EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

Clearly not, according to you:

What makes you think these examples amount to the general rule, rather than exceptions to it?

 

Clearly, I understand the difference between respect for the rule of law and national interest.

 

Clearly, the UK Gvt can understand that difference as well, when it wants to

That is a meaningless technicality:

LOL! Naïve it is, then.

 

I suggest you read up about the interrelationship between the EU legislative process and the UK legislative process, rather than think a web definition of "directive" is going to bail you out of the issue

[unbeliever]

What makes you think these examples amount to the general rule, rather than exceptions to it?

 

Clearly, I understand the difference between respect for the rule of law and national interest.

 

Clearly, the UK Gvt can understand that difference as well, when it wants to

LOL! Naïve it is, then.

 

I suggest you read up about the interrelationship between the EU legislative process and the UK legislative process, rather than think a web definition of "directive" is going to bail you out of the issue

 

Oh dear we're into argument by emoticon and text speak are we.

[L00b]

Oh dear we're into argument by emoticon and text speak are we.

Quit stalling.

 

EU Directives are EU law, not national law.

 

It is Acts and SIs of Parliament which transpose EU law into UK national law.

 

Until and unless Parliament debates and votes such Acts and SIs in, that EU law has no effect in the UK.

 

"meaningless technicality" eh? Have an emoticon:

[unbeliever]

Quit stalling.

 

EU Directives are EU law, not national law.

 

It is Acts and SIs of Parliament which transpose EU law into UK national law.

 

Until and unless Parliament debates and votes such Acts and SIs in, that EU law has no effect in the UK.

 

"meaningless technicality" eh? Have an emoticon:

 

It's an order. Eu states are required under the terms of the treaties to transpose EU directives into national law. They have 3 choices:

1. Disobey the directive and in doing so break the principle of rule of law

2. Withdraw from the EU

3. Do as they're told.

 

If one has a legitimate case that the directive is not legal under the terms of the treaties, then one can challenge it in court.

Stalling? Maybe. Deliberately misinterpreting? No.

What kind of messed up organisation are we dealing with here where we transfer competencies by treaty, legal directives are given under the terms of those treaties and then people wander around disobeying them?

 

It's not that much of a shock as most of these countries are in violation of their responsibilities under the NATO treaty as well.

Not France by the way in case you were wondering.

Edited June 6, 2016 by unbeliever

[Shef1985]

Shef if UKIP are the party of the disenfranchised labour voter maybe labour ought to change. Liberal are a spent force, you dislike the tories. Guess you are voting for a Labour Party that is of no consequence or the greens. We have to work with what we have and at the moment UKIP are the best choice amongst a crap lot as far as I am concerned. They got me a vote on the eu and that's what matters at the moment to me.

 

Au contraire Panz, I don't dislike the Tories. What I find staggering is that tonnes of ex-Labour voters HATE the Tories but are happy to vote for what is essentially a single issue old Tory fringe group.

 

Yes, Labour should change. If Corbyn had half the principles he's supposed to have he would have walked away from Labour years ago and stood as an independent instead of consistently voting against his own party.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Shef1985

[Tomjames]

I've got 248 posts in this thread and counting, and probably half of those answer that question.

 

I realise you only joined in May 2016, when the thread started in June 2015; but I'm not re-typing or copy-pasting them, so happy searching

 

Got better things to do, unlike you it seems.

[L00b]

Eu states are required under the terms of the treaties to transpose EU directives into national law.

That they are. The issue is how they do it, not whether they do it or not.

They have 3 choices:

1. Disobey the directive and in doing so break the principle of rule of law

2. Withdraw from the EU

3. Do as they're told.

Rather a simplistic take on the matter I'm afraid.

 

The fundamental issue is, as always with anything legal, whether the transposition into national law meets both the spirit and the letter of the parent instrument (a Directive in the EU context, but could just as well be a non-EU international treaty or agreement).

If one has a legitimate case that the directive is not legal under the terms of the treaties, then one can challenge it in court.

Stalling? Maybe. Deliberately misinterpreting? No.

What kind of messed up organisation are we dealing with here where we transfer competencies by treaty, legal directives are given under the terms of those treaties and then people wander around disobeying them?

It's nothing to do with a 'messed up' organisation, and all to do with the hazy and politically-laden junction between international obligations and domestic self-interest. Funnily enough, it's because the UK has not surrendered this much sovereignty as you claim, that the junction is indeed hazy and politically-laden: there is plenty of scope and room for the UK Parliament to twist and tweak a transposition to the UK's own ends (short of not transposing the Directive, or transposing it clearly wrongly).

 

Why the UK Parliament doesn't much at all (by and large), i.e. why ordinarily Parliament just grabs a Directive and lumps it wholesale into an Act on the prompt and quiet, is the question you should ask yourself, and seek answers to. It's nothing to do with Brussels telling the UK that's what "it must do or else" (because Brussels doesn't and simply can't do that), and all to do with who's got the ear of the government and MPs and stands to gain from it. Unless it's simply incompetence, of course...but then, you voted them in, most democratically so

 

Domestic political intent will heavily influence the extent of the differential between what is intended by a Directive and what is actually delivered by a national Parliament.

 

I mean, it's not as if the UK itself hasn't been doing exactly what I referred to other EU member states doing. Whether that was politically-motivated and deliberate, or not, is moot: irrespective, that's how it's done

Edited June 6, 2016 by L00b

[High Greener]

I will vote out, 100% out. My reasons are clear, Democracy in the EU is a fraud and immigration from the ever expanding EU is uncontrolled.

The topic is how will you vote, I've stated out and why, two big fat red lines for me. Man up and vote out.

[Hambeast]

I will vote out, 100% out. My reasons are clear, Democracy in the EU is a fraud and immigration from the ever expanding EU is uncontrolled.

The topic is how will you vote, I've stated out and why, two big fat red lines for me. Man up and vote out.

 

Yes, yes, but can you remind us which political party you voted for in the election last month?

[High Greener]

Yes, yes, but can you remind us which political party you voted for in the election last month?

 

Yes of course, as you asked. After a life time of voting labour, this time I voted UKIP.