PinkVendeta wrote:Well done to the people in the UK, for giving the elite snobs in Brussels the bird.
I mean none of those in Brussels were elected into their roles and are therefor they are answerable to no one at all, therefor they do not care one bit about the UK only to look at it as a cash cow to make them richer.
They have the nerve then to tell the UK supreme court what it can and cannot do, and they do the same to every other country in the EU also, right down to dictating to each country what they will do and wont do and how they will treat their respective peoples, who the f*ck do these rich twats think they are?.
All the scare tactics used in the campaign failed and now with the exit having happened the UK gets to actually enforce its own laws again and UK company's get back everything they lost to the EU.
The ball of exits is beginning to roll now, sooner the better more countries in Europe get out of the EU the better.
Well done UK, we had the Arab Spring, now we have the UK spring, going to be fun to watch the EU topple, it wont be missed at all.
What I am going to say here is in no way intended to put you down or belittle you. I believe that we all learn by understanding the facts and listening to dissenting opinion. As I have said earlier, I don't know a great deal about the EU and how it works, so I genuinely want to hear and read more. I also love the energy and passion you bring to the lagoon. We need more of that here. And, while I think that much of what Mortze said in his post has merit, I think he was perhaps a bit heavy-handed in his dealing with your post. Just my own opinion.
That being said, I have some questions. And please, if anyone reading this sees that I've made a misstatement, feel free to correct me.
When you said "none of those in Brussels were elected" to their positions, my first thought was, then how does one become a leader in the EU? So I did a little research. And I mean very little. I spend about an hour or so, starting with Google, which led me to Wikipedia, the EU website, and one or two others.
For anyone who doesn't know (including me until recently), the European Parliament (the governing body of the EU) is made up of 751 Members, called Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) NO damned shortcuts without explanation!!!
. The MEPs are the representatives from the various EU member countries, and they are elected in their own country, by whatever means the member country deems appropriate. So this says to me that if an EU member country decided to elect its MEPs according to who has the prettiest pet dog, then it's their right to do that. The MEPs then elect the executive branch of the EU. There is also the European Council, which is made up of the heads of state of all of the member countries, like the Prime Minister of the UK, the president of France, the Chancellor of Germany, and so on. These people are, presumably, all elected to their posts within their respective countries as well. So on the face of it, your first statement appears to be false. All of the "elite snobs" in Brussels are indeed elected. And because of that, it makes me question the rest of your post.
You said the EU "have the nerve then to tell the UK supreme court what it can and cannot do, and they do the same to every other country in the EU also, right down to dictating to each country what they will do and wont do and how they will treat their respective peoples". Can you cite a specific case where this has happened? A case where the EU has dictated law, or invalidated a law, in a member country?
As I understand it, there is a relationship between the UK Supreme Court and both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR rules on violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). I know, the acronyms are getting a bit confusing. And I work in the computer industry! The ECHR is accepted by each member country. I don't think you were trying to say that there should be no recourse for human rights violations.
The CJEU is concerned with application and interpretation of EU law, in cooperation with the national judiciary of each member country, such as the UK Supreme Court (UKSC). The UKSC and the CJEU websites both state that this is mostly related to trade, and mostly encompasses requests for preliminary rulings from the CJEU when there is a case before the UKSC involving EU law. When a question about EU law comes up in a case like this, the UKSC can request an interpretation of the EU law from the CJEU before the UKSC renders its decision. The UKSC site states, though, that when the CJEU issues its ruling, there is no legal obligation for the UK to change or repeal its related law. The UKSC can also send rulings back to the CJEU for further consideration. The UKSC website cites a few cases where this has happened, and in some cases the CJEU has revised its interpretation of the appropriate EU law.
So what specific laws have the UK been prevented from enforcing due to its membership in the EU? And what, specifically, have UK companies lost to the EU that they are now presumably going to get back? And which other EU member countries have begun proceedings to leave to EU?
Again, Hannah, I am not trying to berate or belittle you. I am merely asking what facts you have to back up your statements.