Brexit: why did the ECJ become a UK ‘red line’?

12th April 2017

My post today at the FT is about something which has puzzled me since October: why did Theresa May – almost out of nowhere – adopt the “red line” about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?

The post is here.

 

6 thoughts on “Brexit: why did the ECJ become a UK ‘red line’?”

  1. The people of this country never voted for any of the intergration into Europe we were not given the choice it was forced on us only a common market did we vote on and if a referendum had been offered on the four pillars of the European Union we would have voted against this no one would vote to give Brussels the power to dictate what we do in our own country

  2. Because for some reason the ECJ is a bete noir of the daily mail and the Sun.

    All to do with trivialities about whether or not prisoners have a right to vote. And such institutions are less likely to bow to the whims of the Rothermeres, Murdochs and Barclay Brothers, nothing to do with British Democracy even though the sheep are led to think otherwise.

  3. Whatever the reason, it has led to the absurdity of wishing to withdraw from Euratom. This is a completely separate treaty and was most definitely not part of the Referendum. I can only imagine that some action taken to the ECJ has offended May and that she is acting with her customary spite and mean mindedness.

  4. You can hardly claim to be a sovereign nation if your “supreme” court is subservient to a foreign higher court! Thought it was obvious.

  5. A large part of leaving the EU was to regain Sovereignty, not least control of our own law-making. This was explicit in the campaign and no-one remotely interested and sentient could have been in any doubt about that – whichever way they voted.
    We can’t regain control of our own legal system if the final arbiter of British law is the ECJ.
    Leaving the ECJ is so necessary to abiding by the vote that I’m not sure why anyone is at all surprised about May’s announcing the intention to do so.

  6. For much the same reason as government ministers rail against judicial review constraining their freedom of action.

    Why should the will of the people’s elected representatives be stymied by unelected judges? And foreign ones to boot!

    Ministers would much rather be able to do as they wish, and not have to bother with obstacles such as the rule of law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *