Is there a reason ?

[oddoneout]

Yes, but the procedures in different countries are different. French law is very different from UK law, in the way it’s created and administered. Even within the UK, Scottish law is different. I’m not saying that EU laws and regulations are bad - often they might be considered better than we have here, but they are very possibly different and too much control (power) may have been passed over to the EU, and the UK electorate maybe concerned about this. However, note that the electorate itself is not necessarily representative. Prisoners in the UK are not in the electorate, though some are citizens. I would have no objection to letting some, or maybe even all of them, vote.

In my opinion, as I believe I have said before, that politicians of both flavours in the UK(possibly more accurately England) have been quite happy to cede control to the EU as it has saved them a great deal of effort in doing the job they are paid to do, since there is always a convenient scapegoat. That's all well and good so long as the situation doesn't arise where real hands on government is required, and so long as no-one finds out that unpopular decisions or unfortunate consequences blamed on the EU are actually the choice of the UK government.

[Dave2002]

I hear this often
SO can you give me a real example where the UK has handed too much control to the EU (always bearing in mind that WE are part of the EU so it's not like giving your stuff to someone else) ?

I really don't know, though I did write to Donald Tusk and Jean Claude Juncker for clarification. Some people might not like the European Arrest Warrant, and Theresa May was obviously somewhat annoyed with the EU Court of Human Rights when she was Home Secretary. Some of the cases are/were contentious. However, just because on the whole I actually preferred the EU's interpretation and implementation of rules doesn't mean that the UK should have handed all of those matters to an outside body.

Sorry - I really am right on the fence on some of these points. I would have preferred to stay in the EU and reform it, but that might (have been) be impossible if too much power has already been passed over, and there is insufficient willingness to change.

I have very little control or input now into the processes which are now going on, so all I can do is to hope that it won't be as bad as some fear.

[MrGongGong]

I really don't know, though I did write to Donald Tusk and Jean Claude Juncker for clarification. Some people might not like the European Arrest Warrant, and Theresa May was obviously somewhat annoyed with the EU Court of Human Rights when she was Home Secretary. Some of the cases are/were contentious. However, just because on the whole I actually preferred the EU's interpretation and implementation of rules doesn't mean that the UK should have handed all of those matters to an outside body.

Sorry - I really am right on the fence on some of these points. I would have preferred to stay in the EU and reform it, but that might (have been) be impossible if too much power has already been passed over, and there is insufficient willingness to change.

I have very little control or input now into the processes which are now going on, so all I can do is to hope that it won't be as bad as some fear.

So it's all a bit nebulous then ?
Which is what I would have expected
When i've asked folks about EXACTLY what they think about this it always comes down to vague things

So the "EU court of human rights" ?
hummm I'm not sure that even exists

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/

[muzzer]

The European Court of Justice is the court of final resort for EU member states. It has been responsible for many decisions that have clarified the implementation into domestic law of many EU directives. This is especially relevant where a member state has sought, quasi lawfully, to minimise the domestic effect of a directive. That does represent the ceding of ‘control’, but I would argue certainly in employment law that it has led to greater protection for U.K. citizens than would otherwise have been the case had the U.K. government been left to its own devices.

[MrGongGong]

The European Court of Justice is the court of final resort for EU member states. It has been responsible for many decisions that have clarified the implementation into domestic law of many EU directives. This is especially relevant where a member state has sought, quasi lawfully, to minimise the domestic effect of a directive. That does represent the ceding of ‘control’, but I would argue certainly in employment law that it has led to greater protection for U.K. citizens than would otherwise have been the case had the U.K. government been left to its own devices.

that was what I thought

So why do folks get so agitated about the European Court of Human Rights which isn't part of the EU ?

Maybe this could be in one of the tests applied before we allow people to vote ?

[Richard Barrett]

Brexit supporting right wing politicians are making hay with rhetoric with the sovereignty issue while they can; they know in their heart of hearts, and have known at least since "expert" commentators for the Kinnock generation of right Labour reformists were telling the public that national governments no longer had any real control over domestic policies, because of the power of the dominating industrial giants to break an economy not operated according to their interests. This, incidentally, was the backing to Trotsky's formulation of "permanent revolution", which pointed out that any "developing" country achieving national self-determination would be forced to expropriate sectors of their economies under first world companies' ownership and nationalise if they were to survive, let along claim self-determination - so the myth of sovereignty in the age of monopoly capitalism has been debunkable at least since the 1930s, when America sneezed. That all appeared to change with the 2007 banking crash, when big capital was forced to go begging to the various national treasuries to prevent total financial collapse - the effects of which, given the tight interconnectedness of the world (capitalist) monetary system, would have threatened their continued existence as much as the monetary value of everything - creating the illusion that elected politicians did, in the end, actually still have power to determine the fate of nations. The need post WW2 for competitive trading arrangements led the US to support the establishment of the EEC, whose long-term objective of turning itself into the trading bloc capable of standing up to, in the first instance, the superiority of the US military-banking-industrial bloc, would prioritise political self-integration over national self-interest. It is this that the rhetoric of sovereignty had long pedalled as escapism into a mythologised past from the realities of modern-day capitalism - one in reality built on empires, slavery and wars they would either rather not mention or present as trips down nostalgia lane.

National sovereignty is the ideological back stop pending America and China's re-carving up the global market.

Thank you for putting everything in such clear and non-hysterical terms as usual. This is exactly what I meant of course by my leading question about sovereignty: the idea that national sovereignty is any different from EU sovereignty is illusory in the end. Regarding the expropriation of sectors of the economy, for example, this is often used as a reason to favour Brexit from a socialist perspective; however, it's clear that international capital isn't going to roll over and do what it's told whether or not the EU's neoliberal regulations on "state aid" stood in the way. Such a transformation of the UK economy would be uncharted territory with or without the EU. Which is not to say it isn't worth going for, naturally.

[Dave2002]

I’m retreating for a while, to read books such as this one - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tyranny-Twe...s%2C161&sr=8-1

[Richard Barrett]

I’m retreating for a while, to read books such as this one - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tyranny-Twe...s%2C161&sr=8-1

Endorsed by Michael Gove, must be good

[muzzer]

Folks don't understand the difference is why.

[Dave2002]

Endorsed by Michael Gove, must be good

Can you suggest a better one?

Gove may be misguided - very - but he's not all bad.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I really don't know...... Theresa May was obviously somewhat annoyed with the EU Court of Human Rights when she was Home Secretary. Some of the cases are/were contentious.

This is confused - the Court in question is not an EU body - it relates to many more states than those in the EU:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/

But I'm not surprised (and not being critical of you, D2002). Decades of campaigning by the Mail and others have embedded this confusion to their obvious advantage** - not being confused by the facts has been an important element of success for the Brexit campaign.

** Straight Bananas (if IIRC origin a US document) and one quote to a journalist about the EU " I mean, they're closing our libraries and things, aren't they...."

[Cockney Sparrow]

Can you suggest a better one?

Gove may be misguided - very - but he's not all bad.

Information in the Times (not broadcast much or admitted on the record by Gove) - but he acknowledges privately No Deal would be a catastrophe for the UK.

[Stanfordian]

Endorsed by Michael Gove, must be good

Generally speaking, it's all to easy to criticise person we don't really know.

[MrGongGong]

This is confused - the Court in question is not an EU body - it relates to many more states than those in the EU:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/

But I'm not surprised (and not being critical of you, D2002). Decades of campaigning by the Mail and others have embedded this confusion to their obvious advantage** - not being confused by the facts has been an important element of success for the Brexit campaign.

** Straight Bananas (if IIRC origin a US document) and one quote to a journalist about the EU " I mean, they're closing our libraries and things, aren't they...."

This is useful IMV

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

[Serial_Apologist]

Generally speaking, it's all to easy to criticise person we don't really know.

Is really necessary to know someone in order to trust them, though? Does anyone really know any politician?