EnglishEdward
Deity
Which raises the question why did the EU appoint him chief negotiator?
One is tempted to think that it is either selecting the scapegoat in
advance or because the EU does not really want a negotiated exit.
Is Britain about to leave the EU?
- Thread starter Mega Tsunami
- Start date
- Status
Which raises the question why did the EU appoint him chief negotiator?
One is tempted to think that it is either selecting the scapegoat in
advance or because the EU does not really want a negotiated exit.
Perhaps because, with 28 countries, people have widely varying opinions on different matters.
Why exactly must we leave the ECJ? It is a separate body to the EU. Retaking "full control" of our borders will simply curtail white immigration (allegedly) and will do absolutely squat diddly for anyone from the Commonwealth realms and elsewhere.
Our malevolent overlady has also seemingly forgotten that the way that Britain usually 'unites' is against something, rather than for it, so carrying on the way she has been and utterly failing to provide any of the lauded promises of the Leave campaign would probably be a good start.
I can only guess of course, but I suppose that Barnier has good connections inside the EU from his time as commissioner and people think he's competent there. In that regard I think the EU is not very objective on the quality of the people working for it. Give them a centre right europhile that manages not to be too obviously catastrophic and they'll think they've found the perfect man.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
I see this morning Philip Hammond has reminded our EU friends of Britain’s nuclear option – i.e. for us to become, if pushed and punished enough, an offshore tax haven.
Now I am sure neither sides wants this last resort option, but needs must…
I have read elsewhere that there is one way, and one way only, that we can still be part of the single market – and that is by joining EFTA ala Norway.
This from the Torygraph (if we join efta)
While freeing us from three quarters of the EU’s laws, we could continue participating in the single market as we do now, thus avoiding a catastrophic disruption to our trade. We would no longer be subject to the European Court of Justice.
We could regain selective control over immigration from the EU. We could negotiate independent trade deals with the rest of the world.
Now this pretty much ticks all my boxes, but we will, of course, have to pay for this ‘free’ trade. A little reminder to the EU of our nuclear option might keep that payment down somewhat.
The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-outside-single-market-could-become-tax-haven
Now I am sure neither sides wants this last resort option, but needs must…
I have read elsewhere that there is one way, and one way only, that we can still be part of the single market – and that is by joining EFTA ala Norway.
This from the Torygraph (if we join efta)
While freeing us from three quarters of the EU’s laws, we could continue participating in the single market as we do now, thus avoiding a catastrophic disruption to our trade. We would no longer be subject to the European Court of Justice.
We could regain selective control over immigration from the EU. We could negotiate independent trade deals with the rest of the world.
Now this pretty much ticks all my boxes, but we will, of course, have to pay for this ‘free’ trade. A little reminder to the EU of our nuclear option might keep that payment down somewhat.
The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-outside-single-market-could-become-tax-haven
Technically you are right but, of course, we see them as one and the same and many (most?) of us absolutely hate the fact that foreign judges who know little or nothing about Britain have ultimate say so over our own Supreme Court.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The European Court of Justice is no more separate from the European Union
than the United States Supreme Court is separate from the United States.
I refer you to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
which contains:
"Criticism
Some MEPs and industry spokesmen have criticised the ruling against the use of gender as factor in determining premiums for insurance products. British Conservative MEP Sajjad Karim remarked, "Once again we have seen how an activist European Court can over-interpret the treaty. The EU's rules on sex discrimination specifically permit discrimination in insurance if there is data to back it up".[36]
The status and jurisdiction of the ECJ has been questioned by representatives of member states' judiciary:
- In Germany, the former president Roman Herzog warned that the ECJ was overstepping its powers, writing that "the ECJ deliberately and systematically ignores fundamental principles of the Western interpretation of law, that its decisions are based on sloppy argumentation, that it ignores the will of the legislator, or even turns it into its opposite, and invents legal principles serving as grounds for later judgments". Herzog is particularly critical in its analysis of the Mangold Judgment, which over-ruled a German law that would discriminate in favour of older workers.[37]
- The President of the Constitutional Court of Belgium, Marc Bossuyt, said that both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights were taking on more and more powers by extending their competences, creating a serious threat of a "government by judges". He stated that "they fabricate rulings in important cases with severe financial consequences for governments without understanding the national rules because they are composed out of foreign judges".
Adriener:
Thank you.
Is Offshore tax haven even realistically viable? I mean, it would mostly concern European and American money, and these two entities will come up with countermeasures. Then there is the competition by other tax havens and the problem that being a tax haven only works for small countries, and even then it has drawbacks.
Whilst what you quoted from Wikipedia would seem to be valid criticism, it has very little to do with whether its separate from the EU or not.
He has also suggested avoiding this by lowering corporation tax, because that's the magical panacea for all ills if you're a Tory, apparently.
It seems that many people hate the fact that our Supreme Court has a say in anything, if the pre-Christmas hysteria about the Article 50 hearing is anything to go by.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The wikipedia article that I referred is quite clear that the ECJ is part and parcel of the EU.
You only have to read the very first page.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
Touche. But at least our MPs in our parliament voted in by us can change the laws if need be.
@EnglishEdward
Thanks for that clarification regards the ECJ.
Then it would probably have been sensible to quote that part, rather than the seeming irrelevance of the criticism section.
Which is why it's absolutely essential that the MPs get a proper say in affairs, something the Government has been trying very hard to withhold.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Arakhor:
I quoted the criticism section because it is directly relevant to your question as to why we should leave the ECJ.
I quoted the criticism section because it is directly relevant to your question as to why we should leave the ECJ.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
You gave up some sovereignty when you joined the EU ?
Just like Germany whom also complained about the ECI ruling(s) ????
Which ECJ Ruling is the UK and yourself against and why ?
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
I was going to say that one of these rulings was that prisoners should have a right to vote. I remember Cameron said he would be "physically ill" if prisoners were allowed to vote.
But then I noticed that was the ECtHC which has nothing to do with the EU. Hope that was never used as an argument to leave...
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
lol ?
Oerdin
Deity
Because that is what people voted to do. This is not rocket science, man. People voted to regain their national sovereignty and part of that is restoring British courts as the supreme arbiters for reviewing British laws.
You do not have to like it but you do have to respect the democraticly expressed will of the people.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I was not personally motivated to vote Leave by any particular ruling. What needs to be understood
is that its rulings are taken as precedents which lower e.g. UK courts feel constrained to try to follow.
So once the ECJ has established that a legal individual can sue a government for not following an EU directive,
a whole range of litigation opportunities are opened up. Example 1: Individuals can sue the UK government
because air pollution levels in London are exceeded. This is largely due to VW and others cheating on emissions.
It could be resolved by banning all VW and other such overtly over polluting vehicles from being driven, but no doubt
that would result in aggrieved individuals and VW sueing the UK at the ECJ on the grounds that it was constraining trade.
Example 2: Companies can sue the government on procedural grounds (e.g. if they fail to win a contract).
So government bodies are diverted from doing what is needed efficiently to reducing the possibility of litigation.
A problem with supreme courts in that sooner or later they assume their role, never mind the legislature, is to invent law.
We have already had that in the UK e.g. with judicial review which unreasonably constrains discretion, and having yet
another court invent law further undermines the democratic process.
The raison d'etre of ECJ is to interpret EU law.
I'm struggling to see what it could even do for a country not part of EU.
Why do you say ‘become’?
And if the UK subjects itself to complying with EU regulations to keep being a tax haven and money-laundered for those who want to invest there, e.g. oil sheikhs, and Russian ploutocrats, then it should accept some level of enforcement by EU authorities.
Oerdin
Deity
As the should.
- Status
Similar threads
