Otter wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:28 pm
The UK is independent. Are you seriously suggesting that France, Germany etc. are not independent countries? If so, there's no point debating with you as it is as worthwhile as arguing with a flat-earther.
Talking of "not having an argument to make", I'm yet to hear a single good argument in favour of Brexit.
Well you state that the UK is independent, but I don't see how you reconcile that with the supremacy of EU law over domestic law, a fundamental principle of EU law (just as US Federal Law prevails over State law by the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution). The UK Parliament cannot pass laws that conflict with EU law, any more than can the Scottish Parliament disapply UK law (as opposed to legislate within its competence). Lord Denning, long ago, not long after the UK joined the EEC, described European Law as an incoming tide, clearly foreseeing the immense impact of EU law on English law (Scots law is still distinct from English).
Not only is EU law supreme, that means that entire areas of government policy are devoted to implementing EU law. The UK cannot determine entirely who or what crosses its borders (the Four Freedoms). Whilst there is a right to determine who can come here from outside the EEA, that might change if the EU so decides, and with Qualified Majority Voting extended, there are whole areas where the UK has no veto. The UK cannot determine trade policy, there are elements of an EU foreign policy, the EU determines the fish that can be caught in our waters. Of course, all this reciprocates across the EU, but it does not mean that the UK is independent. Of course, the UK can attain independence, but it is far less independent of the EU than Australia was of the UK up to the passing of the Australia Act 1986, which formally ended the UK's right to legislate for Australia or its constituent parts.
You do not even mention or seek to explain away Factortame, the case under which (in brief) a UK Act of Parliament can be disapplied by the UK courts if it conflicts with EU law, so Parliament may pass an Act and the UK courts may say it is of no effect, turning us (by a different route) away from the Blackstone heresy (Parliament can do what it likes) which became orthodoxy, to a mockery of Coke's principle in Dr. Bonham's case in which he held that Acts of Parliament repugnant to reason or to the Common law are void, in that case, a law allowing physicians to fine Dr. Bonham for practising without a licence from them. So the UK's Parliament is not sovereign in its own house, its courts may disapply its Acts (by praying in aid EU law), and UK Courts must, as we know, follow EU law, and may (and sometimes must) refer questions of law to the European Court of Justice, and follow that court's findings on the law.
Not having (or having) your own currency does not make a country not independent, no one is suggesting that Ecuador is not independent simply because it dollarised its economy.
You ask if I am seriously suggesting that France, Germany etc. are not independent countries? You do not offer any evidence for your proposition, just a bare assertion, perhaps you haven't thought about such matters. Perhaps thinking is difficult or distressing for you, you then go ad hominem, a likely sign of a lost argument. Let us take those countries in turn:
France: It has its force de frappe, just as we have Trident, but legally, it is in the same position as the UK, see above.
Germany: It is in a different situation due to its Basic Law, and the German Constitutional Court could, in theory at least, hold that EU law in breach of the Basic Law and rule it inapplicable to Germany, so Germany might be able to break free, if EU law went in a direction that was unconstitutional.
etc.? Where is that?
Let meask: Is Greece, which you did not mention, an independent country? It is subject to EU law. It does not set its own budget, Eurozone states have budget limits, but that is a broad criterion with discretion as to what money is spent on. Greece is subject to a significant level of budgetary interference (on top of all the law-taking requirements of EU membership and with no right to determine contrary of EU law crosses its borders).
Of course, the UK can leave the EU, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty and perhaps by simply repealing the Acts of Parliament that provide for EU membership, but that is a contingent independence. The UK government is legally subordinate to the EU, and EU Regulations have direct force in the UK without the UK government being able to prevent that, whereas EU Directives simply require a member state to bring in laws to achieve the aims of the Directive.
One might look at Texas, and ask if it is independent? Clearly not, it is a State of the United States of America. It does not have the right to secede from the United States. But Texas was once an independent Republic. No EU member state has gone as far from independence as Texas, and all have far more autonomy over internal affairs than any US State, and have a constitutional and legal means of leaving the EU, but as things stand, no EU member state is independent of the EU. It is leaving the EU that would make a member state independent. so independence is not, as things stand, applicable to EU member states, but all may achieve it if they wish, with the right to determine their own laws, and exactly who and what crosses their frontiers.
Of what you are yet to hear, perhaps you might try listening?
