the mood in your area

[embee]

Originally Posted by punyXpress

" Apart from some of the rather bonkers stuff regarding fishing quotas "
says the bloke who lives as far from the sea as anyone.
No chippies in your part of the country ?
Even the Scots are reduced to deep-frying Mars bars and pizzas

Sorry, I miss your point.
I think some of the rules for landing catches are dreadfully wasteful, leading to caught fish being thrown back dead. Not sure where I live in the country has much influence about that. I take it you think the fishing quotas are all splendid.


… and I live 2 doors from a chippy.

[embee]

Originally Posted by punyXpress

Although called The European Communities Act 1972, it relates to the EEC,
and the Coal and Steel Community - no mention of the European Union !
We were taken over by stealth, and I fail to see the legitimacy of THAT!

OK, so the 1972 Act didn't say it required an Act of Parliament to authorise the government to invoke article 50 then? Sorry, I appear to have totally misunderstood things.
The 1972 Act has been amended over the years to reflect changes within the EEC/EU etc.
The authorisation for invoking Article 50 requirements within the 1972 Act could have been repealed within the 2015 Referendum Act had parliament wanted to, but that deliberately defined the referendum as advisory, thus keeping the authorisation by separate Act of Parliament in place. That was the choice of the UK parliament, it was not an EU issue.

[embee]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

If EU has never taken over countries, why is it so hard to leave ?

I don't think it is, as long as we don't want frictionless trade across a border or any sort of ongoing relationship. We can walk away on 29/03/2019 and shut the door if we wish.
What was the plan back in June 2016? Is everything going to that plan?

[Talking Heads]

There wasn't any plan.
Cameron never thought for a minute that leave could possibly win.

[SV650rules]

Originally Posted by embee

OK, so the 1972 Act didn't say it required an Act of Parliament to authorise the government to invoke article 50 then? Sorry, I appear to have totally misunderstood things.

Article 50 did not even exist in 1972, it is only a few years old, I think someone pointed out that there was no way to leave the EU, ( I suppose they thought no one would ever want to leave ) so to keep things legal they quickly cobbled together an article giving a way out, but never expected it to be used.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7655891.html

The EU has effectively weaponised the Irish border, there has always been a border there for tax, currency and vat purposes, there is also a border in the Irish sea for checking the transmission of diseases and pests from Ireland to mainland, and vice versa. Vast majority of trade across the north south Irish border is repeat shipments of identical goods, making it ideal for trusted trader electronic control. Neither ROI or northern Ireland are in schengen area so people crossing border should not posed problem ( especially considering how far ireland is from French coast....).

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by Talking Heads

There wasn't any plan.
Cameron never thought for a minute that leave could possibly win.

correct and thats why they put that dimwit BJ in charge of the opposition. well the public surprised them and now we all have to pay the price.. or do we

[embee]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

Article 50 did not even exist in 1972, it is only a few years old, …....

I think we'll agree to split hairs on this one. You're right that Article 50 did not exist when the 1972 Act was passed, but the content of 1972 essentially covered the process of leaving, which was subsequently put into Article 50, but the Miller court case led to the judges determining that the government could not effectively over-rule the requirements within 1972.
You probably know this stuff in more depth than I do, so I'll bow.

Miller Case paragraph here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...European_Union

The Constitution of the United Kingdom is unwritten and it operates on convention and legal precedent: this question is without precedent and so the legal position was thought to be unclear. The Government argued that the use of prerogative powers to enact the referendum result was constitutionally proper and consistent with domestic law[46] whereas the opposing view was that prerogative powers could not be used to set aside rights previously established by Parliament.[47][48][49]
Three distinct groups of citizens – one supported by crowd funding – brought a case before the High Court of England and Wales to challenge the government's interpretation of the law.[50]
On 13 October 2016, the High Court commenced hearing opening arguments. The Government argued that it would be constitutionally impermissible for the court to make a declaration that it [Her Majesty's Government] could not lawfully issue such a notification. The government stated that such a declaration [by the Court] would trespass on proceedings in Parliament, as the Court had ruled previously[51] when rejecting a challenge to the validity of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty after the passing of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 but without a referendum.[52][53] Opening the case for the Plaintiffs, Lord Pannick QC told the Court that the case "raises an issue of fundamental constitutional importance concerning the limits of the power of the Executive". He argued Mrs May could not use royal prerogative powers to remove rights established by the European Communities Act 1972, which made EU law part of UK law, as it was for Parliament to decide whether or not to maintain those statutory rights.[54]
On 3 November 2016, the High Court ruled[55] in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that only Parliament could make the decision on when or indeed whether to invoke Article 50.[56] The Government's appeal to the Supreme Court took place on 5–8 December 2016.[57] On 24 January 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of lower court by a majority of eight to three, declaring that the invocation of Article 50 could only come by an Act of Parliament.[58][59][60] The case was seen as having constitutional significance in deciding the scope of the royal prerogative in foreign affairs.[61] The Supreme Court also ruled that devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no legal right to veto the act.[62]

[SV650rules]

Funny thing is we were illegally taken into EEC by act of parliament in 1972, but the referendum was not held until 1975 and the question was ' should UK remain a member of the EEC'. Heath government took us in illegally by simple act of parliament when Heath knew a referendum was required, Harold Wilson belatedly held a referendum to try and 'legalise' the situation.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

[embee]

Well at least the last sentence of that article has come to fruition, so everyone is happy.
"An independent British (I take this as meaning UK) 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."

[Talking Heads]

We're not out yet, ECJ ruling yet to be made on whether or not member state can unilaterally cancel A50 notice.