Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>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.

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).

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.

European directives are not law - european or otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com