British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Take it Outside! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/)
-   -   Post EU Referendum (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/post-eu-referendum-879308/)

Bipat Dec 2nd 2017 3:57 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by macliam (Post 12392939)
Your attempt to semantics to obfuscate the matter in hand will do you no good. You are fully aware that when an appeal court gives it's own judgement on a case and that is different to the judgement of a lower court, the appeal carries and the decision of the lower court is set aside - in normal parlance this is seen as being overruled. That is the reason for the hierarchy of local, national, appeal and supreme courts within a legal system.

Therefore, using your semantics, please supply a single example where the supposedly "superior" ECJ has EVER come to a judgement on a given case that is different to that of a British court and has therefore had the earlier judgement set aside..... The fact that the UK, like many other states, has lost a case brought directly to the ECJ is not applicable. Or, provide a single example where it would be desirable for a UK court to overrule laws emanating from the EU.

As a member of a club, we agreed that rules pertaining to the management of that club apply and that individual members cannot pick and choose which rules they will and will not accept. What club does not take that stance? The ECJ exists to ensure that states do not apply the laws differentially. The fact that such rules have been incorporated into UK law, when agreed, is irrelevant - they have been incorporated so that decisions can be made at a local level.


(I do know the system of courts in the UK!!)

The UK courts are obliged to follow EU law and obviously do this to the best of their knowledge ---as I said above if unsure they can ask the ECJ for an opinion ahead of the case ---as in the recent deportation of the Moroccan women case.

Yes, I know what being a member of the EU 'club' means--- we are leaving membership.

macliam Dec 2nd 2017 5:50 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12392949)
(I do know the system of courts in the UK!!)

The UK courts are obliged to follow EU law and obviously do this to the best of their knowledge ---as I said above if unsure they can ask the ECJ for an opinion ahead of the case ---as in the recent deportation of the Moroccan women case.

Yes, I know what being a member of the EU 'club' means--- we are leaving membership.

So, semantics aside - and asking for an opinion, to ensure that there is equivalence of treatment notwithstanding - where is the example of the ECJ ruling on a case and finding differently to the UK justice system? Or what judgement arrived at by the UK system would have been different were it not for the existence of the ECJ?

As has been pointed out earlier, EU law exists to ensure the application of EU decisions and to ensure commonality, so that there is no difference in application across the EU. It does not exist to impose decisions on common law or the independence of the UK judiciary.

Tigers are not a general danger in the UK although they have teeth and claws and are very powerful. They are only a potential danger if allowed to roam freely in the UK. So, in reality, any issue is with the constraints to the potential danger. Likewise, the ECJ is only an issue when it overrules the UK legal system or judgements made within it.

Your final statement is truly meaningless. You cannot defy the rules in a club of which you are a member, but you can make your concerns heard. If you leave the club, you lose any power to make the rules, but you may or may not still be constrained by them.

Bipat Dec 2nd 2017 6:25 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by macliam (Post 12392997)
So, semantics aside - and asking for an opinion, to ensure that there is equivalence of treatment notwithstanding - where is the example of the ECJ ruling on a case and finding differently to the UK justice system? Or what judgement arrived at by the UK system would have been different were it not for the existence of the ECJ?

As has been pointed out earlier, EU law exists to ensure the application of EU decisions and to ensure commonality, so that there is no difference in application across the EU. It does not exist to impose decisions on common law or the independence of the UK judiciary.

Tigers are not a general danger in the UK although they have teeth and claws and are very powerful. They are only a potential danger if allowed to roam freely in the UK. So, in reality, any issue is with the constraints to the potential danger. Likewise, the ECJ is only an issue when it overrules the UK legal system or judgements made within it.

Your final statement is truly meaningless. You cannot defy the rules in a club of which you are a member, but you can make your concerns heard. If you leave the club, you lose any power to make the rules, but you may or may not still be constrained by them.

The case I mentioned would have been handled differently.

It is against the interests of the UK when it makes a ruling which affects the UK in a negative way. (The two cases--I mentioned above). There are plenty of others you can look up:lol:


I don't think you understand, EU law has been incorporated into UK law as a condition of membership of the EU---so it IS now UK law.

I know why EU law exists!

If the UK is restrained by any EU rules Post Brexit it will be by its own decision.

007Steve Dec 2nd 2017 7:14 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12392949)
(I do know the system of courts in the UK!!)
...................................
Yes, I know what being a member of the EU 'club' means--- we are leaving membership.
If the UK is restrained by any EU rules Post Brexit it will be by its own decision.

That's the bit that worries me.
When we leave (incorporated EU Rights into UK law or not) it's the UK system we Subjects, (no longer Citizens) will be on the receiving end of.............

Red Eric Dec 2nd 2017 7:26 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12393011)
If the UK is restrained by any EU rules Post Brexit it will be by its own decision.

No significant change there, then.

DaveLovesDee Dec 2nd 2017 9:49 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12392928)
Examples of what??

If you mean cases--- a quick search of the multiple cases--The M&S case.

https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-ce...ritish-tax-law

The Bruges Group is anti-EU.

Here's the case from the perspective of a UK tax specialist.

The long-running saga of Marks & Spencer and cross-border group relief


KEY POINTS

Marks & Spencer wished to set tax losses in its overseas subsidiaries against its UK taxable profits.
The UK’s refusal to allow the claim was deemed by the European Court of Justice to be unduly restrictive.
The European Commission took issue with the UK legislation implementing the decision.
The Advocate General’s opinion European Commission v UK in effect reverses the ECJ’s original decision.
Nine years is a long time to wait for almost anything, but when it comes to tax law – and especially EU tax law – it is just the blink of an eye. So it might seem anyway, when we realise that a fundamental tax principle which was decided at the highest level nearly nine years ago might not be final after all.
Such reflections are prompted by the opinion of Advocate General Juliane Kokott in European Commission v UK (Case C‑172/13), delivered on 23 October.

The advocate general is not a judge but an officer of the Court of Justice of the EU. Her opinion is a recommendation which the court is not obliged to follow, but usually does.

In this case, however, the advocate general has surprised many observers by recommending that the court should reject a principle which it adopted in a different case nearly nine years ago.

There must be a higher than usual probability that the court will decline to follow the advocate general’s recommendation, but if it does indeed follow it, our understanding of EU law and how it has an impact on national tax law will have to be radically revised.

How did we get here?
To see why this is so we have to return to the decision of the European Court of Justice (as it was then styled) in Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey in December 2005. Marks and Spencer (M&S) had decided to expand into European markets by setting up subsidiaries in Belgium, France, Germany and elsewhere.

These ventures were not successful and in 2001 it decided to withdraw from these markets. That left the group with substantial tax losses in the overseas subsidiaries for which it had no way of obtaining tax relief within the subsidiaries’ jurisdictions.

M&S claimed to set those losses against the UK parent’s taxable profits in accordance with UK group relief legislation.

It was clear that such claims could not succeed on the basis of the legislation since, at the time, group relief could only be claimed in respect of losses of UK-resident companies or businesses trading through a branch or agency in the UK.

M&S claimed, however, that this restriction was contrary to EU law and should be disapplied.

Unsurprisingly the claims were refused by HMRC and M&S appealed. The High Court, which heard the appeal, referred the EU law question to the European Court of Justice.
The rest of the article is very interesting reading on the decision.

macliam Dec 2nd 2017 9:52 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12393011)
The case I mentioned would have been handled differently.

It is against the interests of the UK when it makes a ruling which affects the UK in a negative way. (The two cases--I mentioned above). There are plenty of others you can look up:lol:


I don't think you understand, EU law has been incorporated into UK law as a condition of membership of the EU---so it IS now UK law.

I know why EU law exists!

If the UK is restrained by any EU rules Post Brexit it will be by its own decision.

You are merely blowing smoke.

In the case of the referral regarding the Moroccan woman, the ECJ advised that she could be deported if she posed a significant threat, but not just because she has a criminal record - and this because she has a British-born son for whom she is the sole carer. This hardly seems like the EU imposing its will..... The fact that a euro-sceptic Tory MP used parliamentary privilege to bypass a court order and make details of the case public, is in itself an issue.

Again, you seek to suggest that EU law has been imposed as if it affects normal life - which is false. EU law is concerned with the functioning of the EU, just as the rules of any club regulate behaviour within the club - and acceptance of EU law into UK law is a choice made by UK authorities, just as a member of a club agrees to abide by the rules. Where is the problem here? Unless, of course, you don't want to be in the club and are looking for excuses .....

By conflating EU law and common law you are still attempting to engender fear and/or hostility in people who do not understand the minutiae of law and to make them believe believe that the EU seeks to control their day-to-day life - which is a falsehood and certainly not a good indication of future direction.

007Steve Dec 3rd 2017 11:21 am

Re: Post EU Referendum
 
Surely the test is whether or not the EU legislative impact, on balance, benefits or injures or is biased for or against, the majority of a member's interests?
I’d speculate that, on balance, during the UK’s membership, John & Jane Average have benefited more than they’ve lost - consumer rights; employment protection; environmental law, etc.
By no stretch can the EU structures be considered perfect, but since the UK’s system is to reign supreme from 2019, then I’m forced to ask why it took so long for what the majority now regard as perfectly sensible legislation to be put in place in the UK, without European prodding? (I’d spit-on-the-floor the word ‘UK Establishment’ but let’s not go down that road!)
Bipat says It is against the interests of the UK when it makes a ruling which affects the UK in a negative way. (The two cases--I mentioned above).
& later...
If the UK is restrained by any EU rules Post Brexit it will be by its own decision.
But I have to ask you this Bipat – which UK do you mean? I’m not being flippant here, really I’m not.The UK is now a seriously divided set of nations, it’s not one state anymore, get that bit straight. Your comments most certainly do hold water if we’re talking about last century, but there’re completely redundant now.
If you mean the UK of the off-shore city-types looking forward to the now promised end to bankers’ bonuses post 2019, high property price hot-spots, supported by shoddy infrastructure and public services I understand. Or, do you mean the UK populated by residents of places like Grenfell Tower, or those on minimum wage/zero hours contracts or those ‘living’ on universal credit?
IMO, the real problem for the UK comes post 2019 – NOT by going independent, but if it truly believes it can go back to the way things were. It can’t, and it’ll be these problems which will far outweigh any continuing influence of the EU or its Courts.

Garbatellamike Dec 3rd 2017 6:04 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by 007Steve (Post 12393022)
That's the bit that worries me.
When we leave (incorporated EU Rights into UK law or not) it's the UK system we Subjects, (no longer Citizens) will be on the receiving end of.............

ood point - GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

:goodpost:

Cape Blue Dec 3rd 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by la mancha (Post 12391796)
I repeat: do you think Cameron ran a campaign free of threats and disinformation? Do you think Project Fear was worse, better or on the same level as the Leave campaign? All it takes is a yes or a no. Any offers.

And don’t preach English to me. I know some of you think you are intellectually superior to the rest of us, hence the constant corrections and piss-taking with posters’ grammar, but leave it out. One slips up. It was a post not a bloody thesis.

LIW, everything on here has been answered multiple times.

I see we’re back to the whingers. Moan. Moan. Moan.

Yes, it's a petty, bitchy, passive-aggressive way of continuing a discussion, used normally when the poster has run out of reason or logic and just wants to lash out. I try to ignore them when possible.

morpeth Dec 3rd 2017 6:30 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Bipat (Post 12393011)
The case I mentioned would have been handled differently.

It is against the interests of the UK when it makes a ruling which affects the UK in a negative way. (The two cases--I mentioned above). There are plenty of others you can look up:lol:


I don't think you understand, EU law has been incorporated into UK law as a condition of membership of the EU---so it IS now UK law.

I know why EU law exists!

If the UK is restrained by any EU rules Post Brexit it will be by its own decision.

I am a bit confused- if UK is constrained by EU laws now, it was by the UK's decision. After Brexit I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, in order to trade with Europe, some sort of agreement on travel/residence, the UK will again perhaps ore selectively, end up following quiet a lot of EU laws. I know many fo EU laws are probably silly what else does one expect from a bunch of bureaucrats living off the public. Which EU laws have been so detrimental to the UK that it is worth the uncertainty and economic loss that appears will be the result of Brexit ? I can understand if Brexit is justified by emotion or patriotism, but I don't how anyone can claim it will be an economic benefit overall ( it may be for some lower paid workers IF it results in less competition for jobs).

Vexcore Dec 3rd 2017 6:32 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 
As Nigel Farage said we do not have to do anything about the border in Ireland. We can leave it just as it is, if the ROI have a problem with that THEY will have to install one and that will be THEIR CHOICE. I hope Theresa May develops a backbone and tells the EEC we will not pay any money, we will walk away, take our fisheries on 19/3/2019 and only boats with a licence FROM US will be allowed to fish in our waters and we will start negotiating deals with other countries NOW. Germany are in the S- - t, have no government and their car manufacturers are desperate fir some sort of agreement with us. We have a lot of financial clout and should use it, NOW.

Agree/Disagree?

amideislas Dec 3rd 2017 6:35 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 
If anyone has been confused about how the UK justifies doing this to itself, that rather answers it.

Annetje Dec 3rd 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by Vexcore (Post 12393382)
As Nigel Farage said we do not have to do anything about the border in Ireland. We can leave it just as it is, if the ROI have a problem with that THEY will have to install one and that will be THEIR CHOICE. I hope Theresa May develops a backbone and tells the EEC we will not pay any money, we will walk away, take our fisheries on 19/3/2019 and only boats with a licence FROM US will be allowed to fish in our waters and we will start negotiating deals with other countries NOW. Germany are in the S- - t, have no government and their car manufacturers are desperate fir some sort of agreement with us. We have a lot of financial clout and should use it, NOW.

Agree/Disagree?

Good plan, almost as good as May's :nod:
And let's forget about controlling our borders ... just another Brexit lie (lost count by now)

Bipat Dec 3rd 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Post EU Referendum
 

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12393380)
I am a bit confused- if UK is constrained by EU laws now, it was by the UK's decision. After Brexit I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, in order to trade with Europe, some sort of agreement on travel/residence, the UK will again perhaps ore selectively, end up following quiet a lot of EU laws. I know many fo EU laws are probably silly what else does one expect from a bunch of bureaucrats living off the public. Which EU laws have been so detrimental to the UK that it is worth the uncertainty and economic loss that appears will be the result of Brexit ? I can understand if Brexit is justified by emotion or patriotism, but I don't how anyone can claim it will be an economic benefit overall ( it may be for some lower paid workers IF it results in less competition for jobs).

Morpeth it is not EU law(s) it is EU law per se that was incorporated into UK law by statute.
It is a principle of EU membership that EU law is supreme over national
law.
Much of the law was useful and will be kept but it will be a decision of the UK government, not another organisation.

I don't think it is "emotion" or "patriotism" for a countries own national law to be supreme except from on certain specific matters in an agreement and which can be changed if necessary by the government of the time.

Others disagree --so will not argue further.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:34 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.