Is This Useless Incompetant Woman Trying To Give The Keys To No 10 To Jezza?

[youngmafbog]

She certainly seems to be going the right way about it.

What a shambles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5116223/Theresa-let-ECJ-role-UK-Brexit.html#comments

[Old_Geezer]

Precisely Zacs. Why should we allow European court decisions just because EU citizens are involved. It's an insane suggestion.

[Zacs-Master]

Seems pretty logical to me.

[Old_Geezer]

No doubt when Brits are in other nations' court's, their courts will want to defer to the British courts' decision.

[Khandro]

Zacs; //Seems pretty logical to me.//
By that reasoning, American courts should be able to have jurisdiction on cases against American residents in the UK, that could even lead to the death penalty!

[New Judge]

“Except it wouldn’t be the EU nationals decision NJ. It would be the courts.”

What decision? What courts?

“In these case, Why?”

There should be no alternative judicial system available to foreigners living in the UK. Can you imagine, say, the USA allowing Mexicans resident in the USA having recourse to a “Pan-American Court of Justice” if they did not trust or agree with decisions made by the US judiciary?

The ECJ is an institution set up to accommodate the ultimate aim of a Federal Europe. It provides a pan-European judiciary to adjudicate on (among many other things) the rights of people living across the bloc. It is bad enough that individual EU nations have abrogated their judicial responsibilities to a foreign court. To consider that we should continue with that neglect after we have left is utter lunacy.

[Zacs-Master]

No Khandro. That’s not reasoning you’ve used. You’ve got the situation the wrong way round.
In your analogy American citizens living in the UK would have recourse to the America’s legal system, or UK citizens living in the states would have recourse to UK leagal procedure.

But....in both cases, the recourse could only be referred by judges in their resident countries.

We’re not talking about cases involving death sentences either, so theirs not much reasoning in your post at all.

[Zacs-Master]

NJ, from the article ‘Judges in the UK would refer cases to Luxembourg’ I presume those judges would represent a court.

[Zacs-Master]

‘Can you imagine, say, the USA allowing Mexicans resident in the USA having recourse to a “Pan-American Court of Justice” if they did not trust or agree with decisions made by the US judiciary?‘

Tats not the scenario. It’s not the individual resident who have the power of the referral to the EU course, but our own judges.

[Zacs-Master]

And in English
That’s not the scenario. It’s not the individual residents who have the power of the referral to the EU courts, but our own judges.

[New Judge]

"That’s not the scenario. It’s not the individual residents who have the power of the referral to the EU courts, but our own judges."

Of course we don't know whether or not that scenario will be the one agreed. But even if it is, what happens when an EU citizen wants to challenge the ruling of a UK court which refuses to refer the matter to the ECJ? Who deals with that?

[Zacs-Master]

I’d rather debate the situation as presented at the moment NJ. I’ll leave you to your speculations.

[Khandro]

Zacs; //You’ve got the situation the wrong way round. //
Not really, it is universally accepted that a crime committed, comes under the jurisdiction of the country it is committed in. That is why Julian Assange is wanted in Sweden for his alleged crime, not the UK.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes I’m fully conversant with the status quo. But this is a new proposal which, for the specific purposes of the case-types, seems like a sensible idea, especially if it’s the guardians of UK law doing the deciding on referrals.
It has no chance of playing a part in Labour making a power grab and neither is it a shambles.

[youngmafbog]

//seems like a sensible idea//

Totally and utterly disagree with you.

It is a recipe for disaster and could get very expensive let alone create a two tier legal system, one for UK residents and one for EU foreigners.

[New Judge]

"I’d rather debate the situation as presented at the moment NJ."

Then let's do that.

Under the proposal (as I understand it) if an EU citizen has a dispute with the UK over his citizenship rights a UK court may refer the matter to an EU institution for arbitration (the decision whether to do so being a matter for the UK court). So...

1. Why is it a "good idea" that a foreign national should possibly have recourse to a foreign court to arbitrate on matters which are a matter for the UK? Why should a foreign national have the opportunity to have a decision made in his favour by a foreign court and so be afforded privileges that a UK national might not enjoy?

2. (And I'll ask again) What happens if the UK Courts ultimately decline to refer his dispute to the EU court? Does he just suck it up? Or will he have the right of appeal? If so, who will hear that appeal?

[Quizmonster]

At least the Maybot has had her robotic mantra changed since June. Back then it was "strong and stable", despite her cabinet being a rickety, two-legged milking-stool. Now it's "I/we have made it clear..." No she/they haven't! We still have not the remotest idea what Brexit is going to mean. Indeed, she might as well be programmed to return to telling us that "Brexit means Brexit."

[Zacs-Master]

You seem to have drifted into wild speculation again NJ. It isn’t the person in question who makes the referral. It’s a judge.

[New Judge]

"You seem to have drifted into wild speculation again NJ. It isn’t the person in question who makes the referral. It’s a judge."

We're going round in circles. I'm not speculating, even modestly. I'm simply posing a question about the suitability of an arrangement which you believe is a "good idea". So, I'll try again. If an EU citizen has a dispute with the UK concerning his citizenship rights and he goes to court the court (presumably up to Supreme Court level if necessary) can either (a) find in his favour or (b) find against him. If (b) the judge can then either (c) refer the matter to a European Institution (presumably so that a decision can be made which might possibly overrule the decision of the UK court) or (d) not refer the matter. The question is, if (d) is the outcome of all this, what redress will the EU citizen have against that decision? And of course the other question which you have still not answered and which involves no speculation or hypothesis at all, is why should non-UK citizens have the possibility that their matter might be referred elsewhere for a decision when a UK citizen does not enjoy that possibility?

[Zacs-Master]

I’ve no idea what redress will the EU citizen have against that decision or whether they will have the possibility that their matter might be referred elsewhere for a decision when a UK citizen does not enjoy that possibility, ergo it’s pointless debating the matter.

I can’t really see a UK judge referring something to an EU court which might possibly overrule the decision of the UK court. That would be stupid but, you being in the profession, might know that such instances occur.

By the way, your presumption is the same a speculation.

[jourdain2]

Excuse me, I'm in a hurry, making dinner at the same time as this. But doesn't the acceptance that another law system could apply to residents of this country (albeit if referred by judges)mean that other nationalities could, logically, ask for their own law to apply to them? It pulls the rug from under the feet of resistance to sharia law, for instance. Just asking for opinions, prepared to have a reason given - but I can't see it. It would weaken our system immeasurably, as I see it.