Brexit 5

As Trump is making the USA more protectionist, why shouldn't the EU control its borders more, and become protectionist?

Did you watch that James O'Brien video, roses? You should.

There is now another legal challenge to the government relating to the single market. The argument is that parliament must have a say as to whether we stay in the single market, and should not be left to a couple of rag tags to decide. (Well they didn't say that, actually rag tag is my description of the useless lot of Brexiters)

Azie09: I agree that 'facts' can change over time but I think all that I stated as fact is still demonstrably true. You said:

'In fact, our Parliament has to debate and agree to every EU regulation that has legal jurisdiction in this country which is why we have vetoed various measures and made ourselves rather unpopular in the EU itself.'

By contrast, a lawyer writing for the BBC explaining the EU in 2009 said:

EU 'regulations have "general application". That means they are binding on individuals and effectively form part of domestic law as soon as they are made. It is generally only necessary to amend existing national provisions that are inconsistent with regulations, rather than make new legislation altogether.'

I do not pretend to know all there is to know about this subject and I endeavour to learn more from a variety of sources. Others might like to do the same.

Just hearing that horrid Paul Nuttal has been elected head of UKIP. Can only hope that Farage retires now. But according to the Twitteri that I follow, he's v right wing indeed. And on record as saying he wants the NHS privatised because there are so many old people now.
Meanwhile the PM is apparently losing sleep and I can understand why. She came breezing into number 10, saying "brexit means brexit" as a crowd pleaser. You would think that while she was hiding in the girls toilets plotting to lead the party during the referendum campaign, she'd have spared a day to think about the prospect of being PM with the task of dealing with a Leave vote. Beginning to look at if the whole process is going to get bogged down in legal challenges while the PM and the 2 Brexiteers keep squabbling, lying awake at night, and wondering who to reconcile their terror about leaving the single market can be reconciled with the fact that they have been working so hard to whip up anti-immigration feeling.

I get the feeling that it is falling around her ears. I bet the right wing press knows more than it is publishing.

Others might like to do the same?
Some of us do, Cunco. In fact you will find that Whitewave took an excellent course, and put lots of it up on here for us to learn - or those of us who cared to.

Thanks Cunco, I'd like to know more about that 2009 quote. I'll look it up when I've got a moment. I don't quite understand your last point about others. It seems rather pointed but I 'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant we should all be trying to widen our understanding of the complex situation we find ourselves in. Absolutely!

I agree Whitewave, Theresa May was quite naive to think she could take Brexit on and waltz through. I wonder what David Cameron is up to these days, smug b.

Interesting article in today's Western Daily Press by a local cheese maker who voted Remain but was now going to make the best of it and thought they'd be okay as long as they had access to the single market. Fingers crossed then!

fullfact.org/europe/how-eu-works-who-runs-eu/

V useful fact sheet written by Paul Craig, Professor in English Law at the University of Oxford.

Thank you for the link. I found this one very interesting too.

fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/

Azie, Cameron is doing the same as Osborne, earning lots of money for giving speeches about their failed attempt to keep us in the EU.
Cameron is given £120,000 for an hour's speech, and Osborne given £110,000. I wonder if there's a competition to see who can get the most.

I am trying to think a little less about Brexit. When I saw yesterday's headline: 'Carney to push Bussels for a smooth exit', I thought he was talking about his Christmas dinner.

Paul Nuttall says he's doing that, Cunco. He wants to talk about Exit, not Brexit, just leave with no article 50.

I suspect my views have very little in common with Paul Nuttall except for wanting to leave the EU. I don't propose to waste time finding out.

I have pondered fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/ from the website kindly suggested. I have re-read it and it seems to show not how little sovereignty successive Parliaments have given up but how much. It confirms, in contrast to what has been stated here:

' ‘Regulations’ and ‘directives’ occupy a central position in the system of EU rules... ...Regulations and directives are legally binding. They normally apply in all 28 EU member countries, although some directives are addressed to particular members.

...And both types of law are based on articles of the EU treaties that give the EU institutions the authority to pass laws in the relevant field.'

I read from the UK Parliament website that there are about 1,000 submissions from the EU per Parliamentary session. There is 'scrutiny' and dialogue but:

'Two important ideas make this system work. These are ‘supremacy’, meaning the higher status of EU laws compared to national laws, and ‘direct effect’, meaning that EU laws can be relied on in court.'

It seems that, should the UK ever want to contradict EU law, it would be incompatible with continued membership. Before 23 June, people on all sides said we were voting on that issue.

This is true but when these laws/regulations are being made all 28 states need to agree before it goes onto the books. Everyone has a veto and I believe the UK has exercised this right more than any other state. So nothing goes against what our government has agreed.

Precisely, Welshwife. EU legislation is always referred to as though it comes fully formed out of the ether. Whereas, in fact, it is a result of debate and negotiation among the EU countries.

Another point is that much of the regulation is related to goods which are traded in the EU. We would be required to conform to product related regulations with most countries we traded with outside the EU, without any input in forming them. Of course, countries wishing to import to us would have to comply with our product standards but these could well be diluted if we have a weak hand in negotiating future trade agreements and have to accept lower standards. And, if we wish to continue to trade with the EU we will still have to conform to their product related regulations...

I am very impressed by that site, fullfact.org.uk. I did think though that we'd made ourselves unpopular by vetoing legislation, especially the sort giving welfare and employment rights along with environmental protection. Sorry, don't have details at my fingertips.
I'm interested in the difference in European thinking that tries to make life better for the disadvantaged. For instance the legislation that has made facilities for the disabled mandatory. This may seem like wandering away from the central Brexit question, but, in Stockholm last year I was stunned to see so many people in wheelchairs out and about, to see how buses and street furniture is adapted for the disabled (and thus for mother's with buggies, the elderly with walkers etc). Most amazing of all was waiting in a queue for a bus, the queue was a mix of old and young, able and disabled and when the bus came, the disabled and less able were happily allowed on first with no hurry or angst.

I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be led from the top down and my experience of the UK is that there is increasing privatisation, decreasing provision of public facilities and caring for the less able and disabled is always 'too expensive'. So I suppose I am grateful to the EU for what membership has brought and what has seemed like a dragging along of the UK Parliament into a kinder world. An ex neighbour of mine, elderly herself but rather well off and very anti EU has ranted at length to me about 'the money spent on changing infrastructure and how many people in wheelchairs do you see about then, day to day' she'd say, thrusting her face in mine. Very ugly.

So from what I've read, I don't believe our sovereignty is really threatened but I do think we need to cooperate with other governments, it's not just about trade and money, and I think we can learn from our European neighbours how to allocate resources for the benefit of all. In my lifetime I have felt the EU has been proactive in this. Sorry if this seems like a long post.

I do so agree that we need to co-operate and trade with Europe. I have friends living in Europe; I take holidays in Europe; and I want friendly relations with Europe. My objection is only to the EU, not to Europe or its citizens.

I have not had time to research fully the national Veto but it is not true that a country can veto anything it does not like. As usual with the EU, it is not straightforward but reading this link to the end, it states: 'So the UK has to accept some EU decisions that it didn't vote for.'

fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

My concern is not only where we are but where we are headed. The EU is headed to 'an ever-closer Union' with more powers controlled at the centre. Quite how long the UK could sensibly retain its position in the EU but outside the Eurozone is a guess but I suspect it is untenable long term, as do fans of the EU such as Michael Heseltine.

The loss of sovereignty is already significant. It is not complete but, in my view, it is likely to move away from the UK over time if we stay in the EU. What powers we have to veto could ultimately be reduced or eliminated. I would view our grand-children's future in a United States of Europe as an environment where they have even less say in their own government than we do; and we don't have much.

Agree totally with your post Cunco

My concern is not only where we are but where we are headed.

I think that is everyone's concern, Leavers and Remainers.

Nobody really ever seems to put their finger on this "sovereignty" thing.
EU laws have influenced our laws to the better in areas like employment rights, environmental protection and food safety.
I believe the veto is for significant issues like treaties (rather than legislation).
Like in the recent issue in which there was a trade agreement with Canada waiting to be ratified. One Belgian region was against it and the whole of the rest of the EU wanted to sign. They did sign in the end but it was touch and go.

'I believe the veto is for significant issues like treaties (rather than legislation).' Surely legislation, along with regulations and directives, is significant to a view on sovereignty.

When proposed EU legislation comes to the vote, I read 'The UK usually votes with the majority, but is now on the losing side more than any other nation.' This is a quote from the Full Fact website.

I agree the 'sovereignty thing' is difficult. It has not been a vote winner in the UK so it has been pushed to the sidelines. Even the significant issue of keeping the Pound in 1997 and 2002 was deemed less important than the usual election issues. How important it proved to be; and if Gordon Brown was responsible for keeping us out of the Eurozone, he deserves a vote of thanks.

People can take sovereignty for granted until they realise that they have lost it; and when they do, it can become the most important issue of all.

People can take sovereignty for granted until they realise that they have lost it; and when they do, it can become the most important issue of all.

I suspect that a very large section of the UK population has been completely indifferent to the issue of 'sovereignty' for years and years.(I realise that a host of indignant Gransnet 'Leavers' will now rush to tell me that it has been a constant worry to them for the last 40 years)

When it became 'take back control' in the run up to the EU referendum very few people I spoke to seemed able to articulate just what they meant by 'taking back control' apart from 'being tired of being told what to do by unelected EU bureaucrats...' They certainly weren't able to explain how 'loss of sovereignty' had blighted their lives, or irreparably damaged the UK..

Like JessM I find it difficult to imagine what loss of sovereignty means beyond a concept. As the world divides into trading blocks and perhaps becomes less safe because of terrorism, the resurgence of Russia and a loose cannon US president, I'd rather be part of the group of nations that is Europe. Our police force and armed forces, border control, intelligence unit have all suffered from austerity. I think I read that our 3(?) remaining warships are obsolete. I think the notion of going it alone as a sovereign nation is a bygone thing.
As to ever closer union, France and Germany have always had that as their aim because of the destruction of both countries post WWII. However, with a right wing swing in both countries and resistance to further integration from some Eastern European countries, I can't see closer union being achieved beyond legislation concerned with climate change and the environment and I see that as a good thing. In fact climate change is likely to do for us all in the end anyway.

Bad sentence construction at the beginning of my second paragraph, I mean of course the destruction left behind in France and Germany, post WWII.