I noticed Rooney being conspicuously static - he's never managed more than a jog-trot until he jumps up in a hissy-fit and gives away an unnecessary free kick. Whose side is he on? Take him off at half-time and bring the team back up to full strength.
BBC: "There is now an armed presence at the hospital".
Politics is dirty, and people will try to make political capital out of it. For example, what else is it when Boris Johnson and Labour In both "stop campaigning"?
Maria Eagle just had to get that tweet in, that this person "allegedly" shouted Britain First. This bloody woman is just the pits. The worse kind of tribal politician. There is no sewer that she won't climb into to make a point. Disgusting.
Besides I still believe the most likely result is EFTA membership.
Despite the fact that VoteLeave have explicitly rejected those options.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
1. While the treaty uses the words "EFTA states" a lot, it specifically defines that term to mean "Norway, Iceland and Litchenstein". 2. The treaty contains specific provisions regarding new members of the EU becoming automatically party to the agreement. There is no corresponding text regarding new members of EFTA.
Based on this, I'm now fairly certain that us joining EFTA would not automatically lead to us being a member of the EEA.
Perhaps one of our resident lawyers could have a read and see if my interpretation is correct.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
I noticed Rooney being conspicuously static - he's never managed more than a jog-trot until he jumps up in a hissy-fit and gives away an unnecessary free kick. Whose side is he on? Take him off at half-time and bring the team back up to full strength.
Haven't really followed English football since Euro 2004. Did Wayne live up to his early promise?
Please don't let this lunatic speak for anyone but himself. He is a madman. Nothing to do with the referendum.
No.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.
Disgraceful that you would choose, twenty minutes after the incident has taken place, to weaponise it when we don't even know the suspect, motive or anything.
Please don't let this lunatic speak for anyone but himself. He is a madman. Nothing to do with the referendum.
No.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.
Disgraceful that you would choose, twenty minutes after the incident has taken place, to weaponise it when we don't even know the suspect, motive or anything.
I noticed Rooney being conspicuously static - he's never managed more than a jog-trot until he jumps up in a hissy-fit and gives away an unnecessary free kick. Whose side is he on? Take him off at half-time and bring the team back up to full strength.
Haven't really followed English football since Euro 2004. Did Wayne live up to his early promise?
Rooney off, Vardy on go 4-4-2 would be the obvious move from Hodgson.
@journodave: 'It looked as though he had been waiting for her' an eyewitness tells BBC on Jo Cox shooting
Yes, sounds brutal
"The attack took place near the town's library where she held advice surgeries.
An eyewitness said the 41-year-old mother of two was left lying in a pool of blood on the pavement after her assailant struck in Birstall, West Yorkshire.
Hichem Ben Abdallah said: "He was kicking her as she was lying on the floor."
He said that after a bystander intervened, the attacker produced a gun, stepped back and shot her twice."
Please don't let this lunatic speak for anyone but himself. He is a madman. Nothing to do with the referendum.
No.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.
Yes of course, the first thing any of us should consider is whether or not some loon is going to kick off. That's just a despicable thing to say, though I doubt you'll feel any shame.
I notice you conveniently omit any Brexit Labour luminaries. So, an ill-timed, ill-thought-through and wholly partisan remark. Bleh. Disgusting.
Please don't let this lunatic speak for anyone but himself. He is a madman. Nothing to do with the referendum.
No.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.
Disgraceful that you would choose, twenty minutes after the incident has taken place, to weaponise it when we don't even know the suspect, motive or anything.
Please don't let this lunatic speak for anyone but himself. He is a madman. Nothing to do with the referendum.
No.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.
You don't know who the attacker is, what his motive was, what happened nor what he did or did not say. And yet you choose to draw predetermined conclusions.
That reflects very badly on you.
At this point there is an MP, a wife and mother seriously injured and all decent people will be hoping that she makes a full and speedy recovery.
I noticed Rooney being conspicuously static - he's never managed more than a jog-trot until he jumps up in a hissy-fit and gives away an unnecessary free kick. Whose side is he on? Take him off at half-time and bring the team back up to full strength.
Haven't really followed English football since Euro 2004. Did Wayne live up to his early promise?
Rooney off, Vardy on go 4-4-2 would be the obvious move from Hodgson.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
Horrible about Jo Cox. Whatever their views, MPs have had the guts (unlike us keyboard warriors) to stand up and argue and fight for their opinons.
Are we still living in the la-la land where EEA/EFTA membership comes with no free movement or are we saying forget what the proles overwhelmingly will have voted for, they don't quite understand the issues and we are happy with free movement?
Edit: NPXMPX2 I grant you the honour of being both an MP (ex) and a keyboard warrior.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
That's correct, but irrelevant. The EEA Agreement confers rights in different places on Contracting Parties, EC Member States and EFTA States. Britain is definitely a Contracting Party. It is definitely not an EFTA State (these are explicitly defined as the three EEA countries, with no provision for dynamically changing the list, and membership of EFTA is clearly not sufficient to make us an EFTA state for the purposes of this agreement, since Switzerland is not). It's unclear whether we'd be an 'EC Member State' if we left - oddly, it isn't defined - but one assumes not.
The key point is that we wouldn't automatically migrate from one side of the agreement to the other; it would have to be modified. By any standard it's a major modification of our status under the agreement, so would obviously require the consent of all parties.
Eye witness statement on the Guardian website mentions no "Britain First" shout by assailant.
"Abdallah said the weapon looked handmade and that the man who had been wrestling with the assailant continued to do so even after he saw the gun.
He said: “The man stepped back with the gun and fired it and then he fired a second shot, as he was firing he was looking down at the ground.”
The whole incident lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, Mr Abdallah said and another bystander told him she had also been stabbed.
He added: “He was kicking her and he was pulling her by her hair. A very courageous man from the dry cleaners tried to restrain him and he couldn’t stop him because all of a sudden he pulled a gun.
“She was a standing still target for him when he shot her.”
We shall see. First priority is to hope Jo makes a full recovery.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
My understanding is that we are a contracting party in our own right. Where the treaty refers to EC Member States, that is a term defined in the text to be the list of states mentioned. Until the treaty is amended we would still be an EC Member State as far as the treaty is concerned, even if we were not.
Eye witness statement on the Guardian website mentions no "Britain First" shout by assailant.
"Abdallah said the weapon looked handmade and that the man who had been wrestling with the assailant continued to do so even after he saw the gun.
He said: “The man stepped back with the gun and fired it and then he fired a second shot, as he was firing he was looking down at the ground.”
The whole incident lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, Mr Abdallah said and another bystander told him she had also been stabbed.
He added: “He was kicking her and he was pulling her by her hair. A very courageous man from the dry cleaners tried to restrain him and he couldn’t stop him because all of a sudden he pulled a gun.
“She was a standing still target for him when he shot her.”
We shall see. First priority is to hope Jo makes a full recovery.
Sounds absolutely an brutal and frenzied attack...
I don't believe for one moment that the person who shot her shouted "Britain First". Is the source Maria Eagle's tweet?
We don't know. Let's think of Jo Cox, pray for her recovery and wait for official statement(s).
I hope she recovers, but that isn't going to stop me exercising my critical faculties.
Those who tell lies about such events often get their lies in very early, to shape the narrative.
Guido and the Independent are sourcing the "Britain First" allegation to Maria Eagle. Where did she hear it from, and why was she the first to say it publicly?
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
My understanding is that we are a contracting party in our own right. Where the treaty refers to EC Member States, that is a term defined in the text to be the list of states mentioned. Until the treaty is amended we would still be an EC Member State as far as the treaty is concerned, even if we were not.
We are a contracting party. But the treaty specifically talks about granting the EFTA states certain rights. As we wouldn't be included as one of the EFTA states, we wouldn't be granted the rights!
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
That would be the case if it was a treaty between the EEC/EU and EFTA but it is not. It is a multinational treaty between many different countries each of whom signs in their own right. Indeed the treaty has been amended as other countries have joined since its original drafting.
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
My understanding is that we are a contracting party in our own right. Where the treaty refers to EC Member States, that is a term defined in the text to be the list of states mentioned. Until the treaty is amended we would still be an EC Member State as far as the treaty is concerned, even if we were not.
We are a contracting party. But the treaty specifically talks about granting the EFTA states certain rights. As we wouldn't be included as one of the EFTA states, we wouldn't be granted the rights!
So how come countries moved from EFTA to the EU with no treaty amendment?
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
That would be the case if it was a treaty between the EEC/EU and EFTA but it is not. It is a multinational treaty between many different countries each of whom signs in their own right. Indeed the treaty has been amended as other countries have joined since its original drafting.
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
Article 128 covers that. One applies to be a member of the EEA, it is not automatic.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
That's correct, but irrelevant. The EEA Agreement confers rights in different places on Contracting Parties, EC Member States and EFTA States. Britain is definitely a Contracting Party. It is definitely not an EFTA State (these are explicitly defined as the three EEA countries, with no provision for dynamically changing the list, and membership of EFTA is clearly not sufficient to make us an EFTA state for the purposes of this agreement, since Switzerland is not). It's unclear whether we'd be an 'EC Member State' if we left - oddly, it isn't defined - but one assumes not.
The key point is that we wouldn't automatically migrate from one side of the agreement to the other; it would have to be modified. By any standard it's a major modification of our status under the agreement, so would obviously require the consent of all parties.
So as I asked Robert, how come no amendment was made when countries moved the other way? Do please check but I am correct. Apart from a footnote that they have moved from EFTA to the EU there is no amendment to the treaty
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
My understanding is that we are a contracting party in our own right. Where the treaty refers to EC Member States, that is a term defined in the text to be the list of states mentioned. Until the treaty is amended we would still be an EC Member State as far as the treaty is concerned, even if we were not.
We are a contracting party. But the treaty specifically talks about granting the EFTA states certain rights. As we wouldn't be included as one of the EFTA states, we wouldn't be granted the rights!
Maybe I'm wrong but I read some significance into the way the list of parties is structured on page 4. We would be an EC state until a technical amendment to move us from one list to the other. I think Richard is right that this is the case.
Politically whether this is feasible is another matter.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
That would be the case if it was a treaty between the EEC/EU and EFTA but it is not. It is a multinational treaty between many different countries each of whom signs in their own right. Indeed the treaty has been amended as other countries have joined since its original drafting.
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
Article 128 covers that. One applies to be a member of the EEA, it is not automatic.
No it doesn't. Article 128 applies to countries coming into the EEA from outside either EFTA or the EU. Sweden and Finland did not have to reapply.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
That's correct, but irrelevant. The EEA Agreement confers rights in different places on Contracting Parties, EC Member States and EFTA States. Britain is definitely a Contracting Party. It is definitely not an EFTA State (these are explicitly defined as the three EEA countries, with no provision for dynamically changing the list, and membership of EFTA is clearly not sufficient to make us an EFTA state for the purposes of this agreement, since Switzerland is not). It's unclear whether we'd be an 'EC Member State' if we left - oddly, it isn't defined - but one assumes not.
The key point is that we wouldn't automatically migrate from one side of the agreement to the other; it would have to be modified. By any standard it's a major modification of our status under the agreement, so would obviously require the consent of all parties.
So as I asked Robert, how come no amendment was made when countries moved the other way? Do please check but I am correct. Apart from a footnote that they have moved from EFTA to the EU there is no amendment to the treaty
The treaty was amended. If you look at page 4 of the treaty, it lists the parties and under which category they fall.
So, those countries were moved from having the rights and obligations of EFTA countries to the rights and obligations of EU (or as it says in this treaty EC) countries.
The modification of the treaty will have required the signature of all the parties.
So as I asked Robert, how come no amendment was made when countries moved the other way? Do please check but I am correct. Apart from a footnote that they have moved from EFTA to the EU there is no amendment to the treaty
As Robert says, there is provision for countries joining the EU. However, there is no provision in the Agreement for countries leaving the EU; the possibility doesn't seem to have occurred to whoever drafted the Agreement.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
That's correct, but irrelevant. The EEA Agreement confers rights in different places on Contracting Parties, EC Member States and EFTA States. Britain is definitely a Contracting Party. It is definitely not an EFTA State (these are explicitly defined as the three EEA countries, with no provision for dynamically changing the list, and membership of EFTA is clearly not sufficient to make us an EFTA state for the purposes of this agreement, since Switzerland is not). It's unclear whether we'd be an 'EC Member State' if we left - oddly, it isn't defined - but one assumes not.
The key point is that we wouldn't automatically migrate from one side of the agreement to the other; it would have to be modified. By any standard it's a major modification of our status under the agreement, so would obviously require the consent of all parties.
So as I asked Robert, how come no amendment was made when countries moved the other way? Do please check but I am correct. Apart from a footnote that they have moved from EFTA to the EU there is no amendment to the treaty
The treaty was amended. If you look at page 4 of the treaty, it lists the parties and under which category they fall.
So, those countries were moved from having the rights and obligations of EFTA countries to the rights and obligations of EU (or as it says in this treaty EC) countries.
The modification of the treaty will have required the signature of all the parties.
It was done without formal amendment - again covered by the 1969 Convention and did not require formal agreement by all the countries.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
That would be the case if it was a treaty between the EEC/EU and EFTA but it is not. It is a multinational treaty between many different countries each of whom signs in their own right. Indeed the treaty has been amended as other countries have joined since its original drafting.
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
Article 128 covers that. One applies to be a member of the EEA, it is not automatic.
No it doesn't. Article 128 applies to countries coming into the EEA from outside either EFTA or the EU. Sweden and Finland did not have to reapply.
Shall we check? My contention is that the modification of the treaty will have required the signature of the parties.
The facts that both campaigns have suspended for the day makes me feel pessimistic.
Me too. I think that it is a mistake by the campaigns. I can understand it but it appears to link the grievous event with the campaigns. That might encourage other nutters. It would be better for both campaigns to express sorrow, revulsion and condemnation then carry on (but lower the temperature).
'Eyewitness Hithem Ben Abdallah, 56, was in the cafe next door to the library shortly after 1pm when he heard screaming and went outside.
He told the Press Association: “There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag.”
After a brief scuffle, he said the man stepped back and the MP became involved.
He added: “He was fighting with her and wrestling with her and then the gun went off twice and then she fell between two cars and I came and saw her bleeding on the floor.”
After around 15 minutes, the shop owner said emergency services arrived and tended to her with a drip.'
'Abdallah said the weapon looked handmade and that the man who had been wrestling with the assailant continued to do so even after he saw the gun.
He said: “The man stepped back with the gun and fired it and then he fired a second shot, as he was firing he was looking down at the ground.”
The whole incident lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, Mr Abdallah said and another bystander told him she had also been stabbed.
He added: “He was kicking her and he was pulling her by her hair. A very courageous man from the dry cleaners tried to restrain him and he couldn’t stop him because all of a sudden he pulled a gun.
“She was a standing still target for him when he shot her.”
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
That's correct, but irrelevant. The EEA Agreement confers rights in different places on Contracting Parties, EC Member States and EFTA States. Britain is definitely a Contracting Party. It is definitely not an EFTA State (these are explicitly defined as the three EEA countries, with no provision for dynamically changing the list, and membership of EFTA is clearly not sufficient to make us an EFTA state for the purposes of this agreement, since Switzerland is not). It's unclear whether we'd be an 'EC Member State' if we left - oddly, it isn't defined - but one assumes not.
The key point is that we wouldn't automatically migrate from one side of the agreement to the other; it would have to be modified. By any standard it's a major modification of our status under the agreement, so would obviously require the consent of all parties.
So as I asked Robert, how come no amendment was made when countries moved the other way? Do please check but I am correct. Apart from a footnote that they have moved from EFTA to the EU there is no amendment to the treaty
The treaty was amended. If you look at page 4 of the treaty, it lists the parties and under which category they fall.
So, those countries were moved from having the rights and obligations of EFTA countries to the rights and obligations of EU (or as it says in this treaty EC) countries.
The modification of the treaty will have required the signature of all the parties.
It was done without formal amendment - again covered by the 1969 Convention and did not require formal agreement by all the countries.
Are you sure? The words of the treaty were changed without the agreement of all the parties?
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
That would be the case if it was a treaty between the EEC/EU and EFTA but it is not. It is a multinational treaty between many different countries each of whom signs in their own right. Indeed the treaty has been amended as other countries have joined since its original drafting.
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
Article 128 covers that. One applies to be a member of the EEA, it is not automatic.
No it doesn't. Article 128 applies to countries coming into the EEA from outside either EFTA or the EU. Sweden and Finland did not have to reapply.
Shall we check? My contention is that the modification of the treaty will have required the signature of the parties.
EEA enlargement, which is slightly different, does have a signed amendment by the parties. Interestingly in 2007 each EU state signed individually, but in 2014 there was a single signature on behalf of the EU.
The important point is that as an independent signatory we cannot be removed. The 1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear on this.
But the treaty is between two sets of contracting parties: The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
That would be the case if it was a treaty between the EEC/EU and EFTA but it is not. It is a multinational treaty between many different countries each of whom signs in their own right. Indeed the treaty has been amended as other countries have joined since its original drafting.
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
Article 128 covers that. One applies to be a member of the EEA, it is not automatic.
No it doesn't. Article 128 applies to countries coming into the EEA from outside either EFTA or the EU. Sweden and Finland did not have to reapply.
Shall we check? My contention is that the modification of the treaty will have required the signature of the parties.
EEA enlargement, which is slightly different, does have a signed amendment by the parties. Interestingly in 2007 each EU state signed individually, but in 2014 there was a single signature on behalf of the EU.
