What 'red tape' are Brexiters referring to?

Scroll to see replies

Let's have a serious conversation, please. But I agree worker's rights could be affected if we leave the EU. However, that's why democracy exists, so we can vote in politicians to do what they need to.

Clearly, you don't think politicians do the right thing all the time, or you would not have demanded a referendum on the EU but instead trusted in Parliament to decide.

The EU takes forever to do anything, Iceland are able to sign a free-trade deal with China, we are 100 times bigger and can do it ourselves, not as part of an eu superstate.

We also signed a free trade deal with China. The EU takes forever to decide something because - surprise, surprise - it's a trading bloc of 28 Member States, and they want to ensure a broad international consensus. Otherwise, the EU gets accused of being a 'superstate'.

Guessing that's a joke? We have to let other countries fish in our waters, and comply with EU RED TAPE.

Awful, isn't it. We should build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Giving £20bn a year to them; being priced out of jobs due to immigration, not being able to control 60% of our laws

If you're priced out of jobs due to immigration, you either a) suck really hard at interviews/skills to be beaten to the job by a foreigner, or b) refuse to be paid poorly enough, but still bizarrely blame those who are willing to take that pay instead of blaming the company hiring for being so miserly.

As for only passing 60% of our laws. Cite?

To stop more and more workers flooding the job market and public services. If you just look at taxes vs. benefits you are right, but that's a tiny part of the issue

Except the Government keeps announcing statistics that the unemployment rate is continuing to fall. The jobs market and immigration are not zero-sum games.

Reply 41

james813

I'm starting to get a bit pissed off with all your blatant lying.

But you were right about one thing, 60% of laws aren't made in Brussels, it's 65%
http://businessforbritain.org/2015/03/02/definitive-study-reveals-eu-rules-account-for-65-of-uk-law/

Reply 42

deta18dy

Boris said that he cant change London laws without eu approval that's pretty annoying.

Reply 43

gladders

Original post by james813

I'm starting to get a bit pissed off with all your blatant lying.

If I'm lying, it should be quite easy for you to demonstrate how, hmm? Rather than throwing a wobbly?

But you were right about one thing, 60% of laws aren't made in Brussels, it's 65%
http://businessforbritain.org/2015/03/02/definitive-study-reveals-eu-rules-account-for-65-of-uk-law/

That article, first off, does not say what you think it says. You seem to think it says that 65% of the average legislative activity that applies to the UK is formed in Brussels; not so. It in fact says "64.7 per cent of the laws introduced in the UK since 1993 either originate from the European Union (EU) or are deemed to be EU influenced by the House of Commons Library."

Secondly, there's this: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

- Simply counting laws does not consider that some laws have more impact than others.

- Quoted figures vary wildly from under 10% to 70%.

- It's possible to justify any measure between about 15% to 50% depending on which definition of 'UK law' you look at.

It makes little sense to treat major Acts of Parliament such as the 457 page Health and Social Care Act 2012 which reformed the whole NHS the same as, say, three pages of technical regulations on VAT fraud. On the other hand, there's no way to quantify the importance and impact of laws generally.

Sometimes a figure of 70% is used — including in February 2014 by Viviane Reding, the Vice-President of the European Commission — but this is actually the percentage of EU laws that the European Parliament (elected representatives of each EU country) and the European Council (representatives of the governments of each EU country) have had an equal say on.

The rest are either decided solely by the Council, or with Parliament giving the Council consent to them being passed. In other words, it's the percentage of EU law that the politicians we elect to the European Parliament have as much say on as our national government.

Also, 'EU influenced' in my view artificially inflates the figure. If the EU decides something, and the UK independently decides to adapt is laws in reaction to it, that's exactly the same as if the UK altered its laws in reaction to a decision by the United States Government. And if we left the EU, we'd still be 'subject' to such decisions.

Reply 44

username1204031

Original post by james813

Ironic that you're accusing others of lying and then you tell a big fat blatant lie and even link to a source that says it's a lie.

Original post by deta18dy

Boris said that he cant change London laws without eu approval that's pretty annoying.

I could be wrong but this sounds highly exaggerated. It's more likely that he can't change London laws if they contradict EU laws or regulations. This is a good thing - the EU protects our human rights, workers rights, consumer rights, environment and so on from our own government. The Tories want to repeal our Human Rights Act - of course they're upset that the EU holds them accountable. But I'm happy that's the case.

Reply 45

james813

@JordanL, you even said when you started this thread that you hadn't bothered to look at any examples of red tape. Go and do a bit of research, then we can have a proper debate.

@gladders: are you joking or something. "64.7 per cent of the laws introduced in the UK since 1993 either originate from the European Union (EU) or are deemed to be EU influenced by the House of Commons Library." clearly says what it says: that for the last 25 years 65% of our laws have been made by the EU, not the elected government. But you are just denying clear facts and trying to (for some bizarre reason) defend an anti-democracy institution. Someone else can take over defending the sense in Brexit for now, if you grow up a bit then I will be happy to have a sensible conversation.

And everyone look at leave.eu

Reply 46

Yellow 03

I don't see any benefit whatsoever from leaving the EU. I'm voting to stay in.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 47

username1204031

Original post by james813

@JordanL, you even said when you started this thread that you hadn't bothered to look at any examples of red tape. Go and do a bit of research, then we can have a proper debate.

Debates generally don't work by telling other people to do your research for you.

Reply 48

Josb

Original post by Yellow 03

I don't see any benefit whatsoever from leaving the EU. I'm voting to stay in.

Whilst the arguments in favour of Brexit are not really convincing, those against it are not convincing either. The UK had only one feet in the EU, leaving or staying won't change most of its issues.

Reply 49

Luke Kostanjsek

I'll be honest, the main reason I'm in favour of leaving the EU is the terms that David Cameron brought back from Brussels. Specifically, the bit about an exemption from 'ever closer union'. As far as I'm concerned, that was literally the worst thing he could have brought back. Hear me out.....................

The EU superstate is coming. Whether we like it or not, a European bloc is now a matter of when, rather than if. And really, we've got to decide whether we want to be a part of this superstate, or go it alone. Both options could conceivably bring success; no one can tell the future (certainly not the economists!) so any absolute claim that one option will be better than the other is ridiculous. But what is certain, is that setting ourselves on the periphery of an EU superstate, with some kind of funny setup where we will be affected by some of the laws but not all, and presumably have some ability to legislate in the superstate, but not as much as the full members, will not work in the long run. Which is also why the government's position somewhat confuses me. They must surely see the superstate coming, it's obvious. So if they're opposed to 'ever closer union', then their stance on this referendum is bizarre, because sooner or later Britain must be sucked into the EU superstate if it is to remain involved in the European project.

I suppose from an ideological point of view, I prefer the idea of a sovereign Britain to one that is part of a larger conglomerate of nations. If we were choosing between Britain taking a proper role at the heart of the EU and Britain going her own way, I'd be rather less certain of my opinion. I imagine I'd probably end up siding with exit, because I don't really think the EU superstate will succeed. But the option that's being put on the table is even worse than this.

Reply 50

Yellow 03

Original post by Josb

Whilst the arguments in favour of Brexit are not really convincing, those against it are not convincing either. The UK had only one feet in the EU, leaving or staying won't change most of its issues.

But it's not just about resolving issues in my view. There is something about the European ideal and European solidarity that is worth sustaining, particularly now that Western society is so much under threat. I don't believe in en "ever closer union" that will lead to a US federal model (I think that's nonsense, and in fact the EU has probably overexpanded - if Turkey joins it will be the end of it) nor do I believe that the Euro is necessarily sustainable in the long-term (and we did well to stay out of it).

But I see the UK as part of Europe and I want it to have influence and be part of the world. Economically speaking, if we leave we would have to accept a number of European policies to continue trading with Europe but we will have no vote or permanent place around the table to influence these policies. Norway is one example of a country that had to deal with unilateral implementation of Europe's policies e.g. on fisheries-related taxes, without having any say in them.

One of the key issues that people are worried about is immigration, and I see that as an issue too, but my view is that on this matter the UK is paying the price for its colonial past, not for its European present.

Reply 51

Josb

Original post by Yellow 03

I believe(d) in the European ideal too, but the current state of the EU shows that it isn't working. Germany has taken the leadership thanks to their economic supremacy, but they are so reluctant to rule the EU due to their history that they undermine its stability. First there was the Greek debt crisis, now the migrants crisis; they take ages before doing something, whilst European institutions are already terribly slow. I'm very worried that at the next big crisis the EU will explode.

The EU has only overexpanded geographically, its attributions and budget remain very limited (making its expansion even worse). There is a common currency, but no federal government; borders have been suppressed, but there is neither a federal police, nor federal intelligence or immigration agencies, nor federal customs. I don't get how people believed it could work.

In the case of the UK, leaving the EU can have a positive outcome, but the success of the operation relies on the British Government. However, the Tories are currently divided and unprepared - since Cameron is campaigning against Brexit, he has not detailed any plan about the tremendous amount of new legislation that will be needed. The recent Panama leaks have also weakened him at the worst moment. Among the proponents of Brexit, I haven't seen many propositions of what they would do immediately, notably to compensate the loss of funding from the EU - in higher education for example.

It seems that the markets are equally concerned, since the Pound has fallen this week.

Reply 52

Yellow 03

Original post by Josb

I agree that a sequence of crises has brought EU to the brink of explosion, and I think a Brexit will probably push it over the edge - I don't think this is a good thing. I also agree with your analysis of the flawed EU integration and of the British government's shortcomings.

It's really hard for me to see the success of the UK in isolation from its European allies. These things tend to have a domino effect although I do think we are one of the countries that are likely to recover sooner than others even if it's just out of virtue of our geopolitical position. I'm casting a "yes" vote in June, and we'll see what happens. :smile: