It’s a Scots law we are discussing. Do keep up. When it applies to England we can talk about that then.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CctIj6X79jYJaHBmy8sQ2O7rrn0lSfr4ttylwrz7tw0/htmlview This will help you understand
No need to, I checked the title of this thread, yup still the same Brexit Moving On and to be fair, you posting your excel online shopping list isn't going to help other than explain a lot of your posts.
"Many constitutional experts believe that Britain isn't actually a member of the European Union since our apparent entry was in violation of British law and was, therefore invalid. In enacting the European Communities Bill through an ordinary vote in the House of Commons, Ted Heath's Government breached the constitutional convention which requires a prior consultation of the people (either by a general election or a referendum) on any measure involving constitutional change. The general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate. (Britain has no straightforward written constitution. But, the signing of the Common Market entrance documents was, without a doubt, a breach of the spirit of our constitution.) Just weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'. However, when it came to it Heath didn't have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972. Some MPs have subsequently claimed that `Parliament can do whatever it likes'. But that isn't true, of course. Parliament consists of a number of individual MPs who have been elected by their constituents to represent them. Political parties are not recognised in our system of government and Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution. We have (or are supposed to have) an elective democracy not an elective dictatorship. Parliament may, in law and in day to day issues, be the sovereign power in the state, but the electors are (in the words of Dicey's `Introduction for the Study of the Law of the Constitution' published in 1885) `the body in which sovereign power is vested'. Dicey goes on to point out that `in a political sense the electors are the most important part of, we may even say are actually, the sovereign power, since their will is under the present constitution sure to obtain ultimate obedience.' Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, 1867, describes the nation, through Parliament, as `the present sovereign'. In 1972, when Heath decided to take Britain into the Common Market, he used Parliament's legal sovereignty to deny and permanently limit the political sovereignty of the electorate. Heath and Parliament changed the basic rules and they did not have the right (legal or moral) to do that. The 1972 European Communities Bill wasn't just another Act of Parliament. Heath's Bill used Parliament's legal sovereignty, and status as representative of the electorate, to deny the fundamental rights of the electorate. Precedents show that the British constitution (which may not be written and formalised in the same way as the American constitution is presented) but which is, nevertheless, enshrined and codified in the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) requires Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect. (The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.' Since this Bill has not been repealed it is clear that every treaty Britain has signed with the EU has been illegal.) So, for example, Parliament was dissolved in 1831/2 to obtain the electorate's authority for the Reform Bill and again in 1910 following the Lord's rejection of the Liberal Finance Bill. In 1975, when the Government changed, Harold Wilson sought to put right the clear constitutional error by organising a retrospective referendum (something quite unprecedented in British history) designed to obtain the permission of the British people for Britain to join something it had already `joined'. Wilson's referendum was inspired solely by the realisation that the consent of the electorate ought first to have been obtained before we joined the EEC. The lack of legitimacy of the European Communities Act brought about the decision by the incoming Prime Minister and Labour leadership that a referendum should be held in preference to yet another general election. But, almost inevitably, the question asked in the referendum was also illegal since voters were asked: `Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?' The problem was that since Heath had ignored the constitution duties and requirements of Parliament and had signed the entrance documents illegally the words `stay in' were deceptive. We couldn't stay in the EEC because, constitutionally, we had never entered. We couldn't enter the Common Market because Parliament did not have the right to sign away our sovereignty. The referendum Wilson organised to remedy Heath's constitutional breach misled the electorate on a simple constitutional issue and was, therefore, itself illegal. (Wilson's referendum was passed after a good deal of very one-sided propaganda was used to influence public opinion. If the nation had voted against our `continued' membership of the EEC the political embarrassment for all politicians would have been unbearable.) Attempts through the courts to annul our membership of the European Union on the basis that Parliament acted improperly have failed because Parliament, through its legal sovereignty, is the source of the law in Britain and the courts are, therefore, unable to challenge any Parliamentary Act. Only Parliament can reclaim the legislative powers that Heath and subsequent Prime Ministers have handed to the European Union. And so, only when Parliament is filled with honest politicians (not inevitably an oxymoron) who are not controlled by the private party system will the mistake be rectified and our membership annulled. Britain's entry into the Common Market (later to be transformed into the EU) was also illegal for another reason. The Prime Minister who signed the entry documents, Edward Heath, later confirmed that he had lied to the British people about the implications of the Treaty" . Heath told the electorate that signing the Treaty of Rome would lead to no essential loss of National Sovereignty but later admitted that this was a lie. Astonishingly, Heath said he lied because he knew that the British would not approve of him signing the Treaty if they knew the truth. Heath told voters that the EEC was merely a free trade association. But he was lying through his teeth. He knew that the original members of the EEC had a long-standing commitment to political union and the step by step creation of a European superstate. Edward Heath received a substantial financial bribe for taking Britain into the EU when he was Prime Minister. (Heath was no stranger to bribery. One of his aides bribed a senior Labour Party official £25,000 for details of Harold Wilson's election tactics.) The reward of £35,000, paid personally to Heath and at the time a substantial sum of money, was handed over to him (in the guise of The Charlemagne Prize) for signing the Treaty of Rome. Because of Heath's dishonesty we never actually joined the Common Market. And so all the subsequent treaties that were signed were illegal. Britain's Treason Act (1351) is (at the time of writing) still in place. It states `that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm'. And under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if `any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom.' Our membership of the European Union will mean the end of the United Kingdom. So, since our membership of the European Union will doubtless `deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom' Britain's entry into the Common Market, under Edward Heath's signature, was null and void. Heath committed an act of treason. He betrayed the Queen and he deliberately misled the British people. Does any of this really matter to politicians? Is there any hope that Parliament will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and restore sovereignty to the people? Not in the immediate future. But the errors made by Heath and Wilson mean that when we want to leave the EU it will be very easy. Because, officially, we never joined. An independent British Parliament would simply have to pass one short Act of Parliament and give notice to the EU and we would be out of this accursed club." Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011 http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html "Since the 27th January, 1980 when Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 1961 came into force, it became illegal under International Law for Nation States to make treaties between themselves that conflicted with International ‘peremptory norms’ or were in conflict with National Law that had not been specifically repealed. It is considered that Parliament is sovereign and may not be compelled by any previous administration but Parliament is sovereign in all things except to diminish the sovereignty of Parliament. It seems that for the past 40 years, Parliament has done nothing but greatly diminish its own sovereignty by giving away its sovereignty and the supremacy of British Law. Although when Edward Heath signed Britain up to the European Economic Community in 1972, the European Communities Act was in contravention of the terms of the Vienna Convention because it abrogated International ‘Peremptory norms’ (Jus Cogens) as it diminished National sovereignty, it was presented to the British People fraudulently (and consequently not in ‘good faith’) and was in contravention of the Treason Act of 1351, the Vienna Convention (VCLT) although previously signed and ratified by Britain in June 1971 had not yet come into force and therefore, the forfeiture of sovereignty and the ‘implied’ repeal of the Treason Act was allowed by the Government and the Judiciary to stand". http://www.theunituk.org.uk/2016/09...at-the-only-legal-way-to-leave-is-article-50/
I mentioned it as the border issue fin and like most snp's as soon as a thread involves them, they feel elated that they have not been forgotten about, even if they have by their own leaders. As soon as it became clear the usual lets turn the thread into jockulation then the thread concerning that seperate section on alcohol and not brexit was kindly placed into the persons vision, this is called providing an avenue for the discussion to continue. We try to help
I think fins having a meltdown. He normally copies and paste's long other peoples opinions/posts. now he's stuck at seven words. it's like that clockwork toy as the batteries run out. Can you help him Loz?
I believe you know the answer to that. Anyway, I will soon have to agree with finm on everything as he will be the 51% majority shareholder. The bastart.
I would not worry. Given Diane Abbott does the snp's books, that 51% he thinks he has, is more than likely to be around 34%, I see you as the majority shareholder.
No anger fin and the reverse of the reverse is the oldest trick that always fails. You will be Loz's tea boy
There is so much pish in there and I didn’t even read it all. There is no such thing as British law. There is Scots Law and English law. There is no imperial crown of the United Kingdom. There is the English crown and the Scots Crown. Parliament is sovereign over the people of England, Wales and The north of Ireland only. In Scotland, sovereignty lies with the people. Scottish monarchs were never sovereign. They were elected and were more like modern day presidents. England is continually breaching the act of union. Poll tax being one example.
People have got no idea what leaving means. Leaving means that the city of London will lose a great deal of jobs and influence causing a huge amount of damage to SE England’s economy. Technical compliance has played a huge part in the increase in our wealth over the passed 20 years. If people want to make their own laws and be different, just watch the price of everything affected by those changes increase. Designing a car or bike for the EU brings massive economies of scale, but when jaguar and bmw are forced to design something different for the U.K. then watch the price for that product go up. Or watch them sell you the EU version because it exceeds the U.K. standard and the U.K., by leaving has had no input into the latest EU standard. Apply that to electrical standards and goods, construction materials, anything(which is everything) with a CE mark.....you get the picture. The fact is that these European laws and technical standards are based mainly on British Standards and German DIN standards which themselves were often tweaked British standards. You could not make this up Incidentally, how many more jaguars do you think we will be selling to Zimbabwe post Brexit?
I love the confidence you have in your own intellect and insight - without backing anything up with a single useful fact. What if it turns out you don't know WTF you're talking about? Will you post here about how misguided and wrong you've been and what you've learned? Didn't think so.
I always find it funny that extreme remainers think they know what leave means whilst demanding that those who voted leave never knew anything. My what a perceptive lot the extreme remainers must be. I'll do a quick summary though, we had a democratic vote, we are leaving, stop getting your panties in a bunch, the end. 749er, when you tell your partner you are leaving the house (something they must love to hear) do you leave a leg behind, an ear maybe, your frontal cortex maybe? Those who voted to leave did so knowing leave actually meant leave. Now if the intelligent remainers did not understand leave then let me help you , it's happening no matter how much you do not want it too. So whip up your falseness's of ww3, millions unemployed, terrorism will start again in Northern Ireland, we will be unable to match eu laws because we are to stupid on our own blah blah blah because it seems you are trying to convince yourself more that it will go wrong than anyone else. As to Zimbabwe, if you have a brexiteers mind then you will realise the world is more than just the eu and we are likely to sell more jags there as since the regime change, they have also started asking the old farmers who were kicked off their land, to come back to turn zimbabwe back into the garden of Africa that it was before Mugabe. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/22/white-farmer-gets-land-back-under-zimbabwes-new-leader/ So by all means carry on with your world is doomed but your fooling no one as we go forward.
