6 ms·

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 compl

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.
        growlist 7y ago
        > biggest losses economic losses
        ben_w 7y ago
        > the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit Isn’t that the point of the club? To give all of the members a free ride with each other? In a well-defined way that doesn’t hurt each member but still a free ride?
        7y ago
  - cs02rm0 7y ago
    It's not a GCHQ government though.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    GCHQ has nothing to fear from Europe, and Europe has done nothing to hinder the work of GCHQ apart from releasing a few reports about ECHELON. GDPR, and every other bit of EU privacy regulation, has included exemptions for the security services.
- ben_w 7y ago
  My departure from the UK was initially due to the post-Brexit impossibility of fighting the latest of those laws, the Investigatory Powers Act. There is a technical difference between the EU and European Court of human rights et cetera, but politically they are seen as equivalent by the UK. On the day thre results came in I had been of the opinion “it can’t be too bad, because only an idiot would hold a referendum on something important where the wrong result was possible” — Although it quickly became clear Brexit was inherently a terrible plan implemented by incompetent politicians, and therefore Cameron was in fact an idiot, adding to my reasons to leave the UK.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    > where the wrong result was possible I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong"
    - gambiting 7y ago
      It can be morally wrong, or financially wrong, or wrong in terms of human rights, or wrong for minorities. There's many types of "wrong". Just like you can make a "wrong" decision for yourself when having to choose between two options, the society can choose "wrongly" when presented with a simple yes/no question. There's a difference between that choice being invalid and wrong.
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        I don't really get your distinction, how is morally wrong different from "wrong in terms of human rights"? Do you mean beneficial?
        Chris2048 7y ago
        Clearly I've triggered someone who is systematically downvoting all my comments..
    - ben_w 7y ago
      > I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong" The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Democracy is “least bad”, not “incapable of fault”.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
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.

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.
      - growlist 7y ago
        > biggest losses economic losses
      - ben_w 7y ago
        > the only way Britain will be materially worse off is if the EU was giving Britain a free ride before Brexit Isn’t that the point of the club? To give all of the members a free ride with each other? In a well-defined way that doesn’t hurt each member but still a free ride?
        7y ago
- cs02rm0 7y ago
  It's not a GCHQ government though.
- DanBC 7y ago
  GCHQ has nothing to fear from Europe, and Europe has done nothing to hinder the work of GCHQ apart from releasing a few reports about ECHELON. GDPR, and every other bit of EU privacy regulation, has included exemptions for the security services.
ben_w 7y ago
My departure from the UK was initially due to the post-Brexit impossibility of fighting the latest of those laws, the Investigatory Powers Act. There is a technical difference between the EU and European Court of human rights et cetera, but politically they are seen as equivalent by the UK. On the day thre results came in I had been of the opinion “it can’t be too bad, because only an idiot would hold a referendum on something important where the wrong result was possible” — Although it quickly became clear Brexit was inherently a terrible plan implemented by incompetent politicians, and therefore Cameron was in fact an idiot, adding to my reasons to leave the UK.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > where the wrong result was possible I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong"
  - gambiting 7y ago
    It can be morally wrong, or financially wrong, or wrong in terms of human rights, or wrong for minorities. There's many types of "wrong". Just like you can make a "wrong" decision for yourself when having to choose between two options, the society can choose "wrongly" when presented with a simple yes/no question. There's a difference between that choice being invalid and wrong.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      I don't really get your distinction, how is morally wrong different from "wrong in terms of human rights"? Do you mean beneficial?
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        Clearly I've triggered someone who is systematically downvoting all my comments..
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong" The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Democracy is “least bad”, not “incapable of fault”.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

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.