"In the UK, Parliament is sovereign."
The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'.
Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)
The EU courts can declare any bit of UK Parliamentary action 'unconstitutional'.
Within the EU, UK Parliament is not quite 'sovereign' :)
Only in areas where the EU has competence, and these are explicitly enumerated in various treaties; by default, the EU has no competence, so it only has powers to legislate where those powers are explicitly agreed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_conferral
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3...
Yes. And that's a pretty long list that touches on nearly every level of governance.
In fact - that list is in some ways more pervasive that the Canadian governments ability to intercede in Provincial affairs.
Fun fact: Canada does not even have 'free trade' within it's provinces as the Federal government doesn't effectively have the ability to regulate it. Yet nobody would claim that 'Ontario' is sovereign.
It would seem you've provided evidence that the EU rules over a very wide area of governmental competences, making it rather difficult to claim that the UK remains sovereign.
This isn't even close to true. It doesn't cover:
- National security
- Healthcare policy and resourcing
- Welfare and pensions policy
- Education policy
...which, not coincidentally, are the highest budgeted functions of the UK government[1].
I should also include criminal justice and fiscal policy (seeing as the UK is non-Eurozone), and that the UK has competence over non-eu migration and asylum; this is politically important but not a large budget item on its own.
There are cooperation and collaboration elements of the above (particularly in the area of common defence), but that's not to say that the policies are EU competencies. For example, freedom-of-movement rules require that pensions must be paid by the country in which they were insured, even if the individual is paid that pension in a different country. However, one country might have a pensionable age of 60 where another is 67.
[1] http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.htm...
The EU does not maintain operational competence over these areas, just as the Canadian federal government and the US federal government do not maintain competence over most areas either.
But just as in USA/Canada - the EU laws reign supreme, they create regulations, they coordinate policy.
So - not only are EU laws and court rulings override national laws and rulings - the EU does in fact regulate and manage those 'very large budgetary' elements, just as in other federal states, like the US and Canada.
The EU interdicts on Healthcare:
https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/health_en
The EU interdicts on Social Welfare:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=750
The EU interdicts on education:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school_en
The EU has made several rulings with respect to services and access that have overridden national policy.
The EU will determine who can, and who cannot receive services, if services don't meet a minimum 'humanitarian' requirement, etc. etc.
If the UK for exampled tried to privatize it's healthcare system (not suggesting they should) - and make a US-style 'pay for it' type model - the EU would step in a major way.
Same thing for schooling and other services.
I'm sorry but I don't think you can say that since the 'EU does not maintain competence' in these areas, that they don't act like a federal state.
They still 'own' the show at the end of the day.
And to boot: the level of interdiction is only increasing. Within 30 years, many of those systems will be federalized at the EU level - or at least - have enough regulatory elements such that they de-facto run the show.
Markel and others have already called for an EU Army.
Parliament is in fact sovereign, and always has been. EU court decisions apply in the UK exactly to the extent that the UK government permits them to. e.g. When EU courts rule that UK prisoners have to be allowed to vote in UK elections, the government ignores that.
When it ascents to unpopular EU laws, it does so voluntarily, after having been involved in drafting them, something people would be wise to consider when imagining that "returning sovereignty" to the government will magically fix everything.
The ability to succeed from a union doesn't imply 'sovereignty'.
The State of Texas can legally leave the US Federation at any time.
It has been established that the Province of Quebec in Canada could withdraw from the Canadian Confederation.
Scotland and Catalonia could effectively exit their respective federal entities - not by any obvious legal recourse but it surely could happen.
And yet, federal law in each of those regimes applies.
'Following your logic to it's conclusion' - Holyrood, 'L'Assemble National' and the State of Texas are 'sovereign' entities?
Parliament is not sovereign in areas wherein it as agreed to absolve that authority.
It's hard to claim otherwise - there is a EU judiciary that can overrule local laws in more areas that it cannot, certainly the bulk of the important ones.
If governor of texas stops following federal law, then US has federal institutions which will arrest such governor. In that sense, Texas is not soverign, because it HAS to follow US federal law. It doesn't get any choice in that matter.
On the other hand, UK can just say they won't follow a certain EU law, and absolutely nothing will happen. EU won't come to arrest Theresa May, or send troops to occupy the house of commons until they agree to follow EU regulations. It's a voluntary union, with zero threat for not following regulations.
"UK can just say they won't follow a certain EU law, and absolutely nothing will happen"
Absolutely false.
The UK cannot 'pick and chose' what EU laws and regulations it wishes to follow.
If the UK does not wish to follow EU laws, ultimately, it has only one choice - Article 50.
This should be obvious without complex investigation: the UK's leading objection to EU participation was the lack of ability to control the migration of EU citizens across it's borders.
By your interpretation - the UK could have simply ignored the law - and put in controls for EU citizens?
What would have happened?
Would the 'EU police' have come in and 'arrested' the PM? Of course not - but the UK would ultimately be forced out of the Union given it breaks such a 'fundamental principle' of 'freedom of movement'.
The Gov. of Texas decided not to follow a Federal ruling, nobody would be arrested either - the issue would be fought in the political arena - and in the courts. And guess what? The US Federal government would ultimately win - and if Texas did want to 'implement ABC policy' - they'd have to secede.
It takes an exceeding amount of 'mental gymnastics' to not see the EU as a Federal Superstate - one that is gaining power every year as they legally move towards an 'ever closer union'.
'Ever closer union' is not an idea - it's legally part of the treaties, and is de-facto applied, as history quite obviously illustrate to us what direction things have been moving in for 70 years.
The United States was designed as a lose federation of states as well - and they envisioned a president having very limited power - and he did, for about 100 years. And look where we are now ...
It can, and it already does.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/opting_out.html
>>If the UK does not wish to follow EU laws, ultimately, it has only one choice - Article 50.
No, UK can literally just reappeal the act of parliment from 1972, without any referendum, and UK is fully out of EU immediately. Even the creator of the Article 50 said that he never thought anyone would use it.
"“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a member state and the EU suspended that country’s membership,” he explained. “I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He never envisioned that a British government might resort to it."
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/article-50-meant-dictato...
>>the UK's leading objection to EU participation was the lack of ability to control the migration of EU citizens across it's borders
I'd love to see the source on that, unless we consider Daily Mail to be giving out "leading objections". Most of the "leading objections" I hear about is the mythical "let's take back our laws" but when asked "which laws?" no one can name anything. Well, they can, but it's usually something like "EU doesn't allow us to fish in the north sea!" - well, yeah, and after brexit it still won't, because environmental protections are done through international agreements that will remain in force even without EU. Or the fact that UK has to listen to European Court of Human Rights - it still will, because it remains a member of Council of Europe, which again, has nothing to do with EU. Unless,of course, it decides to leave that, but not having to listen to ECHR is something that I would expect of Belarus, not a modern 1st world country.
>>By your interpretation - the UK could have simply ignored the law - and put in controls for EU citizens?
UK already brakes the EU law by requiring students/self-employed EU citizens to have private insurance during their stay in the UK in order to obtain permanent residence rights, despite the fact that it directly contradicts relevant EU regulations on that(namely - no country can require that EU citizen has private health insurance in order to stay in another EU country), it's just that no one has actually taken the Home Office to court over this. I would, but I don't have time or money to do this.
>>It takes an exceeding amount of 'mental gymnastics' to not see the EU as a Federal Superstate - one that is gaining power every year as they legally move towards an 'ever closer union'.
1) I never said that it wasn't.
2) You are saying it as if it's a bad thing. I'd love to have "United States of Europe", with no borders and one federal government. But that is currently not the case, and each country can still rule as they want - obviously that can mean they will be kicked out of the club, but it's the same as marriage - if you cheat on your wife, she will probably want divorce.
Due to acts of Parliament I disagree with morally I've lost hope in the democratic system of this country.
> "Due to acts of Parliament I disagree with morally I've lost hope in the democratic system of this country"
Democracy doesn't mean you get what you want, or that you can do whatever you want. It means accepting the will of the majority. Your right is to have your say at the next election. Why have you lost hope?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...
Here it is from the EU [1]
The EU courts and constitution have supremacy over UK Parliament - which is therefore 'not sovereign'.
Technically, you could say that Parliament has to ratify EU laws, which would mean it maintains a degree of sovereignty, but in practice, all softs of rulings made from the EU high courts override UK laws and alter policy.
[1] http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law...