Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

British Law and European Law

A place to sit about and chat between more important things.

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:51 pm

Yes. I did write that. I do not deny it.

Withdrawal of labour is a breach of the employment contract. No express prohibition of strike action is required. The lack of prohibition can not be equated to "allowing" strike action; as I have said, that is a breach of contract.

Non payment of an invoice leads to a claim for damages for breach of contract. Contracts for the sale of goods or services do not contain clauses prohibiting non payment. That does not mean that they permit non payment.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19714
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:11 pm

atticus wrote:Yes. I did write that. I do not deny it.

Withdrawal of labour is a breach of the employment contract. No express prohibition of strike action is required. The lack of prohibition can not be equated to "allowing" strike action; as I have said, that is a breach of contract.

You know as well as I do that most, if not all contracts include implied terms: it matters not that the prohibition or not is not written.
So is strike action allowed by the contract, or is it not allowed?
If it is allowed, then how is it a breach, or if it is not allowed, then how is that different from being prohibited?

Or rather than your usual pages of arguing semantics, you could just accept that contract law prohibits strike action because contract law enforces contracts which do not permit strike action.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:15 pm

See above. If you agree to work 9 till 5, 5 days a week, but refuse to turn up for work, you are in breach of contract. It really is as simple as that.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19714
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:17 pm

atticus wrote:See above. If you agree to work 9 till 5, 5 days a week, but refuse to turn up for work, you are in breach of contract. It really is as simple as that.

In other words, the contract does not allow you to strike.
Contracts are enforced by contract law, thus contract law does not allow you to strike.
Except that we have a law that prevents contract law from enforcing the breach of contract that a strike would be.

Which brings us (after a page of tedious semantics) back to the question of what is the difference between a law that allows something and a law that stops you from being not allowed the something?
More importantly, is that the basis of the point that Tebbit was trying to make?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby atticus » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:46 pm

Sorry hairy, but if anyone is engaging intedious semantics which have made this thread one page longer than it needs to be, it is you.

You continue to misunderstand. It has all been explained.

I see no point in continuing to take part in this discussion. Your inability to take points in board is frustrating.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19714
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:05 pm

atticus wrote:Your inability to take points in board is frustrating.

Which point am I not taking on board?
Where is the flaw in the chain of reasoning?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:07 pm

Or explain again how something that is allowed by the contract is a breach of that contract.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby miner » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:22 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
Which brings us (after a page of tedious semantics) back to the question of what is the difference between a law that allows something and a law that stops you from being not allowed the something?


I should have thought that the difference was patently obvious.

Laws which permit a person to do only certain things exclude the person from doing things not listed as being permitted and thereby restrict the person's freedom. The upshot of that is that the list of permitted actions is effectively rather short.

Laws which preclude a person from doing certain things leave greater freedom for the person to act. The upshot of that is that the list of unpermitted actions is effectively rather short.

The difference would appear to demonstrate very clearly the undemocratic, controlling, dictatorial and oppressive nature of the EU's thinking over our lives - which is fundamentally why we have voted for Brexit. We never voted to be part of all that EUrocrap in the first place, and have now voted to rid ourselves of that and the totalitarian, socialist-inspired (to put it mildly, to me it smacks of good-old-fashioned, discredited Communism) thinking which is its foundation.

The statement quoted in the Tebbit article:

..... the attitude of senior people in the European Commission was summed up by one who told me: “We make the law. They (the people) obey the law.”

is very revealing, made as it allegedly was by a senior member of the European Commission which consists of unelected officials.

The European Commission is the EU's executive body. It represents the interests [as defined or determined by that handful of unelected officials led by Juncker] of the European Union as a whole (not the interests of individual countries). It's functions include proposing legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Senior Official concerned, however, clearly takes the view that it is the European Commission which makes the laws, not the democratically-elected European Parliament and its MEPs as should be the case. If you read the book by Mark Brolin which i mentioned several weeks ago, it exemplifies just how much actual power the EU Commission itself has stealthily and dishonestly assumed, without any legal basis.

Given that the vast majority of the EU's member countries are "takers" from the system, it is perhaps no wonder that they just sit back and let this undemocratic, unelected body basically do what they choose without questions being asked, since they have no wish to upset the Commission applecart from which they derive massive benefits.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby Millbrook2 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:50 pm

Hairyloon wrote:Or explain again how something that is allowed by the contract is a breach of that contract.


I'll have a go if you could elaborate on what you think is allowed by the contract and what is the breach in the current example.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: British Law and European Law

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:52 pm

miner wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
Which brings us (after a page of tedious semantics) back to the question of what is the difference between a law that allows something and a law that stops you from being not allowed the something?


I should have thought that the difference was patently obvious.

No, you are answering the wrong question.

Laws which permit a person to do only certain things exclude the person from doing things not listed as being permitted and thereby restrict the person's freedom. The upshot of that is that the list of permitted actions is effectively rather short.

Laws which preclude a person from doing certain things leave greater freedom for the person to act. The upshot of that is that the list of unpermitted actions is effectively rather short.


Quite clearly so, but the example given to illustrate the point was striking. He says that we have no law giving a right to strike. He's right, we have a law protecting the rights of those who do strike: the difference is purely semantic.
His other example, that of free speech seems petunia: either the law allows free speech which means you can say anything; or it says what you can say, which means it is not free speech; or it sets out what you are not allowed to say, which is also not free speech.
Pretty much illustrates the opposite to the point he is aiming to make.

The difference would appear to demonstrate very clearly the undemocratic, controlling, dictatorial and oppressive nature of the EU's thinking over our lives...

The difference might, but his examples utterly fail to, which rather suggests the issue he complains of is not real.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to The Robing Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron