If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
Louis D. Brandels

Much was made by the Leave side, during the referendum, which involved the slogan  ‘taking back control’; and John Redwood MP is oft fond of making the point that it is the UK parliament that should decide the laws to which the United Kingdom should adhere. But just what is the origin of law to which we, the people, should pay heed; because in the vast majority of cases the UK parliament is not the originator.

Some years ago the term ‘diqule’ was ‘coined’- see here and here. ‘Diqules’ can be summed up as ‘a mechanism by which a country’s civil service overrules its own politicians by sitting on international committees that passes down regulation to lower international committees, which then pass legislation by which the individual countries are bound‘. The reach of the diqule is phenomenal.

For instance, the most important banking rules, governing the conduct of the international banks, emanate as “diqules” from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. International food standards are often initiated as diqules  – which are then adopted regionally and locally. These are determined by the Codex Alimentarius. The 27 EU Member States are all members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. In 2003, the European Community joined, sharing competence with EU countries depending on the level of harmonisation of the respective legislation. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, the EU became the nominal body. The EU and its Member States draw up EU position papers on the issues discussed in the Codex Commission, the various Codex Committees and Task Forces.  The Committee on Fish and Fishery Products is hosted by Norway. 

Matters relating to trade in agricultural products, and in particular barriers to trade, are handled by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). At a global level, this organisation takes the lead on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and rural development, feeding in to WTO negotiations.  It also co-ordinates implementation of the 1992 Earth Summit’s Agenda 21.

At a global level, environmental issues are determined and co-ordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Climate Change issues are agreed through the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships is dealt with by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which came into being in the wake of the 1912 Titanic disaster and spawned the first international safety of life at sea – SOLAS – convention, still the most important treaty addressing maritime safety.
Rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources, are dealt with by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under the aegis of IACO is the Air Navigation Commission, which considers and recommends, for approval by the ICAO Council, Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) for the safety and efficiency of international civil aviation

These global organisations are supplemented by regional bodies, such as the 56-member United Nations Economic Commission Europe (UNECE), which for historical reasons includes the United States. It is responsible, inter alia, for most of the technical standardisation of transport, including docks, railways and road networks. It also deals with the very detailed technical harmonisation of vehicle construction and safety standards. With UNEP, it administers pollution and climate change issues, and hosts regional agreements.

(the examples quoted above are from the second link – for which acknowledgement is given) although many other examples exist.

So tell me, @johnredwood, as the EU is so obviously a ‘law-taker’, just how would the UK parliament be any different from the EU? He should also consider. which he appears to ignore, that if he wishes to form free trade agreements with other nations – and prosper – he will be bound by law in which he has not had ‘a voice’; not that he is alone in this misconception. Other than Stephen Kinnock (who is ‘almost on board’ with ‘matters EU’) can anyone name another MP so ‘almost’ enlightened?

When one reads ‘tweets’ from those who believe in a Brexit that entails ‘taking back control’ – and ‘all that that entails’ – how can they be blamed for their ignorance when they have been led in their beliefs by those who know not.

This nation of ours, which has a ‘glorious history’, is not about to ‘go down the swanee’; it is about to be ‘flushed down the toilet’ by a group of 650 of us who know not about that which they will decide.