[QUOTE=Sephiroth;36165784]
Quote:
Originally Posted by roughbeast
Here we go!
Why guard your remark with "some might argue"? What is your belief? The civil servants execute EU policy. It is EU policy to bring about "ever closer union" which the UK majority did not want and a whole raft of people (principally young) did not understand.
Your question is blinkered Remoaner language. As I've consistently said, it takes a competent government to create the business friendly environment that will make as prosper (without taking orders from Brussels). Sadly, we don't have that government. Plus COVID knocked a £40 billion hole in our economy and Truss a further similar sum.
No, we did not need to leave the EU to meet your criteria. We did need to leave the EU for so long as they wanted to make their supreme court superior to ours. I draw the line at that for a very simple reason that we should all support: Why is the EU Parliament so keen on EU integration as a single political entity? Answer: So that they have superiority over our and other parliaments. . That is unacceptable to me and should be to you. We may all look alike, but we don't sufficiently think alike.
|
1. I was being tentative because it is a subject open to debate. Your assertion that were virtually locked into an evert closer Europe is irrelevant to the point being made about how EU rules by us and it is also wrong. We had a veto and such major steps as that and we weren't th eonly EU member country against the idea.
2. My statement was a very simple one regardless of my status as a Leaver or Remainer. (Remoaner is a pejorative term, designed to keep the debate at an 'us and them' level.) We did very well in the EU when we had a government committed to investment In trading, science and technology terms, our membership supported that prosperity. What evidence do you have that a similar government now would do as well as New labour?
3. The ECJ only applied to areas of law we agreed to as a sovereign state, i.e. those areas that were of common interest such as the environment, health and safety, fish, product standards, worker and human rights. The latter was required because of free movement. All other areas of law, the large majority, were nothing to do with the EU. Our courts remained supreme over those because we were a sovereign state. Again, the EU had no collective interest in moving ever closer. A few notable individuals and a couple of countries did, but most of the 500 million population and the 27 countries did not wish it.