Tariffs...

The treaty that the UK Government agreed to? The treaty that did not, and could not, come into force until each of the constituent nations of the EU, including the United Kingdom, had ratified it? The "instruments of ratification" were signed by the Queen and the Foreign Secretary.

So tell us, what rules do you object to that were imposed on the UK without UK participation and agreement?
That's my point. Being 'in the club' we had no option other to sign. Do you think if we weren’t in the club that we would have given the EU the right to overrule one of our own legal rulings? Grow up.
 
Sponsored Links
you still haven't found one that stops you doing what you want to.

If you form a community, and agree that the members of the community won't, for example, throw sewage into the sea and rivers, for the benefit of all members of that community, that agreement is ineffective if any of the members of that community can throw sewage into the sea and rivers. So to have any effect, you, as a member of the community, agree that the community will set up a mechanism to monitor and regulate its members.

As you say, Britain might otherwise throw sewage into the sea and rivers despite promising not to.

Which it does.

And it might declare that the sewage companies aren't obliged to monitor and report on their sewage-dumping

Which it does

And it might fail to uphold the rules it agreed to

Which it does.

And you, as a British subject, may find you are bathing and fishing in sewage, and you might be powerless to make the government fulfill its obligations.

Which you are, except that you currently have the right to appeal to the communal mechanism which Britain committed to respect. And which is less ineffectual than you are.

Grow up.
 
In my above example, the EU stopped the UK from refusing a terrorist entering the UK. Ok, not me personally as that’s not my role. My point is that the EU can, and does, overrule the highest UK courts. I don’t agree with that but it’s obviously fine by you so carry on believing it’s all good. Anyway, it’ll all be academic soon as we're leaving. Diddums.
 
Sponsored Links
https://amp.ft.com/content/de6e2b14-a3bc-11e9-974c-ad1c6ab5efd1

But one can at least make plausible guesses. One conclusion seems clear: the UK the world thought it knew — stable, pragmatic and respected — is gone, probably forever. Lost reputations are not readily regained.

Can a country dithering between Ayn Rand and Leon Trotsky truly count in the world? What justification can there be for its staying on as a permanent member of the UN Security Council?

What is happening is not worthy of a serious country. The conclusion is that the UK is no longer such a country.

Yet still we have no coherent argument for Brexit other than nostalgia for a lost Empire.
 
Yet still we have no coherent argument for Brexit other than nostalgia for a lost Empire.

Surely, sooner or later Motman or one of the other Brexers will give us one, at least one, example of a way in which UK will be better off as a result of resigning.

Won't they?



(No)
 
I honestly thought of one advantage the other day, can't have been that good an advantage though, as I've forgotten what it was :whistle:
 
I honestly thought of one advantage the other day, can't have been that good an advantage though, as I've forgotten what it was :whistle:

Brexit has exposed the quality of the politics in this country?

Id like to say Brexit has led to people becoming better informed about the EU, but Im not sure it has. I think all its done is show that people have entrenched views and cant be persuaded out of them.
 
Brexit has exposed the quality of the politics in this country?

.

This.

While nothing really is going on, the inept can hide away in the shadows, occasionally shuffling bits of paper to no effect, and generally bumbling along without doing any harm.
But when the real decisions need making, they're shown to be utterly lacking.
Trouble is, most of them are doing a great impression of fitting that description.
 
In my above example, the EU stopped the UK from refusing a terrorist entering the UK. Ok, not me personally as that’s not my role. My point is that the EU can, and does, overrule the highest UK courts. I don’t agree with that but it’s obviously fine by you so carry on believing it’s all good. Anyway, it’ll all be academic soon as we're leaving. Diddums.

That was not the case, The UK was in contravention of its own Laws regarding the European Convention on Human Rights to which our Parliment signed up to .
Deporting individuals to Countries accused of Human Rights Abuses, Charles Clarke wanted to circumvent our own UK Laws.
 
the European Convention on Human Rights

Surely not.

That's not an EU institution, and the convention was drafted by British lawyers, at Winston Churchill's instigation. So if that's what Mottie meant he would be talking nonsense.


Again.


What did you mean, @Motman

Does British Conservative MP and lawyer David Maxwell-Fyfe look like some kind of anti-British foreigner?

David_Maxwell_Fyfe.jpg
 
I corrected ellal because he claimed earlier on the thread that the eu27 had rejected it.
Not only do you have a problem with simple maths, but you are also confused over who posted what :LOL:

No wonder you make no sense whatsoever!
 
I honestly thought of one advantage the other day
I'm guessing the main reason quitters wish to leave the EU is that Germany is doing better than the UK regards economy and industry etc and they don't like it. Hence all the attacks on Germany in particular and the fact that they (Germany) are EU members.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top