ChatterBank1 min ago
Question For New Judge.
I remember you posting something about the Vienna convention and the law of treaties and people who had rights before the referendum being safe after,
where abouts on the law of treaties does it say this as I was telling someone in work and they didn't believe me.
Thanks.
Dave.
where abouts on the law of treaties does it say this as I was telling someone in work and they didn't believe me.
Thanks.
Dave.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.http:// www.the answerb ank.co. uk/Chat terBank /Questi on14947 00-3.ht ml
Don't know which chapter nor verse ;-)
Don't know which chapter nor verse ;-)
A little light reading:
https:/ /treati es.un.o rg/doc/ Publica tion/UN TS/Volu me%2011 55/volu me-1155 -I-1823 2-Engli sh.pdf
It's the UK's membership of the Council of Europe (which we've belonged to since well before the EU, or any of its predecessors, ever existed) that means that the UK is bound by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (and hence the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights). Even if the UK does eventually leave the EU, the country will still be a member of the Council of Europe.
https:/
It's the UK's membership of the Council of Europe (which we've belonged to since well before the EU, or any of its predecessors, ever existed) that means that the UK is bound by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (and hence the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights). Even if the UK does eventually leave the EU, the country will still be a member of the Council of Europe.
Unless I misunderstand, it's a treaty of treaties. https:/ /en.wik ipedia. org/wik i/Vienn a_Conve ntion_o n_the_L aw_of_T reaties Maybe it doesn't need to if it is reflected elsewhere ?
It is Article 70
"Article 70
Consequences of the termination of a treaty
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty; (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty from the date when such denunciation or withdrawal takes effect."
With respect to New Judge there are comments from many experts in such matters that it is not cut and dry that there will be no effect on EU citizens in this country or British in the EU. One view is that the Convention refers to states and parties making the treaty not to individuals. It also says " or the parties otherwise agree" meaning the UK and the EU could agree to remove the rights previously enjoyed by the other party's citizens.
"Article 70
Consequences of the termination of a treaty
1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty; (b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty from the date when such denunciation or withdrawal takes effect."
With respect to New Judge there are comments from many experts in such matters that it is not cut and dry that there will be no effect on EU citizens in this country or British in the EU. One view is that the Convention refers to states and parties making the treaty not to individuals. It also says " or the parties otherwise agree" meaning the UK and the EU could agree to remove the rights previously enjoyed by the other party's citizens.
Yes it was the passage that Corby refers to that was, if my memory serves me correctly, the basis of my earlier post.
However, to take a pragmatic approach, which is probably more useful, there is not a cat in hell’s chance of either the UK or the remainder of the EU forcibly repatriating millions of people. There is simply no need and it would be of no overall benefit to either party. In addition to that, as Buenchico rightly points out, after our EU departure the UK will still be signatories to the ECHR. Bearing in mind that convention often prevents us deporting convicted rapists and murderers, there is little chance we would be able to expel a Lithuanian doctor or a Latvian nurse.
There has been widespread misrepresentation of Brexiteers’ views on immigration since the referendum. The Leavers are concerned about uncontrolled immigration not all immigration. They are concerned that a family of Romanians can arrive in the UK and live in the pedestrian subways under Marble Arch and nothing can be done to prevent that. But an Australian nurse or doctor with a job to come to and the means to support themselves can be denied entry because too many people from outside the EU have already settled here. It’s utter madness.
Corby is quite correct – nothing is cut and dried in the negotiations that will lay the foundation of our new relationship following our departure. That’s why I’ve avoided most “Brexit” questions for the past week or so as many of the suggestions that have surfaced are simply silly. However, if I had to gamble whether EU citizens would be repatriated I know where my money would go.
However, to take a pragmatic approach, which is probably more useful, there is not a cat in hell’s chance of either the UK or the remainder of the EU forcibly repatriating millions of people. There is simply no need and it would be of no overall benefit to either party. In addition to that, as Buenchico rightly points out, after our EU departure the UK will still be signatories to the ECHR. Bearing in mind that convention often prevents us deporting convicted rapists and murderers, there is little chance we would be able to expel a Lithuanian doctor or a Latvian nurse.
There has been widespread misrepresentation of Brexiteers’ views on immigration since the referendum. The Leavers are concerned about uncontrolled immigration not all immigration. They are concerned that a family of Romanians can arrive in the UK and live in the pedestrian subways under Marble Arch and nothing can be done to prevent that. But an Australian nurse or doctor with a job to come to and the means to support themselves can be denied entry because too many people from outside the EU have already settled here. It’s utter madness.
Corby is quite correct – nothing is cut and dried in the negotiations that will lay the foundation of our new relationship following our departure. That’s why I’ve avoided most “Brexit” questions for the past week or so as many of the suggestions that have surfaced are simply silly. However, if I had to gamble whether EU citizens would be repatriated I know where my money would go.
yeah but no but
under art 70 - and the current interpretation above, we would still be liable for the £350m a week innit ?
duty created by treaty and not abrogated by termination
the difference is that some rights are continuing ( right to remain ) and some are not ( rt to buy such and such at so and so price at a certain date )
and I suggest m'lud that continuing rights are indeed terminable ...
what about ooman rights ? well that is gonna down the drain along with jobs and pensions in the New Brexit paradise ( starts tomorrow ! ) however the immigrants cd say they had a reasonable expectation when they up sticks and moved here that it would be permanent and Brexit and treaty end was not foreseeable
remember a lot of this is political and not legal
and as we know from Chilcot ( todaaaaaay ! ) politicians dont seem to know an awful lof law nowadays
under art 70 - and the current interpretation above, we would still be liable for the £350m a week innit ?
duty created by treaty and not abrogated by termination
the difference is that some rights are continuing ( right to remain ) and some are not ( rt to buy such and such at so and so price at a certain date )
and I suggest m'lud that continuing rights are indeed terminable ...
what about ooman rights ? well that is gonna down the drain along with jobs and pensions in the New Brexit paradise ( starts tomorrow ! ) however the immigrants cd say they had a reasonable expectation when they up sticks and moved here that it would be permanent and Brexit and treaty end was not foreseeable
remember a lot of this is political and not legal
and as we know from Chilcot ( todaaaaaay ! ) politicians dont seem to know an awful lof law nowadays