Jump to content

User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1    Archive 2 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  ... (up to 100)


EU-law stubs

OK, I got your message. Sorry about that, I thought the category was going to be redefined as a general "European Law" category. My mistake.

--Eastlaw 06:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Law!

Greetings, Caveat lector - thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, where we strive to make Wikipedia the world's most complete internet source of legal information - cheers! BD2412 T 15:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kelly

Thank you for removing the nonsense of the Trivia Section. I have been trying to persuade a certain editor that it was no needed for a while, so don't be surprised to see it return! Robertsteadman 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Law selections

Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Directives from Brussels

In principle you are absolutely correct. The problem is that the British tabloids regularly (and it must be deliberately) confuse the EU with the EC. You were right to revert both edits, but somehow this tabloid misinformation must be challenged. I don't have a better idea. --Red King 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I'm not sure if purposefully going out with the intention to disprove these misconceptions is the best way to go about it. By saying that all directives are enacted by co-decision, we're not much better than the tabloids. And appearing to have an agenda (which unfortunately the article did appear to have) detracts from the the article's credibility. We'll just have to hope that when given the truth people can come to a more rounded view of EU law than "orders from Brussels". They're not going to believe the opposite just because we tell them to. Caveat lector 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

extremists?

Please can you define what constitutes an extrimsit group ratehr than a group which has an opinion whiich is the exact opposite of some other groups of people.--Lucy-marie 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremist: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action
Presenting the views of such groups in a prominent light admits a bias of its own. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Caveat lector 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of the word is not plausable as you have used the same words to explain what the word means. The word extreme should not be used in the definition and I think that fanatacism is diffrent from extremism.--Lucy-marie 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you give some examples of politically extreme parties.--Lucy-marie 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novel dessin

Interested in law mostly. No point too obscure. Wonderful! Can you explain what the above term means? Cheers, Fergananim 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? Caveat lector 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

Hello,

I would like to ask about The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. I've read: " While the changes shown above are those made to the English language version of the constitution, constitutionally it is the Irish text that has precedence." Is it still true, do the changes are made only to the English version of the constitution or something was changed recently? Do you know something about that? I'm thinking: if that is really true, the child born in Ireland in 2007 would be still entitled to irish citizenship by birth (automatically),even if both parents are non nationals at the time of the child birth, because: "The Irish text of the constitution takes precedence over the English text (Articles 25 and 63")? What do you think about that? Am I right?

I would be gratefull for your answer. Mariusz pl 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry haven't looked up Wikipedia in ages. Yes the Irish text still takes precedence. All amendments to the constitution (including the citizenship referendum) are made to both the Irish and English texts at the same time, the only exception being the second amendment which corrected some disparities between the Irish and English texts. Hope this helps! Caveat lector 17:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! (re. CTA)

You've done some fine work on the Common Travel Area. I started the article, but I had found it very difficult to find sources (I must get my hands on that Modern Law Review article). I've also been doing some more direct research on the current status of the CTA, and documents required. (I fell foul of this confusion last year when I arrived to Cork airport without a passport and was detained by Gardai) I got a question asked in the Dáil and contacted the GNIB. It seems that the CTA is now a fiction. The GNIB will only accept a passport or driving license as proof that you can avail of the CTA. i.e., you need a passport to prove you don't need it. Unfortunately, nobody thought to inform the airlines of this change, so they still allow travelers to check in without a passport. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curous. When did you have the question asked? Who asked it? Caveat lector 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia Mitchell asked Minister McDowell written question 219 on March 27th 2007. I can e-mail you the exact text and reply if you like. (The answer is pure McDowell legalese.) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's ok. I found it. Nice. Textbook answer. Ask one question. Answer an entirely different question. If you have further talent in getting parliamentary questions asked, you might get one asked on whether anyone's ever been striped of their citizenship under Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004. I can't prove it but i don't think anyone ever has. Back on topic however, the problem with the CTA was always that some people were always subject to immigration control on arrival from other parts of the CTA to either Britain or Ireland. Since there was always some residue power to ask for an identity document, it was never truly an travel document free zone. It does make it a bit difficult to describe what the CTA actually is! Caveat lector 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The CTA seems to 'exist' mainly as a catch all excuse for any British behaviour the government wants to ape. I read in the Modern Law Review article that the stated reason for cutting asylum seeker benefit to €17 a week with no child benefit, was the CTA. Clearly thats nonsense.
The most annoying part is that the airlines, with the exception of Ryanair, still tell people they can travel without a passport. When they arrive in the Republic, the Gardai take a different view. I was told by a senator that a visiting British MP was once detained while on a conference trip to Killarney. I have no particular love for the CTA (joining Schengen would be far better) but the current legal fog on this issue is embarrassing for Ireland. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project European Union

Hello Blue-Haired Lawyer/Archive 1, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Homosexuality in BVI

Turns out my earlier view on this point was wrong - I posted further comments on my talkpage. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABP

I'm not sure we're working from the same definition of point of view. Everything I described on An Bord Pleanála happened. That's not my point of view.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

1. Please refrain from telling people, in emphatic terms, what they CAN or CANT do. If you have a point to make, by all means make it, but try to be a little more subtle. 2. As far as I am concerned, as we crossed swords once and as you made no attempt to compromise I have no interest whatsoever in your viewpoint, so kindly refrain from telling me anything. Marcus22 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of tone, you may wish to take some of your own advice. Caveat lector 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU structure

If you have a moment, could you check back to the EU page. I and A are just about in agreement, could do with some more comments and ideas and your outline was good. Even though I think it went a bit too far into what I was saying! First time anyone has jumped ahead of me! Anyhoo, do you also know anything about the CAP or have good sources on it? Thanks. (User:JLogan/JFS) - J Logan t: 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I know alot about CAP, but I've done some research and will have some paragraphs in a few days. Caveat lector 16:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cities

Hi, sorry to bring up the European Union article again, I know it can get tedious. Basically it is about the city table. Small point but we've been wanting to replace it, thus far Lear has been the only one wanting the old and has reverted any changes.

A summery of options has been written up, I'd appreciate it if you'd give a comment. Don't mind what you pick as it will either help convince Lear to compromise for once or it will legitimise what he is doing (if he has support I don't mind, so long as it is not him alone). See here for the summery. If you could pop an opinion I'd be grateful before it turns into 3 pages of "standard content" vs "consensus" again. I understand if you don't want to or don't have time to. Thanks! - J Logan t: 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away for the last week and managed to miss most of the debate. Have added my 2 cent but it's a bit late in the day. Caveat lector 10:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIkiProject Europe Proposal

Hi sorry to drop another comment so quickly. I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in a new "WikiProject:Europe"? It would cover non-EU pan European elements and more national elements where there isn't a project to cover it (e.g. there is no project for Slovenia). I am just trying to get an idea of numbers before I propose it but if you have comments on the idea please see the Discussion on WPEU. Thanks for your time! - J Logan t: 08:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea (I've already joined), especially as a gap fill project. There appears to have been WikiProjects for everywhere else. We'd better be very careful with the scope though. Even have a bot so we know when people add an article. It's only a matter of time before people start adding anything European. Caveat lector 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU - CFSP

Hi, good rewrite on CFSP, thanks for the data. However could you put some citations with it please? We need good coverage for the GA - should be a website with all that data on you could put at the end. Thanks. - J Logan t: 12:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've just added some. Caveat lector 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - J Logan t: 14:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice and home affairs

(Moved to JLogan's talk page)

european union GDP 2007

the combined EU GDP for 2007 is €12.068 according to the IMF economic outlook database april 2007 and if you make it up in US $ then you will see that in Dollar that will be 16.870 becouse the Dollar is so low against the €, so this figures needs to be updated. from new amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by New amsterdam (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on European Union talk page. Caveat lector 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy in the European Union

I found some very interesting information about the status of Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy in the European Union in the Draft version of the Reform Treaty. I saw you also discussed on this on Talk:Special member state territories and the European Union, so I wanted to let you know. Please take a look there. Kind Regards, Maarten 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured this would be included. The Constitution had included a provision allowing the Council to vary the territorial application of the treaty, and the Reform Treaty includes this as well. There was/is already a section in the article on Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy. Their current status is still a bit of a mystery and the only thing some editors can come up with is unsourced statements that they remain outmost regions. I can't find any legal basis for that. Caveat lector 12:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin wall

The "Iron Curtain" (even the wall) could have fallen and a less strict form of communism begun, would that have still allowed the EU to expand eastwards, the fact is the rejection of communism allowed the eastward expansion nothing else, the Iron Curtain would not have fallen otherwise. If the image can't take the fact that means the image is wrong, not the caption is wrong. Also, the Berlin Wall was not the Iron Curtain, that was the 'sealed' borders. SouthernElectric 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Editted @ 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)~[reply]

The caption is just intended to link the image with the text. It is not intended to precisely summarise European history. Then Berlin was the most famous part of the Iron Curtain. It was a sealed border. Whatever you do don't write the link as: [[Iron Curtain|communism]]. If you want to write communism link there. Blue-Haired Lawyer (formerly Caveat lector) 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When this 'issue' came up I suggested (by altering the caption) something like "The fall of [[communism]] in Europe allowed eastwards expansion", someone else then changed the link to point to-wards the 'iron curtain' - was this acceptable? SouthernElectric 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europen Union, agricultural policy

hello. I reverted your revertion of my amendments once again. I posted a further explanation on the talk page. This is a complex series of interacting subsidies, and I fear a lot has been glossed over in producing a one sentence summary. Unfortunately, I feel your version extends too far in sliding together a lot of changes over many years, while implying that all these changes have only just happened, and with the unfortunate result of inaccuracy. see talk page for more. Sandpiper 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you (BHL) on formal grounds (ie matching references), see Sandpipers talk and EU talk. Arnoutf 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blue-Haired_Lawyer/Archive_1&oldid=1079364836"