hugo7-
Lord Denning who would have hung the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. That Lord Denning.
-
Thus far I have assumed that our Parliament, whenever it passes legislation, intends to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament. I do not however envisage any such situation. As I said in Blackburn v Attorney General ([1971] 2 All ER 1380 at 1383, [1971] 1 WLR 1037 at 1040): 'But if Parliament should do so, then I say we will consider that event when it happens.' Unless there is such an intentional and express repudiation of the Treaty, it is our duty to give priority to the Treaty. In the present case I assume that the United Kingdom intended to fulfil its obligations under art 119.
My point is that the integration of EU law in UK law was never straightforward. Never just details.
You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Leftfield
hurricane_run
Q: What are you asking me? I ask because you appear to be trying to use a case that is about interpreting the application of law to discuss making law - these are two different things, no?
A:The Factortame case effectively made law. The application of EU law in the UK required law to be created.