As you say VM, the UK may well have been first, but the EU law means we can’t ditch ATOL. That is the whole point.
For goodness sake why would the government change that they introduced? Our laws and things like that won’t change just because we have come out of the EU. You are scare mongering...........
Possibly for the same reason their leave deal won’t guarantee keeping workers rights in line with the rest of Europe. It’s what the Tories, in particular, do. They screw people over, unless they are minted
Governments introduce and then U-turn on laws all the time. Our laws certainly will change and the government have said they will change many. Doubt this would have been one of them but you never know what will happen in the future. Especially with Johnson in charge. but as i said, its the cooperation to ensure a fair European wide market for flight operators and the European courts to regulate it that will certainly be missed.
Talking of laws, this piece was written by the Tunbridge Wells In group, about forcing the government to obey the law. That, in itself, is something none of us could have imagined being necessary even a few months ago, but it’s looking increasingly likely: A chilling comment in the Sunday Times looks like an attempt to undermine the independence of our judiciary. As such, this is a serious attack on our democracy. Nobody, even the Prime Minister, is above the law. A “Number 10” source is quoted as saying: “Remainiac lawyers now demand that Scottish judges take over the role of elected politicians and cancel Brexit. Hopefully judges will reflect deeply on the profound consequences for the judiciary if they are seen by the public to side with those trying to cancel the biggest democratic vote in our history.” The lawsuit isn’t trying to cancel Brexit, merely to force Boris Johnson to obey the law. Downing Street’s response is akin to the Daily Mail’s notorious attempt to brand the Supreme Court “enemies of the people”, only worse in that this is coming directly from the government not a tabloid paper. The source was not referring to the Supreme Court’s imminent judgment over whether Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful. Rather they were referring to the separate issue of whether he would obey a new law instructing him to ask the EU for extra time if, by October 19, he hasn’t got MPs to approve a Brexit deal. The Prime Minister told the BBC last week: “We will obey the law but we will come out [of the EU]… on 31 October.” Unless he manages to strike a deal with the EU – which seems pretty unlikely – Johnson will struggle to square these two statements. What if he then breaks the law? What if he is prepared to go to jail rather than send a letter to the EU asking for extra time? Wouldn’t we crash out of the EU? Not necessarily. There are several possible defences against such dastardly tactics, one of which is for the courts to instruct somebody else to send the letter on Johnson’s behalf. A lawsuit has already been initiated in the Court of Session, Scotland’s top court, to do precisely this. Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP, Jolyon Maugham, the lawyer, and Dale Vince, the environmentalist, are leading the charge. The first two are part of the same team that was behind the Scottish case which ruled that Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful – and which the Supreme Court will rule on tomorrow. The Court of Sessions has been chosen because it possesses an unusual power, “nobile officium”, under which it can provide a legal remedy when none otherwise exists. Stephen Thomson, an academic who specialises in the topic, writes that this power can be used in exceptional circumstances, where the matter is urgent and no other remedy is available to the “petitioner”. It would seem that a situation where the Prime Minister was prepared to go to jail rather than follow the law and time was ticking rapidly towards our exit from the EU would fit the bill. While there may be other ways of stopping him dead in his tracks – for example, the Queen could fire him – it’s not clear that the petitioners themselves have any other remedies. The litigants have asked the Court of Sessions to instruct the Clerk of the Court to sign a letter on behalf of Johnson and send it to the EU if he refuses to do so himself. They also want the Court to declare that the letter is equivalent to one signed by the Prime Minister himself. The Court is expected to hear the case next week. Although Johnson has sent his defence to the lawsuit, it has not been published. It wouldn’t be surprising if whoever lost appealed to the Supreme Court. The No 10 quote in the Sunday Times shows that Downing Street is worried. But rather than trying to bully judges by pitting them against the people, Johnson should just obey the law.
How are our elected politicians meant to carry out their role if parliament is suspended? Who else's job can it be to decide whether the suspension is lawful while we have no elected politicians debating it?
That was what Lord Keen, speaking for the government, said at the Supreme Court last week. He was saying that Parliament had the ability to stop itself being prorogued, but as Lord Pannick, for Gina Miller, pointed out that if Parliament was prorogued, it couldn’t decide anything. This new case goes beyond that though, in summary the Scottish Court of Session has the power to suggest a remedy where one doesn’t already exist. So if Boris refuses to ask for an extension in the absence of a deal, the proposal is that the Court of Session could nominate someone else to ask for it. That would certainly start the pips squeaking!
Good to know. i had only really read a few of the reported arguments on each side and didnt hear that as one of them. They only had a short time between parliament returning and the suspension and they had a lot of important decisions to vote on. Glad to see it was used as an argument in the case.
A fudge, as per usual, I'm afraid. And they've missed their biggest opportunity, since New Labour, to seize power. People are looking for proper leadership and the right direction to get behind. And this isn't it. If they had gone full Remain I would almost certainly have voted for Labour. But it appears that Jo Swinson was right. Now I'll probably end up voting tactically, with a huge bias towards political movements which take the Climate crisis seriously.
This is now a political movement. The sides are Scientific Data versus Climate Crisis Deniers: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-generation-climate-breakdown-greta-thunberg A friend of mine suggested today that we vote the kids into power, as they seem to be the only ones with any clear idea of which way to turn. He was being serious and I couldn't chuckle it away either.
Is it justiciable? Yes. Have we reached a judgement? Yes, by unanimous decision of all 11 judges. Still waiting on the actual verdict...
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules that Boris Johnson DID unlawfully prorogue parliament, by a judgement of 11-0.
Supreme Court says it is now up to John Bercow to decide whether to reconvene parliament. John Bercow says he believes parliament must reconvene immediately.
