woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 12 hours ago, Barrie Stevens said: They are not able to in the conventional sense. Hence the demands. "No pay. No hay" no contract= no payment.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 11 hours ago, P.K. said: How about the rare liberals, surely they're just as guilty? I mean, wanting a fairer world for all. What a bunch of bastards, eh? You can be sure that the EU case for the divorce bill was meticulously researched. You can also be sure that the UK counter-claim was not. I can also well understand why the EU would want citizens rights upheld by the ECJ. After all, the EU almost certainly watched in stunned amazement as the tory government were taken to court by a concerned citizen because the Executive stupidly thought they could trigger Article 50 and ignore the rights of parliament. The tory government lost. It would appear that Perfidious Albion is alive and well and currently residing in the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street..... then why can't the eu prove the legal basis for payment.... as for citizens rights,the ecj doesn't have any say outside the eu in any other country, it should be no different for the uk once they have left.... if you move to a foreign country you should except the laws,customs,way of life and learn the language...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, woody2 said: then why can't the eu prove the legal basis for payment.... #doyouevenlawyerbro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Quote if you move to a foreign country you should except the laws,customs,way of life and learn the language...... For once we sort of agree. However if the host country then chooses to trash a near lifelong agreement that threatens your automatic right to stay, then the over-simplicity of the general concept is revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 18 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: For once we sort of agree. However if the host country then chooses to trash a near lifelong agreement that threatens your automatic right to stay, then the over-simplicity of the general concept is revealed. the flipside is the eu could also change the law in the future and nothing the uk could do, which is why its a bad idea for the ecj to have any say...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 1 hour ago, woody2 said: slight rewriting of history..... the government was right in its take of the law that no vote was needed, sadly the government lawyers gave a concession on the case, after that the case was lost...... Not at all. The case was about the use of executive powers and parliamentary sovereignty. It was certain media outlets that presented it to the public as remainers trying to stop brexit. There is a huge irony in those who wanted brexit in order to obtain parliamentary sovereignty objecting to a court case which was intended to restrict the powers of the executive and uphold parliamentary sovereignty. Maybe there were genuine worries/hopes from some quarters that parliament would block brexit but lets be clear that was never the basis of the legal challenge. As I said, the executive could have simply taken it to parliament without wasting everyone's time and money in a court case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 the concession given was that trigging article 50 changed rights, but as we can now see it doesn't, its the process after that does and that's voted on by parliament.... the government was correct in its approach, the lawyers messed it up..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Totally factual, Woody. Buried in the minutiae of events but that is preceisely the way it was. Whether through incompetence or design the lawyers cocked it. I have experience of Government lawyers so it was not a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Quote the flipside is the eu could also change the law in the future and nothing the uk could do, which is why its a bad idea for the ecj to have any say...... Not quite a symmetrical flipside but essentially true. However that risk is down to our 'democratic' choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Just now, ballaughbiker said: Not quite a symmetrical flipside but essentially true. However that risk is down to our 'democratic' choice. lets not forget we already have the echr to deal with any matters, it does seem a bit of a trojan horse by the eu..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 One helluva step from an automatic right to having to take a case to the echr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: One helluva step from an automatic right to having to take a case to the echr. ?the eu want the ecj to have control in case of dispute..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 43 minutes ago, woody2 said: lets not forget we already have the echr to deal with any matters, it does seem a bit of a trojan horse by the eu..... The European Court of Human rights does not deal "with any matters" The European Court of Human Rights is not an institution of the European Union. It is a court of the Council of Europe which is an international body having at least 47 members...The UK was very much an instigator and founder of the Council of Europe. It was created in London on 5th May 1949 The ECHR deals with claims of infringement of human rights against a member of the Council of Europe aka a High Contracting Party. ie Woody2 v UK...or Tyrer v UK (The Birch) However, the European Convention on Human Rights has been imported into many a domestic or national law and thus one has to go through the national courts first. In any case, before going to the European Court of Human Rights one has to "exhaust all local remedies" in principle. One would have to identify and prove or demonstrate that some matter relating to EU rights and citizenship right of abode etc had been so managed by a High Contracting Party that it infringed one of the "Rights and Freedoms" listed in the European Convention on Human Rights. Or prove the same against a qualifying public body or government department domestically. The European Court of Human Rights could never act in the same capacity as the European Court of Justice...Totally different animals! A human rights case about right of EU abode, residence etc might find expression in "The right to respect for private and family life" for instance. Human rights are much more nebulous than the interpretation of EU law as undertaken by the European Court of Justice. Human rights are fundamental but not absolute and they often vary according to the way a member of the Council of Europe has chosen to implement them by way of a margin or appreciation so as to adapt them to local needs and requirements. There are also derogations which the Isle of Man once had in regard to education. It is more likely that the European Court of Justice and indeed other EU entities will try to follow the guidelines and precedent of the European Court of Human rights in principle. I attach a link to the very limited involvement of the EU with the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights.. I did once put together a case that went to Strasbourg so had to swot up a lot in Tynwald Library and this is how I remember it. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnzdnvlprVAhUlAsAKHaS6B7gQFggrMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coe.int%2Fen%2Fweb%2Fportal%2Feuropean-union&usg=AFQjCNF5yz6Gr2ae-soarl7kDnke9rZQHw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 if the ecj do play a role in the future what is to stop them finding tax laws are against eu citizen or anything else the uk does... the fact is the uk has voted to leave the eu, remainers like miss miller only want to stop exit... most of the eu right came from english law, all eu rights are been made into uk law, what's the problem? parliament needs full control of the future..... the remainers clearly don't want parliament in control despite miller's case.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, woody2 said: if the ecj do play a role in the future what is to stop them ... Interesting to see that your are beginning to shift your emphasis. In a similar vein - of course Britain is going to have to pay to leave the EU. And that's normal - it invariably costs money to get out of a contract / commitment. 22 minutes ago, woody2 said: the fact is the uk has voted to leave the eu The only question explicitly asked related to "leaving the EU". Nothing else. Britain has not voted to leave the free trade area or any of the agreements which relate to that. And Britain has not voted to end free movement. These issues are not implicit. Everything else is a negotiation with the EU clearly holding a much stronger negotiating position in terms of reaching an agreement which British business, and therefore the Conservative govt, can pragmatically accept. If the agreement does not work for business then the government will be quickly replaced from within. Britain could, for example, officially leave the EU whilst simultaneously deciding to continue on more or less the same basis - the terms of the referendum would have been satisfied. The most likely outcome is something between the two positions. Much closer to remain than Farage-Corbyn would like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.