Post by Joe Post by Pamela
"Pamela" wrote in message
Post by Pamela Post by Incubus Post by Joe Post by Pamela Post by Joe Post by Pamela
That's the false narrative now. Of course, May did her very
best to leave and chose a middle path which didn't work. We
have yet to see what bodger Boris delivers.
May did her very best to ram Merkel's plan through Parliament,
which would have locked us into the EU indefinitely, with no
further recourse to Article 50.
How do you reckon May's plan "locked us into the EU
indefinitely, with no further recourse to Article 50"?
Because there's no time limit to the 'solution' to the Irish
Question. It only ends with the consent of the EU. Article 50 has
already been used, and is not relevant to this matter.
This has been discussed at length. I am surprised that Pamela
betrays such a lack of basic knowledge.
I'm wondering how Art.50 is relevant to the unfounded assertion
that May's plan locks into the EU indefinitely.
May's plan leaves us stuck in the CU and SM until and unless we can
agree an alternative solution to the Irish Border problem
True. That's not the same as "locked into the EU" because we would
have left. Methinks some Brexiteers want more than was promised.
I'm not quite understanding you. Are you saying that the EU Customs
Union and the EU Single Market are not EU institutions? Are you saying
that their operation is not overseen by the European Court of Justice,
which overrules all national courts?
No it doesn't, the ECJ doesn't have the power to overrule national courts.
'Does EU law take precedence over UK law?
'When the six founding European states created the European
Economic Community in 1957 they did so in the form of an
international treaty (known as the Treaty of Rome) that was binding
between them. That treaty also created the European Court of
Justice. In an important ruling in 1964, the Court said that the states
had agreed to limit their sovereign rights in the areas covered by the
treaty and could not adopt national laws that were incompatible with
European law. This principle of ‘primacy’ or supremacy of EU law has
been accepted and applied by national courts including the UK courts.
'The Court of Justice does not, however, have any power to strike
down national law; this is a task for the national courts. The national
courts will, however, seek to resolve the conflict through interpretation.
But UK courts are required not to enforce UK laws to the extent that
they are incompatible with EU obligations.
'For more information on the EU institutions as a whole, go to this
'... EU processes are designed to ensure that member governments
retain a key role at all stages of policy making. The European Union is
ultimately a collective enterprise of sovereign states. Its procedures
give the maximum respect for the sovereignty of its member states,
while ensuring that the system is workable and decisions can be taken.
The compromise between the respect for the sovereign status of the
member state and the need for workability goes a long way to explaining
the intricacies of the EU’s institutional structure.'
Post by Joe
Are you saying that the UK Supreme
Court would, in fact, be supreme in the UK and not subject to overrule
by the ECJ?
Can you point to any example of the UK Supreme Court being
overruled by the ECJ?
Post by Joe
Are you saying that no EU directives or regulations would
apply to the UK?
In short, what do *you* understand 'leaving the EU' to mean?