Nobody mentioned the ECJ either! Hence my question, was WW on about the ECHR, because as I said in my post some people are stupid enough to vote to leave the EU because they think we'd be voting to leave the ECHR behind as well.i'm spartacus wrote:
Nobody has mentioned the ECHR - the issue is with the European Court of Justice in which unelected European judges strike down laws enacted by democratically elected governments.
As to the ECJ striking down laws, no it can't.
But I'd be interested to know as in this country why do you think governments should be above the law?
People seem to have this weird notion that our western governments are in fact dictatorships who should as a matter of course if the courts say "no, you can't do that" simply rewrite the law so that they can do whatever it is they want to do.
It is a mind numbly stupid attitude and shows a complete lack of understanding of how democracies work.
Governments are subject to the rule of law. In our case national law and EU law.
We do not elect judges in our courts either but they can (and do) send the government packing and thank God they can.
Complaining that the governments is being overruled by a court be it a domestic one or the ECJ is crazy. You are asking for Government to be allowed to rule unchecked by the law.
As to the ECJ itself, what exactly are you complaining about?
The ECJ ensures that European law is interpreted and applied in the same way in every member state.
Your problem with that is what?
The Judges and Advocate Generals are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the member states. (In the UK judges to our courts used to be appointed by the Lard Chancellor but are now made by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission).
So these ECJ Judges are appointed by democratically elected governments. Problem with that?
So what does the ECJ do? Three things:
1. Makes primary rulings on EU law (not domestic laws) so they are consistent. That is, if a national court has a case that involves EU law and there is doubt as to how to interpret the EU law, the national court refers to the ECJ so the national court applies the law the same way as is applied in other states.
What is your problem with that?
2. Compliance with EU law. It can force a member state to comply with EU law. So if a state fails to implement the working time directive for example the ECJ will judge if they are failing to do so and if they are, force them to rectify this.
Seems OK to me!
3. Handle what are known as proceedings for annulment. This is where a state or an EU citizen can ask for an EU law to be annulled if they can show it adversely affects them. Note this is annulling EU law, not the EU overruling national law.
Seems fair to me!
That is its remit and all it can do.
So saying it can "strike down laws enacted by democratically elected governments" is complete bollocks anyway.
So what are you and WW complaining about exactly?