Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

Fred,

It's well known that Corbyn admires the political scene of Venezuela and would like the UK to adopt the same, with that in mind what is your take on the following letter written by CEO's of of Venezuelan companies to the US media.


Venezuela has descended into complete and utter chaos as a result of a brutal, socialist government whose citizens are starving under its tightening grip every day.

Make no mistake, this is a humanitarian disaster and socialist policies are to blame. Venezuela's experiment in Marxism began in 1999. With each passing year, what was once one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America became poorer and poorer. What was once a free country, became repressive. Those who tried to reform the failing policies of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela were brutally repressed, imprisoned and even murdered.

Venezuela's current President Nicolás Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez follow a long list of brutal dictators including Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro who are responsible for more than 100 million deaths. Venezuela is now closer to communism than ever. Communism has been tried in more than 40 countries, and each time results in the worst and widest scale human rights abuses known to man.

We, the undersigned, will not tolerate the obfuscating or whitewashing of the crimes of the socialist regime in Venezuela and the actions of their communist ally, Castro's Cuba which now reportedly has thousands of military advisors participating in the violent treatment and murder of unarmed protestors.

I can see you splashing your " Obsession " all over your body still Freda , you said above , " you have to remember the World has moved on " but maybe you ain't yet .

25,

I know little of Venezuela, but suggest you go back to the periods of Perez regime and then Chavez also the reasons for its economic collapse.

Also. compare oil industry to service industry in this country and the effects of the latter's likely diminution if Brexit goes through. Also, have a look at the social conditions of the majority of Venezuelans during and before the Perez and Chavez.

Also, reflect on the increasing number of homeless and increase in numbers utilising food banks as the result of 6 and 1/2 years of tory mismanagement of the UK's economy.

See the T Mau is throwing cake to the mob or is casting pearls before swine similar to that of MacMillan.

-=--=--==

But it is good to be able to go back and kneel before your coffin icon.

-=-=-=-=-=

PS.

A number of my family fled from said communist regimes and some others were imprisoned under communist regimes. OTher members would have been shot at the borders if they had tried to return to their home countries."

Also, I spent time in a country under a "communist" regime and witnessed first hand its organising and processings. Also, brief interrogation and surveillance techniques.

Again I witnessed naive optimism similar to what I see you, many tories and labour party followers express.

Fred , why keep saying 'if Brexit goes through' ?

It's happening , don't you read or watch the news ?

The denial stage doesn't normally last this long but you'll get over it one day.

Have a look at the "Final Contract" when or if it arrives.

Oh dear , still using the if word Fred.

Probably won't be a final contract Fred , just end up walking away unless Barnier gets real.

PS.

Also, try and get honest figures to the cost of the negotiations and the likely costs of implementing the new "arrangements".

Also, have a regard to "international political influence" which will be lost. Although who needs the influence of the laughing stock of Europe who can't keep their promises.

(Unless they are buying arms to prop up their own dictatorships.)

One of the things I am not clear on is - say we do as a nation want to change our minds (not my preferred choice) how does that work? Do we just forget we triggered Article 50 and go on as before or do we have to reapply to be a member again and I wonder what terms we would be offered eg - all new members must enter the Euro.

... but we're leaving whatever.

Dear Freda , you are unfathomable and seem to live in some sort of idealistic World in your mind , you expect others to perform to a standard but it seems obvious that you can't accept change more than anyone here , it doesn't register does it .

The whole thing is a mess...roll on the "informed" Referendum.

Didn't anyone inform you about the last one Stan ?

It was definitely on the news and in the newspapers too I think.

Martini,

Up to the time of agreeing on the "exit" and somebody signing the agreement then we would still have to abide by what has already been signed up to.

But imagine the costs of the negotiations which will/would go on whichever happens.

But I think after negotiations have "finished" if that is possible, then what will be contracted to, should be presented and explained to the public and they "should" hold have either or both, a clear referendum and if necessary a General election.

I think that the UK has a parliamentary democracy and that should be the ruling body respecting the views of the general public.

Fred I understand all that but it was not what I was asking clarification on.

The Brexit is a tea party compared to the mess in Spain.

I really don't know where this is a leading. It cant be good for stocks if this is just the

start of it.

Mrs May handed the job to spite the brexiteers. Now we are going to get another

unholy load of blood letting.

"Dil - 05 Oct 2017 12:06 - 7753 of 7756

Didn't anyone inform you about the last one Stan ?

It was definitely on the news and in the newspapers too I think."

No they didn't Dil but more importantly they didn't inform millions of others who voted out either.

Martini.

Easy reading for you from some with the same question/s as you are asking.


Supreme Court seeks clarity on how to handle EU rulings after Brexit
Estelle Shirbon
3 MIN READ
The President of the Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, poses for a formal portrait in this undated photograph received in London October 5, 2017. Kevin Leighton/UK Supreme Court/Handout via REUTERS
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s Supreme Court would like clearer guidance from parliament on how it should deal with European Union court judgements after Brexit, its new president said on Thursday.

The issue of what weight, if any, judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have in British law after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union is one of many thorny areas in the Brexit negotiations.

Brenda Hale, who was sworn in as president of the Supreme Court on Monday after serving as one of its justices for 13 years, said she and her colleagues were looking for guidance from parliament on the issue.

“We hope that the European Union Act, when it’s eventually passed, will tell us what we should be doing - giving us the power to take into account, or saying we must take into account, or saying we must ignore,” she told reporters.

“Whatever parliament decides we should do, we would like to be told because then we’ll get on and do it.”

A government policy paper issued in August said Britain wished to leave the “direct jurisdiction” of the ECJ while also recognising that future civil judicial cooperation would need to take into account “regional legal arrangements” such as the ECJ.

FILE PHOTO - A man waves a European Union flag outside the Supreme Court before the decision of a court ruling on whether Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London, Britain, January 24, 2017. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth
The European Union says that for certain issues, such as the rights of EU citizens in Britain, the ECJ must continue to have its say - a stance strongly rejected by the most ardent advocates of Brexit.

Hale said the government policy papers issued over the summer were “at quite a high level of generality” and described them as aspirational.

But she praised the formulation used by Prime Minister Theresa May in a major speech on Brexit in Florence on Sept. 22. May said that where there was uncertainty around EU law, she wanted UK courts to be able to “take into account” ECJ judgements.

“‘Take account’ is quite useful because it does give one the power to take it into account, but also the power to say ‘for the following good reasons, we think something else,'” said Hale.

Her deputy, Jonathan Mance, said the form of words used in the EU Withdrawal Bill currently going through parliament was “a weaker formula”.

The bill says that British courts “need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court ... but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so”.

Editing by Stephen Addison
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
#UK TOP NEWSOCTOBER 4, 2017 / 1:56 PM / UPDATED A DAY AGO


Strong chances of Brexit no deal, but UK government may collapse - Scottish minister
Elisabeth O'Leary
4 MIN READ
FILE PHOTO - The Union Flag and a European Union flag fly near the Elizabeth Tower, housing the Big Ben bell, during the anti-Brexit 'People's March for Europe', in Parliament Square in central London, Britain September 9, 2017. REUTERS/Tolga Akmen
EDINBURGH (Reuters) - Scotland’s Brexit minister believes there is a “pretty strong”
chance Britain will leave the European Union with no deal, but that the UK government could collapse before then.

Michael Russell said the devolved pro-independence Scottish administration is trying to prepare for Brexit, despite Scots having voted against it, but possible outcomes are “legion”.

“I think the chances (Brexit) happens without an agreement are still pretty strong, that there will a crashing out,” Russell, who is heading Scottish Brexit talks with the UK government, told Reuters.

“It is also distinctly possible (...) that the government will fall and there will be another election or another government will come in,” he added.

British Prime Minister Theresa May is running a minority Conservative government, kept in power by a Northern Irish Protestant party.

Russel said it was unclear what any new government might do.

“Will it start negotiations afresh, what will be its mandate, what will it be negotiating for?” Russell said, describing his frustration with the process and its uncertainty.

Britain’s vote to leave the EU has divided the main parties over what new relationship it wants with the trading bloc after 40 years of shared ties.

It has also strained the ties of the UK’s four nations, because Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to keep EU membership while Wales and most-populous England voted to leave.

On key issues, such as the set-up of powers devolved beyond London’s parliament after Brexit and the need for fluid EU immigration, Edinburgh’s Scottish nationalist administration is at loggerheads with the Conservative UK government in London.

Earlier on Wednesday, Britain’s First Secretary of State Damian Green said Britain believes no deal is very unlikely but was readying contingency plans just in case. As recently as Tuesday, the UK’s Brexit Minister David Davis said Britain was ready to walk away with no deal.

“If we leave without a deal, we have to look at whether there will be democratic legitimacy in that, how would that be confirmed. Would (Britain’s parliament) accept that we leave without a deal? I think that’s unlikely in its present composition,” said Russell, whose formal title is Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe.

Russell described Brexit as the “existential threat to Scotland’s future” and said his government was preparing, to the extent that it could, for all options regarding Brexit. For that reason, he argued, Scotland should be offered a new choice which might include independence from the UK -- rejected by Scottish voters in 2014 by a 10 percentage point margin -- once it is clear what Brexit means.

“At some stage the people of Scotland will have to be asked whether they want to stay with something which is completely disastrous and will not produce a good result, of that I have no doubt, or whether we do something else,” he said.

In a June general election Russell’s Scottish National Party suffered heavy losses - albeit from a very high level - and was forced to withdraw its offer of a new independence referendum as a result.

Reporting by Elisabeth O'Leary Editing by Jeremy Gaunt

Mr Russell is hardly the person to give an opinion on Brexit as he opposes it don't you think . but that's the sort of thing you do Freda isn't it , Obsession .

Sorry Fred still doesn't answer my query.
Let me ask it again.

We get to the stage where we have no deal or we have some sort of deal on the table. We go to the people and have another referendum. The British people now say "we want to stay in". How do we do that? Pretend we did not trigger article 50 or do we have to reapply to rejoin on whatever terms the EU is willing to offer?

Since one of the biggest reasons on voting out by far, was the fact that the EU is not a democratic organisation. If there were a big change to that and which caused it to suddenly become democratic, perhaps there might not be a need to leave?

Such a major change to the EU would surely force our senior politicians to go back to the people for a fresh referendum?

So we have 'no deal' (1), an 'unsatisfactory deal' (2) and a 'fundamental change to the EU' (3) all being possible reasons for a change of mind about leaving.

The senior politicians would be the ones who determine what to do about these things. I can't really see (1) and (2) requiring a fresh referendum but I could see (3) requiring one.

But that doesn't answer the question of 'how do we go about changing our mind?'

Such a thing, being the opposite to what the referendum gave our permission for, would surely first require a fresh referendum and so just has to start with a recommendation move for that by our senior politicians.

Then eventually, if we voted a change of mind to stay in, we would have to go 'cap in hand' back to Brussels.

Maybe not! We would have such a weak hand it would not be playable!

I would be still for leaving and I think now, so would be our senior politicians.