Why should the UK pay any thing to the EU, since we joined the UK has been a net contributor, British tax payers money has lined the pockets of millions of Europeans for years.
No deal No Dosh?!
Sunderland gets what it voted for...
- Thread starter ban-all-sheds
- Start date
No deal No Dosh?!
Sponsored Links
So why did the government have to be taken to court to stop them acting as if the opposite were true?
Why did the government not involve Parliament in shaping a deal which we would then try to negotiate?
That would be a fair assessment.
Perhaps you'd like to consider the difference between the engagement of the EU negotiators with the 27 other country's parliaments during the negotiations and that of our negotiators with our parliament when thinking how likely an event that would have been.
Or then again, perhaps you wouldn't, seeing how you hate and fear any truth and facts which do not agree with your sad and frightened little prejudices.
Because we owe it.
Should I be surprised, given the sort of person you have shown yourself to be here, that you don't believe in paying people what you owe them?
No, not really.
It has to be admitted that the UK has made a complete bolox of Brexit negotiations but what do you expect when remainers were in charge of the negotiations.
It is time to put grown ups in charge and restart negotiations.
Sponsored Links
Oh - so it's not the fault of the perfidious EU then.
That could be an arguement against paying a membership fee for any Sports Club or other organisations .
Club Memberships for all clubs should be free !!
Vinty, I think you are mistaking the power of the executive (i.e. the government in power) with that of parliament.
Parliament's role is to scrutinise², agree, or attempt to amend, or discard³ the arguments (laws, decisions etc) of the executive.
Government decides the order of business in the HoC, it owns the control of that business and the amount of time allowed for discussion (due to formalities such as amount of business to be discussed and the formal voting appointed time)
The only exception to this 'control' of business is Private Members bills, but even they are strictly controlled and time limited.
Amendments to the executive's bills can be tabled, but if the government commands a majority and the whips are involved the chance of amendments being successful is also limited. (not forgetting that 45% of government MPs are on the payroll, and either must vote with the executive or resign.)
Private members bills are one of the tiny differences between the EU parliament and the UK parliament.
The often quoted comment about EU parliament being unable to present new legislation, only the Executive can present new legislation, pretty much mirrors that of UK parliament, except, and only for the Private Members bills allowed in UK parliament which I have already shown are extremely limited, in scope, in time allowed,in number, and in chance of success.
What was challenged in the Gina Miller case was the power of the executive to make decisions without the agreement and scrutiny of Parliament.
But the decision in her favour did not remove the control of power from the executive.
This extract gives a flavour of the power and control of the executive over Parliament. It contains much more explanation.
Convention says that parliament’s ability to stop the prime minister is heavily constrained, not least by its inability to table the necessary legislation.
Parliament has little or no power to direct government without the support or connivance of the executive.
It is on this point the Brexit problem is now playing out. At the centre of this is the question of the government’s control over business that is conducted in parliament. The government has had almost exclusive possession of this control since the 1880s,
UK politicians and observers will of course debate whether it is appropriate to change the rules that govern parliament in order to advance a single issue. The last time standing orders were amended entailed a lengthy consideration by parliament’s procedure committee and extensive debate on the floor of the Commons
Given the situation MPs presently find themselves in, it is probably inevitable that an assessment of the government’s dominance over business in the Commons would eventually be considered. Conducting that assessment under the intense time and political pressures of Brexit may not be ideal. But it is those same tensions that are encouraging some MPs to argue that now is the time for constitutional innovation.
https://www.global-counsel.co.uk/analysis/insight/can-uk-parliament-take-control-brexit
I think the Robin Cook attempt to change Parliament (sitting hours and Lords composition) took years and the only real change was to the sitting hours)Parliament has little or no power to direct government without the support or connivance of the executive.
It is on this point the Brexit problem is now playing out. At the centre of this is the question of the government’s control over business that is conducted in parliament. The government has had almost exclusive possession of this control since the 1880s,
UK politicians and observers will of course debate whether it is appropriate to change the rules that govern parliament in order to advance a single issue. The last time standing orders were amended entailed a lengthy consideration by parliament’s procedure committee and extensive debate on the floor of the Commons
Given the situation MPs presently find themselves in, it is probably inevitable that an assessment of the government’s dominance over business in the Commons would eventually be considered. Conducting that assessment under the intense time and political pressures of Brexit may not be ideal. But it is those same tensions that are encouraging some MPs to argue that now is the time for constitutional innovation.
https://www.global-counsel.co.uk/analysis/insight/can-uk-parliament-take-control-brexit
² the ability to scrutinise is dependent on the government tabling, scheduling and allowing time for debate. That schedule is under the control of the executive. (the Leader of the House - Andrea Ledsom https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/leader-of-the-house-of-commons )
³ attempt to amend, or discard is entirely dependable on the majority of the government in Parliament.
Last edited:
D
durhamplumber
Mr Happy strikes again.
B
Bodd
No! We don't want to be in their club
Bussiness,s will be relocating abroad en-masse 
What about my local news agent or co-op ? Wil I have to go to France for a pint of milk ? And a paper
What about the local barbers shop
Long way to go for a hair cut ?
Blimey what about the plumbers merchants ?
Have these issues been resolved ? Or even thought about ?
What about my local news agent or co-op ? Wil I have to go to France for a pint of milk ? And a paper
What about the local barbers shop
Long way to go for a hair cut ? Blimey what about the plumbers merchants ?
Have these issues been resolved ? Or even thought about ?
B
Bodd
I trade with my local Plumbers Merchants,
I have to produce a card to prove who I am ( Part of their Club) if I want any special deals, ( i.e Trade discount on materials )
B
Bodd
And you have to pay for that little perk ?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
