Jump to content

More Brexit Humour


Phil Perry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Phil, what is the significance of that sum? Is it what Britain pays the EU each year?

NO.

 

That is what the EU are demanding as a Divorce Settlement.

 

The House of Lords ( Full of Lawyers ) have already said that Britain Legally owes them nothing at all. However they will owe Britain a large amount for what we have paid towards Infrastructure and other things whilst being members for 40 years.

 

There is still time for Theresa May to screw everything up and cause a delay beyond the stated leave date of 29th March 2019. Lots of devious $hit going on behind the scene to pervert the Legal referendum result.. . . .If they really want riots in the streets then that's what they may well achieve if they are stupid enough to go down this road.

 

Jerry Attrick may give you a more detailed and nuanced view of the story if you are interested.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good one.

 

Theresa May was always for the exit of Britain from the EU, right from the start. She has always pushed for Brexit and has continuously worked towards the exit with a good outcome. I can think of no one who could have done a better job.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phil Perry - to be honest, I have sort of got a bit bored with Brexit at the moment. I think I needed a couple of days off it. @Litespeed - you are correct - she was a remainer - albeit a very quiet one without too much conviction. She was given a hospital pass, but she didn't help herself, either (much the same performance as when she was running the Home Office).

 

The £39bn is the claim the EU are making to the UK for commitments the UK had entered into (prior to the referendum) for long term projects. I have not read Article 50 and any implementing regulations so only going on what I read in the press.. Apparently, I think it was David Davis, when presented the original bill/s went through them line by line and from memory, all were not legally required under the treaty. The 39bn is, as I understand, a good-will settlement in the hope for a soft-Brexit (but not too soft)... However, the EU were playing a canny game and the UK were expected to cement the 39bn even before negotiation of the Brexit terms commenced. I honestly can't remember if the 39bn is or is not now agreed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good one.Theresa May was always for the exit of Britain from the EU, right from the start. She has always pushed for Brexit and has continuously worked towards the exit with a good outcome. I can think of no one who could have done a better job.

If I say 'BOLLOX.' . . please don't take it to heart mate.

 

( I realise that you are just being amusing. . . )

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it Bollocks? which means testicles or "rubbish" when referring to someone speaking. Anyhow Yenn, It's apparently a VULGAR "English" word from about 300 years ago so I hesitate to even repeat it.. I'm not going to tell Phil or he might get upset. He's got enough to put up with already with where he lives going to the DOGS and all that.. Churchill let the Cat out of the bag when he said DEMI Paradise..Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected far worse than that. I was just trying to get e response for my absolutely incorrect words. A very gentle response I may say.

 

I couldn't pull the wool over Phils eyes.

 

As I see it theresa May has gone to the EU and agreed what would happen, without any thought for what parliament would say, Then she delayed telling parliament what she had agreed to. Meanwhile the EU can sit back and refuse to negotiate, because they negotiated with her and now have a cast iron case to rest on.

 

You should feel like BSW. Screwed, and a coarse thread at that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it Bollocks? which means testicles or "rubbish" when referring to someone speaking. Anyhow Yenn, It's apparently a VULGAR "English" word from about 300 years ago so I hesitate to even repeat it.. I'm not going to tell Phil or he might get upset. He's got enough to put up with already with where he lives going to the DOGS and all that.. Churchill let the Cat out of the bag when he said DEMI Paradise..Nev

Good appraisal Nev. . . .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't wish to drag Jerry into Brexit,. . .as he, (possibly ) and I ( certainly ) am thoroughly appalled by what this organization does.

 

Recent Telegraph article :

 

Someone asked about the lack of criticism of the EU. It's been against the law since 2001, and they really did have to change the verdict wording as they originally wanted to describe criticism as 'blasphemy'...

 

E European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.

 

The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.

 

The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.

 

The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace".

 

However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech.

 

The rest of the article is in the link...

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bit disingenuous Phil.

 

I think your line "Someone asked about the lack of criticism of the EU. It's been against the law since 2001" is patently false.

 

Are you sure you don't mean "An EMPLOYEE of the European Commission is not allowed to publish criticism of the EU"?

 

As for the economist being fired 24 years ago for publishing something that looks very aggressively counter to the views of the organisation he worked for (he WAS working for the European Commission at the time), well, I think that would apply to any organisation.

 

If for example you worked for a restaurant, and they found you putting up negative reviews of that restaurant's food online, would you expect to continue to be employed there?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, The EU has the power to quash whistleblowers amongst its ranks. Then if the whistleblower gets the chop, and continues to blow the whistle from the outside, the EU can start using the "disgruntled ex-employee with psychological imbalance" line to rebut what is being said against it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...as do all organisations. If the economist wanted to publish a book telling how terrible the organisation he works for is, he should have quit first and done it as a private citizen.

 

The fact that he tried an unlawful dismissal suit speaks to a slight problem with his powers of reason. Unsurprisingly he lost the case.

 

My point is, either the Telegraph article - or Phil's interpretation of it - makes it look like the EC is some 1984-type organisation seeking to suppress criticism by ANYONE. All they did was fire a staff member who farted in the cathedral - which pretty much any organisation can do, and in many cases has done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't make it unique in any way though does it.? the EU does" go on" and behave in a some what "Precious" manner. What does America do to whistleblowers.? Lock them up forever by means of a weird thing called a Grand Jury .Arstralia wouldn't allow Chelsea Manning to come here and speak, recently. Guard your freedoms. There's always many who would take them away, Soon I won't be able to say that. $#1T... Who's THAT at the door? Help..AARGGHHhh.……………………………………...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without having read the court report (and I am not going to waste my time doing so), I think one has to be careful about drawing conclusions from that article. For example, as I understand, the EU and more specifically, the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over criminal law per se, so a prosecution over criticising the EU is highly unlikely. Although it is not accurate to compare a restaurant to a state (or in this case, supranational) institution.

 

One has to consider the context of the case before coming to the conclusion it is forbidden to criticise the EU. If the decision is in response to (what would be) an appeal against a decision in an unfair dismissal case, then the arguments cited may well be relevant and justifiable in that case - and the statements can only be said to be in that case. If the case is an appeal against a decision of a case brought be the economist asserting the EC (or an institution of the EC) acted unfairly in some way or another of, say a freedom of information request, then the arguments cited could give cause for concern that fundamental freedoms are being suppressed/oppressed.

 

I know of no law that suppresses criticism of the EU or its institutions. I know of no jurisdiction the EU has to enforce what amounts to a vilification law. It doesn't mean there is none or the EU doesn;t have the jurisdiction, but the details of the case should be reported. I am with @Litespeed on this one...

 

[edits to correct typos that I have seen]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read in the English press "Criminal immigrants cannot be Deported from England due the European Court of Justice ruling that it's illegal.to deport them."

 

"as I understand, the EU and more specifically, the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over criminal law"

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ruling over the ability to deport has nothing to do with criminal law..

 

Maybe you're mixing up deporting versus extradition... The EU will not interfere with extradition proceedings, unless those proceedings in some way violate some administrative EU law (I can't think of anythign applicable at the moment - but as an example, if they were going to extradite the person on a European registered aircraft using a PPL - of the case were brought to the European courts, they would direct a CPL/ATPL would be required - as an example).

 

Also, you may be referring to the European Court of Human Rights, which is NOT an EU institution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...