Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Brexit and the British armed forces 13:19 - Oct 5 with 7977 viewsdickythorpe

I was speaken to an old soldier today and he was saying that the EU want control of our armed forces even after leaving.
Is that right?
By all accounts ex-soldiers are at Hyde Park corner and arriving in great numbers. Media not giving it any exposure yet.
0
Brexit and the British armed forces on 17:53 - Oct 12 with 828 viewslonglostjack

Brexit and the British armed forces on 17:46 - Oct 12 by londonlisa2001

Oh dear God.

It’s pointless.

You are unable to understand basic principles. Basic arguments. There is absolutely no comprehension. I’m sorry, as I don’t mean to be rude, but you are arguing about concepts that you just don’t seem to understand. Even slightly.

I can’t be bothered any longer.


You did your best fair play.

Poll: Alcohol in the lockdown

1
Brexit and the British armed forces on 18:18 - Oct 12 with 815 viewsmajorraglan

Brexit and the British armed forces on 17:41 - Oct 12 by A_Fans_Dad

Tell that to the EU.
You actually believe that the EU can't just write another law overturning the European Union Act of 2011 as the EU is the higher authority.
You also have to be allowed in an EU Leaders meeting to be able to use a Veto, when was the last time a UK Leader was allowed to attend one involving Brexit or any major EU decisions?
They are already called EU27 leaders meetings.

Then of course there is this little gem which I haven't been right through, I will leave that to you.

"Textual Amendments applied to the whole legislation

F1 Act repealed (4.7.2018 for the repeal of ss. 1-13, 14(1), 15(1), Sch. 1 and on exit day in so far as not already in force) by European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16), s. 25(4), Sch. 9 (with s. 19, Sch. 8 para. 37); S.I. 2018/808, regs. 3(i), 4 (with reg. 8)"

Except of course Mays WA did not actually have us leaving the EU and I doubt if Johnson's is any better,


I don’t wish to be rude, but you are having a bit of a mare with this thread. We have a veto and we can veto attempts to remove the veto, it’s quite simple.

In terms of the EU27, they are discussing their relationship with the UK government and how Brexit will be managed going forward, to not rocket science to be able to understand why they don’t want us at that particular meeting.
2
(No subject) on 15:46 - Oct 13 with 741 viewsCatullus

We keep calling it a veto but from what I've read, it's not actually a veto because it only applies in areas where a unaninmous decision is needed, so, if if one member doesn't vote for it, it fails.
This is why they are trying to change it to either QMV or a simple majority, so one member can't hold anything up, specially in tax laws.
If a unanimous decision is needed to change the voting system then we can simply vote it down but will the EU stand for that?
As we know, politicians are good at finding ways and means.

Just my opinion, but WTF do I know anyway?
Poll: Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread?
Blog: In, Out, in, out........

-1
(No subject) on 16:10 - Oct 13 with 723 viewsexiledclaseboy

(No subject) on 15:46 - Oct 13 by Catullus

We keep calling it a veto but from what I've read, it's not actually a veto because it only applies in areas where a unaninmous decision is needed, so, if if one member doesn't vote for it, it fails.
This is why they are trying to change it to either QMV or a simple majority, so one member can't hold anything up, specially in tax laws.
If a unanimous decision is needed to change the voting system then we can simply vote it down but will the EU stand for that?
As we know, politicians are good at finding ways and means.


So a veto is only a veto when it acts as a veto.

Good to see the dull Brexiteers stereotype isn’t true.

Poll: Tory leader

0
(No subject) on 16:22 - Oct 13 with 706 viewsSwanDownUnder

(No subject) on 16:10 - Oct 13 by exiledclaseboy

So a veto is only a veto when it acts as a veto.

Good to see the dull Brexiteers stereotype isn’t true.


So funny.
0
(No subject) on 18:26 - Oct 13 with 663 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 16:10 - Oct 13 by exiledclaseboy

So a veto is only a veto when it acts as a veto.

Good to see the dull Brexiteers stereotype isn’t true.


It is only a Veto if you are one of the 28.
We won't be after Johnson's deal.
As to us being able to veto the "EU Army" it is already way too late.
When the incoming Foreign Minister said we need to double the size of our "army from 30,000 to 60,000 what do you think he meant?
The EU doesn't have an army does it?
Wouldnt' we have to have had a Referendum?
-1
(No subject) on 18:41 - Oct 13 with 647 viewssherpajacob

(No subject) on 18:26 - Oct 13 by A_Fans_Dad

It is only a Veto if you are one of the 28.
We won't be after Johnson's deal.
As to us being able to veto the "EU Army" it is already way too late.
When the incoming Foreign Minister said we need to double the size of our "army from 30,000 to 60,000 what do you think he meant?
The EU doesn't have an army does it?
Wouldnt' we have to have had a Referendum?


Are you arguing for remain or leave?, it's not entirely clear from this,post.

Poll: Your favourite ever Swans shirt sponsor?

0
(No subject) on 18:47 - Oct 13 with 644 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 18:41 - Oct 13 by sherpajacob

Are you arguing for remain or leave?, it's not entirely clear from this,post.


