The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (157 Viewers)

fernandopartridge · Jan 24, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Ok, name the specific EU law that is on the statute book. Can’t be that hard of what I’m saying is wrong like you say.

EU laws are converted into UK law and go on the statute book, I've mentioned on this thread before about Public Contracts Regulations which derive from the EU Public Contracts Directive. Generally speaking the UK will debate each EU directive and may adopt it wholly or in parts. Such laws remain on the statute book after we leave but may need some tweaks to remain operable.
Another example of such a law is TUPE with derives from the EU Acquired Rights Directive.
Freedom of movement is enshrined in the Single European Act the Tories signed in the 80s (Maggie Thatcher who some clowns on here thought was anti Europe) and implemented by 1993.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

Sick Boy said:
I see that Rees Mogg wants to close parliament to prevent MPs from stopped a no deal scenario

And David Davis has just landed a job at JCB for 60000 a year for 20 hours work. JCB is hoping for a liberal trade deal with India, a huge potential market for it’s products. EU has been trying since 2007 to do deal with India. Easier if your mates are doing the negotiating.

Grendel · Jan 24, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
If EU regulations became UK law, name one such EU law that is on the UK statute book.

Just one.

Well

Brexit law: 1,260 extra EU laws on UK statute books by March 2019 - Legal Business

skybluetony176 · Jan 24, 2019

martcov said:
And David Davis has just landed a job at JCB for 60000 a year for 20 hours work. JCB is hoping for a liberal trade deal with India, a huge potential market for it’s products. EU has been trying since 2007 to do deal with India. Easier if your mates are doing the negotiating.

The irony there is that the EU has wanted a trade deal with India for years (over and above the GSP system currently in place) but every time they’ve discussed one the U.K. has threatened to use our veto (remember we have no power in the EU) over an easing of travel restrictions between the EU and India and killed the discussions before they’ve even concluded. As we all know India set their stall out straight after the referendum and any Brexit trade deal must include an easing of travel restrictions to the U.K. for Indian citizens. I was reading an article in a trade magazine with the head of the Indian Chamber of Commerce to Europe and they see Brexit as a massive opportunity for Indian trade. Not with the U.K. but with the EU as the thorn in the side is removed.

It will certainly be interesting to see what trade deal the EU strikes up with India compared to the trade deal that the U.K. strikes up with India post Brexit. My guess is that at best they’ll be identical. Which all that really proves is that if we wanted a trade deal with India all we had to do was drop the threat of using the veto, we didn’t need to leave.

Captain Dart · Jan 24, 2019

The primacy of European Union law(sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside.

UK over last 25 years highlights scale of challenge facing lawmakers following 'Brexit' ... The Prime Minister has said that the European Communities Act 1972 (the Act that enshrined UK membership of the EU in UK law) will be repealed once the UK formally leaves the EU.27 Mar 2017

The claims about how much of UK law comes from the European Union vary so massively, it's really difficult to get a definitive answer. Business for Britain, which wants the UK to leave the EU, says more than 60% of UK law is influenced by EU law.8 Jun 2016

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 24, 2019

fernandopartridge said:
EU laws are converted into UK law and go on the statute book, I've mentioned on this thread before about Public Contracts Regulations which derive from the EU Public Contracts Directive. Generally speaking the UK will debate each EU directive and may adopt it wholly or in parts. Such laws remain on the statute book after we leave but may need some tweaks to remain operable.
Another example of such a law is TUPE with derives from the EU Acquired Rights Directive.
Freedom of movement is enshrined in the Single European Act the Tories signed in the 80s (Maggie Thatcher who some clowns on here thought was anti Europe) and implemented by 1993.

Exactly, but the UK laws that adopted EU law became the law by Act of Parliament. One of the most controversial examples is the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a UK law that pretty much adopts EU law pretty much word for word. Even before Brexit, Cameron had pledged to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights so it's pretty clear that British law doesn't have to adopt EU law word for word. Every EC or EU treaty was ratified by Parliament too. The relationship, between the UK and the EU, firstly, is consensual, and secondly, that Parliament subcontracts its sovereignty and therefore, has the power to take that back. Astute thought his link stating the 'influence' of EU laws and regulations on the UK was a trump card. It wasn't, because even post-Brexit, our laws will be influenced by the EU -- civil servants are more or less rewriting them word for word before we leave, making adaptations where necessary. The sovereignty of nation-states is eroding because of the impact of globalisation, and the 40-odd free trade deals Liam Fox will reduce sovereignty in a similar way to how the EU does, the extent may vary, but ultimately free trade prevents a Government from introducing tariffs, for example. To demonstrate this example, the Canadian Government has had legal action taken against it by (mainly) US corporations because of Canada's environmental regulations and public healthcare system -- 70% of legal action taken through NAFTA has been against the Canadian Government.

Parliamentary sovereignty as a doctrine means there are no limits to the powers of the UK Parliament and in practice, it can pass whatever law it likes. The first misconception is that the EU needs to approve UK law, this is not the case, because the EU plays no physical part in the passage in our lawmaking process (from First Reading to Royal Assent). Secondly, because Parliament has unlimited power and the EU has no means of physically blocking any legislation that passes through Parliament, some have erroneously taken this to mean that the UK can do whatever it wants within the EU. Evidently, this is not the case because of numerous breaches to EU law and regulations would open up a process in which the EU can sanction a member state, or expulsion if sanctions do not have the desired effect. But, the ultimate question is this: does the UK Parliament have the power to pass legislation that contradicts EU law and regulation? The UK may get sanctioned, or expelled from the EU depending on the severity of breaches, but the answer to that is yes. The example of Hungary proves that the supreme sovereignty still rests with the nation-state because the Hungarian passed its Soros Laws, despite condemnation from the EU. I disagree with the Soros laws (and numerous Hungarian laws, frankly), but this example is important in highlighting my argument.

Otis · Jan 24, 2019

Anyone care to guess on what number of posts this thread will finally end up on before it finally dies a death?

We're on 30,000 now. My best guess is 42,016.

The winner, closest to the actual figure can have my Sky Blue Sam mascot.

Grendel · Jan 24, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Exactly, but the UK laws that adopted EU law became the law by Act of Parliament. One of the most controversial examples is the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a UK law that pretty much adopts EU law pretty much word for word. Even before Brexit, Cameron had pledged to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights so it's pretty clear that British law doesn't have to adopt EU law word for word. Every EC or EU treaty was ratified by Parliament too. The relationship, between the UK and the EU, firstly, is consensual, and secondly, that Parliament subcontracts its sovereignty and therefore, has the power to take that back. Astute thought his link stating the 'influence' of EU laws and regulations on the UK was a trump card. It wasn't, because even post-Brexit, our laws will be influenced by the EU -- civil servants are more or less rewriting them word for word before we leave, making adaptations where necessary. The sovereignty of nation-states is eroding because of the impact of globalisation, and the 40-odd free trade deals Liam Fox will reduce sovereignty in a similar way to how the EU does, the extent may vary, but ultimately free trade prevents a Government from introducing tariffs, for example. To demonstrate this example, the Canadian Government has had legal action taken against it by (mainly) US corporations because of Canada's environmental regulations and public healthcare system -- 70% of legal action taken through NAFTA has been against the Canadian Government.

Parliamentary sovereignty as a doctrine means there are no limits to the powers of the UK Parliament and in practice, it can pass whatever law it likes. The first misconception is that the EU needs to approve UK law, this is not the case, because the EU plays no physical part in the passage in our lawmaking process (from First Reading to Royal Assent). Secondly, because Parliament has unlimited power and the EU has no means of physically blocking any legislation that passes through Parliament, some have erroneously taken this to mean that the UK can do whatever it wants within the EU. Evidently, this is not the case because of numerous breaches to EU law and regulations would open up a process in which the EU can sanction a member state, or expulsion if sanctions do not have the desired effect. But, the ultimate question is this: does the UK Parliament have the power to pass legislation that contradicts EU law and regulation? The UK may get sanctioned, or expelled from the EU depending on the severity of breaches, but the answer to that is yes. The example of Hungary proves that the supreme sovereignty still rests with the nation-state because the Hungarian passed its Soros Laws, despite condemnation from the EU. I disagree with the Soros laws (and numerous Hungarian laws, frankly), but this example is important in highlighting my argument.

