David Davis tells us that the Great Repeal Bill will incorporate all EU law into UK law from day one. He also says that the UK will subsequently decide which EU laws, if any, to remove. Is David Davis correct in his assessment; or are we being deceived yet again? Here is David Davis:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... ower-back/
The BBC explains that the entire body of European laws is known as the "Acquis Communautaire": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/eur ... 216329.stm
This PDF from the House of Commons confirms the statement from the BBC report above:
The Acquis Communautaire is the accumulated body of European Union (EU) law and obligations from 1958 to the present day. It comprises all the EU's treaties and laws (directives, regulations, decisions), declarations and resolutions, international agreements and the judgments of the Court of Justice. It also includes action that EU governments take together in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and under the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
New EU Member States must accept all the existing acquis - some elements of it during a transitional period - and put in place mechanisms to adopt future elements of the acquis.
The Court of Justice has ruled that the EU acquis takes precedence over national law if there is a conflict, and that the acquis may have direct effect in the Member States.
Here we see the Acquis Communautaire defined:http://www.euro-know.org/europages/dictionary/a.html
The acquis communautaire, or Community heritage, is the entire body of laws, policies and practices which have at any given time evolved in the EU. The term had been current in European circles for some years before it made its first formal appearance in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, under which it became an explicit objective of the Union 'to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it'. Thus the concept lies at the heart of the ratchet process of European integration, since it commits the member states to accept all previous and future centralising measures and implicitly rules out any repatriation of powers.
The acquis particularly comes into play when new countries join the EU. These are required to abide by the Union's Treaties, legal obligations and policy positions, to 'take such measures as may be necessary to ensure their implementation' and to acknowledge the supremacy of Community law. A notable example was the enforced acceptance by Denmark, Ireland and the UK of the Common Fisheries Policy, which had been rushed through at the last minute in 1971 to enable the existing member states to lay claim to those countries' Atlantic and North Sea fish as a 'common resource'. Another example was the acceptance of the objective of Economic and Monetary Union by Spain and Portugal many years before it found legal expression in the Maastricht Treaty.
The Amsterdam Treaty introduced the principle of greater flexibility within the EU, but made it clear that this was a last resort and was applicable only to future developments. It did not, therefore, affect the sacrosanct nature of the acquis.
So, the Acquis Communautaire is the whole body of EU law that takes “ supremacy” over all member state's law, and includes the “ratcheting process of European integration" – AND - rules out "ANY REPATRIATION OF POWERS”.
How does the “supremacy of EU law” over member state's law, and the non “repatriation of national powers/sovereignty” compare with what David Davis told Parliament? Is David Davis saying the Government is about to break binding and ratcheting EU law by reclaiming national sovereignty powers, even though the European Court is supreme over British courts; or is the Government deceitfully misleading us again?
Again: David Davis says that all of the last several decades of EU law are to be absorbed into UK law by the Great Repeal Bill. The EU law that is to be absorbed include the "supremacy of EU law", and the NON "repatriation of powers”/national sovereignty.
Do politicians lie to us. Well, they did over taking us into the Common Market in the first place. They insisted that the CM was NOT about political union - but it was - and they all KNEW it was.
I suggest that Brexit actually means NO CHANGE, and we are remaining under the control of, primarily Germany, with a 'helping hand' from France (a long time natural enemy of Britain).