Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
McHrozni said:
Presumably something other than a "paper". I think "paper" in this context is a technical term, relating to a type of a government document and not the actual material we write on.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Pretty much. 'Non-paper' is generally used in Brussels to mean a discussion document which isn't an early draft of a legislative document, and wouldn't need to be formally lodged with one of the institutions, but which you might use to qualify a position.

The draft legislative text of the Single Common Market Organisation Regulation is a paper; the broad thoughts agreed by Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece on the operations of olive oil producers would be a non-paper. They might make proposals to changes to the legal text which draw on the non-paper policy ideas, though.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Not so much

In cases like this, the website here is a useful guide, and it is almost always right. :)
Click to expand...

The bottom line is this case is that the woman has dual nationality by default, even if her only passport is an Irish one. That means in the UK she gets regarded as British and is treated as such, until she specifically renounces her British citizenship.

The other side of the same coin is that some countries with compulsory military service still expect dual nationals to do it, even if they were born outside or have never set foot in the country.
 
gypsyjackson said:
Pretty much. 'Non-paper' is generally used in Brussels to mean a discussion document which isn't an early draft of a legislative document, and wouldn't need to be formally lodged with one of the institutions, but which you might use to qualify a position.

The draft legislative text of the Single Common Market Organisation Regulation is a paper; the broad thoughts agreed by Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece on the operations of olive oil producers would be a non-paper. They might make proposals to changes to the legal text which draw on the non-paper policy ideas, though.
Click to expand...

Wow government and negotiation by passive aggressive behavior. That is sure to work out well.
 
mkg said:
From the horse's mouth ...“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week."

It's in the article I posted which you didn't read.
Click to expand...

Border posts are not the same as border checks. The article explains if you bother reading with brain engaged.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I didn't say there was a UK legal system, so it seems an odd point to try to correct me on.
Click to expand...

You used the phrase 'UK law' it's an understandable slip but there isn't such a thing. That's all.

Some people, not necessarily you, seem confused by this. They seem to think that there is some UK law that sits above Scots law and that the UK Supreme Court applies this or will apply this to the appeals.
 
Information Analyst said:
The bottom line is this case is that the woman has dual nationality by default, even if her only passport is an Irish one. That means in the UK she gets regarded as British and is treated as such, until she specifically renounces her British citizenship.

The other side of the same coin is that some countries with compulsory military service still expect dual nationals to do it, even if they were born outside or have never set foot in the country.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the bottom line is that the GFA sets out that the UK Government has to respect the right of Northern Irish people to be Irish, British or both.

Which they are clearly not doing if they say that you have to renounce your UK citizenship to be treated as Irish.
 
The Don said:
If the plan is accepted then it's a victory for Boris because the plan will be deeply flawed. If it isn't then he can blame the EU for dismissing the UK's fantastic plan out of hand :rolleyes:
A Downing Street source said: "We will continue negotiating and put forward proposals at the appropriate wasting time."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The UK Supreme Court has jurisdiction yes, but it still applies the laws of the relevant nation. So the Scottish case which is appealed will be judged under Scots law in the Supreme Court and the English case being appealed will be judged under EAW Law.

There are many laws which apply UK wide but there is no UK legal system and no UK law only Scottish law, NI Law and EAW Law.
Click to expand...

I think it is reasonable to call laws that cover more than one part of the UK, such as the Road Traffic Act 1988, as UK law.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yes, but the bottom line is that the GFA sets out that the UK Government has to respect the right of Northern Irish people to be Irish, British or both.

Which they are clearly not doing if they say that you have to renounce your UK citizenship to be treated as Irish.
Click to expand...

I think the GFA was always a bit of a fudge on that point. People could apply for whatever passport they wanted, but renouncing the other citizenship was not necessary. People could just pretend they were one thing but not the other, even though technically they were always both unless they actively sought otherwise.

To be honest, given the recent antics of the Home Office, it's hardly surprising that they hit upon using this obvious loophole to help keep the numbers down. It's just another example of the low-hanging fruit they've been picking (but not with migrant labour, obviously) of late.
 
Last edited:
I've just listened to a podcast, recorded yesterday evening, and one of the contributors said a couple of things that I hadn't heard before. The first was that the lack of written statement from the government is because they went round civil servants trying to find one who would sign a statement saying that the memos were an accurate representation of what the government's motives were for prorogation, and basically everybody refused because they'd be committing perjury and would go to prison. The second is that all the planning for prorogation actually took place on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, on burner phones.

If his source is correct, then there can be no question that they knew that what they were doing was unlawful. It would also explain why their only defence has been to say that it's not a justiciable matter. I've not seen the reporting of this specific question myself, but it was said that a question put to the government's representation was that if someone gave the PM a massive bribe in order to prorogue parliament, would that still be non-justiciable, and he said yes.

A couple of the contributors also said that if the court case went Johnson's way, then there are plans for a second proroguement to help Johnson achieve his goals - although they were unspecific about exactly when.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom