Article 50 ruling due now
Discussion
alfie2244 said:
hornetrider said:
Looks like a new legal challenge today over the EEA ffs. I read about this a few weeks ago and got the feeling it could be quite tricky.
Could we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Blocked by High CourtCould we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Link said:
Theresa May has won a fresh legal challenge to her Brexit plans after High Court judges rejected a call for MPs to be given a vote on leaving the European Economic Area.
Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
3 minutes Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
Here's hoping it was an expensive fail for Wilding and Yalland and that they waste more on an appeal...unless it's ruled out in just over 2 hours, rather than 3 minutes.
Where's Russell Brand when he's needed
turbobloke said:
alfie2244 said:
hornetrider said:
Looks like a new legal challenge today over the EEA ffs. I read about this a few weeks ago and got the feeling it could be quite tricky.
Could we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Blocked by High CourtCould we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Link said:
Theresa May has won a fresh legal challenge to her Brexit plans after High Court judges rejected a call for MPs to be given a vote on leaving the European Economic Area.
Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
3 minutes Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
Here's hoping it was an expensive fail for Wilding and Yalland and that they waste more on an appeal...unless it's ruled out in just over 2 hours, rather than 3 minutes.
Where's Russell Brand when he's needed
Anyway thanks for the last few days on this thread chaps and chapesses, it's been a complete hoot. Genuine LOLs , from seeing a particularly splenetic poster still crying into his Rice Krispies and being generally derided, to the ridicule of another poster, who once told me not to be so passive aggressive when someone disagreed with me, being wound up big time because of being called out for that very same behaviour, but in spades doubled and redoubled. As league67 and his multiple other login identities would say, comedy gold.
turbobloke said:
alfie2244 said:
hornetrider said:
Looks like a new legal challenge today over the EEA ffs. I read about this a few weeks ago and got the feeling it could be quite tricky.
Could we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Blocked by High CourtCould we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Link said:
Theresa May has won a fresh legal challenge to her Brexit plans after High Court judges rejected a call for MPs to be given a vote on leaving the European Economic Area.
Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
3 minutes Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
Here's hoping it was an expensive fail for Wilding and Yalland and that they waste more on an appeal...unless it's ruled out in just over 2 hours, rather than 3 minutes.
Where's Russell Brand when he's needed
My understanding was that the judges decided there was nothing to be the subject of a Judicial Review at present, because the government has not yet made clear what their policy on EEA membership is going to be, and as such the call for a review was dismissed for being premature, not for being definitively groundless?
Gargamel said:
Or being overuled by the ECHR, IE British Courts having decisions overturned at ECHR - Abu Qatada sprinds to mind
The Crown wanted him deported to Jordan, he went to ECHR won and was awarded costs !
Our Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty were thereby diminished.
The ECHR is not the EU. We are not currently leaving the ECHR. The Crown wanted him deported to Jordan, he went to ECHR won and was awarded costs !
Our Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty were thereby diminished.
The ECHR never impinged on the Sovereignty of the UK.
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
alfie2244 said:
hornetrider said:
Looks like a new legal challenge today over the EEA ffs. I read about this a few weeks ago and got the feeling it could be quite tricky.
Could we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Blocked by High CourtCould we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Link said:
Theresa May has won a fresh legal challenge to her Brexit plans after High Court judges rejected a call for MPs to be given a vote on leaving the European Economic Area.
Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
3 minutes Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
Here's hoping it was an expensive fail for Wilding and Yalland and that they waste more on an appeal...unless it's ruled out in just over 2 hours, rather than 3 minutes.
Where's Russell Brand when he's needed
My understanding was that the judges decided there was nothing to be the subject of a Judicial Review at present, because the government has not yet made clear what their policy on EEA membership is going to be, and as such the call for a review was dismissed for being premature, not for being definitively groundless?
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
turbobloke said:
alfie2244 said:
hornetrider said:
Looks like a new legal challenge today over the EEA ffs. I read about this a few weeks ago and got the feeling it could be quite tricky.
Could we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Blocked by High CourtCould we legally leave the EU yet stay in the EEA?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/brexit-...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/c...
Link said:
Theresa May has won a fresh legal challenge to her Brexit plans after High Court judges rejected a call for MPs to be given a vote on leaving the European Economic Area.
Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
3 minutes Campaigners Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland argued the Government “has no mandate” to withdraw from the single market because the issue of leaving the EEA was not on the referendum ballot paper last June.
After a hearing that had been scheduled for two to three hours but only lasted 45 minutes, the two judges took just three minutes to come to their decision to turn down the application for judicial review.
Here's hoping it was an expensive fail for Wilding and Yalland and that they waste more on an appeal...unless it's ruled out in just over 2 hours, rather than 3 minutes.
Where's Russell Brand when he's needed
My understanding was that the judges decided there was nothing to be the subject of a Judicial Review at present, because the government has not yet made clear what their policy on EEA membership is going to be, and as such the call for a review was dismissed for being premature, not for being definitively groundless?
fido said:
Kermit power said:
Would it necessarily automatically cease, given that there are other signatories who are not EU members?
True, but the UK is only a member of the EEA though its EU membership - whereas the other signatories explicitly joined the EEA. That's my understanding anyway.turbobloke said:
fido said:
Kermit power said:
Would it necessarily automatically cease, given that there are other signatories who are not EU members?
True, but the UK is only a member of the EEA though its EU membership - whereas the other signatories explicitly joined the EEA. That's my understanding anyway.turbobloke said:
fido said:
Kermit power said:
Would it necessarily automatically cease, given that there are other signatories who are not EU members?
True, but the UK is only a member of the EEA though its EU membership - whereas the other signatories explicitly joined the EEA. That's my understanding anyway.Another day, another debate in parliament on article 50.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy...
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy...
Amateurish said:
Gargamel said:
Or being overuled by the ECHR, IE British Courts having decisions overturned at ECHR - Abu Qatada sprinds to mind
The Crown wanted him deported to Jordan, he went to ECHR won and was awarded costs !
Our Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty were thereby diminished.
The ECHR is not the EU. We are not currently leaving the ECHR. The Crown wanted him deported to Jordan, he went to ECHR won and was awarded costs !
Our Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty were thereby diminished.
The ECHR never impinged on the Sovereignty of the UK.
fido said:
Kermit power said:
Would it necessarily automatically cease, given that there are other signatories who are not EU members?
True, but the UK is only a member of the EEA though its EU membership - whereas the other signatories explicitly joined the EEA. That's my understanding anyway.turbobloke said:
markcoznottz said:
Some comedy gold today, Alex salmond nearly getting offered outside, Anna Soubery almost crying or is that drunk.
Is this on Beeb iPlayer or similar?! I'd consider watching some non-live BBC output for that. It sounds very entertaining.https://youtu.be/refr7VDQe1E
danny0001uk1 said:
The latest vote suggests it will be a take it or leave it deal on offer when we leave.
Either accept the deal with the EU May negotiates or leave on wto rules.
That's what I understand it to be. Which basically means it's meaningless. Which is all good from my perspective.Either accept the deal with the EU May negotiates or leave on wto rules.
Public seem to support May's approach.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN15L1ZE...
So much for Bregret.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN15L1ZE...
So much for Bregret.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff