Easter Egg Trail

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

hedgehog50 Croydon 05 Apr 17 1.28pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In order for a case to be passed to the European Courts it requires leave to appeal from the highest courts of Appeal in the UK. As such, the UK judicial system makes the decision that it cannot reliably and fairly adjudicate on the matter. So a case goes to the European Court when the Appeal Courts cannot conclusively, and fairly, adjudicate on a conflict in points of law. No hand holding at all. If we were independent, we'd have to carry the entire cost of the very specialist legal expertise provided by the European Court, rather than sharing it with 27 other nations (plus rather than providing a single judge, we'd need to provide at least three). Its a) more cost effective b) more independent c) allows for a wider basis of legal precedent from across Europe where similar cases of conflict have already been resolved. There will be no appeals to European courts. The highest court will be in the UK, just as it was before we were in the EU and before we signed up to foreign courts. We are far better placed and qualified to judge our own laws than foreign courts are. Why you have more faith in some Rumanian judge than a British judge is beyond me. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 05 Apr 17 1.28pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

In order for a case to be passed to the European Courts it requires leave to appeal from the highest courts of Appeal in the UK. As such, the UK judicial system makes the decision that it cannot reliably and fairly adjudicate on the matter.

So a case goes to the European Court when the Appeal Courts cannot conclusively, and fairly, adjudicate on a conflict in points of law.

No hand holding at all. If we were independent, we'd have to carry the entire cost of the very specialist legal expertise provided by the European Court, rather than sharing it with 27 other nations (plus rather than providing a single judge, we'd need to provide at least three).

Its a) more cost effective b) more independent c) allows for a wider basis of legal precedent from across Europe where similar cases of conflict have already been resolved.

There will be no appeals to European courts. The highest court will be in the UK, just as it was before we were in the EU and before we signed up to foreign courts. We are far better placed and qualified to judge our own laws than foreign courts are. Why you have more faith in some Rumanian judge than a British judge is beyond me.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 17 1.30pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 There will be no appeals to European courts. The highest court will be in the UK, just as it was before we were in the EU and before we signed up to foreign courts. We are far better placed and qualified to judge our own laws than foreign courts are. Why you have more faith in some Rumanian judge than a British judge is beyond me. I thought judges were the enemies of the people.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 17 1.30pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I thought judges were the enemies of the people.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 05 Apr 17 1.35pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I thought judges were the enemies of the people. Do you? I don't. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 05 Apr 17 1.35pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I thought judges were the enemies of the people.

Do you? I don't.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Apr 17 1.50pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 There will be no appeals to European courts. The highest court will be in the UK, just as it was before we were in the EU and before we signed up to foreign courts. We are far better placed and qualified to judge our own laws than foreign courts are. Why you have more faith in some Rumanian judge than a British judge is beyond me. We're not, literally by definitions, because they are 'our laws', the degree to which you can have someone who's enforced those laws, being objectively critical of them. A point of note here, is that it wouldn't be a 'Romanian Judge', it would be three judges, all of whom have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own country. So to model that equally in the UK, is going to simply be far more expensive, less independent and less knowledgeable (because you'd have less access to existing precedent from other EU cases). Before we were in the EU, or the EEC, the European Court was always the highest court of appeal. Simply phrasing it as 'British Judge good, foreign judge bad' is daft. European Court judges rule on conflicts of law and legal arguments, not the evidence of cases. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Apr 17 1.50pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

There will be no appeals to European courts. The highest court will be in the UK, just as it was before we were in the EU and before we signed up to foreign courts. We are far better placed and qualified to judge our own laws than foreign courts are. Why you have more faith in some Rumanian judge than a British judge is beyond me.

We're not, literally by definitions, because they are 'our laws', the degree to which you can have someone who's enforced those laws, being objectively critical of them.

A point of note here, is that it wouldn't be a 'Romanian Judge', it would be three judges, all of whom have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own country.

So to model that equally in the UK, is going to simply be far more expensive, less independent and less knowledgeable (because you'd have less access to existing precedent from other EU cases).

Before we were in the EU, or the EEC, the European Court was always the highest court of appeal.

Simply phrasing it as 'British Judge good, foreign judge bad' is daft. European Court judges rule on conflicts of law and legal arguments, not the evidence of cases.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James 05 Apr 17 1.54pm
I miss Superfly talking about chicken fanny.
Alert a moderator to this post

Part Time James

05 Apr 17 1.54pm

Send a Private Message to Part Time James

I miss Superfly talking about chicken fanny.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Apr 17 3.10pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I thought judges were the enemies of the people. Only when they disagree with the Right. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Apr 17 3.10pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I thought judges were the enemies of the people.

Only when they disagree with the Right.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 05 Apr 17 3.19pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 We're not, literally by definitions, because they are 'our laws', the degree to which you can have someone who's enforced those laws, being objectively critical of them. A point of note here, is that it wouldn't be a 'Romanian Judge', it would be three judges, all of whom have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own country. So to model that equally in the UK, is going to simply be far more expensive, less independent and less knowledgeable (because you'd have less access to existing precedent from other EU cases). Before we were in the EU, or the EEC, the European Court was always the highest court of appeal. Simply phrasing it as 'British Judge good, foreign judge bad' is daft. European Court judges rule on conflicts of law and legal arguments, not the evidence of cases. 'Always'! The court didn't exist until 1952! We didn't use it until much later. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the three foreign judges have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own countries. I want to be judged by British courts, as do the majority of people in the UK. I'm not even saying foreign judges are all bad, I just don't want them interfering in our lives and laws. Edited by hedgehog50 (05 Apr 2017 3.20pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 05 Apr 17 3.19pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

We're not, literally by definitions, because they are 'our laws', the degree to which you can have someone who's enforced those laws, being objectively critical of them.

A point of note here, is that it wouldn't be a 'Romanian Judge', it would be three judges, all of whom have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own country.

So to model that equally in the UK, is going to simply be far more expensive, less independent and less knowledgeable (because you'd have less access to existing precedent from other EU cases).

Before we were in the EU, or the EEC, the European Court was always the highest court of appeal.

Simply phrasing it as 'British Judge good, foreign judge bad' is daft. European Court judges rule on conflicts of law and legal arguments, not the evidence of cases.

'Always'! The court didn't exist until 1952! We didn't use it until much later.

Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the three foreign judges have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own countries. I want to be judged by British courts, as do the majority of people in the UK. I'm not even saying foreign judges are all bad, I just don't want them interfering in our lives and laws.

Edited by hedgehog50 (05 Apr 2017 3.20pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 05 Apr 17 3.32pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 'Always'! The court didn't exist until 1952! We didn't use it until much later. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the three foreign judges have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own countries. I want to be judged by British courts, as do the majority of people in the UK. I'm not even saying foreign judges are all bad, I just don't want them interfering in our lives and laws. Edited by hedgehog50 (05 Apr 2017 3.20pm) I'm not sure how a fake story about Easter eggs has got onto this but the above isn't unreasonable. There were plenty of faux reasons used to support Brexit, but the issue of sovereignty (as well as the corporatist nature of the EU) were certainly amongst the strongest. Although the reality was much more complicated as Jamie alludes to, the idea that the ultimate judge of British law should be British judges (even if that isn't what the Mail want) is a strong one. "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 05 Apr 17 3.32pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

'Always'! The court didn't exist until 1952! We didn't use it until much later.

Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the three foreign judges have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own countries. I want to be judged by British courts, as do the majority of people in the UK. I'm not even saying foreign judges are all bad, I just don't want them interfering in our lives and laws.

Edited by hedgehog50 (05 Apr 2017 3.20pm)

I'm not sure how a fake story about Easter eggs has got onto this but the above isn't unreasonable.

There were plenty of faux reasons used to support Brexit, but the issue of sovereignty (as well as the corporatist nature of the EU) were certainly amongst the strongest.

Although the reality was much more complicated as Jamie alludes to, the idea that the ultimate judge of British law should be British judges (even if that isn't what the Mail want) is a strong one.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Apr 17 3.40pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 'Always'! The court didn't exist until 1952! We didn't use it until much later. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the three foreign judges have obtained the highest level of the judicial qualification and position in their own countries. I want to be judged by British courts, as do the majority of people in the UK. I'm not even saying foreign judges are all bad, I just don't want them interfering in our lives and laws. Edited by hedgehog50 (05 Apr 2017 3.20pm) But you are judged by British Judges and British Courts; the European Court is a final court of appeal, effectively that exists because British judges cannot reach a decision and require independent advice. The European court doesn't even pass judgement, it passes recommendations, to the requesting judiciary. Are you saying you'd rather your appeal be rejected, than heard by a panel of the most qualified judges in Europe, on the basis that they're not British? (even though they will document in very precise detail how they came to their conclusion). That seems pretty irrational. Surely the individuals expertise and ability is what counts, not their nationality. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Apr 17 3.40pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

'Always'! The court didn't exist until 1952! We didn't use it until much later.

