@lesving, the law is here and pretty clear.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19994646/index.html
According to the BBC, about two thirds of Scots voted “remain”.
Yes I heard “wee Nippy” quote that pseudo statistic this morning. She and the BBC need help with long multiplication – or to buy a slide rule. Actually, 62% of 67% of the Scottish electorate voted “remain”, i.e. about 41%. The other 59% of us voted leave or couldn’t give a damn.
Actually, I’m really disappointed that I won’t be able to claim duty off AVGAS every time I pop across the Solway to the people’s republic of Cumbria.
Incidentally, I read somewhere that 8 out of 10 Brits can’t work out what 80% of a hundred is… 
Rwy20 wrote:
So in this process, nowhere does anyone replace the word “community” with “Switzerland” or “Norway”, and at least for Switzerland I can’t find a law that says “wherever you find the word ‘community’, read ‘Switzerland’ instead”.
As I wrote, I don’t know how this works with Switzerland, but for EEA Joint Committee publishes a Decision that includes adaptation section that can state things like when “Member States” is used in the regulation it’s to be understood to include EFTA States or can replace “the Community” with “the Community or an EFTA State” etc.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
there’s plenty law in fact…
So you are referring to the “Accord entre la Confédération suisse et la Communauté européenne sur le transport aérien” linked to in post #65? That is a treaty between a state and the EU. It binds the two signatories to do something, but it has no direct binding effect for me as citizen of one of these entities. I only have to care about the laws that they make out of this international treaty. It is a fundamental principle of international law.
That is why I wrote this in post #41:
There is of course a chance that in some bilateral agreement between the EU and Switzerland, they thought to include that “Community” in the context of a regulation applied in Switzerland is to include Swiss territory. But even then, this bilateral agreement wouldn’t have legal value against a citizen.
Do you also claim that free movement of persons doesn’t apply to you as it is a bilateral agreement between states?
I am indeed referring to the agreement and to the provision that whatever goes in the Annex has force of law applying to Swiss residents. The only part that remains subject to national legislation are issues other than “Implementing Rules”.
Well, you would have to look at the implementation into national law to determine how exactly a bilateral agreement affects you or doesn’t affect you. That is the text that counts for you as an individual.
True. Did you check how it is implemented into national law before you tried to lecture me on wiki international law?
Not trying to lecture you, but yes I am familiar with that process. So where does it say that I have to substitute “Switzerland” for “community” other than in the bilateral agreement (which is non binding to individuals)?
Of course, now that the UK has had the cahooneys to hold a referendum and leave it will only be a matter of time before NL, DK, S and possibly even F do the same…. And after all the dust settles, and the EU has disintegrated, in about 10 years time we will be back to the EEC….which is fine! We will also likely have a JAA-like federation of NAAs picking up from the remnants of EASA….
Meanwhile Scotland will be independent trying to join a club on its last legs!
With the oil price being what it is, an independent Scotland will have to join the EU – for the handouts
I am sure that point won’t be lost on most voters there…
