Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Which Leaver Will Take Charge?
41 Answers
Okay, place your bets. Gove? Johnson? Rees-Mogg?
Answers
Bit premature to call them leavers already when they've not even arrived yet :-) Neither Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg are serious candidates. They would never get enough support from the parliamentar
15:52 Tue 17th Jul 2018
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Bit premature to call them leavers already when they've not even arrived yet :-)
Neither Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg are serious candidates. They would never get enough support from the parliamentary party.
I don't personally think the issue will arise for some time yet.
Quite possibly the next leader of whatever remains of the Tory party after Brexit will be someone currently quite low profile
Neither Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg are serious candidates. They would never get enough support from the parliamentary party.
I don't personally think the issue will arise for some time yet.
Quite possibly the next leader of whatever remains of the Tory party after Brexit will be someone currently quite low profile
Although I agree it is unlikely to happen any time soon, when it does I would not bet against Andrea Leadsom making a reappearance. She seems to have more spine than May, though I don't know what her Brexit stance is. I also don't know whether her name is pronounced Leedsom or Ledsom. Can anyone enlighten me?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
“As far as i am aware,the UK still has full sovereignty of our country.Can you give an example proving otherwise?”
If you are being serious, you need look no further than the Lisbon Treaty. It states unequivocally that, where there are conflicts between EU law and national law then EU law is paramount. In practical terms it means (among many, many things):
The UK cannot determine who does and does not settle here. The UK has its own immigration rules where people from outside the EU can be denied entry. It cannot operate those rules by denying entry to people from other EU nations.
We cannot allow a manufacturer to make goods that do not comply with EU standards even though that manufacturer may never have any intention of selling his goods outside the UK.
We cannot forge trading agreements with other nations which may suit us.
We cannot decide what form our indirect taxation takes (VAT is an EU mandated tax regime).
A country that cannot do the things I have outlined (and many more besides) is not a sovereign nation. No sovereign nation should need to seek permission to pass or enact legislation that concerns its borders, trade or money (or be prevented from doing so). It is quite true that the UK is ultimately sovereign in that it can repeal the Single European Act (which provides the supremacy over UK law granted by the Lisbon Treaty) and that is precisely what Brexit will do. But until that Act is repealed it is not a sovereign nation in the true sense of the word.
If you are being serious, you need look no further than the Lisbon Treaty. It states unequivocally that, where there are conflicts between EU law and national law then EU law is paramount. In practical terms it means (among many, many things):
The UK cannot determine who does and does not settle here. The UK has its own immigration rules where people from outside the EU can be denied entry. It cannot operate those rules by denying entry to people from other EU nations.
We cannot allow a manufacturer to make goods that do not comply with EU standards even though that manufacturer may never have any intention of selling his goods outside the UK.
We cannot forge trading agreements with other nations which may suit us.
We cannot decide what form our indirect taxation takes (VAT is an EU mandated tax regime).
A country that cannot do the things I have outlined (and many more besides) is not a sovereign nation. No sovereign nation should need to seek permission to pass or enact legislation that concerns its borders, trade or money (or be prevented from doing so). It is quite true that the UK is ultimately sovereign in that it can repeal the Single European Act (which provides the supremacy over UK law granted by the Lisbon Treaty) and that is precisely what Brexit will do. But until that Act is repealed it is not a sovereign nation in the true sense of the word.
The sovereignty referred to is parliamentary sovereignty. This was outlined by Professor A. V. Dicey as follows:
"The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."
"The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament … has, under the English constitution, the right to make any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."
/// Are any of them real 'Leavers' ///
No, just band-wagoners trying to further their own selfish personal ambitions.
If any of our PMs since Thatcher had had her tenacity and determination when negotiating within the EU we wouldn't have needed a referendum, the membership of the EU would have still been a positive feature in our economy (especially in the coming trade war from USA). But they let the other EU countries push us around which is what fed the increasing opposition in this country leading to the rejection at the referendum.
This error was further compounded by making the referendum mandatory on the Government. Had it been stressed as only advisory, the majority would have been far more convincing IMO, and this would be a powerful tool helping to put the likes of Merkel in her place, being a threat to the EU's stability. Instead of which we just went ahead and signed Article 50, which immediately emasculated any power we might have had with the threat - i.e. we're going anyway so why should they do anything for us.
No, just band-wagoners trying to further their own selfish personal ambitions.
If any of our PMs since Thatcher had had her tenacity and determination when negotiating within the EU we wouldn't have needed a referendum, the membership of the EU would have still been a positive feature in our economy (especially in the coming trade war from USA). But they let the other EU countries push us around which is what fed the increasing opposition in this country leading to the rejection at the referendum.
This error was further compounded by making the referendum mandatory on the Government. Had it been stressed as only advisory, the majority would have been far more convincing IMO, and this would be a powerful tool helping to put the likes of Merkel in her place, being a threat to the EU's stability. Instead of which we just went ahead and signed Article 50, which immediately emasculated any power we might have had with the threat - i.e. we're going anyway so why should they do anything for us.
There are more Conservative Remainers than Leavers in Parliament. So they will not elect a Leaver if May falls.
Corbyn is a leaver with a lifetime record of voting against every EU Treaty that has come to Parliament.
Trouble is, only the Conservative Party can trigger an election, and they won’t do that when there is a probability of losing.
Corbyn is a leaver with a lifetime record of voting against every EU Treaty that has come to Parliament.
Trouble is, only the Conservative Party can trigger an election, and they won’t do that when there is a probability of losing.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
News27 mins ago
News28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.