Errr... unless they sort out the mess about flying before then, said German won’t be able to fly to the UK
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I mean, not only it's irrelevant but have you read the part under "applying EU law".
If you do understand the EU, I don't know how you were asking the border questions you started with in this thread earlier today. They related to the fundamentals of the EU.
I don't have the power but I'll vote for you at the end of Year awards.
Yes I did. The National Courts apply the EU law. There are no EU courts in every country (only a central one and yes, you can escalate it to that in some cases).
This is quite different from the USA, where there are Federal Laws, and Federal Courts. There is no equivalent in the EU. There are no EU Courts in every country. It is up to National Courts.
The CJEU.
Here is some more reading for you:
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-leading-breaker-eu-rules-883837
"New figures from Germany’s Economics Ministry reveal that Angela Merkel’s government currently faces no less than 74 infringement proceedings for failing to adequately and timely convert EU rules into German law. “We’re no longer the model pupil – we’re bottom of the class,” Green Party politician Markus Tressel told Handelsblatt. The Green Party requested the numbers from the ministry.
The latest available EU-wide data, which uses figures from the end of 2016, already shows Germany topping the list of violators, together with Spain. And though the ministry’s new figures show a decrease, it’s still 20-percent higher than in 2012. “The government performs badly in converting EU directives into national law, especially in the areas of traffic and environment,” said Mr. Tressel."
Reality Check: How much UK law comes from the EU?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-leading-breaker-eu-rules-883837
"New figures from Germany’s Economics Ministry reveal that Angela Merkel’s government currently faces no less than 74 infringement proceedings for failing to adequately and timely convert EU rules into German law. “We’re no longer the model pupil – we’re bottom of the class,” Green Party politician Markus Tressel told Handelsblatt. The Green Party requested the numbers from the ministry.
The latest available EU-wide data, which uses figures from the end of 2016, already shows Germany topping the list of violators, together with Spain. And though the ministry’s new figures show a decrease, it’s still 20-percent higher than in 2012. “The government performs badly in converting EU directives into national law, especially in the areas of traffic and environment,” said Mr. Tressel."
Reality Check: How much UK law comes from the EU?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105
And by having that facility to refer cases, the countries abide by the fact that EU laws have supremacy. Which the UK will remove themselves from through Brexit, which will also cause the problem for them that there are fecking gaping gaps in their own national laws that they haven't made the slightest effort to plug and will be another huge mess.
Yes, that's the central court. Read the post you quoted more carefully.
Yes, but if the UK does not change its law, the current laws will apply.
There are no gaps. Either the UK has already incorporated the EU law in its own National laws, or it hasn't. If it hasn't, there is a gap right now, while still in the EU.
Of course many countries take their time incorporating those laws, read the article for Germany in the link I gave above:
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-leading-breaker-eu-rules-883837
Pretty sure you are mistaken, we have to repeal UK laws post Brexit
I think I'm having an "I Believe" moment
How would the current laws still apply when they're no longer in the EU? What a landmine for the legal profession there.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/13/brexit-eu-human-rights-act-european-charter
I'm familiar too with tardiness implemeting EU laws - Ireland have been fined for it in the past
"Angela Merkel’s government currently faces no less than 74 infringement proceedings for failing to adequately and timely convert EU rules into German law."
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-leading-breaker-eu-rules-883837
Every country applies their own National Laws within their borders. They have their National Courts and their National Law Enforcement Agencies. There is no European Federal Agencies like in the USA, no FBI or no Federal Courts.
Yes, there is a central european court, but usually you have to escalate only after you go through the national courts.
I don't know why people are so confused about this.
When UK leaves the EU, the UK National Law will still apply. This National Law already contains the EU directives and laws and treaties. It will still apply, till the UK Parliament changes some laws.
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-leading-breaker-eu-rules-883837
Every country applies their own National Laws within their borders. They have their National Courts and their National Law Enforcement Agencies. There is no European Federal Agencies like in the USA, no FBI or no Federal Courts.
Yes, there is a central european court, but usually you have to escalate only after you go through the national courts.
I don't know why people are so confused about this.
When UK leaves the EU, the UK National Law will still apply. This National Law already contains the EU directives and laws and treaties. It will still apply, till the UK Parliament changes some laws.
But the UK have decided they don't want the EU law related to Freedom Of Movement to apply to them, for example. It won't apply.
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal it is paralysed. There can be no flights or ships or trains or anything between the two.
They cannot sell anything to the EU because its standards will not be recognised by the EU.
It doesn't matter if the UK doesn't change its laws. All agreements with the EU will be void.
The German cannot fly to the UK so will not be at the airport.
The immigrants Hungary refused are not EU citizens they are refugees from outside the EU. THe EU wanted to share them out amongst various countries. Schengen has nothing to do with it.
If the UK leave with no deal there will be a hard border, it is obligatory. From 30th March 2019.
The border issue isn't only about people and goods, it's about movement of capital and services and legal jurisdiction.
These are a tiny fraction of the problems that no deal will cause- if you care to read back then you will see what they are.
No you do not understand the EU.
That part is totally wrong, there is a hierarchy of norm, conventional international laws are above ordinary laws; also according to the CJEU, EU directives that aren't transposed in national laws come into force anyway and are to be applied by national courts, countries have around 2 months.
But again that's irrelevant because the issue isn't about directives or decisions.
Yes, exactly, Ireland and many other countries have been fined because their National Law does not conform to the EU Law. It happens all the time, for all countries. No countries have National Laws that are 100% in conformance with the EU laws and directives. It is the Ireland Law that applies inside Ireland. The EU law is powerless, if it is not implemented inside the Ireland National Law. That's why the EU gives fines, the only tool they have, in order for Ireland to change their National Laws and be in conformance with the EU Law.
Let's say that tomorrow EU decides that the minimum salary will be 15 euros per hour. Each country will create a new law that makes the minimum salary 15 euros per hour, for that country. If a country leaves the EU next year, their national law will still say that the minimum salary is 15 euros per hour (till they change that law to something else, if they ever do change it).
Last edited:
Pretty sure in the US there is the Federal Court, but usually you have to escalate only after you go through the state courts. That’s kinda how high courts work anywhere.
The idea that Britain leaves the EU with no deal but just decides to leave things as they are (even if they could) cause “hell, let’s keep Freedom of Movement for all EU nationals & their goods. We don’t care that they won’t be doing the same and our ecomony will drop off the face of the planet” is mind boggling man.
And for your knowledge...
EU law and its application
- regulations and decisions become binding automatically throughout the EU on the date they enter into force
- directives must be incorporated by EU countries into their national legislation
Freedom of Movement for example is a regulation.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:141:0001:0012:EN:PDF
Last edited:
You are mistaken.
USA has multiple Federal Courts and Federal Judges in every State, and multiple Federal Agencies (FBI, ICE, DEA, Customs etc) again in every State. There are Federal Crimes and State crimes. For Federal Crimes (for example printing counterfeit dollars) you go to a Federal Court, not to local court. There are Federal Prisons and local prisons and so on.
Europe has nothing similar. There are no EU Courts in individual countries, and no EU Law Enforcement Agencies in the individual countries (or anywhere). Even the Customs officers are not EU Officers, they are local officers under their localized laws of the individual counties. EU is very very very different from USA.
For example, for California:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_courthouses_in_California
The EU is not a country, you are comparing international law with domestic law, which is again irrelevant to this thread.
Yet you can escalate appeals etc from State to Federal, which was my point.
It wasn’t an important point anyhow and is not at all relevant here, just an observation. So why ignore the rest of my post @CA_vampire which contained all of the actual stuff you have been questioning?
Last edited:
I was watching “making a murderer part 2” last night and they said that he’d been repeatedly denied/failed appeals at local court/state level. They were now escalating to the federal court. They pointed out that the federal court doesn’t hear the case as such - they just deal with if your rights in the constitution have been denied and if you can prove that they can order a retrial in state
Oh and I was watching something on the news a few months ago. They were saying that the laws would have to be updated by the UK but in many cases they may just adapt the EU laws that they have implemented.
They do not have to implement every EU law as each country are responsible for their own laws at the end of the day.
One of the depressing things is that people can no longer refer their cases to the European court of appeal which you can do as an EU member
They do not have to implement every EU law as each country are responsible for their own laws at the end of the day.
One of the depressing things is that people can no longer refer their cases to the European court of appeal which you can do as an EU member
The highest courts also judge the procedure but generally not the facts, they will send you back to an appeal court for the facts.
To be fair, the EU could be a country.
We don't call it one by convention. Calling it one would change nothing.
Legally the status of country has consequences in terms of rights given to institutions, territories and citizens, those rights are determined by the constitution of each countries. Currently the EU is a foreign policy enterprise, every legal aspect of it is treaty based and in the hierarchy of law is below national constitutions. In accordance with their constitution a government is free to unilaterally follow or not follow a treaty that he previously signed, he can repeal it whenever he wants.
Now in the case of an actual country, one major principle makes the difference obvious, the territory is defined and indivisible. Now we all know that legally and practically this isn't the case, that's why Brexit is legal and unilateral.
The last couple or pages are making my head hurt.
There's nothing wrong with not understanding something - we're all here to learn more - I know I am. But when you haven't a fecking banana, don't be lecturing the knowledgeable lads on what they're mistaken about!
There's nothing wrong with not understanding something - we're all here to learn more - I know I am. But when you haven't a fecking banana, don't be lecturing the knowledgeable lads on what they're mistaken about!
The comforting thing is that he didn't vote in the referendum.
The scary part is that there were at least 17.4 million people who did vote who are probably even less informed than he is.
By the way 74 infringements is a very small number, it's around 0.002% of all EU secondary legal acts, I should have mentioned it yesterday. Also while some of them can be the fruit of laziness, there is also the likely reason that the legislator isn't sure about the wording that he is supposed to use and chose to wait for a court decision to be made first, from a national court or the ECJ itself.
The territory of the EU is clearly defined.
It is no more divisible than the United States or China-Hong Kong.
If the US had an article in their treaty that one of the state's could leave if they so chose, would that make the US not a country? Of course not.
There are other countries that claim each others territory :- South Korea/North Korea, Russia/Ukraine. Does that make them not counties.. of course not
No it's not, one of the reasons behind the indivisibility is the fact that the territory belongs to the nation as a whole not just the residents of a particular region. Even if you naively consider that for example the UK are merely a region/state of a larger country that would be the EU, in reality only UK nationals(or the Queen) have ownership of that land. If the EU was a country and the UK were part of its territory then every EU nationals would have a right on it and Brexit would be illegal.
What is defined by EU related legal acts are a travel, a custom and a trade area based on multilateral treaties.
Though from a constitutional law standpoint, it's interesting to point out that a part of the EU(Schengen area) has the attributes of a nation state without being one.
There is more that makes the EU a country, than makes the EU not a country.
Citizenship. The first and most obvious requirement for a country is to have citizens with citizenship. Does the EU have citizens and does it have citizenship? Yes! This can be seen in the legal status of how EU Citizens are treated by many countries - there are rules governing all the citizens of the EU, not constituent countries. EU citizenship gives certain rights.
Tax rules. Does the EU have a common tax policy? Yes! There is a minimum normal VAT rate of 15% and a minimum reduced VAT rate of 5%, with exemptions allowed for historic reasons and through treaties. Import duty is also paid directly to the EU.
Central budget. Does the EU have a central budget? Yes. It is collected and paid for by each member as well as paid for by import duties direct to the EU.
Is the EU a customs union? Again yes. There are countries that don't even have a harmonious customs border, but the EU does.
Foreign policy. Surely the EU doesn't have a foreign policy. Actually - yes it does. And a foreign minister.
Does the EU have anything else normally reserved to countries? How about membership to the WTO! And has "enhanced observer status" in the United Nations! (other non-member states include Palestine)
There is nothing that makes the EU *not* a country, except that we don't call it one by convention, and it doesn't want to be one.
Citizenship. The first and most obvious requirement for a country is to have citizens with citizenship. Does the EU have citizens and does it have citizenship? Yes! This can be seen in the legal status of how EU Citizens are treated by many countries - there are rules governing all the citizens of the EU, not constituent countries. EU citizenship gives certain rights.
Tax rules. Does the EU have a common tax policy? Yes! There is a minimum normal VAT rate of 15% and a minimum reduced VAT rate of 5%, with exemptions allowed for historic reasons and through treaties. Import duty is also paid directly to the EU.
Central budget. Does the EU have a central budget? Yes. It is collected and paid for by each member as well as paid for by import duties direct to the EU.
Is the EU a customs union? Again yes. There are countries that don't even have a harmonious customs border, but the EU does.
Foreign policy. Surely the EU doesn't have a foreign policy. Actually - yes it does. And a foreign minister.
Does the EU have anything else normally reserved to countries? How about membership to the WTO! And has "enhanced observer status" in the United Nations! (other non-member states include Palestine)
There is nothing that makes the EU *not* a country, except that we don't call it one by convention, and it doesn't want to be one.
Again it's not. There are three attributes to a nation state territory, sovereignty and population. The EU doesn't have its own territory, member states unilaterally granted rights to other members natural and moral persons, they can unilaterally cancel them when they want. The EU doesn't have its own population, the EU citizenship is supplementary and doesn't replace the national citizenship, you need the later to have the former. The EU doesn't have its own sovereignty, in some domains EU member states share their sovereignty with other members but they have the unilateral ability to take it back at any point.
All of that is stipulated in the treaties and is finalized by art.50 of the Lisbon treaty itself. What you are suggesting is a subject studied in constitutional law because it's true that if the 27 member states wanted to become a country, it could happen tomorrow, a relatively simple legal act and few amendments in the Lisbon treaty would make it happen but without these actions, the EU isn't a country from a legal or practical standpoint.
I don't know what means given that foreign nationals can indeed own land. What does "UK nationals (or the queen)" mean.
The EU does have its own territory and population. Being supplimentary or not, that may be your definition but I'd argue your are finding arbitrary items to make a point. The constitution countries of the UK have effective supplementary citizenship. The same is true of sovereignty.
Now if that is your definition, it is true that the EU is not a country and neither is England. But it's very arbirtary as if it was written into the constitution that England could leave the union whenever it wanted, the UK would not be a country... Which is clearly nonsense.
Again if England had sovreignty and let the UK government by consent.. the UK would not be a country. This is clearly nonsense
Probably the most boring debate in this thread since the referendum 
To make it simple, the territory is still linked the its nation and sovereign. For example, when a foreign national owns the rights to a land in the UK, that part of the territory remains british it doesn't become the foreign national's territory. You can own the rights to the land but not the land itself.
The remain/people vote campaign is god awful