the eu has put into place legally binding legislation that prevents it from achieving it's stated main aim...Oh yes it is...ask him, buy the book....
It isn't a separate issue full stop, they're different aspects of the same thing. We have and have had domestic sovereignty, our national sovereignty is and was still there. The Crown in parliament is still sovereign. The only thing that has changed is our leaving our chosen pooled sovereignty. Still an aspect of 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.
They aren't unconnected.Not sure what you mean by this. You're the one conflating unconnected issues, not me.
Examples? Will you be calling for us to reject ICJ rulings?Why the fear of law that we haven't had complete control over in this country? That answers itself surely?
I asked if you had any examples of the EU failing to honour any similar commitments if you recall? Because? It couldn't be legally binding until we'd voted.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.
Arguments you casually dismissed "because." And that's the point, your comments are rhetoric for the most part.The argument where you deliberately conflate two types of sovereignty, your comments about Canada and your comments about the HS2 obiter.
What were your search terms to get that well known and unlikely to weight questions pollster, Lord Ashcroft, to come up first? Here's a simple search: LMGTFY and it certainly isn't first there. A quick check of Ashcroft shows it was the unemployed and crinklies wot did it. Not to worry, Lord Ashcroft is advising firms to move to Malta and trade from there....way to go...Here's a polling link. It's the first that comes up on google:
Using remoaner isn't big and it isn't clever. is it? Should I be calling you a brexshitter or similar?A belief in honouring democracy doesn't stop you being a remoaner.
Nope, it's you rnorm as well, it's OK, don't be shy.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.
As it's Ch4,would it be fair to say it might be a tad one sided?Thankfully Chanel 4 have come to the rescue! Not sure when it's due to air.
Brexit: The Uncivil War follows the campaign from the perspective of the largely unknown strategists in both the leave and remain camps as they plot to gain advantage over each other, while dealing with politicians jostling for the limelight and controversial financial backers.
First look trailer for Brexit drama starring Benedict Cumberbatch | Channel 4
Any interview, article, programme or news that doesn't fit one side's viewpoint is immediately derided as being one-sided in this colossal monster gang-fcuk of an issue.As it's Ch4,would it be fair to say it might be a tad one sided?
Fair and valid point,but Ch4 is blatantly left wing,anti brexit and pro the EU.Any interview, article, programme or news that doesn't fit one side's viewpoint is immediately derided as being one-sided in this colossal monster gang-fcuk of an issue.
The split in this nation is both damaging and embarrassing. I've never seen so many loony toons utter such drivel in my life.
These are contradictory statements. Either our sovereignty was pooled or we had it entirely. Both simply cannot be true.our national sovereignty is and was still there...The only thing that has changed is our leaving our chosen pooled sovereignty.
This is also wrong. It is possible to separate out these aspects. In this case we held a vote about our national sovereignty. That has literally zero to do with the sovereignty of the British parliament, public, and government relative to each other. It's a question of the sovereignty of the British state Vs the EU. You may conflate the two but that doesn't mean everyone does.It isn't a separate issue full stop, they're different aspects of the same thing
You did but you know as well as I do that it makes no sense as a question because it's not a commitment. Do you have any examples of the EU taking concrete action as a result of agreeing to a loose statement that runs counter to its charter?I asked if you had any examples of the EU failing to honour any similar commitments if you recall?
I dismissed them because they aren't relevant. The onus is on you to prove relevance. How is a specific trade deal done by a state half our size relevant? What is the relevance of an obiter that states parliament may not have clearly understood the powers it thought it was ceding to the EU?Arguments you casually dismissed "because."
Wow. You actually phrase Google searches as a question. Thats a little embarrasing. You do know how the internet works, right?
Again with the irrelevant comments. Can you explain how this complete non-sequitur is relevant?Not to worry, Lord Ashcroft is advising firms to move to Malta and trade from there....way to go...
Nor is being condescending but given that you aren't being polite to me, I don't see why I should have to be back. You can call me what you like. The fact that you can't understand that someone might hold an opposing view despite being at least as well informed as you tells us everything we need to know about you. Your inability to argue except through fallacies, non-sequiturs and insults also makes you look like you aren't even confident in your own argument.Using remoaner isn't big and it isn't clever. is it? Should I be calling you a brexshitter or similar?
Still on that tired old wibble eh?
Obviously her husband would.....who I believe has work connections with the guy funding the people’s vote, one American businessman George Sorros.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|The Unimaginatively Titled Premier League Football (other leagues are available) Thread||Sports, Adventure Training and Events||49|
|R||Loss of a top test US Pilot... in 2017 in Area 51 (Edited due misleading original title)||US||6|
|Gina Miller||The Intelligence Cell||218|