What do remain or leave have to do with the question of whether or not there is already an EU army as stated by the incoming EU Foreign Minister?
Despite us not having had a Referendum, or do we only need to have one to contribute to it?
-1
Login to get fewer ads

(No subject) on 19:13 - Oct 13 with 629 viewsexiledclaseboy

(No subject) on 18:26 - Oct 13 by A_Fans_Dad

It is only a Veto if you are one of the 28.
We won't be after Johnson's deal.
As to us being able to veto the "EU Army" it is already way too late.
When the incoming Foreign Minister said we need to double the size of our "army from 30,000 to 60,000 what do you think he meant?
The EU doesn't have an army does it?
Wouldnt' we have to have had a Referendum?


Well we won’t have a veto after we leave the EU that’s pretty much a given. Other than that, no idea what you’re on about.

Poll: Tory leader

0
(No subject) on 22:10 - Oct 13 with 580 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 19:13 - Oct 13 by exiledclaseboy

Well we won’t have a veto after we leave the EU that’s pretty much a given. Other than that, no idea what you’re on about.


What I am on about about is that the EU army already exists and has done so since 2007 and it has 30,000 troops just as the Foreign Minister said.
Of course it isn't a conventional army because the troops are scattered around in different countries.
In typical EU fashion it also isn't called an army of course, instead there are 18 BattleGroups (EUBG).
That is what May & Robbins have been working on signing us up to since 2016 even though we are supposedly leaving.
But of course we do not have to take part in any actual operations.
-1
(No subject) on 22:58 - Oct 13 with 550 viewslonglostjack

(No subject) on 22:10 - Oct 13 by A_Fans_Dad

What I am on about about is that the EU army already exists and has done so since 2007 and it has 30,000 troops just as the Foreign Minister said.
Of course it isn't a conventional army because the troops are scattered around in different countries.
In typical EU fashion it also isn't called an army of course, instead there are 18 BattleGroups (EUBG).
That is what May & Robbins have been working on signing us up to since 2016 even though we are supposedly leaving.
But of course we do not have to take part in any actual operations.


Europeans taking a bit of responsibility for their own security. What’s not to like? I thought that’s what Trump wanted.

Poll: Alcohol in the lockdown

0
(No subject) on 23:21 - Oct 13 with 532 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 22:58 - Oct 13 by longlostjack

Europeans taking a bit of responsibility for their own security. What’s not to like? I thought that’s what Trump wanted.


No Trump wanted them to honour their NATO commitments.
-1
(No subject) on 23:28 - Oct 13 with 528 viewslonglostjack

(No subject) on 23:21 - Oct 13 by A_Fans_Dad

No Trump wanted them to honour their NATO commitments.


Even the Donald can’t always get what he wants. Now there’s a nice thought. Nos da.

Poll: Alcohol in the lockdown

1
(No subject) on 09:37 - Oct 14 with 481 viewsCatullus

(No subject) on 16:10 - Oct 13 by exiledclaseboy

So a veto is only a veto when it acts as a veto.

Good to see the dull Brexiteers stereotype isn’t true.


Oh good god and you say I don't understand.

It's like when fullfact says EU law takes primacy and you disagree. Here's another link proving this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14548 which just goes to show that in your case, the truth is what you yourself believe. Any other truths are a failure to understand, lies or gross stupidity.

Some might even call it arrogance.

Just my opinion, but WTF do I know anyway?
Poll: Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread?
Blog: In, Out, in, out........

-1
(No subject) on 12:06 - Oct 14 with 451 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 09:37 - Oct 14 by Catullus

Oh good god and you say I don't understand.

It's like when fullfact says EU law takes primacy and you disagree. Here's another link proving this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14548 which just goes to show that in your case, the truth is what you yourself believe. Any other truths are a failure to understand, lies or gross stupidity.

Some might even call it arrogance.


They think that facts are "Fake News".
-1
(No subject) on 12:16 - Oct 14 with 445 viewsEbo

(No subject) on 16:10 - Oct 13 by exiledclaseboy

So a veto is only a veto when it acts as a veto.

Good to see the dull Brexiteers stereotype isn’t true.


You cannot educate gammon Andrew, you can only cure it.

Thank you, goodnight and bollocks
Poll: What couldn't you live without?

0
(No subject) on 13:19 - Oct 14 with 417 viewslondonlisa2001

(No subject) on 09:37 - Oct 14 by Catullus

Oh good god and you say I don't understand.

It's like when fullfact says EU law takes primacy and you disagree. Here's another link proving this https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14548 which just goes to show that in your case, the truth is what you yourself believe. Any other truths are a failure to understand, lies or gross stupidity.

Some might even call it arrogance.


We can pass a law that says we will not listen to EU law any longer. And the EU can’t bring in a law that can overrule that.

That’s why we have primacy.

No amount of links that say EU law has primacy WHILE WE ALLOW IT TO changes that.
0
(No subject) on 13:53 - Oct 14 with 405 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 13:19 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001

We can pass a law that says we will not listen to EU law any longer. And the EU can’t bring in a law that can overrule that.

That’s why we have primacy.

No amount of links that say EU law has primacy WHILE WE ALLOW IT TO changes that.


And if we are still subject to the ECJ can be taken to court and fined.
Are you suggesting that we do not pay?
Or are you going to bring in another law to leave the EJC even though our AW says we stay in it and renege on that treaty?
[Post edited 14 Oct 2019 13:57]
-1
(No subject) on 14:04 - Oct 14 with 396 viewslondonlisa2001

(No subject) on 13:53 - Oct 14 by A_Fans_Dad

And if we are still subject to the ECJ can be taken to court and fined.
Are you suggesting that we do not pay?
Or are you going to bring in another law to leave the EJC even though our AW says we stay in it and renege on that treaty?
[Post edited 14 Oct 2019 13:57]


I have no idea what you are talking about.

You just refuse to listen to facts and continue to confuse what we are able to do with what we may agree to do. The two things are different. Very different.
0
(No subject) on 14:19 - Oct 14 with 387 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 14:04 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You just refuse to listen to facts and continue to confuse what we are able to do with what we may agree to do. The two things are different. Very different.


I refuse to listen to facts, that is rich coming from you.
Both of the official sites quoted say you are wrong and yet you insist you know better.
"We can just write a Law".
OK we should all believe you on anything EU & Legal as you know better.
Got it.
-1
(No subject) on 14:44 - Oct 14 with 381 viewslondonlisa2001

(No subject) on 14:19 - Oct 14 by A_Fans_Dad

I refuse to listen to facts, that is rich coming from you.
Both of the official sites quoted say you are wrong and yet you insist you know better.
"We can just write a Law".
OK we should all believe you on anything EU & Legal as you know better.
Got it.


None of the official sites quoted say I’m wrong. I’m not disagreeing with any of them.

You just don’t understand the point.
0
(No subject) on 15:33 - Oct 14 with 360 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 14:44 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001

None of the official sites quoted say I’m wrong. I’m not disagreeing with any of them.

You just don’t understand the point.


No I do not see the point, perhaps you will like to point it out where it says it in this

"According to the precedence principle, European law is superior to the national laws of Member States. The precedence principle applies to all European acts with a binding force. Therefore, Member States may not apply a national rule which contradicts to European law.

The precedence principle guarantees the superiority of European law over national laws. It is a fundamental principle of European law. As with the direct effect principle, it is not inscribed in the Treaties, but has been enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Definition

The CJEU enshrined the precedence principle in the Costa versus Enel case of 15 July 1964. In this case, the Court declared that the laws issued by European institutions are to be integrated into the legal systems of Member States, who are obliged to comply with them. European law therefore has precedence over national laws. Therefore, if a national rule is contrary to a European provision, Member States’ authorities must apply the European provision. National law is neither rescinded nor repealed, but its binding force is suspended.

The Court later clarified that the precedence of European law is to be applied to all national acts, whether they were adopted before or after the European act in question."

So you write a law and under ECJ if it contradicts an EU law it is ILLEGAL.
Point to where it says it is not.
We are according to the Brexit Political Directive and the WA under ECJ rule until at least the end of 2020.
-1
(No subject) on 15:35 - Oct 14 with 357 viewslondonlisa2001

(No subject) on 15:33 - Oct 14 by A_Fans_Dad

No I do not see the point, perhaps you will like to point it out where it says it in this

"According to the precedence principle, European law is superior to the national laws of Member States. The precedence principle applies to all European acts with a binding force. Therefore, Member States may not apply a national rule which contradicts to European law.

The precedence principle guarantees the superiority of European law over national laws. It is a fundamental principle of European law. As with the direct effect principle, it is not inscribed in the Treaties, but has been enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Definition

The CJEU enshrined the precedence principle in the Costa versus Enel case of 15 July 1964. In this case, the Court declared that the laws issued by European institutions are to be integrated into the legal systems of Member States, who are obliged to comply with them. European law therefore has precedence over national laws. Therefore, if a national rule is contrary to a European provision, Member States’ authorities must apply the European provision. National law is neither rescinded nor repealed, but its binding force is suspended.

The Court later clarified that the precedence of European law is to be applied to all national acts, whether they were adopted before or after the European act in question."

So you write a law and under ECJ if it contradicts an EU law it is ILLEGAL.
Point to where it says it is not.
We are according to the Brexit Political Directive and the WA under ECJ rule until at least the end of 2020.


No, I can’t be bothered.

It’s been pointed out on numerous occasions, and you simply don’t get it.
1
(No subject) on 16:03 - Oct 14 with 352 viewsA_Fans_Dad

(No subject) on 15:35 - Oct 14 by londonlisa2001

No, I can’t be bothered.

It’s been pointed out on numerous occasions, and you simply don’t get it.


Yes you do that a lot, saying that others don't get it when you do.
-1
(No subject) on 16:12 - Oct 14 with 347 viewslondonlisa2001

(No subject) on 16:03 - Oct 14 by A_Fans_Dad

Yes you do that a lot, saying that others don't get it when you do.


Many on here have pointed out you keep missing the point. There comes a time when I can’t be bothered to say it again as you simply don’t listen, or don’t understand.
1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024