Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One of the main sticking points on the issue of citizens' rights during these Brexit talks is the EU's insistence that the ECJ have jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK post Brexit.

As I, and many others have pointed out time and time again, no other non-European nation on God's Earth would entertain this for a nano-second.

If the EU pushed for a role for the ECJ with regards to EU citizens in the USA, the EU would get laughed out of Washington.

Naturally, when the UK says no to the ECJ the pro-Remain media conjure up images of xenophobic Brexiteers, and mobs of UKIP supporters dragging Polish plumbers through the streets and burning them at the stake.

Double standards.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?

We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.

I think the idea is that the national states haven't lost their national identity yet. But the push for intergrarion means it might happen in the future.


Hence the whole we are European thing. Rather than we are British, we are French etc.

Do I have to point out the Scottish nationalist again?

Or the (don't know about the rest of the country) various Lancashire/Yorkshire events that play up the historic rivalry and emphasize regional identity.

Why in United Kingdom are we worried about losing national identity, when the bits and pieces that make up that kingdom haven't yet?

It might be different on the mainland.

At least that the way I've heard it.

Can any Europeans comment on it? I'm legitimatly curious. How often will someone respond with I'm European rather than their nationality. Or their local nationality I.e Welsh or Barvarian?

In my experience? Never.

I've never heard somebody introduce themselves as a European. But then again, questions about where you are from are often asked by people from other European countries to people from European countries, so "I'm European" really doesn't give any further information there.

I was in India for two weeks recently and met my in-laws for the first time. Their view on Europe is, naturally, a bit less detailed and makes less distinctions between countries or even sub-states, so when I was there I had the feeling that some people did not classify myself really as a German, but more as a European. Subsequently I realized I was also speaking a bit more from a European standpoint in some discussions, maybe because I got the feeling nobody was really highly interested in the minute differences in policy or standpoint between European nations over there in India.

The only times I heard somebody actually affirm a "European" identity is on that one rare party or get-together here and there where people talk a bit of international politics, in context of that discussion, never as a standalone statement.

(And to be frank, those were usually people from academic fields involved in politics that have travelled a bit to study in different countries, so comparably "international" folk anyway.)

On the other hand, I have met tons of Germans happily engaging in semi-friendly rivalry between Bavaria, the North, West and East and whatnot else. Very similar to what you guys describe between the different regions of the UK, I'd assume. I think this little bit of tribalism is universal, here in Europe, just as much in India (Bengalis have rivalries with Biharis, both have opinions on the Tamils, etc. ... and they are all supposed to be "Indians" but tend to favor their "local" identity, in my (small) experience. )

I think it'll continue to be that way in Europe, too, even if the EU would actually merge into some type of superstate. Regional identities are not "erased" by waving a magic identity wand, they managed to exist for centuries now.

Herzlos wrote:
Can anyone name any national identity that has been lost due the eu?

We also had a veto, and everything was run via the parliament. Some people are at pains to imply the eu is sone sort of dictatorship that steamrolls the member states but it just isn't.

National identity =/= national independence.

You can retain a national identity, whilst being wholly and utterly under the thumb of another Government.

Just look at Scotland and how strong their national identity is despite being under the rule of Westminster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:
I don't buy any nonsense about losing national identity.

Neither do I. Losing national identity is not my complaint, losing national independence is.

And entering into a political union with Europe is an inherent loss of national independence, in the same way that Scotland loses its national independence by entering into a political union with England, Wales and N.Ireland.

We can all agree that it is possible to hold multiple forms of identity. I have a name, a family name, an area of England I live in, the area I was born in, my country (English), and my nation (British). That is of course, aside from any ethnic or religious identities that I might possess. None of these necessarily removes the other.

That being said, it is easy to see how one feel as if one identity could be partially supplanted or topped by another. For a case in point, one simply has to look to Catalonia, or Bavaria, or any other region which was once an individual nation but is now merely a region of a greater whole. When people from those regions identify their 'nationality' these days, they don't say 'I'm Bavarian', they say 'I'm German'. They don't lose their former identity, but it is subsumed into a greater one. There are a few which retain it to a greater extent (see Scotland, for example), but it is no given thing, and the more time that rolls by, the less important the earlier national identity usually becomes.

There's been a reasonably solid attempt to build up the European Union as a national bloc in recent years, not purely in terms of administrative/executive power, but also as a cultural identity which has never previously existed.
Historically speaking, Europeans have never really identified as such, they might come from 'Europe' per se, but they were always French, German, Dutch, Russian, and so forth. The moniker 'European' tended to be applied by people from outside of Europe to those from within it, rather than from those people themselves. It is likely (to speculate) that this is because of the intensely competitive/war filled nature of Europe, and the lack of any kind of cohesive central government post the Romans.

Part of asserting a national identity inevitably involves pinning down your culture as being somehow separate and different to others around it in order to justify it. If you're building it from scratch, often that involves violent repression (see the various ways locals have been suppressed by colonialists all over the world), but even more peaceful movements (see the recent Scottish independence issue) feature it quite strongly. National identities are illusive things to begin with, and we feel the need to differentiate ourselves generally in order to justify our national boundaries. In reality, there is a considerable amount in common between an American and an Irishman, far more than there is between either and a Chinese citizen, yet both would fiercely resist any attempt to amalgamate the two nations and call them 'The Trans-Atlantic Federation' or somesuch. Any 'European' identity is ultimately a social construct, and no more real than a 'Trans-Atlanticist' one however.

I do not think it is can be deemed inherently wrong to reject the 'European' brand identity, anymore than it is to not be too keen on the 'Trans-Atlantic' version. It's also not unjustified to personally decide that you want your 'National' level of identity to remain as it is instead of being gradually supplanted at that level by a different one.

Likewise of course, there is nothing wrong with deciding that you'd like it the other way around. Wanting to be a 'European' national is completely fine. As before, these are matters of personal choice, opinion and feeling. No right or wrong answer. The best way to deal with these feelings (that being what all this is ultimately based upon) is to acknowledge that both perspectives are entirely personal and reasonable and move on.

Again, lets distinguish between National Identity and National Independence. You can have one without the other, just look at Scotland and Catalonia.

I dunno if they're great examples...

Compared to the Scotland I grew up in and the Scotland today, I, personally, feel, people have been trying very hard to corrupt its national identity into being 'national independence.'

I remember the last time I was up, I was walking down the street and beside the local SNP party office was an activist style shop/office. In the window was a poster that said something along the lines of. "Thanks to Faslane, Glasgow will burn first due to England's wars."

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:One of the main sticking points on the issue of citizens' rights during these Brexit talks is the EU's insistence that the ECJ have jurisdiction over EU citizens in the UK post Brexit.

As I, and many others have pointed out time and time again, no other non-European nation on God's Earth would entertain this for a nano-second.

No non-European nation has had its citizens move to a nation (frequently encouraged by that nation) on the basis of their home and host nations presenting them with a range of enshrined rights only for the host nation to bin them. Consequently, whether non-European nations would entertain this is totally irrelevant.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Again, lets distinguish between National Identity and National Independence. You can have one without the other, just look at Scotland and Catalonia.

Nobody has conflated the two. People are discussing two distinct issues.

I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.

 r_squared wrote:
I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.

I won't disagree with that. Though I'd say that applies to both sides.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.

I won't disagree with that. Though I'd say that applies to both sides.

TBF I did say that it was about both those who voted to leave, or remain.

All aggression and accusation does is solidify the opposing position. It's time we stopped talking so much, and started listening more.

After all, 2 ears, 1 mouth.

I agree.

In other news, a pig just flew past my window.

You must have been watching the Lord Mayor's Show!

 welshhoppo wrote:


Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.

I've come across plenty of people with different degrees, that doesn't mean they know everything (or much) about it depending on how long since they did, how much drinking they did and so on....

The ECJ has primacy over national courts. It has too otherwise the whole system doesn't work. You couldn't have an equal or lesser court telling a national court or parliament what to do because then the whole system doesn't work.

Have a read of this.

Put it this way, the ECJ has the ability to overturn Supreme Court (previously HoL) rulings, and even affect parliamentary acts.

The ECJ doesn't have primacy. It has deferral on issues that relate to EU law. All courts, in theory, should interpret the law in the same way. That they don't is generally down to either poor legislation or conflicts between national and EU law. The ECJ will not make a decision on someone's conviction for burglary. It can be deferred on matters that impact the whole of the EU (let's say procurement law). This avoids having individual countries introduce laws that do not comply (or has uncertainty) with EU Directives or legislation. The High Court will make a decision but it considers UK law as set out by parliament (and lets assume there isn't any case law). If there is a potential conflict between that law and a EU Directive (noting that an individual state decides how to implement into their own laws) then they will allow a deferral to ECJ because the UK courts can only consider UK law. There is a distinct difference. Primacy implies that the ECJ automatically has rights to challenge every UK law, but it does not. It can be requested to make a decision on EU law however and its implementation. It has deferral rights considering all of the EU. More recent examples are the UK governments desire to incarcerate people without due process for example.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.

I've come across plenty of people with different degrees, that doesn't mean they know everything (or much) about it depending on how long since they did, how much drinking they did and so on....

