Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And I can argue that the lies from 1972 and 1975 are proven and documented and the EU as such did not even exist then. So the EEC referendum of 1975 can be fairly argued not to be the about the same subject as the EU referendum of 2016. But even allowing for that and allowing for a fair and even frequency of EU referenda, you only have another 38 years to wait. Say 2047?  

And the lies of the 2016 leave campaign are known and proven; but of course you wont accept that as everything with which you disagree is media bias!

 

BTW, it was the Brexiteers heroine, Margaret Thatcher, who was responsible for the Single European Act.

 

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

As for sanity, remainers don't necessarily own that state.

Where have i said that they do?

[aright]

7 hours ago, sandyf said:

It is totally irrelevant what is acceptable to you, it does not change the fact that commissioners are nominated by heads of the respective state, in the same way the UK PM is a nominated position. If you do not like the way the commissioner is selected and prefer it went to a public vote you are perfectly free to take it up with your MP.

 

You are perfectly free to believe that the EU heads of state have no control over policy, but do not try and make out it is fact.

No what's totally irrelevant to me is you citing statute which I interpret differently not that it matters because when questioned about the harsh reality of EU democracy you provide no answers. However, It is pointless having the narrow undemocratic view that things are ok because the rules are written into law (as much as I disagree with that) but then allowing the big boys to flaunt the rules.....don't you agree? If democracy is so rampant in the EU why the significant increase in populist parties?

The EU has a mission and to reach it's goal it sacrifices democracy and transparency. Collateral damage includes Greece, Italy and the Merkel inspired immigrant crisis. Populism is a  growing force in the EU as a result of a lack of democratic response to the electorates concerns. In 1998 12.5 million Europeans lived in a country with at least one populist cabinet member; In 2018 that had risen to 170 million and is projected to grow even more at the May elections.

 

"Everyone knows that the EU is run by unelected officials. What is far less widely appreciated is the way that, in order to sustain a fundamentally oligarchic project, the member states are obliged repeatedly to distort their domestic constitutional arrangements. 

Perhaps the most extreme manifestation of the EU’s Hideous Strength was in 2011, when Brussels orchestrated civilian coups in Italy and Greece, removing the elected national leaders and replacing them with Eurocrats – in Italy, a former European commissioner, Mario Monti; in Greece a former vice-president of the European Central Bank, Lucas Papademos. Both men headed what were called “national governments”, but their governments existed solely to push through policies that their nations opposed."

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/13/eu-offers-members-terrible-choice-integration-democracy/

 

Can I recommend  Europe: The Shattering of Illusions by Vaclav Klaus. 

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:39 AM, aright said:

None of them mentioned the word elected which implies they could be appointed or elected. Remainers are the people who claim the EU is democratic yet can't point to the part joe public played in the election of Selmayr et al.. If they weren't elected, they were appointed and that's my bone of contention. 

Martin Selmayr has never faced an election and for a man described as "the most powerful bureaucrat in the world" that's not good enough imo. I assume as a result of your no comment stance you disagree with the ombudsman and you are happy with the way he was appointed. You seem to be very much in favour of your definition of democracy when it comes to a second referendum but less so when it comes to personnel placements in the European Union.

Selmayr and all the other civil servants working for the EU are appointed; but then so is each and every civil servant in the UK from Sir Mark Sedwill down. Nobody elected Sir Mark nor any of his predecessors.

 

Do you object to the most powerful bureaucrat in the UK being appointed rather than elected?

 

If you object to bureaucrats being appointed rather than elected, how far down the chain do you want to go? In your view, should every civil servant, clerks at the DVLA, for example, all be elected? They are, after all, bureaucrats. 

 

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:39 AM, aright said:

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your dictionary definition of Bureaucrat

Err, I'm trying to show you what the word actually means; obviously I failed!

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, aright said:

If democracy is so rampant in the EU why the significant increase in populist parties?

If democracy is in as parlous a state in the EU as you would have us believe, how are those parties being successful?

 

16 minutes ago, aright said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/13/eu-offers-members-terrible-choice-integration-democracy/

You need to coordinate more with your fellow Brexiteers, especially nauseus, who would have us believe all UK media is completely biased in favour of the EU!

[wilcopops]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Wasn't the EU that called for Brexit, it was the British voters.  There were no promises of a good Brexit deal made by the EU, that was from the British Brexit campaigners.   But you think that the EU is to blame  ????????????

 

The biggest problem I see now is what on earth are we all going to find to bicker about after Brexit is finally over?

 

 

I think you should read the post.....

 

If you think Brexit is going to be over in the near future you are thoroughly mistaken

[wilcopops]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

And you remainer lot are too fond of reinterpreting the word "final".

 

The final and democratic vote was cast in 2016.

In a democracy nothing is ever final....least of all an advisory referendum in the UK.

[aright]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Selmayr and all the other civil servants working for the EU are appointed; but then so is each and every civil servant in the UK from Sir Mark Sedwill down. Nobody elected Sir Mark nor any of his predecessors.

 

Do you object to the most powerful bureaucrat in the UK being appointed rather than elected?

 

If you object to bureaucrats being appointed rather than elected, how far down the chain do you want to go? In your view, should every civil servant, clerks at the DVLA, for example, all be elected? They are, after all, bureaucrats. 

 

Take more water with it then you won't suffer from brain burn and immature comments. I explained the difference to you in Post 4111

 

"The Civil Service helps the government of the day develop and implement its policies and legislation as effectively as possible."

"Our difference is caused by the fact British Civil Servants don't need to be elected they are gophers whereas imo people like the European Commission who propose legislation, implement policies and the EU Budget  should be."

 

Head of the Civil Service

The Head of the Civil Service leads nearly half a million public servants who work in public institutions, administer tax, benefits and pensions systems and put government policy into practice. The civil service is a permanent, politically impartial workforce that serves the government of the day, while retaining the flexibility to serve future governments.

Currently civil servants are supporting the government’s economic and public service reform. The scale of the challenges and persistent weaknesses require a reform plan that applies right across the civil service. The Head of the Civil Service is one of several senior civil servants accountable for the reform of the civil service through the Civil Service Board.

 

Where does it say the Head of the Civil Service proposes legislation?

 

What's your take on Selmayr's appointment? Democratic?

 

 

[Loiner]

 My father and his generation spent 6 years of their lives fighting such a patriot; millions died in that fight.
 
If you were to succeed in your desire and have my country ruled by such would mean the sacrifice of that generation was for nought.
 
 

He and his generation would be turning in their graves at your argument now.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[aright]

52 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If democracy is in as parlous a state in the EU as you would have us believe, how are those parties being successful?

 

They have been successful in highlighting the lack of democracy and transparency in the EU. It's an expression of dissatisfaction.

The populist parties have gained lots of votes at this stage but haven't gained enough to win power.

You will have to be patient and wait for it to happen because imo if the EU does not change it's direction of travel it surely will. Watch for the May elections.

What's your take on those elections? Where do you think the votes will fall?

 

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Well, don't be shy!

Actually, it was an excellent show.

 

I don't agree with David Davies'  views on Brexit, but he speaks well. Too few statesmen!

 

John McDonnell will take over Labour. They still won't get in.

 

That Hunt from the FO is useless. Certainly not Prime ministerial material.

 

That New York rock 'n' roll band were good!

 

As always, Andrew Marr was first class! Jewish and Cambridge as one would expect! 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, talahtnut said:

Thanks Grouse, I'll have an Essex brown split, a bag of backstop

scratchings, and leave without a deal.

It all depend on the legs! If there are two, great! But I have been known to compromise.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Actually, it was an excellent show.

 

I don't agree with David Davies'  views on Brexit, but he speaks well. Too few statesmen!

 

John McDonnell will take over Labour. They still won't get in.

 

That Hunt from the FO is useless. Certainly not Prime ministerial material.

 

That New York rock 'n' roll band were good!

 

As always, Andrew Marr was first class! Jewish and Cambridge as one would expect! 

As Cilla would say 'surprise surprise' David Davies was good, but were never going to agree on that are we.

 

John McDonnell, what a terrible man. Hopefully will never be the Leader of the Labour Party. 

Tom Watson is starting a party within the Labour Party, much more liberal, he seems a decent sort of a chap, I'm pretty sure dunroaming will be happy about that.

 

Hunt was not on his best, just managing to say the right things.

 

Turned over before the band came on to watch Sophie Ridge on catchup. When I saw the first guest was Keir Starmer, had to turn it off as he makes my stomach churn.

[Grouse]

I've just had a moment of clarity!

 

Several times today, I have heard senior Brexiters state that another referendum equates to remain!

 

What should we infer from that?

 

I'll tell you what I conclude; they KNOW there is no majority in favour of Brexit.

 

TILT, Game Over!

[aright]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

As Cilla would say 'surprise surprise' David Davies was good, but were never going to agree on that are we.

 

John McDonnell, what a terrible man. Hopefully will never be the Leader of the Labour Party. 

Tom Watson is starting a party within the Labour Party, much more liberal, he seems a decent sort of a chap, I'm pretty sure dunroaming will be happy about that.

 

I agree apart from Owen Smith, Tom Watson would make my list of 2 for leader of the Opposition, unfortunately neither one would have the backing to overturn Momentum's choice of candidate. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

57 minutes ago, aright said:

Where does it say the Head of the Civil Service proposes legislation?

Exactly. A pretty undemocratic job description of a civil servant the UK has there. Should have a look at Europe. 

 

 

[aright]

25 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Exactly. A pretty undemocratic job description of a civil servant the UK has there. Should have a look at Europe. 

 

 

I am not here to educate you but in France and Germany they do have Civil Servants titled fonctionnaire d'Etat and Beamte which differentiates them from Bureaucrate and Burokrat. 

Embarrassing isn't it?

Edited March 10, 2019 by aright

[welovesundaysatspace]

42 minutes ago, aright said:

I am not hear to educate you but in France and Germany they do have Civil servants titled fonctionnaire d'Etat and Beamte which differentiates them from Bureaucrate and Burokrat. 

Embarrassing isn't it?

I should have written “the EU” instead of “Europe”. What I find embarrassing is those poor attempts to find small differences between the EU and the UK system in order to declare those as the downfall of democracy as if there was a law prescribing that democracy is what the UK system does. Imagine a Scottish independence referendum built around a similar smear campaign of calling the UK an “undemocratic dictatorship” because people have to chose between two parties unlike other European countries.

 

What I find even more embarrassing is that some people really consider such nonsense a priority, while wrecking their economy and dividing their society.

 

(Just as a side note, I am not aware of a function called “Bürokrat” in the German democratic system.)

Edited March 10, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[aright]

21 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I should have written “the EU” instead of “Europe”. What I find embarrassing is those poor attempts to find small differences between the EU and the UK system in order to declare those as the downfall of democracy as if there was a law prescribing that democracy is what the UK system does. Imagine a Scottish independence referendum built around a similar smear campaign of calling the UK an “undemocratic dictatorship” because people have to chose between two parties unlike other European countries.

 

What I find even more embarrassing is that some people really consider such nonsense a priority, while wrecking their economy and dividing their society.

 

(Just as a side note, I am not aware of a function called “Bürokrat” in the German democratic system.)

Small differences???

A big difference is the difference between Common Law and Civil Law.

Another difference is "The Supremacy of EU laws" which defines the relationship between EU law and National law. It says that EU law prevails if it conflicts with national law. 

That takes away powers from my government. I don't want the fate of our citizens decided in Brussels; I would prefer it in Westminster. I also believe that a goal of the EU is that eventually all member states will have their laws proposed by the Council and legislated in Brussels.

I fully expect some pain when we leave the EU but speaking for myself my vote was based on the balance of benefit between independence and short term economic problems however I can understand why other people have come to a different conclusion.

What word do the Germans use to describe bureaucrats then?

Ireland against France game about to start . it's Peroni (they need the business) time 

[tomacht8]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

Small differences???

A big difference is the difference between Common Law and Civil Law.

Another difference is "The Supremacy of EU laws" which defines the relationship between EU law and National law. It says that EU law prevails if it conflicts with national law. 

That takes away powers from my government. I don't want the fate of our citizens decided in Brussels; I would prefer it in Westminster. I also believe that a goal of the EU is that eventually all member states will have their laws proposed by the Council and legislated in Brussels.

I fully expect some pain when we leave the EU but speaking for myself my vote was based on the balance of benefit between independence and short term economic problems however I can understand why other people have come to a different conclusion.

What word do the Germans use to describe bureaucrats then?

Ireland against France game about to start . it's Peroni (they need the business) time 

that's nonsense.

 

European law includes various legal matters. The term covers in particular the law of the European Union based on the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). But European law does not just regulate the EU Member States. In addition, the concept of European law also includes the rights of other European organizations to European law in a broader sense, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of the Council of Europe or, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights. the contracts underlying the free trade associations EFTA and EEA.

 

The TEU and the TFEU, together with the European Equal Rights Charter, form the core of European primary law. Above all, the EUU formulates the values, objectives and foundations of the EU, such as the reestablishment of the European Union, respect for human dignity, peace, security Accession to the ECHR, citizenship of the Union and the principle of conferral of individual powers. It also sets out the basics of the Union's institutions and individual policy areas. The TFEU, on the other hand, relates, in its name, above all, to the operation of the Union and, moreover, lays down the detailed rules governing the exercise of Union competence, Article 1 TFEU. In addition to the detailed rules on the Union's institutions, its legal acts and its judicial system, the TFEU also contains the fundamental freedoms of the Union as well as details of the policy areas. With regard to the legal acts of the EU institutions (the so-called secondary legislation), it is possible to distinguish between regulations, directives, decisions and recommendations and opinions, Article 288 TFEU.

 

The jurisdiction within the EU is exercised by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), whose seat is in Luxembourg. Between 1989 and September 2016, the Civil Service Tribunal was a specialized tribunal for disputes concerning the public service of the EU. In the meantime, the ECJ is responsible for these disputes as well as, above all, as the institute for individual complaints against acts of the EU institutions. On the other hand, the ECJ acts as a "constitutional court", inter alia, as an institute for actions brought by EU member states against EU institutions and vice versa and as an appeal authority against decisions of the European Court of Justice. As far as the following is referred to by Union jurisdiction, this should refer both to the ECJ and the ECJ.

 

The EU itself is not yet a member of the ECHR and therefore can not be sued in the European Court of Human Rights. Although Article 6 (2) TEU explicitly provides for EU accession to the ECHR after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, negotiations for an Accession Agreement are difficult. Following the request of the European Commission for an opinion under Article 218 (6) TFEU from the European Commission in July 2013, there was a surprising rejection of the outcome of the negotiations by Opinion 2/13 of 18.12.2014. At the present time it is not foreseeable when the EU will fulfill its primary legal obligation to accede to Article 6 (2) TEU.

 

According to the settled case-law of European Union law (European Court of Justice (ECJ) and European Court (ECJ)), EU law generally takes precedence over national law. This means that a rule of national law which is contrary to European rules must first be brought into line with the latter by national authorities and courts by an interpretation consistent with European Union law. If this is not possible, the national standard may not be used in a specific case (so-called application precedence of EU law). Declaration 17 of the Lisbon Final Act now explicitly states the priority of application.

 

However, EU law does not claim priority, as it is e.g. in the relationship between federal and state law in Germany (see Article 31 GG: "Federal law breaks national law"). National standards contrary to EU law therefore remain valid and may continue to be applied to purely domestic situations; only in case of conflict with EU law must they remain unaddressed. The European Union application precedence applies irrespective of whether the relevant European standard is a provision of so-called primary law (in particular the TEU and TFEU) or European secondary legislation (for example a regulation or a directive).

 

The general claim that EU law is applicable before national law is wrong,

uninformed and absolutely undifferentiated!

[talahtnut]

3 hours ago, aright said:

Take more water with it then you won't suffer from brain burn and immature comments. I explained the difference to you in Post 4111

 

"The Civil Service helps the government of the day develop and implement its policies and legislation as effectively as possible."

"Our difference is caused by the fact British Civil Servants don't need to be elected they are gophers whereas imo people like the European Commission who propose legislation, implement policies and the EU Budget  should be."

