EPTSo he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself
Good.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 201
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22488 Posts
So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 08 2016 00:33 KwarK wrote: You have no understanding of the British uncodified constitution if you really believe that Parliament couldn't unilaterally vote to dissolve all European law in the United Kingdom tomorrow. It is all voluntary and illusory. This isn't a debate we're having here, this is simply my attempt to educate you on how sovereignty within the United Kingdom works. You can continue to disagree if you like but you will be wrong. I think you have knowledge of how europe works. A firm can decided not to pay its tax too, but it will face repercussion : it's not a free and unbound decision. Europe would never allow one of its member to freely dissolve european laws, in fact europe punish daily countries for not totally retranscripting european laws at a good pace. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9956 Posts
On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote: So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Theresa_May | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On July 08 2016 00:50 WhiteDog wrote: I think you have knowledge of how europe works. A firm can decided not to pay its tax too, but it will face repercussion : it's not a free and unbound decision. Europe would never allow one of its member to freely dissolve european laws, in fact europe punish daily countries for not totally retranscripting european laws at a good pace. And countries voluntarily agree to be punished because they think maintaining the illusion that the EU has that power is worth accepting the punishment. A firm is not a sovereign entity, a country is. The comparison is invalid. You're just not getting this. It's like you're trying to argue that a triangle can have four sides and using the example of a square. This isn't a debate, this is you making a fool of yourself. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9324 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On July 08 2016 01:20 Sent. wrote: Something tells me you two have different definitions of sovereignty He could have a different definition of a triangle too but that wouldn't make his right. The bedrock of the British uncodified constitution is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty whereby Parliament wields the absolute powers of the monarch. The British Parliament itself defines it here. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty and the UK constitution People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law. Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.) Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK. They include: The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The Human Rights Act 1998. The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973. The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal. These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes. The UK's entry to the European Union was a law passed by Parliament which limits the application, but not the principle, of parliamentary sovereignty. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty endures since Parliament could repeal the law implementing the entry to the European Union. Parliament could decide tomorrow that it wished to leave the EU and, without invoking Article 50, consulting the EU or notifying any other party, simply leave. That is within its power. Other nations may have opinions regarding the legality of that but in the United Kingdom there is no law but Parliament. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means. It cannot be reduced or divided, not even by its own assent. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
I'm out of words... your bold whitedog, very bold... Btw: britain wants to be switzerland/norway, but what they forget, switzerland/norway have no desires to be true global powers. I doubt brits want to just sit at the sidelines in the long run. Actually ironic, germany would love to but can't... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
it exists in theory but will never exist in practice ... usefulness = zero. meanwhile UK is being sued by EU commission for breaking EU laws and while being sued, without an actual verdict, is paying fines for that crime to the EU institutions. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On July 08 2016 01:59 xM(Z wrote: Kwark argument is paper only; it would never actually happen so it's laughable. it exists in theory but will never exist in practice ... usefulness = zero. meanwhile UK is being sued by EU commission for breaking EU laws and while being sued, without an actual verdict, is paying fines for that crime to the EU institutions. It has happened. The British Parliament is in the process of leaving the EU. Have you not been paying attention? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
you made it so it looked like your parliament will, by itself, trigger those events but now are implying that people gave it the mandate to do so. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2016-0034 Leaving the EU: Parliament's Role in the Process Published Monday, July 4, 2016 Following the result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016, this House of Lords Library briefing examines what Parliament’s role would be in the process of withdrawing from the European Union in several key areas: invoking Article 50; overseeing the negotiation process; ratifying agreements; repealing and reviewing domestic legislation. This is an updated version of the briefing issued on 30 June 2016. in case you're not seeing it: your parliament WILL invoke Article 50 because EU said so. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:09 xM(Z wrote: then you lied, omitted some steps in your argument. you made it so it looked like your parliament will, by itself, trigger those events but now are implying that people gave it the mandate to do so. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2016-0034 They are invoking article 50 but if the EU were to try to deny them the right to do so that wouldn't change anything because there is no fundamental need for the United Kingdom to use article 50 in order to leave. They're trying to do a polite breakup where they follow the forms. It's like dumping a girl in person. You do it but if you really wanted to you could just decide you're no longer together and start acting like it and eventually she'd get the hint. You don't need to ask permission or follow any specific process because it only exists by your continued consent, the moment that consent is withdrawn it ceases to exist. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
Edit: or, if you want to add weight to your argument - is there an instance(in peace times) in which the UK parliament followed the protocol you're talking about?. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:19 KwarK wrote: Wait, how am I even still arguing this? Read the fucking quote about how parliamentary sovereignty works. It may not be the way things work in your nation but it's the way we do it in the UK. i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if a rule exists if no one follows it. you telling me that UK parliament invokes article 50 out of politeness makes me chuckle. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote: i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if a rule exists if no one follows it. you telling me that UK parliament invokes article 50 out of politeness makes me chuckle. It is leaving by the front door but it has the power to smash down a wall if it wanted to. That power exists, whether or not it leaves through the front door. If you fail to acknowledge that the power exists that's simply you failing to understand the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5195 Posts
They don't want to seem like massive assholes by flipping everyone off, or something? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22488 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote: i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if a rule exists if no one follows it. you telling me that UK parliament invokes article 50 out of politeness makes me chuckle. International treaties exist by the virtue of both sides cooperating with it and the threat of action from one of the two if they stop. Since the EU is not going to invade the UK there is very little the EU can do to punish the UK if they simply quit tomorrow. So yes, following through with the official way to leave the EU compared to saying "tomorrow none of your rules apply anymore" is in a large part politeness. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22488 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:29 Uldridge wrote: I think that's not what he's arguing, I think he's arguing that, even though they do have the power, they prefer not to invoke that power because they need to maintain their political/socio-economical relations with the EU and other nations. They don't want to seem like massive assholes by flipping everyone off, or something? That is the whole point. The UK has the power to ignore EU set rules at any point if they want (they will just suffer relation damage for it). They still have their sovereignty. The ability to make their own decisions. Once they are out of the EU they will still be 'bound' by their desire to maintain amicable relations with the EU. | ||
| ||
