Funnily enough an old school friend posted a load of nonsense about this very Topic this morning. Will try and copy and paste it.

Not necessarily, the British Courts are still tied to the European Court - and have been since before the EU.

The European court provides recommendations in an advisory role back to the national court system and government on how to resolve conflict between two existing laws.

Why, because they're independent and political uninvolved in your case, or your nations political pressure. It also consists entirely of Judges of the highest possible level of attainment in their home nation - i.e. the best judges available - Who only deal with these issues.

Mirroring in the UK is feasible, its just going to be very expensive to have at least three of the highest attainment judges, only sitting on cases that deal with conflicts in UK law (and of course their independence from the UK Judicary cannot be established because positions to this post will be by the UK government or Judicary).

Under the ECHR, each government assigns a judge to the ECHR, by that judge is precluded from sitting on petitions from their own member state.

So basically, yes, you could do something very similar in the UK but it would be less independent, less cost effective and remove a number of very highly qualified UK judges from the judicial circuit.

Its pragmatic to retain the European Court access, in terms of cost, independence and the drain on our own judicial resources.

It's pragmatic to retain control of our own laws and have our own courts rule on them.

Because otherwise we'd all be driving around on mopeds with no helmet on shouting "ciaobella" at school girls.

Why is it pragmatic, when it will be less efficient, more expensive and have less expertise available? Surely that's no pragmatic at all.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (06 Apr 2017 1.37pm)

I admire your attempt to get the thread back on track!