Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Three judges make a decision on their opinion in Law, to enable some 650 politicians to discuss leaving the EU, they will then maybe have to put their decision before the unelected members of the Upper House of Peers to give their opinion on something that a majority of 52% of British electors had voted for ................ and you think that is democratic?

Surely, the people vote to have a parliament to make decisions on their behalf ? Shouldn’t we let them just get on with it and get the best deal they can from the European Union leaders ....... or will the Walloons be able to vote to not accept the UK decision and force the UK to remain against the will of the majority of the population ? If that happens we could have another referendum ..... and then another ..... and then another ..... I won't give a toss, I will be dead long before they make a decision on this.

Thank goodness the elected government still have the right of appeal ......... or will that have to be discussed between 650 MP’s as well before the elected Government can lodge that appeal? No bloody wonder the whole process takes so long to sort out !

IMO: They should pull out NOW by giving the EU article 50 and call their bluff; present them with an updated EEC Charter and they can take it or leave it. Not spend months, even years with every Tom-Dick-and-Harry political and economic expert talking it up/down on TV! The people made the decision so act on it with ONLY the best interests of the UK in mind !

[Lordo]

robin you dont really understand what the problem is. the british people voted to restrict eu migrants from coming to the uk. if the uk government follows this path there is no deal to be had, any of the 27 members can block any deal uk negotiates becasue their workers will be affected. no feedom of movement no deal. have you still not clocked on yet?

wto terms of trade will follow brexit.

[Tim Drayton]

It's the rule of law, and dispense with that and you open the way to tyranny. We elect a parliament to enact laws and that parliament enacted a statute entitled the European Union Referendum Act 2015 under which the June 23 Referendum was held. It could well have stipulated in this statute that the result would be binding regardless of the majority or it could have said that the result would be binding if a certain qualified majority was attained. It did not do so and this means the the referendum had advisory status in legal and constitutional terms. This means it is for parliament to decide how it will react to the result of a referendum that produced a slim majority - 51.8% actually, although this does round up to 52% if you want to ignore the decimal point. Parliament could well decide that the result provided a genuine mandate for the momentous change and turmoil that exiting the EU will involve, or it could decide that the majority was too slim to provide such a convincing mandate, or it could take into account that the campaign to leave was spearheaded by a far-right party and the whole campaing shamelessly played to the gutter in arousing the base emotions of the most disaffected sections of society into an outburst of rascist xenophobia to the extent that people were no longer voting in reply to the question on the ballot paper, and the whole exercise was turned into a referendum on immigration, and was thus invalidated. It is parliament's prerogative to debate and vote on the basis of all of these issues. Like it or not, this is the British constitution.

[Robin Hood]

robin you dont really understand what the problem is. the british people voted to restrict eu migrants from coming to the uk. if the uk government follows this path there is no deal to be had, any of the 27 members can block any deal uk negotiates becasue their workers will be affected. no feedom of movement no deal. have you still not clocked on yet?

wto terms of trade will follow brexit.

The vote was on leaving the EU or remaining, it was a 'YES'/'NO' choice !

The arguments used on both sides turned out to be 90% bullsh*t anyway, spouted by many that had less of a clue about what was going on than you or me. At least I thought about it even though I was not entitled to a vote. Many people have a 'favourite' newspaper or TV channel that virtually tells them what to think ..... anything else is wrong or just propaganda in their eyes. Maybe to qualify to vote there should be a requirement to pass an exam to determine whether an individual had the mental capacity to make a lucid decision ?

As for freedom of movement; I don't think people wanted to put up barriers to immigration from Europe or Visa versa, what they wanted, and find it difficult to understand why this is such an issue, is the right to restrict entry to those the country did not want. Maybe on the lines ..... we deal with our misfits, free loaders and criminals and prevent them from travelling to Europe ....... and UE countries do likewise? How many countries in Europe NOW are refusing to take refugees against the rules that apply in the EU. Poland, Hungary for instance. Does Cyprus open the door to just any old European who fancies coming here? They make it so difficult that it reduces the attraction of coming here. The opposite in the UK, the Country that keeps on giving and complies strictly with EU regulations.

wto terms of trade will follow brexit.

If that is the case ..... what are we going to spend years talking about. Article 50 ...... shake hands ..... and walk away ..... and make our own arrangements!

I don't know if you saw the signing of this EU 'trade' agreement with Canada? The book they were signing was at least 50mm thick ....... did they read it before they signed it ..... more to the point, apart from Lawyers, will ANYBODY ever read it ? This is what makes Lawyers rich and life tough for those that have to meet ALL these conditions ........ and up go prices as companies have to engage Lawyers every time they try to sell into Europe or they risk having their product kicked back because it fails to conform in some minor way!

[Robin Hood]

TIM :
I hear what you say ..... I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment in detail. But as I understand the application of law in the UK as .........

Laws are drawn up by government/civil service Lawyers . Parliament then approves these laws as legislation and they go onto the books as that.

When these laws are applied they are applied in a court of law where opposing legal arguments are considered. A Judge (another lawyer) then passes his judgement and that becomes a precedent of Case Law (i.e. X vs Y).

Case Law applies in the UK and more lawyers argue each individual case to which this precedent is applied. That is how I understand the law works in the UK ...... the UK does not have a Constitution!

The average citizen breaks the law maybe hundreds of times a day ! Not knowingly but because to avoid breaking the Law you would need to understand the Law ...... ALL OF IT! YES ..... I agree we need laws but do we REALLY need so many that it is an impossibility not to breach some law or other in everything we do. The same applies to Government ........ I believe we should keep it simple and apply the law with some application of common sense rather than just the letter of the law. No country, from what I read in the MSM, could be more stupid in applying the law than the UK legal system ...... very often it simply defies common sense.

[Tim Drayton]

The UK does not have a written constitution, but it nevertheless has a constitution, which is partly codified in a variety of documents dating back to the Magna Carta and is partly a matter of convention.

[Tim Drayton]

...
No country, from what I read in the MSM, could be more stupid in applying the law than the UK legal system ...... very often it simply defies common sense.

Give me a break will you! Not so long ago you were extolling the virtues of that great self-proclaimed English patriot with Australian nationality, Steve Keen, in an interview in which he said, inter alia, that the financial markets would never leave London because the financial world only wanted to deal under English law ... and you were agreeing with him. Now you are saying that the UK legal system (? there is actually no such thing - there are three legal jurisdictions in the UK) is 'stupid' amd 'defies common sense'. What is your position now - that the financial markets would be better served operating under a rational civil law jurisdiction like they have in Germany?

All you do is cherry pick anything that suits your preconceived, irrational positions.

[Robin Hood]

...
No country, from what I read in the MSM, could be more stupid in applying the law than the UK legal system ...... very often it simply defies common sense.

Give me a break will you! Not so long ago you were extolling the virtues of that great self-proclaimed English patriot with Australian nationality, Steve Keen, in an interview in which he said, inter alia, that the financial markets would never leave London because the financial world only wanted to deal under English law ... and you were agreeing with him. Now you are saying that the UK legal system (? there is actually no such thing - there are three legal jurisdictions in the UK) is 'stupid' amd 'defies common sense'. What is your position now - that the financial markets would be better served operating under a rational civil law jurisdiction like they have in Germany?

All you do is cherry pick anything that suits your preconceived, irrational positions.

Britain does not have a Constitution, that's it! It is based on Case Law. The Laws ratified by the Parliamentary process are applied and become Case Law. Each law is then applied according to previous cases ..... which is why it is Case Law not Constitutional Law. This principal is applied in all the states that form the UK.

As for the Financial and Banking sector, they have regulations and procedures not laws, only Parliament can create laws. They have to comply with the same laws as everyone else. (well almost ....!) The regulations and procedures in the UK are NOT the same as those applied in Germany which is why Keen said it would be difficult to simply swap from one set of regulations and procedures to another, although he wrongly described them as 'Laws'. Therefore you would need to run two parallel systems.

As for stupidity ..... you obviously don't agree that the Law as often interpreted by a Judge in an English Court regularly defies common sense ? The same applies to other courts in other States that form the United Kingdom. A person wrongly claiming a State benefit gets caught, goes to Court and gets a custodial sentence and yet someone who kills can get off with a 2 year sentence .... suspended....... and we won't even go into Bankers that commit fraud on an unbelievable scale, steal millions and never even face charges ! The examples are too numerous to even bother to quote in detail.

I find your arguments not particularly irrational ........ just petty nit picking!

[Lordo]

robin you dont really understand what the problem is. the british people voted to restrict eu migrants from coming to the uk. if the uk government follows this path there is no deal to be had, any of the 27 members can block any deal uk negotiates becasue their workers will be affected. no feedom of movement no deal. have you still not clocked on yet?

wto terms of trade will follow brexit.

The vote was on leaving the EU or remaining, it was a 'YES'/'NO' choice !

The arguments used on both sides turned out to be 90% bullsh*t anyway, spouted by many that had less of a clue about what was going on than you or me. At least I thought about it even though I was not entitled to a vote. Many people have a 'favourite' newspaper or TV channel that virtually tells them what to think ..... anything else is wrong or just propaganda in their eyes. Maybe to qualify to vote there should be a requirement to pass an exam to determine whether an individual had the mental capacity to make a lucid decision ?

As for freedom of movement; I don't think people wanted to put up barriers to immigration from Europe or Visa versa, what they wanted, and find it difficult to understand why this is such an issue, is the right to restrict entry to those the country did not want. Maybe on the lines ..... we deal with our misfits, free loaders and criminals and prevent them from travelling to Europe ....... and UE countries do likewise? How many countries in Europe NOW are refusing to take refugees against the rules that apply in the EU. Poland, Hungary for instance. Does Cyprus open the door to just any old European who fancies coming here? They make it so difficult that it reduces the attraction of coming here. The opposite in the UK, the Country that keeps on giving and complies strictly with EU regulations.

wto terms of trade will follow brexit.

If that is the case ..... what are we going to spend years talking about. Article 50 ...... shake hands ..... and walk away ..... and make our own arrangements!

I don't know if you saw the signing of this EU 'trade' agreement with Canada? The book they were signing was at least 50mm thick ....... did they read it before they signed it ..... more to the point, apart from Lawyers, will ANYBODY ever read it ? This is what makes Lawyers rich and life tough for those that have to meet ALL these conditions ........ and up go prices as companies have to engage Lawyers every time they try to sell into Europe or they risk having their product kicked back because it fails to conform in some minor way!

you still dont get it. it was belgium that was holding the agreement with canada up for their own interests. canada does not have access to free trade area without freedom of movement. it does not matter how thick the agreement book is, it will be the same every time. each country can object to any agreement if their own citizens are discrimitaed against. as to why people voted for brexit, you are cluless there too. it was the east europeans they were objecting too. what these poor sods do not realise is that brexit will hit them where it hurts in the pocket and these millioneres who conned them into voting for brexit will be ok either way. its like terggys voting for xmas.

[Paphitis]

Go against the people and it is Goodbye Labor party and Tories.

Enter UKIP which will become the number 1 party in Britain with 40% plus.