That referendum ...

[meellis]

Re: That referendum ...

Fred was interested in how laws would be now, I don't have the answer but logic would have to say that everything including laws would be the same until something else is in place. If not there would just be a void which isn't good for anyone. I would also imagine that a lot of decisions and agreements would be negotiated around existing principles especially for time purposes, apparently there are a shortage of qualified and capable negotiators within the government. This is all proving why previous governments have ducked the issue of referendums but even with the amount of time the public have been requesting them we obviously never took them seriously enough to have a back up plan or would it have been shelved in austerity measures. I am sure after George Osbourne and the like have finished moving the family finances around to minimise their losses they will make an appearance and do what they were elected for.

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

There's 2 seperate issues: We won't now (or when we leave) be subject to making new consumer laws from EU directives ie as UTCCR was. The other is that we will also no longer be able to use ECJ case law ie Hatsotag which Foster-Burnell relied on and which more recent judgments could have been used to challange bank charges.

In short, UTCCR 1999 is an EU Directive but still a UK Regulation, ie law in the UK: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../contents/made

Part 8, sections 210 onwards, Enterprise Act 2002, provide protection to consumers by this primary UK legislation. I do not agree with your statement about ECJ, as ECJ case law has shaped the UK's case law/ common law system since round about 1972. The EU simply will not permit the UK to have any kind of new frame work, ie new course of negotiating from a Full Economic Union into alternatives (as per my commentary on the alternative Free Trade Agreement/ Common Market Agreement types with the EU), ie Treaty of Lisbon Amendments to TFEU/ Consolidat. version. According to constitutional experts EU is powerful and the EU's ECJ will have made law entrenched in the UK's legal system. Alternatively, it would mean that 40 years of case law affectively would be over-turned. Judges will have to go back to law school (ok that's a tad facetious).

EU Laws binding law on the UK legal system: Treaty, Treaty Article, Regulation, Regulation Article; European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision. Secondary EU legislation is a EU Directive. The Member State can choose how to draft the Directive but it must 'have 'the aim' of EU Directive. In any event, the UK makes the EU Directive into a UK Regulation (ie secondary legislation) see above.

[enaid]

Re: That referendum ...

Whatever's going to happen just right now I think MPs are showing their true colours and imo it may just be a good thing and sort the wheat from the chaff before the real and very important decisions are to be put on the table for our future.

[wales01man]

Re: That referendum ...

No Eurovision entry! if only the leavers had been told that we would be staying in

[leclerc]

Re: That referendum ...

These were really the most important post Brexit questions: I'm sure you'll agree that not being in the Eurovision Song Contest was the most important....

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...ision-11523181

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

R vs Rogers 2007

The question certified by the Court of Appeal was: "Do those who are not of British origin constitute a racial group within section 28(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998?" The answer is "yes", as would it be to the question whether "foreigners" constitute such a group. Whether the evidence in any particular case, taken as a whole, proves that the offender's conduct demonstrated hostility to such a group, or was motivated by such hostility, is a question of fact for the decision-makers in the case.

[leclerc]

Re: That referendum ...

There are stories of so called British people telling people to go home.
Case law R vs Rogers 2007 which is about racially aggravated assault: http://www.publications.parliament.u...228/rogers.htm

[leclerc]

Re: That referendum ...

There is war is both parties. Hilary Benn sacked from shadow cabinet this morning.

I have some more facts and figures for you: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06...voted-and-why/

And the polling done: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-cont...l-tables-1.pdf

[MIKE770]

Re: That referendum ...

That will more than likely be senior staff paving the way to rip the French off instead of us lol

HSBC are equivalent to the French so would be in the right place - i.e. :- Yellow backed paint

[enaid]

Re: That referendum ...

BBC hews headline (HSBC might move staff to France! That's the start then who might then next

That will more than likely be senior staff paving the way to rip the French off instead of us lol

[wales01man]

Re: That referendum ...

BBC hews headline (HSBC might move staff to France! That's the start then who might then next

[PAWS]

Re: That referendum ...

The world has changed since 1973 and I could rant for hours about how it has changed for the better. Now whether we love or loathe it we are part of a global economy and with that comes responsibilities and interdependency. We need to work with other countries and we may not agree with all of them, all the time but the benefits outweigh the problems.
We would all love to say our lives were better in 1973 but if we are honest some lived in dire poverty. Unsanitary conditions were rife, miscarriages of justice were common and we all know about the abuse that vulnerable children were subject to. Things were bad but without rolling news and thanks to social gagging we never heard about it.
By the way -anyone who has a problem with a non democratically elected power needs to start looking at the House of Lords.

[Fred]

Re: That referendum ...

That's what I believe was the issue in the case PT was saying about.

It is not/or is then, two years before we are no longer subject to EU rules, am a little confused by all this deadline data. Or, in other words do we still have the same rights for two years ?

What was the court's decision based on ?

[LowEbb]

Re: That referendum ...

Gosh it's all doom and gloom. Does anyone know how we coped before we joined the EU?

[meellis]

Re: That referendum ...

Isn't it great, the mighty UK, get involved in everybody else's wars, send aid all over the world, had an empire, has a history and heritage and finally found out we can't wipe our own bums without the help of our European cousins. I thought it was only the government that fell for its own spin. There are no apparent benefits to leaving because it is a big unknown. Things that are known are that Cameron didn't get the reforms he wanted, the EU was getting bigger with potentially more countries joining meaning our voice would have been smaller and as it is being proven now by the mere fact that we can't apparently survive without them they had a major impact over everything we do. So are we saying this sovereignty we have kept is really good for nothing and has truly been the emperors new clothes?