Forum Home → Discussion → Residence issues → Thread
The law we used to make this decision
Fabulous!
ARTICLE I.
The Kingdoms United; ????Ensigns Armorial
.
That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew be conjoyned in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.
In a relatively straightforward EEA right to reside case…
I remain to be convinced that the Act of Union was relevant to the determination of whether my client had a right to reside.
:-)
As a point of principle (or possibly solely for our entertainment) I think you should appeal on a very specific point of law 😊
To be fair, perhaps they have had a flurry of cranks/timewasters arguing that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is invalid because of some technicality in the union between England and Scotland. I had someone who used to email me a lot insisting that the European Communities Act 1972 prevents any secondary legislation on any subject from having effect. Perhaps DWP has decided to head off an anticipated misconceived argument by the claimant?
If that were the case they would surely address it head on in a submission (he says with blinkered optimisim!)?
The Act of Union is relevant because it defines what “Great Britain” is. Other legislation refers to Great Britain.
To be fair, perhaps they have had a flurry of cranks/timewasters arguing that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is invalid because of some technicality in the union between England and Scotland. I had someone who used to email me a lot insisting that the European Communities Act 1972 prevents any secondary legislation on any subject from having effect. Perhaps DWP has decided to head off an anticipated misconceived argument by the claimant?
This is credible; they certainly wouldn’t be arguing that Magna Carta stumps the Welfare Reform Acts. They wouldn’t get paid if they did…
I wonder if the decision maker had ever read (and understood) the legislation & case law quoted (or whoever drafted the list in the first place to ‘cut & paste’). It would made for an interesting hearing if a tribunal asked a PO to explain their relevance!
I thought Great Britain included Wales? But as I haven’t read all of the legislation etc either perhaps I missed that bit of history / legislation! Or maybe Wales has no role in undermining the Welfare Reform Act (Mike / Gareth?)