FlyTheNest

HindleA wrote:There I was last night,dressed up in my white suit ready to do my best John Travolta impersonation and the bloody DJ didn't turn up.

Soz. Was called away to land of limited broadband.

@Willow.
The comparative "fairness"death spiral.Of course some get the Kafkaesque not satisfying either JSA or ESA.

so there are differing legal opinions on whether A50 can be revoked or not......quelle surprise!

The difference is that one poster here just takes the evidence they like and then makes it seem that it is the only truth

If push comes to shove it is the ECJ who will decide but there is nothing that clearly states it is irrevocable

I also find Hugo to be more and more pathetic as each day passes - he suggests Starmer is a liar (or disingenuous) in his twitter posts...

Hugo suggests he is an eminent academic lawyer - I ask that he comes clean and names himself so he can no longer make his snide comments behind a cloak of anonymity - most other academics in the area are quite happy to post under their real names and be challenged on their expertise and interpretation - Hugo posts his deeply unimpressive blogs and comments but never allows us to see if he (or perhaps she) has the expertise claimed. People posting under anonymity is perfectly fine but I think that those who claim to have an expertise and make condescending comments should be prepared to do s under their own name - I tell you what I think - just as Hugo has called Starmer a liar (or disingenuous I think the word he used is) then I also think he is a liar and has no more in-depth knowledge of the law than my left tit!

So then Hugo I think you are lying about your expertise.....prove me wrong or just stop with your condescending arrogant shite!

tinybgoat wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:This by the Cambridge Prof of Public Law is good on the "misapprehension" of Keir Starmer.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I've said before, the legal arguments are not irrelevant, but they are not the most important thing.

If, politically, there is the will in the UK and the EU to overturn Article 50, it will be overturned.

I have listed here before examples of the EU simply ignoring treaties and the like. You know them all Hugo.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get ... nguage=ENB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Barnier apparently insisted on the following

L. whereas a revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27, so that it cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve on the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership

Which isn't binding, but infers that revocation would be possible unilaterally otherwise, so - although it may need to proven legally - it suggests that it can be revoked.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-brussels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read it again. It indicates exactly the opposite "revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27."

That isn't a unilateral power to revoke, but a revocation that can be made if the other EU27 agree.

Anyway, excuse my manners...Good Evening

Interesting to watch Nicky Morgan try to squirm away from the fact that she agree with virtually everything Starmer said on Peston this morning....the Tories are an absolute shambles at the moment and it could be a very noisy implosion will happen at some point - the tensions are surely too much to last until March 2019, watch the rhetoric against the EU get more virulent as the attempts to shift blame start!

Also, saw that some Labour backbenchers have been whining to the papers that McDonnell is now too pro-EU deal and that his ruling out of this 'no deal' nonsense so virulently and his comment on working with anyone to prevent it is seen to be problematic - I wish these pillocks would just shut up.although they are getting less and less press now.

Heseltine gave an interesting interview this morning and I wonder how long it is before a senior pro-Remain grandee comes out in support of Labour's position more clearly and disowns their own party - it is getting not too far away I think and some (such as Heseltine) have come pretty close already.....if Hammond attacks continue then that may be the catalyst

How the world has changed since June!

Read it again. It indicates exactly the opposite "revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27."

That isn't a unilateral power to revoke, but a revocation that can be made if the other EU27 agree

That is a decision for the ECJ to make on whether unilateral revocation is permissible in law or not - Barnier does not make the laws does he?

Any attempts to allow or prevent revocation will be challenged in the courts - it is inconceivable that they won't be - who will prevail depends on the ECJ.

The trigger would be the unilateral revocation by UK parliament and then it will be challenged and go to the ECJ (via the Supreme Court who wouldn't want to touch this with a barge pole I would guess)....

I assume unilateral revocation would only be attempted it public opinion really changes and the people voting for would be confident they had public support to renege on the referendum result.....

and that is the crux of the problem which you ignore....the political consequences of the referendum being lost....that is what all this is based upon and is the headwind we are fighting against

The shite you write about Labour supporting A50 makes no allowance for the fact that it would have passed anyway so we would be in the same position now but with, in all probability, a much larger Tory majority, next to no opposition to them doing whatever they want and a despondent opposition.

Instead we have a strong opposition to the Tories (in all areas) and a Labour Party that is becoming more and more soft Brexit each month.....it is the best position we could have had in light of the referendum result

Now we need some of the Tory Remainers to put their principles above their party and actually vote against their Government on this subject.....

RIP Bert Massie


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... rt-5713212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as a further point one of the interesting exchanges between Peston and Starmer was the question of free movement and Starmer mentioned clearly the working of the laws within the EU Freedom of Movement framework

The FoM sets out principles but each country has a certian liberty on how to comply.....the thing that holds the UK back is the fact that there is no knowledge of who is living where and no legal obligation to be able to demonstrate it for anyone.

The consequence of us doing this means that we cannot introduce and EU registration scheme (akin to non-EU) as this would infringe one of the principles of not treating EU citizens any differently from native citizens......I have also found it pretty strange in the UK that we have some a useless way of proving identity and residence (utility bills ffs!) and we do not have any form of official proof identity apart from a passport although we allow some very strange alternatives

In order for us to have a system that allows for a 'fair immigration' policy that complies then we would need to have a national registration system....and perhaps including the dreaded ID cards.... for everyone which may actually help us in other areas too

I know the UK has a real aversion to ID cards or registration but I cannot see easily how we get around it..

Staremer understands all this I think and is working out how he can conjure something up that works and can be sold.....

Switzerland has just been able to convince the EU (although they weren't happy about it to be fair) that they can preferentially recruit from internal residents first in certain sectors as long as there is no discrimination against resident EU citizens....they are also extremely strict on the registration of EU citizens, making us have health insurance and also making it hard to stay past 3 months without any means of support

@Hugo,
I've read it enough, already.
My point was,
i) it isn't certain legally, that UK could revoke
article 50 declaration
ii) Barnier was insisting on the wording to try and prevent the UK unlaterally revoking article 50 declaration, by saying it could only be revoked if submitting to rules agreed by the rest of the EU.(my interpretation)
iii) by insisting on this clause, Barnier is acknowledging that there is at least the possibility of the UK revoking declaration otherwise, so he for one believes it may be possible.
iv) it isn't binding, so this infers that the UK is still able to unilaterally revoke (subject to legal wranglings, etc)

Reminds me of the look I got when proving my identity by a rather worn 1980 provisional driving licence.Don't know why DL was one of the suggestions.It lasts to 2032.

tinybgoat wrote:@Hugo,
I've read it enough, already.
My point was,
i) it isn't certain legally, that UK could revoke
article 50 declaration
ii) Barnier was insisting on the wording to try and prevent the UK unlaterally revoking article 50 declaration, by saying it could only be revoked if submitting to rules agreed by the rest of the EU.(my interpretation)
iii) by insisting on this clause, Barnier is acknowledging that there is at least the possibility of the UK revoking declaration otherwise, so he for one believes it may be possible.
iv) it isn't binding, so this infers that the UK is still able to unilaterally revoke (subject to legal wranglings, etc)

Infer doesn't mean imply.

Point iv doesn't follow. At all.

HindleA wrote:Reminds me of the look I got when proving my identity by a rather worn 1980 provisional driving licence.Don't know why DL was one of the suggestions.It lasts to 2032.

found this list on interweb.......

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -checklist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I imagine there are people with none of these......especially with more adults living with parents and so not having any bills etc in their name

SpinningHugo wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:@Hugo,
I've read it enough, already.
My point was,
i) it isn't certain legally, that UK could revoke
article 50 declaration
ii) Barnier was insisting on the wording to try and prevent the UK unlaterally revoking article 50 declaration, by saying it could only be revoked if submitting to rules agreed by the rest of the EU.(my interpretation)
iii) by insisting on this clause, Barnier is acknowledging that there is at least the possibility of the UK revoking declaration otherwise, so he for one believes it may be possible.
iv) it isn't binding, so this infers that the UK is still able to unilaterally revoke (subject to legal wranglings, etc)

Infer doesn't mean imply.

Point iv doesn't follow. At all.

don't be such a semantic w***er!

As mr goat suggests - no-one knows what the rules are on revoking A50 as it is not stated in the treaty and the guy who wrote it says it was never really considered as A50 was never thought likely.....

It is not for some trumped up anonymous poster on a message board to declare the truth on this (or anyone else either) outside the relevant authorities.....we are just speculating as are all the academics who are discussing this

As there is nothing that says it cannot be revoked then it is fair to say that it can be.....whether that is unilaterally or via the EU-27 who knows. My guess is it would be the latter rather than the former but that is just an uninformed view based on what I would consider to be natural justice....however, the judges may say different

SpinningHugo wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:@Hugo,
I've read it enough, already.
My point was,
i) it isn't certain legally, that UK could revoke
article 50 declaration
ii) Barnier was insisting on the wording to try and prevent the UK unlaterally revoking article 50 declaration, by saying it could only be revoked if submitting to rules agreed by the rest of the EU.(my interpretation)
iii) by insisting on this clause, Barnier is acknowledging that there is at least the possibility of the UK revoking declaration otherwise, so he for one believes it may be possible.
iv) it isn't binding, so this infers that the UK is still able to unilaterally revoke (subject to legal wranglings, etc)

Infer doesn't mean imply.

Point iv doesn't follow. At all.

Stuff that, it's my logic & I'll infer what I want from it,
unless you're implying that my use of infer is incorrect because it appears to belong to "it isn't binding"?
Anyway if you're clever enough to pick up on any grammatical shortcomings, you're surely able to follow simple logic.

A summary might help, perhaps:

Why try to stipulate that the UK can't unilaterally revoke the declaration of article 50, unless there is the possibility of this being done?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ing-claims" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Rochdale charity's demolition plans spark ‘social cleansing’ claims

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... government" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ministers warned of constitutional crisis risk over EU withdrawal bill

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -sheffield" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Revealed: catalogue of failings that sank Falklands warship HMS Sheffield

Rumours about some sort of "age tax".It should of course be based on height,anybody 5ft 6" or under for men,anyway,shouldn't pay any.

Not in heels.