Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, are you suggesting the nation's foremost shampoo salesman wasn't up to the job?

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

What a strike!

A decent keeper should save that.

*Might* have saved it.

A free kick from 30 yards on target is a bit of an exception in the games I've watched so far.

SouthamObserver said:

Please don't let this lunatic speak for anyone but himself. He is a madman. Nothing to do with the referendum.

Pong said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

Pong said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

Innocent_Abroad said:

John_M said:

Good afternoon all. Terrible to hear about Jo Cox. I have no words.

Terrible indeed. But not surprising. And there will be others. Representative democracy is finished.

Scott_P said:

@journodave: 'It looked as though he had been waiting for her' an eyewitness tells BBC on Jo Cox shooting

Pong said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

What a strike!

A decent keeper should save that.

*Might* have saved it.

A free kick from 30 yards on target is a bit of an exception in the games I've watched so far.

You've been raised on a diet of Scottish goalkeepers, we expect better in England.

pbr2013 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

CD13 said:

Thank you, Wayne!

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.

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

weejonnie said:

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.

John_N4 said:

I don't believe for one moment that the person who shot her shouted "Britain First". Is the source Maria Eagle's tweet?

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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!

DavidL said:

I think it is jolly unsporting of England to play with 11 men in this second half.

Tissue_Price said:

DavidL said:

I think it is jolly unsporting of England to play with 11 men in this second half.

https://twitter.com/sterling7/status/363942831565860864

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

FrankBooth said:

The facts that both campaigns have suspended for the day makes me feel pessimistic.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

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.

http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/eea-enlargement