Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8936 total)
256 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 255 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: martygraham
Post Volume: Total: 861,912 Year: 16,948/19,786 Month: 1,073/2,598 Week: 319/251 Day: 47/43 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
Posts: 1699
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8

Message 766 of 771 (862714)
09-11-2019 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 765 by jar
09-11-2019 7:47 AM

Re: Brexit fact of the day
It's Heads of Government, rather than Heads of State (with a couple of exceptions for countries like France with funny constitutions).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by jar, posted 09-11-2019 7:47 AM jar has not yet responded

Posts: 20120
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8

Message 767 of 771 (862715)
09-11-2019 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 765 by jar
09-11-2019 7:47 AM

EU Council
They are the Heads of State {government} of the member nations.

So it would be like running the US with a council of governors ...

Interesting. Who came up with that idea?


Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by jar, posted 09-11-2019 7:47 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 768 by caffeine, posted 09-11-2019 9:01 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Posts: 1699
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8

Message 768 of 771 (862716)
09-11-2019 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by RAZD
09-11-2019 8:38 AM

Re: EU Council
Interesting. Who came up with that idea?

It evolved organically. Long before the Council was a formally defined entity, government leaders in the member states of the European Communities would meet periodically to discuss plans for the functioning of Europe and the direction of future integration. This was formalised with the Maastricht Treaty, which defined three key institutions that would be the pillars of the EU.

The Commission is supposed to represent the interests of the Union, the Council the interests of its member states, and the Parliament the interests of its citizens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2019 8:38 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Posts: 902
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.5

Message 769 of 771 (862718)
09-11-2019 9:43 AM

Suspension of Parliament ruled unlawful
Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.

A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move.

The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit.

A UK government appeal against the ruling will be heard by the Supreme Court in London next week.

The Court of Session decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week that Mr Johnson had not broken the law.


My guess is this will likely be over-ruled by the Supreme Court. But still, another slap in the face to Boris.

Posts: 606
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004

Message 770 of 771 (862719)
09-11-2019 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 757 by Percy
09-07-2019 9:53 AM

Re: Why would the EU grant an extension?
Sorry - just visiting again and saw this thread. There is an additional irony with regard to the non-binding nature of the referendum. It was ruled that there were significant irregularities with the vote leave campaign, namely that they spent more than they should have. If this had been a binding referendum, then it could have potentially have been ordered rerun by the courts. However, the courts cannot do so with an advisory referendum.

I hope I got that right. Here's a related article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

Also, you mentioned earlier why there was a problem with rerunning the referendum now to see if people want to leave now we have a clearer idea of the deal we will (or won't) be getting. The argument tends to be that it would be anti-democratic to rerun a referendum before the thing that the first referendum was about was implemented. This would be because if the government didn't like the result they got, they could keep running referenda until they got the result they wanted.

My personal take is that the first referendum was anti-democratic. It was just terrible. No supermajority required. No minimum turn-out required. An assumption that remain would win, so no clear idea of what leave might be (which in played into the hands of leave, who ran two independent campaigns promising different things to different people). David Cameron might end up being responsible for one of the most significant political mistakes in living memory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by Percy, posted 09-07-2019 9:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Posts: 15395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3

Message 771 of 771 (862792)
09-13-2019 10:58 AM

“A really terrible example”
Boris is still saying that we’ll leave by the 31st despite there being little sign of a deal, and a legal requirement to ask for an extension.

Bercow says that the PM openly defying the law would be a “really terrible example”

But this is Boris:

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019