Article 50 ruling due now

Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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 Court
smile

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 rofl

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 laugh

FiF

43,964 posts

250 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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 Court
smile

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 rofl

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 laugh
Wasn't it also a fail for the four who insisted on keeping their names secret because bad men on the internet might say something rude to them?

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. rofl

Kermit power

28,635 posts

212 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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 Court
smile

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 rofl

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 laugh
If I've understood the Telegraph rolling updates correctly, then I don't think the issue has gone away, has it?

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?

Amateurish

7,697 posts

221 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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 ECHR never impinged on the Sovereignty of the UK.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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 Court
smile

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 rofl

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 laugh
If I've understood the Telegraph rolling updates correctly, then I don't think the issue has gone away, has it?

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?
The government's case was that the point was unarguable since the existing EEA agreement would automatically cease to exist once the UK left the EU. That's not quite the same thing as 'try again later', though it'll be interesting to see the detail that should have been emerging nearly an hour ago as it may leave room for self-important types and vested interests to pretend they're in it purely for constitutional reasons.

Kermit power

28,635 posts

212 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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 Court
smile

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 rofl

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 laugh
If I've understood the Telegraph rolling updates correctly, then I don't think the issue has gone away, has it?

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?
The government's case was that the point was unarguable since the existing EEA agreement would automatically cease to exist once the UK left the EU. That's not quite the same thing as 'try again later', though it'll be interesting to see the detail that should have been emerging nearly an hour ago as it may leave room for self-important types and vested interests to pretend they're in it purely for constitutional reasons.
Would it necessarily automatically cease, given that there are other signatories who are not EU members?

fido

16,752 posts

254 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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.
Likewise.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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.
Likewise.
Yes. It's not entirely clear (like most things related to the EU), but that is the better view. We joined as an EU signatory, not in our own right.

Kermit power

28,635 posts

212 months

Friday 3rd February 2017
quotequote all
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.
Likewise.
Ah, fair enough.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
Another day, another debate in parliament on article 50.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy...

IroningMan

10,154 posts

245 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
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 ECHR never impinged on the Sovereignty of the UK.
Another small issue misgrasped by some Leave voters, I suspect. They're expecting an end to all that ECHR nonsense.

markcoznottz

7,155 posts

223 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
Some comedy gold today, Alex salmond nearly getting offered outside, Anna Soubery almost crying or is that drunk.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
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.
All EU Member States joined the EEA through EU Membership. When we leave, we will cease to be party to the agreement, unless someone mounts an argument to the CJEU that it should be interpreted as applying to each Member State individually and the CJEU accepts that argument.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
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.

hornetrider

Original Poster:

63,161 posts

204 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
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.
Yer tis.

https://youtu.be/refr7VDQe1E

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Some comedy gold today, Alex salmond nearly getting offered outside, Anna Soubery almost crying or is that drunk.
hehe




danny0001uk1

261 posts

148 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
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.

hornetrider

Original Poster:

63,161 posts

204 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
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.

SKP555

1,114 posts

125 months

Tuesday 7th February 2017
quotequote all
Public seem to support May's approach.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN15L1ZE...

So much for Bregret.