Originally posted by meridian
View Post
"When making decisions, the UKSC must give effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.
The UKSC must also give effect to directly applicable European Union law, and interpret domestic law consistently with European Union law, so far as is possible."
Accept your point regarding International courts, such as the ICC - however, it's more aimed at domestic law interpretations, as above.
•Trade deals with BRIC, commonwealth countries & Africa - are what I'd hope we'd be seeking out, if we are unable to reach a deal with the EU.
I'm not prepared to pay just to have the ability to trade. Would you pay just to enter a supermarket? Will Canada be paying anything for CETA? Would the USA if TTIP had gone through?
Set commons standards we have to meet, to sell in your market? Fine, but it seems strange that there is a fee, to trade, for the UK only it seems.
NI and the CTA pre-dates the EU. The GFA is clear and should be respected, by both the UK and the EU.
The UK gov, NI & Eire have all said publicly they want that.
CTA notwithstanding, it is possible to 'control' immigration, as it is an island.
Nobody wants a border, so this should be a moot point right?
Customs border is trickier and this is why there are negotiations taking place, otherwise it would have just been handshakes all round after handing in Art.50.
Something needs to give, but who and what are the questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to.
I see your point, but inside the CU - that's not 'leaving', so shouldn't happen.
Anyway, as I've said before, whatever 'vision' we voters may have had (individually or collectively) is all moot, as we are not in any meaningful position to demand or enforce the ideas through - so we all get to wait and see.
Leave a comment: