Entirely correct (from my recollection of EU Law at university) and entirely in agreement. This is farcical.

Pointless talk by the Tories to please the ignorant right. Much like Goves scrapping of the no-touch rule really http://thinkpolitics.co.uk/tpblogs/teachertalks/2010/10/02/gove-scraps-a-rule-that-doesnt-exist/

You’re absolutely right. Legally it means nothing at all, whatsoever. It’s utterly pointless.

Might sound good to the tabloid reading lay person though, which is of course the point.

What you are ignoring though is that UK laws are only subordinate to EU regulations, because the UK government has passed laws to make situation exist.

The government can also quite easily pass laws to change that situation.

If the UK government were to pass a law that, for example, overturned the supremacy of the European Courts, there isn’t anything the European Courts can do to force the UK to change its mind.

After all, who would they prosecute, and if convicted, who goes to jail?

The Queen, the Prime Minister, or the electorate who voted in a government on a mandate to declare the UK Supreme Court as the highest authority?

The only reason European regulations have any legal authority in the UK is because UK says they can have such authority. The UK can just as easily refuse them that authority.

After all, you only have to look at how an “EU law” is enforced in the UK, and ignored in France or Italy to realise that it is the sovereign governments who decide what is an is not obeyed.

That said, there is a principle that no government can or should seek to bind future governments to laws it passes, so not should the current government not be bound by previous laws, future governments should equally not be bound by demands for referendums etc.

Ian – you don’t understand.

It’s “progressive” to subordinate our law to that of the EU.

If the British Parliament can pass a law at any time withdrawing Britain from the EU and all treaty obligations does this not make Parliamentary supremacy a fact?

Although Hague appears to be contradicting himself. What is wrong with the principle that you can’t bind your successors? If the principle is unsound. What is democratic about the the electorate and legislators of 2010 telling the electorate of say 2030 which laws they should adhere to?

I will take brownshirts seriously about losing sovereignty to Europe when they say that free trade and WTO should not take president in matters of British sovereignty.

Brownshirts are quite happy to give away sovereignty to American multi nationals , and have our workers forced into competition with military dictators slave workforce all in the name of free trade. So their waffle about loss of sovereignty is bullshit. They would happily give away the sovereignty of this nation just as long as it is some right wing capitalist venture.

Sally, you have yet to explain to us how those you call “brownshirts” (presumably Tories) are similar to Hitler’s SA (who were in fact mostly on the left of the Nazi Party, hence why Hitler stuffed them in 1934 to appease the establishment).

Do working class members of the Conservative Party don brown uniforms and start street fights with communists? Do they call for the merging of themselves with the armed forces?

Do you really think William Hague is in need of sophomoric articles like this one to advise or inform him on matters of European law?

Of course not. He has access to the best legal advisors in the land.

And what do they tell him?

First, that the UK is at a disadvantage in this area because of its unwritten constitution. Germany has no problem because European law requires the European court to take account of the German constitution and the decisions of Germany’s constitutional court.

Can we level the playing field through a constitutional bill of some sort?

Yes.

Remember many posh tories were quite happy to give away British sovereignty to Hitler in 1940. Alan Clark , a brown shirt if ever there was one was still defending that nonsense just before he died.

As long as the sovereignty is being given away to right wing organisations or capitalist institutions, tories have no problem with giving the peoples rights away.

Who took Britain into Europe?

Who has never given the people of this country any referendum on Europe?

Hauge should stop grandstanding and offer the people a referendum on staying in the EU or he should STFU.

Yes, fine, but this isn’t a legal move. It’s a political move. It’s to get all the eurossceptics back onside: even though we all know it’s tripe for the reasons given above.

A good debate. If the author of this is correct – UKIP are going to love it !

@12….but we in UKIP already know that the very idea is ludicrous. EU law over rides UK law unless and until the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed.

We know this which is why we argue that the Act should be repealed.

My brain rotated several times in my skull whilst reading the post from Gareth Winchesters. Congratulations to him for composing it.

Given that William Hague is not in a position to offer withdrawal from the EU (or the wider trading region), I think his proposal is a pile of wibble. The person on the street is fed stuff about EU Directives and Regulations determining whether they are allowed to buy a pound of grapes, or more recently about the mass of eggs in a box. That is why average person has such a poor opinion of EU law.

If William Hague thinks that it is his role in government to counteract Daily Mail tripe, he is in the wrong job and abusing his talents.

If William Hague wishes to reform implementation of EU law, he should get a job in an agriculture or trade ministry. Those are the places where EU law is implemented. He could do a lot of good work to reform abattoir legislation and food standards, interpreting the rules more like a French minister.

There is no doubt in my mind that that the reason Hague is doing this is to eventually over turn the Human Rights Act. It was a manifesto promise and the HRA is hated by the right wing within the party.

I am not a lawyer and do not have the knowledge that other commenters on this piece have, however I doubt that Hague would start something they know is not possible after the example of the previous Tory government with the Merchant Shipping Act.

This doesn’t happen often, but I’m finding myself in agreement with TimW@11!

It’s pure grandstanding – all about what Hague is seen to be attempting rather than what he will actually be able to achieve. For whatever my opinion’s worth, the gamut of speeches from the Cabinet members and the PM at the CPC all seemed to be tailored to producing soundbites for publication in the following day’s Sun.

@5: “It’s “progressive” to subordinate our law to that of the EU.”

As I recall, a previous Conservative government successfully negotiated Britain’s accession in January 1973 to what was then the European Economic Community.

Mrs Thatcher’s government successfully pressed for the Single European Act of 1986, the first major revision of the Treaty of Rome of 1957.

A Conservative government negotiated and ratified the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

Must say I am surprised by he lack of interst shown by the OP and the other commenters in the suibstantive poliical issue: namely whose law should be sovereign. Quite simply the EU lacks the dmocratic legitimacy to justify its priveleged position in realtion to the powers of the UK parliament.

“Quite simply the EU lacks the dmocratic legitimacy to justify its priveleged position in realtion to the powers of the UK parliament.”

Who, exactly, forced Conservative governments to negotiate Britain’s accession to the European Economic Community in January 1973, to press for, negotiate and then ratify the Single European Act of 1986 and then negotiate and ratify the Maastricht Treaty of 1992?

Why did Conservative governments do these dreadful things which restricted Britain’s national sovereignty and bound future Parliaments – as also did the NATO Treaty of 1948?

Remember, British troops are fighting in Afghanistant because President GW Bush invoked the mutual defence obligations of the NATO Treaty in response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

@18, Bob nails it. EU law has primacy because the democratically elected Westminster government has passed a law saying that, until that law is repealed, we will defer to EU law in the relevant areas. It’s as democratic as can be. Also, commissioners are chosen by the democratically elected governments of EU states (in exactly the same way that cabinet ministers are chosen), while MEPs are voted for by the public.

In short,

sovereignty != primacy

Meh. Membership of the EU is fundamentally incompatible with the entire basis of English constitutional law. The whole point of all relevant litigation, from Macarthys v Smith to Thoburn v Sunderland has been to keep on ignoring that point.

This is not news – EU-Sceptics are well aware that Hague is just a shill (along with Hannan) who talk a lot to rally the weaker minded to the EUPhile conservatives.

Hagues 1977 speech to the conservative party conference is the best he ever made – everything since has been a disappointment.

If only there was someone in politics today who agreed with what he said over 30 years ago – half of those who saw it are probalby (as he said) no longer with us, but what happened to the freedom he said he wanted? Especially now he is in a place to deliver it.

Hague will go down in history as the archetypal seller out of principles. (an accolade Blair was never in the running for because his principles were never genuine in the first place).

The text of Hagues speech is here – get through the initial “aren’t I really young” paragraphs and read the meat.

http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2010/10/william-hagues-1977-conservative.html

“Hague’s position is best described as: I believe that Parliament is supreme….”

Gareth Winchester is absolutely right. This is basically a ‘smokescreen on the part of Hague to give the impression that they are not being walked over by the EU monolith.

As already stated – all the Tories need to do is repeal the 1972 ECA. This they are not prepared to do. They are therefore with their Lab/LibDim counterparts pre-eminently a pro EU party.

Incidentally in relation to EU law, directives, and overall control of UK national policies – when has the UK parliament been “supreme” over the past 35 years?.
Which political party ensured that both Westminster and British voters would never have the chance to be supreme in any real sense by cravenly passing one treaty after another giving unprecedented powers to the EU

It worked for Henry VIII

If Parliament decides it no longer recognises Brussels’ jurisdiction in certain areas what can Brussels do – send an army?