Joined: Feb 05 2009 Posts: 366 Location: In a state of disrepair
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Hey, no need to get all indignant. Your restraint of trade point is an interesting one, but the post I replied to was specifically your claim that the EU Court (sic) overrides any party states national law. This was, of course, dealing with the precise opposite of your previous post which you made clear was talking about the position "irrespective of national laws".
My apologies, to get things straight the EU can override ANY party states national law Including Sovereignty laws. The European court is the highest in the land as the Single European Act of 1972 was enshrined within UK law in 1972. I don't think they would be interested in altering UK visa restrictions without serious cause, however, The EU's anti competition laws are very strict, and binding, and the RFL santioning this move would be considered a restraint of trade on the other 13 Super League club's
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
cymraegrhino wrote:My apologies, to get things straight the EU can override ANY party states national law Including Sovereignty laws. The European court is the highest in the land as the Single European Act of 1972 was enshrined within UK law in 1972.
Again, no it cannot. Absolutely not.
The European Court can judicially review a decision of a UK court, and can rule the decision inconsistent with the Treaties. This then means that the UK has to take the necessary action to achieve consistency.
This is NOT overriding national law. The UK Parliament has decided to arrange its affairs in this way, an therefore a decision of a UK Court which is inconsistent with the Treaties is against the will of Parliament, and should not have been made. The European Court's function in judicially reviewing this is to point out the error.
And even then, this state of affairs only subsists because the UK Parliament created it in passing the 1972 Act. If it chose to, it could abolish the Act tomorrow.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Feb 05 2009 Posts: 366 Location: In a state of disrepair
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Again, no it cannot. Absolutely not.
The European Court can judicially review a decision of a UK court, and can rule the decision inconsistent with the Treaties. This then means that the UK has to take the necessary action to achieve consistency.
This is NOT overriding national law. The UK Parliament has decided to arrange its affairs in this way, an therefore a decision of a UK Court which is inconsistent with the Treaties is against the will of Parliament, and should not have been made. The European Court's function in judicially reviewing this is to point out the error.
And even then, this state of affairs only subsists because the UK Parliament created it in passing the 1972 Act. If it chose to, it could abolish the Act tomorrow.
I apologise, if you says thats true I believe you, but to abolish the act would then mean that we would have to give up our status as member state of the European Union.
How do you feel on the restriction of trade issue?
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14145 Location: At the Gates of Delirium
cymraegrhino wrote:... the Single European Act of 1972 was enshrined within UK law in 1972.
Did I miss a piece of important legislation somewhere along the way? I recall the European Communities Act, 1972, being signed - I'm not too young to remember that - but the Single European Act I recall was signed in 1986?
Of course, I'm a beancounter not a lawyer so I could be wrong...
Joined: Feb 05 2009 Posts: 366 Location: In a state of disrepair
Adeybull wrote:Did I miss a piece of important legislation somewhere along the way? I recall the European Communities Act, 1972, being signed - I'm not too young to remember that - but the Single European Act I recall was signed in 1986?
Of course, I'm a beancounter not a lawyer so I could be wrong...
I am too young to remember that so it is probably me that is mcfuddled
Joined: Jul 19 2007 Posts: 5671 Location: home of Lord Ted. kogarah sydney australia
whats the big deal anyway .
winning like never before. decoys. mouse traps. chicken wings. lollie pops. shepperds. the crusher. grapples. big league. In 1935 The Dragon Slayers as they were known defeated Canterbury bulldogs 91-6, which is still the biggest win in the Club's History. In 1907, the St George district had a club in the Sydney rugby union competition. Interestingly, the team's area was referred to as the 'Illawarra suburbs'. A resolution to form a St George rugby league club was made at a local meeting held in early 1908, but the movement faltered and collapsed. St George, wearing the district colours of red and white, played in the NSWRL's Third Grade competition in 1910, and formed a President's Cup team in 1911. References were found at the time to district teams being called 'The Saints'.the perfect 11
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
