The European Union has everything it wanted:
The ending of veto by a single member-state;
The Charter of Fundamental Rights;
A permanent President;
A Foreign Office and Minister for European Union relations with the rest of the world;
And, to all intents and purposes, a single identity.
The optouts inserted for itself by the United Kingdom affect only the UK, and possibly only England, and possibly not even England; that is for the courts to decide.
The main effect of the failure to impose a view of the European Union as a free trade and competition area of nation states was to consolidate a tightly-knit group intent on acting as a federal state both internally and externally.
That is theirs to choose, and they have the strong support of their electorates now that the defence of European interests against globalised competition has been asserted.
It will not be a choice the electorate here has made. Here we have chosen neither what is now settled, nor what the Labour regime tried to impose. Nor will we be allowed any expression of dissent to any of it, either in a general election, or in a more narrowly based referendum on our country's future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
NO the real problem is that a democratic polity has put its future in the hands of unelected judges, and foreign ones at that.
Let's see if this Wiki commentary comes true:
The ECJ is feared by some Eurosceptics, due to its ruling in 2001 that parts of the German Constitution were illegal as being incompatible with the EU treaties.[1] The ECJ has ruled, several times, that the law of the European Communities (consisting of regulations, directives, treaties) is supreme to any member state laws. This primacy was set out in article I-6 of the draft European Constitution,[2] but until that or a similar provision is ratified by the member states, it depends on national courts being willing to accept ECJ decisions.
Within the procedure for infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission, the ECJ has the power to declare any national law or rule as inconsistent with a law of the European Community, or the Treaty itself, which as a consequence means that the national rule is inapplicable. This practice remained relatively unnoticed since the inception of the European Communities, and has only in recent years attracted scrutiny.
Voyager 1) the election of judges has nothing to do with democracy, on the contrary it politicises and distorts justice;
2) what is at stake is not judges -elected or not - but the laws they apply, including the evidence they accept, which in the UK includes that obtained by torture.
Certainly no shortage of New Laws since the New Dawn under the New Order, C., and what is particularly distasteful is that as many are concerned with telling us what we must do as telling us what we must not. There's a mark of authoritarian statism - every subject will participate, or we'll be reported for our lack of conformity and enthusiasm by local Party snoopers soon.
Post a Comment