|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 16:29:24 GMT
Are foreign fishing boats in UK waters because the sovereign Parliament reached a free agreement with the EU? I ask because one of the hallmarks of sovereignty is the ability to enter binding agreements. That said, such is the degree of Parliamentary sovereignty that Parliament could override that agreement so that the UK courts would be prevented from giving effect to it. Entering a binding agreement is part of the process of regaining sovereignty. The hallmark of sovereignty is doing exactly as you please within your internationally recognised borders. They can override the courts now they have revoked the 1972 act which was always the basis of the ceding of sovereignty to others which of course is what I have repeatedly said. One cannot be sovereign and not sovereign at the same time. You are sovereign, if you lock yourself in a room with others and work together you are not sovereign until you release yourself from the room and regain your sovereignty irrespective of how the others feel. The UK was losing sovereignty as the process of binding was underway. Eventually we would have been unable to leave due to all the complications, perhaps that was the plan, political and monetary union. You don't understand what sovereignty means, Sandy. I get it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 18, 2022 18:14:49 GMT
Entering a binding agreement is part of the process of regaining sovereignty. The hallmark of sovereignty is doing exactly as you please within your internationally recognised borders. They can override the courts now they have revoked the 1972 act which was always the basis of the ceding of sovereignty to others which of course is what I have repeatedly said. One cannot be sovereign and not sovereign at the same time. You are sovereign, if you lock yourself in a room with others and work together you are not sovereign until you release yourself from the room and regain your sovereignty irrespective of how the others feel. The UK was losing sovereignty as the process of binding was underway. Eventually we would have been unable to leave due to all the complications, perhaps that was the plan, political and monetary union. You don't understand what sovereignty means, Sandy. I get it. I understand, I also know how it can be usurped and eventually lost and that is the point of the discussion. You maintain parliament was always sovereign whereas most of us are saying that sovereignty was being whittled away bit by bit. Or perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 18:26:12 GMT
You don't understand what sovereignty means, Sandy. I get it. I understand, I also know how it can be usurped and eventually lost and that is the point of the discussion. You maintain parliament was always sovereign whereas most of us are saying that sovereignty was being whittled away bit by bit. Or perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. Yeah, I cried when the EU shat all over the UK's sovereignty with it's standardised copyright and trade mark regulations. And all just for the sake of making trading easier and maximising wealth. A nation that doesn't have control over its trade mark regulations isn't a nation at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 18, 2022 18:41:45 GMT
I understand, I also know how it can be usurped and eventually lost and that is the point of the discussion. You maintain parliament was always sovereign whereas most of us are saying that sovereignty was being whittled away bit by bit. Or perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. Yeah, I cried when the EU shat all over the UK's sovereignty with it's standardised copyright and trade mark regulations. And all just for the sake of making trading easier and maximising wealth. A nation that doesn't have control over its trade mark regulations isn't a nation at all. Well look on the bright side - at least Parliament now gets to decide what foreign fishing boats are allowed in UK waters rather than being told by the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 18, 2022 18:44:27 GMT
I understand, I also know how it can be usurped and eventually lost and that is the point of the discussion. You maintain parliament was always sovereign whereas most of us are saying that sovereignty was being whittled away bit by bit. Or perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. Yeah, I cried when the EU shat all over the UK's sovereignty with it's standardised copyright and trade mark regulations. And all just for the sake of making trading easier and maximising wealth. A nation that doesn't have control over its trade mark regulations isn't a nation at all. I think the point is we could only be shat all over as you put because we could only change law 15,532 if we changed law 1 which of course meant we adopted a bureaucratic jungle in the making and a body determined to be the sovereign power throughout Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 18:45:40 GMT
Yeah, I cried when the EU shat all over the UK's sovereignty with it's standardised copyright and trade mark regulations. And all just for the sake of making trading easier and maximising wealth. A nation that doesn't have control over its trade mark regulations isn't a nation at all. Well look on the bright side - at least Parliament now gets to decide what foreign fishing boats are allowed in UK waters rather than being told by the EU. Parliament could always decide that. It would have broken its agreement with the EU, but it could always have decided that, Doc. Common law. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 18:47:41 GMT
