Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

anglo

LE
Brexit doesn't seem to do mutual anything as a rule.

We never lost it.

And not part of the EU trade bloc. Ireland speaks English and is.

How many years have we been hearing this forecast?
We never lost it.
This seems to say different and this is only one instance

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 its member states, European law prevails, and the norms of national law are set aside.

In conclusion, it is clear that with membership of the EU, parliamentary supremacy is diminished so much as to leave it almost destroyed. The traditional notion espoused by Dicey has long been crushed by the ECA and judgments by the ECJ and House of Lords which confirm the supremacy of the EU legal order. What remains, however, is a notional concept that is desperately retained by those that still assert parliamentary supremacy. Indeed, the draft European Union bill highlights as much. However, seeking to hold on to the phantom of parliamentary supremacy does nothing for it in practical terms, for what was once a pillar of our constitution is no more. To face up to the practical realities of the ECA and the European legal order may take time, but once it is fully recognised, it will be clear that although “under English law nobody has the power to override or to set aside a statute…it is no longer the case that English law is the only law that is applicable in England”. [24] Times have changed, and it is plain that membership of the EU has indeed diminished parliamentary supremacy.
 
Is this true?

1596991969602.png
 
No it is a legal opinion.

Or an opinion.

An opinion that turns a blind eye to the EU Returns Directive that France is currently turning a blind eye to.

In other words the migrants should either be given residency ( become fFrench) or returned. Fobbing them off on a third country is not an option, even less so in the future.


I'm impressed by your vast expertise - how you know more about drugs than doctors; how to do science more than scientists; and now more about immigration law than barristers who specialise in immigration: Colin Yeo | Barristers | Garden Court Chambers | Leading Barristers located in London, UK
 

Oyibo

LE
Immigration law is actually quite simple. If you deny the claim, you return them. Why a "grate brane" thinks this is illegal is, shall we say, interesting.

I was on the receiving end of it two years ago - I turned up in N'Djamena and my docs weren't in order. I was sent straight back to CDG (the horror!). I've seen it happen in many other countries as well. Strange how remainers do not think it should apply to illegal immigrants arriving in the UK from France.

I wonder why that could be.
 

Dumb1

War Hero
1st January 2021. UK on the left, Ireland on the right.

View attachment 495717

The UK has regained its sovereignty - the ROI is now a cash cow for the EU.

And when the EU harmonises tax rates across the EU, the Irish economy will be fornicated - all those Google's, Amazons and Yahoo's looking for countries that can offer a lower corporation tax rate. Which, by an amazing coincidence may well be just over the other side of the Irish sea.

My moneys on Irexit within a generation (if the EU survives the impending implosion of the euro).

Wordsmith
Surely Northern Ireland would be a more likely destination for business to relocate from ROI as it remains in the single market? Beggar thy neighbour etc.
 
Yeah but Lobby, you do realise that the very organisation that you are wanting to remain is, has as yet, actually done nothing to sort the problem out. It's now had twelve years since it took responsibility for immigration in Europe. It has centralised nothing, it has helped no one, it has protected nothing. We are still talking to Paris......Why? the directives are quite clear that Brussels is at the helm. Internationally, all a country is obliged to do is rescue and return, not rescue and adopt we're now getting into an entanglement about Asylum, Migrant workers and rescuees. We will be able to return those people. If France wants a face off- what chances of any deal with Europe, who would you trust to do a deal? ( In this case Be Honest)

And no the French Government would not be required to agree ( it would be simpler if they accepted true) but they are not required to agree.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
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 its member states, European law prevails, and the norms of national law are set aside.

In conclusion, it is clear that with membership of the EU, parliamentary supremacy is diminished so much as to leave it almost destroyed.

When we joined the Common Market (as it then was) in 1973, every country had a national veto. France memorably used that with it's 'empty chair' policy'. If it didn't agree with something, it simply didn't attend meetings. No unanimous vote was possible and all business stalled until France got its own way. Parliamentary sovereignty still existed, because any single parliament could block a policy with which it did not agree.

Qualified Majority Voting was introduced by the Single European Act in 1986. As the EU's own website says:

Main changes: extension of qualified majority voting in the Council (making it harder for a single country to veto proposed legislation)...

QMV has now been extended so it is impossible for a single state to block proposed changes.

When the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a qualified majority is reached if two conditions are met:
  • 55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27
  • the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population
Blocking minority
The blocking minority must include at least four Council members representing more than 35% of the EU population.

It has been said that not many decisions have been imposed on the UK by QMV. In the strict legalistic sense that is true. However, many decisions have gone through against UK opposition, after the EU made some effectively meaningless concession that allowed the UK to surrender gracefully.

To my my mind parliamentary sovereignty in the EU ceased to exist in the EU upon the introduction of QMV, when a national parliament could no longer block legislation of which it did not approve.

Another factor in the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty has been the move towards a United States of Europe without the consent of the respective electorates. Varying parliaments and governments deny it, but you have only to list the powers ceded to Brussels to see the process is ongoing; the most recent example being the mutualisation of debt across member states. Something now being challenged by the German constitutional court as ultra vires; beyond the EU's legal powers.

Parliaments in the EU have had their sovereignty sorely diminished. And if the EU ever transforms itself into a USE, parliamentary sovereignty will become a legal fiction, with effective power wielded by Brussels.

Wordsmith
 
Yeah but Lobby, you do realise that the very organisation that you are wanting to remain is, has as yet, actually done nothing to sort the problem out. It's now had twelve years since it took responsibility for immigration in Europe. It has centralised nothing, it has helped no one, it has protected nothing. We are still talking to Paris......Why? the directives are quite clear that Brussels is at the helm. Internationally, all a country is obliged to do is rescue and return, not rescue and adopt we're now getting into an entanglement about Asylum, Migrant workers and rescuees. We will be able to return those people. If France wants a face off- what chances of any deal with Europe, who would you trust to do a deal? ( In this case Be Honest)

And no the French Government would not be required to agree ( it would be simpler if they accepted true) but they are not required to agree.
So you also know better than the dude who made the claim?
 
So you also know better than the dude who made the claim?
Let me get this straight, troll.
You think that a lawyer is right because he is a lawyer?
What, like that well known expert lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, who's pronouncements are legendary?
Trolling is all you know.

One would have to be extremely stupid if they thought that a remain lawyer and sexual pervert are right....................oh hello, crustation.
 
Let me get this straight, troll.
You think that a lawyer is right because he is a lawyer?
What, like that well known expert lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, who's pronouncements are legendary?
Trolling is all you know.

One would have to be extremely stupid if they thought that a remain lawyer and sexual pervert are right....................oh hello, crustation.

So you also think you know more about immigration law than a barrister?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top