There is an interview in the Indie this morning with lawyer David Edward in which he lambastes the 'invincible ignorance' of those who think the UK can escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Edward sat as an ECJ judge, but perhaps not a very balanced one as his argument here is utterly distorted and deeply misleading.
"You can escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but you have got to comply with EU standards if you are going to export into the EU. And who decides what these standards are ultimately if there’s a problem? It’s the ECJ." Edward is quoted as saying. Uhm, yes. But EU exporters wishing to sell to the UK - by far the greater value of goods - must in turn comply with UK standards. And who will decide what those standards are if ultimately there's a problem? The UK Supreme Court and English / Scottish appeal courts.
Never have I heard any Brexiteer suggest that British courts should exercise Extra Territorial Jurisdiction to decide what product standards within the EU should be. It's a nonsense. Edward is refuting a claim that no-one has made. His argument is specious and fallacious; in exercising our own jurisdiction over trade, competition and commercial law for all actions within UK territorial boundaries of course we escape ECJ jurisdiction. I weep for the 'invincible ignorance' of those like Edward in a state of denial over this fundamental reality. On our land, in our skies and upon our seas out to the 200 mile economic limit, British courts will exercise sole jurisdiction. British laws, British standards, British judgements and British penalties will prevail.
And of course EU citizens will continue to enjoy access to UK courts to resolve matters within British territorial jurisdiction just as UK citizens will continue to enjoy access to the ECJ to resolve matters within EU jurisdiction. If a Polish single mum feels she is wrongly being denied a British welfare benefit, she has exactly the same recourse to our legal system as any Brit. And likewise a Brit in Europe to the ECJ. What exactly is the problem?
It's a manufactured issue, promoted by those who wish to preserve such bonds of slavery to Euro Federalism beyond Brexit. English common law never did fit well, if at all, with the Napoleonic codex approach of the mainland, yet it maintains itself as both a superior body of law and a more equitable legal jurisdiction than the 'political' fandangling of the ECJ.
12 comments:
"If a Polish single mum feels she is wrongly being denied a British welfare benefit, she has exactly the same recourse to our legal system as any Brit. "
One modest qualification. If she can persuade the Polish authorities to fund her case.
How difficult is it for these "hoity toity's" to understand that post Brexit only exports bound for the EU need to comply with EU standards not everything as things currently are.
This is exactly what I thought when I read the article.
If you wish to export medical into the US you have to go through the FDA who will examine you down to the very colour of your under-rods. It was Germany which brought us Thalidomide: the FDA picked up the danger and banned it in America. thousands of babies died or were malformed.
Is this the best that the legal profession can produce? The man is a complete oaf. Rumpole aka John Mortimer must be right about judges.
Never have I heard any Brexiteer suggest that British courts should exercise Extra Territorial Jurisdiction to decide what product standards within the EU should be. It's a nonsense.
And as such, is best ignored.
And this chap is supposed to be a lawyer? Either he is totally ignorant or he is distorting the truth to fit his argument.
John Dub, exactly right. Many Remains give every impression of simply not understanding what the EU does.
Make no mistake this general election is the second Referendum. It is still possible for a Remain coalition of Labour-SNP-LD-Greens to be the next government.
Um, I would respectfully suggest that the EU has no laws. Democratically elected governments can be overruled by unelected EU Commissioners. Therefore the law is whatever the EU Commissioners decide at any given time. Therefore you do not know what the law is until the EU Commissioners have ruled on your case. Therefore there is no law.
Just ask Apple.
Or Oleg Deripaska.
US companies suffer, but Russian oligarchs benefit from the abolition of a 14.9% import tariff being abolished. You should note that there is absolutely no connection between said abolition and the current immense wealth of P Mandelson. And I mean that most sincerely folks.
Nurse! Bring me the pills.
My daughter works at the European HQ of an American Pharmaceutical Company here in the UK. Staff have been assured that the company has no intention of moving their European HQ away from the UK as they wished to operate under UK law and have their contracts written under UK law. They respected our justice system as being fair and comprehensible unlike that in many European countries.
There's another Thalidomide style case bubbling up. Wait and see.
If this is the standard of ECJ judicial thinking, it's just as well we're getting out of it.
Mr Edward is just another arrogant, pro-EU elitist who is very badly miffed that the ignorant peasants didn't vote for his personal gravy-train to continue.
Since they passed the point of reverse toilet arse-wipe (stopped printing) the Indy has continued to show why sales dropped.
This is a sideshow pissing competition - and the (retired)judge is simply displaying some pique that the presumed authority of the court is being challenged. A the end of the day courts (like a police force) only work by the consent of the population and if they have physical powers to enforce their decisions.
'coz I say so said the judge.....
Post a Comment