some of us have well informed, carefully thought through opinions that simply differ from yours.
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
<snigger> So you were just making stuff up? If you had something you'd have posted it on top of your 2013 link giving old news.

I'm highly amused about this particular bit thanks.
You really don't do context do you?

Why not read the thread carefully, particularly the bit about the EU's likely direction of constitutional travel.
 
If you're fed on a diet of DM and Express fibs it isn't....so, the lottery numbers for this week? Don't be shy. You might want to go and explain to Jean-Claude why he's wrong. Give me a shout when you do.
Nice to see he's independent From the EU

Jean-Claude PIRIS


European. French. Consultant EU law/internat law.DG EU Council’s Legal Service (1988-2010). Former Conseiller d’Etat,diplomat at UN
 
Sovereign over whom? I disagree that parliament should be sovereign over either the people or (to a certain extent) the government. My view is that we need sovereignty returned to Britain and then we can carry on with the constitutional processes that have worked for the last few centuries.
The constitutional processes that we've worked with for the past few centuries being that parliament is sovereign, not the government. The Crown in parliament to be specific. This hasn't changed a bit. You didn't speak out against the government's attempt to usurp parliamentary sovereignty.
So can you explain why it's a counter argument? I can't see why a case making a limited point (and in the case of the obiter an untested theoretical one) denies the broader point of fact that the UK defers to the ECJ on matters of EU law. If my dismissal is 'amusing' then presumably you have a pretty good reason for mentioning that case. As far as I can tell, you countered my argument that we cede powers to the EU by citing a case that says we don't cede ALL powers. That rather proves my point I think.
It was a marker for future cases, which would have been interesting. As I say, now moot. Why the fear of EU law? UK legal minds have helped shape it. There are those who hate it mind, when it made the UK clean up its beaches and sewage for instance. How very dare it?
'Get back to me when you've read X'. If you don't see how that's rude then I can't help you.
You make bold assumptions and are plain wrong or misinformed, allowing your beliefs to override fact, see parliamentary sovereignty.
Indeed, see reply.
I didn't miss it. I assumed a non-binding statement didn't mean anything in practice when the reality of the single market is that you have to conform to all of the rules, which makes avoiding ever closer union impossible in practice.
You assumed, Again. What makes you think it was non binding? Do you have any examples of the EU failing to ratify anything similar? Your argument for conforming to rules seems to point to a unified, one world government.... It doesn't for the world or the EU and having very real opt outs prevents it happening.
My sincere apologies, my lord, for not responding to every last part of your post.
Condescending you say?
If you stayed on topic rather than bringing up multiple irrelevant lines of argument then I wouldn't be forced to choose which ones to answer. If there's any specific point you'd like me to address then do let me know and I'll be glad to answer.
It was very much on topic, I gave you a clear answer to this
Not what the polling says.
And then asked a couple of times what polling. No answer. The fact that you think the lines of argument are irrelevant is interesting, which would they be? Top tip, stick to brief points in small posts and it keeps things on track.
You're just a classic remoaner who arrogantly assumes that everyone else is either stupid or ill informed. Take your head out of your arse, stop sneering at others and realise that some of us have well informed, carefully thought through opinions that simply differ from yours.
Remoaner? Well done you. I've actually said that as a result of the referendum I believe that we must leave the EU and that I'm not in favour of a second referendum a number of times on these pages.
I know where the arrogant assumptions are coming from.
 
Nice to see he's independent From the EU

Jean-Claude PIRIS


European. French. Consultant EU law/internat law.DG EU Council’s Legal Service (1988-2010). Former Conseiller d’Etat,diplomat at UN
So we can dismiss every post that cites a Brexiteer out of hand?
 
You really don't do context do you?

Why not read the thread carefully, particularly the bit about the EU's likely direction of constitutional travel.
Oh, I do context OK and can spot a bit of fibbing, even if it is only for theatrical effect.
 
How did the Lisbon treaty stop the dream of a EU super state under the malevolent shadow of the starry sphincter?
You'll have to buy the book. The C word ;-)
 
Last edited:
Only you do things like that
Away back to your Express - my issue was, is and will remain a huge cut and paste. Regardless of source.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The constitutional processes that we've worked with for the past few centuries being that parliament is sovereign, not the government. The Crown in parliament to be specific. This hasn't changed a bit. You didn't speak out against the government's attempt to usurp parliamentary sovereignty.
Well no, I didn't because it's an entirely separate issue. I also don't think that the government using powers that are on the statute books by exception at a time of national emergency is usurping parliamentary authority. Furthermore I don't think any specific body in the country can be said to be sovereign over any other. It's more complex than that with different organs sovereign in different areas.

Either way, you are conflating two issues. My views on the internal constitutional processes of the UK are wholly irrelevant to my view that the UK should have complete control of those processes and not cede powers of either law making or interpretation to the EU.

You make bold assumptions and are plain wrong or misinformed, allowing your beliefs to override fact, see parliamentary sovereignty.
Not sure what you mean by this. You're the one conflating unconnected issues, not me.

It was a marker for future cases, which would have been interesting. As I say, now moot. Why the fear of EU law? UK legal minds have helped shape it. There
Why the fear of law that we haven't had complete control over in this country? That answers itself surely?

You assumed, Again. What makes you think it was non binding? Do you have any examples of the EU failing to ratify anything similar?
And you assumed it was somehow binding on the EU despite being a framing statement that commits the EU to nothing specific. The difference between you and me is that you were assumed that your interpretation was the only possible one and that I must have missed it, rather than thinking that maybe I saw the same thing as you and just disagree with your interpretation.

And then asked a couple of times what polling. No answer. The fact that you think the lines of argument are irrelevant is interesting, which would they be?
The argument where you deliberately conflate two types of sovereignty, your comments about Canada and your comments about the HS2 obiter.

Here's a polling link. It's the first that comes up on google:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...-sovereignty-not-anti-immigration?context=amp

Remoaner? Well done you. I've actually said that as a result of the referendum I believe that we must leave the EU and that I'm not in favour of a second referendum a number of times on these pages.
A belief in honouring democracy doesn't stop you being a remoaner.

Condescending you say?
Yes. I'm responding to your rudeness. Please stop presuming that I'm misinformed or need to read things. My argument isn't based on ignorance any more than yours is.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Oh, I do context OK and can spot a bit of fibbing, even if it is only for theatrical effect.
Where's the fib? Are you denying that Brussels made an attempt to take an oversight role regarding national budgets and are you truly so completely ignorant of Berlin's disproportionate influence on EU fiscal matters? This is why you shouldn't get so angry about things you don't understand.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top