13 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

All based on the laws drawn up by..........?

 

Common law is a type of law of in its own right.

 

It's made by judges.

13 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Fair play to you for answering the question directly; that is more than any other poster complaining about a fudged Brexit has managed to do.

 

I'm not sure that it would actually be possible to roll back the UK to pre-EC days but - assuming that it is - I'm even less convinced that it would be in anyone's interest to do so.

 

Firstly, we would be trading under something worse than WTO rules. The difficulties and negative impact of trading under the current 'Withdrawal Agreement' has been plain to see. Introducing further barriers to trade e.g. tariffs, would make a bad situation worse which would be in no one's interests. 

 

A move such as you suggest would also presumably involve getting rid of all legislation inherited from the EU. Once again, there are obviously logistical problems associated with this approach but, yet again, I question the desirability of doing so. For every 'bendy banana' law that is despensed with, another relating to food safety would also go. No doubt, there are bad laws which have been inherited from the EU, but a wholesale withdrawal of all EU law from the UK Stature Book is, imo once again, in no one's interest.

 

Imo Brexit has achieved two successes to date: 1) A reduced tariff rate on exports to the US vis-a-vis the EU and 2) A trade deal with India. Given the lack of detail regarding all US tariff deals, it remains to be seen just how big a win that success proves to be: In a similar vein, judgement may need to be revised about the India-UK deal if the EU and India can come to an agreement. In any event, I don't consider either event sufficient justification for Brexit.

 

To conclude, imo the reason why Brexit has failed - and will continue to fail - is not due to a flawed implementation strategy, rather it is due to a flawed concept.

 

Thanks. Of course I will never be happy about the fudging of the Brexit process. I remember that you, with business interests in Europe, were concerned with the economic problems of leaving, and that's understandable. However, I saw growing issues with sovereignty, with ever-decreasing UK government control of its own country, and I think that's why you saw the out vote. 

 

The steps of reviewing/removing EU legislation were started but not completed. I don't think that all EU laws were to be scrapped but there has been little news of this process reported recently. 

 

I see the EU as a failed project, with true equality of members neither practical nor achievable. The EU was built as an old club, with higher status afforded to founding members, by agreements and in treaties. We all saw in 2015 and 2019 who really ran the show. The EU suffers from poor and weak leadership, wastefulness, and bad policies; its economies are fading and I think that it is the EU, as was and is now, which has the most flaws.

On 8/4/2025 at 2:10 PM, connda said:

Somebody explain to me why it is that the EU bigwigs as well as the UK bigwigs want to flood the EU and UK, respectively, with as many non-Europeans and non-United_Kingdom migrants - legal and illegal - as they possibly can while quite literally p*ssing on their own citizens economical and socially.  Really  - it's fine if EU and UK citizens who are down-and-out economically sleep rough on the streets with few economic prospects and the elderly freeze in their homes, if they are lucky enough to have a home as opposed to being kicked to the street...and yet the EU bigwigs as well as the UK bigwigs can find the money to house their "migrants," as well as to feed them, provide healthcare, and supply them with free money - and if they commit crimes, well, "They are from different cultures and EU and UK citizens need to be accepting," as the courts let migrant crimes slide.  And of course, now if you complain, you are tracked, monitored, and declared an enemy of the state.  Protest or write critique on social media?  "Prison for you!"

Why is that?  What's their end game ya' think?  The fat cats really, really, really hate their own citizens.

The globalists are using open borders and mass immigration with incompatible cultures to break up the nation states in their quest for this one-world government eutopia they believe in.

Globalism is just rebranded communism, communism 2.0 but in a new guise and with a different name, due to the negative connotations and history associated with the previous name.

On 8/2/2025 at 11:14 PM, CharlieH said:

 

Meloni’s Migrant Plan Slammed by EU Court — Fury as Judges ‘Erase’ Italian Sovereignty
 

ROME — Giorgia Meloni’s war on illegal immigration has just hit a wall — a big, bureaucratic, Brussels-sized wall. Her controversial migrant plan, involving offshore processing centres in Albania, has been slapped down by Europe’s top judges — and she’s not taking it quietly.

 

The Italian Prime Minister is fuming after the European Court of Justice ruled that her government must justify why it considers certain countries “safe” to deport migrants to — and allow challenges to those claims. In short: migrants can't just be bundled off to Albanian holding camps without a proper legal explanation.

Meloni’s deal with Albania — hailed by her government as a bold solution to the migration crisis — aimed to fast-track asylum claims from nationals of so-called "safe" countries like Bangladesh and Egypt. But the courts weren’t convinced.

 

Three groups of migrants were already shipped off to Albania between October and January, but legal chaos soon followed. Italian judges argued that simply declaring a country “safe” wasn’t enough, especially if human rights protections only applied to part of its population. The result? Her flagship immigration crackdown stalled in its tracks.

 

The row exploded when two Bangladeshi migrants, rescued in Italian waters but taken to Albania for processing, challenged the very basis of their removal. The court sided with them.

 

On Friday, the ECJ issued its judgement: “EU law does not preclude a member state from designating a third country as a safe country of origin ... provided that that designation can be subject to effective judicial review.” Translation: you can’t just wave migrants off to Albania on a whim — there has to be legal process and transparency.

 

Meloni’s camp hit back hard.

“This decision weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration,” her office fumed, accusing

 

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from  The Express  2025-08-02

 

 

 

 

 

1 sane mind in the EU, and they try to silence her, stand strong, and tell them to climb a rope,

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

 

Thanks. Of course I will never be happy about the fudging of the Brexit process. I remember that you, with business interests in Europe, were concerned with the economic problems of leaving, and that's understandable.

 

I'll admit to personal interest and bias, but I just couldn't - and still can't - see the economic benefit of being outside of the Single Market and Customs Union.

 

In addition, the idea - implied, if not directly stated by many on the 'Vote Leave' side - that a medium-sized country such as the UK could dictate the terms of any agreements with behemoths such as China and the US was, being generous, naive.

 

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

 

However, I saw growing issues with sovereignty, with ever-decreasing UK government control of its own country, and I think that's why you saw the out vote. 

 

It's a truism to say that member states of the EU delegate some sovereignty to the EU and that (very) occasionally, countries are forced to enact laws against their wishes. However, such examples are few and far between, not least because the policies and strategies of the EU are agreed in advance by the European Council (the group comprising of the Heads of government of the member states). I'd agree that some of the smaller states might be 'railroaded' into accepting a policy direction that they might disagree with, but that would not apply to the UK as it was one of the three 'big' players. In effect, the UK - along with France and Germany - had the power to veto EU policy at the initiation stage if it wanted to.

 

So while sovereignty was a theoretical issue, I don't think that it was necessarily that much of a practical problem.

 

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

The steps of reviewing/removing EU legislation were started but not completed. I don't think that all EU laws were to be scrapped but there has been little news of this process reported recently. 

 

I think that the likes of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg promised a bonfire of EU legislation.

 

I'd suggest that there are three possible distinct, though not mutually exclusive, reasons for this not happening. Firstly, the realisation that some - the vast majority perhaps? - inherited EU law is, in fact, useful and should be retained. Secondly, that any 'bad' laws are not easily identifiable (and therefore, not that 'bad' perhaps?) and, thirdly that those in favour of retracting these 'bad' laws have little idea of how to go about this practically without vastly increasing the already large number of civil servants.

 

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

I see the EU as a failed project, with true equality of members neither practical nor achievable.

 

Is/ Was that ever a practical objective?

 

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

The EU was built as an old club, with higher status afforded to founding members, by agreements and in treaties.

 

I don't think that there's much evidence to suggest that the Benelux countries and Italy are afforded higher status and/or privileges compared with other members: France and Germany - as the two biggest powers - certainly have more influence.

 

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

We all saw in 2015 and 2019 who really ran the show.

 

2015: I assume that you are referring to Merkel refusing to offer concessions to Cameron? She was probably acting as spokesperson for the other members 

 

2019: I assume that this relates to the Brexit negotiations? Imo the EU held all the cards and it was inevitable that it would dictate the terms of any agreement. The (understandable) attempt by the UK to drive a wedge between the member states e.g. by playing on the threat to Ireland of a possible breakdown in the 'Good Friday' Agreement failed.

 

On 8/6/2025 at 10:26 AM, nauseus said:

The EU suffers from poor and weak leadership, wastefulness, and bad policies; its economies are fading and I think that it is the EU, as was and is now, which has the most flaws.

 

Poor and weak leadership: Maybe. I'm not a fan of VDL, but I think that Šefčovič is very impressive.

 

Wastefulness: Imo it could be a lot more efficient.

 

Bad policies: Well, if so I think that the member states are to blame. They dictate the direction for EU policy.

 

Fading Economies: Europe is declining as both an economic and political force. I'd suggest that the EU - the sum being greater than the parts - has actually slowed this decline, rather than accelerate it.