-
Posts
-
Not at all – and the Bill of Rights is part of an unwritten constitution of conflicting laws and customs which are interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Parliament agreed under legislation (law is part of the Constitution) to agree to the ECJ, and can withdraw that agreement through withdrawal from the EU. The source of that agreement is a sovereign parliament (or rather the Crown-in-Parliament). It sounds arcane, but is fundamental to constitutional law. The ECJ may yet decide that UK withdrawal is illegal, and that will present a stange case – it’s entirely possible.
The case of the pound sterling is a classic example of one of many rights which parliament refused to cede, and if we rejoin we may have to decide yet again, or negotiate.
The fact is that the EU is a two-speed area in practice. There are those states – France, Germany, the Netherlands etc – which want to proceed (theoretically) towards a European State*. The second layer are states like the UK which refuse to travel along the route of a European state, but wish to retain parliamentary sovereignty.
This two-speed Europe was moving towards a formal structure, and this may yet happen without the UK (provided the EU doesn’t unravel, which a Le Pen victory in France may succeed in doing).
The UK’s withdrawal doesn’t mean withdrawal from an EU state which denies the UK sovereignty. It means withdrawal from the second layer of the EU – where parliament has sovereignty within the EU, subject to the same rules which apply to its membership of other international organisations like the UN. In doing so, we are giving up certain concessions we have demanded and obtained eg the pound sterling alongside the euro within the EU.
Parliament isn’t regaining sovereignty by withdrawal. It’s exercising sovereignty in a different way from its exercise in 1971-2 in the legislation by which it agreed to join the EEC.
The Supreme Court accepts that parliament is going to do this – maybe it will say that legislation is not necessary (May and Farage hope for this). This decision isn’t about whether the UK withdraws or not, but how it is going to withdraw.
Like the Supreme Court in the US, there is no appeal (I think – I don’t think Gina Miller can appeal to the European Court of Justice if she loses, but I may be wrong).
If she wins, drac, you and Pete and lord Farage can appeal to he ECJ? There is no way other than an armed coup by which you’ll gainsay it.
*If the UK parliament agreed to give up sovereignty to a European state, then it would still be a (final) exercise of sovereignty. Personally I would want such a European state too (as long as it’e genuinely democratic), though I accept that I am in a relatively small minority in the UK, and that you and Pete are in the overwhelming majority on this. Whatever happens, the UK would never agree to it.
It sounds arcane, but is fundamental to constitutional law. The ECJ may yet decide that UK withdrawal is illegal, and that will present a stange case – it’s entirely possible.
The posibility that this can even happen is the problem I was trying to explain, parliment isn’t sovereign if it can be bound by the ECJ.
The fact is that the EU is a two-speed area in practice. There are those states – France, Germany, the Netherlands etc – which want to proceed (theoretically) towards a European State*. The second layer are states like the UK which refuse to travel along the route of a European state, but wish to retain parliamentary sovereignty.
This two-speed Europe was moving towards a formal structure, and this may yet happen without the UK (provided the EU doesn’t unravel, which a Le Pen victory in France may succeed in doing).
It was never intended to be this way though, our opt-out of the Euro and Schengen was always seen as temporary by the EU establishment. They will eventually try to force us to change if we were to remain full members of the union.
Like the Supreme Court in the US, there is no appeal (I think – I don’t think Gina Miller can appeal to the European Court of Justice if she loses, but I may be wrong).
If she wins, drac, you and Pete and lord Farage can appeal to he ECJ? There is no way other than an armed coup by which you’ll gainsay it.
If the ECJ were to block Brexit, it wouldn’t be an armed coup it would be full scale war. I don’t think the British people would tollerate such a decission at all.
If the UK parliament agreed to give up sovereignty to a European state, then it would still be a (final) exercise of sovereignty. Personally I would want such a European state too (as long as it’e genuinely democratic), though I accept that I am in a relatively small minority in the UK, and that you and Pete are in the overwhelming majority on this. Whatever happens, the UK would never agree to it.
I don’t think a European state is the right decision for Britain.If we were to form such a state it should be with the English speaking Commonwealth countries (and Ireland). There wouldn’t be nearly as much cultural or communication conflict, and we would still be using a parlimentary form of governance, which we all use now.
The fact is that the EU is a two-speed area in practice. There are those states – France, Germany, the Netherlands etc – which want to proceed (theoretically) towards a European State*. The second layer are states like the UK which refuse to travel along the route of a European state, but wish to retain parliamentary sovereignty. This two-speed Europe was moving towards a formal structure, and this may yet happen without the UK (provided the EU doesn’t unravel, which a Le Pen victory in France may succeed in doing).
It was never intended to be this way though, our opt-out of the Euro and Schengen was always seen as temporary by the EU establishment. They will eventually try to force us to change if we were to remain full members of the union.
Actually, there were semi-formal plans for a two-speed EU, because they would enver have been able to force the UK to give up the pound without a major European crisis – the UK isn’t the only country in the EU to refuse to join the euro. In or out of the EU, the euro’s days are numbered if they can’t reform it. It doesn’t work as it is presently constituted.
I know you don’t want a European starte, but it’s hardly worth arguing the toss about it, as very few people in this country do.
The ECJ can’t stop the UK l;eaving, but it can cause problems if there’s a transtional deal
I mist say, drac and Pete (if Pete is stillwith us), I don’t udnerstand your fears about delay to brexit.
I don’t want us to leave, I make no bones about it. But we are almost certainly leaving. I’m deeply worried about the social and economic consequences, but we are leaving. It would be a romance to think otherwise for one reason.
The referendum, however much it was based ona cruel deceit by Leavers imho, has achieved a legitimacy. All but the most angry leavers accept we are on our way out.
So whya re you so worried?
The only reason we may stay is if there is a very serious economic crisis – I mean really serious before we go. That is, people may change their minds.
so two questions – do you think ‘the people’ have a right to change their minds on the EU?
and if there is an economic crisis, I mean a bad one, what do you propose to do to meet it.
There is that possibility of impoverishment, you know. So…answers, as you helped to land us in this gamble?
the UK isn’t the only country in the EU to refuse to join the euro.
Their opt-outs are also thought of as being temporary by the EU.
In or out of the EU, the euro’s days are numbered if they can’t reform it. It doesn’t work as it is presently constituted.
What changes would you propose making, and how would you elect someone to make those changes? (You can’t)
I know you don’t want a European starte, but it’s hardly worth arguing the toss about it, as very few people in this country do.
I don’t really care if there is a European state or not, I just don’t think Britain should be part of it for the reasons I explained in my last post.
The referendum, however much it was based ona cruel deceit by Leavers imho, has achieved a legitimacy. All but the most angry leavers accept we are on our way out.
I think you will find it was the remain campaign who lied about everything (the referendum is binding, there is no plans for a EU army, the EU is democratic, we wouldn’t be able to trade with European countries, you wouldn’t be able to travel to Europe, it would cause WW3, ect).
Most of the ‘angry leavers’ know nothing about the EU, nor do most of the remoaners.
So whya re you so worried?
I’m not worried, but this is the kind of thing that civil wars start over.
do you think ‘the people’ have a right to change their minds on the EU?
Yes
and if there is an economic crisis, I mean a bad one, what do you propose to do to meet it.
Economic problems require very different solutions depending on their cause, so there is no way I can answer that.
There is that possibility of impoverishment, you know. So…answers, as you helped to land us in this gamble?
That hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t see why it would unless the EU 27 wants to damage their own ecconomies out of spite.
Temporary crises can certainly be caused by scaremongering, Reason, but they right themselves pretty quickly because there is no basis for them in reality.
The biggest crises of the last 100 years – the 1929 crash and depression, and the 2008 crash and the continuing crisis after 2008 – were caused by people who were over-optimistic about credit, not bey scaremongers..
The present dangers are clear, and they’re caused by Brexit. The 161 trade treaties which the Uk has are all negotiated by the EU. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has judged that all 161 are null and void. We will have no trade treaties. We’ll have to build all of them again – and each one takes a long time. There is the danger of what’s called falling off a cliff – that is that our trading will be conducted uner the rules of the WTO, which will be very harsh for us. Where is a great danger that we will all be poorer, much poorer.
So when I say what is Plan B to avoid the crisis, let me be specific. How will you deal with the very real danger that the terms of trade will be against us once we leave. It hasn’t happened yet – of course not, because we haven’t left yet! The pound has slumped already over the mere uncertainty, and once we leave it is liekly to fall much further because of britains’ precarious trading position.
Whistling trade treaties and allies up is no substitute for real trade treaties and real trading allies.
So don’t go looking for scapegoats. It’s not the people warning about the likely consequences of this right-wing gamble who will cause the problem here.
The deceit of the leavers was very cruel – the use of lines of refugees in the pretence that they were immigrants, the scare story that a huge number of Turkish immigrants were about to sweep into the UK, the deceit that there would be no cost in leaving the EU (!!!), the lie that we could push £350 million a month into the NHS. A cruel deceit. Don’t blame those who are warning of the dangers when it hits us.
The right-wing Tories have a vision of the future which is exciting them into calling for a hard brexit. They see the UK as another Singapore, combined with a bermuda-style taxt haven.
Meanwhile we wait fo the Supreme Court to decide. I#’ts no me calling for a civil war over them, It’s not me calling them the enemies of the people, branding one of them as ‘openly gay’, assuming that they are all committed to leaving the EU. I’ll accept their decisioon when it comes, whatever it is. Will you??
Following the right-wing line underlines the nature of a hard brexit – we are all likely to be hit, but the poorest in particular. You can magnify that if we become another Singapore.
*
It’s wrong to say thaat the exclusion from the euro was temporary. It wasn’t. A permanent two-speed Europe was becoming formalised, though the EU federalists would have liked to think it was temporary. Ther eality was very different from their wishes.
The present dangers are clear, and they’re caused by Brexit. The 161 trade treaties which the Uk has are all negotiated by the EU. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has judged that all 161 are null and void. We will have no trade treaties. We’ll have to build all of them again – and each one takes a long time.
The EU has active trade deals with 32 entities (including countries in the EFTA and EEA), not 161. Even then, several of those are British crown dependancies (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Akrotiri and Dhekelia). The WTO has no authority over these deals anyway, its up to the entities that negotiated those deals if they want to apply the same conditions to Britain after leaving.
Regardless of that, I would prefer the EFTA membership Brexit, which would mean we aren’t at risk of losing deals.
The pound has slumped already over the mere uncertainty, and once we leave it is liekly to fall much further because of britains’ precarious trading position.
Whistling trade treaties and allies up is no substitute for real trade treaties and real trading allies.
Australia, New Zealand and America (Trump) have expressed significant interest in opening trade negotiations with us, all countries that the EU has failed to so far. They are far more valuable markets than Morocco and Egypt.
The deceit of the leavers was very cruel – the use of lines of refugees in the pretence that they were immigrants, the scare story that a huge number of Turkish immigrants were about to sweep into the UK, the deceit that there would be no cost in leaving the EU (!!!), the lie that we could push £350 million a month into the NHS. A cruel deceit. Don’t blame those who are warning of the dangers when it hits us.
A very large number of the ‘refugees’ are immigrants, there are no wars in Pakistan or Macedonia. It is also worth remembering that the EU refused to take refugees from Ukraine when Russia was annexing Crimea. Even a lot of the genuine refugees lie about their age, or attack lorries to get into the country illegally.
The EU giving Turkish citizens visa free travel was a valid issue until the coup happened.
The NHS claim was only made by Vote Leave, it was refuted by both the Leave.EU and Grassroots Out campaigns. This is only an issue created by remain voters, virtually nobody voted to leave because of Boris’ claims about the NHS.
It’s wrong to say thaat the exclusion from the euro was temporary. It wasn’t. A permanent two-speed Europe was becoming formalised, though the EU federalists would have liked to think it was temporary. Ther eality was very different from their wishes.
The people who make the laws wanted it to be temporary, that makes it temporary in my oppinion.
sorry, drac, you haven’t answered my points.
The UK’s treaties are signed through the EU – there have been 161 since joining the EEC in january, 1973 (that is, over 43 years). The WTO have declared that these treaties are with the EU, not with the UK. The UK will need to start again. The most friendly countries take many years of hard negotiations to create a deal – think of Canada’s travails with the EU. The real danger is that the terms of trade are now going to be against us.
The WTO have no authority over any tracde deals that are made by a UK independently of the EU – as long as they remain within WTO rules, which they will.
You’re whistling up trade teaties. with Australia, New Zealand, America. Canada has made it clear that the UK is not high on their agenda. Australia is making very friendly noises, but is also makiing it clear that Asia is more important to them; the most friendly regime in Australia is going to take a long time to negotiate a trade treaty. India – which is emerging as a potential world economic power – is making ot clear to May that they smell bloodas they sniff a wounde UK, and are ready to make deals in Indian interest (surprise, surprise); again this will not come overnight. Trump is trumping a lot of noise over brexit, because he sees it as the equivalent of his America First strategy. but he’s also made it explicit that while the UK won’t be at the back of the queue for treaties, it won’t be the top either. A Trump America is going to be an strongly protexctionist, America First America.
Whistling up trade is no substitute. And if there’s another almighty banking crash like 2008. Gawd help us all. You need a vaiable strategy.
I think you’re very wrong in your other points, but it would be distracting to take them up now.
An EFTA is better than none. There are various possibilities.
But we have to leave the EU slowly, under our own steam, and under our own terms. This headlong break is very dangerous. We should be leaving when we want, not when our trading rivals want us to.
And we should be free to rejoin; people should be free to change their minds, as you acknowledged.. That is where the European Court of Justice may well come in – in a ruling that Article 50 is not irreversible. There are various moves under way (outside the UK at the moment – in Dublin) to bring that case forward.
Long old posts.. we’ll be fine ffs
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!