|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:04:30 GMT
Yep, it's those rank amateurs in the Supreme Court and I who don't get it. I thought there was a judgement at one time where a judge said that teh UK willingly ceded sovereignty. Anyhoo I suppose the critical question is that once you have a definition of sovereignty (which seems to be missing) then a simple question should address the problem. If any action of the EU contravened this definition in any way then the UK was not sovereign. Let me ask you a simple question: suppose the EU introduced a regulation in, say, 2013. Parliament didn't like it's content, so it introduced a law that directly contradicted it; which law would the UK courts have applied? The EU regulation or Parliament's legislation? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:08:52 GMT
I thought there was a judgement at one time where a judge said that teh UK willingly ceded sovereignty. Anyhoo I suppose the critical question is that once you have a definition of sovereignty (which seems to be missing) then a simple question should address the problem. If any action of the EU contravened this definition in any way then the UK was not sovereign. Let me ask you a simple question: suppose the EU introduced a regulation in, say, 2013. Parliament didn't like it's content, so it introduced a law that directly contradicted it; which law would the UK courts have applied? The EU regulation or Parliament's legislation? Could the ECJ overrule the British court? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 23:11:47 GMT
I thought there was a judgement at one time where a judge said that teh UK willingly ceded sovereignty. Anyhoo I suppose the critical question is that once you have a definition of sovereignty (which seems to be missing) then a simple question should address the problem. If any action of the EU contravened this definition in any way then the UK was not sovereign. Let me ask you a simple question: suppose the EU introduced a regulation in, say, 2013. Parliament didn't like it's content, so it introduced a law that directly contradicted it; which law would the UK courts have applied? The EU regulation or Parliament's legislation? The Law Lords have already answered this - R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport the High Court and then the House of Lords (as Supreme Court) both made a reference to the European Court of Justice on the legality of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988's ("MSA") requirement for UK fishing vessels to be 75% UK owned. After the ECJ confirmed the incompatibility of the Act with EU law, Factortame saw the House of Lords confirm the primacy of EU law over national law in the areas where the EU has competence because of the UK acceding to the EU treaties.[2]
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:16:41 GMT
Let me ask you a simple question: suppose the EU introduced a regulation in, say, 2013. Parliament didn't like it's content, so it introduced a law that directly contradicted it; which law would the UK courts have applied? The EU regulation or Parliament's legislation? The Law Lords have already answered this - R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport The House of Lords referred the case to the ECJ to be decided under European Union law. If the British legislation had been clearly stated to be intended to override EU law, the Supreme Court would have given effect to the British legislation. It would have had to because Parliament is sovereign. I might have mentioned that already. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:21:12 GMT
The Law Lords have already answered this - R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport The House of Lords referred the case to the ECJ to be decided under European Union law. If the British legislation had been clearly stated to be intended to override EU law, the Supreme Court would have given effect to the British legislation. It would have been illegal for Parliament to make such legislation as existing legislation demanded EU law had precedence. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:25:02 GMT
The House of Lords referred the case to the ECJ to be decided under European Union law. If the British legislation had been clearly stated to be intended to override EU law, the Supreme Court would have given effect to the British legislation. It would have been illegal for Parliament to make such legislation as existing legislation demanded EU law had precedence. LOL!!! You haven't grasped even the basics. The UK constitution is very, very simple. It has one golden rule: one parliament can't make it illegal for a subsequent parliament to make any law it chooses. Read that again, and then look at your post above. If I continue to try to explain this in the face of the very obvious fact that neither you nor Pacifico is capable of understanding it, I will look just as foolish as you. I'm going to bow out at this point. Life's too short. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:28:14 GMT
It would have been illegal for Parliament to make such legislation as existing legislation demanded EU law had precedence. LOL!!! You haven't grasped even the basics. The UK constitution is very, very simple. It has one golden rule: one parliament can't make it illegal for a subsequent parliament to make any law it chooses. law. Read that again, and then look at your post above. If I continue to try to explain this in the face of the very obvious fact that neither you nor Pacifico is capable of understanding it, I will look just as foolish as you. I'm going to bow out at this point. Life's too short. The point again is that they would have had to revoke the 1972 act to make that legislation legal. We are back full circle. Why do you find that so difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:29:18 GMT
LOL!!! You haven't grasped even the basics. The UK constitution is very, very simple. It has one golden rule: one parliament can't make it illegal for a subsequent parliament to make any law it chooses. law. Read that again, and then look at your post above. If I continue to try to explain this in the face of the very obvious fact that neither you nor Pacifico is capable of understanding it, I will look just as foolish as you. I'm going to bow out at this point. Life's too short. The point again is that they would have had to revoke the 1972 act to make that legislation legal. We are back full circle. Why do you find that so difficult. What? Talk us through the above, Sandy. Elaborate. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:33:50 GMT
Oh, I've been moving between threads fairly rapidly and I mistakenly thought your above answer referred to the issue in the other thread.
Please don't bother elaborating.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:35:59 GMT
The point again is that they would have had to revoke the 1972 act to make that legislation legal. We are back full circle. Why do you find that so difficult. What? Talk us through the above, Sandy. Elaborate. In order to make the law you suggested they would have to revoke the 72 act that granted that power to some other authority |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 23:42:51 GMT
What? Talk us through the above, Sandy. Elaborate. In order to make the law you suggested they would have to revoke the 72 act that granted that power to some other authority Okay, I'll make one last attempt. Who would have 'to revoke the 72 act'? The answer is Parliament. And there were no limits on Parliament's right to revoke the '72 Act. Nobody on earth had the legal power to stop Parliament revoking the '72 Act at any time it wanted over the prolonged period the UK was a member of the EU. So, that means that EU law only applied in the UK because Parliament allowed it to apply. EU law depended entirely on the permission and consent of Parliament to exist and to continue to exist in the UK. Parliament could have repealed the '72 that at the drop of a hat and nobody could have stopped it. You know what that means, don't you? That's right, it means Parliament was always sovereign. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 12, 2022 0:06:49 GMT
Says no such thing. And feel free to evidence these speeches and other matters we're seeing no links to Ted Heath speech to British Chamber of Commerce 5th May 1970 Referenced in many places but www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-228953/HOW-FOR-40-YEARS-THE-BRITISH-PUBLIC-HAS-BEEN-LIED-TO--.html"THE Tories' 1970 General Election manifesto promised that Britain would once again negotiate entry to what was by then known as the European Economic Community. TED HEATH did more than negotiate: he took us in. Having said that Britain would join only 'with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and people', Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons." What do you take the last paragraph in the manifesto extract to mean. If it does not mean what I said what does it mean? "A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent."  That is not a link to that speech, it's just uber Leaver Simon Heffer's ranting and even that doesn't back your assertion that Heath promised a referendum. It doesn't even show he promised a free vote in the house. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 12, 2022 6:11:59 GMT
Whoiney's correct on this. Whenever a politician mentions any measure that may touch on EU law, the question to be asked is: "What law are you going to introduce/repeal or amend in order to make that possible?".
If the answer is "None" then you know they're talking shite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 12, 2022 8:02:42 GMT
The Law Lords have already answered this - R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport The House of Lords referred the case to the ECJ to be decided under European Union law. If the British legislation had been clearly stated to be intended to override EU law, the Supreme Court would have given effect to the British legislation. It would have had to because Parliament is sovereign. I might have mentioned that already. And you would still be wrong - when UK Law diverts from EU Law then EU Law in the courts has supremacy - the 1972 Act made it so. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 12, 2022 9:07:59 GMT
Ted Heath speech to British Chamber of Commerce 5th May 1970 Referenced in many places but www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-228953/HOW-FOR-40-YEARS-THE-BRITISH-PUBLIC-HAS-BEEN-LIED-TO--.html"THE Tories' 1970 General Election manifesto promised that Britain would once again negotiate entry to what was by then known as the European Economic Community. TED HEATH did more than negotiate: he took us in. Having said that Britain would join only 'with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and people', Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons." What do you take the last paragraph in the manifesto extract to mean. If it does not mean what I said what does it mean? "A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent." That is not a link to that speech, it's just uber Leaver Simon Heffer's ranting and even that doesn't back your assertion that Heath promised a referendum. It doesn't even show he promised a free vote in the house. I referenced the speech, I showed it was quoted in Parliament by Powell numerous times and it was never disputed by Heath. If you do not believe he said it despite the numerous quotes that seems like just denial as opposed to discussion. I have not said he promised a referendum, I have said he did not have a mandate to behave as he did as regards taking us into the EEC. The last paragraph clearly states that each member can judge based on the conditions and discussions with his constituents. We know that was not the case. Powell said api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1974/nov/22/national-referenda"I go further in agreement with one of the statements of my right hon. Friend—no, I must not say that—of the right hon. Gentleman the former Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) now Leader of the Opposition, in which he said that these matters are decided by Parliament. Indeed, they are. A change in the law of this country must be made by Parliament: it can be made in no other way. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said 1706that this change could be made only with the full-hearted consent of Parliament backed by the full-hearted consent of the electorate. The natural way to ascertain the full-hearted consent of the electorate, I am the first to assert, is to put it in the forefront of an election manifesto and to have an election. But at the 1970 election great care was taken by all concerned not only not to put it in the forefront of a manifesto but not to put it there at all—[Interruption.]—and anxiously to assure the public that they were not being asked to pronounce at that General Election upon the question of belonging or not belonging, but merely to pronounce on the question whether we ought to find out what would be involved—" |
|
