European Politics

Night Prowler said:
We're in search of a new prime-minister, since the current quit to become president. Prime candidate is a lesbian who by all accounts is qualified for the job but the church is lobbying against her <_<
Click to expand...

A Croat lesbian you say?

xculturalvictory.gif.pagespeed.ic.7rIIyCQ_Pj.jpg
 
Maybe some fellow Brits can enlighten me on what thing regarding the general election that I don't quite understand.

Ignoring the politics (& pressure that might be brought to bear on the sitting government), from a purely practical perspective how does the Conservative minority (specifically them not having a majority in parliament) have any bearing on the Brexit negotiation?; since the Conservatives have never said they'll return to the UK parliament for a final vote on the "deal" they've secured with the EU. As I understand it, there's nothing compelling the sitting government to require any further vote in regard to Brexit. Therefore, why does a majority matter? I understand how the everyday running of parliament, which does indeed require legislation to be brought before the parliament and voted on, needs (or it's good to have) a majority government; but Brexit? I'm not following. Or have I missed something here?
 
Indeed, but if that's simply (as it's proposed) going to be a straight transference of EU law into UK law (with fiddling later, and not at the time of the bill itself) then who is going to oppose this? No other party has put forward any other method of maintaining a legal transition. They're only going to be voted down on these things if the parliament generally doesn't believe the government is going to implement stuff as they've stated. Admittedly, that's a trust thing, which the Tories aren't very good at. And the Repeal Bill generally will be problematic in respect to the devolved parliaments & particularly in Scotland (because of its independent legal system and the SNP's control in Edinburgh).

But in terms of the Brexit negotiations generally, their current minority status is not going to hold them back from negotiating as they see fit.
 
Last edited:
I suppose there could be legal challenges in future about any decision-making by the Conservative negotiators that has implications for British law/the constitution without ever going through Parliament. Or they could make a decision and then have to get it through Parliament after agreeing it with the EU. The process is crystal clear from the EU side, but in British law, what the heck is setting out how this is supposed to work? The Conservatives can go in with whatever stance they like, but does that make any of it binding on British law?
 
Lawyers/experts have already commented that some of the laws which, for example, specifically name-check EU institutions, can't just be "transferred" across with the passing of the Repeal Bill; they won't make sense. The contentious issue seems to be the clause the Tory Government has made (as they feel necessary, to avoid this being bogged down in parliament) to make these small amendments ("corrections") without parliamentary scrutiny; as ministers will in effect be making law themselves i.e. Henry VIII powers. I think the main issue here is people have very little trust in parliament's ability to successfully carry this out, and possibly even less trust if the government is allowed to do this on its own. I certainly don't.

I'm quite interested in how this will effect Scotland though. There seems very little chance that the Scottish parliament won't have a legal veto on this.
 
Last edited:
It certainly seems the courts will have to weigh in on how the process occurs, as well as the steps required.

As Cried has noted, it seems at least the Scottish Parliament will be given a yes-no veto, and possibly the other devolved legislatures as well.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
What court is going to weigh-in on the process?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the same one that ruled that Parliament had to pass the Article 50 invocation process, I would assume.

Black Wizard said:
I think the supreme court already decided that the Scottish Parliament didn't have a veto, or was that just for Article 50?
Click to expand...

A quick check says that the ruling was specific to invoking Article 50.
 
LooseCannon said:
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the same one that ruled that Parliament had to pass the Article 50 invocation process, I would assume.
Click to expand...
We haven't heard of any further cases likely to go to court over the Brexit process though. For example, nobody has challenged the fact that no vote is required on the terms of the deal agreed. It might happen, but I can't see it happening over small details.
Black Wizard said:
I think the supreme court already decided that the Scottish Parliament didn't have a veto, or was that just for Article 50?
Click to expand...
That was only Article 50. We're talking (or at least I am) about the possibility that some laws may be tinkered with (by government ministers) as they are transferred into UK law from EU law. They've said this will be necessary in something like 800-1000 cases. The idea that this can happen, that a law might be technically "tweaked", but in reality subtly changed, and that this won't be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in Scotland (even if it hasn't in the UK parliament) sounds pretty unlikely. It's not that important, but obviously people are concerned that this has the potential to happen.
 
Night Prowler said:
We're in search of a new prime-minister, since the current quit to become president. Prime candidate is a lesbian who by all accounts is qualified for the job but the church is lobbying against her <_<
Click to expand...
She'll be the new prime-minister, Vučić just announced on TV!

Only article in English I could find on her: https://www.rferl.org/a/serbia-gay-minister-brnabic/27912738.html

She's not in any party so I think she's a good choice. Also, we're so progressive and tolerant now :D
 
An MP from the main opposition party CHP, who was formerly a journalist, got sent to prison for 25 years for a news report that outed illegal arms trade between Turkey and rebel groups in Syria.

CHP has started a protest walk today, they're going to walk from Ankara to Istanbul holding a sign that says "Justice".
 
At the moment, Europe has its deadliest forest fire since 1949. In Portugal 57 casualties have already been reported and villages are locked in.

In 1949 the death toll was 82, in France.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust-idUSKBN19I108

- EU accuses Google of favoring their own services, such as shopping, while presenting related search results
- Google claims that their data shows that customers don't want an extra step, such as click on a google search page link to visit a specialized 3rd party shopping portal
- Google claims that their customers want Google to provide a queried service in full
- EU embarks on 7 year case
- EU brings hard data that customers want Google to provide search results, not something that is vaguely called "full user experience" or some other Sillicon Valley hipster bullshit
- EU hits Google for percentage of its global turnover, in effect killing any tax loophole Google might utilize on EU market, such as Irish corporate laws, to present lower number and minimize the penalty. EU hits Google for 2420 million euros
 
The Google thing is just nuts ...

On the other hand, France seems to have stumbled upon a President that seems to know what they hell he is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top