.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
On 1/5/2017 at 8:49 AM, rockingrobin said:
The issue around UK frozen pensions is not the fault of the EU , but squarely lies with the UK government and parliament.Being a member of the EU means pensions are uprated in all member states which otherwise would not occur, as the UK dont have seperate agreements for all member states.
As for EU courts could you be more specific , which court and case id
22 hours ago, nontabury said:Correct, Initially it was not the fault of the EU, yet this issue was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, where the judges that I mentioned earlier, backed up this discrimination against British Pensioners. The government at that time, was if my memory is correct Tony Blairs Labour Party, though to be fair no government before or since has ever tried to right this wrong.
Where do you get the idea that all EU pensioners are treated equally?
I think the case you are referring to is A Carson and others v UK. This started in the UK High Court and proceeded to Appeal and eventually the House of Lords. After exhausting the UK options it was then taken to ECHR and finally the Grand Chamber, at each stage the claimant lost,
To claim discrimination would require that cases that were like, are not treated alike, in the case of Carson v UK it was necessary to show that British pensioners residing in SA is the same as British pensioners living in the UK. Carson relied upon the payment of NI alone as justification.This failed due to NI is not exclusively for the state pension, but part of the UKs tax system and is used to provide other benefits, unlike a private pension.If the payment of NI was sufficient then it would logically follow the claimant was entitled to other benefits.
The case against also highlighted that the purpose of uprating was too reflect the situation in the UK, a pensioner in the UK is supporting the UK economy whilst the expat pensioner is supporting the host country economy.
The ECHR is not the EU.
Even if the ECHR had found in the claimants favour it does not automatically lead to pension unfreezing. The UK could have simply declared a notice of incompatibility, or parliament change the system to resolve the discrimination such as making the state pension non contributory.
-
29 minutes ago, nontabury said:
Let's hope so, for sure being members of the corrupt EU has not led to equality.
I do remember when this issue was taken up by the European court, strangely the majority of the judges voted against the British pensioners, even though some of those judges represented countries where there is no discrimination as to where their citizens retire to.
The issue around UK frozen pensions is not the fault of the EU , but squarely lies with the UK government and parliament.Being a member of the EU means pensions are uprated in all member states which otherwise would not occur, as the UK dont have seperate agreements for all member states.
As for EU courts could you be more specific , which court and case id
-
1 hour ago, CharlieK said:
It's not over till it's over! So it could take ten years to negotiate withdrawal from the EU! ye right. The problem with that suggestion is, it shows just how useless the EU really is. It points to a hard brexit, because it would not be in the EU's or UK's interest for it to take that long.
In short more fear before the event.
May's mistake was not enacting article 50 six months ago.
The up to 10 years was to reach a trade deal, and is the consensus of the other 27 EU members. The ambassador was relaying other EU members views.
-
1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:
A last desperate plea from the elite sprouting how difficult and how long it will take, so lets stay in. What a load of crap. Still those who can't accept the referendums result. Give the job to Farage then you would see how easy it is. It is sad to see the remainers desperate attempt to make us all change our mind. Also with the constant rubbish pushed by the Bias BBC, hoping that people will say, lets have another vote like the Irish (so we can cheat and get the result we want). The media can't even find any credible evidence that the end of the world happened or will happen as predicted by the remain campaigners before the referendum. The whole remain strategy is becoming a sorry farce.
There was an amendment proposed to prevent a second referendum, this was not adopted
-
8 minutes ago, jpinx said:
The electorate was misled by the PM who contradicted the wishes of Parliament who had voted down the amendment. Where is the court action for that?
Legally the referendum was advisory , an opportunity for the public to voice an opinion and influence government policy. It may be the government stance the result would form a decision in regard to its policy on the EU.
Government policy is just that , it does not make it law without further action. To take an example , the Conservative manifesto pledged an in/out referendum, this was Conservative policy, however it required safe passage through parliament .If parliament had voted against the bill then no referendum could take place.
As for the PM making statements, he may have believed that the use RP is correct and no Act of Parliament is required.
-
1 hour ago, Srikcir said:
Such as a vote by the Parliament to approve Article 50 action? That would smack of respect for Parliament.
42 minutes ago, jpinx said:If that is the decision of the supreme court, then definitely !!!! But where is the action for misleading the electorate about acting on the referendum result?
Apologies , but I dont follow the reasoning on misleading the electorate.
Parliament is sovereign and thus if the government are required to put forward a bill, and do , then have they not acted upon the result.
-
15 hours ago, Alan Deer said:
Brexit needs to be stopped...for the good of the nation and the world.....and this is how it should, nay will start
"It would be good if the majority of members of parliament could recall and act upon Edmund Burke’s 1774 address to the electors of Bristol: they should summon up the courage to act as representatives, not delegates of constituencies " W. Keegan.
15 hours ago, billd766 said:Over 17 MILLION people in the UK disagreed with you yet you still believe that your opinions are better than theirs and far more important too.
Bad news for you. They are not.
The referendum result equates to 5.2 out 10 who voted chose leave.
3,7 out of 10 of eligible voters chose leave
I think Whiskas once claimed 8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas ,
-
54 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Interesting, no MP's contradicted him, only his father-in-law? That would not carry any weight with anyone.
Basically it's safe to say that the pm's promise of fulfillment of the referendum result was unchallenged by any elected MP, so why would any member of the public query it? Maybe a new court action should be brought forward?
There was no requirement for MPs to contradict him , as they had been informed by minister
D. Lidington on 16th June 2015
' Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year '
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150616/debtext/150616-0002.htm
-
12 hours ago, jpinx said:
Did anyone in Westminster contradict Cameron's statement?
Conservative peer Lord Astor
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, jpinx said:
Did the PM make his famous promise to act on the result of the referendum before or after that amendment was rejected?
I understand his promise was indeed after. The real question is was D.Cameron in a position to make that promise, was it within his gift to give.
The Con manifesto promised a referendum but required an Act of Parliament to bring it to fruition
-
2 hours ago, jpinx said:
You're still missing the point made. The referendum is based on a manifesto promise prior to the last GE. It also has the promise of the PM to be enacted. That's how democracy works - for everyone. AFAIK there has never been a referendum that has been "legally" binding, but all have been acted on
Briefing paper 7212
' This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.'
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7212
An amendment to make the referendum legally binding was defeated
The Conservative manifesto . apart from the in/out referendum. also included protecting and expanding the single market, , amending CAP . New rules for the financial industry and EU money for jobs and growth
The AV referendum was legally binding.
-
7 hours ago, CharlieK said:
then why are the courts even hearing the case? If parliament was sovereign then the courts could not even hear the case. your comment is
To determine if the government can use the royal prerogative or an act of parliament is required.
-
17 hours ago, CharlieK said:
Surely that is a contradiction. If the Government are forced to introduce a bill into Parliament to trigger article 50 and Parliament and the Lords reject the triggering of said article then brexit is over. It has everything to do with stopping brexit. That was the whole point of bringing the case to court.
The courts cant overturn something that has no legal status
-
11 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:
Which is rather stupid to be quite honest. The referendum law was passed by the house and it basically deferred the decision to stay or go to a popular vote and the people said no.... apparently the English don't really understand what referendums are.... I personally think that once the deal has been negotiated that a better method would be to hold a second referendum on the two options.... but then that was not what was passed at the time.
During the passage of the referendum act through parliament, there was an amendment to make the result legally binding. This amendment was defeated by the government
-
2 hours ago, notmyself said:
True to a point...so we put in on the back burner shall we say. What happens in (now) 4.5 years?
When we do leave and we will, much of EU law will be kept but things such as rules against a badly shaped cucumber will be discarded.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
I am full on for getting rid of this because it costs the UK 10's of millions every year. So you get these [expletive] dullards who say that then the UK will have no human rights. What about the UDHR to whom we are signatories to?
I think being part of a trading group is a dam n good thing but not in its present form. We will go away and do out own thing and when you sort your sh1t out we will be willing to re-join.
The ECHR is the Council of Europe and not part of the EU, and thus will remain on brexit
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:
Potential new legal challenge in Irish High Court.
However what was curious is the claim notification as already been given. The UK government sees the referendum as the decision and following T May conference speech she told D Tusk in October the UK is leaving the UK.
Is there a requirement for the intention to withdraw to be in written form
1 hour ago, Khun Han said:I'm sure somebody, somewhere, can find something that can somehow be interpreted to that effect. But they're not trying so stop brexit. Oh no. They're only interested in seeing due legal process being followed.
June 26th Eu confirms written notification not required , a statement would be sufficient.
' The European council has confirmed that notification does not have to be in writing, but could be in the form of a formal statement to the summit – so Cameron had better be careful about what exactly he says. '
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/who-will-dare-pull-trigger-article-50-eu
Oct 20th
On arrival, Mrs May said: "The UK is leaving the EU, but we will continue to play a full role until we leave and we will be a strong and dependable partner after we have left."
If the government is correct about the royal prerogative then the clock might be ticking
-
Potential new legal challenge in Irish High Court.
However what was curious is the claim notification as already been given. The UK government sees the referendum as the decision and following T May conference speech she told D Tusk in October the UK is leaving the UK.
Is there a requirement for the intention to withdraw to be in written form
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
I'll take your word for it (as the first page of google has nothing but 'far-right Hofer defeated')!
Presumably the incumbent political party was also defeated, but for some reason this is being ignored.
I dont understand your reference 'Presumably the incumbent political party was also defeated, but for some reason this is being ignored.'
If you understood the process and followed the election it becomes self explanatory
The president can only serve 2 terms
-
36 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
I agree entirely that this election defeated the far right-wing party (and, of course the current President). It certainly took me by suprise - which only proves how stereotypes can become ingrained if we don't know any of the people from that country.
It will be interesting to see whether the Green Party now put into force their 'green' policies.
The incumbent wasnt eligible to stand
-
2 hours ago, SheungWan said:
Except when it is the High Court decision going against you, then its your dummy and your pram.
The High Court decision was neither for or against Brexit , it concerned who has the decision to invoke Art 50. While it may be politically expedient to claim the HC is frustating the will of the people, this argument fails because it is just wrong.
The referendum result has no legal status and thus cannot be overturned by lawyers or Courts.
In the UK parliament is responsible for the making of laws, when passing the referendum act parliament could have made it binding however it did not do so.
-
3 hours ago, Grouse said:
You're sounding ever so slightly shrill this morning, jpinx!
Richmond shook you up a little?
I wonder what would have happened if Cameron had lit the blue touch paper? Would it subsequently have been declared void?
Anyway, the good thing is that a proper debate is certainly taking place now.
One thing I don't understand; if the Brexiteers are so sure of their majority, why are they so against another vote? It occurs that it would be sensible to verify the situation after people have had a real opportunity for reflection. It is, after all, probably the biggest decision for a generation ?
(I can hear the screams of protest from here! We don't want another vote, we got lucky and certainly don't want to chance our hand ?)
If Cameron had invoked Art 50 it still would have gone to the judiciary, with the risk of UK being in breach of its international obligations and law
-
14 minutes ago, billd766 said:
Why did they vote Lib/Dem?
Perhaps because there was no Tory or UKIP candidate for them to vote for. For all the boastful and hopeful Labour supporters out there, the Labour candidate lost his deposit as he did not get enough votes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38184119
Full result:
Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrats) - 20,510
Zac Goldsmith (Independent) - 18,638
Christian Wolmar (Labour Party) - 1,515
Howling Laud Hope (The Official Monster Raving Loony Party) - 184
Fiona Natasha Syms, (Independent) - 173
Dominic Francis Stockford, (Christian Peoples Alliance) - 164
Maharaja Jammu and Kashmir (One Love Party) - 67
David Powell - 32
Turnout = 53.6%
Ms Olney was elected with a majority of 1,872 votes, compared with a Conservative Party majority of 23,015 at the 2015 general election.
Of course there was a Conservative and UKIP candidate
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37786753
Zac Goldsmith
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, rockingrobin said:
An MP with a mandate to oppose Brexit
9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:In a constituency that (strongly) voted remain in the referendum....
Not sure why its a "shock" that a strongly remain constituency voted for a remain candidate?
Is she the only MP that as been elected with a mandate on Brexit , either for or opposed
-
An MP with a mandate to oppose Brexit
Basically it's safe to say that the pm's promise of fulfillment of the referendum result was unchallenged by any elected MP, so why would any member of the public query it? Maybe a new court action should be brought forward?
UK pensions
in Home Country Forum
Posted
Under UK law it is social welfare, social security contributions and benefits act 1992
The reciprocal arrangements allow the government to improve social security benefits for the UK expat on terms that the UK finds favourable,