Timeline for answer to Why wasn't the supremacy of EU law codified? by bobsburner
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2019 at 12:18 | comment | added | bobsburner | @user1567459 Directives have to be implemented in accordance with each member's internal laws. Regulations are passed, and come into effect regardless after a period of time. e.g. GDPR. P-sure there weren't many regulations back in the early days. | |
| Oct 14, 2019 at 10:24 | comment | added | user1567459 | Even in the original Communities, community legislation had to be implemented by the member states, and had no direct effect on national legislation. Aside from some of the constitutional issues others have raised, it means that in monist countries only the spirit and principle of directives is directly incorporated. Without that phrasing it would make the process of national interpretation and adaption of the rules. Also, many national governments have delayed or undermined the intent of directives from time to time, and were probably quite happy to have that wriggle room. | |
| Aug 6, 2019 at 11:42 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | Your answer is the type of thing one might end up thinking when living in an Anglo-Saxon news bubble. If you step outside of it, you will find a very different reality, where people are generally enthusiastic about the EU project. The general public didn't have any concerns about losing sovereignty in the early EU days. On the contrary: they enthusiastically embraced losing a bit of sovereignty to avoid ever fighting another world war. It was a peace project on top of being a future European single market. It is the UK that tried (and failed) to introduce the idea that it's a mere trade zone. | |
| Aug 6, 2019 at 11:24 | comment | added | bobsburner | I no longer see how this relates to my answer. Or what you think the defect is with it. | |
| Aug 6, 2019 at 11:20 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | No need to go that far back, just take a substantive look at the debates on continental European news channels. Until the Visegrad group joined, just about no one outside of the Anglo-Saxon news bubble and a few odd extreme right wing groups was kicking and screaming about the EU making a dent on their nation's sovereignty. Take those apart, and the only questions being asked in 1990s news outlets were how much integration do we want, how much worker/consumer protection do we want, and where does the EU stop (aka should Turkey and Mediterranean countries be able to join)? | |
| Aug 6, 2019 at 11:03 | comment | added | bobsburner | Short of asking you to prove a negative, do you have any examples from the time? I wasn't around for Earlier UK referenda, them joining in 1974, or the time before the EU. | |
| Aug 2, 2019 at 10:24 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | I'm saying that what you wrote (i.e. public concerns over loss of sovereignty) is not something anyone saw as a problem or cared about at the time. It's only after the UK joined the EU that it became a thing (culminating in Brexit), and it did so only as political talking points in Anglo-Saxon media outlets. | |
| Aug 2, 2019 at 10:09 | comment | added | bobsburner | @DenisdeBernardy could you rephrase that please? I can't tell what you mean for sure. I was basing my answer on what I remember from the time before the treaty was passed in all EU countries. | |
| Aug 1, 2019 at 12:59 | comment | added | Denis de Bernardy | Methinks that's extremely unlikely. What you suggest is almost certainly reinterpreting post-war/early EU realities with the sovereignty obsessed Anglo-Saxon lens that culminated with Vote Leave's "Take back control" slogan and Brexit. Until former Eastern block countries joined (the Visegrad Group in particular), the UK was the only country concerned to the point of obsession with transferring sovereignty to EU institutions. | |
| Aug 1, 2019 at 9:47 | history | answered | bobsburner | CC BY-SA 4.0 |