Talk:Factortame case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
This article seems to imply that the effect of the Thoburn case is that "constitutional" laws may only be expressly repealed. The comment in Thoburn suggesting this was merely obiter dicta and is not binding - someone should change the article accordingly. I would, but I don't know enough about editing rules and guidelines etc, an experienced wiki person should sort it out!
Unknown 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm
It is my understanding that the ECJ did not rule that the House of Lords should strike down the offending legislation, but that instead they should 'disapply' it, ie. ignore its application. This is an important distinction.
Unknown 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Free money
"Other parties disagree that this would be difficult and the reasons for not leaving are due to the blatant self-interest that the politicians involved display. This is the so-called EU 'gravy train' whereby polticians get money for anything they wish from free lunches to free travel for their families.[citation needed]"
I rather doubt that politicians really can "get money for anything they wish", and the fact there's no citation for this makes me even more suspicious. The issue of polticians' self interest as an impediment to leaving the EU already been raised in the preceeding sentence, so this bit really should be excised IMO.
Rocko b 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ollieollieollie claims to have tried to remove the above line; edit appears to have restored it, however. Have undone edit, returning page to previous text; ie missing the un sourced, inapproporiately phrased text re the "eu gravy train".
- I did intend to remove the offending line, must have got mixed up in all the edits. Ollieollieollie 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Major re-write required
For such an important case in English and European law which changed the relationship between the EU and its Member States, this article needs to be seriously improved to provide more information about the actual case itself, the ratio, the ECJ's judgment and excerpts from informed academic commentary. It is also worth bearing in mind that there were five Factortame judgments. Ravenseft 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
