Vocal Voices

of Session.

Why? The Scottish courts are sending a request for opinion to the ECJ for opinion.

This is normal we should think as lower courts often ask for an opinion from a higher court. So much is true, however this opinion is always sought where the lower court has the right to rule, but could be overruled by the higher court on appeal. By seeking an opinion, the chances of being overruled on appeal are much lower.

So why do I expect a rebuke? The Scottish Court has no right of ruling on A50. In fact the Scottish Court cannot even petition the ECJ to rule on A50. Only the Government, on trying to Repeal the activation, or the EU commission itself, on receiving the unilateral declaration to Repeal the activation by the UK government, can petition the court.

I expect the ECJ to say what they said to the last one of these. There is no case to answer because none of the competent authorities have raised a petition to the court.

Lest it be forgotten, there is only one person in the UK who can do this and that is the PM.

Hmm, now let me see.

A panel of three judges led by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, obviously do not know anything about the law otherwise they would have said: "Sorry, chaps, only governments can petition the ECJ. Toodle pip."

But they did not because they do know the law and that even individuals can petition the CJEU for clarification of treaty laws.

The CJEU also must know the law as it is going to sit in deliberation on the 27th of November. If the petition was not valid the petitioners would already have been told to go away. If anything the CJEU is moving at breakneck speed in "granting the fast-track procedure” in order to make a decision no later than the Christmas break.

It all sounds very rebukeful..... or not.

Workingman wrote:But they did not because they do know the law and that even individuals can petition the CJEU for clarification of treaty laws.

Yes I remember, the last time individuals asked for "clarification" on A50, the ECJ said "No case to answer".

I can't see them saying much different this time.

Suff wrote:Yes I remember, the last time individuals asked for "clarification" on A50, the ECJ said "No case to answer".

Que? Who asked, and when? The cross-party group asked the Scottish Court, which turned the request down, but that was overturned on appeal, hence the move to the CJEU.

What has become clear is that Brexiters are scared to death that the CJEU will say 'yes', but stop fretting, it does not really matter. As I have said many times before, nothing will happen.

It is a fairly simple binary choice and and whatever the CJEU decides it is only informative, it does not force anyone to do anything. Even if it says that the UK can unilaterally revoke A50, and it might, there is not one politician or political party with power who would take up the offer.

No backbone, no political morals and each and every one a fully paid up member of the Self-preservation Society, you see.

Worried? Who's worried? Constant legal action is the Last recourse of the inept politician....