UK Referendum

Archive of "Just now in Crete" plus Cretan Adventures.
bobscott
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Kokkino Horio

Re: UK Referendum

Postby bobscott » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:33 pm

A usually reliable source tells me that the Law Lords are due to give their ruling on the 15-year rule tomorrow morning at 9.30 UK time. Bob.
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!

bobscott
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Kokkino Horio

Re: UK Referendum

Postby bobscott » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:33 pm

The Law Lords, in their wisdom have rejected the argument presented by Schindler and the lawyers for the repeal of the 15- year rule for the referendum on In or Out of the EU.

"For immediate release

28 April 2016

Lawyers vow to fight on after High Court rejects Brexit challenge

Lawyers acting for two British citizens fighting a legal battle for the right to vote in the EU Referendum have confirmed they will seek leave to appeal direct to the Supreme Court against the judgment by two High Court judges rejecting their challenge.

The High Court hearing into the rights of up to 2 million Britons in Europe to vote in the EU referendum took place on Wednesday 20th April 2016. The case was taken by 94-year-old Harry Shindler, a Second World War veteran who lives in Italy, and lawyer and Belgian resident Jacquelyn MacLennan.

Lawyers for the two argued that under the EU Referendum Act 2015 they are being unlawfully denied the right to vote on the UK’s continued membership of the EU as the legislation excludes British people who have lived elsewhere in the European Union for more than 15 years, from voting in June.

They told the Court that if the vote in June is to leave the EU then all British citizens will lose their status as EU citizens. This means that those British citizens living outside the UK but in the EU will become “resident aliens” living and working abroad under sufferance rather than by right and no longer able to claim the protections of EU law .

The Court also heard arguments that the ’15 year rule’ acted as a penalty against British citizens for having exercised their free movement rights. The rule prevented them from participating in a democratic process, the result of which might bring to an end the very EU law rights on which they rely and base their working and private lives every day.

The nearest I can get is that the Law Lords sort of agree that the disenfranchised have a case to be considered - but they rejected it! Bob.

However Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mr. Justice Blake stated in today’s ruling that they accepted the Government’s claims that there were: “…significant practical difficulties about adopting especially for this referendum a new electoral register which includes non-resident British citizens whose last residence the United Kingdom was more than 15 years ago.” [Para 57]

They continued: “In our view, Parliament could legitimately take the view that electors who satisfy the test of closeness of connection set by the 15 year rule form an appropriate group to vote on the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.” [Para 58]

Following the judgment Richard Stein, the lawyer from Leigh Day representing the claimants, said: “We are obviously disappointed that the High Court has denied us the opportunity to challenge the decision by the Government to exclude British citizens from the EU referendum.

“We now intend to take the legal battle to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the country, so that all British citizens living elsewhere in the EU can be part of the democratic process to vote in this referendum which will have a very real impact on their lives.

“We believe that there is precedent for fast track legislation being put through Parliament in a matter of days in response to court judgment, so there would be no need for the referendum to be delayed if the Supreme Court rules in our favour.

“Since this is a vote in a referendum rather than in an election there is no need to link the votes of Britons in Europe to any particular constituency in the UK. Possession of a British passport should be enough.”

In response to the judgment, Jacquelyn MacLennan said: “The Government made a manifesto commitment to enfranchise all British citizens, no matter how long they have been abroad saying that they thought that “choosing 15 years, as opposed to 14 or 16 years, is inherently like sticking a dart in a dartboard” and that “if British citizens maintain British citizenship that brings with it rights, obligations and a connection with this country, and that that should endure.”. We just want the Government to keep its promises.”

Does anyone have any idea what this paragraph means (above) "They continued: “In our view, Parliament could legitimately take the view that electors who satisfy the test of closeness of connection set by the 15 year rule form an appropriate group to vote on the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.” [Para 58]"
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!

Kilkis
Posts: 11610
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Kilkis » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:30 pm

bobscott wrote:...Does anyone have any idea what this paragraph means (above) "They continued: “In our view, Parliament could legitimately take the view that electors who satisfy the test of closeness of connection set by the 15 year rule form an appropriate group to vote on the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.” [Para 58]"


Roughly translated, "They couldn't give a toss what the others think"? I think that if they split UK citizens into 10 year age bands and took 10 % of the people in each band, that would "form an appropriate group to determine the outcome of a general election". Why bother wasting money letting everybody have a vote? Or perhaps exclude all those with red hair from voting? Clearly the government have no interest in the concept of Universal Suffrage?

Warwick

Istronian
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:38 am
Location: I live in Hope!

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Istronian » Tue May 03, 2016 10:45 am

Have a listen to Daniel Hannan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6FZ-V8w_8

Ian

Mixos
Posts: 489
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:26 am
Location: North East Crete or S.W.England

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Mixos » Tue May 03, 2016 12:17 pm

Powerful stuff, Istronian. How about posting an equally powerful counter-argument from one of the "Remain" speakers? Assuming there is one, of course.

Istronian
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:38 am
Location: I live in Hope!

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Istronian » Tue May 03, 2016 1:00 pm

Mixos wrote:Powerful stuff, Istronian. How about posting an equally powerful counter-argument from one of the "Remain" speakers? Assuming there is one, of course.


Your wish is my command!

The full debate, with 3 speakers from each side is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTJGBBjkGo

Ian

Mixos
Posts: 489
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:26 am
Location: North East Crete or S.W.England

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Mixos » Tue May 03, 2016 3:27 pm

Thank you for posting this, Ian. I watched it all from start to finish and it seems pretty clear to me that the "Remain" camp have a huge problem, and that is quite simply a lack of passion. If the likes of Nick Clegg, Chuka Umunna and Liz Kendal are the best they can put up against Nigel Farage, Kate Hoey and Daniel Hannan, then they have already lost. Based on this debate The Brexiteers come across as the can-do optimists, while the Remainers peddle the status quo without any real fire in their bellies. Surely there is a more passionate case to be made for staying in the EU? Anyone?

bobscott
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Kokkino Horio

Re: UK Referendum

Postby bobscott » Tue May 03, 2016 4:30 pm

Latest information on the challenge to the 15-year rule:


British citizens living in EU granted leave to appeal in Brexit challenge

The High Court has given permission for lawyers acting for two British citizens, fighting a legal battle for the right to vote in the EU Referendum, to take their case to the Court of Appeal. Lawyers are seeking an expedited hearing at the Court of Appeal to hear the challenge to the High Court ruling within the next few weeks.


Bob.
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!

SatCure
Posts: 1963
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Apokoronas

Re: UK Referendum

Postby SatCure » Tue May 03, 2016 7:16 pm

I'm in the "Remain" camp and not for any political or financial reason. The fact is that most of Europe wants Britain IN. The American government wants Britain IN. The only countries that want Britain OUT are probably Russia and maybe China.

The reason that I'm for staying IN is simply that Britain's leaving would set a precedent that would clear the way for a complete break-up of Europe. If Britain were seen to benefit by leaving then countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal might also leave.

There are powerful forces who would ensure that Britain does not benefit by leaving. You've seen what happened to Greece, which was on the brink of leaving (the people effectively voted for it). Well Britain will be made to suffer if it leaves.

peebee
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:07 am
Location: Kalyves

Re: UK Referendum

Postby peebee » Wed May 04, 2016 6:47 am

The reason why most of Europe wants the UK in, is because they are the 2nd highest net contributor to the club. Poland, Romania and the Czech republic, get around 3 times back what they pay in.
I can't quite work out what Obama's agenda is, but just the fact that he has been one of the worst US Presidents in living memory, to me, makes his opinion somewhat worthless. Also, I consider him to be just another `snake oil salesman' from the same mould as a certain Mr T Blair.
I am sure that if the public vote out on the 23rd, there will be a huge reform of the rules governing the UK's membership on offer, which will give `call me Dave' the opportunity to arrange another referendum so people can make the `right' decision.

Clio
Posts: 1632
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:54 pm

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Clio » Wed May 04, 2016 8:01 am


bobscott
Posts: 2654
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Kokkino Horio

Re: UK Referendum

Postby bobscott » Wed May 04, 2016 7:34 pm

The Court of Appeal hearing regarding the 15-day rule is scheduled for 9th May 2016. The link below gives a fuller picture. Bob.
https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2016/April-2016/Lawyers-vow-to-fight-on-after-High-Court-rejects-B
Yesterday today was tomorrow. Don't dilly dally!

YoMo2
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:07 am
Location: Milatos, Lasithi

Re: UK Referendum

Postby YoMo2 » Thu May 05, 2016 8:04 am

I imagine the Out campaign will have a field day with this.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/02/today-marks-end-ttip-greenpeace-leak-exposes-corporate-takeover

The TTIP agreement has been threatening to boil over for months, but the EU politicians have been desperately struggling to keep the lid on it so we don't suss what is going on. Looks like the lid just blew off.

Andrew

evansmr1
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Pirgos, Kalo Horio,

Re: UK Referendum

Postby evansmr1 » Thu May 05, 2016 9:16 am

To my simple mind the sooner the EU collapses the better, The initial idea was good. Trading partners. But now it is too political, run but an un-elected mob who's only aim is to line their own pockets, and by god do they. So much corruption not even had the EU Accounts has been passed by the Auditors for so many years.

Me, I vote to exit the EU. I hope that the majority will do so, although I cannot see Immigrants voting that way. Maybe if the UK OUT vote is successful we will see the rest of the member states also vote to exit.

Bring on the revolution !
Mike
=============
Sic parvis magnaike

Kilkis
Posts: 11610
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: UK Referendum

Postby Kilkis » Thu May 05, 2016 5:43 pm

evansmr1 wrote:...So much corruption not even had the EU Accounts has been passed by the Auditors for so many years...


Yet another much repeated but totally inaccurate statement. In reality the European Court of Auditors (ECA), an EU body set up to examine the accounts of the Union, signed off on the 2014 accounts as reliable—something it's done for every set of figures since 2007. But it did find that payments made were materially affected by error. Effectively they found that the income side of the accounts were totally accurate but there were material errors affecting 4 % of the expenditure side. That doesn't mean that the 4 % was wrong or corrupt, although some of it may have been, but it deviated from the rules in some way. See Full Fact Article for further information.

Warwick


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests