That referendum ...

[Openlaw15]

Re: That referendum ...

The next Prime Minister won't be elected as such, he/she will be appointed according to the preference of the Conservatives.

The government has already been elected by the electorate, but the Executive's Prime Minister has resigned owing to the Referendum gaffe, so there is no option other than the Tories to choose another leader. It would be irony itself if Boris were chosen. Some might say he manipulated the referendum as a chance to nothing, that if the referendum were to go pear-shaped albeit in his fortuitous favour, he'd be in the running for Prime Minister. After-all, he and pro Boris supports may argue, it was his persuasive power that convinced, at least in part any way, the country to follow him for a Br-exit. He could be chosen for Number 10 duties. He will have his haters but even Cameron doesn't have his almost boyish-antic charm. He is like a genius on the one hand mixed in with a great oaf on the other. He's like a UK version of Dubya in his character - yet amazingly he has the intelligence to boot. He attained his place in Eton by scholarship whereas despite enjoying and sharing the privileged background with Cameron, it was Cameron who ended up in Eton because that is normal for posh boys even if he were a bright child.

[leclerc]

Re: That referendum ...

that petition is at 1.6mill nearly 10% of whats needed, GET EVERYONE TO SIGN IT....

Let's do what the EU did to Ireland.....keep them voting until we vote the right way.


One good thing to come out of it all.

The good old British thing.......MOANING AND COMPLAINING!! Anyway, extra time in the football. see ya laters....

[Guest]

Re: That referendum ...

that petition is at 1.6mill nearly 10% of whats needed, GET EVERYONE TO SIGN IT....

10%? All that's needed is 100,000 signatures, it already says "waiting one day for a debate date".

[Fred]

Re: That referendum ...

So, if part of the exit campaign was to do with highly paid bureaucrats dictating to us (the mouse that has just shat its pants) then perhaps we should not put any effort in to negotiating a new deal as this, potentially, would cost more & will take some significant time to negotiate involving bureaucrats, highly paid on our behalf.

It seems the more I look at things............the less sense this whole mess has now become, looks like we need Superman.

[Guest]

Re: That referendum ...

funny thing is, those who voted out have voted to remove the protections that consumers HAD. The legal arguments on Unfair terms fall away now, whereas it was open to challenge the UKSC decision based on ECJ jurisprudence, that has now gone, so your bankcharges cases? Suck it up buttercup cos you aint getting them back now.

Your unfair terms arguments that fall within the OFT v Abbey decision, theyve gone, your challenge to the fairness of the terms of the contract whcih fall within Bevis, all dead.

A DJ yesterday has already thrown out a case which relied on ECJ jurisprudence.

Just rejoice at that news.

- - - Updated - - -



Dont talk wet!!

Worrying times guaranteed but a level head is needed, apart from the vote has anything really changed as of yet? We are still in Europe and will be for a few more years as far as my understanding is yet people are already using it as an excuse to change there life. I have much respect for you PT but a judge throwing out a case based around EU law while we are still in seems like someone who needs to be brought to task. Markets going crazy is just the Spivs making a fortune on uncertainty and a lot of other warnings are from people/organisations who are out to chastise the UK for starting the rot. I am deeply concerned about the way this is heading but I was also deeply concerned about the way the EU was heading. What happens now if there was a way that someone finds to derail the process before it truly gets started are all of these people like the judges going to rescind there decisions they are making now?.

I'd have thought "EU law" is still valid. It was a VOTE, note an actual withdrawal, yet. The terms of that have yet to be decided. It's a bit like, say, a company boss asking their employees what they think about moving to a new location. If most of them vote "yes", that doesn't mean they'll have moved yet, that will still have to be arranged. The vote itself is not legally binding.

Throwing out a case based on the vote was just an excuse.

Most of those people who wanted to leave have probably not even heard about all these consumer protections. The whole thing was based on a whole lot of misinformation.

[Fred]

Re: That referendum ...

I want to know the ins & outs of the ECJ decisions that have had or do have an effect on our consumer rights or "fairness"

The bit I do not understand is how we continue to rely on the ECJ if it is conditional on being a member state ?

[Guest]

Re: That referendum ...

I want to know the ins & out of the ECJ decisions that have had or do have an effect on our consumer rights or "fairness"

The bit I do not understand is how we continue to rely on the ECJ if it is conditional on being a member state ?

The UK is a member state at the moment. It was a vote to leave, but we haven't left yet. The ins and outs of that are still to be negotiated/agreed/decided. It's becoming clear that Cameron and Co. didn't expect a leave vote, they were just bluffing and hoping people would vote to stay, otherwise they would have had plans in place to address all these issues long before the vote.

[Fred]

Re: That referendum ...

The UK is a member state at the moment. It was a vote to leave, but we haven't left yet. The ins and outs of that are still to be negotiated/agreed/decided. It's becoming clear that Cameron and Co. didn't expect a leave vote, they were just bluffing and hoping people would vote to stay, otherwise they would have had plans in place to address all these issues long before the vote.

Understood but, how can a UK court take something forward that "may" not be applicable in a few months or even days ?

[EXC]

Re: That referendum ...

I'd have thought "EU law" is still valid. It was a VOTE, note an actual withdrawal, yet. The terms of that have yet to be decided. It's a bit like, say, a company boss asking their employees what they think about moving to a new location. If most of them vote "yes", that doesn't mean they'll have moved yet, that will still have to be arranged. The vote itself is not legally binding.

Throwing out a case based on the vote was just an excuse.

Most of those people who wanted to leave have probably not even heard about all these consumer protections. The whole thing was based on a whole lot of misinformation.

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.

[EXC]

Re: That referendum ...

Understood but, how can a UK court take something forward that "may" not be applicable in a few months or even days ?

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

[Crazy council]

Re: That referendum ...

1.9 mill votes so far, a number of mps talking revote

the difference in the initial vote was only 1.3 mil

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

[wales01man]

Re: That referendum ...

1.9 mill votes so far, a number of mps talking revote

the difference in the initial vote was only 1.3 mil

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

Does not mean they all did not vote remain and now want a chance to vote again

[Crazy council]

Re: That referendum ...

no, but it gives the mps a mandate if it gets above 17.4 mill.

Theres hope

[meellis]

Re: That referendum ...

Withdrawal will not be in a few days or even months Cameron doesn't even want to start it until there is a new prime minister. Some people were saying that it could be that complex it could take 10 years, the only yardstick was Greenland who didn't have as much to agree on as us and they took two years I believe. If the truth was known The EU are pushing us to get on with it probably more to frighten the others who are looking to leave. Surely if cases have been won using ECJ it becomes case law already is that going to be another thing that fancy barristers will use when it suits them. There are already been questions about the legality of the referendum and whether it was only an advisory for parliament to then vote on so I am sure there will be a lot of powerful people who will be looking into how binding the referendum actually is and knowing the government they are probably looking for a way out with others to blame so until it comes completely official then it is not worth panicking at the doom mongers predictions. It is sad that this country actual needs the EU to supply laws offering protection but maybe they were the sort of things that the government wanted to be able to side step in there reforms they were after.

[Fred]

Re: That referendum ...

Does not mean they all did not vote remain and now want a chance to vote again

It needs a reality check before we irreversibly enter the abyss (if not already) I want to write how wrong this is but can not as it is an opinion, we could be easily competing with Germany for top spot if we remained but, at this rate we will be subject to extended austerity & higher borrowing rates for quite some time to come......

More politics is what we did not need, more bureaucracy of a differing nature is what we will have, better the regime you do know goes out of the window........................superb job, we are two years behind in less than 24 hours.

Pride comes before a fall............here goes.