10 ms·

Britain 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

Britain 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 ago
the 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      What'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.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. I would be more optimistic if the UK government didn’t appear to hold the position “pivot to a no-manufacturing/service-only economy while simultaneously aiming for a trade deal that only covers food, mining, and manufacturing but not services”.
        roenxi 7y ago
        > The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. That is basically true. And the economics of this sort of situation is kinda funny; the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit - otherwise market forces will probably kick in and not much will happen in practice. Realistically it is hard to see Britain being worse off because of anything externally inflicted. If anything, their biggest losses will be due to getting the stuff they want; like restricting migrant inflows for non-economic reasons.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  The ECJ has determined that this ruling will have no effect post-Brexit because it will have no jurisdiction on any case not already before it pre-Brexit. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-01/cp200010en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
  - blibble 7y ago
    ... unless you're the Polish government? regardless, the critisism of the ECJ still stands: it operates as a political court that almost always rules in such a way that extend the EU's power over that of its member states even when the letter and the spirit of the treaty was the complete opposite (as in the above example)
    - timwaagh 7y ago
      poles should never have been able to negotiate any such out on anything titled 'fundamental rights'. It's ridiculous they have been able to do this. The price for admittance has always been that prospective members are up to EU standard on such things. ECJ is therefore correct in its judgement.
- orra 7y ago
  This is classic misrepresentation of European law by a Eurosceptic. Why not link to the actual source? http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62010CJ0411&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre= http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62010CJ0411&lan... Perhaps because the judgement clearly says sensible things like: > In addition, according to the sixth recital in the preamble to that protocol, the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles. Additionally, let's consider the alleged opt out, Protocol (No 30), itself. Its Preamble literally says: > the aforementioned Article 6 [TEU] requires the Charter to be applied and interpreted by the courts of Poland and of the United Kingdom strictly in accordance with the explanations referred to in that Article In summary, the UK and Poland signed a legal document. They then, for political reasons, signed a meaningless political statement saying ‘we don't really like this’. Of course the political statement carries no legal weight compared to the legal document.
whytai 7y ago
Why is Poland also listed as an exception?
- blibble 7y ago
  the British and Polish governments negotiated an opt-out on the Charter the ECJ later ruled that the opt-opt had no force
- toyg 7y ago
  Probably because they negotiated it together - Poland and UK were effectively an alliance in EU institutions for long stretches, united by common defense and economic policies (aggressive NATO stance vs Russia, hardcore free-market support, etc). This is why one of the many effects of Brexit is an increased isolation of Poland and the other Visegrád members, who lost their biggest ally in EU circles.
  - eru 7y ago
    A bit more pro-market than the French. Hardly hard-core.
    - bonzini 7y ago
      Surely for European standards.
      - eru 7y ago
        Maybe. The Estonians come pretty close to Singaporean standards though. And the rest of the Scandinavians ain't too bad; apart from having high tax they don't interfere in the economy that much.
        toyg 7y ago
        Countries like Estonia and Luxembourg, although EU members, hold little sway because of their size. Nobody will ever look at them and decide that they set a good model for larger countries.

blibble 7y ago

the 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 ago
And 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    What'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.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. I would be more optimistic if the UK government didn’t appear to hold the position “pivot to a no-manufacturing/service-only economy while simultaneously aiming for a trade deal that only covers food, mining, and manufacturing but not services”.
      - roenxi 7y ago
        > The only economic reason I can think of is “I have a plan which requires violating EU rules, which will be more valuable than the additional trade costs that will be caused in the event that the EU continues to think that that rule we want to violate is a good rule and insists on the UK not breaking it as a precondition for a zero-friction trade deal”. That is basically true. And the economics of this sort of situation is kinda funny; the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit - otherwise market forces will probably kick in and not much will happen in practice. Realistically it is hard to see Britain being worse off because of anything externally inflicted. If anything, their biggest losses will be due to getting the stuff they want; like restricting migrant inflows for non-economic reasons.
gamblor956 7y ago
The ECJ has determined that this ruling will have no effect post-Brexit because it will have no jurisdiction on any case not already before it pre-Brexit. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-01/cp200010en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
- blibble 7y ago
  ... unless you're the Polish government? regardless, the critisism of the ECJ still stands: it operates as a political court that almost always rules in such a way that extend the EU's power over that of its member states even when the letter and the spirit of the treaty was the complete opposite (as in the above example)
  - timwaagh 7y ago
    poles should never have been able to negotiate any such out on anything titled 'fundamental rights'. It's ridiculous they have been able to do this. The price for admittance has always been that prospective members are up to EU standard on such things. ECJ is therefore correct in its judgement.
orra 7y ago
This is classic misrepresentation of European law by a Eurosceptic. Why not link to the actual source? http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62010CJ0411&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre= http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62010CJ0411&lan... Perhaps because the judgement clearly says sensible things like: > In addition, according to the sixth recital in the preamble to that protocol, the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles. Additionally, let's consider the alleged opt out, Protocol (No 30), itself. Its Preamble literally says: > the aforementioned Article 6 [TEU] requires the Charter to be applied and interpreted by the courts of Poland and of the United Kingdom strictly in accordance with the explanations referred to in that Article In summary, the UK and Poland signed a legal document. They then, for political reasons, signed a meaningless political statement saying ‘we don't really like this’. Of course the political statement carries no legal weight compared to the legal document.

whytai 7y ago

Why is Poland also listed as an exception?

blibble 7y ago
the British and Polish governments negotiated an opt-out on the Charter the ECJ later ruled that the opt-opt had no force
toyg 7y ago
Probably because they negotiated it together - Poland and UK were effectively an alliance in EU institutions for long stretches, united by common defense and economic policies (aggressive NATO stance vs Russia, hardcore free-market support, etc). This is why one of the many effects of Brexit is an increased isolation of Poland and the other Visegrád members, who lost their biggest ally in EU circles.
- eru 7y ago
  A bit more pro-market than the French. Hardly hard-core.
  - bonzini 7y ago
    Surely for European standards.
    - eru 7y ago
      Maybe. The Estonians come pretty close to Singaporean standards though. And the rest of the Scandinavians ain't too bad; apart from having high tax they don't interfere in the economy that much.
      - toyg 7y ago
        Countries like Estonia and Luxembourg, although EU members, hold little sway because of their size. Nobody will ever look at them and decide that they set a good model for larger countries.