While we're measuring willy lengths...I have a degree in Crime Scene Forensics. (No seriously I do).

 r_squared wrote:
I would also argue that national independence is only one reason amongst the vast array of sometimes reasonable, and sometimes bizarre, silly and non-sensical reasons that people voted to leave, or remain.
But I agree with the sentiment expressed earlier. Britain needs a timeout.
It's all got a bit hysterical, reactionary and frankly bollocks over the last 18 months.

That's not really going to happen though. There is sea change in both politics and people in the UK I think with the a divide between "sticking with what was in the past" and "what we need to do to preserve the future". There's a change in the dynamics of the population and depending on which way things end up it won't settle down until then. My personal view is that a younger generation (that are generally more outward looking) are now migrating into political circles whereas an older generation that was dominant are now starting to fade. At some point there was going to be a crossover, until that crossover is finished there isn't going to be much of a break.

....Unless we nuke the whole country anyway that would timeout everyone!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Trying to tell the guy with a law degree that he doesn't know his law isn't the best idea.

I've come across plenty of people with different degrees, that doesn't mean they know everything (or much) about it depending on how long since they did, how much drinking they did and so on....

While we're measuring willy lengths...I have a degree in Crime Scene Forensics. (No seriously I do).

I'm not sure it really matters? The point is that people can have degrees but doesn't make them experts. I've come across plenty of people that have no degree that know way more than someone with a degree and so on. The point is that a degree doesn't make you 'right'.

Did you miss the part where I quite overtly and bluntly prefaced it as a joke?

Anyway I did poorly at Uni so I don't claim to be any sort of authority on Forensics even with a degree...at best it makes me a half educated-layman.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Did you miss the part where I quite overtly and bluntly prefaced it as a joke?

Anyway I did poorly at Uni so I don't claim to be any sort of authority on Forensics even with a degree...at best it makes me a half educated-layman.

Hence why I use my degree to argue on the internet.


Plus I hate lawyers, I hate the whole system and I hate everything!

But seriously, the EU courts are superior. Its the first thing I learnt in the 8 week hell that was my second year EU law module. Which coincidentally turned me into a leaver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll elaborate more, the EU won't get involved with minor cases or anything below the national level. But it's superior in the regard that it tells nation states that they are doing things wrong and get them to go fix it.

They correct our interpretation of EU law, but that only works if they are the superior court. You can't leagally correct a court above your own.

 welshhoppo wrote:
But seriously, the EU courts are superior. Its the first thing I learnt in the 8 week hell that was my second year EU law module. Which coincidentally turned me into a leaver.

Nevermind your degree, I learned that in my Politics A-Level.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
But seriously, the EU courts are superior. Its the first thing I learnt in the 8 week hell that was my second year EU law module. Which coincidentally turned me into a leaver.

Nevermind your degree, I learned that in my Politics A-Level.

I never did politics for A level. 19th Century British History and Nazis for me!

But I do fondly remember the moment when I asked why the EU had supremacy. And she looked at me like I called her a...... You get the idea.

So what?

Even if the ECJ does have primacy, so what?

I have yet to see any reason why that is a bad thing, other than "ugh, I don't want dirty foreigners telling me what to do."

 Jadenim wrote:
So what?

Even if the ECJ does have primacy, so what?

I have yet to see any reason why that is a bad thing, other than "ugh, I don't want dirty foreigners telling me what to do."

Exactly. You don't understand. You don't care. But we do. We've explained why ad nauseam, you're just being ignorant. Go back and read the last 5 or so pages to inform yourself.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ugh...More Government infighting...Can someone please just shoot Gove and Boris already? Pair of self serving

Boris and Gove's plot to 'hijack' Number 10 exposed: Menacing secret memo to Theresa May dictating terms for a hard Brexit triggers new Cabinet rift

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073567/Boris-Gove-s-plot-hijack-Number-10-exposed.html

Oh I care, I care deeply. I care about text removed Reds8n
There is nothing in the last five pages, or anywhere else in this thread, that says why the ECJ is a bad thing, point to a single, simple, reason as to why.

Back to the personal abuse I see.

While I agree that there's been an assumption that less sovereignty is bad without discussing why that is the case you might want to tone back the hostility a bit, it's not helping.

I apologise, but when you see you country being dragged to the dogs it is very hard to remain civil, particularly when I am called ignorant for asking someone to justify their assertion.

I called you ignorant because you're asking a question which we've spent the last several pages answering.

No, you've spent the last several pages discussing whether the ECJ might have primacy over the UK courts, with the conclusion that it probably does. That does not answer why you think that is a bad thing.

The ECJ simply upholds the law. Our politicians still write the laws. So my question remains, why is this a bad thing?