UK PM Trolled Hard

danmanjones's picture

Theresa May left speechless after being asked if Trump should negotiate Brexit on her behalf

Background: Turns out leaving the EU is not easy at all. Besides all the new agreements that need to be signed for trade, transport etc. the UK lost its sovereignty when it signed The Treaty of Lisbon. Something about the Treaty being with a capital T makes it supercede UK sovereignty or something like that. The UK is about to form a new country but it's all being kept rather mum.

 

Below is a video explaining the pickle the UK is in...

 

>>> SKIP TO 4:40 <<<

 

wish we had squirrels here

 

2
Average: 2 (4 votes)

Comments

daftcunt's picture

There is no "Losing their sovereignty" as the pro brexiters want to make you believe. There are certain responsibilities and restrictions living in a larger community has as a consequence. 

There is no "great conspiracy" neither.

 

The loudmouths told the public it would be easy and cheap for the UK to exit the EU, now they have the reality check and finally find that it ain't. 

It was all too much watching "Brexit the movie" and WAY too little understancing of the implications.

The biggest farce is that they voted for a person as leader of the brexit who is against it herself. 

They set themselves up to fail. 

And now with the trade conundrum started by the cunt in the white house the brits may find themselves soon either without any allies or crawling back to the EU.

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

exactly. those responsibilities and restrictions come with benefits, which is why they joined the EU in the first place. it's far cheaper and more efficient to have a single set of rules for every country you're trading with than a shelf full of smaller but differing rulebooks, and that's evident from anything more than a cursory though. the pro-brexit leaders who must've actually realised that but pressed forward anyway i think were just doing it to feel good, with even more evidence being their complete absence for the process now that they've won - "i've done my job. it's for other people to figure out the how." now they sit safely free from blame.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

You don't need an all powerful superstate with an unaccountable central government to accomplish what you describe.

 

"Trade conundrum"?  You obviously don't understand what Trump's goals are.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I think I do understand what his goals are and how he thinks this is the way forward. It is this schoolyard bully mentality you love so much.

 

Regarding the EU: You again demonstrated your complete ignorance of what the EU is and how it works. This is not even a "grey area with many opinions because of different interpretations" like your 2nd amendment.

 

Inform yourself.

 

 

What sato said above is exactly what I said just after farage resigned (if you care to remember) and still is true. They never believed in their goals and neither that they would win the vote, they just wanted to stir things up.  

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

I think I do understand what his goals are and how he thinks this is the way forward. It is this schoolyard bully mentality you love so much.

 

I was the target of bullying a few times.  I don't remember bullying working anything like what Trump is doing.  Actual bullying involves someone mistreating others who are doing nothing to them.  However, if you were being treated unfairly and decided to reciprocate that same unfair treatment as a means to bring the former to an end, that's not bullying, that's using leverage to right a wrong.

 

What do you think Trump should do, crawl into Europe on his hands and knees, smooching on your leaders asses in the hope that they will take pity on him and do what he begs of them?  I know Obama spoiled them for eight years licking their assholes and giveing out free hand jobs, but that's not how you get shit done in the real world.  That's not how a real leader does his job.

 

That's especially not how you bring evil fucks to their sense.  You don't bring tyrants to the negotiating table with JUST carrots, you need a stick to back it up.  With North Korea, the stick is our military and the very real ability to turn North Korea to a glass desert.  With the EU, the stick is the power to fuck with your economies more than you can fuck with ours.

 

The European nations and Canada can either stop fucking around and play ball or suffer the wrath of their people come election time.

 

----------

 

Regarding the EU: You again demonstrated your complete ignorance of what the EU is and how it works.

 

In R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that courts in the United Kingdom had the power to "disapply" acts of parliament where they conflicted with EU law. Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty, being fully aware that, even if the limitation of sovereignty was not inherent in the Treaty of Rome, it had been well established by jurisprudence before Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972.[14]

If the supremacy within the European Community of Community Law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law.

 

In other words, the EU Parliament may supersede the laws of member nations.  YES indeed the members nations are losing their sovereignty, lest you be reminded that the meaning of the word is "supreme power or authority".  If the EU has the power to overrule a member state then by definition that member state has lost sovereignty.

 

---------

 

This is not even a "grey area with many opinions because of different interpretations" like your 2nd amendment.

 

The 2nd Amendment is not a "grey area".  Just as your laws plainly forbid you from owning all but a sorry assortment of hobbled and handicapped firearms in non-standard calibers; our Bill of Rights plainly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

Although there are many opinions, any opinion that claims it means something other than what is plainly written is objectively WRONG and the product of abject morons, those seeking unchecked power and those with a sick wish to subjugate themselves and their fellow citizens by sacrificing liberty on the alter of the State for a false promise of safety.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Bullying is any abuse of power, physical or not.

 

I explained the court issue below. It ia also that all the member states have a say in in creating EU wide laws, also on those that affest national laws hence the (voted) representatives decide on this. It is merely a simplification and standardisation. It does NOT mean that for example a murderer will not be tried in the country they committed the crime under the countries law. 

 

If the UK wants to stay in the trade union after brexit they will have to subscribe to many EU laws and standards anyway.

 

Finally: Are you allowed to own fully automatic rifles?

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Did you watch the 2nd video or just read the title?

He explains that the UK ceased to exist as an independent nation & became part of a larger nation called EU. And now it has to form a new country separate from the EU - sounds more like cessation than a simple voiding of an agreement.

I think the conspiracy he's talking about is that the UK is going to reform itself under a new constitution but it's being kept quiet.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I watched part of it. This guy thinks he is an independant news sourse. Read the document he is referring to yourself if you are that interested.

 

The EU, like the UN is not a nation. The UK does not have to form a "new country".  

 

One of the "national problems" they face is the division between north and south of Ireland as Ireland of course will stay within th EU, so EU insist that the borders are to be re-implemented and the UK insists they're not. 

 

This is of course proof that forming the EU entailed a lot of "half baked" decisions and too little foresight (it is a very complex issue, though), this is also true for prematurely implementing other nations that did not meet the economic criteria like Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria or Rumania. Now we have to live with that but it is a proble,m we all need to sort out. Cowardly fleeing from the mess one is in part responsible for is not the solution if you ask me.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Not interested enough to wade through 500 pages, that's for sure. Maybe my choice of words is wrong... I couldn't even tell you what the difference is between a country, state or nation so there ya go. That guy is generally pretty clued up with legal stuff. I don't know what he thinks of himself as, he's like a roaming videographer, I mostly like looking at his videos of Masonic buildings & how they seem to have some kind of numeric hocus pocus (number 33 etc). Just for kicks.

You seem to be stating preconceptions you have rather than debunking anything though. I might take a look at that document to see if I can see anything to back up his claims about the capital 'T' or whatever ;p

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Okay, so I looked over the document and in essence I think you're right based on the general language of stuf relating to how UK law is implemented on UK nationals. His argument seems to be based on #80, #173 & #222:

 

80.              One of the most fundamental functions of the constitution of any state is to identify the sources of its law. And, as explained in paras 61 to 66 above, the 1972 Act effectively constitutes EU law as an entirely new, independent and overriding source of domestic law, and the Court of Justice as a source of binding judicial decisions about its meaning. This proposition is indeed inherent in the Secretary of State’s metaphor of the 1972 Act as a conduit pipe by which EU law is brought into the domestic UK law. Upon the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, EU law will cease to be a source of domestic law for the future (even if the Great Repeal Bill provides that some legal rules derived from it should remain in force or continue to apply to accrued rights and liabilities), decisions of the Court of Justice will (again depending on the precise terms of the Great Repeal Bill) be of no more than persuasive authority, and there will be no further references to that court from UK courts. Even those legal rules derived from EU law and transposed into UK law by domestic legislation will have a different status. They will no longer be paramount, but will be open to domestic repeal or amendment in ways that may be inconsistent with EU law.

 

173.          One argument advanced by the Lord Advocate and by Ms Mountfield QC on behalf of the first interested party is that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will alter the UK’s rule of recognition: that is to say, the rule which identifies the sources of law in our legal system and imposes a duty to give effect to laws emanating from those sources. The status of the EU institutions as a recognised source of law will inevitably be revoked, sooner or later, following notification under article 50(2). Since that will be a fundamental alteration in the UK’s constitution, it can only be effected by Parliamentary legislation. An Act of Parliament is therefore argued to be necessary before notification can be given.

 

222.          As explained at para 173 above, it is argued that the 1972 Act created “an entirely new, independent and overriding source of domestic law” (as it is put in the majority judgment at para 80). Since the identification of a country’s sources of law is one of the most fundamental functions of its constitution, it follows that the Crown cannot lawfully revoke a source of law in the exercise of prerogative powers. So runs the argument.

 

Man I must be bored too be reading this stuff :D

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Kudos for reading all that boring shit.

 

Niche news providers (as well as many mainstream, especially US, irrespective of politiclal left or right) need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

There will be effects as national laws wll have to be (re-) created. Also it will have an effect on standardisation quality management etc. All these big and little things that made life easier when you are part of europe will either have to be (re-) invented or the "european way" will have to be adhered to, which will mean:
- paying for it

- or paying for approval of their own

 

In those cases where they take on the "european way" they will fall under european law again.

 

The worst conundrums for the brits are:

  • foreigners, if they come to an amicable agreement (like Norway) with the EU free travel is not up for discussion, so basically there will be no change unless there is a hard brexit.
  • They will have to pay the EU without ever receiving any monetary benefits (again, like Norway) for every little bit they want to remain part of.
  • The UK produces very little, their forté is services and banking (don't buy it if it's "british made" is a long standing running joke, although they get upset when foreigners criticise, lol) both sectors will struggle and the (european) banking will be removed. 
  • The Irish border

The negotiators seem to be still of the opinion "we'll have the cake and eat it", which, quite frankly, is a huge delusion of grandeur.

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Cheers for the summary.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down