Trump

[Sacarathe]

<snip>

Article 50 does not require approval by Parliament as it is not a final act or action on its own

otherwise we would be withdrawing from the EU upon triggering Article 50

<snip>

I can go on with other matters but PM has said Parliament will vote on the final terms we leave the EU

This is same as when Parliament passed the Acts for Scotland, Wales Acts & Good Friday Agreement

But triggering #50 is merely just the START of negotiations to leave the EU

on its own it does not pull UK straight out of EU with immediate effect with no further approval required

Therefore it should not need Parliament's approval......

<snip>

This is not correct.

The current issue is with "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

 

[Sitting Duck]

This is not correct.

how exactly - so if #50 gets triggered we can leave straight away if we accept WTO terms

brilliant - that will save us some dosh & time messing about

 

[Sacarathe]

This is not correct.

The current issue is with "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

how exactly - so if #50 gets triggered we can leave straight away if we accept WTO terms

brilliant - that will save us some dosh & time messing about

We can only trigger the article in accordance with our constitution, as per the article itself.

The residual powers of the monarch, the royal prerogative wielded by the GOVT, does not have the authority to repeal an act of parliament, this is particularly so of constitutional acts, even though they can enter into and out of treaties with these powers.

Until we establish what our constitutional requirements are: Art50 cannot be triggered.

 

[jcheeseright]

In addition, leaving the EU will mean re writing EVERY piece of law that mentions the EU. Triggering article 50 will make that inevitable, ergo triggering article 50 results in the change of laws.

 

[Sitting Duck]

The current issue is with "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Yup had seen that - though EU & our own Parliament paper kept referring to the "Government" to trigger blah x 3

(Parliament & Government are not the same)

Government is HoC which is the MP's lead by PM blah blah blah.....

but yes according to its own blah blah blah

We can only trigger the article in accordance with our constitution, as per the article itself.

The residual powers of the monarch, the royal prerogative wielded by the GOVT, does not have the authority to repeal an act of parliament, this is particularly so of constitutional acts, even though they can enter into and out of treaties with these powers.

Until we establish what our constitutional requirements are: Art50 cannot be triggered.

That as I said is where the confusion or interpretation comes into play.....

by simply triggering #50 it is NOT repealing any laws - merely instructing EU of their intention to leave

No acts will be repealed on just triggering #50 alone

only by agreement on both houses can we repeal any acts

#50 is more like getting down on one knee to propose - but no date or signing of register, let alone writing speeches or venue bookings

(actually #50 is more starting a divorce process so #50 might be like booking a RELATE appointment perhaps - no solicitors instructed yet)

In addition, leaving the EU will mean re writing EVERY piece of law that mentions the EU. Triggering article 50 will make that inevitable, ergo triggering article 50 results in the change of laws.

No - EU laws will remain as we leave the EU and will be amended as & when but voted by Parliament on any of these amendments

Government already stated that and Fishermen want the EU fishing rights amended asap but nothing will change until after we officially leave EU

Article 50 will not do anything but officially inform the EU of UK's wish to leave it

Then & only then can discussions begin

it is a chicken & egg or egg & chicken scenario about negotiations that EU will not enter into until we place in writing our intention to leave

That is all #50 is

on its own it is just our formal notification that we wish to leave the EU and nothing more

Yes the EU states this n that and UK can not be involved in negotiations but all EU rules apply during the 2 year period and membership fees and loads of other stuff blah blah blah

But even the EU doesn't even fully know wtf they are doing coz nobody has triggered Article 50 before

Plus even if EU proposes a deal on terms agreed by 27/28 members and Parliament is happy too

it can still be veto'd by EU Parliament

Just recently Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams said he won't vote or block negotiations on #50

it is more the final repeal of acts that government/lords/parliament will decide upon on departing the EU

Just like the absolute bottom line of repealing the the '72 European Act will require Parliament to repeal

#50 notifies the EU we wish to leave and compels the EU to seek a negotiation

UK can choose an outright hard "stick it up your ar$e" brexit on wto terms - still requiring parliament

or repeal the '72 act with parliament

It is all a little unclear to be honest, we are trying to conduct this matter in the best way but Government can't reveal its hand

it hasn't got a full hand yet coz not all cards have been dealt yet

we can't announce what we might stick on 16 or 17 at the table so everybody knows our bottom line

otherwise it will hardly be worth playing and lets just fold up and repeal '72 act

Look I really don't know - tbh I doubt if anybody really knows how it will play out

Government is pi$$ed coz it had to pick up the pieces when Cameron jumped ship

Corbyn threatens to vote against anything prior to triggering #50 if he doesn't get his way

Funny the bloke wanted #50 to be triggered straight away in June ???

49 SNP MP's wanted to deny the people to hold the referendum in first place - funny they want another one for scotland ???

The other 10 include that weirdo dodgy Keith Vaz + 5 other Labour MP's, 1 Plaid Cymru & 3 N Ireland voted no to hold referendum

Clegg & Milliband didn't even vote for/against holding a referendum - sorry but if you don't vote then don't moan about result ffs

Anybody wonder why we should let these MP's & HoL decide on just triggering #50

Gina originally moaned about her business being effected that her clients that invest a min £250,000 may find it difficult

Sorry I don't feel any of the others are interested in anything but themselves when they try to defend democracy or sovereignty

but hey ho there ya go - that is politics I guess.....

Not wishing to fall out with anybody over this coz really don't think us low lives really know

doubt if anybody really knows but we shall see.......

 

[jcheeseright]

Article 50 is irreversible though, so an inevitable result of triggering it is a change in law. There's simply no other way it can happen.

Which means that if you want to trigger article 50 then parliament needs to agree as it WILL result in changes to U.K. law.

 

[Sitting Duck]

Article 50 is irreversible though, so an inevitable result of triggering it is a change in law. There's simply no other way it can happen.

Which means that if you want to trigger article 50 then parliament needs to agree as it WILL result in changes to U.K. law.

They keep referring to this as firing a gun.....

Who is to say the bloody gun is on target to begin with

They don't know coz it hasn't been tested beforehand

EU or EU Parliament can over rule any proposals at the final say so

is why Cameron's EU deal wasn't worth jack $hit and Schultz has already said his EU Parliament could do this

There is no clear definition as to exactly when negotiations will exist - all written in pencil or might as well be

nobody has done it yet so there is no 101% previous example

Whilst negotiations are being conducted those EU laws & guidelines remain in place

The EU actual laws will still remain in place as UK leaves & will still exist using them same EU laws of today

so law wise nothing/little will change and before we leave parliament's approval will be sought to change any law

MP's to vote on this in Parliament - they should vote in accordance with their constituencies maybe ???

Oh goody gumdrops then coz that will equate to a 400 to 250 constituency vote to leave

the EU Referendum was setup as just 382 areas rather than 650 constituencies - weird but there ya go

When numerous studies have been conducted and converted they have placed the results as a range

400 to 420 Leave constituencies - think Ed Milliband's area/constituency voted to leave by over 70%

(yet Ed abstained on voting to hold EU referendum - cheers m8 for your lack of support/backbone)

Also worth noting we was supposed to hold a referendum promised by Labour on European Constitution Treaty that Ireland had and few others

But this was torn up and replaced with Lisbon Treaty without a referendum

At least 2 High Court challenges were made right up to the supreme court over this matter but failed

funny how the law works when it suits them

but yup ok - well I guess we shall see how it pans out until then we remain in limbo

 

[Sacarathe]

Not wishing to fall out with anybody over this coz really don't think us low lives really know

doubt if anybody really knows but we shall see.......

That is highly unlikely.

 

[Sitting Duck]

I'm a unique/odd qwirky mofo at the best of times

Thing is this Trump malarky might strengthen UK's Brexit stance but we shall see

Now - in true Dem style Hilary supporters are complaining about her getting more votes (just) in people's vote - lol

Tough $hit - you should of fixed it in 2000 Busch Vs Gore....

Busch won scraping with a 271 - 266 seat victory

BUT - people votes was nearly 51 million to 50.5 million for Gore = half a million more votes than Busch but lost

Trump seems to be looking at 306 - 232 seat victory

But the people's vote may give Hilary 439,902 (0.3%) more votes than Trump - lol

306 to 232 is a f*cking decent victory by their own electorate standards

yes the college people vote should of been reviewed but Trump wasn't in politics - oops

It is a dumb ar$e system they should of changed 16 years ago

California has 55 seats - if Hilary gets 28 seats & Trump gets 27 - ALL 55 seats go to Hilary - WTF !!!!!!!!

This gets even WTF when you consider Florida pulled in over 9 million voters to California's 8.6m

yet it has 55 to 29 seats - yeah that is one f*cked up system you run there chaps

Trump knew this and didn't bother to push for California - Hilary wins that with a smashing 5m to 2.5m majority

However Trump goes nutz on all the major swing states instead and look what happened......

(No point worrying about CA with massive Hispanic and loads of vocal celebs turning against him)

F*ck me - he isn't such a dumb ar$e as many thought

Obama must be thinking he shouldn't of mocked him in 2011 & throwing all his support behind Hilary that he despised in the past

Yeah but it ain't Hilary he will be handing the keys over to - but that guy he mocked

Some serious amounts of Sudocrem needed for some serious butt hurt

No I don't think Trump is perfect - f*ck me far far from it

but it is funny that a crooked businessman beat a crooked politician, even though she had so much on her side

2016 - Year of "DA FUG" - the politicians & media all got Trump'd

 

[Lozart]

Personally the thing like Trump being a climate change denier and putting a creationist in as Secretary of State worries me more if only for the future of US kids and education.

I do wonder how much of his election campaign rhetoric will actually translate into action though. The "ban all Muslims" comment has already mysteriously disappeared from his website. I daresay there'll never be a wall along the Mexican border either. That will have been "metaphorical" no doubt...

 

[Sitting Duck]

I do wonder how much of his election campaign rhetoric will actually translate into action though. The "ban all Muslims" comment has already mysteriously disappeared from his website. I daresay there'll never be a wall along the Mexican border either. That will have been "metaphorical" no doubt...

Probably very little - doubt if he can send all Syrian's Mexican's back

But will restrict future immigrants

Building a wall - well that has been going on anyway for a decade or more but maybe complete it & maintain it

He won't just be able to create jobs out of thin air all of a sudden - it has declined over decades of cheap outsourcing

Don't think he will be allowed to tear up everything Obama has done - even his own lot won't allow too much of of all that

He wants to Stop this & Stop that but destroy ISIS - hmmm easier said than done

Maybe restrict the arms sales & reduce sticking nose into other countries but Mr President that provides a large revenue for our ecconomy

I'll dig some crap out but think he will be lucky if he even pulls off a quarter of the crap he said he would do

(blimey for a politician that is quite a good record when you think about it)

 

[Sitting Duck]

Trump's First briefing by the CIA, Pentagon, FBI:

Trump: We must destroy ISIS immediately. No delays.

CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others.

Trump: The Democrats created them.

CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.

Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.

CIA: We can't do that.

Trump: Why is that?

CIA: India will cut Balochistan out of Pak.

Trump: I don't care.

CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.

Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.

CIA: Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.

Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.

Pentagon: Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own it.

Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.

Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.

Trump: Why not?

CIA: We are talking to them, sir.

Trump: What? Why?

CIA: We want our Stealth Drones back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.

Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.

CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.

Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?

CIA: We need the Shi'ite govt of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.

Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.

FBI: We can't do that.

Trump: Why not?

FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.

Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.

Border patrol: You can't do that, sir.

Trump: Why not?

Border patrol: If they're gone, who will build the wall?

Trump: I am banning H1B visas.

USCIS: You cannot do that.

Trump: Why?

Chief of Staff: If you do so, we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.

Trump (sweating profusely by now): What the hell should I do as President???

CIA: Enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!

 

[SAS1988]

It's been too long since I've been away from good ol London, and I'm now deep in the United States surrounded by Trump supporters. Have any of you blokes been able to have a fruitful discussion with a Trump supporter? As in get him or her to agree with you on a few things the Donald has done that are bad for the world? 

 

[Guest]

Ha ha any discussion of anything with people with strongly held views is pointless if you want to change their minds.

The real point in those types of discussions is to try and help bystanders t see all the points and be swayed, not to try and changed entrenched opinions

 

[Gepard]

Ha ha any discussion of anything with people with strongly held views is pointless if you want to change their minds.

The real point in those types of discussions is to try and help bystanders t see all the points and be swayed, not to try and changed entrenched opinions

Bit of info for the bystanders then:

18 indictments and 4 guilty pleas dealt to Trump's administration this year. Seems to be an awful lot of witches for a "phony witch hunt" as he put it on Twitter!  :lol:

 

[SAS1988]

Something I don't quite understand is that Americans just are in the habit of getting either enraged about everything, or labelling "the other side" a couple of expletives and just refusing to compromise. Adult mature conversation is rare amongst policymakers and debaters here. 

 

[Jedi_Master]

Something I don't quite understand is that Americans just are in the habit of getting either enraged about everything, or labelling "the other side" a couple of expletives and just refusing to compromise. Adult mature conversation is rare amongst policymakers and debaters here. 

Brexit?  Exactly the same situation here in the UK, the US is not unique or necessarily any worse.