Finally my years of studying EU law will pay off. Also this took a while to write so ye. Sorry caskie I hope you don't mind us spamming your thread.
Seems that your studying has been a waste of time because you don't seem to understand EU law or rather you have failed to grasp the basic concepts. Although I think you actually do know, but you are a idealogically driven Europhile. Who will say anything to keep your EU dream alive.Ireland can't impose the death penalty because of the Council of Europe, which is a NOT a body of the EU
This is one of the childish remarks that pro-EU people make. The European Convention on Human Rights outlawed the death penalty. Now you're suggesting that it is unrelated to the EU?That is plain wrong. Historically it was brought in by the Council of Europe but later adapted as absolute by the EEC and the EU.
You can't leave the ECHR and remain a member of the EU. That has been a big debate for many years
Spoiler
For those who don't know, the ECHR is an international convention that was set up after WW2, however, it is a source of weakness, as it now protects paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and makes a country unable to deport Islamic terrorists. We had a few high-profile cases in the UK where couldn't deport convicted terrorists due to the ECHR. Therefore the ECHR convention puts the interests of foreign terrorists above the interests of the nation.
To join the EU you need to have ratified and signed all protocols relating to the ECHR. My work with UKIP MEP's during 2014/15, election, saw us explore whether the UK could legally leave the ECHR. Theresa May as Home Secretary also explored whether to leave the ECHR. The problem is we can't leave it and remain a member of the EU.
I had a lecture by Professor Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law. He is one of the top European Law Professors in Europe, he has actually worked for the EU and the British government in matters relating to the European Law. He was very clear when I asked him could the UK leave the ECHR and remain an EU member, and he replied no in uncertain terms. To conclude this part of your essay, the EU exercises control over the ECHR because you cannot be a member, therefore, it forces you to follow a deranged bunch of human rights.
With everything else, you just think it's a positive, I think its rigid and a negative.
Onto your second point, you don't need to explain the workings of the European Parliament and the workings of the Commission to me. I have worked for a UKIP MEP which included me attending the European Parliament. Onto your veto and sovereignty section. You have outlined the steps a country and its MEP's can take to reject a proposal. You used said,
"country retains its sovereignty until it is decided to cooperate on such a subject".
That is incredibly misleading, once you have signed and passed the proposals and once it comes into law you cannot undo that act.
National governments change and that is the nature of democratic countries. Countries don't have the option to
re-negotiate existing deals and that is one of the major issues facing the European project. Just look at the UK, prior to the referendum, it attempted to renegotiate its entire membership of the EU. In the end, the UK wasn't able to renegotiate anything with the EU. To get the agreement of the European Parliament and the majority of other governments approval in the Foreign Affairs Council (member states) is virtually impossible.
The EU version of sovereignty is once you have signed something thats it, not a chance of re-negotiating or re-visiting that ratified proposal. In modern functioning societies in the modern world countries need to move fast and respond to events. If Italy tomorrow wanted to end freedom of movement, it would have to leave the EU, because the options to renegotiate the European pillars are none negotiable and that is the problem with the European Union.
Onto your 4 Pillar comments.
"These freedoms need to be protected from national laws that could harm them"
My exact point, you believe that the national state should lose the ability to protect and increase the quality of life for their citizens. Not to be rude, but the UK has a great history of trade in the movement of services, goods, people, and capital. The rigid rules of the single market are unsuitable for growth. That is one of the reasons why the Eurozone has hardly grown in 10 years. The EU is decreasing and declining at an ever alarming rate.
A great example is the tampon tax. Many people in the UK and lawmakers want to remove tax for tampons, to help poor women. The freedoms that you think need protecting are actually stopping the UK from helping its poor women due to EU's rigid market alignment. And those 4 Key EU pillars are destroying the European civilisation. The UK cannot turn away a French Pedophile from entering the UK. The Dutch government cannot turn away a suspected terrorist that has an EU passport. We noticed this during the French terrorist attacks, the Terrorists just crossed the border from Belgium into France. The freedom of movement for 500 million is an insane, dangerous and stupid system, that is motivated by the ideology of "Europeanism" rather than economics.
Millions and millions of migrants are washing up in Greece and Italy and crossing the entire continent unchecked. The Schengen area is a joke and unfit for countries that want to protect their people.
In three years time, them two million undocumented migrants who arrived in Germany two years ago will have EU passports and the ability to travel anywhere in the European Union. Even Malta and Cyprus government, now sell the EU passport for profit. Because people will abuse the freedom of movement for a whole host of reasons.
"useless to make trade deals with countries 100x your size when you are a small country like Ireland, or the Netherlands for example."
A baseless statement without fact or evidence.
Iceland has done many great trade deals and signed a good trade deal with China a few years ago and is 1000x smaller then China.
Unable to set its own budget.
I don't really know what you mean with this? The irish government can set their own budget just as any other country.
No it can't. For someone who claims to have studied EU law, you really should have paid more attention. Look up the E
uropean Fiscal Compact that was brought in to stabilize the Eurozone. The aim of the EU is to control members budgets and impose penalties on those who don't follow the EU economic model. Automatic
sanctions for any country which runs up a deficit of more than 3% of GDP. Only the UK and the Czech Republic opted out, thank god. "European Court of Justice to check whether nations implement budget rule properly - it will fine them up to 0.1% of national output (GDP) if they fail to do so;" - BBC
Italy has been going through this recently. Although France seems to get away with it. This is particularly bad for socialists and left-wing economics as it stops Eurozone countries from being able to run up high deficits.
Loss of Ireland's military neutrality.
Don't really know what you mean here, the EU can't declare wars
It certainly can engage in trade wars and diplomatic wars. We have seen the EU drag us into a tariff confrontation with China and the USA. Dragging Ireland and other friendly EU countries into these confrontations. The EU is moving forward with its own Army. The Common Security and Defence Policy was brought in by the Lisbon Treaty. We now have EU BattleGroups. The Franc-German alliance seeks to replace NATO.
To summarise- The EU does control nations budgets
- The EU does control immigration
- The EU does control trade deals and regulations
- You cannot leave the ECHR and be in the EU
Some good points Rikk, we pretty much agree that the EU controls the areas I mentioned. Though you find it a positive, I find it a negative.
The EU is finished and the arguments for its economics is poor. Despite more countries joining the EU, its share of world GDP is declining at a huge rate. Once the UK leaves its game over for the EU it is like 26 EU countries leaving in terms of GDP.
