Sunday Express Skeleton 24Th November...
Crosswords5 mins ago
Chaos At Dover
Thousands of coach and car passengers endured a miserable Wait .
Many of them all through the night for their much awaited Easter Holiday
Stormy weather and the French were blamed by the UK Government .
But the Brits were just getting a taste of what they signed up for with Brexit When voted to become "Third Country Nationals" in the eyes of the EU... And it can only get worse....You are no longer in the EU so you have to join the non EU queues at ports and airports You voted for it . Enjoy.
Many of them all through the night for their much awaited Easter Holiday
Stormy weather and the French were blamed by the UK Government .
But the Brits were just getting a taste of what they signed up for with Brexit When voted to become "Third Country Nationals" in the eyes of the EU... And it can only get worse....You are no longer in the EU so you have to join the non EU queues at ports and airports You voted for it . Enjoy.
Answers
As I have said before, things are going to get much, much worse with Brexit continuing to wreck havoc on the UK.
09:20 Sun 02nd Apr 2023
//But if you are only interested in him explaining this Brexiteer lie, you only need watch the last minute, from 15 minutes in, onwards.//
I don't watch YouTube, Hymie. Perhaps you could tell us how that nice Mr Major explained that EU law does not take precedence over national law. Before you do, perhaps you would care to have a look at this EU document:
https:/
"The principle of the primacy (also referred to as ‘precedence’ or ‘supremacy’) of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail. If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable."
Seems fairly straightforward to me.
https:/
I don't watch YouTube, Hymie. Perhaps you could tell us how that nice Mr Major explained that EU law does not take precedence over national law. Before you do, perhaps you would care to have a look at this EU document:
https:/
"The principle of the primacy (also referred to as ‘precedence’ or ‘supremacy’) of European Union (EU) law is based on the idea that where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail. If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable."
Seems fairly straightforward to me.
https:/
>> In my golf club, constitutional changes need either 67% of the votes or 50% of the electorate. It gives a bit more constitutional stability ...//
> No it doesn’t.
Yes, it does. Obviously!
> What it provides is the potential for 66% of the members who voted for a change to be disappointed.
> Yep, it does, if they didn't also 50% of the electorate. In other words, if you really want a change then make a change ... vote!
> Why should a vote for the status quo carry double the weight of a vote for change?
Because only 26% of the population voting for change is not really enough to make that change.
I'll ask again, would the monarchy be abolished on the same basis? If somebody was talking about some lies between Andy and Camilla just before the vote, for example ...
> No it doesn’t.
Yes, it does. Obviously!
> What it provides is the potential for 66% of the members who voted for a change to be disappointed.
> Yep, it does, if they didn't also 50% of the electorate. In other words, if you really want a change then make a change ... vote!
> Why should a vote for the status quo carry double the weight of a vote for change?
Because only 26% of the population voting for change is not really enough to make that change.
I'll ask again, would the monarchy be abolished on the same basis? If somebody was talking about some lies between Andy and Camilla just before the vote, for example ...
//Because only 26% of the population voting for change is not really enough to make that change.//
But 36.5% of the electorate voted for change (i.e. Brexit) whilst only 34.7% voted for the status quo.
//I'll ask again, would the monarchy be abolished on the same basis? If somebody was talking about some lies between Andy and Camilla just before the vote, for example ...//
Depends on the rules set out for such a referendum.
But neither of those issue really goes to the point I'm making about your golf club: why should retaining the status quo enjoy such an advantage over a vote for change? It's almost as if the organisers (or committee or whoever manages the vote) are saying "well we'd like to retain the status quo, but if you want to change it, we'll make it as difficult as we can for you." What is so special about retaining the status quo?
But that apart, at the time of the referendum the UK had not enjoyed "constitutional stability" at all. It had endured 44 years witnessing the metamorphosis of the EU from a trading organisation into a political construct which had a profound influence over the UK's affairs. There was widespread unrest about the extent of that influence and it was quite right that the electorate was asked whether they agreed with it or not. To suggest that a little shy of two thirds of those who voted would have been told their views were not sufficient to bring about change is simply ridiculous. As I said earlier, those who wanted to remain knew they had to cast their votes to ensure their wishes were fulfilled. If they didn't bother, they really could not have been that concerned and so the issue turned on the votes of the people who were.
But 36.5% of the electorate voted for change (i.e. Brexit) whilst only 34.7% voted for the status quo.
//I'll ask again, would the monarchy be abolished on the same basis? If somebody was talking about some lies between Andy and Camilla just before the vote, for example ...//
Depends on the rules set out for such a referendum.
But neither of those issue really goes to the point I'm making about your golf club: why should retaining the status quo enjoy such an advantage over a vote for change? It's almost as if the organisers (or committee or whoever manages the vote) are saying "well we'd like to retain the status quo, but if you want to change it, we'll make it as difficult as we can for you." What is so special about retaining the status quo?
But that apart, at the time of the referendum the UK had not enjoyed "constitutional stability" at all. It had endured 44 years witnessing the metamorphosis of the EU from a trading organisation into a political construct which had a profound influence over the UK's affairs. There was widespread unrest about the extent of that influence and it was quite right that the electorate was asked whether they agreed with it or not. To suggest that a little shy of two thirds of those who voted would have been told their views were not sufficient to bring about change is simply ridiculous. As I said earlier, those who wanted to remain knew they had to cast their votes to ensure their wishes were fulfilled. If they didn't bother, they really could not have been that concerned and so the issue turned on the votes of the people who were.
> It's almost as if the organisers (or committee or whoever manages the vote) are saying "well we'd like to retain the status quo, but if you want to change it, we'll make it as difficult as we can for you." What is so special about retaining the status quo?
Stability. Generally constituencies are the way they are for a good reason. Changes should not be a whim. They are fought for hard, especially in times when not even 100% are allowed to vote. There is no way that Brexit should have been voted that way, but it was. And I'm say that it should not be voted again in the same way, that if that's helpful! So, for example, if Labour was to vote to "repeal Brexit" next year, that vote should be on 67% voters or 50% electorate, like the first one should have been. As should the monarchy, death penalty, Scottish independence and any other referendum that is "forever" rather than five years.
Stability. Generally constituencies are the way they are for a good reason. Changes should not be a whim. They are fought for hard, especially in times when not even 100% are allowed to vote. There is no way that Brexit should have been voted that way, but it was. And I'm say that it should not be voted again in the same way, that if that's helpful! So, for example, if Labour was to vote to "repeal Brexit" next year, that vote should be on 67% voters or 50% electorate, like the first one should have been. As should the monarchy, death penalty, Scottish independence and any other referendum that is "forever" rather than five years.
