How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 2)

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

Advising the EU not to go to court? Seems reasonable.

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

Advising the EU not to go to court? Seems reasonable.

Not sure you are following this. It would not be the EU who went to court. It would be rEU fishermen who are denied access to UK waters post Brexit. They would apply to the UK courts and if successful could be entitled to millions in damages.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

Advising the EU not to go to court? Seems reasonable.

Not sure you are following this. It would not be the EU who went to court. It would be rEU fishermen who are denied access to UK waters post Brexit. They would apply to the UK courts and if successful could be entitled to millions in damages.

Maybe you've not been following the debate. EU flunkies have been out in force recently pointing out that the EU must be treated as a bloc. Were they kidding? Being silly? Spreading disinformation?

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

Advising the EU not to go to court? Seems reasonable.

Not sure you are following this. It would not be the EU who went to court. It would be rEU fishermen who are denied access to UK waters post Brexit. They would apply to the UK courts and if successful could be entitled to millions in damages.

REU fishermen are irrelevant. The Vienna treaty is between states, not individuals and states. The only way it could go to court is if a EU state (or maybe the EU) brought a case. And there isnt a case to bring. Once article 50 has been invoked, and the time allowed has passed, we are out of the EU and there is no treaty to enforce. The UNCLOS applies.

[confused_buyer]

TonyToniTone said:

I believe its the same from France and UK, I personally travelled from UK.

They check people arriving from France, just the same as we do at Dover, Harwich or wherever.

The Irish also seem to check all flight arrivals, regardless of where from including the UK - certainly in Dublin, whereas the UK do not check arrival from RoI so, if anything, they're tighter on control than we are.

[confused_buyer]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Really?

You don't appreciate that with no border checks on people anyone that happens to be in Ireland can walk into the UK?

Have you not seen the SBP in action?

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

Advising the EU not to go to court? Seems reasonable.

Not sure you are following this. It would not be the EU who went to court. It would be rEU fishermen who are denied access to UK waters post Brexit. They would apply to the UK courts and if successful could be entitled to millions in damages.

REU fishermen are irrelevant. The Vienna treaty is between states, not individuals and states. The only way it could go to court is if a EU state (or maybe the EU) brought a case. And there isnt a case to bring. Once article 50 has been invoked, and the time allowed has passed, we are out of the EU and there is no treaty to enforce. The UNCLOS applies.

Just because a treaty is between states does not mean it cannot create rights for the individual. Look at the HRT and the convention on refugees. The later creates rights for individuals who are not even citizens of the treaty parties.

There is a view that the Vienna Convent only applies to the rights of states. That has never been tested in court anywhere in the world. Now it’s clear if on Brexit the UK government just bans rEU fishermen from UK waters they will suffer economic damages. They would be perfectly entitled to seek damages against the UK government in the Uk courts. They may succeed they may not.

You can get as many opinions as you want but the final opinion and the one that matters is the opinion of the court. And you can be sure the opinion will not offer any protection if you lose in court.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Mrr T said:

Just because a treaty is between states does not mean it cannot create rights for the individual. Look at the HRT and the convention on refugees. The later creates rights for individuals who are not even citizens of the treaty parties.

There is a view that the Vienna Convent only applies to the rights of states. That has never been tested in court anywhere in the world. Now it’s clear if on Brexit the UK government just bans rEU fishermen from UK waters they will suffer economic damages. They would be perfectly entitled to seek damages against the UK government in the Uk courts. They may succeed they may not.

You can get as many opinions as you want but the final opinion and the one that matters is the opinion of the court. And you can be sure the opinion will not offer any protection if you lose in court.

Why does nobody ask the fish what they want?

[gooner1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Why does nobody ask the fish what they want?

Wouldn't you be the one best plaiced to do that,Billy?

[PurpleMoonlight]

gooner1 said:

Wouldn't you be the one best plaiced to do that,Billy?

Cod knows.

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

I would not claim I am an expert. But did look at it in terms of EU citizens in the UK. You should look at Article 70 of the Convention and acquired rights. Now there is precedence this only applies to a state not the individual. However, the precedence is old and reflects a different time. Some believe a modern UK court might well take a different view.