Yeah, I cried when the EU shat all over the UK's sovereignty with it's standardised copyright and trade mark regulations. And all just for the sake of making trading easier and maximising wealth. A nation that doesn't have control over its trade mark regulations isn't a nation at all. I think the point is we could only be shat all over as you put because we could only change law 15,532 if we changed law 1 which of course meant we adopted a bureaucratic jungle in the making and a body determined to be the sovereign power throughout Europe. LOL!!! A bureaucratic jungle  I'll tell you what a bureaucratic jungle is: a bureaucratic jungle is 27 different countries with 27 different sets of regulations and laws. The opposite of a bureaucratic jungle is a system that harmonises all those different rules and regulations and makes them the same. Talk about getting things arse backwards! |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 18, 2022 18:50:28 GMT
Well look on the bright side - at least Parliament now gets to decide what foreign fishing boats are allowed in UK waters rather than being told by the EU. Parliament could always decide that. It would have broken its agreement with the EU, but it could always have decided that, Doc. Common law. So at last we agree - we could not be sovereign and remain in the EU |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 18:52:07 GMT
Parliament could always decide that. It would have broken its agreement with the EU, but it could always have decided that, Doc. Common law. So at last we agree - we could not be sovereign and remain in the EU Because it was always the UK Parliament's decision whether the UK would remain in the EU and EU regulations only had application in the UK because Parliament deigned to allow them to do so in the 1972 Act, the UK was always sovereign. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 18:53:30 GMT
Parliament could always decide that. It would have broken its agreement with the EU, but it could always have decided that, Doc. Common law. So at last we agree - we could not be sovereign and remain in the EU And even if the UK wasn't sovereign (which, of course, it was), you have yet to suggest a better system of harmonising standards with the UK's closest neighbours, thus increasing the UK's prosperity. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 18, 2022 18:55:57 GMT
So at last we agree - we could not be sovereign and remain in the EU And even if the UK wasn't sovereign (which, of course, it was), you have yet to suggest a better system of harmonising standards with the UK's closest neighbours, thus increasing the UK's prosperity. Why do we need to harmonise standards?. It certainly doesn't help our export business and exports are rising to countries we dont have harmonised standards with and falling to the EU where we do. So what is the point of harmonising standards? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 18:58:43 GMT
And even if the UK wasn't sovereign (which, of course, it was), you have yet to suggest a better system of harmonising standards with the UK's closest neighbours, thus increasing the UK's prosperity. Why do we need to harmonise standards?. It certainly doesn't help our export business and exports are rising to countries we dont have harmonised standards with and falling to the EU where we do. So what is the point of harmonising standards? How can you expect me to point out just how wrong you are when you've banned us from posting the list from Yorkshire Bylines, Doc? If you like, I could post the list and highlight all the problems that you claim aren't being caused. How's about it? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 18, 2022 20:03:36 GMT
I think the point is we could only be shat all over as you put because we could only change law 15,532 if we changed law 1 which of course meant we adopted a bureaucratic jungle in the making and a body determined to be the sovereign power throughout Europe. LOL!!! A bureaucratic jungle I'll tell you what a bureaucratic jungle is: a bureaucratic jungle is 27 different countries with 27 different sets of regulations and laws. The opposite of a bureaucratic jungle is a system that harmonises all those different rules and regulations and makes them the same. Talk about getting things arse backwards! Why would the EU wish to regulate landfill operations as a way to harmonise rules and regulations and protect the environment as regards river dredging and land drainage. What has that to do with harmonise trade. Protecting teh environment is a national duty. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 18, 2022 20:19:21 GMT
Why would the EU wish to regulate landfill operations as a way to harmonise rules and regulations and protect the environment as regards river dredging and land drainage. What has that to do with harmonise trade. Protecting teh environment is a national duty. I've no idea. I imagine there's a reason. But even if there isn't, what harm? And even if a negligible amount can be found, way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Try to understand the advantages of having harmonised rules and regulations. It's the opposite of bureaucratic. It cuts out a lot of the bureaucracy that you and your fellow Brexiteers have gone out of your way to recreate. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 18, 2022 22:23:37 GMT
Why do we need to harmonise standards?. It certainly doesn't help our export business and exports are rising to countries we dont have harmonised standards with and falling to the EU where we do. So what is the point of harmonising standards? How can you expect me to point out just how wrong you are when you've banned us from posting the list from Yorkshire Bylines, Doc? If you like, I could post the list and highlight all the problems that you claim aren't being caused. How's about it? Well its a simple question that even you should be able to answer without posting debunked nonsense from Yorkshire Bylines. If harmonised standards are as important as you claim, then why have our exports to the EU where we have harmonised standards fallen while exports to countries where we dont have harmonised standards risen?. What leads you to believe that harmonised standards are that important?  |
|
