ChatterBank19 mins ago
European Court Of Justice
9 Answers
Please will somebody explain this to me.
"It also officially ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK, but the ECJ would continue to be "the interpreter of EU rules" that the UK has agreed to stick to"
Thanks
"It also officially ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK, but the ECJ would continue to be "the interpreter of EU rules" that the UK has agreed to stick to"
Thanks
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by horseshoes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
here's the explanation:
https:/
"But, decisions by UK courts would involve "due regard paid to EU case law in areas where the UK continued to apply a common rulebook".
"Cases will still be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as the interpreter of EU rules, but "cannot resolve disputes between the two"
That is a valiant attempt by the BBC to clarify what is basically a monumental fudge. Lawyers on both sides must be rubbing their hands with glee!
https:/
"But, decisions by UK courts would involve "due regard paid to EU case law in areas where the UK continued to apply a common rulebook".
"Cases will still be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as the interpreter of EU rules, but "cannot resolve disputes between the two"
That is a valiant attempt by the BBC to clarify what is basically a monumental fudge. Lawyers on both sides must be rubbing their hands with glee!
Thanks Ed.......I put it in News because that's where it was :-)
Did it used to be the case that after a verdict, one could appeal to the High court and whatever they decreed would have to be accepted?
Then we had the ECJ to which an appeal could then be made.
So is this saying we're going back to how things were when our High Court had the last say, but only kidding, we'll still have to obey EJC?
It sounds bonkers to me.
Did it used to be the case that after a verdict, one could appeal to the High court and whatever they decreed would have to be accepted?
Then we had the ECJ to which an appeal could then be made.
So is this saying we're going back to how things were when our High Court had the last say, but only kidding, we'll still have to obey EJC?
It sounds bonkers to me.
it looks as though, in cases where the UK has decided to defer to EU rules, it's the ECJ which says what those rules are. But it can't tell the UK what to do, so I suppose all it can say is that the UK isn't observing the rules, therefore Westminister will have to sort it out with whoever is involved.
That's my interpretation of the BBC story, anyway.
That's my interpretation of the BBC story, anyway.
as usual with brexiteers
it is necessary for the seething masses to have a cup of tea or lemonade and the rabid feelings will pass
it is sensible if we are to keep some EU rules as agreed that someone is the interpreter - it makes NO sense to say - oh yes the EVJ interprets them for some countries and London the others.
duh - if it were french law- you wouldnt say the Cour de cassation in gay Paree must have no say in their interpretation
if you have agreed to stick to rules
then havent you agree not to change them ?
it might be me
and as for the beeb trying to fudge it
they are hacks - - - scribblers and have no idea how a legal system works ( a bit like AB inn that case)
In the Screaming Coroners case ( windrush - did it kill my dad?) - the beeb werent aware it was inquisitorial and not adversarial. There was no accused and defendant and the lawyers didnt have a right to cross examine even tho one insisted he had.
it is necessary for the seething masses to have a cup of tea or lemonade and the rabid feelings will pass
it is sensible if we are to keep some EU rules as agreed that someone is the interpreter - it makes NO sense to say - oh yes the EVJ interprets them for some countries and London the others.
duh - if it were french law- you wouldnt say the Cour de cassation in gay Paree must have no say in their interpretation
if you have agreed to stick to rules
then havent you agree not to change them ?
it might be me
and as for the beeb trying to fudge it
they are hacks - - - scribblers and have no idea how a legal system works ( a bit like AB inn that case)
In the Screaming Coroners case ( windrush - did it kill my dad?) - the beeb werent aware it was inquisitorial and not adversarial. There was no accused and defendant and the lawyers didnt have a right to cross examine even tho one insisted he had.
1 to 9 of 9
