tteedd wrote: A 'Brexit Effect' in general seems to highlight that there are a lot of people with scant regard for democracy.

It is in my view much too simplistic to suggest people have scant regard for democracy if they continue to fight and argue for the UK to remain in the EU. I believe people were led to believe by all sides during the referendum process that the process would be very simple and straight forward, whatever their vote. That was far from the truth.

Britain has had for centuries a representative democracy. Parliament is sovereign not an advisor plebiscite that gained a relatively small majority. The leavers believe the rights hopes and opinions of the millions of people who voted remain should be ignored. They believe their view is the only one that matters because a small majority gained it. That is not democratic either.

The opinions of the elected parliamentary representatives should have the final say on leaving the EU and how that leaving should be done. That is how a representative democracy is supposed to work. If the leavers don't like that system then they should vote to change it and basically support a dictatorship. 

There are only two ways for Britain to leave the EU. With a deal or without. Parliament has voted to prevent leaving without a deal. So the choice left is either the deal or no Brexit. The leaving supporting MP's have that choice.

I fully agree. In the interest of democracy the 17.4 million votes to leave should be null and void, even though they voted for a straight leave.

.................. The opinions of the elected parliamentary representatives should have the final say.............

Good point Micky. 

Having lived ouitside UK for over 15 years I was not allowed to vote in the referendum.   I have dual nationality so I am not directly affected by whatever happens. Thus I am not a remainer nor a leaver.  

However, on your point:  The EU overrides laws passed by the UK Government.  I believe that is why some voted to leave: So that parliament will once again have the final say.

PS       Perhaps UK should just leave it up to the ECJ to order UK to ignore whatever the electorate say, as they have with other UK laws.

The legitimacy of a referendum is virtually lost if the margin of approval or disapproval of voters is very narrow. In such cases instead of resolving an issue, it may complicate an existing issue which in this case is self-evident. The majority percentage in this case was 3.8%

The legislation the government originally passed to create the referendum in the first place could have made the majority vote result binding on parliament. It chose not to. My essential point is the British system of government ie: Parliament supersedes all forms of decision making by whosoever makes it. Even the sovereign herself.

: Parliament supersedes all forms of decision making by whosoever makes it. Even the sovereign herself.

unless over ruled by ECJ Micky   It has the last say 

Quite right. The sheep have no say whatsoever. Everything should be decided by a handful of people who are entitled to do as they want. True democracy.

If I may say so that's another myth along with straight bananas that caused leaver to believe the way they do.

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union only in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ.

The ECJ does not have supremacy over the UK parliament. All EU member states national law is interpreted by their own courts and those laws run in tandem with EU law. The two sets of laws having compatibility in terms of the values and aspirations of the member states.

Micky. Not a myth.   As I explained I have no axe to grind as I am not personally affected one way or the other by Brexit 

just two examples 

1.   DWP had to start paying disability benefit to claimants living outside U.K. in EU countries.  That had a knock on with winter fuel payments which DWP decided were covered by the   same ECJ finding See report https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/02/19/accessing-disability-benefits-brits-spain-post-brexit/

2.  Non EU spouses were no longer obliged to have a visa to visit U.K. with their spouses following a case brought against U.K. See 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30528189

Here is some ‘light reading’ which also explains the true situation 

In this article, Martin Howe QC explains the basics of EU law:

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws   

PS  Just found this too.   Examples of ECJ ‘interfering’ with the laws of other countries 

Pensions in court:
A legal update

http://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/images/EP_Jan_17-legal.pdf

This message was last edited by johnzx on 15/03/2019.

Voting for Brexit was a way for some to protest against a political and economic system they felt had left them behind while UK politicians had their nose in the EU trough enjoying tax payers freebies like weekly trips to the EU on first class flights, five star hotels and special entertainment in their hotel rooms. The sheep were left to queue at food banks or begged for welfare handouts. They seized the Brexit vote as an opportunity to bloody the noses of politicians and officials they blame for stealing their sense of hope.

When the six founding European states created the European Economic Community in 1957 they did so in the form of an international treaty (known as the Treaty of Rome) that was binding between them. That treaty also created the European Court of Justice. In an important ruling in 1964, the Court said that the states had agreed to no sovereign rights in the areas covered by the treaty and could not adopt national laws that were incompatible with European law. This principle of ‘primacy’ or supremacy of EU law has been accepted and applied by national courts including the UK courts.

The Court of Justice has the power to strike down national law; the national courts will, however, seek to resolve the conflict through interpretation. But UK courts are required not to enforce UK laws to the extent that they are incompatible with EU obligations.

Now the remainders want to abolish democracy and adopt tactics from the likes of Mussolini, Caesar, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe and Arthur Scargill.

