Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.
I'm sure it me but I've read Anon 4.12's comments several times now and I'm still struggling to understand exactly what he/she is getting at. The UK and Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, still have their common law legal systems. The burden of proof remains what it ever was. Law is largely made by statute but that has been an increasing trend since the nineteenth century; and judges still apply precedent. I'd be really grateful if he/she could expand on the post and explain what is meant by "Our law, legal traditions and freedoms been hollowed out by 40 years of EU membership" - assuming that means something other than "Quite a few of our laws now derive from decisions made following negotiations at an international rather than purely national level which are aimed at creating common standards across the EU". Can we have some examples? Also, given that practising lawyers have to deal with laws as they are rather than as they might be, what's the criticism meant by "many privileged" [and I dare say 'non-privileged'] "lawyers know no different and care even less"? What are they meant to be doing? Finally, what is the meaning - for lawyers - of "There is nothing here to to support anything other than a clean Brexit on WTO terms and no one-sided deal with the EU"? The WTO has little or nothing to say about services. I'm entirely happy to consider arguments I understand, so help me out here, please!
Copyright © 2019 The Law Society
Site powered by Webvision Cloud