 

Head of the Civil Service

The Head of the Civil Service leads nearly half a million public servants who work in public institutions, administer tax, benefits and pensions systems and put government policy into practice. The civil service is a permanent, politically impartial workforce that serves the government of the day, while retaining the flexibility to serve future governments.

Currently civil servants are supporting the government’s economic and public service reform. The scale of the challenges and persistent weaknesses require a reform plan that applies right across the civil service. The Head of the Civil Service is one of several senior civil servants accountable for the reform of the civil service through the Civil Service Board.

 

Where does it say the Head of the Civil Service proposes legislation?

 

What's your take on Selmayr's appointment? Democratic?

 

 

The head of the civil service is also the cabinet secretary,

the PMs advisor.  In effect, the most powerful influence in

the government.  Should be shot at dawn.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

And the lies of the 2016 leave campaign are known and proven; but of course you wont accept that as everything with which you disagree is media bias!

 

BTW, it was the Brexiteers heroine, Margaret Thatcher, who was responsible for the Single European Act.

 

Where have i said that they do?

I've already said that I feel there were lies in 2016 but from both sides. What has the SMA got to do with this? 

[aright]

22 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

that's nonsense...……………..

The general claim that EU law is applicable before national law is wrong,

uninformed and absolutely undifferentiated!

The supremacy of EU laws

The principle of supremacy, or primacy, describes the relationship between EU law and national law.

It says that EU law should prevail if it conflicts with national law. 

This ensures that EU rules are applied uniformly throughout the Union.

If national laws could contradict the EU treaties or laws passed by the EU institutions, there wouldn’t be this single set of rules in all member countries.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/

 

 

5. Supremacy of EU law 

Chapter:

(p. 136) 5. Supremacy of EU law

Author(s):

Nigel Foster

DOI:

10.1093/he/9780198754510.003.0005

This chapter focuses on the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over the law of the member states and the relationship with international law. It suggests that the reasons and logic for the supremacy of the EU law have been developed through the decisions and interpretation of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and provides relevant cases to illustrate the views of the ECJ on the superiority of EU law. This chapter also describes the reception and implementation of EU law in several member states including Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden.

http://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/view/10.1093/he/9780198754510.001.0001/he-9780198754510-chapter-5

 

 

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

If democracy is in as parlous a state in the EU as you would have us believe, how are those parties being successful?

 

You need to coordinate more with your fellow Brexiteers, especially nauseus, who would have us believe all UK media is completely biased in favour of the EU!

You need to back that up. 

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, wilcopops said:

In a democracy nothing is ever final....least of all an advisory referendum in the UK.

Goalposts with casters. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Actually, it was an excellent show.

 

I don't agree with David Davies'  views on Brexit, but he speaks well. Too few statesmen!

 

John McDonnell will take over Labour. They still won't get in.

 

That Hunt from the FO is useless. Certainly not Prime ministerial material.

 

That New York rock 'n' roll band were good!

 

As always, Andrew Marr was first class! Jewish and Cambridge as one would expect! 

My God, you gave Davis a "well" and a "statesman"!

 

You must have had enough ammo left intact for a cheese and tomato sarnie!

[tomacht8]

1 minute ago, aright said:

The supremacy of EU laws

The principle of supremacy, or primacy, describes the relationship between EU law and national law.

It says that EU law should prevail if it conflicts with national law. 

This ensures that EU rules are applied uniformly throughout the Union.

If national laws could contradict the EU treaties or laws passed by the EU institutions, there wouldn’t be this single set of rules in all member countries.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/

 

 

5. Supremacy of EU law 

Chapter:

(p. 136) 5. Supremacy of EU law

Author(s):

Nigel Foster

DOI:

10.1093/he/9780198754510.003.0005

This chapter focuses on the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over the law of the member states and the relationship with international law. It suggests that the reasons and logic for the supremacy of the EU law have been developed through the decisions and interpretation of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and provides relevant cases to illustrate the views of the ECJ on the superiority of EU law. This chapter also describes the reception and implementation of EU law in several member states including Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden.

http://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/view/10.1093/he/9780198754510.001.0001/he-9780198754510-chapter-5

 

 

I'm sorry, I do not have so much time to explain that in all its details for you.

