Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. And the constitutional change, which is necessary from am EU perspective, is that the courts are allowed to overrule Parliament to implement EU law. Which, for our system, was an enormous shift and again was around the time of the early nineties, like Maastricht, when British Euroscepticism started.

Edit: And like many of the more dramatic demonstrations of the EU's reach it came from the wholly unelected, wholly political ECJ.

[Zanza]

I guess with the introduction of citizenship and a charter of rights we gave the EU citizens a stake in the whole. Without that, I would argue that EU membership is not a right, so there is no issue at all removing it via referendum. Now that individuals will lose rights they had, I find it harder to defend a referendum on that.

[Valmy]

reach it came from the wholly unelected, wholly political ECJ.

I don't see any problems with wholly unelected and wholly political courts over-ruling laws.

But actually would you rather an elected one did? I thought people tended to frown on our elected judges.

[Tamas]

Yeah. And the constitutional change, which is necessary from am EU perspective, is that the courts are allowed to overrule Parliament to implement EU law. Which, for our system, was an enormous shift and again was around the time of the early nineties, like Maastricht, when British Euroscepticism started.

Edit: And like many of the more dramatic demonstrations of the EU's reach it came from the wholly unelected, wholly political ECJ.

I am sorry for my prejudices but I very much doubt the pro-Leave demographics of the old, the uneducated, and the poor, constitutional particularities trumped "bloody immigrants" and "up yours!" as main reasons to vote Leave.

[alfred russel]

I guess with the introduction of citizenship and a charter of rights we gave the EU citizens a stake in the whole. Without that, I would argue that EU membership is not a right, so there is no issue at all removing it via referendum. Now that individuals will lose rights they had, I find it harder to defend a referendum on that.

The EU explicitly allows for the secession of member states.

If you find a referendum followed by a parliamentary vote hard to defend as a basis for secession, what do you think is a legitimate path to secession?

[Sheilbh]

We (and Poland) opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (though the CJEU rulings have raised doubts about the legal effectiveness of the opt out).

Also it was constantly repeated that it wasn't creating any new rights that weren't already enforceable via the ECHR, it was just creating another more accessible forum. This was probably always wrong as I believe the CFR has about 40 provisions to the ECHR'S 10 or so. I don't believe there have been many rulings by the CJEU since, but as I said the ones that have come out do seem to be creating new rights and in areas where the ECtHR has a body of rulings the CJEU does eem to be mostly ignoring it I could be wrong but the impression I get is there's a bit of jurisdictional dick-waving going on.

[Zanza]

I guess with the introduction of citizenship and a charter of rights we gave the EU citizens a stake in the whole. Without that, I would argue that EU membership is not a right, so there is no issue at all removing it via referendum. Now that individuals will lose rights they had, I find it harder to defend a referendum on that.

The EU explicitly allows for the secession of member states.

If you find a referendum followed by a parliamentary vote hard to defend as a basis for secession, what do you think is a legitimate path to secession?

I think secession is legtitimate and I also think a referendum is a legitimate way to decide on it. That said, I would still like to see minority right protections as a side condition. If Theresa May now questions whether the rights of EU citizens in Britain would be protected even after a Brexit, it makes me at least rather suspicious.

[mongers]

I guess with the introduction of citizenship and a charter of rights we gave the EU citizens a stake in the whole. Without that, I would argue that EU membership is not a right, so there is no issue at all removing it via referendum. Now that individuals will lose rights they had, I find it harder to defend a referendum on that.

The EU explicitly allows for the secession of member states.

If you find a referendum followed by a parliamentary vote hard to defend as a basis for secession, what do you think is a legitimate path to secession?

I think secession is legtitimate and I also think a referendum is a legitimate way to decide on it. That said, I would still like to see minority right protections as a side condition. If Theresa May now questions whether the rights of EU citizens in Britain would be protected even after a Brexit, it makes me at least rather suspicious.

She's playing to her 'constituency'

[Tamas]

If Theresa May now questions whether the rights of EU citizens in Britain would be protected even after a Brexit, it makes me at least rather suspicious.

What did she say? I was hoping we immigrants would not be thrown to the dogs straight at the start of the Tory infighting.

[CountDeMoney]

Berkut and I do not speak for all Americans

Many, if not most, Americans are cheering Brexit on. Cal and Spicey for example.

I think it was silly and stupid, but it took guts and guts is enough.

It's times like this that remind me of my favorite part of the Iran-Contra hearings, when Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) took Oliver North back to 9th grade Civics class.

Col. North, finally everyone else has had something to say to you. I have something to take -- take some difference of opinion with you on, and it's in your statement that you delivered here last Thursday morning. You said about the Congress, "I suggest to you that it's the Congress which must accept the blame on the Nicaraguan freedom-fighting matter. Plain and simple, you are to blame because of the fickle, vacillating, unpredictable on-again, off-again policy towards the resistance." You're entitled to your view, but I . . . want to share some of my views with you.

It's interesting that national polling data over the course of the last three years have shown that -- in the latest Harris poll in June, 74 to 22 {percent of the} people in this country oppose aid to the contras . . . . And that is why this Congress has been fickle and vacillating.

Now you may suggest that some of us voted anyway, even though it's against what our constituents believe. But I want to point out to you, Col. North, that the Constitution starts with the words, "We the people." There is no way you can carry out a consistent policy if we the people disagree with it, because this Congress represents the people . . . .

I guess the last thing I want to say to you, colonel, is that the American people have the constitutional right to be wrong. And what Ronald Reagan thinks or what Oliver North thinks or what I think or what anybody else thinks makes not a wit, if the American people say, "Enough." And that's why this Congress has been fickle and has vacillated -- that is correct. But, not because the people here necessarily believe differently than you do. But there comes a point that the views of the American people have to be heard.

These will be words to think about when President Trump is sworn in.

[mongers]

If Theresa May now questions whether the rights of EU citizens in Britain would be protected even after a Brexit, it makes me at least rather suspicious.

What did she say? I was hoping we immigrants would not be thrown to the dogs straight at the start of the Tory infighting.

It's sort of the 'logical' conclusion to playing to that crowd, those Brexit voters and the ones in the Tory party who'll vote for her; they want a significant number of EU citizens/migrants to leave England.

Sorry Tamas, but that's what it amounts to, just hope it doesn't get too ugly for those on the sharp end.

[Sheilbh]

It is nasty but it is also leverage/hard-ball.

[Valmy]

It is nasty but it is also leverage/hard-ball.

So get the EU to do what you want by threatening their nationals? Bold move.

[derspiess]

It is nasty but it is also leverage/hard-ball.

So get the EU to do what you want by threatening their nationals? Bold move.

If the EU is going to act all shitty you might as well hold it as a bargaining chip.

[Sheilbh]

It was just mentioned in passing, as I say I didn't notice first time round. I think it's just a marker that depending in how negotiations go that subject may be opened too.