Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 12:49:19 GMT 1
"Full fact".org which calls itself the 'UK's independent fact checking' chariry I call myself lean and tall with physique of a Greek god but it doesn’t necessarily make it true!
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Mar 30, 2019 12:55:35 GMT 1
"Full fact".org which calls itself the 'UK's independent fact checking' chariry I call myself lean and tall with physique of a Greek god but it doesn’t necessarily make it true! Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 30, 2019 13:13:05 GMT 1
Why not summarise and source that research instead of just alluding to it? You can't expect to get away with an assertion that the quoted House of Commons Library research is untrue without presenting some evidence for your assertion. I haven't actually commented here on the question of sovereignty and EU membership, let alone dismissed anything. I've questioned your dismissal of an evidence-based argument and your seeming reluctance to provide justification for that dismissal. Yes you did. You called my post about sovereignty on a topic about sovereignty 'meaningless blather'. Very dismissive. "Full fact".org which calls itself the 'UK's independent fact checking' chariry says of the 13% claim: "13% is likely to be too low". Ie, likely wrong. The poster in question is using statistics that are 'likely' wrong to support his arguments. Ergo it is misleading. Moreover he or she knows this. Whatever the figure the equal cocern is that the UK parliament does make laws that contradict EU law. Ergo this greatly curtails its law making abilities. Yes, I was dismissive, but not on the topic of sovereignty itself. I was dismissive of the way you had offered no evidence for declaring the other person's point invalid whilst offering nothing but your own opinion to support yours. But, finally, you tell us why the 13% point was " discredited". Good. Fullfact.org is a highly reputable organisation - as is the House of Commons Library. Saying 13% is likely to be too low is not at all the same as saying it's discredited, which is how you described it originally. The poster in question used evidence to support his argument. Yes, he was selective in his use of that evidence but he corrected that in his more detailed explanation and, most importantly, his point remained entirely valid. In most areas of our national life, our government and parliament are free to enact legislation independently of the EU and always have been. In the minority of cases where we have to take account of EU law, this is generally to facilitate the mutual benefit of operating within a single trading zone and to prevent competitive distortions. Your apparent belief that brexit could somehow free us of these considerations seems naïve. The EU will remain our main trading partner, and always our closest geographically. Whatever form any brexit takes, even a no deal, we'll continue to frame our laws to dovetail with the EU where it's beneficial to do so - just as we do now. You need only look at the thread this week on speed limiters in new cars, where we've already said we'll follow the EU, regardless of brexit.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Mar 30, 2019 13:30:06 GMT 1
Yes you did. You called my post about sovereignty on a topic about sovereignty 'meaningless blather'. Very dismissive. "Full fact".org which calls itself the 'UK's independent fact checking' chariry says of the 13% claim: "13% is likely to be too low". Ie, likely wrong. The poster in question is using statistics that are 'likely' wrong to support his arguments. Ergo it is misleading. Moreover he or she knows this. Whatever the figure the equal cocern is that the UK parliament does make laws that contradict EU law. Ergo this greatly curtails its law making abilities. Yes, I was dismissive, but not on the topic of sovereignty itself. I was dismissive of the way you had offered no evidence for declaring the other person's point invalid whilst offering nothing but your own opinion to support yours. But, finally, you tell us why the 13% point was " discredited". Good. Fullfact.org is a highly reputable organisation - as is the House of Commons Library. Saying 13% is likely to be too low is not at all the same as saying it's discredited, which is how you described it originally. The poster in question used evidence to support his argument. Yes, he was selective in his use of that evidence but he corrected that in his more detailed explanation and, most importantly, his point remained entirely valid. In most areas of our national life, our government and parliament are free to enact legislation independently of the EU and always have been. In the minority of cases where we have to take account of EU law, this is generally to facilitate the mutual benefit of operating within a single trading zone and to prevent competitive distortions. Your apparent belief that brexit could somehow free us of these considerations seems naïve. The EU will remain our main trading partner, and always our closest geographically. Whatever form any brexit takes, even a no deal, we'll continue to frame our laws to dovetail with the EU where it's beneficial to do so - just as we do now. You need only look at the thread this week on speed limiters in new cars, where we've already said we'll follow the EU, regardless of brexit. If something is 'likely' wrong and not accurate I fail to see how it can be anything other than discredited to be honest. I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one I agree with some of the rest of your post. The UK and the EU are both developed trading partners so likely to share similar rules. I would however pick up on your comment 'where it is beneficial to do so'. Whilst at present we have no choice (whether it is beneficial or not), once we leave the EU we will have the choice to divert from EU law if we so choose. For me, this will be a great benefit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 13:30:31 GMT 1
I call myself lean and tall with physique of a Greek god but it doesn’t necessarily make it true! Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations. Ahh the impartial Laura Kuenssberg? 😂👍
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 13:51:07 GMT 1
I call myself lean and tall with physique of a Greek god but it doesn’t necessarily make it true! Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations. Legislation and regulations are two different things. Regulations usually come out of legislation and are about standardisation and making things safer. For example, your kids don't choke on small parts. Or, every member state uses the same regs to transport goods between member states, hassle free. While maintaining safety within the working time directive. I have said this before on here, but the biggest piece of legislation to affect my family, and other families of disabled children, had nothing to do with the EU. So there are no issues of sovereignty, we can actually do what we like. Like bomb Iraq or something.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Mar 30, 2019 14:22:50 GMT 1
Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations. Legislation and regulations are two different things. Regulations usually come out of legislation and are about standardisation and making things safer. For example, your kids don't choke on small parts. Or, every member state uses the same regs to transport goods between member states, hassle free. While maintaining safety within the working time directive. I have said this before on here, but the biggest piece of legislation to affect my family, and other families of disabled children, had nothing to do with the EU. So there are no issues of sovereignty, we can actually do what we like. Like bomb Iraq or something. You haven't got it quite right. Regulations are legislation derived from the EU. They become law in respective member states without the need for further legislation of individual national parliaments. They can confer rights directly on citizens of member states via a principle known as 'direct effect'. Your second paragraph isn't quite right either. EU law is supreme to the laws or national parliaments. This means that where a law of a national parliament and a law of the EU contradict then EU law takes precedence. Therefore national parliaments will endeavour to not pass laws that contradict EU law. This clearly has an impact on sovereignty of the UK parliament. Where some people get overly simplistic is when they say 'The UK never lost its sovereignty'. That is strictly correct in the sense that the European Communities Act 1972 can be repealed by the UK parliament but whilst we are members of the EU some sovereignty is 'pooled'. Albeit, this was done voluntarily. So simply saying 'we never lost sovereignty' does not add a great deal to the discussion and does not consider the impact of sovereignty of being an EU member. There is no question that being a member of the EU impacts upon sovereignty. The question is do you think it is 'worth it's for the benefits membership brings?
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on Mar 30, 2019 14:27:02 GMT 1
Why not summarise and source that research instead of just alluding to it? You can't expect to get away with an assertion that the quoted House of Commons Library research is untrue without presenting some evidence for your assertion. I haven't actually commented here on the question of sovereignty and EU membership, let alone dismissed anything. I've questioned your dismissal of an evidence-based argument and your seeming reluctance to provide justification for that dismissal. Yes you did. You called my post about sovereignty on a topic about sovereignty 'meaningless blather'. Very dismissive. "Full fact".org which calls itself the 'UK's independent fact checking' chariry says of the 13% claim: "13% is likely to be too low". Ie, likely wrong. The poster in question is using statistics that are 'likely' wrong to support his arguments. Ergo it is misleading. Moreover he or she knows this. Whatever the figure the equal cocern is that the UK parliament does make laws that contradict EU law. Ergo this greatly curtails its law making abilities. Yes likely too low (it doesn't logically follow that it's definitely wrong, but i digress) at which point i went on to say that regardless of which methodology you use, the question still remains. If you're voting leave on the mantra that we want to "take back control of our laws", it's absolutely reasonable to ask what exactly you're expecting and what the basis is for your belief that we don't have control. If you want to flip the question without answering, fine. What laws would you like to be able to enact that we can't? I'll give you one - live animal exporting, which i believe is unable to be banned because of free movement laws. That said, like the fishing throwback quotas, we can and do have the political strength to drive change within the EU, and if we cared enough we could do the same there. Gove, as i remember, used it as an example for why we should leave missing entirely the fact that it's part of his responsibility to push for changes in the laws which he disagrees with because it suits him). You are right in that we cannot create law that would contradict an area in which the EU has ruled, but the question really is... So what? what do we want to do that all our European neighbours wouldn't let us? Has this been a problem for us historically in any significant way?
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on Mar 30, 2019 14:33:56 GMT 1
Legislation and regulations are two different things. Regulations usually come out of legislation and are about standardisation and making things safer. For example, your kids don't choke on small parts. Or, every member state uses the same regs to transport goods between member states, hassle free. While maintaining safety within the working time directive. I have said this before on here, but the biggest piece of legislation to affect my family, and other families of disabled children, had nothing to do with the EU. So there are no issues of sovereignty, we can actually do what we like. Like bomb Iraq or something. You haven't got it quite right. Regulations are legislation derived from the EU. They become law in respective member states without the need for further legislation of individual national parliaments. They can confer rights directly on citizens of member states via a principle known as 'direct effect'. Your second paragraph isn't quite right either. EU law is supreme to the laws or national parliaments. This means that where a law of a national parliament and a law of the EU contradict then EU law takes precedence. Therefore national parliaments will endeavour to not pass laws that contradict EU law. This clearly has an impact on sovereignty of the UK parliament. Where some people get overly simplistic is when they say 'The UK never lost its sovereignty'. That is strictly correct in the sense that the European Communities Act 1972 can be repealed by the UK parliament but whilst we are members of the EU some sovereignty is 'pooled'. Albeit, this was done voluntarily. So simply saying 'we never lost sovereignty' does not add a great deal to the discussion and does not consider the impact of sovereignty of being an EU member. There is no question that being a member of the EU impacts upon sovereignty. The question is do you think it is 'worth it's for the benefits membership brings? But that's the point isn't it. Originally i was addressing this constant nonsense rhetoric of the EU (or often Germany, for those still unwilling to acknowledge WW2 started 80 years ago) telling us what do. Not only, as you say, did we agree to share sovereignty in certain areas , but we can leave at any time (government omnishambles not withstanding) and we are actively a part of that sovereignty. People don't seem to want to accept the fact we are still part of that control, and if they grudgingly do, they trot out the " constantly getting outvoted" mantra, or "yeah but we're loosing the veto" stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 14:50:35 GMT 1
Legislation and regulations are two different things. Regulations usually come out of legislation and are about standardisation and making things safer. For example, your kids don't choke on small parts. Or, every member state uses the same regs to transport goods between member states, hassle free. While maintaining safety within the working time directive. I have said this before on here, but the biggest piece of legislation to affect my family, and other families of disabled children, had nothing to do with the EU. So there are no issues of sovereignty, we can actually do what we like. Like bomb Iraq or something. You haven't got it quite right. Regulations are legislation derived from the EU. They become law in respective member states without the need for further legislation of individual national parliaments. They can confer rights directly on citizens of member states via a principle known as 'direct effect'. Your second paragraph isn't quite right either. EU law is supreme to the laws or national parliaments. This means that where a law of a national parliament and a law of the EU contradict then EU law takes precedence. Therefore national parliaments will endeavour to not pass laws that contradict EU law. This clearly has an impact on sovereignty of the UK parliament. Where some people get overly simplistic is when they say 'The UK never lost its sovereignty'. That is strictly correct in the sense that the European Communities Act 1972 can be repealed by the UK parliament but whilst we are members of the EU some sovereignty is 'pooled'. Albeit, this was done voluntarily. So simply saying 'we never lost sovereignty' does not add a great deal to the discussion and does not consider the impact of sovereignty of being an EU member. There is no question that being a member of the EU impacts upon sovereignty. The question is do you think it is 'worth it's for the benefits membership brings? Legislation is made in the legislative body, therefore you can't count regulations, which help implement legislation, as 'law', hence they are two different things. I am replying to this, from you "Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations. " Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/99008/gmt-bst-clock-changes?page=2#ixzz5jf5pw8m1Therefore you shouldn't take account of regulations. You also said this "It's more the issue of laws that the UK parliament cannot pass as a result of EU membership. " Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/99008/gmt-bst-clock-changes?page=2#ixzz5jf6airn0Which, is clearly untrue, as I pointed out. So, the EU doesn't impact on Sovereignty, despite your rather patronising statement about the sovereignty debate. The EU doesn't impact on or foreign policy for example, the biggest measure of a states sovereignty. We leave that to the Americans...… As for order of precedence, yes, I am comfortable with it, as the ECJ is actually designed to curb the worse excesses of the state. Not that it helped these people. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/28/police-right-pre-emptive-arrests-backed-judges-eight-year-legal/
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Mar 30, 2019 15:02:51 GMT 1
"Legislation is made in the legislative body, therefore you can't count regulations, which help implement legislation, as 'law', hence they are two different things. I am replying to this, from you"
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Sorry if you think I am being patronising but I've tried to explain to you what EU regulations are but I'm not sure you are undetstanding.
"So, the EU doesn't impact on Sovereignty"
This is not true I'm afraid. Some sovereignty is pooled whilst in the EU. This is a fact.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Mar 30, 2019 15:10:54 GMT 1
You haven't got it quite right. Regulations are legislation derived from the EU. They become law in respective member states without the need for further legislation of individual national parliaments. They can confer rights directly on citizens of member states via a principle known as 'direct effect'. Your second paragraph isn't quite right either. EU law is supreme to the laws or national parliaments. This means that where a law of a national parliament and a law of the EU contradict then EU law takes precedence. Therefore national parliaments will endeavour to not pass laws that contradict EU law. This clearly has an impact on sovereignty of the UK parliament. Where some people get overly simplistic is when they say 'The UK never lost its sovereignty'. That is strictly correct in the sense that the European Communities Act 1972 can be repealed by the UK parliament but whilst we are members of the EU some sovereignty is 'pooled'. Albeit, this was done voluntarily. So simply saying 'we never lost sovereignty' does not add a great deal to the discussion and does not consider the impact of sovereignty of being an EU member. There is no question that being a member of the EU impacts upon sovereignty. The question is do you think it is 'worth it's for the benefits membership brings? Legislation is made in the legislative body, therefore you can't count regulations, which help implement legislation, as 'law', hence they are two different things. I am replying to this, from you "Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations. " Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/99008/gmt-bst-clock-changes?page=2#ixzz5jf5pw8m1Therefore you shouldn't take account of regulations. You also said this "It's more the issue of laws that the UK parliament cannot pass as a result of EU membership. " Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/99008/gmt-bst-clock-changes?page=2#ixzz5jf6airn0Which, is clearly untrue, as I pointed out. So, the EU doesn't impact on Sovereignty, despite your rather patronising statement about the sovereignty debate. The EU doesn't impact on or foreign policy for example, the biggest measure of a states sovereignty. We leave that to the Americans...… As for order of precedence, yes, I am comfortable with it, as the ECJ is actually designed to curb the worse excesses of the state. Not that it helped these people. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/28/police-right-pre-emptive-arrests-backed-judges-eight-year-legal/The judgment you have linked to is a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. This is not the ECJ and distinct from the EU. ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 15:16:52 GMT 1
"Legislation is made in the legislative body, therefore you can't count regulations, which help implement legislation, as 'law', hence they are two different things. I am replying to this, from you" I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Sorry if you think I am being patronising but I've tried to explain to you what EU regulations are but I'm not sure you are undetstanding. "So, the EU doesn't impact on Sovereignty" This is not true I'm afraid. Some sovereignty is pooled whilst in the EU. This is a fact. Well, yes, some sovereignty, because we are part of the EU. But, the constant argument from those who voted leave is about how we will get our sovereignty back is actually a lie, because has I have said we can make decisions on many different issues, crucially foreign policy, without the say so of the EU. And, as I said, the biggest piece of legislation that will affect my son has nothing to do with the EU. EU regs operate the same way regs in the UK do. There are primary and secondary legislation. Primary are the treaties member states agree, while on the secondary are the regulations/directives/decisions that fall out of the primary. So, going back to the original point about the percentage of laws made from the EU, we shouldn't be counting the secondary, because you would counting the same law twice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 15:17:44 GMT 1
Legislation is made in the legislative body, therefore you can't count regulations, which help implement legislation, as 'law', hence they are two different things. I am replying to this, from you "Even the 'impatial' BBC has said the 13% figure is not accurate. It doesn't take account of regulations. " Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/99008/gmt-bst-clock-changes?page=2#ixzz5jf5pw8m1Therefore you shouldn't take account of regulations. You also said this "It's more the issue of laws that the UK parliament cannot pass as a result of EU membership. " Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/99008/gmt-bst-clock-changes?page=2#ixzz5jf6airn0Which, is clearly untrue, as I pointed out. So, the EU doesn't impact on Sovereignty, despite your rather patronising statement about the sovereignty debate. The EU doesn't impact on or foreign policy for example, the biggest measure of a states sovereignty. We leave that to the Americans...… As for order of precedence, yes, I am comfortable with it, as the ECJ is actually designed to curb the worse excesses of the state. Not that it helped these people. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/28/police-right-pre-emptive-arrests-backed-judges-eight-year-legal/The judgment you have linked to is a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. This is not the ECJ and distinct from the EU. ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/Yes, you're right, thanks for pointing that out. However, the point stands.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Mar 30, 2019 18:28:31 GMT 1
Anyone that thinks the BBC is biased against leave should listen to the garbage that Rees-Mogg was allowed to spout during his interview on the Today Programme a couple of mornings ago, almost completed unchallenged by the presenter.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Mar 30, 2019 20:44:16 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 20:47:03 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 30, 2019 21:03:55 GMT 1
Anything that thinks the BBC is biased against leave should listen to the garbage that Rees-Mogg was allowed to spout during his interview on the Today Programme a couple of mornings ago, almost completed unchallenged by the presenter. Or John Humphrys on Friday’s “Today” programme, supposedly interviewing Melvyn King but the reality was two old brexiteers reassuring each other that they were right beyond question. Might as well have had Farage on and tickled his beer belly too.
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on Mar 31, 2019 1:04:07 GMT 1
Christ. My stepmum voted leave because the shower mixer (with an integral temperature regulator) broke, and it was hard to find a replacement. She said because she ran a bed and breakfast she was forced to use these mixers, and it was all a con (presumably by Big Plumbing) to get money out of people. I said it was so people couldn't set it to dangerous temperatures without purposely overriding it (pushing the knob in and turning it past 38 degrees) and was likely because of incidences of kids getting scalded or something. Then she essentially said she wanted to be able to buy a flammable sofa because she didn't want people telling her what to do. Everything she says sounds like a Sun article.
|
|