|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 14:25:23 GMT
This was the deal. The UK said to the EU: 'You can come into our house and make rules in a small and specific area. We can override those rules, throw you out, and end the relationship any time we want. ' Who has the final say on what happens in the house? Who is sovereign, Red? Go back to your army days. If your commanding officer had put you in charge of a group of men but retained the power to override any order you gave, who would have been sovereign in that situation? You might have been issuing the orders, but we both know who would have held the real power. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 17, 2022 16:21:33 GMT
This was the deal. The UK said to the EU: 'You can come into our house and make rules in a small and specific area. We can override those rules, throw you out, and end the relationship any time we want. ' Who has the final say on what happens in the house? Who is sovereign, Red? Go back to your army days. If your commanding officer had put you in charge of a group of men but retained the power to override any order you gave, who would have been sovereign in that situation? You might have been issuing the orders, but we both know who held the real power in that situation. That is not quite right. The EEC said you wish to be part of our community therefore you have to allow us to come into your house and make rules that you will be unable to overturn unless you leave our community altogether. We will gradually make more and more of your rules each one of which will be binding unless you leave altogether. You will have a say in the rules and although you thought you had a veto over everything we voted that away with one of your representatives. Sovereignty may exist in actuality but exercising that sovereignty is what counts and if one is unable to exercise sovereignty without upsetting the apple cart then there is a question as regards sovereignty. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 16:59:01 GMT
This was the deal. The UK said to the EU: 'You can come into our house and make rules in a small and specific area. We can override those rules, throw you out, and end the relationship any time we want. ' Who has the final say on what happens in the house? Who is sovereign, Red? Go back to your army days. If your commanding officer had put you in charge of a group of men but retained the power to override any order you gave, who would have been sovereign in that situation? You might have been issuing the orders, but we both know who held the real power in that situation. That is not quite right. The EEC said you wish to be part of our community therefore you have to allow us to come into your house and make rules that you will be unable to overturn unless you leave our community altogether. We will gradually make more and more of your rules each one of which will be binding unless you leave altogether. You will have a say in the rules and although you thought you had a veto over everything we voted that away with one of your representatives. Sovereignty may exist in actuality but exercising that sovereignty is what counts and if one is unable to exercise sovereignty without upsetting the apple cart then there is a question as regards sovereignty. If you had even the tiniest inkling of how the UK Constitution works, you would know that the UK Parliament could have overruled any EU regulation at any time it chose. The UK Parliament didn't have to leave the EU to do that. It's true that if the UK consistently refused to implement those rules it may very well have been expelled eventually. But the UK had control at all times. It could have decided to implement the rules or ignore them. That's what being a sovereign means. Harmonising standards is an effective, tried and tested means of increasing trade and wealth. Tell us how you would have harmonised standards. Did the EU miss a trick? Is there another way? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 17, 2022 17:53:12 GMT
That is not quite right. The EEC said you wish to be part of our community therefore you have to allow us to come into your house and make rules that you will be unable to overturn unless you leave our community altogether. We will gradually make more and more of your rules each one of which will be binding unless you leave altogether. You will have a say in the rules and although you thought you had a veto over everything we voted that away with one of your representatives. Sovereignty may exist in actuality but exercising that sovereignty is what counts and if one is unable to exercise sovereignty without upsetting the apple cart then there is a question as regards sovereignty. If you had even the tiniest inkling of how the UK Constitution works, you would know that the UK Parliament could have overruled any EU regulation at any time it chose. The UK Parliament didn't have to leave the EU to do that. It's true that if the UK consistently refused to implement those rules it may very well have been expelled eventually. But the UK had control at all times. It could have decided to implement the rules or ignore them. That's what being a sovereign means. Harmonising standards is an effective, tried and tested means of increasing trade and wealth. Tell us how you would have harmonised standards. Did the EU miss a trick? Is there another way? I cannot find the quote at the moment but in the Benn diaries he commented to John Silken (as regards pig farming if I recall) that they were all in the first cabinet that had to accept EEC law and there was nothing they could do about it. I assume that Benn would know more about the Constitution than any of us. And Powell also said in 1975" The supreme right of the Commons to tax, legislate and call the executive to account has already been ceded." Powell and Benn were two heavyweighyts as regards knowledge of the Constitution. The 1972 act ceded all rights and the only way to legally overrule them was to revoke the 1972 act. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 17, 2022 18:00:49 GMT
EU Law does not cover all of the laws in any country. So in criticizing EU law one needs to be specific. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 18:08:50 GMT
If you had even the tiniest inkling of how the UK Constitution works, you would know that the UK Parliament could have overruled any EU regulation at any time it chose. The UK Parliament didn't have to leave the EU to do that. It's true that if the UK consistently refused to implement those rules it may very well have been expelled eventually. But the UK had control at all times. It could have decided to implement the rules or ignore them. That's what being a sovereign means. Harmonising standards is an effective, tried and tested means of increasing trade and wealth. Tell us how you would have harmonised standards. Did the EU miss a trick? Is there another way? I cannot find the quote at the moment but in the Benn diaries he commented to John Silken (as regards pig farming if I recall) that they were all in the first cabinet that had to accept EEC law and there was nothing they could do about it. I assume that Benn would know more about the Constitution than any of us. And Powell also said in 1975" The supreme right of the Commons to tax, legislate and call the executive to account has already been ceded." Powell and Benn were two heavyweighyts as regards knowledge of the Constitution. The 1972 act ceded all rights and the only way to legally overrule them was to revoke the 1972 act. Completely wrong. The UK Parliament powers cannot be limited by any other authority. Either you understand that or you don't. Now, can you please tell us how you would have harmonised trading rules and regulations across the EU in the way that would have been satisfactory to Brexiters. I can't wait to hear your suggestions. Or maybe you just don't like the idea of increasing trade and wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 17, 2022 18:14:21 GMT
EU Law does not cover all of the laws in any country. So in criticizing EU law one needs to be specific. All Laws have to be compliant with EU Law. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 17, 2022 20:19:59 GMT
This was the deal. The UK said to the EU: 'You can come into our house and make rules in a small and specific area. We can override those rules, throw you out, and end the relationship any time we want. ' Who has the final say on what happens in the house? Who is sovereign, Red? Go back to your army days. If your commanding officer had put you in charge of a group of men but retained the power to override any order you gave, who would have been sovereign in that situation? You might have been issuing the orders, but we both know who would have held the real power. For reasons outlined in the above link the 'Primacy of EU Law' covers all EU member states because... ... If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable.And that would never do. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 17, 2022 20:42:20 GMT
I cannot find the quote at the moment but in the Benn diaries he commented to John Silken (as regards pig farming if I recall) that they were all in the first cabinet that had to accept EEC law and there was nothing they could do about it. I assume that Benn would know more about the Constitution than any of us. And Powell also said in 1975" The supreme right of the Commons to tax, legislate and call the executive to account has already been ceded." Powell and Benn were two heavyweighyts as regards knowledge of the Constitution. The 1972 act ceded all rights and the only way to legally overrule them was to revoke the 1972 act. Completely wrong. The UK Parliament powers cannot be limited by any other authority. Either you understand that or you don't. Now, can you please tell us how you would have harmonised trading rules and regulations across the EU in the way that would have been satisfactory to Brexiters. I can't wait to hear your suggestions. Or maybe you just don't like the idea of increasing trade and wealth. If parliament creates legislation that effectively cedes sovereignty to another power all the next parliament can do is revoke that legislation, if they do not then everything else they try to do to keep their sovereignty is illegal. I am not sure why you find that difficult. Sovereignty is maintained by way of the ability to leave, sovereignty is lost becasue until they do leave they are bound by the 1972 act and all that follows. We trade with all sorts of people and we do not harmonise anything other than the specification that that trade requires.China largely ignores human rights and all sorts of things but produce goods to the specification that is required. Funnily enough we manage to get oodles of things from China with largely no problem at all despite the fact it is on the other side of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 20:43:19 GMT
This was the deal. The UK said to the EU: 'You can come into our house and make rules in a small and specific area. We can override those rules, throw you out, and end the relationship any time we want. ' Who has the final say on what happens in the house? Who is sovereign, Red? Go back to your army days. If your commanding officer had put you in charge of a group of men but retained the power to override any order you gave, who would have been sovereign in that situation? You might have been issuing the orders, but we both know who would have held the real power. For reasons outlined in the above link the 'Primacy of EU Law' covers all EU member states because... ... If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable.And that would never do. Tell us how you would harmonise trading rules and standards across the EU, Red. The standardisation of rules and regulations means increased wealth because of removal of trading barriers. Obviously the EU missed a trick. There's plainly a better way of doing it. Please explain what that is. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 20:47:28 GMT
Completely wrong. The UK Parliament powers cannot be limited by any other authority. Either you understand that or you don't. Now, can you please tell us how you would have harmonised trading rules and regulations across the EU in the way that would have been satisfactory to Brexiters. I can't wait to hear your suggestions. Or maybe you just don't like the idea of increasing trade and wealth. If parliament creates legislation that effectively cedes sovereignty to another power all the next parliament can do is revoke that legislation, if they do not then everything else they try to do to keep their sovereignty is illegal. I am not sure why you find that difficult. Sovereignty is maintained by way of the ability to leave, sovereignty is lost becasue until they do leave they are bound by the 1972 act and all that follows. We trade with all sorts of people and we do not harmonise anything other than the specification that that trade requires.China largely ignores human rights and all sorts of things but produce goods to the specification that is required. Funnily enough we manage to get oodles of things from China with largely no problem at all despite the fact it is on the other side of the world. You still don't understand. If Parliament had passed a law at any time during the UK's membership of the EU, stating quite clearly that it was meant to have supremacy over EU regulations, a British court would have enforced Parliament's law. If you had told a judge in a British court that it couldn't enforce Parliament's law because the UK was in the EU, the judge would have laughed in your face. Because, unlike you, judges are familiar with the Constitution - they know that it's impossible for any other authority, including the EU, to take precedence over Parliament in the UK legal system. Now, explain what you would do to harmonise the rules and regulations across the EU to make trade easier. As I've pointed out several times already, it's clear that you think that the idea developed by the EU is not the best way of doing it. So, what is the best way? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 20:52:28 GMT
This was the deal. The UK said to the EU: 'You can come into our house and make rules in a small and specific area. We can override those rules, throw you out, and end the relationship any time we want. ' Who has the final say on what happens in the house? Who is sovereign, Red? Go back to your army days. If your commanding officer had put you in charge of a group of men but retained the power to override any order you gave, who would have been sovereign in that situation? You might have been issuing the orders, but we both know who would have held the real power. For reasons outlined in the above link the 'Primacy of EU Law' covers all EU member states because... ... If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable.And that would never do. Are you going to tell us how you would have harmonised standards across the EU, Red? Where did the EU go wrong? What is this mysterious better way of standardisng rules across countries so that those countries can more easily trade with each other and thereby become wealthier? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 20:58:38 GMT
There must be one Brexiter who can suggest a better way of standardising regulations across the EU than the regulation/directive method used by the EU. Let's hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 17, 2022 21:05:07 GMT
For reasons outlined in the above link the 'Primacy of EU Law' covers all EU member states because... ... If this were not the case, Member States could simply allow their national laws to take precedence over primary or secondary EU legislation, and the pursuit of EU policies would become unworkable.And that would never do. Are you going to tell us how you would have harmonised standards across the EU, Red? Where did the EU go wrong? What is this mysterious better way of standardisng rules across countries so that those countries can more easily trade with each other and thereby become wealthier? Calm down ffs, I'm watching the snooker. Einy, I couldn't care less about harmonised standards in the EU, the UK is not in the EU so why should I give a damn? However, you are digressing. I never mentioned harmonised standards. I pointed out, again, that EU law overrules national law in EU member states. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 17, 2022 21:23:26 GMT
Are you going to tell us how you would have harmonised standards across the EU, Red? Where did the EU go wrong? What is this mysterious better way of standardisng rules across countries so that those countries can more easily trade with each other and thereby become wealthier? Calm down ffs, I'm watching the snooker. Einy, I couldn't care less about harmonised standards in the EU, the UK is not in the EU so why should I give a damn? However, you are digressing. I never mentioned harmonised standards. I pointed out, again, that EU law overrules national law in EU member states. Erm, EU rules and regulations are 'sovereign' because there isn't another way to harmonise standards. Suggest a better way of harmonising trading standards. Harmonising standards makes everyone wealthier. Let's hear your suggestion. The 'sovereignty' and harmonisation of standards issue are one and the same thing, because the UK's 'sovereignty' was only ever impugned to standardise rules across EU So, there's no point saying 'I never mentioned harmonised standards', because sovereignty and harmonised standards are the same issue here, and you've certainly mentioned sovereignty. |
|
