Xyzzy987 wrote: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.
EU has a nasty habit of telling UK and Ireland what it can and cannot do.
European Court Stops Irish Supreme Court Deporting Islamic State-Linked Man, Even If He Threatens National Security.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in relation to what the EU dictates to Ireland
The Primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as "supremacy") is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside.
This principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, and, as interpreted by that court, it means that any norms of European law always take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states.
Although national courts generally accept the principle in practice, most of them disagree with this extreme interpretation and reserve the right, in principle, to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.
EU law is supreme over UK law. This stops the British public from being able to vote out those who make our laws.
UK 'Supreme Court' is the European Court of Justice, they’ve lost control of trade, human rights, and migration.
The Eurozone has a permanent voting majority and can always outvote the UK.
In the EU, decisions are made by three key bodies:
The European Commission (which is un-elected).
The Council of Ministers (where the UK is outvoted).
The European Parliament (which is elected aka MEPs).
This system is deliberately designed to concentrate power into the hands of a small number of un-elected people and undermines democratic government.
THE EUROZONE DECIDES WHICH LAWS WE HAVE TO OBEY
The UK has so few votes that we can’t block EU laws.
They can only rely on having 8 per cent of votes in the Council of Ministers and have less than 10 per cent of the votes in the European Parliament.
Politicians have surrendered the UK’s power to veto laws we disagree with , so if the EU decides to introduce a law that will be bad for Britain there is nothing we can do to stop it.
By contrast, the nineteen Eurozone countries have an in-built majority in these key bodies.
It now doesn’t matter which way the UK votes, the Eurozone countries will decide which laws the UK has to introduce.
Studies have shown that since 1993, over half of the new laws introduced in the UK now come from the EU (as Nick Clegg has admitted).
This number is set to increase over the next few years or it was, until BritExit happened.
THE EUROPEAN COURT IS SUPREME
Because EU law is supreme over UK law we cannot scrap any of these new rules.
Britain has lost control of many things that are fundamental to what Abraham Lincoln called ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ - our economy, trade, migration, human rights, and even the rules on things like the building of schools and hospitals (which add billions to taxpayer bills).
EU judges have already overruled UK laws on issues like counter-terrorism powers, migration, VAT, and whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.
The European Court controls our ability to deport violent criminals or terrorists.
The European Court controls our ability to require migrants to have proper identification issued by our Government.
The European Court increasingly controls how our intelligence services combat terrorism.
The European Court now controls how we implement the vital 1951 Convention on refugees.
This loss of control is deeply damaging and undemocratic. Elections should be about the public choosing who makes the laws. Instead, all our politicians have to do what the EU says - not what we say.
IF WE VOTE TO REMAIN THESE PROBLEMS WILL GET WORSE
The European Commission is now planning the next EU Treaty to fix the euro’s problems.
Every Treaty since the 1950s has given Brussels more power.
The official plan involves another huge transfer of powers to Brussels including over taxes.
Our politicians will give in as usual. We have repeatedly given away control in the hope of ‘influence’.
The loss of control was real.
The hope for influence was a mirage.
First Myth: BRITAIN WOULD LOSE THREE MILLION JOBS IF THEY LEFT THE EU.
If Britain withdrew from the EU it would preserve the benefits of trade with the EU by imposing a UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.
The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2014 there was a trade deficit of over £50bn, with a current account deficit of nearly £100 billion.
It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.
Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide.
These alone would guarantee the trade upon which most of those 3 million jobs rely.
Second Myth: BRITAIN WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM TRADE WITH THE EU BY TARIFF BARRIERS.
The EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is currently negotiating a number of other agreements.
EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway.
In 2009 UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports.
This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls.
Third Myth: BRITAIN CANNOT SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY OUTSIDE THE EU IN A WORLD OF TRADING BLOCS.
Major economies eg. Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc.
The EU is not the place where most economic growth is occurring.
The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 22% in 2025, down from 37% in 1973.
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US.
Fourth Myth: THE EU IS MOVING TOWARDS THE UK’S POSITION ON CUTTING REGULATION AND BUREAUCRACY.
EU directives are subject to a ‘rachet’ effect – i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.
Less than 15% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 5th largest in the world)
Over 70% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK, but still subject to EU law.
In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600billion Euros across the EU each year.
In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.
Whilst red tape savings are not direct cash savings, deregulation would result in a true ‘bonfire of regulations’ that could fund either sizeable tax cuts or additional public spending.
Fifth Myth: IF THE UK LEAVES, BRITAIN WILL HAVE TO PAY BILLIONS TO THE EU AND IMPLEMENT ALL ITS REGULATIONS WITHOUT HAVING A SAY.
The UK have very little say within the EU, and would have far more leverage outside EU as an independent sovereign nation and the world’s 5th largest economy.
The UK currently has only 8.4% of voting power ‘say’ in the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty ensured the loss of Britain’s veto in many more policy areas.
Britain’s 73 MEPs are a minority within the 751 in the European Parliament.
With further enlargement (Croatia, Turkey’s 79 million citizens), British influence would be further watered down.
As for continuing contributions by an independent Britain, Swiss and Norwegian examples show that the UK would achieve substantial net savings.
SWISS CASE STUDY:
Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market.
The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
NORWAY CASE STUDY:
Norway only had to make relatively few changes to its laws to make its products eligible for the EU marketplace.
In 2009, the Norwegian Mission to the EU estimated that Norway’s total financial contribution linked to their EEA (European Economic Area) agreement is some 340 million Euros a years, of which some 110million Euros are contributions related to the participation in various EU programmes.
However, this is a fraction of the gross annual cost that Britain must pay for EU membership which is now £18.4billion, or £51millon a day.
Sixth Myth: THE EU HAVE BROUGHT PEACE TO THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT.
Even now, the EU is only 28 nations of the 47 European nations listed as national members of the Council of Europe.
The forerunner to the EU, the Common Market, didn’t come into existence until 1958, and then only with 6 nations, and yet there was no war between European countries from 1945 to 1956 (except the Hungarian revolution).
Whilst peaceful international cooperation is welcomed at all levels, to say the EU is the sole guarantor of peace is an extreme exaggeration that is dishonest in its application.
It is NATO, founded in 1949 and dominated by the USA, and not the EU, that has actually kept the peace in Europe, together with parliamentary democracy. Both of which are being undermined by the EU.
The former German President Herzog wrote a few years ago that ‘the question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy’.
This was owing to the number of German laws emanating from the EU- which he assessed at some 84%.
The break up of Yugoslavia was a major test of the EU’s ability to keep the peace.
It was EU interference that helped trigger a major civil war and its dithering contributed to deaths of some 100,000 people.
It was only decisive action by the US/NATO forces that stopped the violence.
Peace was established by the US-brokered Dayton Agreement.
Seventh Myth: THE EU HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE BRITISH ECONOMY.
British industries such as fishing, farming, postal services and manufacturing have already been devastated by Britain’s membership of the EU.
EU membership costs UK billions of pounds and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.
The Common Fisheries Policy has cost British coastal communities 115,000 jobs (Lee Rotherham, 10 years on).
Eighth Myth: BRITAIN WILL LOSE VITAL FOREIGN INVESTMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LEAVING THE EU.
In a 2010 survey on UK’s attractiveness to foreign investors, Ernst and Young found Britain remained the number one Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) destination in Europe owing largely to the City of London and the UK’s close corporate relationship with the US.
EU membership was not mentioned at all in their table of key investment factors, which were (in order of importance): UK culture and values and the English language; telecommunications infrastructure; quality of life; stable social environment, and transport and logistics infrastructure.
In any case, open access to the EU market would continue through a Free Trade Agreement in the manner of Switzerland and Norway whilst the UK would gain from higher growth, less regulation, more public spending and/or lower taxes and more suitable trade deals.
Ninth Myth: BRITAIN WILL LOSE ALL INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD BY BEING OUTSIDE THE EU.
Britain has a substantial ‘portfolio of power’ in its own right, which includes membership of the G20 and G8 Nations, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (one of only 5 members) and seats on the International Monetary Fund Board of Governors and World Trade Organization.
The UK also lies at heart of the Commonwealth of 53 nations.
Moreover, London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy.
The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.
Far from increasing British influence in the world, the EU is undermining UK influence.
The EU is demanding there is a single voice for the EU in the UN and in the IMF.
The EU has also made the British economy and City of London less competitive through over regulation, and negotiates more protectionist and less effective trade deals on behalf of the UK.
The European External Action Service (EEAS) and its EU ‘Foreign Minister’ Federica Mogherini are undermining national diplomatic representation and the furtherance of British political and commercial interests through British embassies, which are being closed or downsized around the world.
The Commonwealth is increasingly discriminated against by the EU policy on visas, so that non-EU Commonwealth citizens face having to obtain visas whilst citizens of even new EU entrants have automatic entry. Historic Commonwealth bonds with Britain are being lost.
Tenth Myth: LEGALLY, BRITAIN CANNOT LEAVE THE EU.
Technically, Britain could leave the EU in a single day.
Legislatively, this would be achieved simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster.
If the British people voted to leave in an In/Out referendum or by voting in a party with EU withdrawal on its manifesto, Parliament would have to respect the will of the British people and there would be no justification for delay or obstruction in either House.
However, the process of setting up a replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement will take longer, though there would be no need for time-consuming negotiation of tariff reductions if the UK/EU Free Trade Agreement merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.
In addition, even the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 enshrines the right of member states to leave the Union, albeit in an unattractive manner.
The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves.
Greenland established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985, and is prospering well outside of it.
With Westminster still sovereign (for the moment), it is the British Parliament who will decide how and when Britain leaves the EU.