rockingrobin

25 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Perhaps you'd be better trying to find sections of the constitution that actually state staging a coup is illegal!

 

Have any coup leaders been prosecuted in Thailand since 1932?

 

But this isn't about coups and the Junta. It's about trying to bring one former, seemingly very corrupt, PM to justice.

Not the constitution , but Criminal Code section 113 Overthrow Government

Whoever, commits an act of violence or threatens to commit an act of violence in order to:

1. Overthrow or change the Constitution;
2. Overthrow the legislative power, the executive power or the judicial power of the Constitution, or nullify such power; or
3. Separate the Kingdom or seize the power of administration in any part of the Kingdom, is said to commit insurrection, and shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Article 31, (which you part quote), is applying to refugees , not asylum seekers

17 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Asylum seekers are refugees, check the conventions definition.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/asylum-seeker/

Art 31 of the convention only concerns the non penalty of unlawful residence, but comes with 2 caveats , the refugee has to have come directly , and show good reason for their presence.

 Paragraph 2 of  Art 31 concerns places no restictions regarding movement for the refugee , but does not allow the country to facillitate the unlawfull migration of the refugee. It states that they should allow the refugee sufficient time and assistance to obtain admittance in another country if necessary.

31 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I am aware of the aggrement, but this is in regard to the country not the applicant, they must process them, they cannot simply pass the buck.  But the Convention on Refugees cannot be superceded, and it gives the refugee the right to choose where to apply.

 

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country. 

 

 

Article 31, (which you part quote), is applying to refugees , not asylum seekers

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No it isn't, it is first country to have registered them, generally who has fingerprinted them, if they refuse to be registered they can continue, there are camps full of them in Calais trying to get into the UK, when they do reach the UK and register there they do not get sent back to France or wherever they entered because they started their application in the UK.  A lot of people seem to think this agreement was aimed at the asylum seekers when it was actually aimed at the countries, some of which were pushing refugees into neighboring countries to avoid processing them, the refugees remain free to travel unhindered according to the Convention on Refugees.

See Articles 5 and 6

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A41997A0819(01)

Article 12

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:en:PDF

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's what the Dublin Agreement on refugees entering the EU says is it?

 

That they can move freely from EU country to EU country and chose which one they prefer to apply for asylum in?

 

 

Yes and No , to being able to move through different EU countries.

It is all dependent upon the immigration status of the asylum applicant when they lodge the application seeking asylum. If they have a visa then it is the country which granted visa or residence that is liable for hearing the application.

If the asylum seeker as entered irregularly , then it is the first country entered

29 minutes ago, amvet said:

Everyone got the idea about disrespect.  The President of the USA got the idea.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme court justice got the idea.  The NFL sponsors who have pulled their advertising got the idea.  Everybody gets the idea.  That's the idea.  The act is disrespectful and the intention is disrespectful and it is legal and protected by the American Bill of Rights. The disrespect is meant to point out the disrespect black lives are treated with by the police.  Everybody gets it it seems except on Thai Visa.

And no condemnation of the fans Booing during the National Anthem, how more disrespecting can you get

58 minutes ago, amvet said:

You are saying an act cannot be legal and disrespectful and that is not correct.  Many things are disrespectful and also legal.  Do you want me to list a few hundred?  It was disrespectful for me to dress up like a clown for my fathers funeral but not illegal.  

No I did not 

It is not the act of protest that is disrespectful , but the meanining/ intention communicated

28 minutes ago, amvet said:

No it's not.  If I draw a cartoon of Mohammad to teach religion to a child in the Middle East I'm still going to get beheaded.  If I violate a religious totem I'll still get killed even though my intention might have been pure.  Ignorance of the law or culture is rarely a defense.  I'm an atheist so I think anything having to do with religion is silly but having said that I can understand it would be disrespectful to use holy books as toilet tissue or stand in a church when everyone else sat. 

This misses the point. The american values gives a right to protest , it is all about the message that determines whether it is disrespectful or not.

The US flag and anthem is a symbol of these values, and since there is no law prohibiting the use of the flag as a means of protest , then the act itself cannot be regarded as disrespectful.

If one takes the view that the flag is so sacred and beyond criticism, then that is not being patriotic but idolization

50 minutes ago, amvet said:

I think you are trying to say America has racist values.  Would a racist society have elected a black President?  No, of course not.  America has bad leaders because the media encourages division as it encourages this kneeling, sitting and black power salute protest.  America should look to the countries with equivalent African populations that don't have high crime rates and racial tensions and emulate what they are doing to solve problems. 

I am not saying America has racist values.

I am saying it is disrespecting american values , and its symbols e.g the flag ,to engage In acts that do not uphold the values.

2 hours ago, amvet said:

You are confusing wrong with disrespectful.  Sitting or kneeling or showing a fist at the National Anthem is disrespectful.  That is the point of the protest.  Stop and searching black men with no reason is also disrespectful and wrong.  That is the point of the protest.  The establishment  is disrespecting black people and black people are disrespecting the establishment as a protest.  You are confusing my words and thoughts.  Disrespect is not necessarily bad nor do I necessarily feel it is bad or wrong. 

 

How have you disrespected me?  1.  Called me foolish.  2.  Told me to go back to school. 3.  Accused me of family problems.  Did it make you feel better?  I imagine the NFL players feel better after showing out at the establishment (although it pays them millions a game/year)

 

I said a number of times I don't have an issue with it but the point of it is disrespect and that might upset some people at a sporting contest and I can understand that too.

 

 

In your example it is not the black people being disrespected by the establishment, it is american values . As the US flag and anthem are symbols of american values , the establishment are being.disrepective to these 

59 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

Not wishing to be contrary but I have waited over 5 years for an answer to my question about EXACTLY WHERE does it state that it i "illegal" not to have your passport with you at all times. The British embassy could not provide me with the legal reference point not could HMPO.

 

 

I will still be waiting in 5 years time because it is not illegal. It is a common practice and you are required to produce your passport if called upon to do so by a responsible officer.

 

 

The more relevant point about trying to apply in the UK, when living in Thailand, is that they may consider it strange that your passport bears no exit stamp and clearly evidences that you are still in Thailand.

With regards to having passport on your person, a fairly recent court case, which I will not go into, the judges affirmed that bieng unable to present a passport is sufficient grounds for the police to suspect illegal immigration , and immediately arrest at sight without an arrest warrant

21 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Why don't you stop trolling and do a bit of basic research on this issue and it's relevance to the UK? Hint: it's in the thread op. You know? This thread in which you keep posting your daft responses? And if you still need help, go and mither someone else.

There is currently another case going through the WTO dispute process involving Bombardier receiving government subsidies, Brazil v Canada ( DS522). The EU are involved in the proposed consultation as a third party along with China, Japan, US , Russian federation and Singapore.

As the Canada - US dispute as not reached the WTO dispute resolution, then it ultimately remains with the US and Canada to reach an agreement

36 minutes ago, smedly said:

well when you are making up a fictional story the great thing is that you can edit it as many times as you like because there is nothing holding you to any particular provable version of events, the only thing that we know about that can be verified beyond doubt is that

 

David and Hannah were both found murdered on the beach of Koh Tao

They were both in AC bar before they were murdered

There was possibly an altercation involving Hannah in AC bar the night she was murdered

 

after that the dots can be joined however the author likes

 

All of the rest is fictional (all of it) unless you have solid presentable provable verifiable evidence that says otherwise and that means evidence that can be physically produced  and independently verified - otherwise it really is all just fiction and can be made up what ever way the authors want, unfortunately or actually "fortunately" fiction has no place in a court of law anywhere that I am aware of but maybe Thailand is the exception  

From court testimony and the NCA revelations we can reasonable conclude an altercation did occur

In court the RTP testified that they did not investigate the rumour of altercation, therefore they cannot have requested information from the NCA about the altercation. 

We know the NCA passed information to the RTP about an alleged altercation, taking into account the RTP court testimony that they did not investigate, then this information can only have been iniated by the NCA , and we are left with the conclusion the NCA information must have come from somebody with knowledge of the altercation.

58 minutes ago, EyeOfRa said:

Countless questions, mysteries and conundrums plague the "evidence" used in this case.

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30324491

 

One especially puzzling and troubling question is this:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35170419

 

Of course, this purported DNA no longer exists so these claims are not verifiable.

 

Extraordinary.

 

 

 

 

On the 17th September  , the police announced that they was unable to match the dna Semen samples to the cigarette but samples,and in order to do so fresh samples from persons involved would be required. 

Report was in the BP at 23:00

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Apologies, but I've lost track (more important, personal things on my mind).

 

Is May talking about a 2 year transitional period from '19 to '21?

The UK to leave ,2019  Two year transition from ,2019 the existing arrangements remain     ,which might be shorter or longer depending upon individual sectors

28 minutes ago, nontabury said:

It reminds me of previous referendums in the Irish Republic,France and Holland.

And we fool ourselves into thinking we live in a democracy.

I was under the impression leavers was content to let the politicians determine the final journey   providing the UK left the EU, which will occur in ,2019

10 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Dictators do not panic. Be they Adolf Hitler or Kim Jong-in. 

What this set back,and yes it is a set back will result in,is that now many Brits will start to have a burning hatred of the E.U and all it stands for. I just hope this will not transfer to the same feelings regarding the people of mainland Europe.

If I understand correctly  the UK politicians betray the UK public and somehow it is the fault of the EU

On 9/23/2017 at 10:37 AM, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You said ..... "If he establishes himself in the EU exercising his treaty rights, then he could bypass the minimum income threshold" ..... which doesn't make any sense; as I say he is already established in the EU as a British citizen. He has freedom of movement within all 28 member states, but this does not allow him to somehow bypass the minimum income threshold 

An understanding of the EU FoM immigration rules and requirements is necessary to comprehend , establish himself exercising his treaty rights

The Surinder Singh route is now firmly established

https://www.gov.uk/family-permit/surinder-singh

On returning to the UK the British National does not have to be employed , but looking for work

' If they’ve been back in the UK for more than 3 months, they must also be working, looking for work, self-employed, self-sufficient or studying in the UK. '

47 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

She's had her arm twisted behind the scenes, for sure. The announcememt that we won't be using security co-operation as a bargaining tool (our strongest hand: remember the panic shown by the leading EU goons when she dropped the hint about this a few months ago?) gave the game away. She's been given the 'three line whip' by people higher up the heirarchy to tow the EU line.

The Ultra hard Brexiteers should be encouraged by the Florence speech, it is laying the foundation for the UK to walk away from the table .

What did T.May actually commit to with regard to the phase 1 talks

Nothing on Northern Ireland, the speech was very sparse almost non existent on the Irish issue

EU expats and UK expats, we want to guarantee their rights, Its the same rheteric with no meat on the bones

The framework for the financial comittments via REL wasnt even mentioned

Talk of transitional arrangements at this stage is just deflection

17 hours ago, JLCrab said:

To the above: No -- insufficient grounds for conviction and 'innocent' are quite distinct legal concepts.

This seems contradictory from a legal perspective

If one accepts the doctrine the accused is innocent until proven guilty, then it follows if a not guity verdict is given then the prosecution have not proved otherwise.

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

Under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement the UK must give 12 months notice to terminate the membership, so if the UK is to leave the EU and the EEA on 29th March 2019 then she must give the EEA notice by 29th March 2018.

TM wants to maintain that she does not need to give notice as that would mean a vote in parliament. The people behind the legal challenge are not going to let her get away with it so a legal ruling is almost inevitable.

I suspect she sees a transition period as a bit of a 'get out of jail' card as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period. She may be more confident of winning a vote in parliament 2 years down the line or possibly see it as someone else's problem.

19 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

right,

but the leaving EU=leaving EEA fraternity would probably argue that the notice was already given ultimo March this year

 

legal ruling in the UK on an issue which is not really a UK legal problem?

or do you mean a legal ruling by some EU/EEA body?

 

"as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period"

???

you will need the agreement of the EEA membership for that

Will there be a transition period?

 

 

The issue of leaving EU automatically equates to leaving the EEA is not a given. Each signatory to the EEA agreement is listed seperately . The articles are ambigous when it comes to distinguishing between the EU and EU member states.

Another point of ambiguity is Art 127 only gives 12 months notice, therefore March 2018 will be the UKs EEA leaving date if Art 50 notification is regarded as art 127 notification

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement the UK must give 12 months notice to terminate the membership, so if the UK is to leave the EU and the EEA on 29th March 2019 then she must give the EEA notice by 29th March 2018.

TM wants to maintain that she does not need to give notice as that would mean a vote in parliament. The people behind the legal challenge are not going to let her get away with it so a legal ruling is almost inevitable.

I suspect she sees a transition period as a bit of a 'get out of jail' card as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period. She may be more confident of winning a vote in parliament 2 years down the line or possibly see it as someone else's problem.

Articles 127 and 126 of the EEA treaty appear contradictory and can support either argument , one of the issues that may be raised during a transition period is will the EFTA members dispute whether the UK is still  a member of the EEA

12 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Yes, I am aware of what you say in your 1st paragraph. Below, rockingbird is also touching upon this.

Not sure I agree that "can only be resolved by a legal ruling", when UK exits EU I cannot really see

any protests if she by that also leaves the EEA at the same time (at least not from parties legally concerned - ie the EEA membership).

 

Now, way up in this thread there are links to a handfull of legal elaborations/discussions on this issue.

Some lightfooted and some rather thorough. The more thorough ones seems to conclude that leaving

EU means leaving EEA. But, by all means, views are plentiful.

 

Legal ruling by ECJ?

Right now I cannot remember the composition of ECJ and not the upper

echelons of the EEA treaty. But a conclusive ruling on this must surely involve some EFTA judges.

 

May is heading for a busy/hard autumn, (or should I say fall?).

 

 

 

Does this not have implications for trade during the transition period. March 2019 the UK becomes a third country, the transition will be an agreement with the EU, on what basis will the UK be trading with the likes of Norway in regard to the single market.

At present I can only see 1 conclusion and that is we are not leaving EEA

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

People look somewhat differently upon this issue.

 

In my view leaving the EU means leaving the EEA. UK's only legal qualification for being party

to the EEA comes through her EU membership. Stepping out of the EU and the qualification vanishes.

 

Sure may be ruled upon. But it is certainly not for UK to make a decisive ruling on this.

UK may rule whether they like to leave or like to stay in EEA. But UK courts are NOT the guardian of EEA.

 

For UK to be in EEA after Brexit the by the book way would be along

the lines of;

 

a) Terminate EU membership

Apply for EFTA membership

(if and when EFTA membership is granted)

c) Apply for becoming party to EEA

 

The last bit, c), if accepted by exisiting parties to EEA will involve a treaty modification that needs ratification

by ALL EU memberstates as well as all EFTA memberstates party to EEA.

In other words; time consuming.

 

Now,

there are a whole host of shortcuts and presumptive actions

that can be taken/applied (deviations from the book) provided

that the concerned parties agree,

treaty law is in practice pretty soft and real obstacles are few

and far between

AS LONG AS ALL PARTIES AGREE

Have a nice saturday morning!

I finished my sudoku in record time this morning.

The question is does leaving the EU automatically mean leaving the EEA. Whilst the requirement to become a party to the EEA requires EU membership it does not automatically follow the reverse is true.

If we apply the principle of no one party can bind a third party to an agreement that they have not been involved with, and take the position leaving the EU equates to also automatic ending of UK participation in the EEA, we are left with unaswered questions.

The Art 50 process involves the EU member states and not the non EU EEA members, any agreement reached under Art 50 cannot bind the EEA members who are not in the EU , unless they are invited to participate in the negotations

The transition arrangements from the florence speech raises other questions.

 The UK is going to leave March 2019, at which point it is explained that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU , however the existing arrangements will remain for a period , possibly 2 years ,including FOM but no clarity on the EEA and how the FOM of the non EU members of the EEA is going to be implemented.

Of course the UK can unilaterally give this , but it cannot force the members of the EEA  who are not in the EU to do the same, as there will be no agreement with them.

21 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court, last winter, concluded that the Parliament should have

their say re leaving after the "deals" are agreed between the negotiating parties.

If so, the above proposed amendment just steers the way Parliament should go about having their say.

 

I do recall vaguely that the government did make statements to that effect during its submisions , but the court made no ruling on Parliament having a say on leaving after the agreement is finalised. 

The very fact that the EU withdrawal bill is so wide in scope and power would suggest the opposite