Barrie Stevens

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

626 Excellent

1 Follower

About Barrie Stevens

  • Rank
    MF Veteran
  1. Once again I recommend this link regarding the progress of the Irish Free State as it does have similarities as to how Brexit may yet evolve. Uncanny in some places.
  2. There is no need for a contract just brute force and ignorance...Might is right... There was once a land that was in a union with three other countries but that land was not happy. One day about 120 years after joining that union it had imposed on it a plan to withdraw from that union albeit with free trade and to a great extent free movement... Some people did not want to leave that union and so they allowed one part of that land to remain and the others to leave but under the terms of an interim agreement and the payment of what was for that land a very large sum of money. Eventually that land decided to do a total "Exit" and became a republic...This was in 1948 but it was not legal until the union passed its own superior legislation a year later. And despite all that the head of state of that union retained a sovereign position within that land and does so to this very day. Well my little ones. That land was Ireland. The interim agreement was the nebulous Irish Free State...The sum of money was paid to the union by that state was its "Brexit Divorce Bill" 1948 that land became the Republic of Ireland but it was not fully effective and agreed until the union passed its very own Ireland Act 1949. That land may have left the union but in many respects nothing much changed...And the union still has its head of state in place within that land as Queen in Ireland but not Queen of Ireland. I have a feeling in my bones that the UK will be like the Free State and at the end of the day nothing much will change and that the interim stage will of necessity stretch on a few more years and that legislation will permit this to be until such time as the UK can fully break away..But like Ireland I do not think that it will ..fully that is. Yes. I think the UK will become the British Free State but linked to the EU just as happened to Ireland and its links to the UK.. I think that it will always be a mess but it is anyway so muddle on chaps! ...Also, I get the feeling the British politicians in charge of Brexit are little better than the Irish bumpkins who created and ran the Free State until people of greater calibre appeared in the 1970s. I post a link about the Irish legislation.. and one day after being a pain in the ass for about 120 years it was offered a chance to leave that union
  3. This is not totally correct. The idea is to drag all the laws, rules and regs back to the UK so that they can be sorted, shifted and cherry picked to sift the good from the bad, the relevant from the irrelevant and what may have to kept, maintained adapted etc for the sake of establishing whatever final Brexit "deal" is arrived at.....The show ain't over till the fat lady sings!
  4. The ECJ can only deal with EU law so the only nexus will have to be some tax process in the UK that is part of EU law and which by agreement has remained relevant and connected...There is no federal tax.. The ECJ deals with EU law. You think in terms of "rights" applying in the EU as coming from English law. I bet that surprises the EU which is based on the Code Napoleon ie Napoleon's idea of law.. This is why the "Anglo" peoples bristle. The Code Napoleon is based on telling you what to the famous "EU Directives one size fits all" The "Anglo" principle is you can do what you like save were the law applies reasonable restrictions and proscribes certain personal freedom of which the USA is the great protagonist. The British clash with the EU is based on this faceless bureaucratic dictation of "what you will do and do it this way" as opposed to the more relaxed way in principle of our traditional laws and freedoms. It is like a software conflict on a computer. I think you have yet to understand the difference between human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights which may indeed reflect "Anglo" attitudes as moulded from Anglo-Saxon village life. I think you have yet to understand the difference between the Council of Europe founded in London in 1949 and the European Council which runs the EU. They are not the same although the Council of Europe did adopt the EU flag. "EU" rights whatever they are be not the same as Human Rights from the Human Rights Convention.. Although as it says on the link I provided earlier the EU may indeed take notice of and incorporate Council of Europe doings in its work and deliberations. .
  5. The European Court of Human rights does not deal "with any matters" The European Court of Human Rights is not an institution of the European Union. It is a court of the Council of Europe which is an international body having at least 47 members...The UK was very much an instigator and founder of the Council of Europe. It was created in London on 5th May 1949 The ECHR deals with claims of infringement of human rights against a member of the Council of Europe aka a High Contracting Party. ie Woody2 v UK...or Tyrer v UK (The Birch) However, the European Convention on Human Rights has been imported into many a domestic or national law and thus one has to go through the national courts first. In any case, before going to the European Court of Human Rights one has to "exhaust all local remedies" in principle. One would have to identify and prove or demonstrate that some matter relating to EU rights and citizenship right of abode etc had been so managed by a High Contracting Party that it infringed one of the "Rights and Freedoms" listed in the European Convention on Human Rights. Or prove the same against a qualifying public body or government department domestically. The European Court of Human Rights could never act in the same capacity as the European Court of Justice...Totally different animals! A human rights case about right of EU abode, residence etc might find expression in "The right to respect for private and family life" for instance. Human rights are much more nebulous than the interpretation of EU law as undertaken by the European Court of Justice. Human rights are fundamental but not absolute and they often vary according to the way a member of the Council of Europe has chosen to implement them by way of a margin or appreciation so as to adapt them to local needs and requirements. There are also derogations which the Isle of Man once had in regard to education. It is more likely that the European Court of Justice and indeed other EU entities will try to follow the guidelines and precedent of the European Court of Human rights in principle. I attach a link to the very limited involvement of the EU with the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights.. I did once put together a case that went to Strasbourg so had to swot up a lot in Tynwald Library and this is how I remember it.
  6. They are not able to in the conventional sense. Hence the demands. "No pay. No hay"...Reminds me of German war reparations...See link. It is beginning to look UK war reparations...
  7. Emphasis for you seniors....And I was in charge and which is not ridiculous because I edited the entire UK..
  8. No! Mature people from Africa. It costs £700 a call out. Read the post and wake up.
  9. Not so much self taught English but the effect of the British Empire Serve you right immigration fools! I have met chaps living up trees in Kenya who speak better English better than what you lot normally always does.
  10. I had a job in Manchester in the late 1990s when you had those LCD adverts in post offices...Well my job was sub-editing the adverts on the screens...It was called Post Office Nu media... The kids could cast the adverts as a lot of dots but neither they nor the Reps could read or write properly so I was there to re-write and correct...Anyone recall those red dot ads in the post offices? I had to edit them before they went on public display.. "Post Office Nu-Media" it was called.
  11. Bang on! Down on my manor! Only problem is we have to teach them that when it says "Test the fire alarms" you use the control panel and not break the glass and get the fire brigade out!
  12. I know! I was being naughty! The point is that I do not think they will give a Free Tree deal that emulates the fullness of the Single Market & etc..Free Trade is complex and comes with strings attached. I post a good link bearing simple explanation..
  13. And which government would that be? And what makes it worthwhile? The price it would seem? And how long will that government survive?
  14. Will someone explain the difference between access and a free trade deal that is not the same as being a member of the EU...And also that is not some political delusion?
  15. Definition of NATO: "Keep the Yanks in the Russians out and the Germans down"