Edited by hedgehog50 (05 Apr 2017 3.20pm)

But you are judged by British Judges and British Courts; the European Court is a final court of appeal, effectively that exists because British judges cannot reach a decision and require independent advice.

The European court doesn't even pass judgement, it passes recommendations, to the requesting judiciary.

Are you saying you'd rather your appeal be rejected, than heard by a panel of the most qualified judges in Europe, on the basis that they're not British? (even though they will document in very precise detail how they came to their conclusion).

That seems pretty irrational. Surely the individuals expertise and ability is what counts, not their nationality.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 05 Apr 17 3.47pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 But you are judged by British Judges and British Courts; the European Court is a final court of appeal, effectively that exists because British judges cannot reach a decision and require independent advice. The European court doesn't even pass judgement, it passes recommendations, to the requesting judiciary. Are you saying you'd rather your appeal be rejected, than heard by a panel of the most qualified judges in Europe, on the basis that they're not British? (even though they will document in very precise detail how they came to their conclusion). That seems pretty irrational. Surely the individuals expertise and ability is what counts, not their nationality. Well, the British courts will have to reach a decision in future. What happens when the European Court cannot reach a decision, is the case referred to Valhalla? If a British court rejects my appeal, so be it. Why should I suppose that there is more chance of a European Court upholding it? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 05 Apr 17 3.47pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The European court doesn't even pass judgement, it passes recommendations, to the requesting judiciary.

That seems pretty irrational. Surely the individuals expertise and ability is what counts, not their nationality.

Well, the British courts will have to reach a decision in future. What happens when the European Court cannot reach a decision, is the case referred to Valhalla?
If a British court rejects my appeal, so be it. Why should I suppose that there is more chance of a European Court upholding it?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Apr 17 12.37pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Well, the British courts will have to reach a decision in future. What happens when the European Court cannot reach a decision, is the case referred to Valhalla? If a British court rejects my appeal, so be it. Why should I suppose that there is more chance of a European Court upholding it? Not necessarily, the British Courts are still tied to the European Court - and have been since before the EU. The European court provides recommendations in an advisory role back to the national court system and government on how to resolve conflict between two existing laws. Why, because they're independent and political uninvolved in your case, or your nations political pressure. It also consists entirely of Judges of the highest possible level of attainment in their home nation - i.e. the best judges available - Who only deal with these issues. Mirroring in the UK is feasible, its just going to be very expensive to have at least three of the highest attainment judges, only sitting on cases that deal with conflicts in UK law (and of course their independence from the UK Judicary cannot be established because positions to this post will be by the UK government or Judicary). Under the ECHR, each government assigns a judge to the ECHR, by that judge is precluded from sitting on petitions from their own member state. So basically, yes, you could do something very similar in the UK but it would be less independent, less cost effective and remove a number of very highly qualified UK judges from the judicial circuit. Its pragmatic to retain the European Court access, in terms of cost, independence and the drain on our own judicial resources. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 06 Apr 17 12.37pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Not necessarily, the British Courts are still tied to the European Court - and have been since before the EU.

The European court provides recommendations in an advisory role back to the national court system and government on how to resolve conflict between two existing laws.

Why, because they're independent and political uninvolved in your case, or your nations political pressure. It also consists entirely of Judges of the highest possible level of attainment in their home nation - i.e. the best judges available - Who only deal with these issues.

Mirroring in the UK is feasible, its just going to be very expensive to have at least three of the highest attainment judges, only sitting on cases that deal with conflicts in UK law (and of course their independence from the UK Judicary cannot be established because positions to this post will be by the UK government or Judicary).

Under the ECHR, each government assigns a judge to the ECHR, by that judge is precluded from sitting on petitions from their own member state.

So basically, yes, you could do something very similar in the UK but it would be less independent, less cost effective and remove a number of very highly qualified UK judges from the judicial circuit.

Its pragmatic to retain the European Court access, in terms of cost, independence and the drain on our own judicial resources.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85 Bexley 06 Apr 17 12.48pm
Funnily enough an old school friend posted a load of nonsense about this very Topic this morning. Will try and copy and paste it. When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC
Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85

Bexley 06 Apr 17 12.48pm

Funnily enough an old school friend posted a load of nonsense about this very Topic this morning. Will try and copy and paste it.

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Easter Egg Trail

Site Map

Sponsors