In message , at 10:53:30 on Sat, 12 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:10:00
on Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so
their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw.

There is no such thing

Not in the sense that the result of the case is itself a law.

What a ruling in the ECJ does is require the noncompliance to be
amended in the country's underlying law

once that is done the result of the case is now irrelevant

That's all nonsense. Take a recent example (and in workers rights too, a
topic discussed earlier) where the ECJ ruled that if mobile worker
travelled home-client1 - - - clientN-home that the first and last
journeys counted as work. That doesn't change either the rule or the
local transposition, it simply changes the definition of "work".

Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or will we (can we even)
continue to rely upon it?

we will be "stuck" with our interpretation the day that we leave.

If someone doesn't like that they will have to ask our courts to
adjudicate. That adjudication might be different from the ECJ's
because only the law as written will be considered, not the original
directive's intention.

what's so wrong with that?

Because when rulings like the above come out, we will get increasingly
out of step with the EU. Which will matter if the law in question about
trade.

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.
--
Roland Perry