 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.
Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel??
No, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. Trading with another land is not the same thing as being completely familiar with a culture you share or have full knowledge of. That is my point. People receiving goods from China predated people knowing anything about China beyond it was the source of certain goods, by a considerable margin.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.
But, generally speaking, democracies don't go to war with other democracies (and I can't think of a modern example of that happening). Presumably the main reason why the six founder EEC members didn't all start invading each other (other than the whole NATO / Soviet threat thing) is that they were democratic countries?
I struggle to believe that the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, has only continued to be a democracy because of the existence of the EEC.
Well, Germany was a democracy from 1919 to around 1930 and that still didn't stop it from going to war less than a decade later with the other democracies of Britain and France.
That is a particularly spectacular example of failing to negate a point.
It's not even a point I'm particularly fond of supporting, but when someone says democracies don't tend to go to war with democracies, bringing up an example of a former democracy and explicitly pointing out to everyone that it was not a democracy when it went to war is truly bizarre.
I don't think anyone was claiming that when a democracy ceased to be a democracy, the magical qualities of being a democracy ought to carry on. Indeed, the entire point would be that having moved to a lesser form of government, it has lost the qualities it once had.
Next you'll be telling me that the fact I gained weight after I stopped going to the gym disproves the notion that going to the gym was helping me stay in shape.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Any such changes should be ... driven by what the people living in the affected regions want, not by what a bunch of bureaucrats or ideologues think would be best for them.
That's not just an argument for leaving the EU - that's an argument for the dismantling of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland superstate
If that is what the majority of people in any given part of the UK want, then yes. Scotland is the only part that has even got close to that position, and even then they (just) voted to stay part of the UK.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
If the British constitution was run on the basis of majoritism (and even if that were a good thing - Exhibit A: the governance of Northern Ireland, especially from 1921 to 1974), then we would not tolerate a system which allows a government to have a working majority based on barely a third of votes available to it in a general election.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.
Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel??
No, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. Trading with another land is not the same thing as being completely familiar with a culture you share or have full knowledge of. That is my point. People receiving goods from China predated people knowing anything about China beyond it was the source of certain goods, by a considerable margin.
But there was far more to it than that and, arguably, there were closer ties between 'us' and 'them' between 43AD and the Reformation than there were between the Reformation and more recent years: common lingua franca (Latin); ethno-linguistic ties for the ruling elites (Roman/ Latin, then Germanic (Franks and Saxons), then French (eg: Angevins and Capetians); part of a common socio-cultural and quasi-political entity (Roman Empire, then medieval Christendom), etc. Your China analogy is a case of apples and oranges.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This entire conversation was based on propositions about the end goal of the EU being political union. ...
And there certainly are at least some signs that political union IS the end goal. I'm not entirely convinced that the EU is simply a treaty-making exercise like other treaty-making exercises, because when I go to Wikipedia I find maps with comments like "obliged to join the Eurozone" and "legally obliged to join Schengen area". There's a very real sense that doing particular deals on particular topics is not an option, and in fact has been deliberately excluded as an option.
Yes, increased political union is a goal of the EU. I'm not sure anyone has ever denied that. Therefore, it isn't the same as other treaty making excercises in establishing free-trade areas, defensive pacts etc.
But, every step along the way has been established by treaty, not by dictate from some bureocracy. And, every member state within the EU has been involved in the negotiations of those treaties and has agreed to them (although in many cases the negotiations have resulted in treaties which don't bind all member states to all the clauses).
Yes, it is expected that any new member of the EU would have to sign a treaty to join, and that would include signing up to all the existing treaties. Therefore, in theory, some elements of the EU (Schengen and Eurozone membership) would be non-negotiable - if you want to join the EU these are some of the requirements. In practice, pragmatism would probably take over and if the relevant treaties provide opt outs for some existing members then if the EU wants the new member enough I suspect they'll find a way of allowing those opt outs to apply as well. But, we won't know that until another nation enters negotiations to join and they actually write the treaty for that. If there is a Brexit then my suspicion is that the newly independent Scotland will be the first coming to the table to gain admission to the EU looking at retaining at least some of the opt outs the UK currently has.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it? Well, unless the SNP get cold feet, unlikely.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I have no doubt that it will.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It may, probably will, take much more than a stroke of a pen. But, sooner or later the borders of all our nations will change in some way or another.
