Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General Discussion Area / Re: An Interesting Theory Regarding the NHS And The EU

« on: Today at 14:42:41 »

As I understand it, although Sweden has not joined ERM II they voluntarily keep the Swedish Krona within the parameters against the Euro as though they were members of ERM II, so I can't think there would be any obstacles for an advanced economy like Sweden joining the Eurozone.    But given that their neighbours Finland had to contribute 6 billion Euros to the Greece bailout, you can understand their reticence. 

No doubt Sweden have their reasons, as do Poland, Czech Rep etc who could probably all meet the Euro requirements if they really wanted to. Point is, they all have an effective and simple to use opt-out.

I think that there is little doubt that the EU Commission will apply pressure on all the Non Euro countries to join the Eurozone, which will include us if we do end up staying in. 

The pressure wouldn't bother me. What does bother me is UK politicians who seem unable to say no. After the first no, any repeat of the same question gets a "What part of no didn't you understand?" response till they move onto the next issue..

2

General Discussion Area / Re: An Interesting Theory Regarding the NHS And The EU

« on: Today at 10:17:38 »

Dont new member states have to adopt the Euro?

The old folk in Spain remember wistfully how going to the Euro created inflation. E.g. overnight a coffee went from 100 pesetas to 166 pesetas i.e. one euro. There were many other examples . Just mention it as an aside.

Yes. Of the nine EU countries that don't use the Euro only Denmark and the UK are not bound by treaty to join the Euro. 

New members of the EU have been obliged to join the Euro once they meet the "convergence criteria" ever since the adoption of the Maastricht treaty in 1994. One of the convergence criteria is to join ERM II. However, joining ERM II is voluntary, and a country can choose not to join - which is exactly what Sweden and 6 other EU countries have chosen to do (or more accurately not to do). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro

So whilst it looks like new countries MUST join the Euro, in practice they have an opt-out.

3

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: Today at 00:30:45 »

So what you are saying is that we will be out, but could pretend we are still in? 

That would go down well with the electorate! 

No - it's nothing to do with us being in or out. Simply that any and all EU laws would still apply within the UK until/unless the 1972 act is repealed, and the Government/Parliament has the ability to delay that repeal till any point in the future by virtue of the powers in the 2018 act. It doesn't require EU approval or agreement.

However, I agree delaying the repeal is pointless unless the EU also agree to an extension under Art50(3). Doesn't prevent it happening though.

It's difficult to see anything going down well with the electorate from here though.

4

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: Yesterday at 20:01:50 »

Sigh...  Without the agreement of the EU27 to extend the A50 period or other arrangements are put in place again with the agreement of the EU27, the treaties cease to apply to the UK and we are no longer a member of the European Union after 2300 29th March 2019. 

Unless they revoke A50, Parliament can huff, puff, amend the various acts as much as it likes but without the cooperation of the EU27 are pretty much bystanders as the clock ticks. 

Tick tock! 

You miss the point. The treaties don't cease to apply to the UK, or UK citizens, unless and until the 1972 act is repealed. The '72 act is on the statute book and only parliament can repeal it. The 2018 act is the method of repeal, and that allows a Minister of State can extend "Brexit Day" past 29th March whether the EU agree to it or not.

We can end up in a state where we're out of the EU, but the EU laws/treaties all still apply to UK based companies and people because parliament hasn't repealed the 72 act, and the UK courts are bound to uphold those rules/laws.

5

General Discussion Area / Re: An Interesting Theory Regarding the NHS And The EU

« on: Yesterday at 17:09:48 »

I saw a claim on another forum that buried in the Lisbon Treaty is a provision to standardise the way healthcare is delivered across the EU.

Now I'm no expert on this but as far as I'm aware most countries on the continent operate a hybrid system where people have to have basic health insurance and governments pick up the tab for the rest via taxation. In the Republic of Ireland for example it costs about 60 Euros to see a GP I believe? 

If this is true it seems likely that if we ended up staying in the EU and the EU decided to standardise healthcare, the government of the day would be forced to restructure the NHS to a European system where we all have to have health insurance and maybe even end the principle of free at the point of delivery.   

The obvious answer is No, we'd just Veto it!, but and this where it gets interesting as the EU are due to end national vetoes and issues will be decided with Qualified Majority Voting.  So it seems likely that if this is true and happened, more countries would vote to keep the status quo rather than restructure their healthcare systems. 

I havn't read the Lisbon Treaty so it might be a huge conspiracy theory, but it's an interesting thought non the less! 

And the next time you come across some shouty Momentum leftie/remainer headbanger claiming that the Tories are going to sell the NHS to the Yanks, this is a handy comeback!   

Fake news.

Doing so requires treaty change, which in turn requires the unanimous approval of all EU28/EU27 member states. The veto exists unless we (and every other EU country) chose to give it up.

Same for all this tosh about rebates, EU army, forced into Schengen, forced to use the Euro etc. I've no doubt that some in the EU would like these things to happen, but it can't unless all EU members agree.

6

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: Yesterday at 14:20:29 »

It's possible a 'no deal brexit' could be taken off the table at some point. Which, in effect, means there can not be a brexit worth it's name.

I don't see how MP's can stop No Deal. 

Yes they can have a vote to register their displeasure and maybe this amendment to change the way Parliament works that Dominic Grievance is bringing forward may make it possible for Parliament to change the legislation that we leave on the 29th March. 

However, under the terms of Article 50, EU Treaties will cease to apply once the 2 year period is up, ie 29th March.  This is EU law which is superior to UK law. 

So the only way to avoid No Deal as I see it is to either revoke A50 entirely or to persuade the 27 other EU countries to allow us to extend the A50 period and the difficulty with that is the EU Parliament elections in May. 

If you read the act, you'll see that it refers almost exclusively to "Exit Day" rather than any specific date. 29th March is mentioned in Section 20, subsection 2, which is the part of the act that deals with interpretaions of the various phrases. However, Section 20, subsection 3 & 4 give a Minister of State the power to vary the date of "Exit Day".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted#section-20-2

So from the UK side, there is no issue with the government changing the date of "Exit Day" since the legislation already allows for it. AIUI parliament can order the government to do that.

Whether the EU27 agree to extending the Art50 deadline is up to them. Personally I think they will if a second referendum, or some exit deal looks likely. I don't think they will if it looks lie the UK is playing for time and/or just wanting to re-open the May agreement.

It matters not, as the date and time of 23.00 on the 29th March 2019 was enshrined in EU law when we handed in the A50 letter, according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. 

EU law is superior in this case so Parliament does not have sovereignty and cannot do as it likes as you always claim. 

Sigh, No.

What the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does is determine the way that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed (It says that in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) .

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/1/enacted

The European Communities Act 1972 only applies within the UK (and other dependent territories). The UK parliament is and always was free to set any date it wishes for the repeal to take effect. However, treaty obligations meant we had agreed to give 2 years notice, which have now (almost) elapsed.

Parliament can and always could decide on what day EU law ceases to apply within the UK. It could even allow European Law to apply after 29th March - that's the way any Brexit extension will work if it happens. However, without the agreement of the EU27 we loose any say on what those laws are after 29th March.

Extending full participation past 29th March requires the treaty to remain intact. Which means a Minister of state extending "Brexit Day" via Section 20 subsection 4, and the EU27 allowing the extension via Art50(3). Or us unilaterally withdrawing Art50.

7

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: Yesterday at 13:26:13 »

So the only way to avoid No Deal as I see it is to either revoke A50 entirely

Which is exactly what will happen on March 28th, 23:59:59.

Why the rush? Brexit day starts at 23:00:00 on March 29th. 

8

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: Yesterday at 13:24:00 »

It's possible a 'no deal brexit' could be taken off the table at some point. Which, in effect, means there can not be a brexit worth it's name.

I don't see how MP's can stop No Deal. 

Yes they can have a vote to register their displeasure and maybe this amendment to change the way Parliament works that Dominic Grievance is bringing forward may make it possible for Parliament to change the legislation that we leave on the 29th March. 

However, under the terms of Article 50, EU Treaties will cease to apply once the 2 year period is up, ie 29th March.  This is EU law which is superior to UK law. 

So the only way to avoid No Deal as I see it is to either revoke A50 entirely or to persuade the 27 other EU countries to allow us to extend the A50 period and the difficulty with that is the EU Parliament elections in May. 

If you read the act, you'll see that it refers almost exclusively to "Exit Day" rather than any specific date. 29th March is mentioned in Section 20, subsection 2, which is the part of the act that deals with interpretaions of the various phrases. However, Section 20, subsection 3 & 4 give a Minister of State the power to vary the date of "Exit Day".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted#section-20-2

So from the UK side, there is no issue with the government changing the date of "Exit Day" since the legislation already allows for it. AIUI parliament can order the government to do that.

Whether the EU27 agree to extending the Art50 deadline is up to them. Personally I think they will if a second referendum, or some exit deal looks likely. I don't think they will if it looks lie the UK is playing for time and/or just wanting to re-open the May agreement. 

9

General Discussion Area / Re: Silly old duffer

« on: 18 January 2019, 15:00:57 »

My point is do not just pick on the older motorist, like the Duke. Perhaps EVERYONE should undergo a medical and abbreviated practical test every 5 years. All the time we have left to actually drive cars and for them not to drive us, with ever increasing demands on the competence of all motorists, this should be the way to go.  I for one expect to give up driving, if it does not give up on me first, in about 10 years; then I'll drive a mobility scooter!!

This^^^^. You report to your nearest race track. The local "Stig/Stigette" sets a lap time. You then have 10 laps to post a time within 75% of his/her time. 

10

General Discussion Area / Re: Silly old duffer

« on: 18 January 2019, 13:43:17 »

You can fail your driving test for driving too slowly/cautiously/timidly.

https://www.learnerdriving.com/driving-test/marking/progress.htm

Failing the test means you haven't achieved the required standard. The idea that once you've passed your test (and therefore achieved the required standard) doesn't IMV give you the right to drive around at 30/40MPH in a NSL without good reason - you aren't maintaining that required standard.

11

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: 17 January 2019, 09:56:11 »

LC0112G - We are talking at cross purposes. You are speaking in the strictly legal / Constitutional sense only. I am talking from the perspective of the promises they made to people, and the honesty and honour with which they claim to operate under.

Those 'promises' were made by the Cameron Government. We have a new PM, another general election, and another Government. You are attempting to hold a different Govt to the promises of the previous one.

So it may not have been legally binding, but it was most certainly binding in the more important sense that we were promised by our elected Govt. that they would implement the result.    At the recent election, both main parties stood on manifestos of not only leaving the EU, but the customs union and single market, so 80% (give or take) of the votes were cast on that basis.

I disagree with that - it's the problem with our Party Politics. The idea that All Tory Voters (or MP's for that matter) agree with All Tory policies in the manifesto is bogus. Same for all other parties.  The Manifesto is simply a list of policies that, if elected, that parties government will attempt to implement. There is no compulsion for any particular MP to support their Party on every policy.

To have a second referendum is to cancel the first one, which was the largest vote in the History of the country.
For me, that, to all intents and purposes kills what Democracy we have left.

How can having another vote ever be anti democratic? Almost 3 years ago we were asked if we wanted to Remain or Leave. The Govt has spent the past 2.5 years attempting to negotiate a Leave deal, and they now have that deal, but hardly anyone supports it. If Parliament end up throwing the problem back to the people again, and the majority is for Hard Brexit or some version of "May's deal", then so be it. Yes Parliament could still ignore the result of any second referendum, but I don't think it would.

As things stand, either Parliament is going to decide on Hard Brexit, some form of Soft Brexit, or No Brexit. How is it undemocratic to allow the people to make that decision if Parliament cannot?

12

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: 17 January 2019, 00:13:56 »

Not at all as no sane Lever wants May's BRINO which locks us into the EU forever through the NI backstop until we are forced to join the EUSSR in the 2028-30 timescale as planned by May and her grey suits, who see this as an opportunity to lock us into the EU forever with no escape without breaking this International Treaty. The Conservative women's website describes it here in detail. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/has-may-been-plotting-a-return-to-the-eu-all-along/ May's consistently giving the EU far more than they were asking for then starts to make perfect sense. This is probably why May's plan B ,C,D,E,,,,Z will basically be the same, where she will try to wear MPs down and get her deal. The elephant in the room is that we leave with No Deal on the 29th of March, unless this is passed before then and that date can't be changed without a law superseding it, which is a lengthy process, so there is probably not enough time as it would take a minimum of 40 Commons/Lords sitting days. Commons Motions cannot change this where statutes take precedence.

Karma is that the default No Deal and the leaving date were written into this law as a result of amendments made due to Gina Millers' Supreme Court victory. Thankyou Gina where you have made proper leaving much easier and more likely.

Nope. Section 20 subsection 3 and 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted

(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).

(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—

(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and.

(b)amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.

So AIUI if Parliament decided to abandon BREXIT a Minister of the Crown can use the existing act to set "Exit Day" to sometime in the distant future (like year 2122) which should then give enough time to repeal the withdrawal act completely.

13

General Discussion Area / Re: Big vote tomorrow.

« on: 16 January 2019, 23:18:35 »

I  believe you have got this fundamentally wrong Nick. Parliament gave the people the power to take the decision whther to leave or remain. The people decided to leave. No if, buts or conditions.

Nope. Parliament only asked for the opinion of the people. It gave no power to the people. Parliament remained and remains sovereign. Parliament does not have to 'respect the will of the people'.

But the point is, when they gave the decision to the people, and enacted legislation on the result of that, they effectively suspended the representative element of Parliament in this matter.

Again no. The referendum was non binding on Parliament, and there is no constitutuional mechanism for Parliament to bind or suspend itself or a future parliament in any matter. Parliament can (and regularly does)  amend or repeal any legislation that has already been passed. Doesn't matter if that legislation was enacted last week or hundreds of years ago.

It might happen, but if it does, whats left of our democracy dies with it.
That is why I believe that if they make us vote again, everyone who believes in democracy, whether a leaver or remainer in the first vote, must vote for leave, to keep our democracy alive.

Again no. British democracy is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, not 'the will of the people'. The only say you or I get is who you vote for in your constituency in a General Election. Once you elect your MP he/she is free to vote any which way they desire. You can attempt to influence the way they vote, but you cannot compel them.

14

Omega Electrical and Audio Help / Re: Aerial leads and connections

« on: 16 January 2019, 10:33:08 »

The fault with my wiring was the connector to the roof aerial up behind the roof lining. Ok - that was a Sat-Nav coax wiring fault but I wouldn't trust any of the connectors.

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=88816.0

15

Omega Electrical and Audio Help / Re: Aerial leads and connections

« on: 16 January 2019, 09:50:21 »

With the roof aerial disconnected, and the radio pulled out...

Check the resistance of the coax screen from end to end. Should be zero near as dammit.
Check the resistance of the coax core from end to end. Should be zero near as dammit.
Check the resistance from coax core to coax screen. Should be infinite near as dammit.

If ALL 3 of these conditions are correct, then the wire is almost certainly fine and the fault will be elsewhere.