The Independent Group

[Armchair Supporter]

All EU countries are sovereign and have agency and a duty to their citizens. Sovereignty doesn’t mean other countries ‘doing what we want and making it easy for us’. The reason why we have found this difficult is we forgot (or didn’t care) other countries have their own interests to protect and that their interests may not coincide with ours.

You are drifting off-topic to avoid the opinion that within the EU, to various degree's, Sovereignty can be but an illusion.

I don't expect you to stop though....

 

[Henkeman]

Wrong. Legally and constitutionally. If we override EU law it’s overridden.

No, you are wrong. We cannot override EU law, it has primacy in the UK constitutional arrangement, and when the two collide, the courts always side with EU law because they must. This is a fact.

 

[BobKowalski]

You are drifting off-topic to avoid the opinion that within the EU, to various degree's, Sovereignty can be but an illusion.

I don't expect you to stop though....

I take it you are back to ‘your feelings’ again. Trouble for us as a country in trying to implement a voters decision based on ‘feelings’ is that we getting fucked in the arse by reality. And reality isn’t interested in ‘feelings’.

 

[Chris in London]

No, you are wrong. We cannot override EU law, it has primacy in the UK constitutional arrangement, and when the two collide, the courts always side with EU law because they must. This is a fact.

Supreme Court says you’re wrong

I win.

Now I AM going out

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Supreme Court says you’re wrong

I win.

Now I AM going out

Is that a sovereign decision to go out or ore you acting under the directive of Mrs CiL? We need to know.

 

[Armchair Supporter]

I take it you are back to ‘your feelings’ again. Trouble for us as a country in trying to implement a voters decision based on ‘feelings’ is that we getting fucked in the arse by reality. And reality isn’t interested in ‘feelings’.

Did you read my link?

Reality is what you see and feel, not what you read and dream.

 

[bugsyblue]

One of he murky motives they might have is to stop a no deal Brexit. With May's government they know what they are dealing with, they know the parliamentary arithmetic and they know broadly which MP's are standing where on Brexit. They must think they have a better chance of achieving their goals by influencing this Parliament, MP's and Government rather than bringing down May, risking a GE and with it their own seats, and even if they were all re-elected, the Parliamentary arithmetic would have changed and their scope to influence the proceedings may have been diluted or neutralised. So the best course for them is to use the weight they have to influence MP's and government to achieve their aim.

Their aim being what though? I mean stopping no deal Brexit is the single most fundamental aim all sensible politicians should have. So if that’s their initial goal then great.

I guess what will be interesting is what they do after that? What’s their long term goal, if any, post Brexit?

 

[Henkeman]

Supreme Court says you’re wrong

I win.

Now I AM going out

The Supreme Court does not. They slightly modified an earlier ruling (which explicitly accepted the supremacy of EU law) to acknowledge that it could be arguable that certain fundamental principles enshrined within such matters as Royal Charters were not abrogated by the European Communities Act 1972. It repeated the fundamental principle that EU Law has supremacy in UK law. And doesn't for a single second accept your claim that the UK can choose to vary from EU if it wishes to do so.

It is a reference to saying the EU might (might) not be able to override something like habeas corpus which is fundamental to UK principles, not that the UK is free to ignore the latest directive passed by the EC and EP.

You either know this, in which case your claim is mendacious, or you do not, in which case it is ignorant.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

This is not true. Within the EU our Parliament could not decide to set aside EU law in any way, because EU law has legal primacy. Parliament might decide it doesn't like something, but the courts would always apply EU law in precedence to domestic, precisely because of that EU primacy that is enshrined within the constitutional arrangement.

By all means be happy with that state of affairs, but to mislead by pretending that the UK could ignore EU directives with just some consequences is untrue. When a member, EU law has precedence, full stop, end of story. And that is a limitation on sovereignty.

If that’s true, it’s only true, because of an act of Parliament, voluntarily signed in 1972. Being sovereign, Parliament cannot abandon its sovereignty and
Parliament is sovereign as a matter of UK law. In contrast, the EU supremacy principle is binding upon the UK as a matter of EU, and so ultimately international, law. So while the UK as a State is bound by its Treaty obligations to abide by EU law, this does not in itself require parliamentary sovereignty to be denied as a domestic legal principle.

Ultimately, then, Parliament retains the domestic legal authority to make whatever laws it pleases, even if such laws conflict with EU law. But, as a matter of EU and international law, doing so may place the UK as a State in breach of its obligations under the EU Treaty.

 

[Henkeman]

If that’s true, it’s only true, because of an act of Parliament, voluntarily signed in 1972. Being sovereign, Parliament cannot abandon its sovereignty and
Parliament is sovereign as a matter of UK law. In contrast, the EU supremacy principle is binding upon the UK as a matter of EU, and so ultimately international, law. So while the UK as a State is bound by its Treaty obligations to abide by EU law, this does not in itself require parliamentary sovereignty to be denied as a domestic legal principle.

Ultimately, then, Parliament retains the domestic legal authority to make whatever laws it pleases, even if such laws conflict with EU law. But, as a matter of EU and international law, doing so may place the UK as a State in breach of its obligations under the EU Treaty.

It's certainly true that it is voluntary by virtue of the UK deciding to apply those rules to themselves - and that the UK can reclaim that sovereignty by removing itself from EU jurisdiction, which is what Brexit would be.

What it can't do while a member is pick and choose (this is something agreed by all sides) what to apply and what not, simply because while Parliament could make whatever law it wishes, the courts will apply the supremacy of EU law where there is a contradiction. It's again a fundamental principle of membership. To take a recent example, the ECHR decision on the rights of convicted criminals to vote in elections was voted against by Parliament, but could have no force because the EU decision takes precedence, and the courts would apply that. It is not a matter of being in breach of obligations at all, it is that the courts would, as they must, enforce the EU law over domestic, and while the ECHR is not strictly part of the EU, it carries EU force in its decisions.

I make no judgement here on what you might consider preferable, that's up to you. It's simply the reality of the constitutional position.