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

Another Legal Challenge?

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:30 pm

Hairyloon wrote:Sorry, but I don't understand why you've got so upset about it.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby atticus » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:31 pm

Sorry, but that was not an apology for your being a patronising git.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19432
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:58 pm

Then I am very sorry that you found my comment patronising, but I'd've thought it patronising to spell out an answer which was obvious from the given information and poor mannered to not answer the question that you had reasonably asked.
And I am moved to consider some of the patronage you have flung around in the past, and I leap to the conclusion that very much of it is simply a matter of perception.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:18 pm

Interesting idea. I don't believe a word of it though...

An injunction could be obtained to prevent the misapplication of public money. We can certainly restrain a misapplication of public funds under various principles of public law relating to the proper exercise of powers held effectively on trust for the people.


http://yourbrexit.co.uk/news/revealed-h ... or-brexit/
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Another Legal Challenge?

Postby dls » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:44 am

It is indeed more than a little stupid. To suggst that governments do not have a power to spend money as part and parcel of breaking or making treaties is just nonsense. It is a false premise.

I do not accept any idea that there is generalprinciple saying that we should pay a generalised bill on leaving which does not at the same time balance that against the assets retained by the EU for which we have made payments.

However, there may be a whole series of individual particular situations where there is a proper argument for us contributing sums as part of leaving. Those sums may indeed add up into an uncomfortably large payment, but even at the largst claim, spread over five years, it would be both sustainable and very much less than would have been paid had membership continued.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Previous

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest