FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > European court of Justice
European court of Justice
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"They read more like human rights cases that would heard at a different court to the ECJ." may have the wrong court I remember the cases were brought by the RoI Government on behalf of the tortured (we lost) against the British Government. For some reason I seem to remember Lord Carrington being one of the ones named as being responsible. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer? " Is this particularly in-British? Would a UK court have made a wildly different decision interpreting the same law? I couldn't find this particular case in a cursory search but two points came up. Sick leave and holiday are different things. You don't "use up" your holiday entitlement by being sick. Seems reasonable. Also, whatever the specifics of the case that you mentioned, there is a clarification that indicates that the accumulation of holiday entitlement is not unlimited and is defined by national law. Seems reasonable. Seems like a "meh" to me. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer? " 
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ. "Which law was it? We have cars with 360 degree cameras on them, so I assume buses can do the same | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ. "Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros? Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476 Here is a nice paragraph for you: "London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes." The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it. So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain... -Matt | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ. "That example was shown to be utter bollocks.....no surprise since it came out of the mouth of the fat fool Bojo | |||
| |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt"As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK. | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. " The application was initially blocked by the...UK High Court. It lost it's appeal at the ECJ amd again in the UK Appeal Court. Again, I don't really see why this would be considered to be a decision that a UK court would not make because of some fundamental difference in being British. A court will not change its decision just because a British company was involved. Anyway, the initial patent application was disputed by...Cadbury's. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK. "No. What nonsense. UK legislation takes just as long to enact. The fact that the EU has done it means that far more lives are saved over all nations. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. What nonsense.
UK legislation takes just as long to enact.
The fact that the EU has done it means that far more lives are saved over all nations."also nothing stops the uk from enacting it’s own legislation in advance of this. Or going further. Any blame lies with the uk. | |||
""If the UK has absorbed EU law correctly there wouldn’t be a case heard" That's not how the ECJ or any court works. Courts are there to interpret laws. Laws have always, and will always be open to interpretation. The simplest example, that law students are always taught is this: There is a law that says that everyone riding a motorcycle must wear a crash-helmet. There is also a law that says that a Sikh may wear a turban. What do you do about him when he is riding a motorcycle. " Which was the point of my first sentence. It was poorly worded second sentence I will admit but context will be nice eh? On your Sikh example he doesn’t have to wear a helmet | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. " That's the worst ruling for the UK in the last 40 years in your opinion? 
Seriously? What a snowflake  | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. That's the worst ruling for the UK in the last 40 years in your opinion?
Seriously? What a snowflake "Where did I say "it was the worst ruling in the last 40 years"? Or did you just make that up.  | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. What nonsense.
UK legislation takes just as long to enact.
The fact that the EU has done it means that far more lives are saved over all nations."Also, when a company builds a bus, to these regulations it can automatically sell them in all EU states and all of those with whom we have reciprocal trade agreements. | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. That's the worst ruling for the UK in the last 40 years in your opinion?
Seriously? What a snowflake
Where did I say "it was the worst ruling in the last 40 years"?
Or did you just make that up. "Oh. You started out with the 32nd worst one? I know you don't really like responding to the initial post, but the request was for the top 10. | |||
| |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. That's the worst ruling for the UK in the last 40 years in your opinion?
Seriously? What a snowflake
Where did I say "it was the worst ruling in the last 40 years"?
Or did you just make that up. "This is the OP of the thread you are posting on "What are the 10 biggest rulings by the ECJ in the last 40 years that have been detrimental to the UK?" | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. That's the worst ruling for the UK in the last 40 years in your opinion?
Seriously? What a snowflake
Where did I say "it was the worst ruling in the last 40 years"?
Or did you just make that up. "CLCC Makes everything up | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. That's the worst ruling for the UK in the last 40 years in your opinion?
Seriously? What a snowflake
Where did I say "it was the worst ruling in the last 40 years"?
Or did you just make that up.
CLCC Makes everything up "Like what? | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer? " This is true in The Netherlands. Great employee laws here. You can get 2 years paid sick leave. I don't think it's EU law. Labour laws are not the same in every country. When the company I worked for went through redundancies. The UK employees were gone the next day and got their package. In Belgium and Germany they had to work 3 months, then got their package. | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. " If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU  | |||
| |||
"So basically, it's KitKats then? "I disagree... I hate KitKat's. Hope they don't sell them anywhere. | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU "And even better, Nestle's Swiss FFS | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU
And even better, Nestle's Swiss FFS "What's even more amazing is the ECJ UPHELD the UK Courts decision that the four fingered shape couldn't be trademarked... Imagine that...THE ECJ upholding a UK Court's decision.... So Centy thinks the EJC agreeing with the UK Court's is a top 10 damaging EJC decision
Fuck me sideways , you really couldn't make this shit up
Vive la Brexit | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU
And even better, Nestle's Swiss FFS
What's even more amazing is the ECJ UPHELD the UK Courts decision that the four fingered shape couldn't be trademarked... Imagine that...THE ECJ upholding a UK Court's decision....
So Centy thinks the EJC agreeing with the UK Court's is a top 10 damaging EJC decision
Fuck me sideways , you really couldn't make this shit up
Vive la Brexit "
CLASSIC!
| |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ. "That entire bloc of bullshit is so incorrect I'll save you the embarrassment and not publicly correct you even more  | |||
| |||
"My intention isn't to take the mick. It's a very serious point. " Exactly. From my experience, the average Leave voter is very similar to Leave voters on here. They wanted to do something that they had very little knowledge about the ramifications of doing so but still went ahead anyway. Now some are starting to realise The Daily Mail type media have been quite economical with the truth for decades but they still won't believe when faced with facts / truth's, their too bitter to see things rationally and be objective. To enable themselves to spout bile & hatred about how we've been held back by being in the EU they have to resort to bending truth's to breaking point and out right lying. Vive la Brexit | |||
"My intention isn't to take the mick. It's a very serious point. Exactly. From my experience, the average Leave voter is very similar to Leave voters on here. They wanted to do something that they had very little knowledge about the ramifications of doing so but still went ahead anyway. Now some are starting to realise The Daily Mail type media have been quite economical with the truth for decades but they still won't believe when faced with facts / truth's, their too bitter to see things rationally and be objective. To enable themselves to spout bile & hatred about how we've been held back by being in the EU they have to resort to bending truth's to breaking point and out right lying. Vive la Brexit "That detachment from reality is what I find most worrying. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK. "No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place. -Matt | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer? " Why should I - or you - be punished twice because I have cancer? | |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU "Again like CLCC before you, where on the thread did I say it was "the best case of harm done to the uk"? Or like CLCC did you just make that up? If you can find in the thread where I said it was "the best case of harm done to the uk" then can you find the quote and highlight it? Otherwise quit with the bare faced lies you (and CLCC) have been spouting on this thread. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
That entire bloc of bullshit is so incorrect I'll save you the embarrassment and not publicly correct you even more "It seems just like Matt, you've completely missed the point. Never mind though it seems like a common trait amongst dim witted remoaners in the UK. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt"When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping. On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then? 1 day 1 week 1 month 2 months 3 months???? At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow. The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations. I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though. | |||
| |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU
Again like CLCC before you, where on the thread did I say it was "the best case of harm done to the uk"?
Or like CLCC did you just make that up?
If you can find in the thread where I said it was "the best case of harm done to the uk" then can you find the quote and highlight it?
Otherwise quit with the bare faced lies you (and CLCC) have been spouting on this thread. "Do you need me to re-quote for you the OP? Fine. "What are the 10 biggest rulings by the ECJ in the last 40 years that have been detrimental to the UK?" That was the question put to you, and your answer was about KitKat. Therefore you think the KitKat ruling where the ECJ upheld the ruling of British Courts with British judges was one of the 10 most detrimental rulings of the ECJ to the UK. Everyone can read the OP, and your response to it, so please don't call people liars when they can see what you said in black and white. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though. "Maybe because you haven't actually named the law (Which is different to what the thread is about!) That you are talking about. In fact you have been provided proof that Boris Johnson (Tory) was worried that the BRITISH government, a TORY led coalition no less, wouldn't accept the changes. Are you able to provided any contemporaneous evidence to prove your assertion that BoJo was hamstrung by the EU? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just a week ago the ECJ ruled against trademark protection for Nestlé Kitkat chocolate bars. Kitkat was originally created by Rowntree's of York, UK. If that's the best case of harm done to the UK by a ECJ ruling you can come up with then I can fully understand your deep set hatred of the EU
Again like CLCC before you, where on the thread did I say it was "the best case of harm done to the uk"?
Or like CLCC did you just make that up?
If you can find in the thread where I said it was "the best case of harm done to the uk" then can you find the quote and highlight it?
Otherwise quit with the bare faced lies you (and CLCC) have been spouting on this thread. "Ha, Centy, you really are a glutton for punishment aren't you
Op asked for top 10 most harm to the UK ECJ rulings & you came up with...
No 1 Boris's trucks
No 2 KitKat's
I didn't make you type these daft examples, you thought them up all on your own self pal 
Just face reality, it's you who lies on here constantly Centy, I never lie on here, there's no point , as anyone with a slight bit of intelligence can easily state proof / facts over someone's lies , it's all here in black & white... something you seem to forget on a regular basis.
But I'll correct what I said, as I will hold my hands up yes you didn't say KitKat 1st, it was your 2nd example of the worst ECJ ruling that harmed the UK the most. I hope you feel vindicated now lol
You then call out someone over calling you an idiot saying it says more about them than you etc then you brand Remainers dim , intellectually challenged liars
What did you say again.... says more about you than it does about them...
As I said before, I just couldn't make this shit up if I tried
Vive la Brexit | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though. "Are you still spouting tosh about Johnson resignation speech allegations regarding safety? It was a lie, plain and simple. It's been fact checked https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-boris-johnson-lied-about-eu-safety-regulation-in-his-resignation-letter So back to Kit Kats eh? | |||
"Michael Gove, speaking during the EU referendum campaign in 2016, summed it up very well and accused the unaccountable ECJ of extending it's reach every week. He said...."it is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU (and the ECJ) is a constraint on ministers ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgement about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told, "Yes minister I understand, but I'm afraid that's against EU rules". I know it, my colleagues in government know it, and the British people ought to know it too. Your government is not, ultimately in control, in hundreds of areas that matter". " That was also shown to be economical with the truth.....stick to kitkats. At least you know what one of those actually is | |||
"Michael Gove, speaking during the EU referendum campaign in 2016, summed it up very well and accused the unaccountable ECJ of extending it's reach every week. He said...."it is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU (and the ECJ) is a constraint on ministers ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgement about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told, "Yes minister I understand, but I'm afraid that's against EU rules". I know it, my colleagues in government know it, and the British people ought to know it too. Your government is not, ultimately in control, in hundreds of areas that matter". That was also shown to be economical with the truth.....stick to kitkats. At least you know what one of those actually is" Lol have a break , have a KitKat
Anyone notice the list of things Michael Gove stated that the EU were constraining Ministers over on a daily basis ? no... I didn't either... just some vague wishy washy statement with no facts, just opinion.
Nowt new there then | |||
"Michael Gove, speaking during the EU referendum campaign in 2016, summed it up very well and accused the unaccountable ECJ of extending it's reach every week. He said...."it is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU (and the ECJ) is a constraint on ministers ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgement about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told, "Yes minister I understand, but I'm afraid that's against EU rules". I know it, my colleagues in government know it, and the British people ought to know it too. Your government is not, ultimately in control, in hundreds of areas that matter". That was also shown to be economical with the truth.....stick to kitkats. At least you know what one of those actually is Lol have a break , have a KitKat
Anyone notice the list of things Michael Gove stated that the EU were constraining Ministers over on a daily basis ? no... I didn't either... just some vague wishy washy statement with no facts, just opinion.
Nowt new there then "I think I will have a kitkat, a 2 fingered one pointing at the EU from the white Cliffs of Dover in March 2019. | |||
"Michael Gove, speaking during the EU referendum campaign in 2016, summed it up very well and accused the unaccountable ECJ of extending it's reach every week. He said...."it is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU (and the ECJ) is a constraint on ministers ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgement about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told, "Yes minister I understand, but I'm afraid that's against EU rules". I know it, my colleagues in government know it, and the British people ought to know it too. Your government is not, ultimately in control, in hundreds of areas that matter". That was also shown to be economical with the truth.....stick to kitkats. At least you know what one of those actually is Lol have a break , have a KitKat
Anyone notice the list of things Michael Gove stated that the EU were constraining Ministers over on a daily basis ? no... I didn't either... just some vague wishy washy statement with no facts, just opinion.
Nowt new there then
I think I will have a kitkat, a 2 fingered one pointing at the EU from the white Cliffs of Dover in March 2019. "Hey, you've finally posted something that cannot be torn to shreds and proven wrong
Well done | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though. "1) nothing stopped the uk from implementing a law here. It’s not as tho the Eu law would have meant an embarrassing reversal 2) the Eu wheels were in place before Boris raised this. So let’s beg the question and take your assertion the eu takes longer to pass law... they identified the problem earlier. So it may be in total they are quicker... lot quicker problem identification but slightly slower implementation. | |||
| |||
"Didn't it take 10 years to deport the hate spreading preacher the hook? thanks to the ecj we were paying him and his family to live in the uk so that he could continue to preach hate against us." Nothing to do with the ECJ. The involvement, such as it was, was from the ECHR which has nothing to do with the EU at all | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though. "No Centy, this has nothing to do with being morally superior. All it has to do with is you being, in my view, an idiot. Now that may be classed as an ad hominem attack, but seriously all you do is repeatly post absolute bullshit and then lie about it. Half the times the nonsense you post is clearly refuted with just 30 seconds of investigation. But hey, if you want to change the topic to morals to distract from actually having to admit you are talking bullshit, then go ahead. Just please start a new thread about it. -Matt | |||
| |||
"Didn't it take 10 years to deport the hate spreading preacher the hook? thanks to the ecj we were paying him and his family to live in the uk so that he could continue to preach hate against us. Nothing to do with the ECJ. The involvement, such as it was, was from the ECHR which has nothing to do with the EU at all" This is the gigantic lack of knowledge that is driving our Country towards shite. | |||
"The Surinder Singh judgement is an ECJ ruling that allows ways of getting around UK immigration rules. The judgement allows a UK national who lives and works in another EU country for a period of time, to be considered under EUROPEAN law rather than British law on their return. This means that if they have been joined by a non European Economic Area (EEA) spouse, that person doesn't have to meet certain UK immigration requirements that apply to other Brits, in particular a minimum income requirement introduced in 2012." No remainers want to comment on this ECJ ruling which allows foreign nationals to circumvent our domestic immigration rules then and is a clear case of our sovereignty being eroded? | |||
"A Spanish vessel overwrote a British Parliamentary act thanks to an ECJ ruling. Case law = Factortame Ltd versus the UK transport secretary. The British government sought to restrict Spanish vessels fishing in UK waters, and the company Factortame, took them to court. The outcome of the legal saga, which ran from 1989 to 2000, was that the House of Lords acknowledged in October 1999 that EU law was supreme over British law in areas where there are competencies in the EU treaties. " And again despite being posted 2 days ago now, no remainer has commented about this ECJ ruling, and even our own Parliament admits EU law is supreme over British law. A clear case of our sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. | |||
"The Surinder Singh judgement is an ECJ ruling that allows ways of getting around UK immigration rules. The judgement allows a UK national who lives and works in another EU country for a period of time, to be considered under EUROPEAN law rather than British law on their return. This means that if they have been joined by a non European Economic Area (EEA) spouse, that person doesn't have to meet certain UK immigration requirements that apply to other Brits, in particular a minimum income requirement introduced in 2012. No remainers want to comment on this ECJ ruling which allows foreign nationals to circumvent our domestic immigration rules then and is a clear case of our sovereignty being eroded? " I have responded to this in general Centaur but will be more specific. Are you able to tell me honestly why this was not your first post in response to the question? What do you think the ruling means Centaur? It is to allow British citizens to return to the UK with their families. Their family members will have had to have been living with them in the EU before they could come back. It may have escaped your notice, but foreign immigration is not that popular or easy in the rest of the EU either. Its effect is to protect the rights of British citizens to not have a financial bar to living with their family. Should only rich people have that right? It gives individual sovereignty over the state in this instance. Control has been taken back. Will this be abused by some? Of course. UK laws are also abused. It will have to evolve as will our laws. It doesn't matter where the precedent is set as long as it is logical and fair. | |||
"A Spanish vessel overwrote a British Parliamentary act thanks to an ECJ ruling. Case law = Factortame Ltd versus the UK transport secretary. The British government sought to restrict Spanish vessels fishing in UK waters, and the company Factortame, took them to court. The outcome of the legal saga, which ran from 1989 to 2000, was that the House of Lords acknowledged in October 1999 that EU law was supreme over British law in areas where there are competencies in the EU treaties. And again despite being posted 2 days ago now, no remainer has commented about this ECJ ruling, and even our own Parliament admits EU law is supreme over British law. A clear case of our sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. " Covered this earlier. Is a WTO decision supreme over British law? Have you got 8 more major concerns over the last 40 years? | |||
"Ruling that British Military and MI5 tortured Republican suspects leading to the international ban of the use of 'white noise' and 'sensory deprivation' on civilians. If I remember correctly there were probably about 10 such rulings on individual cases of torture before the government of the day stopped the practice. I seem to remember there were also a number of ruling regarding separation and treatment of political prisoners in the H blocks. Cant really be bothered doing the searches to get the details absolutely correct so leaving the door open for anyone who wishes to deny that we did state sanctioned bad stuff in NI. " I'm fairly sure those rulings were by ECHR which has nothing to do with the ECJ. | |||
"Ruling that British Military and MI5 tortured Republican suspects leading to the international ban of the use of 'white noise' and 'sensory deprivation' on civilians. If I remember correctly there were probably about 10 such rulings on individual cases of torture before the government of the day stopped the practice. I seem to remember there were also a number of ruling regarding separation and treatment of political prisoners in the H blocks. Cant really be bothered doing the searches to get the details absolutely correct so leaving the door open for anyone who wishes to deny that we did state sanctioned bad stuff in NI. I'm fairly sure those rulings were by ECHR which has nothing to do with the ECJ." In the case of "the Hooded Men", the ECHR recently upheld the 1978 judgment that Britain was guilty of inhuman and degrading treatment but not torture. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/british-army-not-torture-northern-ireland-court-rules-hooded-men | |||
" And again despite being posted 2 days ago now, no remainer has commented about this ECJ ruling, and even our own Parliament admits EU law is supreme over British law. A clear case of our sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. " Only because we chose it to be. As it's our choice, no sovereignty is lost. Do you consider being a member of NATO to be a loss of sovereignty? Or signing up to international treaties to be a loss of sovereignty? For example May whilst at the home office wanted to deny education to the children of illegal immigrants, but was told this wasn't allowed as the UK had signed up to the UN Rights of the Child, is that something you would like to pull us out of? How about our military sovereignty? Should that be impeached in anyway? Surely not? I mean if we want to use expanding ammunition (aka dumdum bullets after the arsenal where they were created outside Calcutta) should we be able to as our sovereign right? Should we leave the agreement we made in 1868 to use this ammunition? It's just that 1868 was a very long time ago and I haven't heard you mention this loss of sovereignty to chose our military ammunition in the the several years both of us have been on this forum. How about land mines, should the UK surrender it's sovereignty on this issues? How about on nuclear testing, should the UK continue to test our nuclear weapons just to make sure they work fine? | |||
"The Surinder Singh judgement is an ECJ ruling that allows ways of getting around UK immigration rules. The judgement allows a UK national who lives and works in another EU country for a period of time, to be considered under EUROPEAN law rather than British law on their return. This means that if they have been joined by a non European Economic Area (EEA) spouse, that person doesn't have to meet certain UK immigration requirements that apply to other Brits, in particular a minimum income requirement introduced in 2012. No remainers want to comment on this ECJ ruling which allows foreign nationals to circumvent our domestic immigration rules then and is a clear case of our sovereignty being eroded? " What's the point on commenting on something less damaging to the UK than KitKat's
I know you'd desperately spent time scanning your Anti EU websites searching frantically for anything you could remotely post as a top 3rd to 10th place damaging ECJ ruling on the UK, but after you'd blown our minds on the horrific dire ruling on a Swiss KitKat we decided you'd beaten us with logic & facts too much | |||
" And again despite being posted 2 days ago now, no remainer has commented about this ECJ ruling, and even our own Parliament admits EU law is supreme over British law. A clear case of our sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. Only because we chose it to be. As it's our choice, no sovereignty is lost. Do you consider being a member of NATO to be a loss of sovereignty? Or signing up to international treaties to be a loss of sovereignty? For example May whilst at the home office wanted to deny education to the children of illegal immigrants, but was told this wasn't allowed as the UK had signed up to the UN Rights of the Child, is that something you would like to pull us out of? How about our military sovereignty? Should that be impeached in anyway? Surely not? I mean if we want to use expanding ammunition (aka dumdum bullets after the arsenal where they were created outside Calcutta) should we be able to as our sovereign right? Should we leave the agreement we made in 1868 to use this ammunition? It's just that 1868 was a very long time ago and I haven't heard you mention this loss of sovereignty to chose our military ammunition in the the several years both of us have been on this forum. How about land mines, should the UK surrender it's sovereignty on this issues? How about on nuclear testing, should the UK continue to test our nuclear weapons just to make sure they work fine? " Funny how no brexiter has responded to this. | |||
" And again despite being posted 2 days ago now, no remainer has commented about this ECJ ruling, and even our own Parliament admits EU law is supreme over British law. A clear case of our sovereignty being eroded away by the EU and the ECJ. Only because we chose it to be. As it's our choice, no sovereignty is lost. Do you consider being a member of NATO to be a loss of sovereignty? Or signing up to international treaties to be a loss of sovereignty? For example May whilst at the home office wanted to deny education to the children of illegal immigrants, but was told this wasn't allowed as the UK had signed up to the UN Rights of the Child, is that something you would like to pull us out of? How about our military sovereignty? Should that be impeached in anyway? Surely not? I mean if we want to use expanding ammunition (aka dumdum bullets after the arsenal where they were created outside Calcutta) should we be able to as our sovereign right? Should we leave the agreement we made in 1868 to use this ammunition? It's just that 1868 was a very long time ago and I haven't heard you mention this loss of sovereignty to chose our military ammunition in the the several years both of us have been on this forum. How about land mines, should the UK surrender it's sovereignty on this issues? How about on nuclear testing, should the UK continue to test our nuclear weapons just to make sure they work fine? Funny how no brexiter has responded to this. " Still no one wants to tackle these questions? They're not that difficult. | |||
| |||
"This is a thread about the ECJ. It was hijacked by others, including you with their own remoaner agenda, hence why your deliberately provocative and irrelevant to the question of the ECJ were rightly ignored. Keep the thread about the ECJ." so where are we ? I have kit kats, fishing companies, and foreign spouses so far. | |||
"This is a thread about the ECJ. It was hijacked by others, including you with their own remoaner agenda, hence why your deliberately provocative and irrelevant to the question of the ECJ were rightly ignored. Keep the thread about the ECJ." I started the thread. My simple question has not been addressed. The only conclusion is that the ECJ is not a problem that needs solving. | |||
"The only conclusion is that the ECJ is not a problem that needs solving." But it is a problem if i is your intention to systematically strip away all workers rights employment rights and all your populations civil rights in order to install an authoritarian plutocratic state. | |||
"The only conclusion is that the ECJ is not a problem that needs solving. But it is a problem if i is your intention to systematically strip away all workers rights employment rights and all your populations civil rights in order to install an authoritarian plutocratic state." I take your point. However, I don't think that is the intention of the majority of those who voted to leave. That is an unintended consequence for most but perhaps a desirable and intentional one for a very few. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though.
No Centy, this has nothing to do with being morally superior. All it has to do with is you being, in my view, an idiot. Now that may be classed as an ad hominem attack, but seriously all you do is repeatly post absolute bullshit and then lie about it. Half the times the nonsense you post is clearly refuted with just 30 seconds of investigation.
But hey, if you want to change the topic to morals to distract from actually having to admit you are talking bullshit, then go ahead. Just please start a new thread about it.
-Matt"Some people much consider it to be insulting to refer to another poster as being an idiot. Luckily in most cases it is the person who is making the derogatory comment is the idiot , not the recipient of the comment . Centaurs posts are always well written and highly informative. He correctly predicted both the results of the UK and USA elections . He is in touch with the real world and puts his experience of canvassing in elections to good use . Apart from that he is also well known in the Midlands swinging scene and knows some of the European swingers resorts as well. The original question should probably have been has the ECJ ever done anything to help the UK. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though.
No Centy, this has nothing to do with being morally superior. All it has to do with is you being, in my view, an idiot. Now that may be classed as an ad hominem attack, but seriously all you do is repeatly post absolute bullshit and then lie about it. Half the times the nonsense you post is clearly refuted with just 30 seconds of investigation.
But hey, if you want to change the topic to morals to distract from actually having to admit you are talking bullshit, then go ahead. Just please start a new thread about it.
-Matt Some people much consider it to be insulting to refer to another poster as being an idiot. Luckily in most cases it is the person who is making the derogatory comment is the idiot , not the recipient of the comment .
Centaurs posts are always well written and highly informative. He correctly predicted both the results of the UK and USA elections . He is in touch with the real world and puts his experience of canvassing in elections to good use .
Apart from that he is also well known in the Midlands swinging scene and knows some of the European swingers resorts as well.
The original question should probably have been has the ECJ ever done anything to help the UK."I'm not going defend anyone insulting anyone else, but I am also not going to pretend that Centaur is some sort of a victim. He avoids difficult questions, will not analyse weakness in his own arguments or acknowledge the positives of opposing views. He does also selectively uses facts and accepts or denies polls as convenient. He also tells outright lies either deliberately or accidentally then continues to repeat them. Other people on all sides of all arguments have done the same. Correctly predicting events does and supporting certain views does not make those views in anyway good. Being in the majority, large or small does not make you right. 67% of Swiss men rejected giving women the vote in 1959. Women did not get the vote until 1971. Many people predicted and supported the rise of Hitler. Was that a good thing? In this particular thread it is apparent that despite repeating the line about the ECJ for years he only just now spent any time at all researching it and working out what it was. Have you anything to contribute to the discussion about the ECJ? | |||
"This is a thread about the ECJ. It was hijacked by others, including you with their own remoaner agenda, hence why your deliberately provocative and irrelevant to the question of the ECJ were rightly ignored. Keep the thread about the ECJ." Ok Andy, obviously those questions were too hard on you. So how have you personally suffered at the hands of the ECJ? I know I have benefited greatly from their rulings, especially with regards to time travelling to work being included as work time. | |||
"There are hundreds of them. Let's start with the Spanish bus driver case, which said that employees on long term sick, still accrue holiday. So an employee goes off sick for a year, comes back, and he has 2 years worth of holiday to take. How is that fair to any employer?
I think it was reported in the news recently that Boris Johnson used an example of how European law was detrimental to the UK, at the recent Chequers meeting where Theresa May came out with her secret Brexit plan which she had concocted with her remainer civil servant in chief Olly Robbins.
Boris pointed out at Chequers that while he was Mayor of London a number of cyclists had been killed due to poor visibility in rear view mirrors on lorries and buses and wanted to have specially adapted buses that gave more visibility all around the vehicle. He pointed out his proposal was ruled out because it would have been against EU law and regulations as upheld by the ECJ. So the ECJ is responsible for costing the lives of cyclists on London's roads when Boris wanted to do something about it but was prevented from doing so by EU law, regulations and the ECJ.
Oh Centy... hook line and sinker. At what point are you going to stop and actually question some of this bullshit from your heros?
Here is a news article from 2014 on the laws you are talking about:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27032476
Here is a nice paragraph for you:
"London Mayor Boris Johnson, who launched a popular cycle hire scheme in the capital, says he is worried the UK government may oppose the changes."
The laws were actually voted through with 570 MEPs for it, and 88 MEPs against it.
So, far be it for me to possibly insinuate that Johnson might be bending the truth for his own political gain...
-Matt
As usual and as is so often apparent on here, you (and other remoaners) completely miss the point. The point is valuable time was wasted consulting MEP's on this matter, lobbying and having votes on it in the European Parliament. We could have acted much more quickly on this as a free independent country, free from EU rules and regulations and free from rulings by the ECJ. As lives were at stake then the time aspect to this issue was crucial, the longer the delay going through the European Parliament and the ECJ the greater the risk to the British public on London's roads. Lives could have potentially been saved here acting much more quickly in a free independent UK.
No. You are an idiot. It doesn't take that much longer. The fact that it is something enacted across the entire EU means it is protecting across the whole of the EU. The UK had the powers to enact whatever it wanted if it wanted. the majority of the truck manufacturers are in the EU, and trucks are moving back and forth across the entire EU. So it makes a lot more sense having an EU-wide directive on this. Just like the one that brought about the uniform truck sizes in the first place.
-Matt
When you call someone an idiot, I think that is more a reflection back on yourself. Remainers who think they are morally superior in some way and have been taking a self imagined moral high ground over the last 2 years are seriously losing the plot completely now as the brexit deadline draws near, you are a classic example, and your mask is slipping.
On the substance of your post...."it doesn't take much longer". How much longer do you think it is then?
1 day
1 week
1 month
2 months
3 months????
At the end of the day when lives are at stake as they were in this case just 1 hour longer is too long for me. The mechanisms and workings of the EU are notoriously slow.
The UK could have acted on this much more quickly alone as a free independent country, free of EU rules and regulations and free from the ECJ imposing those rules and regulations.
I find it funny that the more intellectually challenged remainers on this forum are focusing on the kitkat post rather than this issue I highlighted though.
No Centy, this has nothing to do with being morally superior. All it has to do with is you being, in my view, an idiot. Now that may be classed as an ad hominem attack, but seriously all you do is repeatly post absolute bullshit and then lie about it. Half the times the nonsense you post is clearly refuted with just 30 seconds of investigation.
But hey, if you want to change the topic to morals to distract from actually having to admit you are talking bullshit, then go ahead. Just please start a new thread about it.
-Matt Some people much consider it to be insulting to refer to another poster as being an idiot. Luckily in most cases it is the person who is making the derogatory comment is the idiot , not the recipient of the comment .
Centaurs posts are always well written and highly informative. He correctly predicted both the results of the UK and USA elections . He is in touch with the real world and puts his experience of canvassing in elections to good use .
Apart from that he is also well known in the Midlands swinging scene and knows some of the European swingers resorts as well.
The original question should probably have been has the ECJ ever done anything to help the UK."the irony here is century started the ad homs. That said I agree they are well written and do contain some information, albeit sometimes myopic. So let’s play with the ecj (really eu) being beneficial. In my (albeit limited) research, I see both GDPR and the directive which led to consumers right act as being positive. There’s also a lot in the workers directive which is positive. And all things I’m slightly cynical would have been implemented outside of being in the Eu. I guess here time will tell ... will we look at the Eu to inform our laws (and not just to maintain parity). | |||
" Some people much consider it to be insulting to refer to another poster as being an idiot. Luckily in most cases it is the person who is making the derogatory comment is the idiot , not the recipient of the comment . " Yes, that's been covered when Centy was branding Remainers " dim witted remoaners" " Centaurs posts are always well written and highly informative. " I see you left out factual, to your credit. " He correctly predicted both the results of the UK and USA elections . " And ...... that benefits us / him ... how exactly.... " Apart from that he is also well known in the Midlands swinging scene and knows some of the European swingers resorts as well. " And .... again .... the relevance of this is ? " The original question should probably have been has the ECJ ever done anything to help the UK." No no no, you can't change the question just because you have no mud to throw, creating a new question out of the original is a Centy trait, along with out right lying or using alternative "facts"
| |||
"The only conclusion is that the ECJ is not a problem that needs solving. But it is a problem if i is your intention to systematically strip away all workers rights employment rights and all your populations civil rights in order to install an authoritarian plutocratic state." Or a dictatorship of the proletariat. | |||
