|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 17, 2022 22:31:51 GMT
FFS - a foreigner lecturing me on the constitution.. ..whatever next..  You'd better hope I'm not a foreigner, Doc, because I know the basics of the constitution and you don't. You know shit - as you have proved time and again..  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 22:32:06 GMT
Another Brexiter who regularly complains about immigrants but who wouldn't pass a citizenship exam himself. I think 22 years in the British Army qualifies me for British citizenship. How about you Einy, what have you done for your country, other than slag it off in favour of some unelected foreign political union. Still waiting for you to come up with a better way of harmonising laws (and thereby lowering trading barriers) than the method used by the EU, Red. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 17, 2022 22:33:03 GMT
FFS - a foreigner lecturing me on the constitution.. ..whatever next.. Well, Doc, let's hear your alternative method to harmonising laws and thereby reducing trade barriers. You obviously think there's a better way of doing it than the regulation/directive method used by the EU. What is it? Why do you need an alternative when the current policy of making EU Law supreme works well? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 22:33:54 GMT
You'd better hope I'm not a foreigner, Doc, because I know the basics of the constitution and you don't. You know shit - as you have proved time and again.. That's a good one coming from a proud patriot who doesn't understand the basics of the law. You didn't even know that the common law is made by the common law judges, so it comes as no surprise that you don't know something as elementary as this, Doc. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 22:35:26 GMT
Well, Doc, let's hear your alternative method to harmonising laws and thereby reducing trade barriers. You obviously think there's a better way of doing it than the regulation/directive method used by the EU. What is it? Why do you need an alternative when the current policy of making EU Law supreme works well? This is too complicated for you, Doc. If you were capable of understanding this, you'd have grasped it years ago. Now, let's hear your alternative method to that used by the EU for lowering trading barriers. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 17, 2022 22:37:58 GMT
You know shit - as you have proved time and again.. That's a good one coming from a proud patriot who doesn't understand the basics of the law. You didn't even know that the common law is made by the common law judges, so it comes as no surprise that you don't know something as elementary as this, Doc. What the fuck is your obsession with common law? - this has absolutely nothing to do with common law, which is precisely why I said you know shit about the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 17, 2022 22:39:28 GMT
Why do you need an alternative when the current policy of making EU Law supreme works well? This is too complicated for you, Doc. If you were capable of understanding this, you'd have grasped it years ago. Now, let's hear your alternative method to that used by the EU for lowering trading barriers. try answering the question - why do you need an alternative to a system that works well? is the question too hard for you? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 22:57:07 GMT
That's a good one coming from a proud patriot who doesn't understand the basics of the law. You didn't even know that the common law is made by the common law judges, so it comes as no surprise that you don't know something as elementary as this, Doc. What the fuck is your obsession with common law? - this has absolutely nothing to do with common law, which is precisely why I said you know shit about the subject. Well, I suppose that the common law is a big part of UK law and essential to the Constitution. Just little things like that, Doc. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 22:58:05 GMT
This is too complicated for you, Doc. If you were capable of understanding this, you'd have grasped it years ago. Now, let's hear your alternative method to that used by the EU for lowering trading barriers. try answering the question - why do you need an alternative to a system that works well? is the question too hard for you? You're a simple soul, aren't you, Doc? Are you really saying that trade works better with trade barriers? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 17, 2022 23:23:27 GMT
If parliament creates legislation that effectively cedes sovereignty to another power all the next parliament can do is revoke that legislation, if they do not then everything else they try to do to keep their sovereignty is illegal. I am not sure why you find that difficult. Sovereignty is maintained by way of the ability to leave, sovereignty is lost becasue until they do leave they are bound by the 1972 act and all that follows. We trade with all sorts of people and we do not harmonise anything other than the specification that that trade requires.China largely ignores human rights and all sorts of things but produce goods to the specification that is required. Funnily enough we manage to get oodles of things from China with largely no problem at all despite the fact it is on the other side of the world. You still don't understand. If Parliament had passed a law at any time during the UK's membership of the EU, stating quite clearly that it was meant to have supremacy over EU regulations, a British court would have enforced Parliament's law. If you had told a judge in a British court that it couldn't enforce Parliament's law because the UK was in the EU, the judge would have laughed in your face. Because, unlike you, judges are familiar with the Constitution - they know that it's impossible for any other authority, including the EU, to take precedence over Parliament in the UK legal system. Now, explain what you would do to harmonise the rules and regulations across the EU to make trade easier. As I've pointed out several times already, it's clear that you think that the idea developed by the EU is not the best way of doing it. So, what is the best way? Thoburn v Sunderland City Council Decision/Outcome In dismissing the appeals, the Court found that the 1985 Act, as originally enacted, had not impliedly repealed s.2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter empowered the provision of subordinate legislation which was inconsistent with it: Each specific right and obligation provided under EC law was, by virtue of the 1972 Act, incorporated into domestic law and took precedence. Anything within domestic law which was inconsistent with EC law was either abrogated or had to be modified so as to avoid inconsistency. Making trade easier may come at a price. What you have to do is decide if that price is too high, most people in 2016 thought it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 23:29:15 GMT
