Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Best case for Brexit I have seen (has nothing to do with immigration) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Whatever happens with the Brexit vote, it's a wake up call to European politicians that serious reform is needed if they don't want more referendums and a breakup. There was plenty of talk about the need for a new treaty anyway so that rules can be applied just to EU members at certain levels of integration, going a long way to satisfying Eurozone vs non Eurozone interests, and that's where the renegotiation agreements would get into the next treaty. The EU treaties were never designed and are not fit for purpose for differing levels of integration.

    Just a side note on the EU Commission. The general public (I expect) believe that unelected bureaucrats are the whole story of EU legislation. Those more engaged know that they are appointed by member states and propose the legislation, which is then voted on by elected politicians (EU parliament, and the European Council, which are the heads of government - Cameron et all). Very few seem to know that the Commission can't just propose whatever feels like. The European Council decides the policy directions and priorities for the EU. The Commission's legislative job is to come up with concrete proposals for legislation to implement these policies. There's so much criticism of the Commission it's a prime candidate for further reform (it lost some powers at Lisbon).

    When I look at lists of EU directives, generally they seem to cover areas that are best solved at a European level. There's cross border stuff like airline rules (budget airline shares have plummeted since EU ref announced!), crime, anti fraud, anti money laundering. There's single market stuff like product standards. There's avoiding a race to the bottom stuff like employment rights, health and safety, environmental (the UK has been the main driver of the latter, and we led for the EU in the international climate talks). And misc directives like implementing sanctions we all agreed to take against Iran.

    Our main interest is the single market though. British MEPs have chaired the powerful internal market committee for the past 12 years. A lot of the things we've been pushing for have real impetus now:

    * Completing the single market in services (not very effective currently, large gains to be made, especially for us). Osbourne has talked about using enhanced cooperation protocols for those countries who want to progress fastest with this.
    * Digital single market (good for our world leading creative industries)
    * Internal Energy market (efficiency, reducing reliance on Russia etc)
    * Reducing regulatory burden, as well as the 2014-20 real terms reduction in the EU's budget, both of which we pursuaded the rest of the EU to support
    * Common Consolidated Corporation Tax Base (each country still sets its own corporation tax, but profits are recognised based on where the salaries, sales and capital is deployed, instead of letting multi nationals pretend their profits occur in Ireland or Netherlands etc). This is just an idea at the moment. Tory MEPs are against this, labour and libdems for it.
    * Capital Markets Union (increase investment across the EU; Britain's EU Commissioner is overseeing this as well as financial services issues)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You probably haven't been following late constitutional affairs (that is, of the past 3 decades) if you believe Parliament is, or believes for that matter in its 'inherent sovereignty'.

    The concept has long lost its importance.
    That's one of the driving arguments behind Brexit, and even the current status quo is more Parliament is subservient to EU law only because it chooses to be, as seen in the revolt over prisoner voting. There's no indication the government or Parliament think anything else. This appears to be more what you believe, rather than what Parliament does.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's one of the driving arguments behind Brexit, and even the current status quo is more Parliament is subservient to EU law only because it chooses to be, as seen in the revolt over prisoner voting. There's no indication the government or Parliament think anything else. This appears to be more what you believe, rather than what Parliament does.
    Considering the Government actively endorses the remain campaign, it is very safe to assume that they hold no grudge over their loss of 'sovereignty'. And in any case, it's not just EU law that has this effect - the ECHR, enacted through the HRA, has also had significant consequences to the notion of 'sovereignty'.

    Say what you will, but this concept has, as I mentioned, long lost its importance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Considering the Government actively endorses the remain campaign, it is very safe to assume that they hold no grudge over their loss of 'sovereignty'. And in any case, it's not just EU law that has this effect - the ECHR, enacted through the HRA, has also had significant consequences to the notion of 'sovereignty'.

    Say what you will, but this concept has, as I mentioned, long lost its importance.
    Agreeing to abide by international treaties does not contradict the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty, especially since at a whim with a normal vote the UK can at will withdraw from any and all these.
    As for the government, regardless of their position on the referendum, David Cameron has made clear he endorses the principal.
    It's a bit silly to say something has lost it's importance when a significant faction of the Brexit vote is based entirely on that principle.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Agreeing to abide by international treaties does not contradict the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty, especially since at a whim with a normal vote the UK can at will withdraw from any and all these.
    As for the government, regardless of their position on the referendum, David Cameron has made clear he endorses the principal.
    It's a bit silly to say something has lost it's importance when a significant faction of the Brexit vote is based entirely on that principle.
    You're thinking of this in a very one-sided manner. Sovereignty means two things; Parliaments not being able to bind their successors, and courts (or other authorities) not being able to challenge Parliament's authority. Neither really exist now. Parliament has actually managed to bind its successors, and the courts are increasingly rebellious (not least because of both EU law and international conventions).

    On this basis, the HRA (which is non EU related) has, whether you wish to accept it or not, much reduced the powers of Parliament. That is not to speak of EU law. It was inevitable. You may also wish to read the insightful judgment of ex parte Jackson if you can access it.

    So, yes - the principle of sovereignty as Dicey imagined it, where Parliament's will would not be disputed at any cost, is no longer applicable, or even existent for that matter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You're thinking of this in a very one-sided manner. Sovereignty means two things; Parliaments not being able to bind their successors, and courts (or other authorities) not being able to challenge Parliament's authority. Neither really exist now. Parliament has actually managed to bind its successors, and the courts are increasingly rebellious (not least because of both EU law and international conventions).

    On this basis, the HRA (which is non EU related) has, whether you wish to accept it or not, much reduced the powers of Parliament. That is not to speak of EU law. It was inevitable. You may also wish to read the insightful judgment of ex parte Jackson if you can access it.

    So, yes - the principle of sovereignty as Dicey imagined it, where Parliament's will would not be disputed at any cost, is no longer applicable, or even existent for that matter.
    Parliament hasn't binded it's successors. The power of EU law, the HRA and the like within British law all stems from Parliamentary acts. They can easily be repelled by Parliament itself. The only thing that has been affected is the doctrine of implied repeal.

    You've also missed the point completely, in that in Dicey's scenario Brexit has happened. All apparent limiters to Parliament's sovereignty are gone. You're argument however was that Parliament would just decide to give up the doctrine of sovereignty, that it would have literally just affirmed by leaving the EU, on it's own accord.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Parliament hasn't binded it's successors. The power of EU law, the HRA and the like within British law all stems from Parliamentary acts. They can easily be repelled by Parliament itself. The only thing that has been affected is the doctrine of implied repeal.

    You've also missed the point completely, in that in Dicey's scenario Brexit has happened. All apparent limiters to Parliament's sovereignty are gone. You're argument however was that Parliament would just decide to give up the doctrine of sovereignty, that it would have literally just affirmed by leaving the EU, on it's own accord.
    You don't seem to know the concept of sovereignty as well as you think you do. My first point was referring to the principle of implied repeal - without it, a Parliament is not sovereign in the word's traditional meaning. Got it?

    What? What limitations are gone? Firstly, ECHR law is here to stay unless the British Bill of Rights is enforced (in itself the first step towards a codified constitution, which will reduce Parliament's powers just as much). Secondly, even if the UK withdraws from the EU, it will still need to abide to its policies if it wishes to make a trade deal. But even if Britain does not, it would be very naive to think that the courts will ever allow Parliament to do whatever it wishes. Try to access the judgment I've mentioned, as well as the ex parte Simms and Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza if you can. They are very, very insightful on this very topic.

    I do think we've gone a bit of topic at this point, however.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    And to quote Clinton, "Its the economy stupid."

    Sovereignty never put food on the table. What is the point in our own undemocratic, lying, two faced, self interested politicians having full control when everyone is starving?
    What is the point in being complicit and docile because the good farmer fills your trough twice a day. Just happy to exist in your little pen under the control of your owner who graciously feeds you? FFS
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You don't seem to know the concept of sovereignty as well as you think you do. My first point was referring to the principle of implied repeal - without it, a Parliament is not sovereign in the word's traditional meaning. Got it?

    What? What limitations are gone? Firstly, ECHR law is here to stay unless the British Bill of Rights is enforced (in itself the first step towards a codified constitution, which will reduce Parliament's powers just as much). Secondly, even if the UK withdraws from the EU, it will still need to abide to its policies if it wishes to make a trade deal. But even if Britain does not, it would be very naive to think that the courts will ever allow Parliament to do whatever it wishes. Try to access the judgment I've mentioned, as well as the ex parte Simms and Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza if you can. They are very, very insightful on this very topic.

    I do think we've gone a bit of topic at this point, however.

    I'm not referring to the 'traditional' meaning. Got it?
    The concept has obviously evolved, as you said. It is complete bogus however to write off the principal as dead in the UK because it no longer fits arbitrary criteria set by you.
    The current consensus, especially amongst the Tories, is as I explained before. Everything you claim negates Parliamentary Sovereignty are all derived from UK statute in the first place, the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act. The current status quo is directly out of choice. It's absurd to suggest law set by Parliament proves that Parliament is not sovereign. No outside force can compel Parliament to remain in the EU or in the ECHR and there is nothing special required other than a direct Parliamentary vote. The UK is part of the EU and ECHR out of choice. Thus the will and intentions of Parliament ultimately remains supreme.

    You can try and argue semantics as much as you want, but what is patently clear is that the Brexit faction advocate 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' and would not codify the constitution, nor allow any court to strike down primary legislation.
    What is naive is to think that judges have a say in the matter. Judges can not just randomly expand their judicial scope as they wish. They derive their authority from Parliament and Parliament decides what they can and can not rule on. Certain Judges may wish the situation was different but wish is all they can do about it. Any change to the status quo will be decided by Parliament.

    Since we're citing judges however, what about Lord Bingham's position in R(Jackson) vs Attorney General?

    The bedrock of the British constitution is, and in 1911 was, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament. It is, as Maurice Kay LJ observed in para 3 of his judgment, unnecessary for present purposes to touch on the difference, if any, made by our membership of the European Union. Then, as now, the Crown in Parliament was unconstrained by any entrenched or codified constitution. It could make or unmake any law it wished. Statutes, formally enacted as Acts of Parliament, properly interpreted, enjoyed the highest legal authority.

    Also, this is from Parliament's website:

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

    So they clearly think it's a thing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I'm not referring to the 'traditional' meaning. Got it?
    The concept has obviously evolved, as you said. It is complete bogus however to write off the principal as dead in the UK because it no longer fits arbitrary criteria set by you.
    The current consensus, especially amongst the Tories, is as I explained before. Everything you claim negates Parliamentary Sovereignty are all derived from UK statute in the first place, the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act. The current status quo is directly out of choice. It's absurd to suggest law set by Parliament proves that Parliament is not sovereign. No outside force can compel Parliament to remain in the EU or in the ECHR and there is nothing special required other than a direct Parliamentary vote. The UK is part of the EU and ECHR out of choice. Thus the will and intentions of Parliament ultimately remains supreme.

    You can try and argue semantics as much as you want, but what is patently clear is that the Brexit faction advocate 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' and would not codify the constitution, nor allow any court to strike down primary legislation.
    What is naive is to think that judges have a say in the matter. Judges can not just randomly expand their judicial scope as they wish. They derive their authority from Parliament and Parliament decides what they can and can not rule on. Certain Judges may wish the situation was different but wish is all they can do about it.

    Since we're citing judges however, what about Lord Bingham's position in R(Jackson) vs Attorney General?

    The bedrock of the British constitution is, and in 1911 was, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament. It is, as Maurice Kay LJ observed in para 3 of his judgment, unnecessary for present purposes to touch on the difference, if any, made by our membership of the European Union. Then, as now, the Crown in Parliament was unconstrained by any entrenched or codified constitution. It could make or unmake any law it wished. Statutes, formally enacted as Acts of Parliament, properly interpreted, enjoyed the highest legal authority.
    I do love a good public law discussion and I broadly agree with you.

    On a side note, the dicta in Jackson is really interesting. The judges discussed what they would do if Parliament 'did the unthinkable' such as abolish the courts power to judicially review it's actions and a few of the judges, especially Lord Steyn suggested that if Parliament did so they may refuse to apply the law, stating that 'judicial review may be a constitutional fundamental that even a sovereign Parliament cannot abolish'.
    The judges were split though, Lord Bingham as you say disagreeing.

    Perhaps more telling though is that in the AXA case in 2011, Lord Reed stated in no uncertain terms that if Parliament were to do something utterly heinous, that the courts would not 'recognize it as law'.


    As you say, Parliament is sovereign but perhaps there are limits to that sovereignty which have not been tested yet.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I do love a good public law discussion and I broadly agree with you.

    On a side note, the dicta in Jackson is really interesting. The judges discussed what they would do if Parliament 'did the unthinkable' such as abolish the courts power to judicially review it's actions and a few of the judges, especially Lord Steyn suggested that if Parliament did so they may refuse to apply the law, stating that 'judicial review may be a constitutional fundamental that even a sovereign Parliament cannot abolish'.
    The judges were split though, Lord Bingham as you say disagreeing.

    Perhaps more telling though is that in the AXA case in 2011, Lord Reed stated in no uncertain terms that if Parliament were to do something utterly heinous, that the courts would not 'recognize it as law'.


    As you say, Parliament is sovereign but perhaps there are limits to that sovereignty which have not been tested yet.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If both sides dug in over a clash, what do you think would happen? The government sack the judges?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I'm not referring to the 'traditional' meaning. Got it?
    The concept has obviously evolved, as you said. It is complete bogus however to write off the principal as dead in the UK because it no longer fits arbitrary criteria set by you.
    The current consensus, especially amongst the Tories, is as I explained before. Everything you claim negates Parliamentary Sovereignty are all derived from UK statute in the first place, the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act. The current status quo is directly out of choice. It's absurd to suggest law set by Parliament proves that Parliament is not sovereign. No outside force can compel Parliament to remain in the EU or in the ECHR and there is nothing special required other than a direct Parliamentary vote. The UK is part of the EU and ECHR out of choice. Thus the will and intentions of Parliament ultimately remains supreme.

    You can try and argue semantics as much as you want, but what is patently clear is that the Brexit faction advocate 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' and would not codify the constitution, nor allow any court to strike down primary legislation.
    What is naive is to think that judges have a say in the matter. Judges can not just randomly expand their judicial scope as they wish. They derive their authority from Parliament and Parliament decides what they can and can not rule on. Certain Judges may wish the situation was different but wish is all they can do about it. Any change to the status quo will be decided by Parliament.

    Since we're citing judges however, what about Lord Bingham's position in R(Jackson) vs Attorney General?

    The bedrock of the British constitution is, and in 1911 was, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament. It is, as Maurice Kay LJ observed in para 3 of his judgment, unnecessary for present purposes to touch on the difference, if any, made by our membership of the European Union. Then, as now, the Crown in Parliament was unconstrained by any entrenched or codified constitution. It could make or unmake any law it wished. Statutes, formally enacted as Acts of Parliament, properly interpreted, enjoyed the highest legal authority.

    Also, this is from Parliament's website:

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

    So they clearly think it's a thing.
    Erm, what? Sovereignty has one meaning - Parliament either is or is not sovereign. The very concept was devised by Dicey, you can't coin a different definition now (and there is not, as the website quote you linked proves - which in turn shows that YOU change facts to suit your argument, not me).

    On this basis, Parliament is not currently sovereign - end of. It has managed to bind its successors on two different principles, both EU policy and the ECHR convention. Technically it can withdraw from these conventions, but so can any other Parliament which is not sovereign. Sovereignty as a concept is different to what you're imagining.

    Do you really think the SC has no say despite its continuous imposition of limitations on the government? Bingham's position is traditionalist indeed (possibly because he advocated an independent UK), but look at the other judges. These are untested waters so obviously the court would approach the matter with some nuance, but their dicta are most resolute (note Hale's and Steyn's).

    That definition is actually proving you wrong. Note the 'generally' (not the absolutist approach in the meaning of sovereignty) and the 'no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change'. Parliament CANNOT change EU policy - it can either withdraw from it (like any Parliament in the world) or face penalties if it is in breach of its obligations. Even if it withdraws, it will always follow a referendum - not Parliament doing whatever it wants.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    If both sides dug in over a clash, what do you think would happen? The government sack the judges?
    Judges are not appointed by the Government for obvious reasons (they are also superior when it comes to conflict, since the court has the final word).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    If both sides dug in over a clash, what do you think would happen? The government sack the judges?
    Hard to say, I don't think the government has the power to sack judges. The court and executive are supposed to be separate as a matter of constitutional necessity.

    Although the court does not have the formal power to strike down legislation (or at least has not given itself one yet), it has been making increasing use of the common law 'principle of legality'. That principle is that; the court will not assume that parliament intended to legislate contrary to fundamental or constitutional rights and principles unless it is crystal clear (in the wording of the legislation).


    However recently the court has been making dubious use of this power, even where parliament has been clear and unambiguous. In the 2014 case of Evans, the court interpreted a legislative provision which expressly allowed the executive to overrule the court with regard to freedom of information, so restrictively as to essentially informally strike it down.

    That's in addition to other comments I mentioned where the court said it may, in exceptional circumstances, refuse to apply an act of parliament. However it would only be used in circumstances difficult to imagine such as very serious breaches of human rights.

    I do however think that if it did happen that the court, as the protector of human rights and civil liberties would win out. The closest we've come was the case of Belmarsh prisons where the courts reviewed an act of parliament which allowed for indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists. In that case, the courts had no legal power to strike it down but pretty much told Parliament it was an affront to human rights, Blair and the Labour govt subsequently backed down and repealed the provision.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Erm, what? Sovereignty has one meaning - Parliament either is or is not sovereign. The very concept was devised by Dicey, you can't coin a different definition now (and there is not, as the website quote you linked proves - which in turn shows that YOU change facts to suit your argument, not me).
    What are you waffling about? I've already stated as to how Parliament is sovereign. It has the ability to govern itself and makes the ultimate decision in the end. You mistake the notion of choosing to abide by something voluntarily as being forced to abide by something. My link proves that Parliament buys into the notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty, contrary to your claim that it's an irrelevancy that no one cares about.

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    On this basis, Parliament is not currently sovereign - end of. It has managed to bind its successors on two different principles, both EU policy and the ECHR convention. Technically it can withdraw from these conventions, but so can any other Parliament which is not sovereign. Sovereignty as a concept is different to what you're imagining.

    Do you really think the SC has no say despite its continuous imposition of limitations on the government? Bingham's position is traditionalist indeed (possibly because he advocated an independent UK), but look at the other judges. These are untested waters so obviously the court would approach the matter with some nuance, but their dicta are most resolute (note Hale's and Steyn's).

    No. You're simply arguing an out of date concept of what sovereignty is. As you say, Bingham's position is traditionalist. Judge opinions to the contrary make the news precisely because the idea that the UK has Parliamentary Sovereignty is the prevailing consensus. You can't sit there and claim I'm definitively wrong about something that is the PREVAILING NATIONAL CONSENSUS.
    What I really think is that in the end, if neither side backed down, in an ultimate battle of supremacy, Parliament wins. Play out to me how this scenario plays out in your mind. Supreme Court tells Parliament it is no longer sovereign and that it now has US-style powers, and what Parliament is like 'yeah no problem'.

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    That definition is actually proving you wrong. Note the 'generally' (not the absolutist approach in the meaning of sovereignty) and the 'no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change'. Parliament CANNOT change EU policy - it can either withdraw from it (like any Parliament in the world) or face penalties if it is in breach of its obligations. Even if it withdraws, it will always follow a referendum - not Parliament doing whatever it wants.
    Again, I've never said Parliamentary Sovereignty is absolutist, nor has anyone else for that matter. That's what my link proves. How can a link where Parliament claims it has sovereignty prove me wrong? This is some massive strawmanning on your part.

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Judges are not appointed by the Government for obvious reasons (they are also superior when it comes to conflict, since the court has the final word).
    Government creates new law that allows it to, appoints new judge. Problem solved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What are you waffling about? I've already stated as to how Parliament is sovereign. It has the ability to govern itself and makes the ultimate decision in the end. You mistake the notion of choosing to abide by something voluntarily as being forced to abide by something. My link proves that Parliament buys into the notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty, contrary to your claim that it's an irrelevancy that no one cares about.

    No. You're simply arguing an out of date concept of what sovereignty is. As you say, Bingham's position is traditionalist. Judge opinions to the contrary make the news precisely because the idea that the UK has Parliamentary Sovereignty is the prevailing consensus. You can't sit there and claim I'm definitively wrong about something that is the PREVAILING NATIONAL CONSENSUS.
    What I really think is that in the end, if neither side backed down, in an ultimate battle of supremacy, Parliament wins. Play out to me how this scenario plays out in your mind. Supreme Court tells Parliament it is no longer sovereign and that it now has US-style powers, and what Parliament is like 'yeah no problem'.



    Again, I've never said Parliamentary Sovereignty is absolutist, nor has anyone else for that matter. That's what my link proves. How can a link where Parliament claims it has sovereignty prove me wrong? This is some massive strawmanning on your part.
    Whatever dude. I can't argue with someone that finds his 'facts' from wikipedia. Once you've actually studied the subject, you may return for a proper debate.

    To say that 'sovereignty' has multiple meanings is ridiculous and evident that you don't know the concept at all.


    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Government creates new law that allows it to, appoints new judge. Problem solved.
    The ignorance displayed here is hilarious. I really wonder if you think State affairs work like games made for 10 year olds.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    They can be removed without having to go through a bloody revolution.

    You bring up the starving masses... Have you seen what the EU technocrats are doing to Greece et al?

    So you are anti-austerity now?
    The point is that the Greeks are having austerity forced on them. Not only did they have no choice to accept it, but if they had their own currency and weren't coerced into the loans/bail outs they took, they wouldn't have even needed it.

    What's happned to Greece is nothing short of a travesty. Yes, we took austerity (sort of....nothing compared the Greeks though) but at least it was by choice of our democtically elected government. You might not like it but the people of Britain had the chance to either vote for the ones who did it..........or not. Let me put it this way: look at Iceland. Do you think they'd have had the opportunity to do what they did when they faced meltdown if they were Greece?

    The EU might benefit Britain in some ways (hence by likelihood of voting to Remain....along with my belief that nation states will become obsolete in time anyway) but it certainly does not benefit everyone. That's for damned sure. For example, If I was German I'd support it. If I was Spanish I would not.

    One thing that surprises me about a lot of people who go for Remain is that quite a lot of them are very left-wing. Now as we know, many left-wingers are voting to leave (Corbyn has always been anti-EU despite his recent proclaimations and plenty of Labour are wanting to leave) but it's strange to me how left-wing people can be so gung-ho about an institution which does things like replace elected officials with Goldman Sachs suits.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spasmodic)
    Whatever happens with the Brexit vote, it's a wake up call to European politicians that serious reform is needed if they don't want more referendums and a breakup. There was plenty of talk about the need for a new treaty anyway so that rules can be applied just to EU members at certain levels of integration, going a long way to satisfying Eurozone vs non Eurozone interests, and that's where the renegotiation agreements would get into the next treaty. The EU treaties were never designed and are not fit for purpose for differing levels of integration.

    Just a side note on the EU Commission. The general public (I expect) believe that unelected bureaucrats are the whole story of EU legislation. Those more engaged know that they are appointed by member states and propose the legislation, which is then voted on by elected politicians (EU parliament, and the European Council, which are the heads of government - Cameron et all). Very few seem to know that the Commission can't just propose whatever feels like. The European Council decides the policy directions and priorities for the EU. The Commission's legislative job is to come up with concrete proposals for legislation to implement these policies. There's so much criticism of the Commission it's a prime candidate for further reform (it lost some powers at Lisbon).

    When I look at lists of EU directives, generally they seem to cover areas that are best solved at a European level. There's cross border stuff like airline rules (budget airline shares have plummeted since EU ref announced!), crime, anti fraud, anti money laundering. There's single market stuff like product standards. There's avoiding a race to the bottom stuff like employment rights, health and safety, environmental (the UK has been the main driver of the latter, and we led for the EU in the international climate talks). And misc directives like implementing sanctions we all agreed to take against Iran.

    Our main interest is the single market though. British MEPs have chaired the powerful internal market committee for the past 12 years. A lot of the things we've been pushing for have real impetus now:

    * Completing the single market in services (not very effective currently, large gains to be made, especially for us). Osbourne has talked about using enhanced cooperation protocols for those countries who want to progress fastest with this.
    * Digital single market (good for our world leading creative industries)
    * Internal Energy market (efficiency, reducing reliance on Russia etc)
    * Reducing regulatory burden, as well as the 2014-20 real terms reduction in the EU's budget, both of which we pursuaded the rest of the EU to support
    * Common Consolidated Corporation Tax Base (each country still sets its own corporation tax, but profits are recognised based on where the salaries, sales and capital is deployed, instead of letting multi nationals pretend their profits occur in Ireland or Netherlands etc). This is just an idea at the moment. Tory MEPs are against this, labour and libdems for it.
    * Capital Markets Union (increase investment across the EU; Britain's EU Commissioner is overseeing this as well as financial services issues)
    Excellent post. Good insight.
    Offline

    19
    pol pot noodles


    You raised an interesting point. Could you elaborate? Also do you think as British citizens, one ought to know the words to the national anthem?

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)

    What I really think is that in the end, if neither side backed down, in an ultimate battle of supremacy, Parliament wins. Play out to me how this scenario plays out in your mind. Supreme Court tells Parliament it is no longer sovereign and that it now has US-style powers, and what Parliament is like 'yeah no problem'.
    I think it depends on what the legislation was. The dominant (if only slight) judicial opinion of the Supreme Court justices is that if Parliament were to do something so unthinkable, unconstitutional or heinous that the court would refuse to apply the law. Lord Bingham was in the minority in Jackson when he stated that the court would apply a law which removed it's power to judicially review legislation. 4 other justices expressed huge doubt.

    However, the clear qualification would be that the law in question would have to be truly exceptional, perhaps on the level of genocide, explicit discrimination or ethnic cleansing. If that were to be the case the court would imo refuse to apply the law.
    In the past Parliament has generally listened to the Supreme Court when it has told it that it is violating human rights, even though they were not legally compelled to.

    Remember, the law is only what the courts interpret and apply the law as.


    Government creates new law that allows it to, appoints new judge. Problem solved.
    The government alone can not pass a law, it would need to go through Parliament like all others and I can't imagine Parliament would allow that.

    However, even if the government did put through that law, then we'd be in the same situation. The court may regard that as so unconstitutional that it may refuse to apply it, especially if it was seen as an attempt to abrogate the independence and impartiality of the courts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Whatever dude. I can't argue with someone that finds his 'facts' from wikipedia. Once you've actually studied the subject, you may return for a proper debate.
    Lol what a pathetic reply.

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    To say that 'sovereignty' has multiple meanings is ridiculous and evident that you don't know the concept at all.
    Nor does Lord Bingham, or David Cameron, or Boris Johnson, or Parliament itself clearly. But thankfully you do. Thank you so much Stefan.

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The ignorance displayed here is hilarious. I really wonder if you think State affairs work like games made for 10 year olds.
    I might have to start writing like a 10 year old since you're clearly incapable of understanding anything more advanced. If Parliament and the Courts come to loggerheads, in an absolutely extreme scenario, there is nothing stopping Parliament doing as I prescribed, and the Courts have no counter. It's not really that hard of a concept to grasp or comprehend. You're really clearly not as smart as you think you are.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.