Parliament is not sovereign : it never has been.

[Geoffrey Collier]

[QUOTE=Podcast;1392953]What a nincompoop you are. You have just admitted that the EU imposes laws on the United Kingdom and parliament goes along with it. Why? Why do we need the EU to tell us what laws to enact. A parliament enacting laws because they have been told to by some unelected foreign bureaucrats is not my idea of a sovereign nation state. [Quote]

Podcast: I am merely telling you what a judge has ruled to be the constitutional position in respect of the Doctrine of Sovereignty, and our membership of the EU. Unlike your opinion, his was a judgement handed down following his deliberation of the issue. The 1972 European Act was the will of Parliament. It can be both passed and repealed by a sovereign parliament if that is their wish. For good measure all legislation resulting from the 1972 Act can be retrospectively repealed if that is deemed desirable. That may not be your idea of a sovereign nation, but you may recall, that was not matter placed before Mr Justice Laws. Perhaps that you are temperamentally ill-suited to partake in objective public debate?

[Roland]

Podcast

Geoffery is 100% right.

If Parliament put it to the vote tomorrow and decided that all EU legislation should be torn up then that would be the end of that.

The situation we have is that the only MP's who are allowed a voice in the media are those that are friendly towards the EU. The public our told that we must comply with Brussels the truth is we don't.

What the EU hopped to do over a long period of time in association with the traitors in parliament is get us to forget that parliament is sovereign then educate our children that the EU parliament is the true power.

The EU need before they can finish the job our army to swear allegiance to them and not the queen. All the time our army swears allegiance to the crown Britain is a sovereign nation.

[Steve Morson]

What a nincompoop you are. You have just admitted that the EU imposes laws on the United Kingdom and parliament goes along with it. Why? Why do we need the EU to tell us what laws to enact. A parliament enacting laws because they have been told to by some unelected foreign bureaucrats is not my idea of a sovereign nation state.

I think this is worth negative rep. Being uninformed is - by and large - unavoidable in today's society (ironically referred to as "The Information Age"), but being so and defending it with brusqueness is unforgivable, particularly when access to the internet is available. Rather than asking Geoffrey an answer to the blue text - or anyone else here - why don't you ask Baron or any of the other sheeple who have voted for the 3 traitor parties over the last 20 years? As for the question in red, I suspect that GC, being a UKIP member, is as unlikely as the rest of us here to explain why dirty stinking traitorous filth, with no more right to live on God's clean Earth than a weasel, have sold us out to the EU.

The Act to which your original post refers was not Maastricht, it was The Single European Act which also created the 'single market', signed by M. Thatcher. That prepared the ground for further legislative, customs and judicial integration, and signalled an intention to give primacy to EU law over UK parliament laws. This was accomplished with the Nice and Amsterdam treaties. Maastricht was almost the coup-de-grace for our sovereignty, but Major had to negotiate opt-outs to appease half his party. The Lisbon Treaty removed all the opt outs (Working Time Directive of the Social Chapter, etc), and the need for any further national ratification of EU laws, among many other outrages.

Perhaps read more and type less (but definitely insult less)?

I have started a new thread in the British Government Section.

Well, if you're going to make a fool of yourself, may as well spread it around.

[Podcast]

[QUOTE=Geoffrey Collier;1392974][QUOTE=Podcast;1392953]What a nincompoop you are. You have just admitted that the EU imposes laws on the United Kingdom and parliament goes along with it. Why? Why do we need the EU to tell us what laws to enact. A parliament enacting laws because they have been told to by some unelected foreign bureaucrats is not my idea of a sovereign nation state.

Podcast: I am merely telling you what a judge has ruled to be the constitutional position in respect of the Doctrine of Sovereignty, and our membership of the EU. Unlike your opinion, his was a judgement handed down following his deliberation of the issue. The 1972 European Act was the will of Parliament. It can be both passed and repealed by a sovereign parliament if that is their wish. For good measure all legislation resulting from the 1972 Act can be retrospectively repealed if that is deemed desirable. That may not be your idea of a sovereign nation, but you may recall, that was not matter placed before Mr Justice Laws. Perhaps that you are temperamentally ill-suited to partake in objective public debate?

In your first post you suggested that I should not come back on this forum and now you claim that I am ill-suited for public debate just because I have different views from you. Well, that is what debate is all about - discussing things with people who have many different points of view. If anyone need not come back on this forum I suggest that it is the people who agree with you 100%. Their contributions are redundant and it is tiresome to read them. I notice that you have twisted what I have written. I did not state that the ability to repeal the 1972 Act is not my idea of a sovereign nation state. I stated that the acceptance of EU law in this country was not my idea of a sovereign nation state.

I started this thread so I will come back on it as often as I like. I have now read a bit about the Thornburn v Sunderland City Council court case. Mr. Justice Laws refers to Parliamentary sovereignty which is a myth.

[Podcast]

Steve - So I got the wrong treaty. What of it? I am not an expert on the EU. I just knew that the Maastricht Treaty was the one which handed over the most massive amount of power from the nation states to the EU so I assumed that it was the one which established the supremacy of EU law. It is good that someone has explained it all.

Yes, I called GC a nincompoop but I expect he will survive. If you think I am making a fool of myself in a new thread before even looking at it perhaps it is you who should read more type less and insult less.

[Geoffrey Collier]

[QUOTE=Podcast;1394335][QUOTE=Geoffrey Collier;1392974]

What a nincompoop you are. You have just admitted that the EU imposes laws on the United Kingdom and parliament goes along with it. Why? Why do we need the EU to tell us what laws to enact. A parliament enacting laws because they have been told to by some unelected foreign bureaucrats is not my idea of a sovereign nation state.

In your first post you suggested that I should not come back on this forum and now you claim that I am ill-suited for public debate just because I have different views from you. Well, that is what debate is all about - discussing things with people who have many different points of view. If anyone need not come back on this forum I suggest that it is the people who agree with you 100%. Their contributions are redundant and it is tiresome to read them. I notice that you have twisted what I have written. I did not state that the ability to repeal the 1972 Act is not my idea of a sovereign nation state. I stated that the acceptance of EU law in this country was not my idea of a sovereign nation state.

I started this thread so I will come back on it as often as I like. I have now read a bit about the Thornburn v Sunderland City Council court case. Mr. Justice Laws refers to Parliamentary sovereignty which is a myth.

Podcast: I did not suggest that you refrain from submitting your opinions merely because they are different from mine; I suggested that you first understand what you are saying. Whether Britain has retained her sovereignty despite being a member of the EU is a legal question, and several judgements have confirmed that we have, and no judgement has been given to the contrary. You are demonstrably wrong on a matter of inference. If the universal A implies B, the universal B does not infer A. Example: 'All men are mortal(A) does not infer that all mortal things are men(B). If you want greater precision, it is wrong because of an illicit process of the middle term. That example encapsulates the error in your reasoning. Mr Justice Laws did not say Parliamentary sovereignty is a myth; it is a legal concept on which a legal judgement could be given. Your level of mental maturity suggests that you are a teenager, so some hope could still remain.

[Podcast]

[QUOTE=Geoffrey Collier;1394478][QUOTE=Podcast;1394335]

Podcast: I did not suggest that you refrain from submitting your opinions merely because they are different from mine; I suggested that you first understand what you are saying. Whether Britain has retained her sovereignty despite being a member of the EU is a legal question, and several judgements have confirmed that we have, and no judgement has been given to the contrary. You are demonstrably wrong on a matter of inference. If the universal A implies B, the universal B does not infer A. Example: 'All men are mortal(A) does not infer that all mortal things are men(B). If you want greater precision, it is wrong because of an illicit process of the middle term. That example encapsulates the error in your reasoning. Mr Justice Laws did not say Parliamentary sovereignty is a myth; it is a legal concept on which a legal judgement could be given. Your level of mental maturity suggests that you are a teenager, so some hope could still remain.

There you go again. No, Mr. Justice Laws did not say that parliamentary sovereignty is a myth - I said it. See my first post. And there you go again belittling my mental maturity just because I disagree with you. Your faith in judges is astounding. So judges never make mistakes? No judge has ever sent an innocent person to the gallows, no judge has ever had a ruling overturned on appeal and no judge has ever been found to be corrupt and had to be debarred? Judges are very good with words and very good at double-think and double-talk. They would try to claim that we still live in a sovereign nation state - they probably do not like the idea the the UK is now just a province of Europe and that we have a puppet parliament and a puppet prime minister beholding to their EU masters. I can do my own research, use my common sense and those are my conclusions.

[Geoffrey Collier]

[QUOTE=Podcast;1394784][QUOTE=Geoffrey Collier;1394478]

There you go again. No, Mr. Justice Laws did not say that parliamentary sovereignty is a myth - I said it. See my first post. And there you go again belittling my mental maturity just because I disagree with you. Your faith in judges is astounding. So judges never make mistakes? No judge has ever sent an innocent person to the gallows, no judge has ever had a ruling overturned on appeal and no judge has ever been found to be corrupt and had to be debarred? Judges are very good with words and very good at double-think and double-talk. They would try to claim that we still live in a sovereign nation state - they probably do not like the idea the the UK is now just a province of Europe and that we have a puppet parliament and a puppet prime minister beholding to their EU masters. I can do my own research, use my common sense and those are my conclusions.

Podcast: Disagreeing with me is of no account. The judgement about sovereignty has been confirmed by other judgements from other judges. There has been no successful appeal against them, and that must remain the extant legal situation. The decision by Parliament to accept EU directives and regulations, which it can repeal later is it wishes, and retrospectively rescind all that which it has previously accepted, ensures that no loss of sovereignty can exist at any stage. I thought that I had demonstrated that in syllogistic form for you. If, as a consequence of human fallibilty, no legal judgements were ever made, that would not be without problems. Your examples with capital punishment cases, even if true, are not constitutional matters. You have provided no evidence to support your case, but much emotional irrelevance. However, in a democracy we are all entitled to our own opinions; but even in a democracy not all opinions are of equal worth. Informed opinions are always superior to ill-informed ones; however, you are at least giving thought to important issues.

[rjt]

I think what comes out of this discussion is that our constitution is defective with too much power in the hands of the few when it needs to be given to the people.

[Geoffrey Collier]

I think what comes out of this discussion is that our constitution is defective with too much power in the hands of the few when it needs to be given to the people.

rjt: What in Heaven's name can that possibly mean?