EU/International "law"

GUIGuy

Often in the media we here the phrase EU/European/International "law".
Please correct me but last time I checked the EU/UN were not sovereign "law" making bodies in the traditional nation state sense. So why do the media & some politicians persist in using the word?
Ignorance?
Simplification?
Blame someone else for something unpopular you've done?

Seems very common in UK media but growing here too.

My understanding is that that sovereign nation states enter into agreements on certain areas via EU, UN or Bi Lateral treaties. In the case of the EU, member states voluntarily agree to cede competency to the EU in certain areas while retaining competency in others.

The EU publishes Regulations and Directives.

"Regulations" are specific rules on an area of competence that has been voluntarily ceded by the nation (for example we adhere to environmental protection regulations in Ireland, but UK did not cede competency on workers rights so the regulations don't apply there). These directives override national law in the ceded areas.

"Directives" are requirements to achieve a stated situation but it's up to the member state how to do it. Nations write their own legislation that gives effect to the directive... so the directive is 'transposed' into national law... but it is national law.

Is my understanding broadly correct? If yes why do we often hear moaning/hand-washing in some political quarters about areas that the sovereign agreed to. Essentially there's no compulsion, no EU law that the sovereign didn't agree to cede in the first place.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

GUIGuy wrote: »

Is my understanding broadly correct?

I would say your understanding is broadly correct but you're being too inflexible with the meaning of 'law'.

What is a regulation, a directive, or a decision, in having direct effect or causing a general effect to arise, but laws by other names?

I don't see the point of distinguishing. I use the term EU Law regularly, I've never heard of anyone shrinking from this particular expression.

If yes why do we often hear moaning/hand-washing in some political quarters about areas that the sovereign agreed to. Essentially there's no compulsion, no EU law that the sovereign didn't agree to cede in the first place.

Delegating legislative powers to an organization does not have the effect of rendering an individual mute to grumbling about any subsequent decisions.

We, the people, delegate administrative and legislative functions all the time. It doesn't mean we cannot grumble when some decision is taken which we could never have foreseen, and with which we disagree. Handing power to someone does not mean you just shut up thereafter.

Guyanachronism

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Only in justice and home affairs in the day to day running, it does opt out of many directives in that area. In fact they're currently exercising a block opt out that was negotiated in the Lisbon treaty and selectively opting back into measures. I think it's over 130 measures and opting back into abou 40. Mostly in the area of police co-operation. Ireland has a similar opt out, we opt out of most migration directives but into the police co-operation ones. I am not sure about Ireland doing this block opt out thing.

The UK is doing it at this point because the oppurtunity expires in the next year or so as the ECJ gains competency in the area.

They also opted out obviously from monetary union, charter of fundamental rights and schengen. It's just that they can stil selectively opt into elements of schengen/JHA.