See http://www.sff.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op...

That’s a legal opinion I am sure a very eminent one, but opinions are 2 a penny, well 2 every £10,000 maybe. What matters is what happens in court. On that basis on complex and contentious legal issues its normally better to ensure you do not end up in court.

Advising the EU not to go to court? Seems reasonable.

Not sure you are following this. It would not be the EU who went to court. It would be rEU fishermen who are denied access to UK waters post Brexit. They would apply to the UK courts and if successful could be entitled to millions in damages.

REU fishermen are irrelevant. The Vienna treaty is between states, not individuals and states. The only way it could go to court is if a EU state (or maybe the EU) brought a case. And there isnt a case to bring. Once article 50 has been invoked, and the time allowed has passed, we are out of the EU and there is no treaty to enforce. The UNCLOS applies.

Just because a treaty is between states does not mean it cannot create rights for the individual. Look at the HRT and the convention on refugees. The later creates rights for individuals who are not even citizens of the treaty parties.

There is a view that the Vienna Convent only applies to the rights of states. That has never been tested in court anywhere in the world. Now it’s clear if on Brexit the UK government just bans rEU fishermen from UK waters they will suffer economic damages. They would be perfectly entitled to seek damages against the UK government in the Uk courts. They may succeed they may not.

You can get as many opinions as you want but the final opinion and the one that matters is the opinion of the court. And you can be sure the opinion will not offer any protection if you lose in court.

Its not going to court because there is no case. We complied with the letter of the treaty, article 50 was invoked (the treaty way of leaving) and we are out of the EU next year. Had we simply crashed out without using article 50 there may have been a case, but we didnt do that. What part of the treaty do you think we didnt comply with?

[The Dangerous Elk]

PurpleMoonlight said:

gooner1 said:

Wouldn't you be the one best plaiced to do that,Billy?

Cod knows.

How big are Lilly Allen's garden ponds ?

[Tuna]

s2art said:

Its not going to court because there is no case. We complied with the letter of the treaty, article 50 was invoked (the treaty way of leaving) and we are out of the EU next year. Had we simply crashed out without using article 50 there may have been a case, but we didnt do that. What part of the treaty do you think we didnt comply with?

But there just *has* to be a problem. Brexit is not allowed to be straightforward.

[Crackie]

Murph7355 said:

If you got rid of that, and the exact same stuff you do, these threads wouldn't be past the first few pages of the first volume.

Lead by example. Or STFU with the whining.

/\ this.

Due to my posting history, I completely understand that it is hypocritical of me to agree with your post Murph7355; I am part of the problem.

Early in Volume one I posted up a link to one of what I believe to be one of OpenEurope's reasoned articles / reports. I was hoping to discuss the salient points and to hopefully learn / understand the nuances. Cue some swivell eyed remainers, who are still posting today, to dismiss the report out of hand because it did not follow their 'sky is going to fall if we leave' narrative.

I've subsequently treated the 'contributions' of those remainers with ridicule and often contempt because their posts invariably carry the same underlying anti leaver nonsense. Several have never wanted a genuine debate regarding Brexit, they appear to only want to preach to those who have a different view to their own.

I'm disappointed in myself and do try not to take the bait but it is difficult when faced with such relentless tttery.

Your exchanges with ORD and a couple of others were diamonds in the rough but sadly all too rare.

Edited by Crackie on Wednesday 14th March 08:24

[anonymous-user]

Does anyone think that Nige could knock one out in 48hours with Trump?

[confused_buyer]

Ghibli said:

Does anyone think that Nige could knock one out in 48hours with Trump?

Well, he seems to like him.

[GroundEffect]

Ghibli said:

Does anyone think that Nige could knock one out in 48hours with Trump?

He might be a bit raw after that.

[powerstroke]

GroundEffect said:

Ghibli said:

Does anyone think that Nige could knock one out in 48hours with Trump?

He might be a bit raw after that.

I don't think the civil service would like it , they are looking forward to spining this st out
for years ...

[Jockman]

Anyone fancy a bit of cake?

Britain can sign trade deals in single market

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-can-sig...