TV1 min ago
Second Referendum Question
'German comedian Henning Wehn made a number of surprisingly sensible points on Question Time on Thursday night, pointing out the utter futility of holding yet another referendum. He was a refreshing change from the usual ‘woke comedian’ bores, he said;
“If two years ago you felt that the country is run by unelected European Union bureaucrats, well I don’t know what would have changed your opinion on that one over the past two years!”'
An excellent point, would you not agree?
“If two years ago you felt that the country is run by unelected European Union bureaucrats, well I don’t know what would have changed your opinion on that one over the past two years!”'
An excellent point, would you not agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Zacs are you one who believes, like Gullible, that the brexiteers voted purely on immigration issues?
Well I for one voted leave on exactly what Herr Wehn suggests.
The EU fight tooth and nail to thwart any attempts to audit their spending. I don't have to ask why.
At least we hold our Government to account over expenditure and can change that government if they are too profligate. Labour springs to mind.
Well I for one voted leave on exactly what Herr Wehn suggests.
The EU fight tooth and nail to thwart any attempts to audit their spending. I don't have to ask why.
At least we hold our Government to account over expenditure and can change that government if they are too profligate. Labour springs to mind.
“I’ve had nothing pointed out. Give me some specifics.”
I think we’ve done this once or twice already. There’s paint stripper, creosote, vacuum cleaners and my own particular favourite – light bulbs. How many more do you want?
//"The EU doesn’t override national laws: this is one of the hopeless myths of Brexit. And if they did it would be done by elected representatives "//
Really?.
//And how does that manifest itself?//
As above. And even if it didn’t manifest itself at all the fact that it could is reason enough to prevent it. No sovereign country should have its legislation determined by a foreign power. Here’s a little passage (not my own work) which explains the situation for those in doubt:
“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.”
And here’s a snippet from the EU’s own sources, explaining how the EU has obtained “full legal personality” in the matter of international treaties.
//The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU full legal personality. Therefore, the Union obtains the ability to sign international treaties in the areas of its attributed powers or to join an international organisation. Member States may only sign international agreements that are compatible with EU law.//
So, EU law determines the maximum power for vacuum cleaners. If the UK introduced a law that contradicted that it would be called to the ECJ, it would lose and the UK law would have to be struck out. There would be no “elected representatives” involved. Anyone doubting that, where conflict arises, EU law takes precedence over UK law needs their bumps felt and the matter is not worth a discussion, let alone an argument.
I think we’ve done this once or twice already. There’s paint stripper, creosote, vacuum cleaners and my own particular favourite – light bulbs. How many more do you want?
//"The EU doesn’t override national laws: this is one of the hopeless myths of Brexit. And if they did it would be done by elected representatives "//
Really?.
//And how does that manifest itself?//
As above. And even if it didn’t manifest itself at all the fact that it could is reason enough to prevent it. No sovereign country should have its legislation determined by a foreign power. Here’s a little passage (not my own work) which explains the situation for those in doubt:
“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.”
And here’s a snippet from the EU’s own sources, explaining how the EU has obtained “full legal personality” in the matter of international treaties.
//The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU full legal personality. Therefore, the Union obtains the ability to sign international treaties in the areas of its attributed powers or to join an international organisation. Member States may only sign international agreements that are compatible with EU law.//
So, EU law determines the maximum power for vacuum cleaners. If the UK introduced a law that contradicted that it would be called to the ECJ, it would lose and the UK law would have to be struck out. There would be no “elected representatives” involved. Anyone doubting that, where conflict arises, EU law takes precedence over UK law needs their bumps felt and the matter is not worth a discussion, let alone an argument.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News6 mins ago