You still don't understand. If Parliament had passed a law at any time during the UK's membership of the EU, stating quite clearly that it was meant to have supremacy over EU regulations, a British court would have enforced Parliament's law. If you had told a judge in a British court that it couldn't enforce Parliament's law because the UK was in the EU, the judge would have laughed in your face. Because, unlike you, judges are familiar with the Constitution - they know that it's impossible for any other authority, including the EU, to take precedence over Parliament in the UK legal system. Now, explain what you would do to harmonise the rules and regulations across the EU to make trade easier. As I've pointed out several times already, it's clear that you think that the idea developed by the EU is not the best way of doing it. So, what is the best way? Thoburn v Sunderland City Council Decision/Outcome In dismissing the appeals, the Court found that the 1985 Act, as originally enacted, had not impliedly repealed s.2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter empowered the provision of subordinate legislation which was inconsistent with it: Each specific right and obligation provided under EC law was, by virtue of the 1972 Act, incorporated into domestic law and took precedence. Anything within domestic law which was inconsistent with EC law was either abrogated or had to be modified so as to avoid inconsistency. Making trade easier may come at a price. What you have to do is decide if that price is too high, most people in 2016 thought it was. LOL! Most people were like you and didn't have a clue what sovereignty is or why harmonisation of laws is necessary to lower trade barriers. Please provide a link for the above. If you're still saying that EU law is supreme and that Parliament is not sovereign, this is an example of the ignorance I was talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 23:34:56 GMT
You still don't understand. If Parliament had passed a law at any time during the UK's membership of the EU, stating quite clearly that it was meant to have supremacy over EU regulations, a British court would have enforced Parliament's law. If you had told a judge in a British court that it couldn't enforce Parliament's law because the UK was in the EU, the judge would have laughed in your face. Because, unlike you, judges are familiar with the Constitution - they know that it's impossible for any other authority, including the EU, to take precedence over Parliament in the UK legal system. Now, explain what you would do to harmonise the rules and regulations across the EU to make trade easier. As I've pointed out several times already, it's clear that you think that the idea developed by the EU is not the best way of doing it. So, what is the best way? Thoburn v Sunderland City Council Decision/Outcome In dismissing the appeals, the Court found that the 1985 Act, as originally enacted, had not impliedly repealed s.2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter empowered the provision of subordinate legislation which was inconsistent with it: Each specific right and obligation provided under EC law was, by virtue of the 1972 Act, incorporated into domestic law and took precedence. Anything within domestic law which was inconsistent with EC law was either abrogated or had to be modified so as to avoid inconsistency. Making trade easier may come at a price. What you have to do is decide if that price is too high, most people in 2016 thought it was. And please don't repeat the claim that the people voted based on the nuances of the Constitution or the finer points of international trade, not when the most popular google search on the day the results were announced was 'what is the EU'? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 17, 2022 23:54:09 GMT
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council Decision/Outcome In dismissing the appeals, the Court found that the 1985 Act, as originally enacted, had not impliedly repealed s.2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter empowered the provision of subordinate legislation which was inconsistent with it: Each specific right and obligation provided under EC law was, by virtue of the 1972 Act, incorporated into domestic law and took precedence. Anything within domestic law which was inconsistent with EC law was either abrogated or had to be modified so as to avoid inconsistency. Making trade easier may come at a price. What you have to do is decide if that price is too high, most people in 2016 thought it was. And please don't repeat the claim that the people voted based on the nuances of the Constitution or the finer points of international trade, not when the most popular google search on the day the results were announced was 'what is the EU'? Oh for goodness sake everyone as far as I can see are saying that the 1972 act made EEC law supreme in areas existing at the time and extended afterwards. That the UK ceded sovereignty to the EEC/EU. In that respect the 1972 act bound all its successors unless they revoked that act. Domestic law recognised the supremacy of EU law. The only way for the UK to be sovereign was to revoke the 72 act. It is not dissimilar to the US Secessionism which has been argued for years as regards the rights of states to withdraw from the Union. As it turned out that right was violently opposed but the right existed because they did secede. If you look up Metric Martyrs or Thoburn v Sunderland City Council you can choose your poison. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 17, 2022 23:57:55 GMT
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council Decision/Outcome In dismissing the appeals, the Court found that the 1985 Act, as originally enacted, had not impliedly repealed s.2(2) of the 1972 Act to the extent that the latter empowered the provision of subordinate legislation which was inconsistent with it: Each specific right and obligation provided under EC law was, by virtue of the 1972 Act, incorporated into domestic law and took precedence. Anything within domestic law which was inconsistent with EC law was either abrogated or had to be modified so as to avoid inconsistency. Making trade easier may come at a price. What you have to do is decide if that price is too high, most people in 2016 thought it was. And please don't repeat the claim that the people voted based on the nuances of the Constitution or the finer points of international trade, not when the most popular google search on the day the results were announced was 'what is the EU'? I know not why people voted the way they did but I can pontificate. For all we kow teh Google Search may have been remainers or non voters. I want to stay in teh EU ah now what is it or I have no idea what the EU is I cannae be bothered. At least we know leavers made a decision that was a decision to do something for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 23:58:02 GMT
And please don't repeat the claim that the people voted based on the nuances of the Constitution or the finer points of international trade, not when the most popular google search on the day the results were announced was 'what is the EU'? Oh for goodness sake everyone as far as I can see are saying that the 1972 act made EEC law supreme in areas existing at the time and extended afterwards. That the UK ceded sovereignty to the EEC/EU. In that respect the 1972 act bound all its successors unless they revoked that act. Domestic law recognised the supremacy of EU law. The only way for the UK to be sovereign was to revoke the 72 act. It is not dissimilar to the US Secessionism which has been argued for years as regards the rights of states to withdraw from the Union. As it turned out that right was violently opposed but the right existed because they did secede. If you look up Metric Martyrs or Thoburn v Sunderland City Council you can choose your poison. Read the line in bold again, Sandy. Then, just to be safe, read it one last time. Now , think about it. You're saying that the the 1972 Parliament bound itself and its successors until such time as Parliament or its successors changed their mind. In other words, Parliament was always in control. That's called being sovereign, Sandy. |
|
