What sovereign powers did the UK loose being a EU member?

[NotAllThere]

Thank you for your unsolicited interpretation

No problem.

if I need your assistance in future I shall ask.

Now I know it's an irritant to you, you needn't bother.

[scooterscot]

2nd page and still nobody answers with conviction.

[malvolio]

OK, we didn't lose any: the UK was and remains a sovereign nation. Therefore we won't regain any. What we will lose is being subservient to a higher law-making assembly and we revert to our House of Lords Supreme Court being the highest available authority across the board as opposed to now where trading deals and regulations, and other related matters are under the aegis of the EU.

And just to be clear, we also didn't lose any powers by joining the EU/EEC back n the 70s. That happened when some damn fool ratified Maastricht

[Zigenare]

OK, we didn't lose any: the UK was and remains a sovereign nation. Therefore we won't regain any. What we will lose is being subservient to a higher law-making assembly and we revert to our House of Lords Supreme Court being the highest available authority across the board as opposed to now where trading deals and regulations, and other related matters are under the aegis of the EU.

And just to be clear, we also didn't lose any powers by joining the EU/EEC back n the 70s. That happened when some damn fool ratified Maastricht

I like this bit from Wikipedia...

In the United Kingdom, an opt-out from the treaty's social provisions was opposed in Parliament by the opposition Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and the treaty itself by the Maastricht Rebels within the governing Conservative Party. The number of rebels exceeded the Conservative majority in the House of Commons, and thus the government of John Major came close to losing the confidence of the House.[8] In accordance with British constitutional convention, specifically that of parliamentary sovereignty, ratification in the UK was not subject to approval by referendum. Despite this, the British constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor wrote at the time that there was “a clear constitutional rationale for requiring a referendum” because although MPs are entrusted with legislative power by the electorate, they are not given authority to transfer that power (the UK’s previous three referenda all concerned the transfer of parliamentary powers). Further, as the ratification of the treaty was in the manifestos of the three major political parties, voters opposed to ratification had no way to express that opposition. For Bogdanor, while the ratification of the treaty by the House of Commons might be legal, it would not be legitimate - which requires popular consent. The way in which the treaty was ratified, he judged, was “likely to have fundamental consequences both for British politics and for Britain's relationship with the European Community”.

[scooterscot]

OK, we didn't lose any: the UK was and remains a sovereign nation. Therefore we won't regain any. What we will lose is being subservient to a higher law-making assembly and we revert to our House of Lords Supreme Court being the highest available authority across the board as opposed to now where trading deals and regulations, and other related matters are under the aegis of the EU.

Perhaps you will now be so kind as to inform MSM no sovereignty was lost. Five laws the European Union helped stop the Tories from passing

In anticipation of government regaining absolute control over its subjects, here's a snapshot of what you can look forward to, which the nasty EU helped to stop.



1. Human Rights

Back in 2015 part of David Cameron’s manifesto had been to scrap the Human Rights Act, a creation and key requirement of EU membership which provides a whole host of protections, including the right to life, security, freedom from slavery and forced labour, to name a few. However when Cameron tried to replace the act with the British Bill of Rights, he faced opposition from the EU and from members of his own party, forcing him to kick it into the long grass.
2. The environment

The UK government had attempted to block the EU from enacting legislation that would limit imports of tar sand oils from Canada, which are a greenhouse gas heavy method of making oil for transportation. Additionally, the British government tried (and failed) to block the EU pesticide ban, which protects bees.
3. Air pollution

In 2015 the Conservative government tried to block EU legislation which would force member states to conduct random emission checks on cars. The legislation was passed, and the UK was heavily criticised for attempting to block it on the grounds it was an "administrative burden for industry and government".
4. Animal welfare

The EU has been instrumental in the formation of animal welfare codes in the UK. In 2012 the EU were successful in banning barren cages for battery hens, and in 2013 sow stalls, which keep pigs in confined spaces all their lives, were also banned. The Conservative government has put de-regulatory policies on animal welfare on the table, including plans to repeal the welfare codes.
5. Workers' rights

The EU safeguards employee rights by ensuring that paid holidays, protected overtime pay for full and part-time workers as well as the right for workers to strike is upheld by the UK. The Tories attempted to pass the Trade Union Bill last year - which would cripple workers' right to take strike action - but he was prevented from doing so by heavy criticism from the EU and the House of Lords. The bill was shelved in April 2016 in an attempt to get workers' unions onside ahead of the June EU referendum. Now we've left, it could be back on the table.

[AtW]

OK, we didn't lose any: the UK was and remains a sovereign nation. Therefore we won't regain any. What we will lose is being subservient to a higher law-making assembly and we revert to our House of Lords Supreme Court being the highest available authority across the board as opposed to now where trading deals and regulations, and other related matters are under the aegis of the EU.

So you'd still be subservient, only to people who have direct vested interest to shaft you?

[malvolio]

As usual, misunderstanding the terminology or the intent.

Seeking to overturn EU-wide rules is not an issue of sovereignty, although it may be one of national interest (while noting that from the quoted examples I don't see that). It's a lack of leverage within the club that we are trying hard to escape from.

[darmstadt]

Flooding EU with chlorined chickens

HTH

Actually it's going to be a lot worse than that:

Defect Levels Handbook

For example, US producers are allowed to include up to 30 insect fragments in a 100g jar of peanut butter; as well as 11 rodent hairs in a 25g container of paprika; or 3mg of mammalian excreta (typically rat or mouse excrement) per each pound of ginger.
...
US food law allows traces of rodent in a variety of foods. For example, producers are allowed up to 11 rodent hairs per 25 grams of paprika and cinnamon; 4.5 hairs per 225 grams of noodles; and 4 hairs per 25 grams of curry powder.
It's not just hair. US producers will also get away with mammalian excreta (mammal faeces) in their food, usually from rodents. You could find up to 3 milligrams per pound of ginger and 10 milligrams per pound of cocoa beans.
...
A UK-US free trade deal could lead to maggots hiding in some of your favourite food products. US producers are currently allowed one maggot per 250 millilitres of citrus juice — like orange and apple juice — and two per 100 grams of tomato juice.
You could also find two maggots for every 100 grams of the tomato paste used on pizzas.
...
In the US, the law allows up to 30 insect fragments per 100 grams of peanut butter; 60 insect fragments per 100 grams of chocolate; and up to 100 per 10 grams of nutmeg.
...
The US also allows worms and caterpillars in food products. However, there are rules.
For example, only three per cent of canned peaches and five per cent of currants can be infested with or eaten into by worms.
US producers are allowed two spinach worms (caterpillars) which are longer than 12mm per 24 pounds of the plant.
...
According to the US' Food Defeat Handbook, mould is an acceptable feature of a wide variety of food. A quarter of salt-cured olives per batch put on the market are allowed to be mouldy, for example. As are 20 per cent of canned pineapple segments, and 15 per cent of cranberry sauce.

[AtW]

It’s all project fear!

A fair few bottles of tequila got worms in them, so there!

[chopper]

As usual, misunderstanding the terminology or the intent.

Seeking to overturn EU-wide rules is not an issue of sovereignty, although it may be one of national interest (while noting that from the quoted examples I don't see that). It's a lack of leverage within the club that we are trying hard to escape from.

Is the problem not that we didn't have leverage, but that the UK Government failed to exercise that leverage.

The EU Referendum was basically a small number of super rich worrying about the forthcoming EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, and somehow managing to convince the general population to support them, by talking about Turkey, Trade Deals (honestly, do those general public who still support Brexit actually give a toss about Trade Deals?) and other nonsense.