Boris

[ChangeMyWorld]

It's going to be Boris, isn't it. Shoot me now.

I have never said anywhere that the ECJ has messed up my life. Why did you make that up. You and I have crossed about this many times on these boards.

If you read my post you won't find my saying that. What I was trying to tease out why someone has what appears to be a vitriolic hatred of an organisation or group of people has cause to think this way.

So far I have received the usual Daily Mail blah in response as to why you don't like the ECJ. To go back to the point made by Bear - we follow international law. Should we ignore that too because it wasn't initially formulated in this country? Or do we accept that some laws have a supra-national importance? If we decide as a country that we are only interested in nationally made laws, are we happy that other countries may well do the same?

But since this topic is about Boris, perhaps we should pull it back to him and his behaviour. He is one who appears to think only of Boris and thinks lying and cheating is perfectly acceptable behaviour.

It is the principle of law making that I don't like. The EU have no business interfering in our legal system. It is the principle of it that I do not agree with

copper could you stand back from that comment for just a second and think about how pathetic it is.

So you can’t think of a single decision you don’t agree with but you ‘don’t like the principle’

And that’s worth trashing our entire economy for.

Fuck off with your ‘principles’

I'm a remainer, by the way. So if whoever wins fails to get us out of the EU (and wrecks the Conservative Party by doing that), then that's fine with me.

Well I agree but only in part. I am sorry to see a once respectable party which the Tory party was, being led by such a bunch of spivs and charlatans. It's not healthy for democracy.

And of course, we are the EU!

Yeah, cos the ECJ was inflicted
on the UK, it’s not as if the UK ever actively participated like having judges or anything

On the basis that there are about 60 million in the UK and only about 17 Million voted positively to leave, the others, those who voted to remain, those that were too young to vote (the ones that will suffer the most) and those who didn't vote, outnumber the 17 million.

The vast majority of the laws that have their origins in Brussels have been debated by MEPs then brought to the UK and put into UK law. Many of such laws were actually proposed by the UK originally and collectively they are enacted across the EU but are regulated by each individual countrie's law enforcement. If you have been shoplifting in Poland on your holidays, it will be a UK policeman who will turn up on your doorstep.

I actually have more time for posters like surferjet who made no bones about the fact her vote was entirely driven by a need to prevent any other nationalities coming to this country.

All this freedom and soverignity shit stinks.

It’s a very thin veil for the xenophobic motives Leavers are rightly accused of.

Bear well said.

I feel a military coup coming on...

Shellie maybe if there hadn't been such massive cuts to the defence budget, I feel a very British coup coming on , one with much tutting and sighing and eyerolling, with a few choice expletives thrown in for good measure. Quickly dispelled by a running commentary of a rubbish Summer weather wise, with the occasional 'Scorchio' on the front of the Sun if we get above unseasonably cool

frumpety completely agree, wishful thinking on my part!

Oh god I see the ECJ has popped up again. Oh my god.Why don’t posters learn from facts on previous threads?

•The ECJ does not overrule our own courts- our judges choose to refer a very small number of cases to it. On a previous thread I worked out stats.

•Our own courts handle a TOTAL of at over 3,822,500 UK cases per year. (This is taking all cases from High court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Tribunals, County,Crown,Magistrates.
(So millions controlled unilaterally by UK courts every year.)

• By contrast the ECJ gets to the hearing stage of just under FIVE UK cases per year. .

•The remit of the ECJ (and the EU) was always very limited to certain topic areas where we delegated joint control.

•In the 13 years 2003–2016 there were only 63 judgments handed down by the ECJ on UK infringements. Just under half 29 of those related to the environment. This works out at a total of 4.9 cases per year.

•The limited areas that apply are related to the internal market, consumer’s rights, environment.They are literally a handful of quirky little cases that just fall between minor cracks in our own legislation.

So we are prepared to trash our economy and ditch lucrative unrestricted access to a market on our doorstep worth $18.8 trillion of 500 million consumers just because out of over 3,822,500 cases per year just under 5 cases that 0.00012 % of our cases might get referred to the ECJ for an opinion? (And that opinion could well be given by a British or Irish judge.) It's nuts to see this out of proportion.

Why did the press bang on about this years, and why do we not have a better perspective on this? It’s weird.weird.weird

Please if any politician starts banging on about EU control of our money (0.7% of GDP) and our laws comment back on social media with facts.. It isn’t true.

The EU have no business interfering in our legal system. It is the principle of it that I do not agree with

What uk laws are being interfered/overruled by eu foreign courts ? surely you must have a few examples?

So what does the ECJ do?
It decides whether the institutions of the EU are acting legally, and it settles disputes between them
It ensures that the member states of the EU are complying with their legal obligations as set out in the EU treaties; and it allows member states to challenge EU legislation
It interprets EU law at the request of national courts

I think you are still getting confused with ECJ and ECHR, which has overruled UK court judgements and we'll still be members of, post brexit... Thank God because i think we might be needing it.

Bear, Pelegrini, and any body else.

No law, EU or otherwise is ruining or messing up my life.
I have said this so many times on these boards.

International law usually applies to governments and I fully agree with you all that the UK should abide by all international laws.

Trade arrangements are governed by courts of arbitration which deal with trade disputes between countries. I am happy for the UK to abide by trade courts of arbitration.

I object, in principle, to EU law makers and judges in the ECJ having the ability to overrule our courts.

I cannot be clearer and I have never read the Daily Mail.

Jasjas, I am not getting confused between the ECHR and the ECJ. They are entirely different bodies.

Lonely planet, 5 cases per year is 5 too many.

But the ECJ behaves exactly like a court of arbitration does !!
I think peri is right, you are getting confused with the ECHR .

So, LeClerc, you made up that 43 million want to remain in the EU. Why not admit it.

And leaving the EU will not trash the economy.

Zippee,
I am not getting confused.

And leaving the EU will not trash the economy.

This remains to be seen. I haven't seen any evidence yet of any real improvement to the economy.

I object, in principle, to EU law makers and judges in the ECJ having the ability to overrule our courts.

Will you object when we have to kow tow to the Americans?
Or more insidiously, when we find we are kow towing to the Chinese, without quite realising how it happened?

The ECJ cannot over rule a UK court, you cannot appeal a national court decision to the ECJ so you are confused.

Lonely planet, 5 cases per year is 5 too many.

The UK rarely ends up in the ECJ, and when it does it wins its cases more often than most EU member states. The UK won around a quarter of all the cases against it between 2003 and 2016, the highest success rate of any country that joined the EU before 2004.

Member states are usually referred to the ECJ for three main reasons:

1. Late transposition (or ‘non-communication’). The member state fails to communicate to the European Commission that it has transposed a directive into domestic law, usually because it has not done so.

1. Non-conformity with EU law. The member state has transposed a directive, but not correctly. Or, the member state is violating provisions of the EU treaties or EU regulations.

1. Incorrect application of EU law. The member state has the right law on its statute book, but is not applying it or implementing it correctly.

Between 2003 and 2016 the European Commission opened over 750 complaints against the UK for failing to follow or apply EU law. The UK resolved 668 of those complaints before reaching the court through negotiation and informal dispute resolution. In the end only 83 of those cases ended up in the ECJ.

Environmental issues are those most likely (46% of cases) to see the UK end up at the ECJ because such cases can be costly to resolve - in particular the UK has repeatedly been taken to court for failing to implement the 1991 directive on the management of urban waste water because water treatment plants are expensive to provide.

In recent years only around two cases on citizenship issues have been referred each year.

I object, in principle, to EU law makers and judges in the ECJ having the ability to overrule our courts

They can't in principle or in reality....

Look, the last thing i want is, say, a US or a South African court, with no input from the UK, overriding a UK court perhaps on the level of a speeding fine or a prison sentence.....however, that isn't what happens with the ECJ (staffed with some UK judges) - which typically would decide if eu wide competition rules have been broken by a member state, advantaging their own industry, against say a UK company.

Its the ECHR which can override a uk court decision, which is what a lot of people get angry about.

There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong over this issue.