Westminstenders: The New Era

[RedToothBrush]

Scotland.
The GFA.
Its not Brexit Honest.
Levelling Up Shitholes caused by Tory austerity.
Babymilk Shortages
Cronyism

But we did good with covid jabs.

Your host is now expected to pay a €500 fee to the Greek government for the privilege of hearing your sales pitch.

Mind you, Covid restrictions should have taught us that many of these work jollies were not all that necessary.

When you don't like my answer you resort to nastiness...

Humour, actually. But maybe you don’t like my humour. It’s not that I don’t like your answers - it’s just that they aren’t answers as such.

How about availing yourself of a thesaurus and finding another word for nasty. And limited while you're at it.

@yellowspanner

JasJas, sorry I missed your question. I have scrolled back and found it. NATO, UN, WTO are not courts. The WTO arbitrates on trade disputes and only trade disputes. I have no problem with the ECHR as it is not linked to the EU and only deals with human rights issues.

Ok fair enough, so your issue is to do with the EU per se rather than the ECJ ? I say this because the ECHR can and does over ride the UK courts but isn't a EU court so your fine with this?

You say it is to do sovereignty but surely that ought to apply to any overseas organisation over ruling the UK govt/justice system.

I'm struggling to see the difference, why just the ECJ?

JasJas, the ECJ is an EU court that could overrule our own judicial system. This can be seen from the recent ruling about workers' rights which was an historical case. And before you accuse me of being against workers' rights, I'm not.
I agree with the result but it is no business of the ECJ. Our UK courts should be paramount in our country.
I have nothing against international organisations and I think the UN, WHO etc do a lot of good.

Wewere, I'm fine with the word nasty, thanks, and I do know the meaning and I use it appropriately.

Our UK courts should be paramount in our country.

We need our Scottish friends. By the same token they can argue that Scotland should not be ruled by Westminster. Indeed, Scotland now is most emphatically not a Tory country.

Red are you creating a new thread? Seems Brexit is not quite done and dusted and the sunlit uplands still in the distance...

Yellow I totally get your argument, you want UK courts to have ultimate sovereignty.
But we have signed away that with the ECHR? and you appear to be happy with that.

On the workers rights ECJ case, yes an historic case but started when we were in the EU, so perfectly reasonable for it to continue to be heard.

I say this because the ECHR can and does over ride the UK courts but isn't a EU court so your fine with this?

[...]

I'm struggling to see the difference, why just the ECJ?

Contrary to the Daily Mail narrative which stirs up the gammons, the ECHR is not binding on UK courts. Unlike the ECJ which was. Rulings from the ECHR are classed as 'persuasive authority' which means they should be considered by UK courts but it remains up to the UK courts to make their own decision.

As far as I am aware, all countries with the exception of North Korea have, by agreement, decided that it's to their advantage to 'sign away' or it might be better put, to 'pool' some sovereignty.

I notice that we haven't had anyone calling for a Referendum on whether we should seek to join the Trans Pacific Partnership, which our Government is now keen on doing. Yet why not? It will lead to some loss of sovereignty.

FoM was freedom of labour - it was perfectly possible to make people leave after three months if they had not got work, as indeed other EU countries did. The UK chose not to.
And this is the bit the Brexiteers never seem to want to address. How many more times do we have to say it - it's freedom of labour, not the freedom to go anywhere you want and not contribute. Not the EU's problem that the UK chose not to implement it properly.

Not an easy process according to this;

Economically inactive EU citizens

Can you be requested to leave or be deported?

You may live in the other EU country as long as you continue to meet the conditions for residence. If you no longer do so, the national authorities may require you to leave.

In exceptional cases, your host country can deport you on grounds of public policy or public security - but only if it can prove you represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.

The deportation decision or the request to leave must be given to you in writing. It must state all the reasons for your deportation and specify how you can appeal and by when.

europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-rights/inactive-citizens/index_en.htm

Anyone else amused and touched by Clavs naivete in assuming the Home Office would ever let little things like laws get in the way of what they want to do ?

Other countries did Clavinova - so all your post prove is that you can trawl the internet to find posts, on things which you don't really know a great deal about.

The deportation decision or the request to leave must be given to you in writing. It must state all the reasons for your deportation and specify how you can appeal and by when.

But hey, wouldn't it have been good for the Windrush citizens wrongly deported if the UK Government had paid heed to that statement?Instead of just bang them on a plane, and know that they weren't well off enough to do anything about it.

Given that the "hostile environment" was very successful in getting rid of people who were entirely entitled to be here, I'm sure it's not beyond PP's callousness to be able to get a few undesirables away...

not identified a non-trade area over which the ECJ had jurisdiction...(Those identified earlier were areas we had explicitly asked to opt in.)

A convenient way of overlooking the fact that John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were later criticised for what they had opted-in to.

We need our Scottish friends. By the same token they can argue that Scotland should not be ruled by Westminster.

I thought they had a "once-in-a-lifetime" referendum on that in 2014 - they "opted-in".

No sooner had I posted the above than I read this www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/08/windrush-victim-wrongly-threatened-with-forced-return-to-jamaica-in-final-years-report-finds.

Well we don't know if the 5 departments who failed this gentlemen did state reasons for deportation and how he could appeal and when, but it certainly doesn't look as though they bothered to follow any due process before they decided that they'd like to kick him out.

Contrary to the Daily Mail narrative which stirs up the gammons, the ECHR is not binding on UK courts. Unlike the ECJ which was. Rulings from the ECHR are classed as 'persuasive authority' which means they should be considered by UK courts but it remains up to the UK courts to make their own decision

I don't read the 'mail thankyou.

^The UK House of Lords and Supreme Court have
generally favoured an inflexible approach to the
interpretation of s 2(1), under which relevant Strasbourg
cases will be applied. This approach is referred to as
the ‘mirror principle.’ According to the mirror principle,
UK courts should generally follow ‘clear and constant’
case law from Strasbourg and should provide ‘no more,
but certainly no less’ rights protection than would be
provided by the Strasbourg Court^
^The ‘mirror principle’ - through permitting the content of
domestic human rights laws to be effectively determined
by an external source of law - has given rise to the
suggestion that the European Court of Human Rights
wields excessive influence over UK laws^

Plenty of case law where the ECHR has blocked UK court decisions.

And a very good point. Surely if we're going to give away all our sovrin'y to the TPP we should have a referendum on whether or not we want to join?

Willy of the people and all that!

Peregrina
Other countries did Clavinova - so all your post prove is that you can trawl the internet to find posts, on things which you don't really know a great deal about.

Which countries for example?

I didn't trawl the internet - I went straight to an official website of the European Union.

It doesn't matter what you thought Clavinova. I recall that one of our Scottish posters said that this statement was never made. We then had a discussion about how long a 'political lifetime' lasts. I think ten years was probably decided on as being about the max - by which time the electorate has significantly changed.

Anyone setting up a new thread?

Two seconds trawling found this example about Belgium.

It doesn't reflect well on the Belgians - it looks as though their immigration services can be as shitty as ours. That I suppose is 'sovereignty'.

Peregrina
Other countries did Clavinova

Do you have any examples [EU countries]?

I think ten years was probably decided on as being about the max - by which time the [Scottish] electorate has significantly changed.

Tough luck then that the previous electorate "opted-in".

Peregrina

Your link states;

“The European law requires that there should be an individual assessment of each person’s circumstances before they can be expelled, and what we see unfortunately is that assessment is not individual and personalized enough."

"Among the top expellers are France, the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium."