that a government can remove the rights of it's citizens at a whim
Even if they ask them to do it 😆
But UK courts have decided to delay the process, not the EU
Wot?
UK courts are delaying nothing and there is no sign that the original government timetable cannot be met regardless of the court decision.
All the courts are doing is clarifying the limits of prerogative powers. Nothing about delaying Article 50 or not doing Brexit.
What @grumpy and @5th say, it's about process and implementing democracy. In hindsight May should have perhaps just passed a simple A50 bill in September as soon as Parliament returned. As it is any bill if required will be January's business.
In France it's not a burka ban, it's a face covering in public ban whether you use a scarf and hoodie, clown mask or fail to take off your full face visor down motorcycle helmet when you get off you bike. I'm in favour.
I was against the Burkini ban because I have no problem with fully clothed people on the beach and the burkini does not cover the face.
Are you really trying to argue with the world famous Jambafacts?
@captain - the numbers are a direct quote from the Polish Ambassador (tv interview). My point is the official statistics are meaningless and a massive understatement
@mrleb 🙂
@Pigface the Burkha ban was a 2012 manifesto commitment, the original ban was overturned by the courts as too far reaching. It will be passed imo as with the Freedom Party are ahead in the polls the center/left have to respond.
@cchris we had a thread on a Burkha ban, I have mixed feelings but would vote against one in any Referendum (I think full access to messaging technology etc is much more useful in combatting extremism for example). If it really is a woman's choice tomwear a Burkha for religious reasons she sould be permitted to do so. The "if" is the tricky part
It will be passed
But hasn't been passed yet
In hindsight May should have perhaps just passed a simple A50 bill in September as soon as Parliament returned.
Indeed. and she stop phaffing around now with any idea of appeals etc.
Present the Act, get it passed, trigger A50 and get on with it
but we still want to be bound by one european court...
I imagine that patents arent nearly exciting enough for the tabloids to get all incitey about
THECONVERSATION.COM Of course, as some have suggested, Brexit planning behind the scenes could well be a shambles. But if, as the government insists it isn’t, then ratification makes no sense if the goal is a hard Brexit: while it will still be possible for the UK to break away from the UPC in a number of years’ time, post-Brexit, the UK would have to do so by abandoning a fully functioning court system, featuring its own judges, that may have already become popular with UK businesses and inventors. By contrast, a decision not to ratify the UPC would – at this point – have signalled that the UK was serious about the hard Brexit strategy.The ratification only makes sense if the government intends to remain a member of the UPC for the foreseeable future, which means that it intends to accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in EU-related patent matters post-Brexit. This could be good news for British inventors and businesses, especially for the UK’s burgeoning life sciences industry, as the London UPC division will have a specialist focus in this area.
Even if they ask them to do it
Yes.
If there were a referendum to stop gay people going into straight pubs, and it was won by 51/49, should the government do it?
My point with the court case was that it is the UK dragging it's feet not the EU.
The burkini summer saga was just something for people to forget about the new labour laws. If people want to be fully dressed on the beach, fine with me.
Covering your face because religion told to, no.
Present the Act, get it passed, trigger A50 and get on with it
The fact she has gone to appeal on the matter suggests she would rather not present the bill to parliament.
The UK court case is a *little* more far reaching then just article 50, the HUGE point a lot of brexiters are simply ignoring is that it will set a precident that a government can remove the rights of it's citizens at a whim, essentially if the government win the case, it will legitimise dictatorship in the UK. it's probably het most significant court case we ill see in our lifetimes... not a big deal at all.
All of which is nonsense and none of which is being discussed in the court case.
The court case is still very significant - but it is about whether prerogative can be used to take actions that will inevitably require primary legislation at a later date. Put rather simply, is activating Article 50 part of the legislative parliamentary process of leaving the UK or is it a separate act.
Sod all to do with removal of rights.
You are suggesting that prerogative can override parliament, which is neither of the two arguments being presented. Nor is it at all legal.
Kimbers makes a good point by the way.
The UK has just (i.e. after the Brexit vote) ratified a "Unitary Patent" agreement. There is no point in the UK doing this unless it is planning to be bound by an EU court.
Most people in the industry were not expecting this to happen after the vote for Brexit. Many Patent Attorneys websites still haven't been updated. e.g.
"Indeed there is also suggestion that the UP and UPC will simply not progress further due to the importance of the UK as a patenting and litigation territory."
EIP.COM Or it could be a precursor to selling off the IPO which is an idea that has been floating around for ages.
good link horatio
I think this is very important
In addition, a particular focus of the European Commission has been in reforming copyright law to make it fit for purpose in the modern age, in particular to better enable e-commerce across the EU. This is an ongoing objective. The nature of the proposed reforms are controversial (seeking to breakdown the traditional territory by territory licensing approach currently associated with copyright). Outside of the EU, UK businesses trading with the EU will still be affected by developments in EU copyright legislation, but they will have no obvious voice to help shape it to their benefit.
Having just read the letter sent to Tusk, it's laughable...
Offers no understanding of how the EU actually works by asking that the UK should be allowed to negotiate with each EU state independently.
And (England) expects, seriously?
the full list of signees is a great indicator that those MPs in particular really are as stupid as we all thought
the full list of signees is a great indicator that those MPs in particular really are as stupid as we all thought
Maybe they are really clever. It's a double bluff. They knew Tusk would shoot them down, so they can legitimately use EU citizens here and UK citizens abroad as a negotiating tool and blame it on the EU, knowing the Daily Mail et al will never report the detail of Tusks letter.
...or they are just incompetent.
Maybe they are really clever....or they are just incompetent.
at this stage I have no idea which, part of me thinks they cant be that stupid, or maybe they assume the crowd they are cynically pandering to are the stupid ones...?
[img] 
[/img]
All of which is nonsense and none of which is being discussed in the court case..... ...Sod all to do with removal of rights.
Urrm I think you need to read the case details, it explicitly talks about the removal of rights...it's one of the main arguments 🙄
[img]
Here is the document
[url=
The Tusk letter make's the EU look like d.cks which I suspect was the objective of the backbenchers. It's not in the governments interests to do that so once again the PM stuck to the her line at PMQs re EU citizens here.
Airbus are making 1,100 people redundant 59 in the UK with the bulk (90%-ish) in France (~500) and Germany (~500). If there had been 500+ redundancies in the UK we'd have Brexit hysteria headlines all over the place.
By the way the CEO of Ford Europe suggested that Nissan had NOT been offered any firm deal, just "assurances" which any business person will know are worth sweet FA.
The UK has just (i.e. after the Brexit vote) ratified a "Unitary Patent" agreement. There is no point in the UK doing this unless it is planning to be bound by an EU court.
We will be bound by the ECJ until Brexit (2019), we are still in the EU up until then. As for patents we can choose which court will be the binding authority on a deal by deal / issue by issue basis. Any deal I do is typically bound by either UK (so currently ultimately ECJ) or US courts, we choose on a deal by deal basis.
@matty isn't the answer to that that all existing EU legislation is being copied into UK law via the Repeal Act ?
@kimbers you can keep calling UKIP stupid but they fought for and then won a Referendum. Quite an incredible achievement really.
@matty isn't the answer to that that all existing EU legislation is being copied into UK law via the Repeal Act ?
Legislation, yes, but my [u]right[/u] to freedom of movement for example? that stands to potentialy be removed against my will...
The Tusk letter is hilarious. Make those MP look like complete morons . They can keep shouting to the EU as much as they want, it won't change the fact that only the UK can trigger article 50.
Loss of Airbus jobs is doing headlines in France, what is your point?
Of course the head of Ford is being nice, he wants the same deal.
ref Qs a page back about where or when May or any other minister mentioned EU citizens being allowed to remain
BBC.CO.UK On the crucial issue of residency and employment rights, Ms Szydlo said Polish citizens in the UK needed certainty about their future after Brexit, telling reporters she hoped negotiations would yield "the right balance" for both the UK and the EU."From the point of view of Poland, let me reiterate that the most important thing (after Brexit) is the guarantees for the Polish citizens who are living and working in the United Kingdom," she said. "Of course, these guarantees would need to be reciprocal."
[b]Mrs May said she wanted to give Poles and other EU citizens living in the UK certainty but she said any agreement depended on Britons living elsewhere in Europe having equivalent assurances over their rights.[/b]
The Tusk letter make's the EU look like d.cks
In what way?
We will be bound by the ECJ until Brexit (2019), we are still in the EU up until then. As for patents we can choose which court will be the binding authority on a deal by deal / issue by issue basis. Any deal I do is typically bound by either UK (so currently ultimately ECJ) or US courts, we choose on a deal by deal basis.
This is to do with enforcement, I believe, rather than governing law. If you want to enforce your contract you will still need to do this according to the rules in the country/state of your counterparty's establishment. That is why you generally get a legally opinion from a lawyer in that country saying the contract will be enforceable under local law. There will be a few carve outs.
That letter from Tomlinson to Tusk has a significant typo in it - on the list of named Parliamentarians it lists "Iain Ducan Smith". He must have read it really carefully
When Peter Lilly mentioned the letter at pmqs he kept saying it was from junker, even May looked confused.
[i]Of course the head of Ford is being nice, he wants the same deal. [/I]
The word is 'expects' not 'wants'. 😉
Actually, regarding the Patent thing, we haven't actually ratified anything yet...
"Following the announcement today, the UK will continue with [b]preparations[/b] for ratification over the coming months."
When Peter Lilly mentioned the letter at pmqs he kept saying it was from junker, even May looked confused.
Brexshiteers tend to be light on facts - its part of their appeal apparently
It was rather funny though!!
you can keep calling UKIP stupid but they fought for and then won a Referendum. Quite an incredible achievement really.
getting a populist vote based entirely on prejudice and fear is actually very easy..
whether or not it's an intelligent thing to do is an entirely separate matter
in fact the whole thing makes a complete mockery of remembrance day and various people should be being tried for treason over it
"incredible" as in beyond belief and credibility - very true
THEGUARDIAN.COM I reworked that image for you kimbers
[img] 
[/img]
kimbers - Member
Starmer has outflanked May on brexit again
Starmer should advise his own party instead ... 😆
Ya, Starmer you are not the govt and will never be so keep your advise to yourself or your own party. 😆
[i]The Tusk letter make's the EU look like d.cks which I suspect was the objective of the backbenchers. [/I]
Were we reading the same letters, did you actually read BOTH?
[I]Starmer has outflanked May on brexit again[/I]
Sorry, disagree - why give up a key negotiation point at this stage.
If we aren't careful we'll end up like our deal with the USA where they seem to be able to extradite anyone and we can't it.
I'm still puzzled by this one. Has TM decided that the best way to avoid EU nationals in the UK becoming bargaining chips in the future is to make them bargaining chips now?
I'm really struggling to understand what TM and the brexiteers are finding hard to understand about the clearly written down "no negotiations until A50" thing. And then trying to frame all of these dysfunctional cockups as being the fault of the EU!
I think 2016 may have claimed another hero of mine - satire.
I'm really struggling to understand what TM and the brexiteers are finding hard to understand about the clearly written down "no negotiations until A50" thing.
Agreed. Ok, its difficult and the details have not been thought through yet - I can accept that. But there is only a limited amount of scenarios that you can plan for between the two obvious starting points. Work out the red lines on both sides and GFI. No point fannying around pretending to have it all wrapped up in advance. Its a v complicated set of negotiations that have to start at some point. The sooner the better IME.
We also know that there are two processes going on here - the one for public consumption and the real one which will be the one with all the fudges in it. So we are only talking about getting the un-real one going anyway 😉
@Shakleton, its not really a negotiation point imho. It's just being a decent person and putting people's minds at rest to confirm they can stay. All the way through the campaign the Leave group made it clear EU citizens here could stay. The threats came from the EU. Every time this happens I just think thank the F we are getting out.
@kimbers Starmer hasn't outflanked anyone, he can just say what he wants as he is not in Government "I'd do this ..."
We have been told many things by the tories .Amazingly some of them are not true.
Jamba - there have been no threats that I can recal. There is just crystal clarity from the EU over what is required (stated long before the referendum) and tantrums from UK Govt that they can't make their own rules up as they go along. The ball is firmly in the hands of the UK Govt. I've seen nothing from the EU to suggest that they wouldn't want and be happy to give reciprocal rights once negotiations begin but we have not yet given notification that we are leaving. Until that happens there is nothing to even negotiate over!
If we want to offer assurances as a gesture of good will I'm sure it would be well received and taken into consideration during negotiations. By refusing to do so and insisting on a tit-for-tat pre-A50 deal the UK govt is making them bargaining chips.
If the daily mail and UKIP didn't exist I'm sure this would have happened already.
jambalaya - Member
The threats came from the EU. Every time this happens I just think thank the F we are getting out.
Any examples? Like real examples not something you remember reading somewhere.