Stop embarrassing yourself it’s not even funny anymore

Otis · Jan 24, 2019

Otis said:
Anyone care to guess on what number of posts this thread will finally end up on before it finally dies a death?

We're on 30,000 now. My best guess is 42,016.

The winner, closest to the actual figure can have my Sky Blue Sam mascot.

Here he is (alternatively you can have the gun to blow your brains out)

skybluetony176 · Jan 24, 2019

Grendel said:
Stop embarrassing yourself it’s not even funny anymore

Says the man who quoted something that didn’t even exist until 2004 as forcing law change in the U.K. in 1998.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

Captain Dart said:
The primacy of European Union law(sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside.

UK over last 25 years highlights scale of challenge facing lawmakers following 'Brexit' ... The Prime Minister has said that the European Communities Act 1972 (the Act that enshrined UK membership of the EU in UK law) will be repealed once the UK formally leaves the EU.27 Mar 2017

The claims about how much of UK law comes from the European Union vary so massively, it's really difficult to get a definitive answer. Business for Britain, which wants the UK to leave the EU, says more than 60% of UK law is influenced by EU law.8 Jun 2016

But that is counting such things as the classification of fruit and vegetables which protect consumers and make life easier for businesses. You know what you are getting.

No one can say which EU laws affect their daily lives outsiders trade regulations when asked.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

Grendel said:
Well

Brexit law: 1,260 extra EU laws on UK statute books by March 2019 - Legal Business

I think this one which certain wealthy leavers might not want keeping:

„The Criminal Finances Bill received Royal Assent in April, making provisions for a number of changes to the law governing money laundering including a new corporate offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.“

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

Astute said:
You haven't told Mucca he is right yet. What's wrong?

Working.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

Grendel said:
Why is Tony still trying to get my attention - is he that desperate for my attention? Tony if you give £50 to my favourite charity I will never ignore you again - pass the message on to your sweetheart Mart and he will spread the news. Or is Mucca your new love interest Tony?

I will gladly give £50 to a charity if you stop talking crap, insulting people and admit to your mistakes.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

Astute said:
Is that why I caught you out today? I'm not surprised that you don't like honesty on this thread.

I said the EU would relent right near the end of the time and not want it to be hard on everyone. Correct. And they have. Another thing I got right.

Have you got on to David Davis‘ new job yet? No.

Grendel · Jan 24, 2019

martcov said:
I will gladly give £50 to a charity if you stop talking crap, insulting people and admit to your mistakes.

So is old Mucca right then? We can ignore every EU law and not one is on the UK Statute book?

Nick · Jan 24, 2019

It's Project Fear isn't it mate.

(I am just going to use this if anybody tries to discuss Brexit with me, no matter what they have said).

skybluetony176 · Jan 24, 2019

martcov said:
I think this one which certain wealthy leavers might not want keeping:

„The Criminal Finances Bill received Royal Assent in April, making provisions for a number of changes to the law governing money laundering including a new corporate offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.“

The link also largely dismisses the argument that the EU forces law upon us if we’re leaving and willingly taking “their” laws with us. It’s almost as if “their” laws are needed to run something close to an orderly society.

skybluetony176 · Jan 24, 2019

Talking of project fear

Brexit uncertainty a disgrace, says Airbus

Astute · Jan 24, 2019

Sick Boy said:
I don’t think that will matter to him

Sticking up for someone that everyone can see is wrong. What a shock

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 24, 2019

Otis said:
Anyone care to guess on what number of posts this thread will finally end up on before it finally dies a death?

We're on 30,000 now. My best guess is 42,016.

The winner, closest to the actual figure can have my Sky Blue Sam mascot.

It'll never die. There'll be Sick Boy-bots and Grendel Hard Light Holograms programmed to bash in page after page of argument until the Creator has enough, and pulls the plug on the universe's power supply.

Astute · Jan 24, 2019

Sick Boy said:
That’s only going to apply if an agreement is made, if there’s no deal there will be no transition period.

If I were you I would wait and see what happens, otherwise you could run into problems without having residency.

We won't be leaving without a deal.

Sick Boy · Jan 24, 2019

Astute said:
We won't be leaving without a deal.

I hope you’re right!

Otis · Jan 24, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
It'll never die. There'll be Sick Boy-bots and Grendel Hard Light Holograms programmed to bash in page after page of argument until the Creator has enough, and pulls the plug on the universe's power supply.

Good. I didn't want to give Sky Blue Sam away anyway .

Otis · Jan 24, 2019

Astute said:
We won't be leaving without a deal.

If May's deal goes through it will be completely bonkers, considering it resulted in the biggest defeat in parliamentary history.

It doesn't need minor tweaks, it needs open heart surgery.

Otis · Jan 24, 2019

Otis said:
Good. I didn't want to give Sky Blue Sam away anyway .

......or the gun.

Ian1779 · Jan 24, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
It'll never die. There'll be Sick Boy-bots and Grendel Hard Light Holograms programmed to bash in page after page of argument until the Creator has enough, and pulls the plug on the universe's power supply.

For this iteration of the Matrix at least....

CCFCSteve · Jan 24, 2019

skybluetony176 said:
Talking of project fear

Brexit uncertainty a disgrace, says Airbus

I agree wholeheartedly...which is why the politicians should pull their fingers out, stop trying to delay and get on with it, the continued uncertainty is going to be what kills us.

Also, for every bit of bad news post referendum result, and the mess being made of it by our political class, there are a number of positives in relation to the economy:

Record high employment - I also understand that a majority (75%) of these are full time positions
Finally an sustained increase in (real) wage growth – wage growth now around 3.3% (inflation around 2.1%)
Exports at an all time high
$140bn foreign inward investment between 2015 and 2018 (more than Germany and France combined)

One or two of the list would be good under our current circumstances, all four is pretty impressive.

People will always come back with retorts ie in the past “but how many are part time/zero hour jobs” or ”incomes have been low for too long” however, for now, maybe we should just accept that for all the shit, there’s still some real positive news out there.

Ian1779 · Jan 24, 2019

CCFCSteve said:
I agree wholeheartedly...which is why the politicians should pull their fingers out, stop trying to delay and get on with it, the continued uncertainty is going to be what kills us.

Also, for every bit of bad news post referendum result, and the mess being made of it by our political class, there are a number of positives in relation to the economy:

Record high employment - I also understand that a majority (75%) of these are full time positions
Finally an sustained increase in (real) wage growth – wage growth now around 3.3% (inflation around 2.1%)
Exports at an all time high
$140bn foreign inward investment between 2015 and 2018 (more than Germany and France combined)

One or two of the list would be good under our current circumstances, all four is pretty impressive.

People will always come back with retorts ie in the past “but how many are part time/zero hour jobs” or ”incomes have been low for too long” however, for now, maybe we should just accept that for all the shit, there’s still some real positive news out there.

The fact we have more people than ever using food banks, as well as more homeless people than ever suggests that those employment and wage 'statistics' are nothing short of complete bollocks.

CCFCSteve · Jan 24, 2019

Ian1779 said:
The fact we have more people than ever using food banks, as well as more homeless people than ever suggests that those employment and wage 'statistics' are nothing short of complete bollocks.

I'm not sure theyre "bollocks" Ian ! You're talking about wider political and economic issues

As I alluded to though, there's always people who will peddle misery rather than accept that "some" of the news around is positive

Ian1779 · Jan 24, 2019

CCFCSteve said:
I'm not sure theyre "bollocks" Ian ! You're talking about wider political and economic issues

As I alluded to though, there's always people who will peddle misery rather than accept that "some" of the news around is positive

They are bollocks based on the simple notion that figures have been omitted, manipulated and in some cases the measures changed in order to tell a story.... the very definition of statistics.

Take the employment/unemployment figure. Someone who works 1 hour a week in a zero-contract job is classed as 'employed' - so they come off the unemployment figure. We all know that this is not viable to earn enough money to feed, house and cloth an individual never mind a family. But we get the government parroting this as a success. It's a shambles, and certainly not a positive we should be talking up as it completely fabricated. As I already mentioned the fact that many food bank users are in 'employment' tells us there is something seriously wrong.

Wage growth - again clever manipulation makes this look like a positive, but for almost everyone involved it is not applicable. The figure includes bonuses - bankers bonuses are included to deliberately inflate the figure!Public sector wages have stagnated (going backwards in real term earnings) as well as coupled with a high proportion of low paid jobs (see zero-contract jobs again) and the reality is pretty grim.... unless of course you are already earning in excess of six-figures.

Maybe if we started to measure the 'wealth' of our society based on the number of homeless people, the number of food bank users, or even the number of former veterans that sleep on the streets we'd have a bit more perspective about what should and shouldn't be celebrated.

Astute · Jan 24, 2019

Otis said:
If May's deal goes through it will be completely bonkers, considering it resulted in the biggest defeat in parliamentary history.

It doesn't need minor tweaks, it needs open heart surgery.

But it is better than no deal.......

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 24, 2019

Yep focusing on the economic is the wrong focus. If we had yours and maybe the distribution of wealth as a target then things would change for the better

Ian1779 said:
They are bollocks based on the simple notion that figures have been omitted, manipulated and in some cases the measures changed in order to tell a story.... the very definition of statistics.

Take the employment/unemployment figure. Someone who works 1 hour a week in a zero-contract job is classed as 'employed' - so they come off the unemployment figure. We all know that this is not viable to earn enough money to feed, house and cloth an individual never mind a family. But we get the government parroting this as a success. It's a shambles, and certainly not a positive we should be talking up as it completely fabricated. As I already mentioned the fact that many food bank users are in 'employment' tells us there is something seriously wrong.

Wage growth - again clever manipulation makes this look like a positive, but for almost everyone involved it is not applicable. The figure includes bonuses - bankers bonuses are included to deliberately inflate the figure!Public sector wages have stagnated (going backwards in real term earnings) as well as coupled with a high proportion of low paid jobs (see zero-contract jobs again) and the reality is pretty grim.... unless of course you are already earning in excess of six-figures.

Maybe if we started to measure the 'wealth' of our society based on the number of homeless people, the number of food bank users, or even the number of former veterans that sleep on the streets we'd have a bit more perspective about what should and shouldn't be celebrated.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

CCFCSteve said:
I agree wholeheartedly...which is why the politicians should pull their fingers out, stop trying to delay and get on with it, the continued uncertainty is going to be what kills us.

Also, for every bit of bad news post referendum result, and the mess being made of it by our political class, there are a number of positives in relation to the economy:

Record high employment - I also understand that a majority (75%) of these are full time positions
Finally an sustained increase in (real) wage growth – wage growth now around 3.3% (inflation around 2.1%)
Exports at an all time high
$140bn foreign inward investment between 2015 and 2018 (more than Germany and France combined)

One or two of the list would be good under our current circumstances, all four is pretty impressive.

People will always come back with retorts ie in the past “but how many are part time/zero hour jobs” or ”incomes have been low for too long” however, for now, maybe we should just accept that for all the shit, there’s still some real positive news out there.

I agree that there is good news in that respect. My worry is what will it look like in around 2 years.

martcov · Jan 24, 2019

„A former Ukip activist who is partnering with Nigel Farage in launching a new pro-Brexit political party has argued crime and fatherlessness among black men are due to high testosterone levels, and suggested their lower academic achievement could have a biological basis.

Catherine Blaiklock has also expressed concern about “Muslim enclaves” and said food banks should be abolished as they create a “dependent, obese population”.“

The solution to food banks......

The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (157 Viewers)

As of right now, how are thinking of voting? In or out

Remain

Leave

Undecided

Not registered or not intention to vote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency