Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7581  
Old 24.01.2017, 14:11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #7582  
Old 24.01.2017, 14:18
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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?
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #7583  
Old 25.01.2017, 14:37
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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!
  #7584  
Old 25.01.2017, 19:23
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 6,248
Groaned at 410 Times in 294 Posts
Thanked 10,364 Times in 4,508 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 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.
This user would like to thank Jim2007 for this useful post:
  #7585  
Old 25.01.2017, 20:18
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 23,826
Groaned at 468 Times in 364 Posts
Thanked 19,184 Times in 10,571 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!
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7586  
Old 25.01.2017, 20:29
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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.
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #7587  
Old 25.01.2017, 21:08
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 23,826
Groaned at 468 Times in 364 Posts
Thanked 19,184 Times in 10,571 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.
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7588  
Old 25.01.2017, 21:17
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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.
  #7589  
Old 25.01.2017, 21:33
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 23,826
Groaned at 468 Times in 364 Posts
Thanked 19,184 Times in 10,571 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.
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7590  
Old 25.01.2017, 21:55
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.
  #7591  
Old 25.01.2017, 23:04
Jim2007's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kt. Bern
Posts: 6,248
Groaned at 410 Times in 294 Posts
Thanked 10,364 Times in 4,508 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 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.
  #7592  
Old 25.01.2017, 23:08
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 23,826
Groaned at 468 Times in 364 Posts
Thanked 19,184 Times in 10,571 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?
This user would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7593  
Old 25.01.2017, 23:40
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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.
  #7594  
Old 25.01.2017, 23:50
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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.
  #7595  
Old 26.01.2017, 14:25
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 11,007
Groaned at 737 Times in 543 Posts
Thanked 15,085 Times in 7,927 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.
  #7596  
Old 26.01.2017, 20:27
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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,
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #7597  
Old 26.01.2017, 20:43
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 23,826
Groaned at 468 Times in 364 Posts
Thanked 19,184 Times in 10,571 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
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,
Come on, how much time do you need to debate something this short.

http://www.publications.parliament.u..._en_2.htm#l1g1

They should be able to have the vote on it tomorrow.
The following 2 users would like to thank Medea Fleecestealer for this useful post:
  #7598  
Old 26.01.2017, 20:57
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 12,845
Groaned at 798 Times in 676 Posts
Thanked 25,710 Times in 13,440 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
Come on, how much time do you need to debate something this short.

http://www.publications.parliament.u..._en_2.htm#l1g1

They should be able to have the vote on it tomorrow.
Many, many implications

Interesting that the Bill does not state anything about who will be responsible to own or approve the negotiation?
  #7599  
Old 27.01.2017, 01:47
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 11,007
Groaned at 737 Times in 543 Posts
Thanked 15,085 Times in 7,927 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

Just as importantly, it says nothing about the follow-on treaty.
This user would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
  #7600  
Old 27.01.2017, 09:02
Pachyderm's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,548
Groaned at 76 Times in 55 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,156 Posts
Pachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond reputePachyderm has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
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,
What's the complaint here? There are 3 full days allocated to parliamentary debate, and the days can extend to midnight. It's already a foregone conclusion that the bill will be passed in the Commons as both main parties are committed to voting for it. Everyone who wants to speak will get their chance.
Closed Thread

Tags
europe




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 31 (0 members and 31 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 08:59
Importing vehicles and the VAT consequences in Switzerland from France BEFO Finance/banking/taxation 6 07.08.2013 15:11
The (Available in CH) Dog Food Review Thread meloncollie Pet corner 44 08.05.2012 20:15
Common-law marriage and consequences in CH Mishto Family matters/health 9 01.10.2011 22:03
Something for the Brits: M&S in CH mark Daily life 11 15.11.2007 12:18


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0