Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
These guys seem to disagree with you.They are constitutional specialists,lawyers,barristers ,judges ,all highly intelligent and experienced people ,just the sort of people who's opinions you have been using to form your opinions so it may be worth your while having a read .
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/index.html
Have a read it may give you a more up beat outlook |
They may be lawyers however there are very few of them, their opinions are very much at the extremes, and above all else they are a campaigning group.
Campaigning group for one side thinks all will be easy and wonderful. Their employers don't share their confidence.
http://www.cms-lawnow.com/Brexit
This is about as worthwhile as reading the opinions from lawyers hired by Vote Leave or Stronger In, or taking lessons in climate change from scientists hired by Shell or Greenpeace.
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/aboutus.shtml
Quote:
Lawyers for Britain - Who we are
We are a campaigning group which brings together lawyers interested in Britain’s relationship with the EU. We draw support from solicitors, barristers, legal academics, retired judges and constitutional specialists. We believe that there needs to be a fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the EU. This cannot be achieved unless we vote to leave the current Treaties, and then build a new and constructive relationship which preserves our trading links but restores our ability to be governed by our own laws.
|
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit.shtml
Is laughably one-sided and much of it is straight from Vote Leave or Leave.EU. As would be expected from a campaign group, rather than a neutral observer.
Just a couple of comments without claiming legal knowledge:
Quote:
|
Since we are the EU's best customer and buy far more from the EU than we sell to them, a free trade deal is more in their interests than in ours and we would have a very strong hand in negotiating free trade on fair and reasonable terms for our mutual benefit without having to pay any sort of "price" for the great "privilege" of continuing to buy goods from the EU without imposing tariffs or other barriers on them.
|
Completely ignores that we're 5% of the EU's exports and they're over 40% of ours, the same argument made by Vote Leave and Leave.EU, so ridiculous to say it's more in their interests than ours just because in nominal terms our numbers are higher. That's like saying that the UK's deficit is higher than Scotland's as ours is tens of billions while theirs is a little over 10 billion and completely ignoring the percentages. Also ignores that the EU is about a lot more than just trade, which was I believe a big objection.
Quote:
|
Thirdly, we would replace many international arrangments which at present are conducted though the EU by directly joining global or regional multilateral treaties. In many areas, there is simply no logic or purpose in conducting our international relations through the EU.
|
That they can't spell 'arrangements' speaks volumes for the quality of this content. Nothing says professional like an ugly and amateurish site that didn't have a spell checker run over it or be properly proof-read. It also, of course, completely ignores that we can't just unilaterally join these treaties, it's a negotiation which, in the case of the WTO involves nations that can't stand us.
If the other side of the argument
can produce a site that doesn't look 20 years old surely these guys could've done better.
If you want sunshine blown up your backside and propaganda in the guise of 'legal expertise' that's definitely a good place to be, just as if you want to believe we're in no way responsible for climate change or that sugar is healthy you can find 'experts' who'll tell you that too.
I treat both sites with equal scepticism and will take guidance from neither, but thanks for the link.
---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------
If you're interested in some unbiased, or at very least not self-admittedly biased legal campaigning have a look at these:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...pensable-role/
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-to-legislate/
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...tary-scrutiny/
Setting out cases both for and against royal prerogative triggering of Article 50 as just one point of law this all covers, alongside another route with the consensus being that it isn't that simple and lawyers stand to make a lot of money from the whole enterprise.