Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

From the Independent
"
Grenfell Tower fire: MPs call for Government to seize control of Kensington and Chelsea Council
The council should be stripped of its powers, Labour and survivors groups say"

It seems the Council leaders are employing the usual defence of resigning, walking away scott free , rather than being made to actively take control and care for the people involved.
They should be made to do this before being allowed to sneak away leaving someone else to clear up their mess.

What should then follow is their resignations, criminal investigation, and for them to be either exonerated, or incarcerated
.
They are fortunate this isn't Russia, as Mr P would almost certainly be expressing his surprise at their having been accidentally shot by persons unknown, or developed an allergy to Pollonium by now.

 

[oldgroaner]

sorry, I got mixed up a little bit.
I started thinking of answering the point about the 'Will of the people' - my starting point is that this will is based essentially on the popularity of the nationalist view that if we accept the ECJ, we accept their rule. As we shall not be ruled by the Europeans, that led me to the essential demand of the nationalists, which is getting out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and why TM is stuck on it.
There are a lot of voters who only need one or two convincing arguments to make up their mind. It is difficult for remainers to explain why they should accept the ECJ.

I shall explain it to you
The ECJ is there to ensure that the same rights extend to all EU citizens regardless of their state of residence.
This is necessary because some states (us for one) have the strangest idea of just what human rights are, so this needs international control.

 

[Zlatan]

From the Independent
"
Grenfell Tower fire: MPs call for Government to seize control of Kensington and Chelsea Council
The council should be stripped of its powers, Labour and survivors groups say"

It seems the Council leaders are employing the usual defence of resigning, walking away scott free , rather than being made to actively take control and care for the people involved.
They should be made to do this before being allowed to sneak away leaving someone else to clear up their mess.

What should then follow is their resignations, criminal investigation, and for them to be either exonerated, or incarcerated
.
They are fortunate this isn't Russia, as Mr P would almost certainly be expressing his surprise at their having been accidentally shot by persons unknown, or developed an allergy to Pollonium by now.

Think there would be a bloke with a brolly following you OG if May was Putin..Tom would be long gone.

 

[Woosh]

I shall explain it to you
The ECJ is there to ensure that the same rights extend to all EU citizens regardless of their state of residence.
This is necessary because some states (us for one) have the strangest idea of just what human rights are, so this needs international control.

To most people, accepting the rule of law is the same as accepting the decision handled down by the highest court. Therefore, it seems logical that if we/you accept the superiority of the ECJ, we/you are ruled by their judges - whom we do not vote for. Only 2 of those judges are Brits, the rest are European, so it is fair to say that the ECJ judges are Europeans technocrates.
You need to answer why you want to be ruled by Europeans technocrates.

 

[Zlatan]

OG
ECJ is not a product of EC, and if individual countries so wish the can already over rule its decisions. As normal you both over simplify situation and overestimate what EC does.
"The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ. However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. Although, only courts of final appeal are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is addressed. The treaties give the ECJ the power for consistent application of EU law across the EU as a whole."

Notice the last statement. EU law.
Its a tangled web nobody fully understands, creates grey areas for unscrupulous to hide behind. It protected no one in our last disaster . Did it ?

 

[oldgroaner]

When the labour party looses its association with such folk and adopts moderate policies and starts opposing the government ( which it never does) it will get back in power.

Well, by your own admission you DID vote for Tory Blair, only to be disappointed, so that really isn't what you might call much of a recommendation that your views on Labour's future are valid does it?
Remember what George Orwell wrote

"If you vote for corrupt politicians you are not a victim,
You are an accomplice"

Now for a little quiz: Which person is the Socialist ?

1. The one who voted for Tony Blair and New Labour
   
2. The one who refused to support either him or New Labour.

By Default what does that make the other person?
And also, if the opposition has the same policies, what exactly does the word "opposition" mean?
Which is exactly where we are today, we have effectively a one party state, have done for over a generation, and New Labour was intended to support the continuation of that situation.
Agreed JC seems to have fallen into the same trap though a lack of "intestinal fortitude" as John Wayne once famously remarked.
I rest my case.

 

[oldgroaner]

To most people, accepting the rule of law is the same as accepting the decision handled down by the highest court. Therefore, it seems logical that if we/you accept the superiority of the ECJ, we/you are ruled by their judges - whom we do not vote for. Only 2 of those judges are Brits, the rest are European, so it is fair to say that the ECJ judges are Europeans technocrates.
You need to answer why you want to be ruled by Europeans technocrates.

I did, but you refused to accept that it is a condition of membership of the EU that we agreed to by treaty.
Are you now saying Treaties, who needs them?

 

[oldgroaner]

Think there would be a bloke with a brolly following you OG if May was Putin..Tom would be long gone.

Do you really think there isn't one already?

 

[oldgroaner]

OG
ECJ is not a product of EC, and if individual countries so wish the can already over rule its decisions. As normal you both over simplify situation and overestimate what EC does.
"The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ. However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. Although, only courts of final appeal are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is addressed. The treaties give the ECJ the power for consistent application of EU law across the EU as a whole."

Notice the last statement. EU law.
Its a tangled web nobody fully understands, creates grey areas for unscrupulous to hide behind. It protected no one in our last disaster . Did it ?

