baron8000

this power has been permanently delegated to the ECJ. there is no mechanism for retaking that control unless you leave the EU, the eropean economic area etc. you reject the ECJ, you've just rejected the entire package. See, I would argue the very fact that you can reject the ECJ at all means that the delegation is not a permanent one. You are quite correct that there is no explicit mechanism in the treaty for rejecting the ECJ, but that overlooks the importance of national constitutional power again. In the UK, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty is, literally, EVERYTHING. Parliament may do anything it likes, provided it does not bind a future Parliament. Thus if Parliament made an Act that stated UK courts were not bound by ECJ judgements, the UK courts would then be free (like your quote from Lord Denning said). Hm, I have no mention of Solange 3 on any of my reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes; also from the article you sent the conclusion reached seems to be the same as mine, from page 24 - "In the end, the GCC comes to a conclusion similar to that of the CCC. While an abandonment of Germanys sovereignty is prohibited by German Basic Law, the Treaty of Lisbon can be legally ratified as it does not establish a federal European state" what? the declaration reads: First of all, read this Dec. in conjuction with the opinion of the council legal service; . The key thing to note here, is that the declaration clearly states that the CASE LAW OF THE ECJ is reaffirmed; this does not equal it being hardened into a treaty provision, as is clear from the Opinion of the Council Legal Service. It also reaffirms supremacy (again, noone arguing there) without reaffirming the basis, the important bit, which leads me too... This, this is problematic. Imagine a more domestic situation, X is a child (in the EU, a citizen). X has a sovereign, his mother (the national state/state in the US). In some cases, he will have a father (another sovereign body, like the US federal body). In the case of the EU, the EU does not fulfill the role of father, or of a new sovereign body. It is rather the babysitter, who only has authority over the child because the mother/sovereign says so. You certainly can withdraw from parts of the EU. The UK and Poland have an opt out from the new fundamental charter of rights. Likewise Ireland and the UK currently have an opt-out from European policies concerning asylum, visas and immigration. Under the new treaty they have the right to opt in or out of any policies in the entire field of justice and home affairs. Dublin also won guarantees that the treaty would not infringe on its sovereignty in the areas of taxation, family issues and state neutrality. Denmark will continue with its existing opt-out from justice and home affairs, but has the right under the new treaty to opt for the pick-and-choose system. Even if you don't have an opt out outside the treaty (which, we must remember, is drafted by member states), there are plenty of ways to opt out within - I dealt with this before with the example of Art 30 exceptions. I have also dealt with the lack of process for leaving within the treaty being irrelevant. Here I think you are beginning to leave legal discourse altogether; the fact that the EU could levy sanctions against member states that resile from the EU does not make those sanctions law, nor does it make that body sovereign or the head of a federation. That definition of law was left behind decades, if not hundreds of years ago (I don't know if you a jurisprudential module, but if you don't look up the basics of Hart's concept of law, or Dworkin's theory of law for the newest versions of positivism, that march firmly away from sanction as their basis). Practical reality is of course important, if not the most important thing, but the legal basis will make an incredible difference to those discussions, and to ignore the legal basis is to not have a full picture. As far as the UK is concerned, £20-30 billion is relatively peanuts; our recent election debate tried to raise the issue of our nuclear deterrent, which currently costs approx £170bn, but nobody cared. The democratic deficit of the EU is another issue, entirely separate from the importance of supremacy and whether the EU is a constitutional body, which it isn't. I for one have no problem with the financial services losing some of its profit margin after the way its acted recently. I can assure you the magical "leave button" exists in the UK; Parliamentary Sovereignty is literally day 1 week 1 subject matter for all UK law students, and its pretty clear cut that if Parliament said something, the courts will follow it, the EU could moan and levy sanctions as much as it liked, the courts would do what Parliament said. I don't quite understand your last sentence, an ECJ ruling is entirely different from a Regulation (and Directive, Decision, Recommendation etc). Essentially though, EC legislation is accepted by the UK courts as binding because of the European Communities Act 1972; we never transpose it directly into our law, the courts only follow it because Parliament tells them to. The same applies to ECJ rulings. All of this leads me to my main conclusion - the EU is a supra national body with competence to pass binding laws across Europe. It remains however, functionally, legally, and practically within the control of the member states (indeed, it IS the member states) who may alter, derogate, resile from or go above and beyond its provision. It differs fundamentally from the US (or, ludicrously, the fourth reich) in both practice and legal basis; the member states retain their own independant sovereignty, and always will.

I'd be hesitant to cite the Lisbon Treaty with as much certainty as you do; very few, if any actually understand the practical impact of the treaty yet (even the drafters themselves). Declaration 17 is nothing more than a statement against primacy being enshrined in the Treaty. It affirms the case law of the ECJ, but, if you follow my argument, the power of the ECJ derives from member states; once again reaffirming the final power rests in the hands of the member nations. First one, my bad, I meant to quote Solange II. I fail to see how my point is countered though - all of the Solange decisions have resulted in a reservation of national power against the EU (albeit with a caveat of trust). Do not be confused by the fact they have said they will not review the EU until certain fundamental rights fall to an unacceptable level; the judgement in full makes it clear that the German power is reserved, and that the entire EU is based in member state power, with no inherent power of its own. Also, according to my dates, Brunner is actually later than Solange I and II, and both are GCC cases, making Brunner clear precedent. there was at that point (agreements still in effect today) that allow for withdrawal of the UK past that case. However, Touché. Wait, I'm wrong, but touche? You seem to be missing my distinction between supremacy of law (which noone really disputes - EU law is supreme on a basic facilitative argument) and the actual basis of that supremacy (on which there is great argument). Whilst the US federal government has an innate power all of its own, my argument is that the EU differs because its power is solely derives from member states voluntarily transferring competence, which it can revoke or withdraw at any point. Factortame directly supports this view in the UK - the EU's power is only there because of the Act of Parliament from the UK, and nothing else. I'm a UK law student, I know how our constitutional system works, I assure you my reading of Factortame is not directly wrong. In terms of being tested in court, I meant the functional basis of the EU. It is a logical conclusion from the fact that the EU's power is based in an Act of Parliament that a later Act of Parliament will override that power. If anything the quote you have posted supports that conclusion and thus further undermines the argument that the EU is approaching a US style federation. Is the case you mention Mickelsson v Roos? Its commonly known as the Swedish Jet Skis case here, so I guess its either the same or an analogous case. I'd like to reiterate my point here; I am not arguing against the primacy of EC law, rather that the important, fundamental basis of it is very different from a US style arrangement, and places control firmly in the hands of member states. Further, the very nature of the treaty, will all its shared and excluded competences, derogation articles, stricter national measures articles, exceptions and escape routes means that any vision of the EC as some new, constitutional political system is plain and simply wrong. My understanding of the EC comes from my law degree from Oxford University in the UK, during which I have had the privilege of being taught by some of the most knowledgeable constitutional lawyers in the world. There is no official mechanism in the treaty for unilateral withdrawal because nobody needs one; all they have to do is revoke whatever statute currently grants the EC primacy, to use my UK example again, if Mr Cameron revoked the Act of Parliament tomorrow, we would be out of the EU instantly, and the courts have made it clear in Factortame that they would the revert to UK law as supreme. In terms of overriding specific law, the treaty itself provides a huge number of escape clauses (that, remember, are there because the member states have forced them to be) such as the Art 30 exceptions to Art 28 breaches, the Art 176 provisions for national independance on environmental measures, and plenty more (coupled with subsidiarity as a general principle of the EC). In the UK then, all we need to ignore the EC is a new act of Parliament (either a complete withdrawal or partially) and even then only if the safeguards inherent in the treaty fail. I won't comment on this as I see it as a political and financial issue, rather than a legal or constitutional one; the fact we have let one law pass that harms one interest of the UK does not amount to EC rule with an iron fist, I expect politicians have let it pass due to the fact the EC is a two way road (we have to take some hits to obtain the benefit) and, quite frankly, public opinion in the UK amounts to "regulate the bankers and financial industries", so it may well even be of benefit to the UK.

The difference is that, in the United States, each individual state is pretty much a non-country. They have very few rights and answer almost entirely to the Federal government. If they tried to secede, the Federal government would declare war on them. The EU, on the other hand, consists of several SOVEREIGN nation-states that have the right to self-determination and can withdraw at will. Each constituent nation-state has much more freedom than a constituent state of the United States of America. That's what the difference is. The EU is more of an association of nation-states that seeks to make another European war impossible, and it is there in order to ensure that Europe can survive in a post-colonial world. The United States is a close association of states that have very few rights and cannot withdraw if they wanted to. The United States is an empire whereas the European Union is not. ah, that's where you're both wrong though. EU-law overrides national law automatically. No member has yet tried to withdraw from the EU (only terretories), when that happened in the USA there was civil war. your assertion is that any membernation may leave from the EU. That right was only formally established in 2009 with the Lisbon Treaty as far as I know. BUT, and this is the most important thing to remember, there NO alternative for UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL, only NEGOTIATED withdrawal, at which only the Lisobon Treaty ceases its effect if the negotiations fail. No prveious treaties have had any option of withdrawal, so these are then not reversed, all the way back to the coal and steel union. According to the Vienna convention of international politics, there is no right of withdrawal unless directly stated, so in practice the UK can always withdraw from the Lisbon Treaty under special circumstance, but only after negotiation with the EU, i.e. EU vote. Further, in joining the Euro, a nation specifically enters an "irrevercible" pact, so these nations are particularly stuck. the whole debate in Germany over kicking Greece out of the EU was only in relation to Greece failing to satisfy the demands they faked their numbers to acchieve in joining. Greece has no option of choosing to leave, they can however be kicked out: they are at mercy to the EU, and in particular the Euro-cooperative. Before tested in court, noone really knows, but going by current Euro law, no member-nation may leave, other than the treaty of Lisbon, which is not the same as leaving the Union. the EU is very similar to the US at its beginnings. federal law expanded gradually over time as well, but were effectively independent at the onset. to me it seems EU members are stuck, at least legally. I'm afraid you are very, very wrong. You begin on the correct premise that EC law overrides national law where it conflicts, but unfortunately the exact reasons why disprove your argument entirely. Here is why. Each individual member state has been, for thousands of years in some cases, a sovereign, independent nation (a claim that none of the US states could make). When the EU was created, it was created by the power of those member states, all the institutions, courts, legislatures and the treaty itself derive their powers from the sovereignty of the member states rather than their own political worth (a massive contrast from the US federal government). To back this up, here are some actual judgements from the courts of member states, as it has actually been tested in court. (to clarify this one, the power of the EU once again derives from a revocable Act of Parliament from a national goverment, not its own innate power) France, Italy, Poland, and most other member states have made similar decisions; the EU is not the fourth reich, nor is it a situation from which the member states cannot leave, can I ask where you have got your understanding from? The EU is really not a scary thing at all, it is an entirely voluntary, economic program that very rarely, if ever, actual strays into social policy being economic impacts. All of the judgements of the ECJ have protected human rights to the highest possible standard, and the member states are clear that they are the masters, and will never let go of that.

His point was that you're just using semantics to get around the fact that Europe is exactly like the US in terms of region and federalism. It's akin to the US because in the US, there are 50 states with one single entity joining them all together. That's what the EU is; a swath of nations joined under one flag. He used India because it's certainly not a monolithic country, but they still have one single entity representing them; the argument that Europe is too diverse doesn't cut it. So why is it different? exactly. the EU is a system of federated states. what's different with that and the US (examples in previous post of major similarities)? in cases of "nationality" i provided the India example, as it's easy to argue the US is a much more homogenous culture than the EU, in terms of languages and cultural unity. Can I ask for clarification on how you are using "federal" here? If you are using it in its technical sense (as its used to describe the US) then I can tell you now you are completely wrong; the EU is not, has never been, and never will be a united states of Europe. I agree its a group of nations, but in a radically different sense then any other example of politics the world has seen.

Two problems here. 1) Running the country is not like running a business, whilst business acumen would be helpful, its one of many factors to running an entire nation, even if you are given a purely financial station. Understanding what a banana is does not qualify you to run a supermarket. 2) If we accept that experience is at least still important (and I won't disagree there) then I fail to see how that translates to a tory vote. The labour government have actual practical experience, and whilst the tory idiot was failing to become a journalist, Lib dem Vince Cable was working as chief economist at Shell, and I'm pretty sure that Shell only picks the best to manage its finances. Also, if you have been voting since the 60's and are (according to your profile) currently in Lancashire, how have you not seen the impact of the Thatcher government up north? Finally, god damn there is a lot of misunderstanding about the EU in this thread.

If he's a small business owner, he probably won't benefit too much under the tory plans, they tend to swing towards benefit to the big corporations/city bankers kind of business rather than the self employed. You are quite right to be fed up with Labour as well, what with the worrying route they have taken over the last few years. Thankfully the rise of the Lib Dem this election may give voters an actual choice this time around.

This sure is a good enough reason to vote for the Nazi Party v2.0

Your Dad does not give away half of his money so that mythical dole scrounging immigrants can hoover it up. He pays it in tax so that the welfare system of this country can continue to support the entire nation (and, most likely, you)

As requested, Locking this

As Nadril pointed out, we already have a thread for this, please post your thoughts there and avoid making duplicate topics in future.

We do indeed have another thread for this - please post your views there - viewtopic.php?f=30&t=802623 Locking this

Don't repost this It's SPAM. Kind of have to agree on this one, whilst I am glad you are unmuted, I don't think its worth a topic Locked

Hi there Forum games is unfortunately a forum for playing games, not the discussion of them. We have a special sub forum for all things video games here: viewforum.php?f=151 which is where all video game (and similar) discussion should be placed. Locking this

Exactly this, unfortunately your thought process hasn't quite worked out and I can only see this thread falling into other people telling you this. Locking this Baron

I'll only preorder a game nowadays if it gives me a nice benefit - money off (like steam/valve as Nadril mentioned), cool or interesting freebies or similar. I used to preorder more back in the day, but now with digital distribution and a larger industry its rarely (at least for me) impossible to find a game on launch day.