5 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

No

The UK is a dualist state when it comes to law. International agreements do not automatically come into force on the domestic front. They remain in the international arena unless they are brought via act of parliament into the domestic sphere.

UK courts only have jurisdiction in the domestic sphere.

The 1972 ECA  brought EU community laws directly into UK domestic law and thus into UK courts jurisdiction..

It is for this reason UK courts could disapply UK law.

 

That's exactly what I said above, if the HoC passes an act to ratify the matters agreed with the EU in the Brexit withdrawal then UK courts could disapply UK law.

 

How is this different to what I said above?

 

There is a strong likelihood that the matters being agreed between the UK and the EU at the end of this year will need laws enacted in the UK.

4 hours ago, evadgib said:

The same Lord Pannick who represented Gina Miller in all things B-B-Brexit ????

 

I wonder who picked up the tab?

You surely does not miss an opportunity to shoot the messenger, don’t you. Saves you trying to understand the message.....

20 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

That's exactly what I said above, if the HoC passes an act to ratify the matters agreed with the EU in the Brexit withdrawal then UK courts could disapply UK law.

 

How is this different to what I said above?

 

There is a strong likelihood that the matters being agreed between the UK and the EU at the end of this year will need laws enacted in the UK.

I must be explaining this wrong

 

There is a provisioning in the ECA act which specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law.

There is no other legislation or treaty that is similar in scope.

If you look at the Human Rights Act the UK courts have the power 

declare UK law inconsistent with the HRA but they cannot disapply the contrevening law.

Edited March 9, 20206 yr by cleopatra2

How is British Brent Crude doing today btw? BP and Shell? Doesn't the UK oil sector support 450,000 people?

 

I understand the UK has the largest oil sector in Europe, after Norway?

 

Terrible day for the UK economy today.

26 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

There is a provisioning in the ECA act which specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law.

There is no other legislation or treaty that is similar in scope.

If you look at the Human Rights Act the UK courts can declare UK law inconsistent with the act but they cannot disapply the law.

No, there is not. You fundamentally misunderstand how primacy of Eu law was developed.

 

The ECA (no second "act" required) merely provides for the incorporation  into UK law of the whole of European Community law including its Treaties, Regulations and Directives, together with judgments of the European Court of Justice. So this is a general provision of incorporation of EU law.

 

There is no 'specific provision' that 'specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law'.

 

If there had been the House of Lords would not have requested a ruling from the ECJ. It would have just interpreted its own Act of Parliament and be done with it, if there had been a clear provision to disapply UK law in favour of EU law.

 

Nor, in fact was there any formal basis in any of the EU treaties for the primacy of EU law. No "specific provision that allows that EU law be given primacy'. This doctrine was developed by the ECJ in case law. Just like the UK established, in case law, the primacy of EU law over UK law.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 20206 yr by Logosone

51 minutes ago, damascase said:

You surely does not miss an opportunity to shoot the messenger, don’t you. Saves you trying to understand the message.....

Wot are you on about? He's safe until 12th August! (????)

 

Pannick on the other hand is fair game...

45 minutes ago, Logosone said:

How is British Brent Crude doing today btw? BP and Shell? Doesn't the UK oil sector support 450,000 people?

 

I understand the UK has the largest oil sector in Europe, after Norway?

 

Terrible day for the UK economy today.

Says a bloke rubbing his hands together like an OCD sufferer in a corona virus hotspot ????

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

Errrr,  of course a judgement in another case "concerns" another case and not Factortame.

 

And yet in the judgement below Factortame was referred to. (section 79, page 29 "Constitutional Issues")

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0172-judgment.pdf

Yes, I saw the reference to it but the Factortame case was not taken into consideration as follows: Nor can the issue be resolved, as was also suggested, by following the decision in R v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex p Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, since that case was not concerned with the compatibility with EU law of the process by which legislation is enacted in Parliament.

 

Errr, better luck next time.

 . 

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

You are wasting your time mate. Facts and Brexiteers is like oil and water. They just dont mix.

If these guys had been receptive to facts then Brexit would never have happened. You see Brexit is a belief. Its a religion. It is a cult. It is in no way related to the real world and how things actually work.

All through this thread those Brexiteers have had facts presented to them time after time and yet they simply dismiss them because they do not suit their agenda.

What I find odd is if I had been lied to in order to vote a certain way and later found out what I was promised was never going to happen I would be livid with the people who lied to me. Not the people who didnt believe the lies in the first place but thats what Brexiteers do.

 

Brexit is a done deal. They won. All you can really do now is remind them that they won and what it is they actually won.

 

But they knew what they were voting for so its OK. 

Are you sitting on his shoulder, Mr. Me?

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, I saw the reference to it but the Factortame case was not taken into consideration as follows: Nor can the issue be resolved, as was also suggested, by following the decision in R v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex p Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, since that case was not concerned with the compatibility with EU law of the process by which legislation is enacted in Parliament.

 

Errr, better luck next time.

 . 

No Factortame was taken into consideration. The judges just felt they were being asked to go further than Factortame, see 206:

 

"206. Under the European Communities Act 1972, United Kingdom courts
have also acknowledged that European law requires them to treat domestic
statutes, whether passed before or after the 1972 Act, as invalid if and to the
extent that they cannot be interpreted consistently with European law: R v
Secretary of State, Ex p Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603. That was a
significant development, recognising the special status of the 1972 Act and of
European law and the importance attaching to the United Kingdom and its
courts fulfilling the commitment to give loyal effect to European law."

 

Because in that case the problem was the process by which legislation is enacted in the UK. However the fact that the Judges even considered Factortame shows it is UK case law which is argued when issues of EU vs UK law arise in the UK.

bulgarian factory ships are hoovering up vast ammounts of sea food and it cant take it nay more..stocks are depleted

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

No Factortame was taken into consideration. The judges just felt they were being asked to go further than Factortame, see 206:

 

"206. Under the European Communities Act 1972, United Kingdom courts
have also acknowledged that European law requires them to treat domestic
statutes, whether passed before or after the 1972 Act, as invalid if and to the
extent that they cannot be interpreted consistently with European law: R v
Secretary of State, Ex p Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603. That was a
significant development, recognising the special status of the 1972 Act and of
European law and the importance attaching to the United Kingdom and its
courts fulfilling the commitment to give loyal effect to European law."

 

Because in that case the problem was the process by which legislation is enacted in the UK. However the fact that the Judges even considered Factortame shows it is UK case law which is argued when issues of EU vs UK law arise in the UK.

A case law is not determined by any other single precedent. 

Bicycles are not used for fishing.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I thought we're just stringing random words together now?

Edited March 9, 20206 yr by Logosone

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

Are you sitting on his shoulder, Mr. Me?

Disconbobulation.

13 hours ago, Logosone said:

No, there is not. You fundamentally misunderstand how primacy of Eu law was developed.

 

The ECA (no second "act" required) merely provides for the incorporation  into UK law of the whole of European Community law including its Treaties, Regulations and Directives, together with judgments of the European Court of Justice. So this is a general provision of incorporation of EU law.

 

There is no 'specific provision' that 'specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law'.

 

If there had been the House of Lords would not have requested a ruling from the ECJ. It would have just interpreted its own Act of Parliament and be done with it, if there had been a clear provision to disapply UK law in favour of EU law.

 

Nor, in fact was there any formal basis in any of the EU treaties for the primacy of EU law. No "specific provision that allows that EU law be given primacy'. This doctrine was developed by the ECJ in case law. Just like the UK established, in case law, the primacy of EU law over UK law.

 

 

 

Familiarise yourself with section 2 of the 1972 ECA . This provides the basis for EU primacy.

The link you posted earlier from the Guardian explained that primacy of EU laws is directly result of Treaty of Rome and 1972 ECA

Edited March 10, 20206 yr by cleopatra2

Section 2 is the general incorporation of all EU law into UK law which I mentioned above. There is no provision which "specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law".

 

That's why it was a shock to UK politicians and lawyers that that was the case, that EU law has primacy over UK law, when Factortame was decided.

 

It was not explicitly provided in the ECA. 

 

Rather, just like in Europe, the primacy of EU law was developed in the UK in case law.

 

Maybe you'd like to quote the exact wording of the provision in section 2 'which specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law?"

 

It's just a general provision to incorporate all of EU law into UK law. Nothing about "UK courts disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law" in relation to EU law. Which is particularly notable since there are provisions about disapplying inconsistent colonial or Gibraltar laws. Nothing about 'UK courts disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law' in favour of EU law.

Edited March 10, 20206 yr by Logosone

38 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Section 2 is the general incorporation of all EU law into UK law which I mentioned above. There is no provision which "specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law".

 

That's why it was a shock to UK politicians and lawyers that that was the case, that EU law has primacy over UK law, when Factortame was decided.

 

It was not explicitly provided in the ECA. 

 

Rather, just like in Europe, the primacy of EU law was developed in the UK in case law.

 

Maybe you'd like to quote the exact wording of the provision in section 2 'which specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law?"

 

It's just a general provision to incorporate all of EU law into UK law. Nothing about "UK courts disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law" in relation to EU law. Which is particularly notable since there are provisions about disapplying inconsistent colonial or Gibraltar laws. Nothing about 'UK courts disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law' in favour of EU law.

Let's go back to the Factortame case and the reasons given for its judgement.

A part quota from Lord Bridge

 

' Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. '

 

https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_118.htm

 

 

AS for your question about which section gives EU law supremacy  section 2(4) and 3(1).

Edited March 10, 20206 yr by cleopatra2

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

Let's go back to the Factortame case and the reasons given for its judgement.

A part quota from Lord Bridge

 

' Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. '

 

https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_118.htm

 

 

AS for your question about which section gives EU law supremacy  section 2(4) and 3(1).

This was of course Lord Bridge trying to defend his decision of giving EU law primacy, which he knew would cause a massive outcry. As you will recall this reasoning from Lord Bridge was massively criticized not just by the Daily Mail and many politicians but also by lawyers and academics.

 

The reason is that it was precisely NOT clear that it was the duty of a UK court to override any rule of national law in favour of EU law.

 

In the words of Lord Pannick:

 

"Crosssbench peer and barrister Lord Pannick says that Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says. Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

If it had been clear then huge teams of UK and European lawyers, House of Lords judges and ECJ judges would not have spent years and millions of pounds arguing the provisions.

 

Yes, it was clear to the very learned Lords who after hearing argument from all sides, examining all the ECJ decisions and applying logic to the facts came to the correct conclusion. And yes it was to be expected that they present this as being due to the ECA (look it's the politicians' fault, not ours), this was true after all.

 

However, it is not true that the ECA has a clear provision that specifically says 'Domestic UK law provisions should be disapplied in favour of EU law'. Section 2(4) certainly does not have such clear wording and nor does section 3(1).  The effect of the provisions is such but it is not clearly stated.

 

"For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any , shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by any relevant decision of the European courts)".

 

Can mean and should mean that EU law has primacy,  and that domestic law should be disapplied in favour of EU law, however this was not clear at all, and certainly not the same as having a clear provision that 'domestic law should be disapplied in favour of EU law'.

 

That rather was the whole point of Factortame, and in the end it was case law that established this interpretation, not the Act itself, though of course the case law interprets the Act.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

This was of course Lord Bridge trying to defend his decision of giving EU law primacy, which he knew would cause a massive outcry. As you will recall this reasoning from Lord Bridge was massively criticized not just by the Daily Mail and many politicians but also by lawyers and academics.

 

The reason is that it was precisely NOT clear that it was the duty of a UK court to override any rule of national law in favour of EU law.

 

In the words of Lord Pannick:

 

"Crosssbench peer and barrister Lord Pannick says that Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says. Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

If it had been clear then huge teams of UK and European lawyers, House of Lords judges and ECJ judges would not have spent years and millions of pounds arguing the provisions.

 

Yes, it was clear to the very learned Lords who after hearing argument from all sides, examining all the ECJ decisions and applying logic to the facts came to the correct conclusion. And yes it was to be expected that they present this as being due to the ECA (look it's the politicians' fault, not ours), this was true after all.

 

However, it is not true that the ECA has a clear provision that specifically says 'Domestic UK law provisions should be disapplied in favour of EU law'. Section 2(4) certainly does not have such clear wording and nor does section 3(1).  The effect of the provisions is such but it is not clearly stated.

 

"For the purposes of all legal proceedings any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any , shall be treated as a question of law (and, if not referred to the European Court, be for determination as such in accordance with the principles laid down by any relevant decision of the European courts)".

 

Can mean and should mean that EU law has primacy,  and that domestic law should be disapplied in favour of EU law, however this was not clear at all, and certainly not the same as having a clear provision that 'domestic law should be disapplied in favour of EU law'.

 

That rather was the whole point of Factortame, and in the end it was case law that established this interpretation, not the Act itself, though of course the case law interprets the Act.

 

 

 

 

Again you are showing a lack of knowledge. What you are commonly referring to as Factortame is about the interim provisions.

The issue at hand was how to proceed whilst awaiting the preliminary of comparability with EU community.

The high court referred the comparability question to the European court. The timeline for the preliminary ruling was 2 years. 

The claimants requested an injunction to the act which the High court granted.

On appeal the injunction was reversed because the claim to rights are only alleged and the Act of Parliament had not been declared incomparable with EC law. And there is no provision in English law to set aside a Act.

 

The injunction case then went to the house of lords who then requested a further preliminary ruling from the European Court asking if European law allowed them to set aside the Act of Parliament whilst awaiting the comparability question.

 

Your comments about Lord Bridge are unwarranted . Even the High Court acknowledged EU laws take primacy over domestic laws.

 

from what I gather from the local fisherman  NOT the greatest explainer, we're now not exporting our catch apparently the French our prev biggest customer have dug their heels in and are not buying anything.  he reckons the dealers ie billinsgate  are now selling locally.. what happens next is anyone's guess .. only thing I do know is it when it comes to a 'deal'  NEVER trust  a politician esp a Tory, by nature/instinct/they are self serving.

 

 

Edited March 10, 20206 yr by 3 minus 2

45 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Again you are showing a lack of knowledge. What you are commonly referring to as Factortame is about the interim provisions.

The issue at hand was how to proceed whilst awaiting the preliminary of comparability with EU community.

The high court referred the comparability question to the European court. The timeline for the preliminary ruling was 2 years. 

The claimants requested an injunction to the act which the High court granted.

On appeal the injunction was reversed because the claim to rights are only alleged and the Act of Parliament had not been declared incomparable with EC law. And there is no provision in English law to set aside a Act.

 

The injunction case then went to the house of lords who then requested a further preliminary ruling from the European Court asking if European law allowed them to set aside the Act of Parliament whilst awaiting the comparability question.

 

Your comments about Lord Bridge are unwarranted . Even the High Court acknowledged EU laws take primacy over domestic laws.

 

Well, that's rather the whole point, the judges after hearing argument and examining the provisions in detail came to the conclusion that EU laws take primacy over domestic law.

 

However, this was not clear at the time, even a QC and barrister like Lord Pannick came to that conclusion:

 

" Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says. Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance.".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

If it had been so clear before Factortame, if there had been a clear provision in the ECA, everyone would have been aware and Factortame would not have been a significant decision. It was the fact that this case interpreted the ECA in this manner which made it signficant. It could also have gone another way,  as we saw in later cases where judges cast doubt on some of the findings in Factortame, and in particular stated that there may well be principles in UK constitutional law which the HoC could not abrogate in an Act of Parliament. So even if there had been a clear provision in the ECA about primac of EU law over domestic UK law, which I don't think there was, even that could not have sufficed to ensure primacy of EU law over UK law. It depended on the judge's interpretation. Just as in Europe.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Disconbobulation.

You couldn't work it out then?

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

Section 2 is the general incorporation of all EU law into UK law which I mentioned above. There is no provision which "specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law".

 

That's why it was a shock to UK politicians and lawyers that that was the case, that EU law has primacy over UK law, when Factortame was decided.

 

It was not explicitly provided in the ECA. 

 

Rather, just like in Europe, the primacy of EU law was developed in the UK in case law.

 

Maybe you'd like to quote the exact wording of the provision in section 2 'which specifically allows the UK courts to give EU law effect whilst disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law?"

 

It's just a general provision to incorporate all of EU law into UK law. Nothing about "UK courts disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law" in relation to EU law. Which is particularly notable since there are provisions about disapplying inconsistent colonial or Gibraltar laws. Nothing about 'UK courts disapplying inconsistent UK domestic law' in favour of EU law.

This is a case ................ of Rodger The Dodger! ????

This from the man who claimed Factortame was not case law and was not referred to in other case law.

 

The only dodgy thing here are your legal updates.

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Well, that's rather the whole point, the judges after hearing argument and examining the provisions in detail came to the conclusion that EU laws take primacy over domestic law.

 

However, this was not clear at the time, even a QC and barrister like Lord Pannick came to that conclusion:

 

" Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says. Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance.".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

If it had been so clear before Factortame, if there had been a clear provision in the ECA, everyone would have been aware and Factortame would not have been a significant decision. It was the fact that this case interpreted the ECA in this manner which made it signficant. It could also have gone another way,  as we saw in later cases where judges cast doubt on some of the findings in Factortame, and in particular stated that there may well be principles in UK constitutional law which the HoC could not abrogate in an Act of Parliament. So even if there had been a clear provision in the ECA about primac of EU law over domestic UK law, which I don't think there was, even that could not have sufficed to ensure primacy of EU law over UK law. It depended on the judge's interpretation. Just as in Europe.

 

 

 

 

It would have been clear to anyone who had actually read The Treaty of Rome and all its trimmings. Of course very few did, including most of the nitwit sheep that voted us in to the EEC. The outcome of this case relied on several referrals to, and rulings from, the ECJ, which says it all really. 

 

Look at 1:23. It's in there somewhere! ????

 

 

Edited March 10, 20206 yr by nauseus
+ vdo and comment

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

This is a case ................ of Rodger The Dodger! ????

Or Desperate Dan.....????

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

This from the man who claimed Factortame was not case law and was not referred to in other case law.

 

The only dodgy thing here are your legal updates.

If you still don't understand what defines case law, I think it's too late to help. 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

If you still don't understand what defines case law, I think it's too late to help. 

It's all those...............

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It would have been clear to anyone who had actually read The Treaty of Rome and all its trimmings. Of course very few did, including most of the nitwit sheep that voted us in to the EEC. The outcome of this case relied on several referrals to, and rulings from, the ECJ, which says it all really. 

You are correct

EU primacy was well established by other case law , Costa,  van gend loos and interpretation of section 2. Namely where it states national acts have to recognise section 2.(1).

What was not clear is the situation in Factortame , where the MSA is refereed to the EU on a comparability question and a request for injunction of the MSA applying whilst awaiting the result.

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Well, that's rather the whole point, the judges after hearing argument and examining the provisions in detail came to the conclusion that EU laws take primacy over domestic law.

 

However, this was not clear at the time, even a QC and barrister like Lord Pannick came to that conclusion:

 

" Factortame was “the most significant decision of United Kingdom courts on EU law”. “It brought home to lawyers, politicians and the public in this jurisdiction that EU law really did have supremacy over acts of parliament,” he says. Before Factortame that fact had not been widely understood, even though it had been decades since the UK had joined the European Economic Community in 1973. After the judgments, says Pannick, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance.".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism

 

If it had been so clear before Factortame, if there had been a clear provision in the ECA, everyone would have been aware and Factortame would not have been a significant decision. It was the fact that this case interpreted the ECA in this manner which made it signficant. It could also have gone another way,  as we saw in later cases where judges cast doubt on some of the findings in Factortame, and in particular stated that there may well be principles in UK constitutional law which the HoC could not abrogate in an Act of Parliament. So even if there had been a clear provision in the ECA about primac of EU law over domestic UK law, which I don't think there was, even that could not have sufficed to ensure primacy of EU law over UK law. It depended on the judge's interpretation. Just as in Europe.

 

 

 

 

No The primacy of EU was well established . What lay in doubt is to what extent.

The MSA was referred to the EU by the High court on the question of compartability.

The question arises what happens next whilst awaiting the EU preliminary judgement. Does UK law take precedent or something else.

The high court view was the MSA is set aside until the judgement arrives.

The appeal court overturned this and said English law does not allow for courts to set aside act of parliament. It is important to note the MSA had not been declared in conflict with EU .

The HoL as the supreme arbiter agreed with appeal court that under English law a court could not set aside an act of Parliament.

However they as required requested a preliminary ruling on this issue  which came back with the answer that the court as power to overrule national laws.

Edited March 10, 20206 yr by cleopatra2