8 ms·
> The UK has all the EU laws it had before Brexit. It needs a new law in the UK to remove existing things. UK will not lose protection until the UK decides upon
by Seenso 7y ago
> The UK has all the EU laws it had before Brexit. It needs a new law in the UK to remove existing things. UK will not lose protection until the UK decides upon it.
Not quite all of EU law will be retained:
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8375 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Sum...:
> [T]he UK is specifically not retaining:
> * the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
> * the legislative instruments known as EU directives themselves (as opposed to the legislation implementing them or rights and obligations under them, which will be retained);
> * the principle of supremacy of EU law (for prospective legislation); and
> * the Francovich principle of state liability (in relation to post exit facts).
- kzrdude 7y agoExiting the jurisdiction of European Court of Justice should be a rather big change in theory as well
- irthomasthomas 7y agoBritain never was bound by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Read the small print.... Protocol 30: ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM... 1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms. 2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law. Article 2 To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.
- blibble 7y agothe ECJ ruled that opt-out to be meaningless in 2011 > "... does not intend to exempt the Republic of Poland or the United Kingdom from the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Charter or to prevent a court of one of those Member States from ensuring compliance with those provisions" this is a common criticism of the EU and the ECJ: what was negotiated by the member states during treaty revision is irrelevant if the ECJ can strike out whichever bits of it pleases at will (with no appeal/recourse possible)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mtgx 7y agoAnd pretty much ever since the GCHQ/conservative UK government have been freaking out about it and it's been one of the main reasons they wanted out of the EU. The GCHQ really, REALLY wanted out of the fundamental charters of rights. I mean the ECJ has ruled like twice or thrice against their mass surveillance activities, but they've managed to buy time by "updating the law" in ways in which a new ruling was needed to show once again that their mass surveillance laws are STILL violating the charter.
- andy_ppp 7y agoI found your comment really interesting, I think there are quite a few vested interests involved in the desire to leave the EU. This and most notably the work on tax havens the EU was doing, the UK being one of the biggest with several opaque jurisdictions being under its control. Saying GCHQ doesn’t make political decisions by downvoting this is extremely naive.
- dhauddye 7y agoWhat's the value of acknowledging that some vested interests hold the view though? At face value I mean. There are lots of legitimate economic reasons to consider leaving the EU, it's not the unilaterally bad decision that's become a meme around here and Reddit, the reason I say this being that it shouldn't be surprising in and of itself as a decision.