I said we shouldn't include provisions which don't have legal effect - probably better if you improve your comprehension skills before accusing people of trolling.
Or in this case done what was promenade brought it across as is and then debated any new version with all of he other bits gove wants to add when he presents them.
The idea that we should change something on the basis that in a few months we will make it more robust is close to collecting your own firewood when they are accusing you of witchcraft. You may be on the very short list of people who trust govey but noboyelse does.
It's now very likely the entire brexit agenda is being propped up by blackmail, sex tapes and bribery.
I would call this a statement of principle..
Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Which is not in the Human Rights Act, it is in the ECHR. The ECHR is not statute which is what we are discussing.
No but it [i]has[/i] framed debate in the manner I suggested.
The principles of the ECHR informs and guides other legislation and policies. Legal rulings are made in our courts on the basis of those principles and their interpreted meaning.
We're staying in the ECHR (for now) but even if we do come out we'll still be signed up for the UN version so those principles will/should still influence our debate and law.
However, regarding Article 13 and any other principles like it that informed EU law: we plan to copy across those laws but lose the principles they are founded on? That doesn't seem right to me.
Surely it makes sense to copy them across to where we lack an equivalent.
He is referring to the way in which it is worded - he wants it more accesible to the layperson- he is not making any statement that supports anything you are claimingRichard Heaton, then Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, now Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice said this of our law a few years back when he was in charge of the Parliamentary Draftsmen.
The digital age has made it easier for people to find the law of the land, but once they have found it, they may be baffled," Heaton says in the study, When Laws Become Too Complex. "The law is regarded by its users as intricate and intimidating."
I dont know what his views are on the Human rights but i do know he was not talking about them in your quote nor the number of laws either
Given that i am not sure why you cited it .
The report is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/when-laws-become-too-complex/when-laws-become-too-complex
House of lords is here
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-06-19/debates/13061995000069/LegislationComplexity
GS - There is a fundamental difference between how you interpret treaty law and statute under English law, but the UNCHR is neither, it will have no impact. Treaties are essentially contracts between countries and therefore it is a principle of interpretation that you take into account the purpose that is intended. In that context expression of principles have a purpose This is generally not the rule of interpretation when you look at statute, which should be precise. There are limited circumstances when a purposive interpretation is allowed. When I was practicing those circumstances were limited to cases of ambiguity and Pepper v Hart was the case that established the principle of looking at Hansard in those circumstances, the last time I needed to look at judgements, which discussed this area, which is a few years ago, this principle had not really changed and I doubt it has moved on much since.
Junkyard - he also refers to volume and the government link you provided has a whole section on volume - that is quantity. And it has nothing to do with Human Rights, it was in response to Molgrips, the clue was I quoted him.
Aaand getting back to Brexit..
Gibraltar looks well and truly shafted.
In concrete examples what do the government hope to gain? I venture:
Long term internment with no legal recours.
Mistreatment of foreigners, immigrants, asylum seekers, enemise of the government and probably the Irish too with impunity.
I may be being over pedantic but each human right is set out thusly within the Human Rights Act1998:-
Article 11
Freedom of assembly and association
1Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
"
See Schedule 1 of the act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1
statute, which should be precise
As folk on here may know, I’m an electrical engineer. The statue in the area of electricity is stunningly bad in its precision. It’s generality is fine, but if interpreted as written every electricity company in the country breaks the law 50 times (arguably 100 times) a second.
Clearly what it says is not what was meant.
Laws almost always need to be interpreted in my (non-lawyer) experience. Something which encapsulates the spirit, the general intention of the law can be useful.
Where it sits is another question.
[quote=Leku ]Aaand getting back to Brexit..
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/22/gibraltar-heading-for-abrupt-exit-from-single-market-says-spain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Gibraltar looks well and truly shafted.
I am imagining the rEU 27 sat round a table discussing the future free trade agreement with the UK
Barnier... OK so in principle we are happy to go ahead and offer a free trade deal, the Germans are very keen to maintain their sales of cars and engineering equipment into the UK in return for their services and a bit of welsh lamb (they love that shit!). So how about the rest of you. What do you want out of the deal? Remeber you all have a veto, so fire away....
Poland and Romania... well we're happy not to veto the idea if we can have free and unlimited access to the UK labour market for our citizens and their families. Can you fix that?
Greece. Yep, we're fine in principle, but would really like to get our Marbles back....
Spain. Yep, go for it. Though our vote is dependent on them giving us back Gibraltar of course 🙂
Ireland. Hmmm, well I think the time may be ripe for a united Ireland.
Wallonia.... Well we're going to veto it whatever, unless you can agree to get the Queen to abdicate tomorrow and for her to retire to Wallonia and establish a Unicorn farm....
Barnier. Hmmm this may be more difficult than I thought
Liam Fox, July this year: "The free trade agreement we will have to come to with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history."
Apparently, this was unless politics got in the way. No-one could possibly have predicted this very outcome in a trading bloc of 27 partners with widely differing political priorities.
The whole Leave movement is a classic example of politics sabotaging free trade arrangements.
Has anyone heard from [s]disgraced former minister[/s] Liam Fox recently?
Off negotiating a trade deal with Papua New Guinea, to take up for the trade we presently do with Germany
Has anyone heard from disgraced former minister Liam Fox recently?
Maybe he's taken the bus to get repainted.
[img] 
[/img]
" The nature of the EU means trade deals are slow to agree and implement, so we must Leave to take control of trade deals ourselves… the rEU will then agree and implement a trade deal and a transition arrangement in the 12 months left after we finally do what we knew from the start was necessary to sort out the exit deal, obviously. "
The £3.7 Billion is just a political statement, it in no way reflects the costs ahead of us.
The £3.7 Billion is just a political statement, it in no way reflects the costs ahead of us.
austerity until 2030, and the likely-hood of not having a recession in the next 12-13 years?
On the basis that the UK has already been hammered harder that most countries in Europe and no end in sight. looking good for Brexit and the long term outlook, decades before the slightest chance of improvement.
Decades before we return to the growth rates we could/should be having now, and even then, we'll be 30% behind where we would have been without Brexit, and unlikely to make that up during our lifetimes… but still… fewer bilingual people on our trains… no court above the national ones to appeal to if our government goes all crack pot on us… all worth it.
Call it project fear if you want.
> shrugs <
Clueless - do you think the Commission just said enough and no more....the European Capital of Culture is an EU backed project - who could possibly have guessed. And so the flight from civilisation continues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42097692
"The prime minister has been clear that while we are leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe and this has been welcomed by EU leaders."
Were they expecting that we were going to be towed off somewhere else.
Several key clues in that article:
In December 2016, the UK government said the competition would "run as normal", but did warn bidders that it "may be subject to" the Brexit negotiations.
..
Cities from non-EU countries have held the title before - but if a country isn't in the EU, it must be a candidate to join or must be in the European Free Trade Association or European Economic Area.
..
"According to the rules .. [this] is not open to third countries except candidate countries and European Free Trade Association/European Economic Area countries."
So entirely expected then, despite Hilary Benn saying it "has come completely out of the blue".
No doubt certain parts of the media will happily cover this as those nasty Europeans "punishing" us. 🙄
I suppose ruling out becoming a candidate country for EEA/EFTA, or similar, or even 'just" limited customs union like Turkey, wasn't a forgone conclusion for all involved for a while… waiting for "the grownups" to step in and suggest a compromise new "non EU member" relationship with Europe has to be abandoned at some point. Should probably have been sooner to save UK candidate cities the time and money, and probably would have been if it wasn't for an election, and the slim hope of a new PM and negotiating team being in the air ever since the result of that.
Canada doesn’t get to have a turn at European city of culture either...
Draw your own conclusions.
So this ‘The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive’ thing then anyone heard when we’re adopting it ?
Might be me but haven’t heard much bout it in the news.
this one?
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en
Says Jan 1 2019 but I assume that will be wiped from the UK laws by not actually including it as it's exactly what they want the UK to be.
Yep that’s the puppy , very good diagrams(tax avoidence for dummies.)
I could cynically see that be being a bit of an incentive for Brexit for a few people.
Were they expecting that we were going to be towed off somewhere else.
OMG you’ve got the solution to the NI issue.
All we’ve got to do is chip it off and float it back over !!!
(BTW No offence meant to any NI members)
The whole Capital of culture stuff just sorta defys belief IMHO...
Did I slip into an alternate reality when I went to sleep last night or am I still dreaming.
Says Jan 1 2019 but I assume that will be wiped from the UK laws by not actually including it as it's exactly what they want the UK to be.
Well you would be wrong, legislation in line with the directive is already in place, in some cases for many years. We have been one of the prime movers on tax avoidance measures.
Well there you go, every day is a school day, though it is a stated aim of plenty of Brexiters to make the UK a great destination for tax avoiders in the future 😉
We have been one of the prime movers on tax avoidance measures.
Laughable. Various crown dependencies are the major tax avoidence machines. We could have stopped it years ago
If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?
Well there you go, every day is a school day, though it is a stated aim of plenty of Brexiters to make the UK a great destination for tax avoiders in the future
Yep it’s why I’d sorta jokingly raised it as I know we have some anti tax avoidence but did wonder if an eu directive on it would be firmer than ours and the whole threat of going as a tax haven thing.
(Which the common man will need after he’s filled his boots with the unlimited treasures from the Brexit)
Brtain has been shifting the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor over the last frw budgets.
If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?
So this would continue the trend and continue making the poor poorer.
In an equitbale tax system corporation tax should always be at least as high as tax on the poor people's work (NI etc.). Corporation tax should pay for the welfare state - business benefit from a healthy educated work force and should pay for that.
This inter-country rivalry over corporation tax levels was one of the unfair things going on in the EU that I pointed out on the first pagers of this thread. I'm pleased to see something being done about it
If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?
What if Ireland want to go 3pp below us, and then we want to go 3pp below Ireland, and then Ireland want to go 3pp below us, and then…
(I chose Ireland as they are going to have to be as "competitive" as us chasing a way out of the Brexit slowdown, and they have past form.)
The EU needs to stop the race to the bottom that some of its members get caught up in as regard corp tax (not so much us really, up to now, well, not in the bits of the UK in the EU). In doing so it also needs to be careful to find ways to stop close partners from starting the race up again… tough negotiations to come…
I think you need to believe RW BS economics to have faith in that approach and not mind the richest people in the world paying less tax than a cleaner.If we decided to keep UK corporation tax let's say, at least 3pp below the EU levels wouldn't that be good for jobs, business and ultimately gov tax revenues?
I reject both the economic and moral argument for such a scenario but its inevitable with our tory overlords in charge.
He'll bring up the Laffer curve in a minute...
On the contrary, I was merely quoting the policies of the Scottish gNats that were supported at the time by the same people who now deride them because they are perceived as being Tory policy!
The polite conclusion is that remoaners are inconsistent in their views, the less polite conslusion would be that they are being hypocritical. You decide...
Funny old world isn't it?
Funny old world, with far too much trolling.
gNats
Oh, my poor sides 🙁
The polite conclusion is that remoaners are inconsistent in their views, the less polite conclusion would be that they are being hypocritical. You decide...
It's almost as if there is more than one of us, with differing viewpoints...
Totally unlike Leavers. Every single one of them voted for full off the cliff WTO exit.
I'm glad we're leaving the lumbering,failing Europeans behind and striding forwards as a reinvigorated global powerhouse.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I think the most inconsistent remoaner in this thread, by a massive margin, has been you. No ones opinion has changed more than yoursremoaners are inconsistent in their views
You always do this, attacks others for your weaknesses.
I like this consistency from the government just now
journo 'will NI be staying in the customs union'
No10 'possibly, were negotiating'
journo 'so the UK smight stay in, coz NI is part of UK'
No10 'erm no were still leaving'
journo '??!??!'