Yes, they will. But that doesn't mean they must change in a specific way. Any such changes should be - will be, I hope - driven by what the people living in the affected regions want, not by what a bunch of bureaucrats or ideologues think would be best for them.
And, no one is suggesting that European bureaucrats or ideologues are able to impose anything on anyone without their approval. All of the regulations that have been clarified by the EU that are inforce in the UK have been approved by the UK government, and the UK government has demonstrated an ability to thwart the imposition of regulations on the UK that they think the people of the UK don't want. Now, you may want to make an argument about the UK government not representing the will of the people of the UK, but that is a radically different argument than one that says the EU bureaucracy is imposing things on the UK against the will of the UK government.
If, say, a proposal was put forward for the nations of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg to unite into a new Benelux nation then that would need to be agreed by all the people of those nations, it can't be forced on them from without. No amount of enthusiasm for that as a step towards greater European political union from French or German idealogies is going to make a jot of difference if the people of any of those nations don't like the terms of the proposed union.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I have no doubt that it will.
I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't highlight this, but maybe they don't want to ruffle the Scottish waters.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I have no doubt that it will.
I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't highlight this, but maybe they don't want to ruffle the Scottish waters.
That's where it gets complicated - if it becomes overtly "vote In to save the UK" then the SNP is going to end up very conflicted. A massive uniform In vote on those terms would make their own aspirations for independence go a bit longer term. I can't imagine when it comes down to it that they'd be altogether unhappy with an Out vote regardless of the noises they make (provided within that Scotland has voted to remain In).
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That is a particularly spectacular example of failing to negate a point.
It's not even a point I'm particularly fond of supporting, but when someone says democracies don't tend to go to war with democracies, bringing up an example of a former democracy and explicitly pointing out to everyone that it was not a democracy when it went to war is truly bizarre.
I don't think anyone was claiming that when a democracy ceased to be a democracy, the magical qualities of being a democracy ought to carry on. Indeed, the entire point would be that having moved to a lesser form of government, it has lost the qualities it once had.
Not failing to negate the point at all: the point I am making (and which still stands) is that just because a country is a democracy now gives no guarantee of its capacity and willingness to go to war at some point in the future - in 1930s Germany's case, less than a decade.
[code]
[ 25. February 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.
Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel??
No, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. Trading with another land is not the same thing as being completely familiar with a culture you share or have full knowledge of. That is my point. People receiving goods from China predated people knowing anything about China beyond it was the source of certain goods, by a considerable margin.
But there was far more to it than that and, arguably, there were closer ties between 'us' and 'them' between 43AD and the Reformation than there were between the Reformation and more recent years: common lingua franca (Latin); ethno-linguistic ties for the ruling elites (Roman/ Latin, then Germanic (Franks and Saxons), then French (eg: Angevins and Capetians); part of a common socio-cultural and quasi-political entity (Roman Empire, then medieval Christendom), etc. Your China analogy is a case of apples and oranges.
More a case of peaches and apricots, I should think. I won't deny that the China example was deliberately hyperbolic to illustrate the point. But I was trying to point out the foolishness of the opposite claim, that the separation of Britain as an island had no bearing whatsoever. Of course it did.
For example, talking about a common lingua franca spectacularly ignores the fact that a lingua franca was needed because the native languages were different. That's like saying that everyone speaks English to each other nowadays, and therefore what they actually speak in their own home as their native tongue is a trifling detail.
Nor is the history of Christianity in Britain anything like the same as the history of Christianity on the continent. I've recently learning about this very topic, how the King of Kent married a Frankish princess, and how this was significant precisely because her kingdom was Christian and his wasn't, and how Latin Christianity arrived in the south of England at about the same time as Irish Christianity arrived from the north, and this created a fusion that was absent elsewhere.
Nor is it true that just because Franks and Saxons were both Germanic everything was the same. There was a fundamental difference in how the Franks ruled over a Latin-speaking people, compared to the Saxons who forced out a people that were Celtic with a Latin overlay. The first known document in the English language (laws of Kent) was an innovation precisely because equivalent documents in other places such as the Frankish kingdom has been produced in Latin.
Which leads neatly into the problem of claiming that the Roman Empire provided a common heritage. Not for the Angles and Saxons it didn't. They weren't ever part of it, and Roman influence in Britain disappeared for a period in a way it simply didn't in France.
