UK's Single Market Membership Up For Debate: Courts Will Decide Final Outcome

The UK's single market membership in the European Union where non-EU members including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein participate is up for debate between the UK and EU courts. 

Should the EU courts leave the matter to Parliament, pro-single market MPs promise to vote the UK's remain in the single markets.

Analysts at British Influence have written to Brexit Secretary David Davis about its position for a formanl judicial review of the government's position. For the EU courts, there is an air of uncertainty regarding the UK's European Economic Area membership as UK government lawyers believe the UK has a different legal bind with the EEA and the EU membership itself.

The EEA allows the UK to move its goods without paying for tariffs. These include money and people having no additional costs to move in and out in the European Union. The void of this membership could mean the UK loses one of its largest markets as analysts expect post-Brexit upon the outcome of an Exit vote.

Once the two sides settle the matter, the UK's MPs could vote to stay in the single market to the UK's economic advantage. All EU member states believe the UK will leave the EEA upon the invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The matter can only be settled if the UK finds it is a member of the EEA legally independent on any binding or agreement stated on its EU membership.

US Senate May Block HFC Landmark Climate Treaty

The US Senate could choose to approve or block the landmark HFC climate treaty that bans the use of climate-changing chemicals.

While the United Nations climate talks have approved and supported the climate treaty on the ban on HFC chemicals and finalised deals with countries to avoid using the chemicals in refrigerators and air conditioners, the US senate may vote not to ban the products.

Coinciding with the climate treaty approval is the enforcement of the Paris agreement.

American experts on international environmental law said the new HFC agreement may require two-thirds of the votes from the Senate. The new treaty on HFCs could only start in 2019 if enough countries formally agree to join the treaty.

“This is different from Paris, in that it requires ratification — and that’s concerning to me,” said Michael Wara, and expert on energy and environmental law at Stanford. “This is going to require getting Republicans to vote for it.”

If Trump wins next month’s election, his campaign statements on environmental issues strongly suggest he would not pursue American ratification of the HFC agreement. But even if Hillary Clinton wins, Republicans may yet be able to block America from entering into the agreement.

“I worry about her ability to have enough cocktails with enough Republican senators to get this over the hump,” Wara said. “That’s a heavy lift.”

Brexit Threatens Equal Laws Between Men and Women

Equality law and developments on equal pay had been "profoundly driven" by Europe. As the UK had voted out of its EU membership, equal pay laws for men and women may find different standard as future governments may attempt to tamper the laws.

The UK government said the Parliament will repeal the equality laws through a vote.

According to Professor Aileen McColgan and Professor Catherine Barnard of Kings College London, the laws would depend on the government of the day.

She said that nothing may change after the UK leaves the EU as most directives was implemented by 

UK law.

"But on another level it means there would be no underpinning or demand for maintenance of the current provisions, so... it is very troubling as the whole thing could be knocked away", she told MPs.

"My particular concern would be about equal pay... because it's probably economically rational to pay women as little as you can get away and if you don't have strong legislative provisions to prevent that, that is one of the areas that could be very problematic."

Catherine Barnard, professor of European law at Cambridge University, told MPs it would be very difficult for a government to repeal protections against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or religion and belief, as it was "so politically sensitive".

If the UK opted for a Norway-style model, and remained a member of the European Economic Area, 

EU laws would continue to apply, Prof Barnard said.

"More difficult is if there is no model at all or a really hard Brexit," she added, as the UK would "lose EU law acting as this floor" and lobby groups were worried that a government may then "decide to lower the standards".

It could be "a complete free-for-all as far as employment law and equality legislation are concerned", she said, as it would be "for the government to decide which rules it wanted to keep" - although she acknowledged any changes would require parliamentary approval.

Firms Moving To Ireland For Business

A massive migration of major operations from the market circle of UK's legal firms saw a huge influx of solicitor registration in Ireland due to the Brexit.

Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughter and May and Allen & Overy have put forward applicants to join their roll of solicitors in the Republic of Ireland. They have proceeded as well before the EU referendum last June 23.

Eversheds plans to launch the Eversheds Consulting. Its focus would be in Ireland working alongside a team from Dublin. Meanwhile, Slaughter and May would fund its Brussels based competition partners to help them join the Irish solicitor roll. Others are seeking partners as well.

Ciara Kennedy-Loest, partner at Hogan Lovells, said the firm was registering lawyers from its competition practice in London and Brussels in Ireland and from its IP practice.

She said: “Competition is one area where we have registered lawyers and intellectual property is another because lawyers registering trademarks have to deal with Europe’s trademark office. To do so you have to be a lawyer from a qualifying state in the EEA.”

EU antitrust or cartel investigations can last for many years and the UK will have just two years to leave the EU once the Article 50 process is triggered.

Can You Be Arrested When You're Playing Pokemon Go?

Pokemon has become an international phenomenon. By augmenting reality allowing players view otherwise-invisible Pokemon in the world to catch and train, Nintendo and Niantic Labs had created a truly cute and large monster.

However, the GPS-based game leads players to different areas. Sometimes, these are private properties that serve as 'gyms' or 'pokecenters' where they could perform special activities.

One incident involved people flocking to a church because it was a Pokemon Gym. Another was that the presence of "offensive Pokemon" such as "Koffing" and "Weezing" in the Holocaust Museum had brought in people who do not observe the Museum's sanctity just to catch Pokemon.

Can people be imprisoned for doing this?

British Privacy Lawyer John Spyrou talks about how this could all come to be.

Mr Spyrou believes that if strangers head to a person's garden simply because they want to catch a Pokemon, they can still be charged as trespassing. The resident still has grounds to call the police even if the situation will descend into a minor scare.

Mr Spyrou also made clear that Niantic is not "legally responsible" for people heading to locations with Pokemon as shown in their map. The Niantic Terms and Conditions for playing Pokemon Go may include players are responsible for local rules and must detach themselves from liability by not brekaing local laws.

How The EU Is Damaging Our Legal System

The fight for Britain's EU membership starts the following week and I've seen a major turnaround towards the Vote Leave campaign.

I've been wondering why. I'm a Vote Remain guy simply because I'm also an investor in many companies involving EU. To leave the EU would mean a drastic change in my investments.

The United Kingdom is a counrty where almost anyone can afford top-notch legal services with government and tax subsidy. What scares most people is the fact that EU laws are tampering with our own.

Here, to be honest, I can say that Vote Leave is just messing with you. The EU laws can talk more about taxation and economics. However its laws are for uniformity and "housekeeping rules" including crime, traffic, infrastructure development and others, are rooted from England and Wales, 

Scotland and Ireland's own ancient traditions and morals.

Many are scared because in France nowadays you could be detained while investigations are still ongoing. You're guilty until you're proven innocent. According to scaremongers for Vote Leave, you have a European Arrest Warrant that would detain you for life instead of using the UK law that allows detainment but only for a period of time.

But I'm more of an economist, I should say and that's where I want to go. So I vote to stay.

UK Case on Death Penalties Can Be Commuted Through Global Precedent

Two Trinidadian prisoners in the United Kingdom accused of killing three Britons in the Port Spain may not be indicted with the death penalty due to their intellectual levels.

According to the World Health Organisation's guideline that classifies any person with an IQ below 70 as "intellectually disabled", could be considered a case of insanity rather than criminal.

Lester Pitman is convicted of killing BBC Lynette Lithgow 51, Maggie Lee 83 and brother-in-law 

John Cropper 59 in their bathroom from their bungalow property.

The three were found with their hands tied behind their backs. Their throats were slit.

Authorities believe Pitman was to rob the house in 2004 but was forced to murder the three in 2004. 

He was sentenced with death penalty in Trinidad, his original country. In 2013, his case was commuted to 40 years in jail.

A court of appeal hearing declared Pitman to be sentenced properly with the death penalty.

Experts measured Pitman's IQ to be initially at 52 and then at 67, which can use the global precedent on IQs to avoid the death penalty.

Another prisoner, Neil Hernandez, had killed Christine Henry and her six-year old son Philip in Toco in Trinidad in May 2000 with a cutlass used for coconut harvesting. He was to receive the death penalty but had his sentenced commuted to 25 years due to his long wait for the death penalty. 

Experts measured his IQ at 57, which may also exempt him from the death penalty permanently.

Denying Legal Aid To Anyone In the UK Is Illegal. Even Non-UK People

Overseas domestic workers, contractual workers, habitual residents of the UK who head back to their countries every end of the contract.

Each of these individuals have stepped on UK soil. Each one of these individuals are human beings.

While I'm up for UK citizens first, I'm also up for giving fair legal rights to anybody in the United Kingdom.

The Public Law Project (PLP) also reflects my views. It would seem domestic workers, who had reported abuse from their British employers involving hiding Visas and being locked inside the house have increased in the number of incidences.

The Ministry of Justice's rule that only those with an established link to the United Kingdom should have legal aid, is illegal in itself.

The Public Law Project will demonstrate that no minister has the power to enforce discriminatory regulations.

Legal aid is a budget the government sets aside from our tax money, which would help us and non-taxpayers the opportunity to a fair trial and service of justice.

We pride that the UK is a country of fair legal right and trial for everyone. But now, they've cut the legal aid budgets even for the poorest UK citizen and now the non-UK resident.

It would seem justice now just serves money. Not that lawyers are money-grubbing professionals; you need professional fee upkeep. However, a lack of elevating funds to keep the quality and professional services of lawyers intact for everyone denies justice for the lower and lowest society.

So, nothing's really fair in the world. And this post was just your magnifying glass.

Tories' Legal Blunder Over Coal Plant Air Pollution

Politics is probably just about making false promises and idealism gone wrong. For if everything was true, then we wouldn't have to question the UK's legal situation over the coal plant pollution reduction plans.

Last year, the international legal firm ClientEarth had accused the UK government of not exhausting all means to achieve the air quality it promised to reach.

In fact, the government had been dropping requirements for industrial plants to demonstrate they meet air quality laws. So in a way, it's like installing a defeat device, such as what Volkswagen did with their cars.

According to the Environment Agency, it had done everything it could to issue permits properly to industrial plants. The EA said it had only issued permits after proper safety regulations were met and that included the air quality needed for coal plants to produce electricity.

Or, maybe not at all. It's a fact that electricity is priority in the United Kingdom. With renewable energy strategies being put to scrap, the Tory government needs a proper move, even if it means a declining health problem due to environmental troubles.

ClientEarth threatened the UK government of another lawsuit over their air quality regulation and the UK supreme courts said they will back ClientEarth should it happen.

Hoo boy!

NIHRC Accused Of Neglecting Women's Rights Following Relaxation of Abortion Laws

Christian campaigners for the abortion laws said the laws gave enough rights and protection for women. But women still have the right to abort their foetus in case the child could not live a proper life because of its abnormalities. Another right they need is if the child was conceived after rape or any crime of the sort.

In Britain, we have the 1967 Abortion Act. This allows abortions for these types of cases. However, in Ireland, only if the foetus endangers the life or the mental state of the mother can it only be aborted. At any point an abortion is performed illegally, women can be arrested for life.

As a result, many Irish women seeking an aboriton travel to the United Kingdom to avoid the law.

According to Belfast Judge Justice Mark Horner, the inability to access an abortion made it a "gross interference with her personal autonomy. Meanwhile, a huge burden is placed on victims when sexual crime has conceived the foetus.

Justice Minister David Ford said the proposed change could remain in Limbo for some time.

Meanwhile, the Christian Institute Lobby Group Head Callum Webster said:

"It is heartening that the majority of MLAs have voted to uphold the sanctity of life today at Stormont.

"There has been a media campaign to undermine the legal protections afforded to our unborn children, but thankfully politicians have resisted that co-ordinated pressure."

Britain Bended The Rules To Make Real Economic Gains... On Yemeni Life

Anybody here remember the Houthi rebels from Yemen?

Warmongers speculated Iran was behind the revolutionaries that sought to oppose Yemen's Sunni rule.

Now, Yemen's government, backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia, sought help from the latter. The result is a widespread assault by Saudi Arabia by air, land and sea.

But that is expected, to be honest.

The only thing that connects Britain to the conflict is that our contractors had sold the weapons Saudi Arabia.

It's not wrong because UK contractors have a license to sell Saudi some weapons. But it's wrong because the government had not yet reviewed the activities of Saudi Arabia.

Clearly, rules are being bent for profit's sake.

Of course, we know it's profit. With Britain's own government tying contracts with defence companies, it's not a farfetched idea that the whole-new IS and international extremism agenda is swinging to their favour.

Ask the stock markets. It's actually happening.

But, sorry to disappoint fellahs, selling to Saudi Arabia may be illegal. Some highly influential people in the Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) highlighted Saudi Arabia's indisputable record when it comes to human rights violations. If the government will not review and possibly suspend the licenses, we're seeing a big issue that would define the UK's role in its entirety.