EU couldn’t tame the …snail

Let’s suppose the UK’s decision to exit the European Union somehow reflected the belief that the parliamentary sovereignty was curtailed by the supremacy of EU law. Then why there isn’t a complaint about the curtailed by the Common Law?

The House of Commons approval of Britain’s entry to the European Economic Community on the 28th of October 1971, was followed by triumphing over the new era in the wider European territory, as a warm welcome to the aftermaths of the second world war. Germany was escaped from Nazism, French and Italian dictatorship defeated. Building the european unity was the solid and capable answer to the Soviet Union. Although discussing that reshaped European regime, we shall first admit the critical difference between Eastern and the other Europeans with British people. Britain never felt a need to escape from its past. It is like the romance melody of Britain culture; they always preferred wallowing in the past to confronting the future, and for them the nation-state is something to be celebrated, not to be transcended. The culmination of that melody can be heard in a comparison study of Manga Charta with the French Revolution and European Enlightenment or the ideas behind the books of Baron de Montesquieu and Rigas Ferrao.

Brexiting always existed; it existed geologically, culturally, and historically. Unlike most countries of the European continent, Britain’s history was globally imperial, and that has given a profound sense of exceptionalism. Culturally, we shall mention the famous “Bruges speech of 1988”, where the Iron Lady stated, “we have not embarked on the business of throwing back the frontiers of state at home only to see a European superstate getting ready to exercise a new dominance from Brussels”.

Furthermore, a question arises as to whether the UK ever an honest EU member was. But that question has to be answered through another question. Was the EU’s seven-time geographical enlargement a genuine celebration or a revolutionised transcendence orchestrated by technocrats?

This essay discusses if the UK’s decision to exit the European Union reflects the belief that the supremacy of EU law curtailed parliamentary sovereignty. That argument includes an accusation that British culture cares in a populist way about the origin of each law rule or legal practice. This accusation quickly collapsed when we realized that the Common Law legal system is like a glass of water and oil. There is the statute mechanism, and there is the actual Common Law and Equity, each bundle with its own power sources and tradition.

The essay’s author has decided to begin by explaining why a little snail was able to defeat the effectiveness of European Supremacy.

● @Academia

Leave a Reply

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

You May Also Like

When the GDPR goes wrong…

This article discusses the unseen danger when the EU data-commissioners start capriciously implying the vague text of GDPR.

Φιλοσοφία του Δικαίου και Θανατική Ποινή

Η κινηματογραφική απόδοση της «δικαιοσύνης» και του ηρωισμού χαράσσει με ιδιαίτερη ευκολία τις συνειδήσεις μας και στην αντίθετη όχθη η, τεθειμένων διαδικασιών, θανατική ποινή ξεσηκώνει την αγανάκτηση και οργή, αντίθεση που προσωπικά την αναγάγω στην ολοένα μειούμενη ταύτιση των κοινωνών προς τα κυβερνητικά όργανα και στην έλλειψη ουσιαστικής κατανόησης της αρχής της πλειοψηφίας και της ελευθερίας της κομματικής δράσεως.
Hands holding an open leather wallet with banknotes and a personal photograph, symbolising direct control over assets without third-party intermediaries—the physical equivalent of a self-hosted crypto wallet.

Self-hosted wallets under EU Law: Compliance through Intermediation

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation sets licensing rules for crypto-asset service providers, but it doesn't say what happens when these middlemen deal with self-hosted wallets. The Transfer of Funds Regulation, also known as Regulation 2023/1113, answers this question about information that goes along with transfers of money and some crypto-assets. This essay looks at how the TFR sets up a framework of stricter due diligence instead of a ban. For transactions over € 1.000, it requires CASPs to check wallet ownership and add blockchain monitoring capabilities. It follows the EBA's Travel Rule Guidelines, the person-to-person exclusion in Article 2(4), and the Commission's job in Article 37 to figure out if more restrictions are needed by June 2026. As self-hosted wallets turn into gated endpoints instead of alternative pathways, lawyers and compliance experts all over Europe need to know how this framework changes the line between regulated intermediation and self-custody.