Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
The laws in the US, China etc are incompatible with the EU. Just that any goods they market in the EU have to comply with EU rules. Nothing inherently wrong with that. A central issue is whether after Brexit, goods marketed in the UK have to still submit to EU rules and the ECJ. Especially without having a say in what those rules are. That would be undemocratic and a coup by the EU.
|
The role of the ECJ within domestic UK affairs was a key sticking point in the WA negotiations. IIRC they did find a workaround, but if we leave without a WA in place it’s moot.
The ECJ has no jurisdiction in the UK unless our domestic law gives it. Products sold within the UK will continue to comply with EU directives where those directives have been translated into UK law, but if a member state of the EU has a complaint about the way our domestic market is regulated they will not be able to ask the ECJ to handle it.
This is a key area where red tape can be cut. In my own line of business, for example, changes in EU law around 10 years ago compelled anyone offering Bed and Breakfast services, no matter how small the scale, to register as a “food business” with their local council, which is then obliged to perform random food hygiene inspections. You can imagine, with the explosion of services like Airbnb, what an impossible burden for councils this is. Previously, this was covered under domestic legislation that exempted anyone hosting in fewer than four rooms (generally 4 rooms plus is a guest house, and is subject to much more stringent requirements, for example with regards to fire safety).
As someone running a B&B by definition can’t be exporting to the EU, or anywhere else, there is no reason for us to continue to suffer the interference of EU regulations, and no reason for the EU to complain about it.
---------- Post added at 08:13 ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
As has been explained many times on this forum by Chris and others, a Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, and decisions of Parliament can be overturned by Parliament.
MPs doing their jobs (oversight of and holding to account the Executive) is not "anti-democratic" - it is the very basis of our Parliamentary Democracy.
|
While this is absolutely true, the spice in the recipe in this case is the exercise in direct democracy that gave rise to the decision to leave the EU. Parliament is sovereign but it is politically very difficult for parliament to exercise that sovereignty however it pleases when it is manifestly contrary to the will of the people.
Of course there are many arguments about precisely what the will of the people is; what sort of Brexit the referendum mandated, whether people have changed their minds, etc, but much of this is dissembling and obfuscation by those whose genuine interest is in overturning the referendum result and halting our exit from the EU.
The results of Parliament’s shenanigans over the last few months have been a train wreck of a Strasbourg election and opinion polls that began putting our oldest and most successful political party in the teens, often in third place, until they elected a leader who looked like he was actually serious about leaving the EU. Again, none of this has any legal effect on parliamentary sovereignty but it does begin to indicate how murky our unwritten constitution can become when people try innovating with it. The prospect of a battle between parliament and the electorate over which body is sovereign could get ugly.