You realise you are saying that the ECJ hs never stopped the Conservatives from extraditing anyone because it lacks the authory to do so?
We know all that, and yes it's power lies in the fact that the reputation of this country would be damaged internationally if we were seen to oppose the ECJ when cases of Human Rights are referred to it.

For that reason alone it is valuable to the UK
Be the way which last disaster are you referring to?
There seem to be new ones every week!

 

[Zlatan]

Well, by your own admission you DID vote for Tory Blair, only to be disappointed, so that really isn't what you might call much of a recommendation that your views on Labour's future are valid does it?
Remember what George Orwell wrote

"If you vote for corrupt politicians you are not a victim,
You are an accomplice"

Now for a little quiz: Which person is the Socialist ?

1. The one who voted for Tony Blair and New Labour
   
2. The one who refused to support either him or New Labour.

By Default what does that make the other person?
And also, if the opposition has the same policies, what exactly does the word "opposition" mean?
Which is exactly where we are today, we have effectively a one party state, have done for over a generation, and New Labour was intended to support the continuation of that situation.
Agreed JC seems to have fallen into the same trap though a lack of "intestinal fortitude" as John Wayne once famously remarked.
I rest my case.

No who is obsessed with Blair. But yes like millions I supported Blair ( not sure which other Labour pm anyone else voted for?) and yes we were all misled and lied to. Labour voters had no choice but support him, by default it seems you are the one who voted Tory and this time contemplated Lib Dem ??? You are the floater OG...not me.

 

[Woosh]

I did, but you refused to accept that it is a condition of membership of the EU that we agreed to by treaty.
Are you now saying Treaties, who needs them?

I don't think that woman on QT at 23min30s cares a hoot for treaties if you ask her should we stay in or get out.
The fact is politicians need her vote. What would you do if you were a politician? How will you win her vote?

 

[Zlatan]

And yes I think the ECJ has done nothing to protect anyone, from fires to reduced pensions to unemployment to Zero hours contracts. Banned in many EU countries. Not ours. What has ECJ done on that. Same old story, if country wants to avoid or implement anything it can. ( wording I quoted said as much)

 

[Zlatan]

I don't think that woman on QT at 23min30s cares a hoot for treaties if you ask her should we stay in or get out.
The fact is politicians need her vote. What would you do if you were a politician? How will you win her vote?

And her opinion has just as much " right" as anybodies.
Once we go down road of passing judgements and standards of some sort for voting it really is the end of democracy.

 

[Zlatan]

Come on OG. Zero hours contracts are everything EU doesn't stand for, yet they are alive and well in UK, even got support from many folk on here..
How come the ECJ has not prevented them ? Because it cant, therefore its a pointless charade of care.
Said it before, we need a caring government, in or out the EU is irrelevant.

 

[Woosh]

in the last 45 years that we are in the EU, politicians do not like to say how much we depend on the EU for our economy.
We create the mistrust in voters like that QT woman. OG, if you were an MP, you will see that.
Yes, there is a mandate from people like her to get out of the EU and yet, you know we'll borrow more and have to lower CT if we do.

 

[Zlatan]

Its just so ironic. Tom and OG come on here explaining,quite rightly,how working class have suffered , how the wealthy are getting wealthier, the NHS is floundering etc etc etc and put it all down to Tory control ( again quite possible) but then scream and shout about how great EU is and how much good it has done . You cant possibly have it both ways. If EU/ ECJ worked well the complaints you make simply would not arise.
The EU is a pipe dream, a list of idealistic goals that individual countries can just side step. Its proven in so many instances.
Either we hand total control to EU or we get out, get a labour government and sort things out fairly.

 

[oldgroaner]

No who is obsessed with Blair. But yes like millions I supported Blair ( not sure which other Labour pm anyone else voted for?) and yes we were all misled and lied to. Labour voters had no choice but support him, by default it seems you are the one who voted Tory and this time contemplated Lib Dem ??? You are the floater OG...not me.

If you have no facts you make them up, I abstained from voting during the new labour years, I have already stated that

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[Zlatan]

If you have no facts you make them up, I abstained from voting during the new labour years, I have already stated that

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Apologies, I really haven't read that. Unfortunately many didn't.( Abstain that is)

 

[Kudoscycles]

The new buzzword is Austerity,but to dilute austerity you need money. Does anybody seriously think that Brexit is going to make us richer,our chancellor seems to believe that hard Brexit is going to make us poorer. So why are both the Tories and Labour committed to hard Brexit if they want to overcome austerity.
KudosDave

 

[tillson]

The new buzzword is Austerity,but to dilute austerity you need money. Does anybody seriously think that Brexit is going to make us richer,our chancellor seems to believe that hard Brexit is going to make us poorer. So why are both the Tories and Labour committed to hard Brexit if they want to overcome austerity.
KudosDave

There is a wider realisation that BREXIT comes with costs attached. The price is unclear, but I think people are prepared to accept some additional expense. A lot will depend on how skilfully the BREXIT negotiating team get us out of the EU. Looking at the line-up, I'm not optimistic.

There is £13,000,000,000 kicking around in the foreign aid budget. That would help with easing austerity in the public sector.