|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 11, 2022 13:13:03 GMT
Indeed. EU law certainly isn't for us.  EU law sets out to harmonise laws so as to make trade between its members easier. Its laws are primarily concerned with trade. It doesn't concern itself with family law or criminal law. EU laws may not be for you personally because you don't personally benefit from making it easier to sell British goods in the world's biggest market. No that won’t wash. After Major lied his arse off about subsidiarity as it applied to the Maastricht Treaty he was 100% behind, the agenda changed to using the single market and the trade controls it imposed as a way to overrule the promised subsidiarity. As I have pointed out in an earlier post the problem was the lack of a political will to stand up to this bullshit, as evidenced by the fact at the height of uk euroscepticism long before the 2016 referendum and the empowerment of the bollocks to Brexit movement, there was no political will at the heart of government and the civil service to use the powers we had to cut the ties that bound us. But that doesn’t alter the sea change seen in directives from the EU using the SM to impose their will over us. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 13:16:09 GMT
EU law sets out to harmonise laws so as to make trade between its members easier. Its laws are primarily concerned with trade. It doesn't concern itself with family law or criminal law. EU laws may not be for you personally because you don't personally benefit from making it easier to sell British goods in the world's biggest market. No that won’t wash. After Major lied his arse off about subsidiarity as it applied to the Maastricht Treaty he was 100% behind, the agenda changed to using the single market and the trade controls it imposed as a way to overrule the promised subsidiarity. As I have pointed out in an earlier post the problem was the lack of a political will to stand up to this bullshit, as evidenced by the fact at the height of uk euroscepticism long before the 2016 referendum and the empowerment of the bollocks to Brexit movement, there was no political will at the heart of government and the civil service to use the powers we had to cut the ties that bound us. But that doesn’t alter the sea change seen in directives from the EU using the SM to impose their will over us. You'll be delighted to hear that the anti-EU scepticism has been replaced with anti-anti-EU scepticism, as consistently demonstrated in the polls. Please maintain your anger until such time as the anti-anti-EU scepticism is recognised by Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 11, 2022 13:43:54 GMT
Club membership rules. Feel free to leave if you don't like them. Oh look we did, sovereignty. I mean why didn't the Eu pass a law saying we couldn't leave. What with them being dictators and all that. 😅 😂 🤣 Bloody stupid argument. Being a member of the EU meant open trade borders, that meant you had to share some rules. How sad Brexiters have become. Which brings us neatly back to the begining. Why did John Major refuse to allow a referendum when he handed the UK to the EU? Answers on a postcard kids. because it would have been a waste of time, bit like reading your posts |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 11, 2022 13:45:38 GMT
EU law sets out to harmonise laws so as to make trade between its members easier. Its laws are primarily concerned with trade. It doesn't concern itself with family law or criminal law. EU laws may not be for you personally because you don't personally benefit from making it easier to sell British goods in the world's biggest market. No that won’t wash. After Major lied his arse off about subsidiarity as it applied to the Maastricht Treaty he was 100% behind, the agenda changed to using the single market and the trade controls it imposed as a way to overrule the promised subsidiarity. As I have pointed out in an earlier post the problem was the lack of a political will to stand up to this bullshit, as evidenced by the fact at the height of uk euroscepticism long before the 2016 referendum and the empowerment of the bollocks to Brexit movement, there was no political will at the heart of government and the civil service to use the powers we had to cut the ties that bound us. But that doesn’t alter the sea change seen in directives from the EU using the SM to impose their will over us. AFAIA 'subsidiarity' only becomes a problem after leaving the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 15:35:39 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." |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 15:44:45 GMT
I agree, on the face of it the fact that we were denied a referendum had nothing to do with the EU, but behind closed doors I suspect they were thrilled. The decision not to hold a referendum was less to do with our constitution and more to do with the fact that like Heath before him, Major was a diehard Europhile. Your claim that if Major had allowed a referendum we would have voted to join the EU anyway, is for the birds. And we've done this before havent we? You claim each member state is sovereign, you know perfectly well that is not true. The EU call it, 'the primacy of EU law'. In other words... ... Where conflict arises between EU law and the law in an EU Member State (national law), EU law will prevail.
How can any state be sovereign if their laws can be overruled? Never forget Herr Juncker's famous words... There can be no democratic choice against the EU treaties. ![]() ![]() ![]() Each member state is sovereign, Red. You correctly point out that the rules of EU membership require primacy of EU legislation. But that doesn't make the EU sovereign. EU laws can only override member state laws if the parliaments in those countries permit it. Let's say that in 2013, Parliament decided that it wanted to ignore an EU regulation and legislated in a manner that was intentionally inconsistent with that EU regulation, making it quite clear that the intention was to ignore the EU's requirements. If the EU was sovereign, an English court applying the law would have ignored the inconsistent legislation from the British Parliament and applied EU law despite it. But that is not what would have happened. The English courts would have applied the law emanating from Parliament, not from the EU. This is because Parliament is sovereign in the UK. Each member state's Parliament is sovereign. Of course, there would have been consequences for breach of EU rules, but that is not the same as the EU being sovereign in the UK. I do not think that is the case. The only remaining sovereign act was to revoke the 1972 act. Everything else as regards the ability to make laws in accordance with the treaties was binding on the UK. Which as we have seen has been made as difficult as possible not just from the EU but from many in our own country |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 11, 2022 17:00:38 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." Well he did win the vote. I suspect the biggest reason for voting against joining the EEC was the arrogance of a jumped nasty deceiving leader of France, i.e. Charles de Gaulle. The reaction of many Britons being 'who the fuck does he think he is' in three times denying the UK membership, without the UK in WWII there would be no France. IIRC one of the main reason for wanting to join the EEC was that the French economy had moved ahead of the UK for the first time in 200 years. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 17:54:54 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." Well he did win the vote. I suspect the biggest reason for voting against joining the EEC was the arrogance of a jumped nasty deceiving leader of France, i.e. Charles de Gaulle. The reaction of many Britons being 'who the fuck does he think he is' in three times denying the UK membership, without the UK in WWII there would be no France. IIRC one of the main reason for wanting to join the EEC was that the French economy had moved ahead of the UK for the first time in 200 years. I think he was waiting to get CAP sorted out so that the UK would have to accept that fait accompli |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 11, 2022 18:02:44 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." Well he did win the vote. I suspect the biggest reason for voting against joining the EEC was the arrogance of a jumped nasty deceiving leader of France, i.e. Charles de Gaulle. The reaction of many Britons being 'who the fuck does he think he is' in three times denying the UK membership, without the UK in WWII there would be no France. IIRC one of the main reason for wanting to join the EEC was that the French economy had moved ahead of the UK for the first time in 200 years. Charles de Gaulle rescued France from its post-war stagnation, that's why the French economy grew, pity we never had anyone as good |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 18:12:40 GMT
That is not true - the European Communities Act 1972 mandates that EU law is supreme in relation to all domestic laws. Yes. And who passed the 1972 Act? Was it parliament, by any chance? So, EU law applies because PARLIAMENT DECIDED IT WAS TO APPLY. Now, what's the golden rule of the Constitution, Doc? Is it that a parliament is not bound by a law passed by a previous parliament? I think it is. So, if the UK Parliament passed a law at any time after 1972 that said that all or any of its laws were to have priority over a EU regulation, that law would be applied by the courts. So, EU regulations applied in the UK only until such time as Parliament decided. That means that the UK parliament was always sovereign. Jeez. This is basic stuff. Well now you are changing your tune. Of course if the UK Parliament made the 1972 Act void we would leave the EU and we wouldn't have to follow EU Law - which is precisely what we did do, we left and regained our sovereignty. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 18:14:13 GMT
Yes. And who passed the 1972 Act? Was it parliament, by any chance? So, EU law applies because PARLIAMENT DECIDED IT WAS TO APPLY. Now, what's the golden rule of the Constitution, Doc? Is it that a parliament is not bound by a law passed by a previous parliament? I think it is. So, if the UK Parliament passed a law at any time after 1972 that said that all or any of its laws were to have priority over a EU regulation, that law would be applied by the courts. So, EU regulations applied in the UK only until such time as Parliament decided. That means that the UK parliament was always sovereign. Jeez. This is basic stuff. Well now you are changing your tune. Of course if the UK Parliament made the 1972 Act void we would leave the EU and we wouldn't have to follow EU Law - which is precisely what we did do, we left and regained our sovereignty. The UK Parliament never lost its sovereignty. That is a point that is too subtle for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 18:15:04 GMT
Many op-outs have been taken since 1972. Red and Pacifico don't understand that the 1972 Act could have been expressly or impliedly repealed by a differently constituted Parliament at any time after 1972. Parliament always had power to repeal it. That's the most basic rule of the constitution. Because EU law only had primacy because subsequent Parliaments allowed it to have primacy, because they only had primacy as long as that was the will of Britain's parliament, Parliament was always sovereign. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. Red and Pacifico either lack the subtlety of mind to see that, or they're playing dumb. Now now - calm down. What you are failing to understand is that EU membership mandates that the member state cede sovereignty to the EU - to regain that sovereignty you have to leave the EU. It's quite simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 18:17:22 GMT
Red and Pacifico don't understand that the 1972 Act could have been expressly or impliedly repealed by a differently constituted Parliament at any time after 1972. Parliament always had power to repeal it. That's the most basic rule of the constitution. Because EU law only had primacy because subsequent Parliaments allowed it to have primacy, because they only had primacy as long as that was the will of Britain's parliament, Parliament was always sovereign. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. Red and Pacifico either lack the subtlety of mind to see that, or they're playing dumb. Now now - calm down. What you are failing to understand is that EU membership mandates that the member state cede sovereignty to the EU - to regain that sovereignty you have to leave the EU. It's quite simple. It is constitutionally impossible for the UK parliament to cede sovereignty. It cannot do it. You can produce any number of newspaper links you like saying that sovereignty was ceded - it wasn't. It can't happen. A first year law student could have told you that. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2022 18:19:55 GMT
Now now - calm down. What you are failing to understand is that EU membership mandates that the member state cede sovereignty to the EU - to regain that sovereignty you have to leave the EU. It's quite simple. It is constitutionally impossible for the UK parliament to cede sovereignty. It cannot do it. You can produce any number of newspaper links you like saying that sovereignty was ceded - it wasn't. It can't happen. A first year law student could have told you that. Er Parliament voted to cede sovereignty to the EU.. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2022 18:21:47 GMT
It is constitutionally impossible for the UK parliament to cede sovereignty. It cannot do it. You can produce any number of newspaper links you like saying that sovereignty was ceded - it wasn't. It can't happen. A first year law student could have told you that. Er Parliament voted to cede sovereignty to the EU.. And what's the fundamental rule of the British Constitution, Doc? Remember the time you denied that the common law judges make the common law? If you couldn't grasp that, you don't have a chance in hell here. 18 year-old law students can grasp it with ease, but you're struggling. Think about that. |
|
