Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>where the UK could not make a law that it wanted to because of "having to wait for Brussels"?

"Having to wait" not as in actually waiting (e.g. as if Brussels would somehow slow down the pace of law-making in the UK) but in the sense UK will have to be handed down to adopt and enforce EU laws. So, wanting to make a law about X, in the sense that UK citizens see it and to their interests? Tough luck, unless it matches the EU law on the subject.

So the answer to your question is, in any and all cases where the UK law doesn't agree with EU laws.

EU laws goes above national laws. This is based on "The primacy of EU law" doctrine.

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

Here's one particular example upon many:

The latest battle is over Brussels’ impending ban on the weedkiller glyphosate, the U.K.’s most widely used pesticide, largely due to political pressure from green groups on the Continent already skeptical of pesticides and certain other new technologies in agriculture. But pulling glyphosate, better known as Roundup, from the market, would be devastating to British farmers who rely on the herbicide to treat weeds.

http://www.politico.eu/article/glyphosate-weedkiller-decisio...

You really did not know that there has been frequent tension between national laws (in the UK and elsewhere) and EU laws in all kinds of aspects (from labor laws to agriculture and shipping), or were you trolling?

(If not from EU or UK I can understand it, because you wouldn't be familiar with the subject matter -- but it's a very common occurence, and a very common theme in the news in EU countries).

The glyphosate thing was IARC (Int.Agency for Cancer Research) deeming that it was probably cancer causing; IIRC there's evidence suggesting that the US EPA had been corrupted in order to pass glyphosate for use. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and WHO have reportedly since determined that it is "safe" [enough] for human consumption and the ECHA (Euro. Chem. Agency) have determined that a ban is not required.

Pulling glyphosate would be devastating. But keeping it if it's causing widespread cancer would be continuing to ruin lives too. The Tories controlling the UK would IMO be more likely to let the proles die and support the farmers (who historically have a Tory preference). I prefer the EU's scientific and cautionary stance to the "will it cause loss of profit for shareholders" stance that we're going to be seeing much more of.

>I prefer the EU's scientific and cautionary stance to the "will it cause loss of profit for shareholders" stance that we're going to be seeing much more of.

I might too, but the question is if they are free to make their own laws or bound to EU law. Not whether EU law might be better (it obviously will be better in some cases, and worse in others).

> "Having to wait" not as in actually waiting (e.g. as if Brussels would somehow slow down the pace of law-making in the UK) but in the sense UK will have to adopt and enforce EU laws

There is no definition or synonym of "wait" that matches your attempt to salvage your initial argument.

No salvaging, what I wrote above is already in my initial argument. I'm just clarifying it further in case somebody got confused.

I wrote: "you can make your own laws and not wait for some committee of 20+ countries and some Brussels bureaucrats to decide their "one size fits all solution".

This means that (with the exit) the British people can make their own laws and don't have to wait for EU bureaucrats to make (one size fits all) laws for them.

I'm not a native english speaker but I don't think that makes any difference in this case, as the meaning from the above first comment is quite clear (and can hardly be read in another way).

What exactly do you find difficult to parse, or think that could be read in another way? Care to give us a plausible interpretation of my initial comment that is in a different spirit to my subsequent rephrasing?

> "Having to wait" not as in actually waiting..

is self-contradicting or is a redefinition of a commonly used, rather straightforward word to suit your purposes.

As I wrote: "What exactly do you find difficult to parse, or think that could be read in another way? Care to give us a plausible interpretation of my initial comment that is in a different spirit to my subsequent rephrasing?"

I don't have any nefarious "purposes". If anything, I clarified what I mean in 2 follow-up comments to help anyone stuck up with the phrasing discuss the actual points.

If you don't like my use of "having to wait" you can always refer to the other 2 comments, and tell me any counter-arguments you have with my actual point as paraphrased there. Unless you want to stick to criticizing my use of english and avoid any more difficult subjects.

I still consider the initial phrasing perfectly valid for what I meant, which is: "UK people don't have to wait for EU bureaucrats to make laws for them anymore, they can now make their own laws" -- without being forced to automatically comply with any law or directive the EU puts out.

That looks like a 'no', then.

The UK not being able to make its own laws (as your original comment implied), seems to me to be a quite different thing to having to adopt EU directives (as you are now talking about), and I feel like it's exactly this kind of confusion (deliberate or otherwise) over the years that has contributed to the atmosphere that lead to Brexit.

>That looks like a 'no', then.

I gave you a specific example. From this point on, I consider you a troll, but for the record:

The play of words "directives vs laws" doesn't change the fact that UK law is trumped by EU law (sorry, "directives").

The fact that the UK can "make its own laws" is insignificant if those laws have to comply with EU directives (and if new EU directives invalidate UK laws).

Nobody doubts that UK government can draft laws -- the nominal process of putting words to legal documents and enforcing them.

That's not what anybody means when they contest that the UK can't draft its OWN laws. Make one's own law obviously means: "as they see fit", not "but only in accordance to EU law".

>and I feel like it's exactly this kind of confusion (deliberate or otherwise) over the years that has contributed to the atmosphere that lead to Brexit.

The only confusion is between a sovereign state that can make any law its people want (in accordance to any international treaties they've signed) and one that has to consider the law of EU above its own. And you perpetuate it purposefully.

What baffles me is why you see "but only in accordance to EU law" as a bad thing. Of course I want UK laws to be "in accordance with EU law", it's a positive thing in my mind.

Even the current UK government doesn't try to argue that the UK has lost its sovereignty by virtue of its EU membership. Its own white paper on Brexit acknowledged that the UK was still entirely sovereign.

For the record, I'm really not trolling, but my position on the sovereignty argument is that for me as a UK citizen, it just doesn't matter since I have such a minuscule say in how things are run either way. And I tend to find legislation that comes from the EU (like the abolition of mobile roaming charges, or the working time directive) far less objectionable than the laws that UK politicians draw up by themselves.

>* Even the current UK government doesn't try to argue that the UK has lost its sovereignty by virtue of its EU membership. Its own white paper on Brexit acknowledged that the UK was still entirely sovereign.*

It's not something that's dependent on being acknowledged though. If your national laws have to comply with the laws (or directives if you prefer) passed by a third body, you concede your sovereignty. That's explicit in the very notion of sovereignty -- no matter how politicians might spin it.

>but my position on the sovereignty argument is that for me as a UK citizen, it just doesn't matter since I have such a minuscule say in how things are run either way.

That's a justifiable position one can legitimately hold.

But others can also legitimately feel that it very much matters. And historically and morally, the issue of sovereignty of a national state was never a light one to be set aside with "who cares, we don't very much affect our national policy anyway".

At best it's a stance that's ok for times of plenty or favorable laws, but that starts to matter more when the decisions that are taken go against a countries interests -- and there is no way to overrule them in the national level because even though e.g. 90% of the British are against, 60% of EU policy makers want them.

And despite the talk now being of right wingers being in favor of Brexit, we can very much imagine the opposite: a right wing EU (with e.g. Marie Lepen, the Netherlands guy, some German equivalent etc) that imposes right wing directives and laws upon a progressive Britain. (In fact we don't have to look that far for that: the EU has long impose right leaning labour laws upon more left leaning states).

European directives are not law - european or otherwise.

And in those cases I have typically sided with the EU (I'm British).

Data protection laws, anti-trust laws, labour protections, a concerted effort to combat cross-border tax evasion (that the UK ruined by opting not to take part, due to it's enjoyment of being a fucking tax haven) just to name a few.

Seriously, when it comes to laws that protect the average schmuck, the EU is far from perfect but it has been a hell of a lot better than what our own politicians when it comes to looking out for us.

I'd rather be closer to Europe than closer to the US. No question, especially now with that batshit lunatic they have in charge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com