Well, that's manifestly false. They repeatedly overruled your own parliament.
Name one law which was forced on the British people without the approval of Parliament.
In 2013, when the government was trying to refuse entry to a known terrorist with a French passport, the ECJ ruled in his favour after his lawyers argued that under the charter he was entitled to know the grounds for excluding him, potentially compromising sensitive intelligence.
Now, astonishingly, an Act of Parliament described by the Home Secretary as “crucial to fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism” is in jeopardy because of the unaccountable judges in Luxembourg. The ECJ is going to rule soon after the referendum on whether the Data Protection and Regulatory Powers Act, passed in 2014, after long parliamentary debates, is consistent with the charter. As a consequence, parts of the Act may be struck down.
The ECJ’s judgments can result in multibillion-pound losses for the British government. In the past six years, the Court has ruled against HMRC in £7 billion-worth of cases brought by multinational companies disputing VAT and other tax bills. More claims to a value of £43 billion are currently awaiting judgment.
Given the disdain with which the ECJ treated the British opt-out from the charter and how freely it interprets its own powers, it is hard to see how Mr Cameron’s renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with Brussels can be safe.
The ECJ may find that the so-called “emergency brake” on freedom of movement is incompatible with rights under the charter. Or it may decide that provisions intended to prevent discrimination against countries that do not use the euro are contrary to the EU’s treaties. Britain’s exemption from “ever-closer union” may be vulnerable if the ECJ’s definition of the term differs from our government’s.
Just a few weeks ago, in the Queen’s Speech, the government claimed it would “uphold the sovereignty of parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons”. That boast rings hollow as long as our ability to determine our own laws is picked apart by the EU and its unaccountable judges. For the future of our democracy, we should vote Leave today.
Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group found that the UK has been defeated in 101 out of 131 legal actions taken to the European Court of Justice over the last 40 years.
Rulings against the UK Government included prolonging a ban on world-wide export of British beef and scrapping a cut in beer duty.
The failure rate of 77.1 per cent for Britain in the Luxembourg-based court was last night being seen as fresh evidence of the urgent need for country to quit the EU.
Tory justice minister Dominic Raab said: "The EU has a long-track record of shifting the goal-posts.
"Britain thinks it is signed up for one thing, only to find something very different imposed on us.
"In 40 years, we've lost three-quarters of cases at the Luxembourg Court, when we've tried to resist these incursions.
"They affect everything from the price of beer to the cost of home insulation, and undermine basic principle of our democracy - that the British people can hold to account those who write the laws of the land."
Researchers from Vote Leave, which is campaigning for an "out" vote in this summer's in-or-out EU referendum, studied the result of every European Court of Justice case involving the UK since the country joined the European Economic Community
in 1973.
The figures showed that the UK Government won only 30 of cases it fought in the court.
It also revealed the failure rate has worsened to 80 per cent since David Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010.
Why do you expect random strangers to inform you about the consequences of your voting habits after the fact of your voting? I shouldn't have to quote common news articles to you.
“The lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.” (Leave)
“It is very hard to find an EU regulation of significance that has been forced on an unwilling British minister who voted against it” (Remain)
It seems that both sides are stretching what the evidence might allow us to say.
The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999
Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Votes are only the tip of the iceberg
First, EU laws pass through several stages of negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament.
So the UK government’s ability to influence policies doesn’t only occur through voting—which is a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ situation—but also in negotiations over the actual text of a draft law.
Many accounts have shown that the UK diplomatic service has—at least historically—been very skilled in such negotiations over important laws.
Second, the records only relate to votes on proposed laws that eventually pass.
So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, or failed to get things it wanted, as these are not mentioned in the official figures.
Nor will we be exempt from future ECJ rulings if we wish to continue trading with EU nations. We will, however, have zero opportunity to negotiate the terms of the regulations ruled over by the ECJ.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Name one law which was forced on the British people without the approval of Parliament.
In 2013, when the government was trying to refuse entry to a known terrorist with a French passport, the ECJ ruled in his favour after his lawyers argued that under the charter he was entitled to know the grounds for excluding him, potentially compromising sensitive intelligence.
Now, astonishingly, an Act of Parliament described by the Home Secretary as “crucial to fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism” is in jeopardy because of the unaccountable judges in Luxembourg. The ECJ is going to rule soon after the referendum on whether the Data Protection and Regulatory Powers Act, passed in 2014, after long parliamentary debates, is consistent with the charter. As a consequence, parts of the Act may be struck down.
The ECJ’s judgments can result in multibillion-pound losses for the British government. In the past six years, the Court has ruled against HMRC in £7 billion-worth of cases brought by multinational companies disputing VAT and other tax bills. More claims to a value of £43 billion are currently awaiting judgment.
Given the disdain with which the ECJ treated the British opt-out from the charter and how freely it interprets its own powers, it is hard to see how Mr Cameron’s renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with Brussels can be safe.
The ECJ may find that the so-called “emergency brake” on freedom of movement is incompatible with rights under the charter. Or it may decide that provisions intended to prevent discrimination against countries that do not use the euro are contrary to the EU’s treaties. Britain’s exemption from “ever-closer union” may be vulnerable if the ECJ’s definition of the term differs from our government’s.
Just a few weeks ago, in the Queen’s Speech, the government claimed it would “uphold the sovereignty of parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons”. That boast rings hollow as long as our ability to determine our own laws is picked apart by the EU and its unaccountable judges. For the future of our democracy, we should vote Leave today.
Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group found that the UK has been defeated in 101 out of 131 legal actions taken to the European Court of Justice over the last 40 years.
Rulings against the UK Government included prolonging a ban on world-wide export of British beef and scrapping a cut in beer duty.
The failure rate of 77.1 per cent for Britain in the Luxembourg-based court was last night being seen as fresh evidence of the urgent need for country to quit the EU.
Tory justice minister Dominic Raab said: "The EU has a long-track record of shifting the goal-posts.
"Britain thinks it is signed up for one thing, only to find something very different imposed on us.
"In 40 years, we've lost three-quarters of cases at the Luxembourg Court, when we've tried to resist these incursions.
"They affect everything from the price of beer to the cost of home insulation, and undermine basic principle of our democracy - that the British people can hold to account those who write the laws of the land."
Researchers from Vote Leave, which is campaigning for an "out" vote in this summer's in-or-out EU referendum, studied the result of every European Court of Justice case involving the UK since the country joined the European Economic Community
in 1973.
The figures showed that the UK Government won only 30 of cases it fought in the court.
It also revealed the failure rate has worsened to 80 per cent since David Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010.
Why do you expect random strangers to inform you about the consequences of your voting habits after the fact of your voting? I shouldn't have to quote common news articles to you.
“The lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.” (Leave)
“It is very hard to find an EU regulation of significance that has been forced on an unwilling British minister who voted against it” (Remain)
It seems that both sides are stretching what the evidence might allow us to say.
The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999
Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Votes are only the tip of the iceberg
First, EU laws pass through several stages of negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament.
So the UK government’s ability to influence policies doesn’t only occur through voting—which is a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ situation—but also in negotiations over the actual text of a draft law.
Many accounts have shown that the UK diplomatic service has—at least historically—been very skilled in such negotiations over important laws.
Second, the records only relate to votes on proposed laws that eventually pass.
So we simply do not know how often the UK successfully opposed proposals, or failed to get things it wanted, as these are not mentioned in the official figures.
Nor will we be exempt from future ECJ rulings if we wish to continue trading with EU nations. We will, however, have zero opportunity to negotiate the terms of the regulations ruled over by the ECJ.
So the choice is to get fucked in the ass or get fucked in the ass while whispering in your ear "Do you like that?" Not that the answer will mean anything either way.
Nor will we be exempt from future ECJ rulings if we wish to continue trading with EU nations. We will, however, have zero opportunity to negotiate the terms of the regulations ruled over by the ECJ.
i don’t understand? You think the U.S. gives a fuck what the ECJ rules? Neither should Britain?
Nor will we be exempt from future ECJ rulings if we wish to continue trading with EU nations. We will, however, have zero opportunity to negotiate the terms of the regulations ruled over by the ECJ.
i don’t understand? You think the U.S. gives a fuck what the ECJ rules? Neither should Britain?
Monty doesn't fuck, he gets fucked, he doesn't do the fucking. He can't imagine the scenario in which he fucks.
Nor will we be exempt from future ECJ rulings if we wish to continue trading with EU nations. We will, however, have zero opportunity to negotiate the terms of the regulations ruled over by the ECJ.
i don’t understand? You think the U.S. gives a fuck what the ECJ rules? Neither should Britain?
Yes I think you do. I think there are products you would like to sell in Europe but can't.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Nor will we be exempt from future ECJ rulings if we wish to continue trading with EU nations. We will, however, have zero opportunity to negotiate the terms of the regulations ruled over by the ECJ.
i don’t understand? You think the U.S. gives a fuck what the ECJ rules? Neither should Britain?
Yes I think you do. I think there are products you would like to sell in Europe but can't.
That hurts the EU more than it hurts the US. EU protectionism for the fail.
i don’t understand? You think the U.S. gives a fuck what the ECJ rules? Neither should Britain?
Yes I think you do. I think there are products you would like to sell in Europe but can't.
That hurts the EU more than it hurts the US. EU protectionism for the fail.
How?
It means European farmers don't have to lower standards to compete with hormone injected beef etc.
If it doesn't hurt the US why does everyone hate the EU so much? It's not as if president Tariff believes in free trade.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Yes I think you do. I think there are products you would like to sell in Europe but can't.
That hurts the EU more than it hurts the US. EU protectionism for the fail.
How?
It means European farmers don't have to lower standards to compete with hormone injected beef etc.
If it doesn't hurt the US why does everyone hate the EU so much? It's not as if president Tariff believes in free trade.
It means European consumers don't get choose the products they want. Last I checked, European consumers were vastly more numerous than European farmers. Also European farmers get lazy hiding from the competition and produce worse products because they don't have to compete against American products.
It hurts American exporters sure, but it hurts Europeans far more.
Tariffs work as a negotiation tactic for America, at least when Trump does it, because they hurt America less than they hurt everyone else, because they richer than everyone else. Everyone needs to sell their products in America, Europe needs America far more than America needs Europe. By exploiting that to get lower tariffs from protectionist faggots, it results in freer trade in the long run, short term pain turned into long term gain.
Last edited by StCapps on Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:29 am, edited 4 times in total.
Yes I think you do. I think there are products you would like to sell in Europe but can't.
That hurts the EU more than it hurts the US. EU protectionism for the fail.
How?
It means European farmers don't have to lower standards to compete with hormone injected beef etc.
If it doesn't hurt the US why does everyone hate the EU so much? It's not as if president Tariff believes in free trade.
Because it is a continent sized Yugoslavia either held down with an iron fist or set to blow into violent upheaval.
