Correct. It's about time the Royal Prog was put back in the history books. It has no place in a modern democracy.

They're not. Without the ECA they would not be applicable and would not be transposed (following debate and vote and amendments) by Parliament.

Which treaty do you claim was signed under PR and without Parliament?

Orchestrated? In what way?

No, the point of the ECA was that we would be in breach of the treaty without it and not that it wouldn't be applicable.

LOL

To ensure there is no way in hell of winning this appeal so any delay can't be blamed on May.

I find this comment hilarious

You're missing the point. Without the ECA, which is an Act of Parliament, Parliament would not be able to transpose EU law and grant rights/obligations in domestic law. It would happen automatically or because of the say so of the government... which is impossible because the RP can't apply to domestic law.

Why? Law is fascinating.

I'm not missing the point at all. That was the reason for the act.

So as what I said is the case it is now according to you irrelevant.

It's a funny old game to quote Jimmy Greaves

You're entirely missing the point in the circumstances - without the ECA EU law would become domestic law by default because of the Treaty obligations. It can't under our constitution. End of story.

It is irrelevant for the case and as I said, you're still wrong but this is not the place to argue that as it has no relevance to the case.

They are not experts they are another lot of Judges that are to determine if the other Judges determined correctly in Law.

Arguing about the long title of the ECA 1972? This submission has gone downhill rapidly.

I'm not missing the point at all. You said without the ECA our treaty obligations wouldn't be applicable but the purpose of the ECA was so that we wouldn't be in breach of them. Not because they didn't apply.

The Crown wasn't prevented from signing the treaty, we would have been obliged to conform to the obligations and the purpose of the ECA was so that we wouldn't have been in breach of the terms.

I do find the whole way this is pored over, considered and explored, to be fascinating, even if I don't understand every phrase and clause.

The rule and application of law is what has made this country great, and it's pleasing to see in progress.

If you find that hilarious, I would suggest medication.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are not experts in law? How do you suggest that they reached their position then?

Hahahaha! You've just argued the case perfectly well.

As I said, without the ECA we would have to implement EU law by RP (i.e. without Parliament) and that's illegal under our constitution (and yes, as we couldn't have done so we would have either been in breach of the Treaty or indeed in breach of our own constitution).

And no, the Crown most certainly wasn't prevented from signing the treaty as signing the treaty would not have added, amended or removed domestic law or rights and obligations.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue... you're actually agreeing with the claimants.

Well as nothing on when the RP can or can't be used is written down and its use is afaik hardly ever contested in law and never has been on this issue I suggest they will make a decision based on their opinion and in effect create law.

No we wouldn't. We would just be in breach of the terms. You're really struggling to follow the governments argument aren't you? It's not that they can exercise prerogative power without Parliament but that Parliament are involved but as far as withdrawal from treaties are concerned, the power lies with the Crown providing that Parliament hasn't restricted it.

Oh and Hahahaha

It's written down in case law.

Maybe you should stop only looking at the government's arguments (you would have been ill advised if you would have done that prior to the High Court ruling).

The RP can't be used to alter domestic law. Even the government admits that.

Well I might have believed it if I hadn't read the FM's different style of post a bit later on:

Correct. And it goes back hundreds of years as the People Challenge's submission shows and there are even more examples in Gina Miller's submission.