vildebeesthttp://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10166388 (if that link works) recites the article in the Times. Not, as I mis-remembered, new “research”, so much as Ellis giving “his side of the story”.
Paul
vildebeestThere was an article in the Times a couple of months ago which basically said it had been unclear who had shot it down, so it was credited to Carmichael as section leader, which, it said, was a common method of attributing uncertain kills. Recent research had shown it was Ellis that had fired the fatal shots. in the report in the Times today, Ellis is said to have only been credited with the kill last year.
Paul
vildebeest“And not considering Hansard would be considered a defect by the ECJ.”
No it wouldn’t, the ECJ would not consider Hansard at all. The ECJ, contrary to what some people seem to believe, is not the supreme court on anything other than EU law. Acts of Parliament and what Hansard might say is irrelevant to the ECJ except to the extent that they implement EU law because that is the only law that the ECJ can give a view on. If the Act is implementing an EU law, then the ECJ will go back to original EU directive or whatever and the reason why that was implemented, not Hansard.
Using tax cases to criticise purposive interpretation rather misses the point. The cases are largely not about some poor individual who has been caught out by a different interpretation of the law, they are about highly contrived schemes involving large amounts of money put together by accountants which exploit technical defects in the wording of legislation and where the purpose of the law is blindingly obvious.
Purposive interpretation is I believe fairly common in European legal systems generally. Arguably it makes law easier to understand as it can make law considerably shorter if you do not have to try to cover every possible situation, but that has never been the English way. The problem with the ECJ, I suggest, is not purposive interpretation as such, but the purpose itself – namely that it says in some treaty that the purpose of the EU is “an ever-closer union” and therefore the ECJ can interpret in the light of that purpose.
Paul
vildebeestBradburger
“The problem with that statement is she (like many others), our forgetting the fact that our entry into the then EEC via the Treaty of Rome in 1972, was somewhat duboius, with Ted Heath choosing to use the Royal Prerogative instead of consulting UK Parliament or it’s electorate.
(I wonder why that was?)
We should of course have had a referendum then because of the major constitutional changes that came into effect, namely EEC and later EU, directives, laws, and regulations, which would eventually override UK law – all done without any Parliamentary or indeed electorate scrutiny!
So for her to come out with such gems as “When it comes to our Parliamentary sovereignty and democracy”, no prime minister or executive can bypass Parliament”, she is either very ignorant (about the EU and how we joined it), a total hypocrite, or rather stupid, because that’s exactly what our membership of the EU does – bypasses our Parliment, and therefore our democrocy.”
Whatever the politics, from a historical and legal perspective, I am afraid that is just fundamentally wrong. Yes, the UK became a party to the Treaty of Rome by use of the royal prerogative, but no, that did not result in EU directives, laws etc having effect in the UK. The whole point of the case turns on the fact that use of the prerogative cannot change UK law. EU law has effect in the UK and overrides UK law not because the UK signed the Treaty of Rome but because that is what is provided in the European Communities Act 1972, an act discussed and passed by Parliament. The only reason EU law overrides UK law is because an act of parliament says so, so it is completely wrong to say it was done without parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, EU law would cease to apply in the UK if Parliament repealed the European Communities Act 1972, whether or not Article 50 was triggered.
The whole point of the case is that the Government could trigger Article 50 by use of the royal prerogative, were it not for the fact, according to the Supreme Court, that that would inevitably have the effect of amending the 1972 Act, and you cannot amend acts of parliament without approval of parliament.
So, whatever you think of her motives for bringing the case, she was neither ignorant, hypocritical nor stupid, but actually understood how parliamentary sovereignty works.
Paul
vildebeestDave, thanks for posting. Like you, I too think Endau is far too unknown. To me, it should rank in people’s imagination with and be as well known as the Swordfish attacks in the Channel Dash, with which it bears many similarities, but not, of course, in gongs given.
Paul
vildebeestJohn
It depends what you mean by the result of a General Election. Legally, all that has been done in a general election is that 650 MPs have been elected to the House of Commons, there is no question that that is binding, the House of Commons then form part of Parliament which is the supreme legislative body and can do anything it likes (except where it has restricted itself, like in the European Communities Act but then it also has power to remove those restrictions). In that sense it is only advisory in that once elected, MPs can, legally, do whatever they like and are not bound by any manifesto or anything like that.
Paul
vildebeestIndeed, Bruce
What appears to be the basis of the outpourings of the Mail, Telegraph and friends seems to be based on two main points, first, that the Courts shouldn’t interfere in something like this and secondly that 17.4 million people voted for Brexit so that settles the matter.
Sorry to be terribly boring, but sometimes it pays to read what was actually said rather than just ranting.
Para 5 of the judgement. “It is agreed on all sides that this is a justiciable question which it is for the courts to decide” – in other words, it is not the “left-leaning” court that has decided that it is right for it to intervene, the Government lawyers did not even bother to argue against the point and accepted the Court had the right to intervene, because legally it was so obvious.
Para 105 “His [that is the Secretary of State] counsel made it clear that he does not contend that the Referendum Act 2015 gave a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50”. Again it was so obvious as a matter of law – as opposed to politics, but the court is after all meant to be deciding law – that the referendum was irrelevant on the question of whether the matter had to be decided by Parliament that the Government’s lawyer did not even try to argue the point. As I say, politically, it may be another matter and I agree that politically it would be wrong for Parliament to block Brexit, but when a law says the referendum is not binding when it could have said it was binding or at least that the Government had power to exercise Article 50 in the event of a leave vote, then in a court of law, sorry, but the referendum result is irrelevant, as the Government lawyer accepted, there is no argument otherwise.
So the two points those papers got so worked up about are points which it is clear the Government did not try to argue in court because it knew it had no hope. So, guess what, the court did not worry itself about those issues. The Court actually decided the matter on two rather dry points of law, which did not get mentioned.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
And what is the purpose of referring to a judge’s sexuality other than presumably to pander to the prejudices of some of its readers?
vildebeestAnd yet 62% would not be wiling to pay anything to reduce EU immigration.
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/news/2016/curb-eu-immigration-only-if-it-s-free-survey
Where does that leave you? That’s the trouble with surveys and opinion polls, you can almost get any answer you want depending on the question and how you ask it. If you ask someone whether they want something for free, surprise, surprise, they say yes.
vildebeestThere was a long discussion about green/brown and yellow underside Heyfords on the Britmodeller site.
Paul
vildebeestAdrian
You are not imagining it, there was a thread about Siskin remains and, no, I can’t find it either. I also remember the roof frame, not sure whether it was the same thread, I remember there was a suggestion it was Siskin, but do not recall whether it was definitely identified as such.
Paul
vildebeestMy son has done bag packing for Scouts at Sainsbury’s. Previously they kept everything. More recently, they only keep half of donations, the other half going, it is said, to Sainsbury’s nominated charity.
Paul
vildebeestMy son has done bag packing for Scouts at Sainsbury’s. Previously they kept everything. More recently, they only keep half of donations, the other half going, it is said, to Sainsbury’s nominated charity.
Paul
vildebeestThere was a story in the legal press recently about a big City law firm. Being a partnership, the senior partner is elected by the partners. The firm has several hundred partners, a majority probably British, but a good chunk from other mainly European countries.
A meeting was held in a large hall in London for the contenders for the senior partner job to address all the partners. One of the contenders was from the German office. He made his speech and then asked for questions. As it was a large hall, he explained, and there were so many people there, could anybody who asked a question please say who he was and from which office.
Someone asked a question. The German says “Thank, you, that is a very good question but before I answer it, can you say what is your name”.
A voice floats up from the back, “Don’t tell him, Pike”
The hall disolves in laughter, leaving a bemused German to ponder English humour.
And the thing is, you can this story without having to explain why it is so funny. It is one of those things that unites people of a certain generation. But not just those people. My two sons, 8 and 13, are keen watchers. At school, they were discussing other religions the other day. Somebody in the class mentioned whirling dervishes. My 13 year old commented, as you would, that “they don’t like it up them”. The response showed that he was not the only one in the class who is a regular viewer.
Paul
vildebeestThere was a story in the legal press recently about a big City law firm. Being a partnership, the senior partner is elected by the partners. The firm has several hundred partners, a majority probably British, but a good chunk from other mainly European countries.
A meeting was held in a large hall in London for the contenders for the senior partner job to address all the partners. One of the contenders was from the German office. He made his speech and then asked for questions. As it was a large hall, he explained, and there were so many people there, could anybody who asked a question please say who he was and from which office.
Someone asked a question. The German says “Thank, you, that is a very good question but before I answer it, can you say what is your name”.
A voice floats up from the back, “Don’t tell him, Pike”
The hall disolves in laughter, leaving a bemused German to ponder English humour.
And the thing is, you can this story without having to explain why it is so funny. It is one of those things that unites people of a certain generation. But not just those people. My two sons, 8 and 13, are keen watchers. At school, they were discussing other religions the other day. Somebody in the class mentioned whirling dervishes. My 13 year old commented, as you would, that “they don’t like it up them”. The response showed that he was not the only one in the class who is a regular viewer.
Paul
vildebeestAnybody see the wedding pull out in the Times yesterday? Nice picture of the jet flypast. Unfortunately, not the flypast at the wedding, as it was a photo of four Tornadoes in formation….
Paul
Sign In
