Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Daily life
View Poll Results: What would you personally prefer to happen?
I want the UK to stay in an ever-closer union 49 23.11%
I want the UK to stay in a loosely connected EU 68 32.08%
I want the UK out because the EU is bad for the UK 22 10.38%
I want the UK out because the EU is a bad thing 23 10.85%
I want the UK out because this would be good for the rest of us 17 8.02%
I don't really care 33 15.57%
Voters: 212. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7581  
Old 24.01.2017, 10:58
JoeUK's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Au
Posts: 594
Groaned at 27 Times in 23 Posts
Thanked 773 Times in 416 Posts
JoeUK has an excellent reputationJoeUK has an excellent reputationJoeUK has an excellent reputationJoeUK has an excellent reputation
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

So, now it goes to a parliamentary vote.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank JoeUK for this useful post:
This user groans at JoeUK for this post:
  #7582  
Old 24.01.2017, 11:01
Swiss Cheddar's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zug
Posts: 2,127
Groaned at 45 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 2,969 Times in 1,213 Posts
Swiss Cheddar has a reputation beyond reputeSwiss Cheddar has a reputation beyond reputeSwiss Cheddar has a reputation beyond reputeSwiss Cheddar has a reputation beyond reputeSwiss Cheddar has a reputation beyond reputeSwiss Cheddar has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in




LOL

She is having a bad week, first the missile blunder, then todays judgment.......then she has to deal with Trump on Friday.


cheers
SC
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Swiss Cheddar for this useful post:
  #7583  
Old 24.01.2017, 12:59
Sbrinz's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Murten - Morat
Posts: 11,925
Groaned at 590 Times in 377 Posts
Thanked 11,546 Times in 5,940 Posts
Sbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond reputeSbrinz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

A expected the PM Theresa May lost the challenge, parliament will now debate the terms associated with Brexit and article 50,
Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320
Reply With Quote
  #7584  
Old 24.01.2017, 13:07
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,101
Groaned at 138 Times in 98 Posts
Thanked 3,816 Times in 1,460 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
A expected the PM Theresa May lost the challenge, parliament will now debate the terms associated with Brexit and article 50,
Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320
Beginning of the end for Brexit maybe ? Government will be slowed down (at least) and Labour have said they want single market access in it. > government slowed down or cannot get bill through > Election > Labour + libdem win ? > brexit reversed...
Reply With Quote
  #7585  
Old 24.01.2017, 13:11
Phos's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ZRH
Posts: 7,398
Groaned at 544 Times in 418 Posts
Thanked 10,130 Times in 5,411 Posts
Phos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Sounds like a matter of formulating a measure that simply states they agree to carry out the people's will with the referendum. I don't see why they need to convolute it beyond that, and so who votes against it would be in contempt of the referendum.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phos for this useful post:
  #7586  
Old 24.01.2017, 13:18
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Beginning of the end for Brexit maybe ? Government will be slowed down (at least) and Labour have said they want single market access in it. > government slowed down or cannot get bill through > Election > Labour + libdem win ? > brexit reversed...
Doubt it, too few MPs will vote against. Just a molehill on the way.

May should have gone to Parliament in the first place long ago.

Her strategy that the Supreme Court should assume for their review that Art. 50 was irrevocable guaranteed she would lose her challenge?
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #7587  
Old 25.01.2017, 13:37
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

May in Parliament PMQ today
Quote:
"I recognise I set out that bold plan for a global Britain last week... I can confirm to the House that our plan will be set out, in a white paper, set out in this House", she says.
Progress!
Reply With Quote
  #7588  
Old 25.01.2017, 18:23
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 3,022
Groaned at 66 Times in 60 Posts
Thanked 3,321 Times in 1,663 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Sounds like a matter of formulating a measure that simply states they agree to carry out the people's will with the referendum. I don't see why they need to convolute it beyond that, and so who votes against it would be in contempt of the referendum.
Seriously! The referendum was consultative and as we now have confirmed the parliament is sovereign and accordingly one can fully expect that MPs will vote according to the wishes of their electors, subject to the whips of course.

I just waiting with interest to see what new challenges will be brought to the high court challenging previous and future decisions by the government in the use of the Queen's Prerogative. Because this decision goes much farther than BREXIT and one can only wonder at the quality of the legal advice being provided to this government.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jim2007 for this useful post:
  #7589  
Old 25.01.2017, 19:18
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Misery, but not the SoT one
Posts: 19,130
Groaned at 338 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 14,024 Times in 8,062 Posts
Medea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Seriously! The referendum was consultative and as we now have confirmed the parliament is sovereign and accordingly one can fully expect that MPs will vote according to the wishes of their electors, subject to the whips of course.

I just waiting with interest to see what new challenges will be brought to the high court challenging previous and future decisions by the government in the use of the Queen's Prerogative. Because this decision goes much farther than BREXIT and one can only wonder at the quality of the legal advice being provided to this government.
Indeed. As far as I know Heath's government negotiated with the EU on membership without having Parliamentary approval to do so, using the same powers May was proposing to use for Brexit. The Treaty was signed by Heath in January 1972, but the European Communities Act wasn't enacted until that October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

In which case we've been illegally contributing to something we don't rightfully belong to for the last 30+ years!
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7590  
Old 25.01.2017, 19:29
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Indeed. As far as I know Heath's government negotiated with the EU on membership without having Parliamentary approval to do so, using the same powers May was proposing to use for Brexit. The Treaty was signed by Heath in January 1972, but the European Communities Act wasn't enacted until that October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

In which case we've been illegally contributing to something we don't rightfully belong to for the last 30+ years!
From your link "The United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973." That was after the European Communities Act.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #7591  
Old 25.01.2017, 20:08
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Misery, but not the SoT one
Posts: 19,130
Groaned at 338 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 14,024 Times in 8,062 Posts
Medea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
From your link "The United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973." That was after the European Communities Act.
Yes, but the Treaty was signed in January the previous year, before Parliament had anything to do with it.

"The Treaty of Accession was signed in January 1972 by the prime minister Edward Heath, leader of the Conservative party.[15] Parliament's European Communities Act 1972 was enacted on 17 October and the UK's instrument of ratification was deposited the next day (18 October),[16] letting the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973."

Heath, as far as I know, used the Queen's Prerogative powers to negotiate and sign the Treaty with no approval from Parliament. That only came later. This is exactly how Mrs May proposed to take us out of the EU, but the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Therefore, using that ruling, Heath could not take us into the EU because Parliament had not had its say before he started negotiations.

Again, from my link in post 5990

"Another way of looking at this is to acknowledge that the Government and Parliament played different, and complementary, roles in securing EU membership, and that they will (or may) play different, and complementary, roles in terminating such membership. Just as it was the UK Government, exercising prerogative power, that caused the UK to be bound by EU Treaty obligations, so it is for the Government, using prerogative power, to extricate the UK from those obligations — including by triggering the Article 50 extrication process itself. Meanwhile, just as it was for Parliament to enact such domestic legislation as EU membership required (such as the ECA 1972), it is equally for Parliament to enact any domestic legislation that Brexit may in due course require. On this analysis, no tension between the ECA 1972 and the prerogative arises because they concerned with distinct spheres of activity, the one operating on the plane of diplomacy and international law, and the other operating on the plane of domestic law."

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-to-legislate/

If the prerogative powers can't be used to take us out, they couldn't have been used to take us in. Simples.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7592  
Old 25.01.2017, 20:17
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Yes, but the Treaty was signed in January the previous year, before Parliament had anything to do with it.

"The Treaty of Accession was signed in January 1972 by the prime minister Edward Heath, leader of the Conservative party.[15] Parliament's European Communities Act 1972 was enacted on 17 October and the UK's instrument of ratification was deposited the next day (18 October),[16] letting the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973."

Heath, as far as I know, used the Queen's Prerogative powers to negotiate and sign the Treaty with no approval from Parliament. That only came later. This is exactly how Mrs May proposed to take us out of the EU, but the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Therefore, using that ruling, Heath could not take us into the EU because Parliament had not had its say before he started negotiations.

Again, from my link in post 5990

"Another way of looking at this is to acknowledge that the Government and Parliament played different, and complementary, roles in securing EU membership, and that they will (or may) play different, and complementary, roles in terminating such membership. Just as it was the UK Government, exercising prerogative power, that caused the UK to be bound by EU Treaty obligations, so it is for the Government, using prerogative power, to extricate the UK from those obligations — including by triggering the Article 50 extrication process itself. Meanwhile, just as it was for Parliament to enact such domestic legislation as EU membership required (such as the ECA 1972), it is equally for Parliament to enact any domestic legislation that Brexit may in due course require. On this analysis, no tension between the ECA 1972 and the prerogative arises because they concerned with distinct spheres of activity, the one operating on the plane of diplomacy and international law, and the other operating on the plane of domestic law."

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-to-legislate/

If the prerogative powers can't be used to take us out, they couldn't have been used to take us in. Simples.
"Treaty was signed in January the previous year" true but with an effective date of January the following year.

Then Parliament had their vote before January 1973 to authorise the deal.
If they had voted against then Heath would have to have withdrawn his signature because it was not valid, embarrassing but not fatal.
Reply With Quote
  #7593  
Old 25.01.2017, 20:33
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Misery, but not the SoT one
Posts: 19,130
Groaned at 338 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 14,024 Times in 8,062 Posts
Medea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand. If May can't use prerogative powers to take us out, Heath could not use them to take us into the EU because he didn't have Parliament's approval to do so based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling. He should have introduced a White Paper for Parliament to debate and only when that had been agreed should he have started negotiations.

As that wasn't the case I suppose you could argue that anything to do with the EU over the last 30+ years has been illegal as far as UK law is concerned.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7594  
Old 25.01.2017, 20:55
Phos's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ZRH
Posts: 7,398
Groaned at 544 Times in 418 Posts
Thanked 10,130 Times in 5,411 Posts
Phos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond reputePhos has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand. If May can't use prerogative powers to take us out, Heath could not use them to take us into the EU because he didn't have Parliament's approval to do so based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling. He should have introduced a White Paper for Parliament to debate and only when that had been agreed should he have started negotiations.

As that wasn't the case I suppose you could argue that anything to do with the EU over the last 30+ years has been illegal as far as UK law is concerned.

Sure he did. Its only because you don't have a constitutional process defined in a document on how to use it. It's the Chief Executive privilege.

The Royal prerogative is devolved to parliament, traditionally to the first of peers, the Prime Minister. Its traditional use is for making an executive decision, like trade and war. Blair used it to invade Iraq, so Cameron promised to devolve it to parliament.

In the case of Brexit, since there is time for deliberation, it makes sense to pass it to parliamentary vote. But it doesn't bode well for situations that may require a more immediate response.

The ruling may have been good for the Brexit situation, but it could hamper future decision making. What if the UK needed to react to a immediate situation; e.g., catastrophe, economic crash, war, an opportunity, etc.? You may not always have the luxury of time to debate and deliberate things. It could slow the UK down.
__________________
exceptio probat regulam
Reply With Quote
  #7595  
Old 25.01.2017, 22:04
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 3,022
Groaned at 66 Times in 60 Posts
Thanked 3,321 Times in 1,663 Posts
Jim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond reputeJim2007 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand.
Of course he had. Two completely different things, learn the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #7596  
Old 25.01.2017, 22:08
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Misery, but not the SoT one
Posts: 19,130
Groaned at 338 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 14,024 Times in 8,062 Posts
Medea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Of course he had. Two completely different things, learn the difference.
Teach me the difference. When did Heath consult with Parliament before he started negotiating to enter the EU? When was the White Paper debated?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7597  
Old 25.01.2017, 22:40
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand. If May can't use prerogative powers to take us out, Heath could not use them to take us into the EU because he didn't have Parliament's approval to do so based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling. He should have introduced a White Paper for Parliament to debate and only when that had been agreed should he have started negotiations.

As that wasn't the case I suppose you could argue that anything to do with the EU over the last 30+ years has been illegal as far as UK law is concerned.
You are confusing different things.

The problem May had was she claimed invoking Art. 50 was irrevocable which forced the Supreme Court decision.
Ïf she had said it was revocable then likely the Supreme Court decision would have been different.
Reply With Quote
  #7598  
Old 25.01.2017, 22:50
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
Sure he did. Its only because you don't have a constitutional process defined in a document on how to use it. It's the Chief Executive privilege.

The Royal prerogative is devolved to parliament, traditionally to the first of peers, the Prime Minister. Its traditional use is for making an executive decision, like trade and war. Blair used it to invade Iraq, so Cameron promised to devolve it to parliament.

In the case of Brexit, since there is time for deliberation, it makes sense to pass it to parliamentary vote. But it doesn't bode well for situations that may require a more immediate response.

The ruling may have been good for the Brexit situation, but it could hamper future decision making. What if the UK needed to react to a immediate situation; e.g., catastrophe, economic crash, war, an opportunity, etc.? You may not always have the luxury of time to debate and deliberate things. It could slow the UK down.
"What if the UK needed to react to a immediate situation;" No need for you to worry; the Supreme Court decision was on a very specific area, not a general decision about Royal prerogative. One key point was such a notice will inevitably affect rights under domestic law (many EU rights having direct effect in the UK), in which realm the royal prerogative has no application.
Reply With Quote
  #7599  
Old 26.01.2017, 13:25
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 5,892
Groaned at 195 Times in 166 Posts
Thanked 7,404 Times in 3,852 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand.
The negotiations had no effect without parliamentary approval. Had the treaty been refused he'd simply have wasted his time (plus some costs incurred).

However invoking art 50 will have an effect hence it requires parliamentary authorisation beforehand.
Reply With Quote
  #7600  
Old 26.01.2017, 19:27
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 8,903
Groaned at 280 Times in 243 Posts
Thanked 12,471 Times in 6,847 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

May has published the Bill to invoke Art. 50, strangely it gives her the power to invoke it but leaves her the option to decide to invoke it or not.

Meanwhile, Shadow minister Tulip Siddiq has resigned from the Labour frontbench, telling the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, that she could not reconcile herself to the party’s three-line whip to vote for triggering article 50.

The time set aside to debate the Bill is only an eighth of the amount of time used to debate the Bill introducing the 1992 Maastricht treaty,
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Latest Referendum, what will be consequences for EU (C permit and B permit) holders? expat2014 Permits/visas/government 3 11.02.2014 07:59
Importing vehicles and the VAT consequences in Switzerland from France BEFO Finance/banking/taxation 6 07.08.2013 14:11
The (Available in CH) Dog Food Review Thread meloncollie Pet corner 44 08.05.2012 19:15
Common-law marriage and consequences in CH Mishto Family matters/health 9 01.10.2011 21:03
Something for the Brits: M&S in CH mark Daily life 11 15.11.2007 11:18


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 15:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0