Courts and the judicial system interpret the law Parliament created. All law in practice is subject to the judgment (Interpretation) by others, be it the Supreme Court the House of Lords or the ECJ. Parliament creates law. The legal profession put into practice what they believe that Parliament intended.

National law has to be compatible with EU law if you wish to be in the club. There has to be a final arbitrator to rule with a judgment upon that compatibility. It's the legal process of interpretation, not the ECJ holding sovereignty over Parliament as John suggested.

Most people I would advocate were content with the situation as it was prior to the referendum. Now every negative and positive is used to justify a particular position.

This subject is mightily complex and itself is open to interpretation. People have opinions takes sides that's normal. Nothings set in stone. Even the law.

The European Court of Justice is supreme and we are currently in the club.

It would seem that 17.4 million UK citizens, the majority were not content with the situation.

The result of the referendum clearly justifies the current position and is the will of the people. The remainders lost, like it or not.

Laws are set in stone unless they are changed. It’s not, A,B,C, or ask the audience or go 50/50.

Interpretation of the bare clear facts can be difficult for some people.

** EDITED - Against forum rules **

Micky.   “Most people I would advocate were content with the situation as it was prior to the referendum”

Then why was there a referendum if everyone was satisfied,  and then the majority voted to leave?  That does not make sense 

I invite leavers to name a single EU law that the country objects to and has attempted to repeal. All EU law is now UK law and will remain so in order to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU post-Brexit.

Prior to the referendum, the same group of MP's who are ideologically against the UK membership of the EU were threatening to split the party. Ukip was gaining support due to immigration and exploited the Syrian conflict and the refugee exodus for its own purposes.

Cameron stupidly called the referendum at the worse possible time when people were worried about immigration and job competition. I do not believe the people who voted leave were particularly ideologically opposed to the EU as such. It gave the disaffected a chance to kick the establishment. The lies and propaganda during the referendum also turned heads to vote leave.

I have accepted the referendum result and the fact the UK is leaving the EU. The issue is now the future campaign to rejoin the EU which starts the day after the UK leaves, which is now looking like June.

Micky. You reversed the question 

it is the ECJ which has caused U.K. to change laws passed by parliament and affected legislation which may have been introduced, but parliament realised would be opposed by the EU

Hiwever , 

“UK’s lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.”

I think you would need the statistics related to other countries for that figure of 72 refusals to be put into some form of perspective. The fact is there were and are considerable advantages for Britain to comply with EU law. I accept Britain probably complies better than many other states and it does seem sometimes enforcement is lacking. Nobody ever said the EU was perfect, least of all myself.

It's a done deal now anyway. There is little point in arguing the pros and cons. Britain will leave I'm pretty certain of that. It remains to be seen if the level of damage I believe it will cause to the British economy will come to pass.

The consolation is Spain and France will treat it's existing British citizens fairly and continue the rights we enjoy today as a member state. Freedom of movement is a loss but not an insurmountable one for me personally.

Future Britains seeking to retire to Spain will face hurdles, however. Not the least of those will be justifying their income levels to gain residence. Brexit will damage their prospects. There has to be some negative consequences. many of which have yet to be realised.

“UK’s lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.”

A claim made by the Leave campaign but doesn't wash when you look at the "facts". 

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

Not quite so bad when you look at it that way. Considering Germany has been on the losing side 5.4% of the time then it rather smacks of rhetoric. Anyone can produce figures but putting "fact"  at the end of something doesn't really make it so unless all figures are shown.

Micky.   Hi any chance of a reply to 

“Most people I would advocate were content with the situation as it was prior to the referendum”

Then why was there a referendum if everyone was satisfied,  and then the majority voted to leave?  That does not make sense 

Mariedav what do you make of this which makes reference to the ECJ further advancing its powers and “ creative interpretations” which can frustrate and compromise not only the member state but also their nationals? If not careful doesn’t this lead to an expansion of disillusionment and division across member states?

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

‘’The issue is now the future campaign to rejoin the EU which starts the day after the UK leaves, which is now looking like June.’’

That’s immense news and I appreciate your extremist ambitions, but please endeavour to maintain your forthcoming radical actions and advancement intelligence between you and your extremist comrades in the pub.

The public are nauseous of hearing BREXIT and will under no circumstances desire to hear of it again in their life span.

Tough for you angeleyes but that's democracy. There's a new generation of young people coming to voting age who seek careers opportunities and education in Europe. Europe's not going away, Britain is.

John - I answered your point. However in shorthand so to speak. Public ambiviant mostly towards EU until fired up by politicians on the make and an opportunity to kick the establishment. Hence small majority for big concequence.