Comments
I noticed Rooney being conspicuously static - he's never managed more than a jog-trot until he jumps up in a hissy-fit and gives away an unnecessary free kick. Whose side is he on? Take him off at half-time and bring the team back up to full strength.
The arrest was made an hour after the attack.
Politics is dirty, and people will try to make political capital out of it. For example, what else is it when Boris Johnson and Labour In both "stop campaigning"?
A free kick from 30 yards on target is a bit of an exception in the games I've watched so far.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.
Retract that appalling comment.
'No.
Boris, Gove Farage et al knew what they were doing when they chose to sing from the Britain First hymnbook.'
Try not to be a complete moron.
Were you saying this when the IRA were blowing up a Tory MP in the House of Parliament? Jeez...
"The attack took place near the town's library where she held advice surgeries.
An eyewitness said the 41-year-old mother of two was left lying in a pool of blood on the pavement after her assailant struck in Birstall, West Yorkshire.
Hichem Ben Abdallah said: "He was kicking her as she was lying on the floor."
He said that after a bystander intervened, the attacker produced a gun, stepped back and shot her twice."
http://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/MP-shot-in-Leeds-Politicians-offer-prayers
I notice you conveniently omit any Brexit Labour luminaries. So, an ill-timed, ill-thought-through and wholly partisan remark. Bleh. Disgusting.
That reflects very badly on you.
At this point there is an MP, a wife and mother seriously injured and all decent people will be hoping that she makes a full and speedy recovery.
@corbynjokes
Why is Joe Hart like Ed Miliband?
They were both beaten because they were incapable of moving to the left.
The EU states (of which the UK is one) and the EFTA states (ex Switzerland). So, when it says it Article 16: "no discrimination regarding the condition under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States."
Here's the problem: we aren't - as is define in the treaty - an EFTA state.
We know nothing at all - 'Sky Sources' is mainly Twitter these days.
Are we still living in the la-la land where EEA/EFTA membership comes with no free movement or are we saying forget what the proles overwhelmingly will have voted for, they don't quite understand the issues and we are happy with free movement?
Edit: NPXMPX2 I grant you the honour of being both an MP (ex) and a keyboard warrior.
The key point is that we wouldn't automatically migrate from one side of the agreement to the other; it would have to be modified. By any standard it's a major modification of our status under the agreement, so would obviously require the consent of all parties.
"Abdallah said the weapon looked handmade and that the man who had been wrestling with the assailant continued to do so even after he saw the gun.
He said: “The man stepped back with the gun and fired it and then he fired a second shot, as he was firing he was looking down at the ground.”
The whole incident lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, Mr Abdallah said and another bystander told him she had also been stabbed.
He added: “He was kicking her and he was pulling her by her hair. A very courageous man from the dry cleaners tried to restrain him and he couldn’t stop him because all of a sudden he pulled a gun.
“She was a standing still target for him when he shot her.”
We shall see. First priority is to hope Jo makes a full recovery.
We are suspending all campaigning for the day. Our thoughts are with Jo Cox and her family.
369 retweets 268 likes
Those who tell lies about such events often get their lies in very early, to shape the narrative.
Guido and the Independent are sourcing the "Britain First" allegation to Maria Eagle. Where did she hear it from, and why was she the first to say it publicly?
BBC online, Guardian and Indy have not to their credit
Moreover when Portugal, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the EU in 1986 and 1995 they remained in the EEA and no amendment was made beyond a footnote explaining that this had happened.
There can be no double standards.
It's right for all, or right for none.
Politically whether this is feasible is another matter.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
So, those countries were moved from having the rights and obligations of EFTA countries to the rights and obligations of EU (or as it says in this treaty EC) countries.
The modification of the treaty will have required the signature of all the parties.
He told the Press Association: “There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag.”
After a brief scuffle, he said the man stepped back and the MP became involved.
He added: “He was fighting with her and wrestling with her and then the gun went off twice and then she fell between two cars and I came and saw her bleeding on the floor.”
After around 15 minutes, the shop owner said emergency services arrived and tended to her with a drip.'
'Abdallah said the weapon looked handmade and that the man who had been wrestling with the assailant continued to do so even after he saw the gun.
He said: “The man stepped back with the gun and fired it and then he fired a second shot, as he was firing he was looking down at the ground.”
The whole incident lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, Mr Abdallah said and another bystander told him she had also been stabbed.
He added: “He was kicking her and he was pulling her by her hair. A very courageous man from the dry cleaners tried to restrain him and he couldn’t stop him because all of a sudden he pulled a gun.
“She was a standing still target for him when he shot her.”
No words.
http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/eea-enlargement