| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Supreme court backs bankers | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 26/11/09 10:54:00 |
| “Please Colin go away. This thread is about BANKS not politics.” - Not quite, Neil (but your comment was quite rude). The legal judgement for this case can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV3.pdf Pages 2-3 state that the case: “...depends on the correct interpretation (in its European context) and application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083... “The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“the Directive”).” ------- In normal everyday English, this means that the court was obliged to follow EU law and, by extension, obliged to side with the banks (“Abbey National plc & Others”). This most of central facts has been conspicuous by its absence in most of the British media’s reporting of this case. The legislation determining the judgement was initiated by the Brussels government, not the Westminster one. As such, this case has as much to do with politics as it does with banks. The Westminster government could not change this law even if it wanted to. The Supreme Court is nothing of the sort. |