The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (110 Viewers)

[Sick Boy]

...until it needs a trade deal...

Nonsense we can just get the gunboats out!

 

---

[Otis]

This whole thing is farcical now. What on earth is May playing at?

She keeps trying to push for a deal that no-one wants. A deal already defeated in the house. It's really bash your head against a brick wall time.

What is wrong with just suspending Article 50 to try and ensure the right deal and an agreed majority deal can go through?

I just don't see why we HAVE to leave on the 29th March. The EU have pretty much said it can be extended. After nearly three years of deliberation does a few more weeks or months really matter?

She really is annoying all sides of the house and all parties.

I find it outrageous that she is trying to sneak her deal through the back door, so that hers is the only option.

Biggest defeat in parliamentary history. I think she constantly needs to be reminded of that on a daily basis.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Back on track. May is just moving the seats around on the titanic isn’t she?

She’s gonna lose by 230 votes again. Does she not have advisers?

The brinkmanship & posturing is still very much ongoing really. Everyone has stepped it up a notch for their own purposes...but some signs of a few blinks are there imo.
May - 'this is it - take it or leave it, there is no plan B. Then tweaks & 'reassurances' are sought before...'vote for the deal, or we will leave without a deal...or stop Brexit altogether', & then finally speaks with other parties.
Corbyn - wants cross-party involvement, until given it...then wants no part of it when invited unless our 'nuclear option' is removed (a green light for the EU to solidify their position...& this deal being the only option)
EU - will not budge, solidarity among the 27 & an air of disinterest. Now with 'no deal' looming larger Poland, & Ireland, breaking rank a little, are coming up with ideas for solutions,...Germany & Holland leaders making pleas while EU leaders start planning for a no deal scenario.

It became very tedious.quite a while back.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

May could once be described as ‘resolute’ in character. Now, she’s just damn right subborn and this is going to cost her dearly.

Irony is a bastard and May’s commitment to her ‘red lines’ is probably going to cost her delivering Brexit.

Maybe the EU should relax over their 'red lines'? Yes UK wants out...but if all parties wish to avoid assumed chaos of a 'no deal' - something has to give.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Ian1779]

The brinkmanship & posturing is still very much ongoing really. Everyone has stepped it up a notch for their own purposes...but some signs of a few blinks are there imo.
May - 'this is it - take it or leave it, there is no plan B. Then tweaks & 'reassurances' are sought before...'vote for the deal, or we will leave without a deal...or stop Brexit altogether', & then finally speaks with other parties.
Corbyn - wants cross-party involvement, until given it...then wants no part of it when invited unless our 'nuclear option' is removed (a green light for the EU to solidify their position...& this deal being the only option)
EU - will not budge, solidarity among the 27 & an air of disinterest. Now with 'no deal' looming larger Poland, & Ireland, breaking rank a little, are coming up with ideas for solutions,...Germany & Holland leaders making pleas while EU leaders start planning for a no deal scenario.

It became very tedious.quite a while back.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The only thing she had to say to the other parties was that she had no intention of making any adjustments. People need to stop defending her (I'm not necessarily suggesting you are)

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

That is a very broad statement.

The EU call them rules and regulations most of the time. We have to follow most rules and regulations. The rules and regulations then get passed as law.

And yes these rules and regulations can be broke. But the EU isn't happy when they are. Yet the EU also breaks these same rules and regulations. And there is nothing we can do when the EU breaks their own rules and regulations as they regulate them and decide whatever punishment is dished out.

Most of these rules and regulations are supposed to be so no nation has an unfair advantage on the others. None of these can be broke in any way. You risk expulsion from the EU if you do so. Hungary got warned of so recently.

What you have to realise is that the EU has made these rules and regulations. And they decide which ones to uphold. Just like fining countries in the EU for emissions over the limits they have set. But a lot of these emissions are caused by diesel engines that were cheating tests that they knew about for years that they did nothing about. If they had kept these companies to the rules set there would be much less of a problem and then they couldn't fine those countries involved.

Yes covering old ground you will say. But it shows that they push home rules and regulations when they want and ignore them when they want.

Where’s the broad statement? My argument is pretty clear.

If you understand the concept Parliamentary sovereignty, my argument would be clear. What that means is that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty over all other branches in Government. In the USA, for example, the Supreme Court can strike down a law that it deems unconstitutional. The UK courts can’t do that because we don’t have a codified constitution and an Act of Parliament becomes the law.

The UK’s relationship with the EU is similar to one between contractor and subcontractor. Parliament has consensually ceded some of its powers to the EU, but Parliament’s laws still reign supreme in the UK. There is no ‘EU Law’ in UK statutes, but only treaties and so on that Parliament has ratified. Think of Britain and the EU as having a contract, and Britain can ‘get out’ whenever it wants.

You’ve used the example of Hungary, they haven’t been threatened with expulsion by the EU, yet. There are being sanctioned, and what will happen is unclear — it’s likely they’ll lose Council voting rights before they’re expelled. The example shows that the EU aid powerless to actually prevent a member states passing legislation that violates to EU values. This will remain the case up until the EU has a mechanism to block the legislation of a national parliament.

Again, your example of emissions fines for memeber states shows how reactive the EU laws and legislation actually is. It can’t force members to cooperate with its environmental standards.

Theoretically, EU law supersedes national law, but in practice, this isn’t the case because individual memeber states have different laws and the EU doesn’t possess the mechanism to block a member state’s legislation.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

That is a very broad statement.

The EU call them rules and regulations most of the time. We have to follow most rules and regulations. The rules and regulations then get passed as law.

And yes these rules and regulations can be broke. But the EU isn't happy when they are. Yet the EU also breaks these same rules and regulations. And there is nothing we can do when the EU breaks their own rules and regulations as they regulate them and decide whatever punishment is dished out.

Most of these rules and regulations are supposed to be so no nation has an unfair advantage on the others. None of these can be broke in any way. You risk expulsion from the EU if you do so. Hungary got warned of so recently.

What you have to realise is that the EU has made these rules and regulations. And they decide which ones to uphold. Just like fining countries in the EU for emissions over the limits they have set. But a lot of these emissions are caused by diesel engines that were cheating tests that they knew about for years that they did nothing about. If they had kept these companies to the rules set there would be much less of a problem and then they couldn't fine those countries involved.

Yes covering old ground you will say. But it shows that they push home rules and regulations when they want and ignore them when they want.

Where’s the broad statement? My argument is pretty clear.

If you understand the concept Parliamentary sovereignty, my argument would be clear. What that means is that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty over all other branches in Government. In the USA, for example, the Supreme Court can strike down a law that it deems unconstitutional. The UK courts can’t do that because we don’t have a codified constitution and an Act of Parliament becomes the law.

The UK’s relationship with the EU is similar to one between contractor and subcontractor. Parliament has consensually ceded some of its powers to the EU, but Parliament’s laws still reign supreme in the UK. There is no ‘EU Law’ in UK statutes, but only treaties and so on that Parliament has ratified. Think of Britain and the EU as having a contract, and Britain can ‘get out’ whenever it wants.

You’ve used the example of Hungary, they haven’t been threatened with expulsion by the EU, yet. There are being sanctioned, and what will happen is unclear — it’s likely they’ll lose Council voting rights before they’re expelled. The example shows that the EU aid powerless to actually prevent a member states passing legislation that violates to EU values. This will remain the case up until the EU has a mechanism to block the legislation of a National Parliament.

 

[Astute]

Apart from the opt outs rebates, own currency, not having to contribute to Eurozone bailouts etc?

Despite you trying to claim the UK is a weak and passive head nodding country, it simply isn’t true.

Opt out rebate? The rebate was done by Maggie about 10 years before the EU was formed.

Oh yes we didn't bow to the pressure to take on the Euro. But we nearly did. And a good job we didn't. But you change it to we can make what laws we want.

And BTW we have handed over 6.5 billion to bailouts. But this also has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[Astute]

This whole thing is farcical now. What on earth is May playing at?

She keeps trying to push for a deal that no-one wants. A deal already defeated in the house. It's really bash your head against a brick wall time.

What is wrong with just suspending Article 50 to try and ensure the right deal and an agreed majority deal can go through?

I just don't see why we HAVE to leave on the 29th March. The EU have pretty much said it can be extended. After nearly three years of deliberation does a few more weeks or months really matter?

She really is annoying all sides of the house and all parties.

I find it outrageous that she is trying to sneak her deal through the back door, so that hers is the only option.

Biggest defeat in parliamentary history. I think she constantly needs to be reminded of that on a daily basis.

We don't have to leave by the end of March. And we won't leave by the end of March. Can't even see us leaving now.

I don't even think she wants her deal to go through. But she makes it look like she does which will keep the leavers happy.

 

[Astute]

The only thing she had to say to the other parties was that she had no intention of making any adjustments. People need to stop defending her (I'm not necessarily suggesting you are)

May doesn't get defended. That is what happens with Corbyn.

 

[Grendel]

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

I didn’t say EU law and legislation was not legally binding. You’ve moved the goal posts. The debate isn’t whether or not the EU’s laws are binding, the question is can the UK make it’s own laws that contradict the EU’s. The answer to that is yes, it can.

You made a false claim that the UK can’t pass laws that contradict EU laws. This isn’t true and I used the example of Hungary who have passed legislation that violates human rights and contradict the core values of the EU. The EU could not stop the Hungarian Government passing that legislation.

The core of the UK’s constitution is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. An Act of Parliament supersedes the executive and judiciary. Look at how MPs are looking to hijack the Brexit process from the Government (exec). The relationship between the EU and the UK is that Parliament subcontracts it’s sovereignty to the EU. Parliament ratified EU treaties and so on and has the power to repeal those treaties. The UK didn’t join the ERM, schengen area nor the eurozone.

Since the EU has no mechanism to physically block or repeal a member states’ legislation, EU law is only supreme in theory. In practice, however, the EU cannot stop a National Parliament from passing legislation that contradicts its core values. Again, Hungary has already done this. The UK Parliament could pass numerous laws that violate EU law, and all the EU could do is sanction us. Evidently, this would be incompatible with EU membership, and so we’d probably be expelled from the EU in this circumstance. But, the question here is this: is Parliamentary sovereignty in tact? Yes, it is because the EU, as of 2019, does not have a mechanism to overrule a national parliaments’ legislation.

Here’s another example related to the UK:

The Representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits prisoners from voting. This was bought to the European Court of Human Rights in 2001, in 2005, they ruled that this violates the European Convention on Human Rights as it departs from the universal suffrage (in the EU’s eyes). What happened? The UK more or less ignored it and this Act of Parliament remains active to this date despite it contradicting EU convention.

The specific point I was talking about was the ability to introduce laws and to actually pass them - the issue of prisoner voting is difficult for the EU to enforce because many countries challenged its legitimacy and many operate some form of restriction which even the EU courts have had to acknowledge can be retained. That said I am pretty certain Austria had to remove legislation regarding post release directly as a result of an EU directive

You are suggesting an hypothesis which actually no one I can see supports - namely we can disregard the legislation from the EU that over-rides the ability of UK to select its legislation. Remember Capital Punishment was removed in the UK only because of EU legislation

Sick Boy likes your post which is surprising as this suggests he has lied as he has claimed a benefit of the EU (as have many many remainers) is that the EU offers workers rights and other equality protections which may be threatened if we leave. Apparently we can introduce Dickensian style legislation on workers rights, introduce hanging and flogging if we want and completely ignore a country wanting a felon returned through the European arrest warrant.

I assume we can also while in the EU go through the parliamentary process and make our own immigration laws and ban the Freedom of Movement

What you are saying is the Remain campaign have deceived and lied to the public over claims of protection through Acts introduced in the EU parliament

Amazing - we can have all the benefits of Free Trade and pass laws to disregard every single piece of EU legislation - I'm a remainer now

 

[Ian1779]

May doesn't get defended. That is what happens with Corbyn.

I'd suggest that most of the written press and the BBC are more than happy to step up and do that for her.

 

[skybluetony176]

Doesn’t the Council of Europe protect human rights in the U.K. not the EU? Although it is true to say that you have to be a member of the Council of Europe to join the EU we have been members of the C of E since 1949 as a founding member. I think there’s a couple of red herrings being thrown around here regarding the EU and Human Rights law. We signed up to the human rights we practice long before the EU even existed, the EU has just adopted the same standard. Which makes sense.

 

[Astute]

I'd suggest that most of the written press and the BBC are more than happy to step up and do that for her.

I'm looking at this thread. Some don't want a debate. They just want to put their point across and not listen to others. They even come out with untruths frequently.

Looks like my wife and younger kids will be living in France this year. This won't stop me from looking at the matter truthfully. Brexit isn't going to happen.

 

[Otis]

I see Liam Fox this morning has said that delaying Brexit is worse than no deal.

 

[skybluetony176]

I see Liam Fox this morning has said that delaying Brexit is worse than no deal.

You wouldn’t think he’d have time to talk bollocks given he’s got to tie up 40 trade deals before the end of March. We might need an extension yet just because he hasn’t done his job in the timeframe required.

 

[Sick Boy]

Opt out rebate? The rebate was done by Maggie about 10 years before the EU was formed.

Oh yes we didn't bow to the pressure to take on the Euro. But we nearly did. And a good job we didn't. But you change it to we can make what laws we want.

And BTW we have handed over 6.5 billion to bailouts. But this also has nothing to do with the subject.

It was agreed that we wouldn’t have to in future, but this was ultimately rejected due to the vote to leave

 

[Sick Boy]

I'm looking at this thread. Some don't want a debate. They just want to put their point across and not listen to others. They even come out with untruths frequently.

Looks like my wife and younger kids will be living in France this year. This won't stop me from looking at the matter truthfully. Brexit isn't going to happen.

...you’re guilty of doing exactly that too, as are most posters on this thread.

 

[Astute]

I see Liam Fox this morning has said that delaying Brexit is worse than no deal.

He certainly knows how to chat bollocks. I wonder if he he has a PhD in it.

The problem we have is hardly any of them learned a thing from the referendum. Both sides are still playing on project fear. But neither side will be truthful until the other side is. And even then I have my doubts. All they will do is cause diversion and hatred. And I can see it kicking off whatever happens.

 

[Astute]

It was agreed that we wouldn’t have to in future, but this was ultimately rejected due to the vote to leave

What about the rest of it?

 

[Astute]

...you’re guilty of doing exactly that too, as are most posters on this thread.

Not at all. I spend most of my time correcting things like with your last statement.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The specific point I was talking about was the ability to introduce laws and to actually pass them - the issue of prisoner voting is difficult for the EU to enforce because many countries challenged its legitimacy and many operate some form of restriction which even the EU courts have had to acknowledge can be retained. That said I am pretty certain Austria had to remove legislation regarding post release directly as a result of an EU directive

You are suggesting an hypothesis which actually no one I can see supports - namely we can disregard the legislation from the EU that over-rides the ability of UK to select its legislation. Remember Capital Punishment was removed in the UK only because of EU legislation (not actually true, abolished in 1965)

Sick Boy likes your post which is surprising as this suggests he has lied as he has claimed a benefit of the EU (as have many many remainers) is that the EU offers workers rights and other equality protections which may be threatened if we leave. Apparently we can introduce Dickensian style legislation on workers rights, introduce hanging and flogging if we want and completely ignore a country wanting a felon returned through the European arrest warrant.

I assume we can also while in the EU go through the parliamentary process and make our own immigration laws and ban the Freedom of Movement

What you are saying is the Remain campaign have deceived and lied to the public over claims of protection through Acts introduced in the EU parliament

Amazing - we can have all the benefits of Free Trade and pass laws to disregard every single piece of EU legislation - I'm a remainer now

Capital punishment for murder was abolished in 1965, and the last people to be hanged for murder was in 1964. This remained unused until Britain signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Either way, the Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of Parliament passed by the UK Parliament and not subscribed to us by the EU. The ECHR is technically 'binding', but again, Parliament can ultimately opt out of it and indeed, the EU as a whole.

It's not a hypothesis, this is how the UK constitution works. In the passage of laws in the UK, the EU plays no part in the process of our lawmaking, and there are no EU laws on our statute books -- every EU law and legislation or treaty that applies in the UK was ratified, or passed by an Act of Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 is an example of that -- which Parliament was planning to repeal even before Brexit. Parliament has subcontracted sovereignty.

Your claim the UK cannot physically pass laws that contradict EU law but at any point of analysis, the EU has no physical input in the passage of our laws. The EU laws and legislation we are 'bound' to was with Parliament's consent.

In a globalised economy, the sovereignty of national governments is being eroded. If a country has high levels of taxation, multinational corporations relocate, just as Dyson has done this week. Free trade deals also subcontract sovereignty, look at the impact of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Canada, their Government has been taken to court over their environmental regulations and their healthcare systems, and something like 70% of claims has been bought against Canada. Governments just don't have sovereignty of pre-WW2 national states. Assuming we got free trade deals across the globe, there will be regulations the Government has to stick to, in essence, we're still subcontracting sovereignty, in or out of the EU.

 

[Astute]

Your claim the UK cannot physically pass laws that contradict EU law but at any point of analysis, the EU has no physical input in the passage of our laws. The EU laws and legislation we are 'bound' to was with Parliament's consent.

Not exactly true though.

UK law: What proportion is influenced by the EU?

And here is a passage from it. There is a few that explain better.

The other thing to bear in mind is that in areas for which the EU is responsible, EU laws override any conflicting laws of member countries.

And this explains better

How the EU works: EU law and the UK

 

[skybluetony176]

Capital punishment for murder was abolished in 1965, and the last people to be hanged for murder was in 1964. This remained unused until Britain signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Either way, the Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of Parliament passed by the UK Parliament and not subscribed to us by the EU. The ECHR is technically 'binding', but again, Parliament can ultimately opt out of it and indeed, the EU as a whole.

It's not a hypothesis, this is how the UK constitution works. In the passage of laws in the UK, the EU plays no part in the process of our lawmaking, and there are no EU laws on our statute books -- every EU law and legislation or treaty that applies in the UK was ratified, or passed by an Act of Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 is an example of that -- which Parliament was planning to repeal even before Brexit. Parliament has subcontracted sovereignty.

Your claim the UK cannot physically pass laws that contradict EU law but at any point of analysis, the EU has no physical input in the passage of our laws. The EU laws and legislation we are 'bound' to was with Parliament's consent.

In a globalised economy, the sovereignty of national governments is being eroded. If a country has high levels of taxation, multinational corporations relocate, just as Dyson has done this week. Free trade deals also subcontract sovereignty, look at the impact of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Canada, their Government has been taken to court over their environmental regulations and their healthcare systems, and something like 70% of claims has been bought against Canada. Governments just don't have sovereignty of pre-WW2 national states. Assuming we got free trade deals across the globe, there will be regulations the Government has to stick to, in essence, we're still subcontracting sovereignty, in or out of the EU.

Just to add that the ECHR is part of the Council of Europe not the EU. The latter predates the EU and we had already signed up to both of them long before we joined the EU.

 

[Sick Boy]

Not at all. I spend most of my time correcting things like with your last statement.

Haha yeah whatever, you have your biases just like everyone else on this thread.

 

[Astute]

Haha yeah whatever, you have your biases just like everyone else on this thread.

Name them.

My major bias is the truth.

I have tried to keep out of the laws debate part as both are correct in ways. At least one of them is confused between regulations and directives. Regulations are law when passed. Directives are to be law but can be changed a bit. That is why I call it rules and regulations.

 

[skybluetony176]

Name them.

My major bias is the truth.

I have tried to keep out of the laws debate part as both are correct in ways. At least one of them is confused between regulations and directives. Regulations are law when passed. Directives are to be law but can be changed a bit. That is why I call it rules and regulations.

That’s Grendull you’re talking about there.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Not exactly true though.

UK law: What proportion is influenced by the EU?

And here is a passage from it. There is a few that explain better.

The other thing to bear in mind is that in areas for which the EU is responsible, EU laws override any conflicting laws of member countries.

And this explains better

How the EU works: EU law and the UK

You’re going to have to do better than sending links because you don’t actually understand the content fully.

Well, it is true, because no one so far can provide an example where the EU can actually stop Parliament passing legislation, because it cannot.

You’re confusing influence and power, yet again. The EU laws and legislation are generally guiding principles because there cannot be a ‘catch all’, comprehensive legislative program for 27 nation states. The reason no one can actually work out how many EU laws and legislation influence our own laws is that the EU can’t prescribe laws to a member state. Every UK law that is ‘influenced’ by EU law was passed by the UK Parliament. In fact, EU law still indirectly influence UK law post Brexit because the Government is copying the ‘vast majority’ of EU legal texts ‘word for word’*.

In fact, I’ve consulted the same sources as you, and you’ve missed out key phrases. Firstly, that the UK ‘accepts’ the supremacy of EU law. What this means is, that EU law is only supreme for as long as Parliament accepts that supremacy — subcontracting sovereignty. Secondly, is this paragraph:

‘Given the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, meaning that there are no limits on what Acts can be passed or removed, it might be possible for Parliament to contradict EU laws. But this would seem incompatible with continued membership of the EU’

As we have seen with Hungary, their National Parliament has passed laws that do not comply with EU values. The implications of that are legal action and a process of sanctions against a member state who violates EU law. EU law is supreme over national law in the European Courts, not national courts — that’s how the EU would sanction member states. Back to a UK example, Hinds v United Kingdom (2005), the UK courts ruled in favour of the UK Government (because an Act of Parliament from 1983 prohibits prisoners voting rights). It went to the ECHR, where Hinds won in 2005. What happened? Nothing. The UK still prohibits prisoners from voting. If EU law was fully enforceable, the UK would’ve had to pass legislation allowing prisoners the vote. Now, my argument isn’t that the UK can completely disregard EU laws and legislation without consequence, i.e. sanctions and then, eventually, expulsion. The fundamental point is this: can parliament pass its own laws without EU approval? Yes, it absolutely can.


*'Civil servants are working overtime to avoid a 'legal cliff edge' after Brexit.

There are currently about 12,000 EU regulations in operation in the UK.

The government plans to copy over the vast majority of them word-for-word into UK law on 29 March, the day the UK leaves the European Union for good.

But some of these EU laws will need to be modified before being transferred across to prevent any "black holes" from appearing in the statute book - changes which are being made by statutory instruments.' — EU rules into UK law: How's that going?

 

[martcov]

We know. But at least we still let you have a say.

I was actually referring to other well known posters....

 

[martcov]

Maybe the EU should relax over their 'red lines'? Yes UK wants out...but if all parties wish to avoid assumed chaos of a 'no deal' - something has to give.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

27 countries have to change their system because we want to leave?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

27 countries have to change their system because we want to leave?

Given that we stand to lose more from a no deal Brexit, it's also probably on us to be a bit more flexible too...

 

[Astute]

You’re going to have to do better than sending links because you don’t actually understand the content fully.

Well, it is true, because no one so far can provide an example where the EU can actually stop Parliament passing legislation, because it cannot.

You’re confusing influence and power, yet again. The EU laws and legislation are generally guiding principles because there cannot be a ‘catch all’, comprehensive legislative program for 27 nation states. The reason no one can actually work out how many EU laws and legislation influence our own laws is that the EU can’t prescribe laws to a member state. Every UK law that is ‘influenced’ by EU law was passed by the UK Parliament. In fact, EU law still indirectly influence UK law post Brexit because the Government is copying the ‘vast majority’ of EU legal texts ‘word for word’*.

In fact, I’ve consulted the same sources as you, and you’ve missed out key phrases. Firstly, that the UK ‘accepts’ the supremacy of EU law. What this means is, that EU law is only supreme for as long as Parliament accepts that supremacy — subcontracting sovereignty. Secondly, is this paragraph:

‘Given the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, meaning that there are no limits on what Acts can be passed or removed, it might be possible for Parliament to contradict EU laws. But this would seem incompatible with continued membership of the EU’

As we have seen with Hungary, their National Parliament has passed laws that do not comply with EU values. The implications of that are legal action and a process of sanctions against a member state who violates EU law. EU law is supreme over national law in the European Courts, not national courts — that’s how the EU would sanction member states. Back to a UK example, Hinds v United Kingdom (2005), the UK courts ruled in favour of the UK Government (because an Act of Parliament from 1983 prohibits prisoners voting rights). It went to the ECHR, where Hinds won in 2005. What happened? Nothing. The UK still prohibits prisoners from voting. If EU law was fully enforceable, the UK would’ve had to pass legislation allowing prisoners the vote. Now, my argument isn’t that the UK can completely disregard EU laws and legislation without consequence, i.e. sanctions and then, eventually, expulsion. The fundamental point is this: can parliament pass its own laws without EU approval? Yes, it absolutely can.


*'Civil servants are working overtime to avoid a 'legal cliff edge' after Brexit.

There are currently about 12,000 EU regulations in operation in the UK.

The government plans to copy over the vast majority of them word-for-word into UK law on 29 March, the day the UK leaves the European Union for good.

But some of these EU laws will need to be modified before being transferred across to prevent any "black holes" from appearing in the statute book - changes which are being made by statutory instruments.' — EU rules into UK law: How's that going?

Thanks for letting everyone know you don't understand what you think you do.

You are talking about directives. Regulations are a different matter. You had better look up what regulations are and mean to the EU.

 

[Astute]

27 countries have to change their system because we want to leave?

Would you like to explain to Mucca as he thinks you can change regulations as you wish.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Thanks for letting everyone know you don't understand what you think you do.

You are talking about directives. Regulations are a different matter. You had better look up what regulations are and mean to the EU.

Highlight where I've used the word 'directive' once.

 

[martcov]

Not at all. I spend most of my time correcting things like with your last statement.

Ha ha