 

1. EU law regulates the interests and the functioning of the EU. The legal bases were also signed by the UK. I think that is easy to understand.

 

2. The EU laws do not regulate national law. If the UK wants to imprison a murderer for 20 years, the UK can do it.

If the UK wants to carry out the death penalty, that violates the EU Carta on Human Rights. There we have a problem.

Because the UK previously voted against the death penalty in the Carta.

 

3. The regulatory area of EU law is limited to clearly defined legal areas.

 

4. Nationalstandards contrary to EU law therefore remain valid and may continue to be applied to purely domestic situations. So if the UK government only pays pennies to their pensioners, or how the GDP is distributed within the UK, is alone UK Law.

Only when the limits of the jointly agreed debt ceiling are exceeded, the EU will begin to whine. And the UK has once again violated the 60% limit. 

That's just one of the reasons why some

responsible politicans in the UK prefer to dive down instead to get their noses dipped in shit. Since a Brexit is very convenient then for them.

 

5. Lastly, e.g. the UK can be glad that the European Court of Justice allowed the unilateral repeal of Article 50.

[aright]

13 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

I'm sorry, I do not have so much time to explain that in all its details for you.

 

1. EU law regulates the interests and the functioning of the EU. The legal bases were also signed by the UK. I think that is easy to understand.

 

2. The EU laws do not regulate national law. If the UK wants to imprison a murderer for 20 years, the UK can do it.

If the UK wants to carry out the death penalty, that violates the EU Carta on Human Rights. There we have a problem.

Because the UK previously voted against the death penalty in the Carta.

 

3. The regulatory area of EU law is limited to clearly defined legal areas.

 

4. Nationalstandards contrary to EU law therefore remain valid and may continue to be applied to purely domestic situations. So if the UK government only pays pennies to their pensioners, or how the GDP is distributed within the UK, is alone UK Law.

Only when the limits of the jointly agreed debt ceiling are exceeded, the EU will begin to whine. And the UK has once again violated the 60% limit. 

That's just one of the reasons why some

responsible politicans in the UK prefer to dive down instead to get their noses dipped in shit. Since a Brexit is very convenient then for them.

 

5. Lastly, e.g. the UK can be glad that the European Court of Justice allowed the unilateral repeal of Article 50.

How many references do you want?

Primacy of European Union law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Supremacy (European Union law))

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

 

The supremacy of European law

This is one of the most fundamental principles of EU law and it goes to the heart of much of the debate surrounding the intergovernmental / supranational nature of the EU. It also has significant importance for the concept of European governance.

The Court of Justice has, through several decisions, ruled that EU law has priority over national law both at the European and national levels. In particular, the case of Costa vs. ENEL (1964) was instrumental in defining this legal principle.

http://hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/module-3-governance-in-a-multi-level-europe/the-supremacy-of-european-law/

 

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by aright

[tomacht8]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

How many references do you want?

Primacy of European Union law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Supremacy (European Union law))

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law

 

That is simply wrong in this generalization.

If you are interested in the EU law in detail, you should first familiarize yourself with the control area of the EU Law.

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en

Edited March 10, 2019 by tomacht8

[aright]

19 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

That is simply wrong in this generalization.

If you are interested in the EU law in detail, you should first familiarize yourself with the control area of the EU Law.

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en

Ok no problem, I give 4 references agreeing the primacy of EU Law and you tell me the EU website disagrees with them. I can live with that.

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, aright said:

Another difference is "The Supremacy of EU laws" which defines the relationship between EU law and National law. It says that EU law prevails if it conflicts with national law. 

It’s not “undemocratic” when a country decides it wants to join a club and live by the club rules. It’s not “undemocratic” when my golf club forces me to wear certain clothes either. We can always leave the club. 

 

2 hours ago, aright said:

What word do the Germans use to describe bureaucrats then?

The direct translation is indeed “Bürokrat”, but there neither is a function in the German system called a Bürokrat, nor does it, in the pragmatics of the German language, make a good translation, because it carries a negative connotation, often used to describe someone who is overly bureaucratic or lacking efficiency and pragmatism.