Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Saver

Members
  • Content Count

    681
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Saver

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. They might get things wrong occasionally, but overall a senior judge certainly knows more about the law than Gardener. So my statement is correct that its highly unlikely Gardener is correct, and the judges are wrong. Politicians have nothing to do with it, and are general incompetent in my opinion. I have no idea why you mention them in the same sentence as the judges, unless its to try and taint judges with politicians poor performance.
  2. The judges ruled on it because people brought a legal case. How could they rule on the prerogative before this, without the legal case being brought? Its "only some of them" because "only some of them" are required in such a legal case to make a ruling!
  3. The rebate is deducted at source - i.e. we never send it to the EU. How is this money therefore controlled by the EU if we never send it?
  4. Yes, but to me it is clear the leave campaign wanted people to think that is a very likely outcome of voting leave. And its been deliberately setup so they can weasel out of the promise, having won it, because they never had any intention of spending it on the NHS. If they did mean it, why are they not now pressuring the government do to so?
  5. No. Just as misleading. Though in Corbyns case I can at least see the party won't support him, so what he says is irrelevant. I didn't think this in the bus tour case though.
  6. Oh come on. They had it on a bus touring the country, and a huge billboard by Boris in a press conference. It was obviously designed to strongly imply it would go to the NHS. They never said "one option might be" etc, whilst being careful enough to be able to claim now "we never explicitly said that".
  7. but not by using the royal prerogative, which is what this case is about.
  8. No its not. See my answer on the other thread which explains why I think Maastricht is different. Its highly unlikely you understand the law better than three senior judges who spent a long time thinking about this, researching all the cases and drawing on their years of legal experience.
  9. The maastricht treay did not change any UK citizen rights under UK law did it? Its incorporating the new laws via Parliamentary assent that Major had all the problems with the rebels. So as far as I can work out although the treaty could be signed, it did not affect UK law. Only subsequent acts of parliament to incorporate the new things into UK law could do so. Conversely activating article 50 implicitly negates rights under UK domestic law, and thus has to go via parliament. It doesn't matter what politicians may have promised during the referendum, they had no right to promise things they did not have legal rights to deliver. And the fact they did promise them cannot negate the law.
  10. what is the criteria to have an appeal? I found it odd that both sides said before the result they would appeal if they lost. Naively I would think an appeal is only heard if new evidence comes to light that the original judges were not aware of (presumably not the case here) or there is some reason to argue the judges did not follow the law - but how could they know either of these before the verdict?!
  11. except we get a lot of that back, and I don't just mean the rebate. So yes there is a tariff, but it is not anything close to £350M.
  12. They are well aware of that. Their worry is that elections are never fought on research funding. Its usually forgotten about, rarely discussed in campaigns and very vulnerable to any spending cuts because of that. Our research base has been partially propped up by EU funding as UK government cuts have bitten more and more deeply, and if EU funding goes its very likely in the dash to dump all the money in the NHS it will be forgotten about again. Its not only that - on more collaborative projects across countries, these are often does with EU funding. We could be frozen out of that and lose international research links. Researchers are right to see a bleak future in this country after the referendum.
  13. and the fact a significant fraction of their researchers are employed with EU money which could cause huge problems for research groups. Few scientists think its likely a Tory government will send the repatriated money into science.
  14. Its nearly always been this way, at least since I have lived in Sheffield. I recall 4 or 5 years ago prices dropped somewhat, but the trend started again after a few years. Places like the universities an hospitals employ a lot of people who can afford to buy - but there are not enough houses to go round leading to fierce competition.
  15. No they are not. All the lecturers in my department have open ended full time contracts.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.