Treating the Channel as having had no significance is flying in the face of reality. Picking a few things that both sides had in common in no way disproves the considerable number of things they didn't have in common. You might as well argue that all Caucasians ought to be in one country because of this common feature.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That is a particularly spectacular example of failing to negate a point.
It's not even a point I'm particularly fond of supporting, but when someone says democracies don't tend to go to war with democracies, bringing up an example of a former democracy and explicitly pointing out to everyone that it was not a democracy when it went to war is truly bizarre.
I don't think anyone was claiming that when a democracy ceased to be a democracy, the magical qualities of being a democracy ought to carry on. Indeed, the entire point would be that having moved to a lesser form of government, it has lost the qualities it once had.
Not failing to negate the point at all: the point I am making (and which still stands) is that just because a country is a democracy now gives no guarantee of its capacity and willingness to go to war at some point in the future - in 1930s Germany's case, less than a decade.
[code]
Sigh. The point you're making is no way a negation of the point that was actually being made. If someone had claimed that being a democracy now gave a guarantee about the future, you'd have successfully negated that claim. But it's a claim no-one made.
You might be negating a point. But the point, the one you claimed to be responding to? Nope. For the reasons already given.
[ 25. February 2016, 11:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
OK, we'll have to agree to differ on our 'takes' on these two points, I guess.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
That's where it gets complicated - if it becomes overtly "vote In to save the UK" then the SNP is going to end up very conflicted. A massive uniform In vote on those terms would make their own aspirations for independence go a bit longer term. I can't imagine when it comes down to it that they'd be altogether unhappy with an Out vote regardless of the noises they make (provided within that Scotland has voted to remain In).
Life is never simple, is it?
I don't think "vote In to save the UK" is ever going to be a big thing (I may live to be proved wrong). I don't think the majority of people in England care that much about Scottish independence and will vote for what they think is best for them without much consideration for whether it will be best for other parts of England much less the other nations of the UK. The debate (if, indeed it ever rises to the level of debate rather than just flinging around sound bites) will be about money, immigration, fish quotas, agriculture, the Euro, "sovereignty" ... south of the border Scottish independence won't get a look in.
The SNP will be campaigning in Scotland where the issue of independence will be part of the backdrop of the debate, and is already a major feature of the TV punditry here. I can't see the SNP campaigning for anything other than to stay in. Remember the SNP don't want a second independence referendum, they want a referendum that they will convincingly win, losing a second independence referendum will be the worst possible outcome for them. A UK 'out' vote with a strong 'in' within Scotland will almost certainly lead to a fairly rapid second referendum with a very good chance of a Yes this time round. A UK 'out' vote which is reflected in Scotland may be a justification for a second referendum, but the chances of a Yes vote are greatly reduced. A UK 'in' vote will leave things as they were a year ago, and the SNP have lost nothing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it? Well, unless the SNP get cold feet, unlikely.
It might lead to a parting of the ways with Scotland, but how great a loss would that be?
I doubt if Wales or Northern Ireland could afford to go it alone.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The debate (if, indeed it ever rises to the level of debate rather than just flinging around sound bites) will be about money, immigration, fish quotas, agriculture, the Euro, "sovereignty" ... south of the border Scottish independence won't get a look in.
Right at the moment that is how things appear. The PM and his team haven't explained how good the deal will be nor have those who want out shown the benefits of not being in the EU. My view is that those in favour of "out" ought to state what the situation will be if we withdraw completely. It will for example save us the annual subscription and we will be able to levy purchase and sales taxes on a different basis to VAT. OTOH EU funding for "Objective 1" social projects, which has been of particular benefit in South Wales will go, although I doubt that will affect any exit voters in England. Our borders will be ours to police and patrol, goods bought in EU countries will probably be subject to UK import duty, and they are only a few details.
I'd really like to see some decent debate to look at details, but I doubt it will happen. Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!
[ 25. February 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I doubt if Wales or Northern Ireland could afford to go it alone.
By population (3 million, just short of 2 million respectively) then they are comparable to several European nations (the Baltic states, Slovenia) and much larger than some (Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus). Both have stronger economies than most of those comparable sized nations. So, I don't see that they couldn't afford to go it alone.
The biggest issue is the maturity of their Assemblies, which don't have the experience of the Scottish Government due to the significantly lower powers that Westminster gave them. They would need to follow a tough learning curve to form strong and competant governments - but I'm sure they could manage it if they set their minds to it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I'm sure it would lead to another referendum on Scottish independence (or, more accurately, on whether Scotland should be ruled from Brussels or London - rule from Edinburgh doesn't seem to be something anyone wants). I don't presume to know what the result of that referendum would be.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!
Given that TTIP is going to give unprecedented powers to multi-national big business, the chums of Cameron, I doubt it. In fact, there are probably more opponents of TTIP within the EU than the current UK Cabinet and staying in may be our best defense against it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I'm sure it would lead to another referendum on Scottish independence (or, more accurately, on whether Scotland should be ruled from Brussels or London - rule from Edinburgh doesn't seem to be something anyone wants). I don't presume to know what the result of that referendum would be.
An independence referendum in the next 2-3 years would be a very high risk strategy for the SNP. It offers the chance of a short cut to independence, but the risk is another 'no' which would put any chance of independence into the long long grass for at least 30 years. But, a Brexit with a strong Scottish vote to stay in may force them to take the gamble.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!
Given that TTIP is going to give unprecedented powers to multi-national big business, the chums of Cameron, I doubt it. In fact, there are probably more opponents of TTIP within the EU than the current UK Cabinet and staying in may be our best defense against it.
I completely agree.
And for me, whilst I worry that the EU will sign us up to a raw deal on TTIP, I am certain an out-of-the-EU, Tory-run-UK would.
There are many reasons for voting to stay but in the absence of any others, I would find this compelling.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!
Given that TTIP is going to give unprecedented powers to multi-national big business, the chums of Cameron, I doubt it. In fact, there are probably more opponents of TTIP within the EU than the current UK Cabinet and staying in may be our best defense against it.
I agree that there are more opponets of TTIP at the EU than in our cabinet, but I understand that th opponents of TTIP in the EU have absolutely no influence whatsoever. It's an undemocratic mechanism being put in place, come what may, secretly and undemocratically.
All it will do is make the EU a lap-dog of corporate interests.
(x-p with AFZ, but I'm sure that even our government would do things more openly than the European Commission)
[ 25. February 2016, 13:05: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
'Abroad is perfectly bloody, and all foreigners are fiends.'
Tes, Nancy Mitford's Uncle Matthew is alive and well, it seems.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
First word of second line should have been 'Yes'. The white heat of inspiration got at my fingers.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, no one is suggesting that European bureaucrats or ideologues are able to impose anything on anyone without their approval. All of the regulations that have been clarified by the EU that are inforce in the UK have been approved by the UK government, and the UK government has demonstrated an ability to thwart the imposition of regulations on the UK that they think the people of the UK don't want.
I am no expert in EU law, but my understanding is that the European Commission is entitled to make laws (ie, directives and regulations) that have the same force in the UK as Acts of the UK Parliament. My understanding is also that it is not necessary for the UK goverment to give its approval for those laws to take effect, or alternatively they only require Royal Assent, something which is not withheld for any regulation at all.
If my understanding is correct, the only way the UK government could thwart the imposition of any regulation would be by repealing the various Acts of Parliament that empower the European Commission to do this, ie, leave the European Union.
Is there anyone a bit more knowledgeable than I who could clarify?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Establishment, sorry, The Economist says:
By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars [of UCL & Milan] estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of recent arrivals from the eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost £5 billion. Even during the worst years of the financial crisis, in 2007-11, they made a net contribution of almost £2 billion to British public finances. Migrants from other European countries chipped in £8.6 billion.
Only saw this now.
According to the article the survey says that immigrants contributed GBP 4 billion to Government coffers between 1995 and 2011, therefore immigration has positive economic benefits. The article notes that immigrants are far less likely to be in receipt of a benefit (as one might expect).
The problem is that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. If immigrantion puts increased demand on the supply of goods and services - housing being the obvious example - then prices will go up. This would translate into increased tax revenues, but would also mean that anyone with dependent children - generally not immigrants - would suffer financial hardship. This in turn would require additional benefit spending, particularly if locals missed out on jobs in favour of immigrants. So it seeems to me quite explicable to say that if there is any benefit, it goes entirely to landlords and other business owners, and possibly the State unless increased social spending on infrastructure etc outweighs the additional revenues.
I have to say that immigration is an extremely touchy point for me personally. Not at all because I am a xenophobe, but because the UK government has been shutting the door on Commonwealth immigration in favour of EU immigration, presumably because the former is the only aspect of immigration that the UK government can control. If I wish to return to the UK I now need to have a job earning at least GBP 35,000, or I need to break up my family. The reason for this is for the purely arbitrary reason that my wife is a citizen of New Zealand, and not an EU country. The EU laws are premised on something called "non discrimination", a concept that of course only applies to the inhabitants of the EU. It is a reminder to me - and it ought to be a reminder to everyone of you, that in the mind of Brussels, the world stops at the EU border, with only the vaguest admission that there may be semi-civilised areas elsewhere here and there.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Is there anyone a bit more knowledgeable than I who could clarify?
Alwyn.
I'll ask him.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If I wish to return to the UK I now need to have a job earning at least GBP 35,000, or I need to break up my family. The reason for this is for the purely arbitrary reason that my wife is a citizen of New Zealand, and not an EU country.
As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job). It would not apply to you, as you hold UK citizenship (I assume), nor to your wife and any dependent children who will be coming with you as that's a different immigration route than tier 2. The income threshold is another example of our government doing something to be seen to be restricting immigration that will affect relatively few people (rather like the restrictions on benefits payments just negotiated), probably have no direct impact on immigration (but may deter some, tourists as well as immigrants, as they make very visible "foreigners not welcome here" signs). But cause considerable hardship to lots of people for no gain (it may be justified to cause hardship if there's a benefit, though I find it hard to accept, but our government seems to delight in hardship for no gain and sometimes hardship for a loss).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...but our government seems to delight in hardship for no gain and sometimes hardship for a loss).
Government by tabloid headline.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...but our government seems to delight in hardship for no gain and sometimes hardship for a loss).
Government by tabloid headline.
Or trickle-down viciousness.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
According to the radio Iain Duncan-Smith was today complaining that the way in which the civil service is struggling to cope with the stupidly-divided cabinet means he cannot do his job properly.
I assume I'm not the only one who thinks that anything that stops IDS from doing his job is a fundementally good thing? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
According to the radio Iain Duncan-Smith was today complaining that the way in which the civil service is struggling to cope with the stupidly-divided cabinet means he cannot do his job properly.
I assume I'm not the only one who thinks that anything that stops IDS from doing his job is a fundementally good thing?
AFZ
We (I suppose most know I'm a civil servant) have had a note round regarding the referendum which in summary means that i)) we work in support of current government policy which is that we are in the EU while ii) civil servants are not to get involved in doing any work, ie researching and briefing, for anyone on either side of the campaign.
That would appear to be at odds with this statement from some ministers who are supporting the "out" campaign. Maybe I need to read my guidance note more closely.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm a great deal readier to believe Sioni Sais's version than that of a manipulative politician who has an axe to grind and wants to complain that it's not fair.
Incidentally, Cod, it's a drastic oversimplification to say that the EU makes laws and they instantly come into force everywhere in the EU. In most cases, it is a matter of to what extent the individual states are or are not, obliged to introduce legislation that gives effect to a directive within the state's own legal system and how rigid the timetable is.
There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
Enoch, there is some truth in what you say but there are many examples of EU law having a significant impact on domestic law. Indeed where there is a conflict, EU law constitutionally supersedes domestic law. Given the democratic deficit, that seems a dangerous position to be in to me. Whilst I appreciate that some EU law has a positive effect the principle itself -i.e. that an organisation that lacks democratic legitimacy can make laws which supersedes laws that have democratic legitimacy- has the potential to be very dangerous and is precisely the principle that the UK has tried to avoid in the evolution of its parliamentary system and in the USA with its separation of powers.
My main concern about the EU is based precisely on the democratic deficit. I appreciate that the EU might evolve into a democratic organisation but at the moment it is far from that. We saw this with Greece recently. A democratically elected government unable to implement its policies because its hands are tied by financial commitments to the EU. The reality is that if you are going to have economic union you need political union and if you are going to have political union yo need democratic legitimacy in order to avoid tyranny, distrust and even civil war. The latter may sound like an exaggeration but the Civil war in Britain was caused by a lack of democratic legitimacy in the prevailing government as was the American Revolution and more recently in Yugoslavia.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
We saw this with Greece recently. A democratically elected government unable to implement its policies because its hands are tied by financial commitments to the EU.
But, the same restrictions would have largely been in place without the EU - if previous Greek governments (democratically elected) had taken out loans from US or Asian financial institutions then the current Greek government would have had it's hands tied by those financial commitments.
Of course, there are additional issues relating to membership of the Eurozone which puts additional limitations through an inability to set interest rates. But, again if Greece had not entered the Eurozone (a decision taken by the democratically elected governments of Greece) the current government wouldn't have been free to change interest rates by a considerable margin.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.
True, but it is difficult to remedy the democratic deficit in the UK whilst we are so entrenched in a huge, bureaucratic institution like the EU.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.
True, but it is difficult to remedy the democratic deficit in the UK whilst we are so entrenched in a huge, bureaucratic institution like the EU.
No it's not.
We need a better electoral system (I don't like straight PR btw). And the House of Lords needs reforming. Properly. I'm also in favour of a codified, written constitution. More important that all of that is to sort party financing, and repeal the ridiculous lobbying act that allows the corrupt lobbying whilst threatening charities in to silence.
None of which is remotely affected one way or the other by our EU membership.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I am no expert in EU law, but my understanding is that the European Commission is entitled to make laws (ie, directives and regulations) that have the same force in the UK as Acts of the UK Parliament. My understanding is also that it is not necessary for the UK goverment to give its approval for those laws to take effect, or alternatively they only require Royal Assent, something which is not withheld for any regulation at all.
If my understanding is correct, the only way the UK government could thwart the imposition of any regulation would be by repealing the various Acts of Parliament that empower the European Commission to do this, ie, leave the European Union.
Is there anyone a bit more knowledgeable than I who could clarify?
Unfortunately, I am not an expert in EU law either. You wrote that EU law has the same force as Acts of Parliament - I think you can go further - as Makepiece said, EU law has a higher status than national law (including Acts of Parliament). If it were otherwise, than countries would be free to undermine the free market by passing national laws (e.g. by imposing product standards which their manufacturers met but which makers of goods in other states did not).
You wrote that the European Commission is entitled to "make laws". The EU says that the Commission "initiates" the law-making process and that "The vast majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council." (source). The UK has representatives in both. This doesn't mean that the UK can block anything it wants to - but it also doesn't mean that the UK is without influence when EU is made.
It simply means that UK representatives (Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the UK government in the Council) have a voice. Presumably, one of the arguments against leaving the EU is that, if the UK wanted to export goods to EU states, we would then have to comply with EU rules (e.g. on product standards) while having no voice in the making of those rules.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
The EU makes two different sorts of law - Directives and Regulations.
Directives have to be brought into force by each country via domestic legislation by a set date. Regulations are directly effective.
Dealing with the fall out in practice, the big problem I have is that EU legislation is not written like legislation in the UK. It is usually in very vague terms; as an English lawyer, I am used to very precise wording and picking through the wording to see how my particular issue is dealt with.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
It simply means that UK representatives (Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the UK government in the Council) have a voice. Presumably, one of the arguments against leaving the EU is that, if the UK wanted to export goods to EU states, we would then have to comply with EU rules (e.g. on product standards) while having no voice in the making of those rules.
The campaign in favour of leaving have made comparisons with Norway and Switzerland - associated with the EU with the benefits from that, but without having all the costs of membership. Which, of course, means that they have to comply with rules that they had no voice in formulating. By not being in the EU they have surrendered sovereignty to the EU, whereas if they were in the EU they would retain more sovereignty. I'm sure Switzerland and Norway are wonderful places, but they do seem to have adopted a very strange position by being not-quite-in the EU.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
An article on this issue today shed a new light on things for me.
You may have your own views about some of the arguments in this article, but it states the following:
quote:
True, the EU has its own parliament in Strasbourg. But only the European Commission, an unelected supranational bureaucracy, has the power to propose and draft EU legislation. The Strasbourg parliament can reject but not repeal or replace these "directives"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/dal-santo-britain's-history-almost-demands-a-brexit-happen/7209620
Is this accurate? If so it's bad.
[Edited to deal with bizarre URL coding fail, I'll just leave you with an unadorned link.]
[ 01. March 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Is it accurate? It's an intelligent, well-written, well-informed argument with sources. It contains plenty of accurate statements.
I have some problems with it. The argument compares Britain and Australia to the EU, to show that the EU is undemocratic. The first two of these are countries. The third is a federation of countries. They are not the same thing.
The author says that "only the European Commission, an unelected supranational bureaucracy, has the power to propose and draft EU legislation". One of the links in the article (to a page on EU law-making) says that the EU Parliament "has a right of legislative initiative that allows it to ask the Commission to submit a proposal [for a new law]". So, to me, this claim looks true in a strict sense, but misleading. It is normal, isn't it, for government departments to 'propose and draft' legislation (rather than new laws being proposed and drafted by backbench Members of Parliament)? It's normal in the UK, at least.
Perhaps the author's main objection is that, while the governments who do this are elected, the European Commission is not. Fair enough - I can see where they're 'coming from'. I guess one answer to this is that the EU is a federation of countries, not a country. It doesn't have an elected executive, any more than citizens of member states of other groups of countries (like the United Nations, NATO or the Council of Europe) can elect the heads of those international bodies.
The author says that "Somewhere between half and two thirds of the laws and regulations in force in Britain have their origins in Brussels' unaccountable couloirs". However, the House of Commons Library pointed out that "there is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU." (source). So the article asserts an opinion as a fact. The House of Commons Library go on to say that (while there are difficulties with all ways of calculating this) "it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts". So, by saying that the figure is between 50% and two-thirds, the author presents the highest realistic figure as the lowest one, which (to me) looks misleading.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
The argument compares Britain and Australia to the EU, to show that the EU is undemocratic. The first two of these are countries. The third is a federation of countries. They are not the same thing.
The EU is going to become a country, swallowing up all its members as it goes. That is its stated ambition, its eventual goal. And I see very little hope that when that happens it will be any more democratic than it is now.
The only question to my mind is whether Britain will be able to escape that fate in the future if we vote to stay in now. If not, then the only option is to get out while we still can.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The EU is going to become a country, swallowing up all its members as it goes. That is its stated ambition, its eventual goal. And I see very little hope that when that happens it will be any more democratic than it is now.
While an eventual union into a (presumably) federal European state is the logical end of the "greater political union" aspiration in the EU founding documents, there is no certainty about that happening. I see no appetite at all anywhere in Europe for a move in that direction. The governments of France, Germany, Austria or anywhere else are not going to support such a move, and that will be reflected in the European Parliament and Councils. I agree it will happen, I will be very surprised if it happens in my lifetime (or, delighted to be the worlds oldest man).
As for the level of democracy within such a European State, why should it be the same as the current EU? If it was to happen in the next few years the first demand every nation would make when drawing up the treaty would be that it holds real democratic power in the Parliament and an executive either appointed by the Parliament (in a manner not too disimilar to the UK PM and Cabinet) or directly elected (in a manner not too dissimilar to the various Presidents in Europe). It will also probably need formal alliances of national political parties to form a small number of European parties to function. Of course, none of the national governments in Europe want to give up any power, which is why it isn't going to happen soon. But, when it happens it will of necessity involve a significant shake-up of European institutions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I see no appetite at all anywhere in Europe for a move in that direction.
Absolutely. We've already seen that fiscal transfers of any kind of off the page - so any kind of supranational state is off the cards (except in the unlikely case that everyone becomes German).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job).
Thanks Alan. Anything that dampens my wrath is welcome to me. However, it seems there is a threshhold: GBP 18K. Were my wife from any EU state my understanding is there is no threshold. If so, this is straightforward discrimination in favour of EU nationals.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, Cod, it's a drastic oversimplification to say that the EU makes laws and they instantly come into force everywhere in the EU. In most cases, it is a matter of to what extent the individual states are or are not, obliged to introduce legislation that gives effect to a directive within the state's own legal system and how rigid the timetable is.
Hardly the point. It is a normal part of the legislative process in any well ordered country that there is a time delay for implementation, otherwise the law cannot be administered. The point is that the UK cannot legally resist implementation, even by its own democratically elected parliament. Accordingly we have the bizarre situation where a democracy cannot choose its own laws.
If my understanding is correct, this:
quote:
There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.
... is flat wrong. There is no choice. As a point of interest, is it true that the UK government is prevented by EU regulations from removing VAT on sanitary products?
And this
quote:
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.
is also a problematic remark. The UK constitution is premised on Parliamentary supremacy. While there may be some belineaged barnicles in the House of Lords, real power lies in the democratically elected Commons. Functionally speaking, if not legally, the UK is a democratic republic. Yes, we can quibble about the electoral system, but at least every member of the Commons has been directly voted for. No one in the European Council or Commission has been.
For what it's worth, I think the UK could quite easily reform its constitution, although I suspect that were it to do so within the EU, EU law would probably find an irremovable way in. So unless one thinks that the UK should permanently give up its sovereignty, constitutional reform would be more safely done outside.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
We saw this with Greece recently. A democratically elected government unable to implement its policies because its hands are tied by financial commitments to the EU.
But, the same restrictions would have largely been in place without the EU - if previous Greek governments (democratically elected) had taken out loans from US or Asian financial institutions then the current Greek government would have had it's hands tied by those financial commitments.
Of course, there are additional issues relating to membership of the Eurozone which puts additional limitations through an inability to set interest rates. But, again if Greece had not entered the Eurozone (a decision taken by the democratically elected governments of Greece) the current government wouldn't have been free to change interest rates by a considerable margin.
I think no one involved in the accession of Greece to the euro comes out with any credit, if you'll pardon the awful pun. The reality is that the Greeks were strongly encouraged to join, despite it being an open secret that its government's balance sheet was a joke. The reality is that had Greece not joined the Euro, its government would have borrowed at higher interest rates, and hence borrowed an awful lot less. There is no justification for the way the EU has handled Greece.
Alwyn,
quote:
You wrote that the European Commission is entitled to "make laws". The EU says that the Commission "initiates" the law-making process and that "The vast majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council." (source). The UK has representatives in both. This doesn't mean that the UK can block anything it wants to - but it also doesn't mean that the UK is without influence when EU is made.
It simply means that UK representatives (Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the UK government in the Council) have a voice. Presumably, one of the arguments against leaving the EU is that, if the UK wanted to export goods to EU states, we would then have to comply with EU rules (e.g. on product standards) while having no voice in the making of those rules.
Thanks for this - it helps my understanding.
I think the point is for me that under present arrangements, a law can be imposed on the UK (or any particular EU state) by other countries. This is problematic, given the extreme variety of cultures within the EU.
It is true that the UK outside the EU would have to comply with EU rules on product standards etc. Presumably this is precisely what already happens with regards to UK exports to any other country in the world, ie, a much larger area than the EU. It doesn't seem to be a problem. In any event, if the EU's lawmaking powers were restricted to trade, as they used to be, this referendum would probably not be happening. Furthermore, I note there is already considerable worldwide standardisation on such things, so I question the extent of the detriminent here. While it is true that the Norwegians and the Swiss labour under some discriminatory trading rules, neither are at all keen to join the EU, both are wealthy, and the UK has a considerably larger economy than either of them.
Alan again:
quote:
While an eventual union into a (presumably) federal European state is the logical end of the "greater political union" aspiration in the EU founding documents, there is no certainty about that happening. I see no appetite at all anywhere in Europe for a move in that direction.
I would probably add "at the moment". Also it is fair to note that any Eurosceptic could point out that they have been told the same for decades now, yet integration has continued anyway, often quite clearly in the face of public opinion in countries other than Britain.
I will make the final comment that the outcome of David Cameron's negotiations do indicate the the EU cannot reform itself. It is simply too unwieldly. I think this gives rise to two questions. First, whether it is likely to be fit for purpose in the future - there is a very mid-20th century feel about the way it goes about its business. Second, there is most definately plenty of Euroscepticism outside Britain. A Brexit might result in a reformed EU - although this is unpredictable.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If my understanding is correct, this:
quote:
There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.
... is flat wrong. There is no choice.
Your understanding is misleading. Whilst there are certain instances in which the specific details of regulations are spelled out, in the main there are usually a set of general principles which can be implemented in multiple ways, in which the details and timetable is left up to individual countries.
quote:
is it true that the UK government is prevented by EU regulations from removing VAT on sanitary products?
No. The EU specifies a floor - of 5% - to the level of VAT that may be levied on goods which are not VAT exempt. The UK could simply make sanitary products VAT exempt (as Ireland does).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
