Discussion thread for Nigel vs. Nick 1st debate- 7pm today
Scroll to see replies
Original post by InnerTemple
Wonderfully?
He just got massively caught out on the 70% of laws thing. His own party's website removed it after various House of Common's reports and after an independant fact checker found that UKIP's figures came from out of context qoutes.
I think that this debate has gone some way to show that UKIP's claims cannot be entirely trusted - which is good.
He just got massively caught out on the 70% of laws thing. His own party's website removed it after various House of Common's reports and after an independant fact checker found that UKIP's figures came from out of context qoutes.
I think that this debate has gone some way to show that UKIP's claims cannot be entirely trusted - which is good.
7, 50,75% it does not mater.
It's still too much.
Say it's 7, like Clegg said.
Why is 7% of OUR laws made by foreigners?
Why can we not make a choice about nearly 10% of our laws? Why do we have no say?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Ace123
Who won the debate
I am voting for Farage, when the left wing Guardian say he is the winner he must have done well
I am voting for Farage, when the left wing Guardian say he is the winner he must have done well
Why is there no option for draw?
I thought that neither struck the knockout blow and so i back the papers and Sky News that declared a draw.
Original post by the mezzil
7, 50,75% it does not mater.
It's still too much.
Say it's 7, like Clegg said.
Why is 7% of OUR laws made by foreigners?
Why can we not make a choice about nearly 10% of our laws? Why do we have no say?
It's still too much.
Say it's 7, like Clegg said.
Why is 7% of OUR laws made by foreigners?
Why can we not make a choice about nearly 10% of our laws? Why do we have no say?
We do have a say - in Brussels. Did you see there's elections for the European Parliament soon?
Come to think of it, 100% of London's laws are made by people outside of London. How is this fair?
Original post by gladders
We do have a say - in Brussels. Did you see there's elections for the European Parliament soon?
Come to think of it, 100% of London's laws are made by people outside of London. How is this fair?
Come to think of it, 100% of London's laws are made by people outside of London. How is this fair?
And so do every other country in the EU. I don't want to govern the French, Spanish, Italians etc. The best people to rule them is themselves, not faceless bureaucrats which we have never voted for.
And what do you mean? I'm pretty sure the majority of Londoners are citizens, and get to vote on their local members of parliament.
Original post by gladders
We do have a say - in Brussels. Did you see there's elections for the European Parliament soon?
Come to think of it, 100% of London's laws are made by people outside of London. How is this fair?
Come to think of it, 100% of London's laws are made by people outside of London. How is this fair?
do you know what a sovereign state is? london's not a state, it's a city, a foreign state having influence over another state's legislation means that that state being legislated over in an intervening way means that that state isn't sovereign or independent. surely nations should be sovereign over their own affairs?
Do you trust these faces?
EU is the new soviet union and we all know who was behind that.
EU is the new soviet union and we all know who was behind that.Original post by captain.sensible
do you know what a sovereign state is? london's not a state, it's a city, a foreign state having influence over another state's legislation means that that state being legislated over in an intervening way means that that state isn't sovereign or independent. surely nations should be sovereign over their own affairs?
If we're honest i think we can both agree that the EU is now effectively a con-federation of sorts and will only integrate further. If we do have a referendum and vote to stay 'In' then i suspect that short of the Euro and a common armed forces the UK will integrate to the point that there will be very little distinction between us and another core nation.
Original post by Rakas21
If we're honest i think we can both agree that the EU is now effectively a con-federation of sorts and will only integrate further. If we do have a referendum and vote to stay 'In' then i suspect that short of the Euro and a common armed forces the UK will integrate to the point that there will be very little distinction between us and another core nation.
yes and it's ludicrous - europe shouldn't be a federation, going from sovereign states to a federation of states only decreases democracy. besides, we've never even called for a federation, not in 1972/1975 and certainly not now
Nick Clegg:
"I've got here a leaflet from Nigel Farage {brandishes leaflet}. This is a leaflet from Nigel Farage's party distributed in the recent Eastleigh by-election - you may remember it - it says here that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians may come to this country - there aren't even 29 million Romanians or Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. Let's have this debate, John, but let's have this debate on facts."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bulgaria+population&oq=bulgaria+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4115j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romania+population&oq=romania+population&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5325j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
21.33+7.305 = 28.635
Er....
Nick Clegg:
"You'll hear from Nigel Farage, that's it's 75% of our laws...NO, actually the House of Commons has shown roughly 7% of all new laws are related to the European Union, but they do need to be there that 7% so that you and everyone else exporting into the European Union can do so without fear that the rules are going to work against you"
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf
"Before EU statistics were available electronically, the House of Commons Library attempted to answer the question frequently asked by Members of Parliament about the amount of EC legislation by measuring the shelf-space occupied by
the bound ‘L’ series (legislation) of the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJL). An estimate of
the proportion this formed of national legislation was calculated by comparing the OJ shelf measurement
with the shelf-space occupied by bound volumes of UK Acts and SIs. However, this was a crude and very
rough guide, as the length and presentation of the two types of instruments are very different; also, the ‘L’
volumes contain the texts of all EC legislation, whether or not laws apply in the UK. "
The relevant statistic the House of Commons library came up with in any event was 14.1%, not 7%. I cannot stress strongly enough that the 7% figure does not come from the House of Commons library - it seems to come from Polly Peck at BBC's Question Time.
"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws (see table on page 20), while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation (see table above). The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two approaches. The limitations of data also make it impossible to achieve an accurate measure. We do not know, for example, how many regulations have direct application in the UK - olive and tobacco growing regulations are unlikely to have much impact here, but the UK implements such regulations along with olive and tobacco-growing Member States."
The study would contend that the 75% figure is justifiable for certain sectors, but most suggest figures above 70% are too high and figures below 10% are too low - but, it would be wrong, to contend any figure or be with absolute certainty because there is no certainty to be had.
Nigel Farage:
"Oh dear, oh dear. 7%. What are on about? We had one of your friends from Brussels, Commissioner Vivian Reding saying we should all sign up to United States of Europe and that it was so important because made 75% of our laws, even Gordon Brown said over 50% of our laws are made in Brussels, in Germany the President conducted a review and said it was so important because it made 84% of their federal laws are made in Brussels.....Well that's the estimate we've made, if I went with the German figure I would have gone higher..."
Nick Clegg:
"Can I tell you someone who is serious? It's the House of Commons library. I suspect the House of Commons library is going to know better than Nigel Farage or indeed the German President is going to know better on how many laws in the House of Commons are transposed onto the statute book here in Britain. Their estimate is 7%, not 75%. What we've heard today on jobs, on investment and immigration and now on EU laws again and again and again are the wrong facts. We owe it to you that this debate is at least based on facts. And the House of Commons library has been unambiguous with 7%, not 75%, and I believe them."
Nick Clegg, as above, repeated warned against rhetoric throughout and urged people to listen to the facts. Of note, he repeated "the world's largest economy" over 8 times (to my count) during this debate. Of course, "economy" used in world terms always refers to countries. The EU is not a country, it is a trading bloc - it is the largest single economic entity. Whilst it is also referred to by the Commission as such, this is a technique called doublespeak, whereby the debater attempts to distort the meaning of words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
"I've got here a leaflet from Nigel Farage {brandishes leaflet}. This is a leaflet from Nigel Farage's party distributed in the recent Eastleigh by-election - you may remember it - it says here that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians may come to this country - there aren't even 29 million Romanians or Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. Let's have this debate, John, but let's have this debate on facts."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bulgaria+population&oq=bulgaria+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4115j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romania+population&oq=romania+population&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5325j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
21.33+7.305 = 28.635
Er....
Nick Clegg:
"You'll hear from Nigel Farage, that's it's 75% of our laws...NO, actually the House of Commons has shown roughly 7% of all new laws are related to the European Union, but they do need to be there that 7% so that you and everyone else exporting into the European Union can do so without fear that the rules are going to work against you"
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf
"Before EU statistics were available electronically, the House of Commons Library attempted to answer the question frequently asked by Members of Parliament about the amount of EC legislation by measuring the shelf-space occupied by
the bound ‘L’ series (legislation) of the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJL). An estimate of
the proportion this formed of national legislation was calculated by comparing the OJ shelf measurement
with the shelf-space occupied by bound volumes of UK Acts and SIs. However, this was a crude and very
rough guide, as the length and presentation of the two types of instruments are very different; also, the ‘L’
volumes contain the texts of all EC legislation, whether or not laws apply in the UK. "
The relevant statistic the House of Commons library came up with in any event was 14.1%, not 7%. I cannot stress strongly enough that the 7% figure does not come from the House of Commons library - it seems to come from Polly Peck at BBC's Question Time.
"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws (see table on page 20), while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation (see table above). The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two approaches. The limitations of data also make it impossible to achieve an accurate measure. We do not know, for example, how many regulations have direct application in the UK - olive and tobacco growing regulations are unlikely to have much impact here, but the UK implements such regulations along with olive and tobacco-growing Member States."
The study would contend that the 75% figure is justifiable for certain sectors, but most suggest figures above 70% are too high and figures below 10% are too low - but, it would be wrong, to contend any figure or be with absolute certainty because there is no certainty to be had.
Nigel Farage:
"Oh dear, oh dear. 7%. What are on about? We had one of your friends from Brussels, Commissioner Vivian Reding saying we should all sign up to United States of Europe and that it was so important because made 75% of our laws, even Gordon Brown said over 50% of our laws are made in Brussels, in Germany the President conducted a review and said it was so important because it made 84% of their federal laws are made in Brussels.....Well that's the estimate we've made, if I went with the German figure I would have gone higher..."
Nick Clegg:
"Can I tell you someone who is serious? It's the House of Commons library. I suspect the House of Commons library is going to know better than Nigel Farage or indeed the German President is going to know better on how many laws in the House of Commons are transposed onto the statute book here in Britain. Their estimate is 7%, not 75%. What we've heard today on jobs, on investment and immigration and now on EU laws again and again and again are the wrong facts. We owe it to you that this debate is at least based on facts. And the House of Commons library has been unambiguous with 7%, not 75%, and I believe them."
Nick Clegg, as above, repeated warned against rhetoric throughout and urged people to listen to the facts. Of note, he repeated "the world's largest economy" over 8 times (to my count) during this debate. Of course, "economy" used in world terms always refers to countries. The EU is not a country, it is a trading bloc - it is the largest single economic entity. Whilst it is also referred to by the Commission as such, this is a technique called doublespeak, whereby the debater attempts to distort the meaning of words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
Original post by captain.sensible
yes and it's ludicrous - europe shouldn't be a federation, going from sovereign states to a federation of states only decreases democracy. besides, we've never even called for a federation, not in 1972/1975 and certainly not now
I agree that it's lacked the democratic mandate although i don't oppose federalism per say, i just question whether the EU will ever be my type of federation.
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Nick Clegg:
"I've got here a leaflet from Nigel Farage {brandishes leaflet}. This is a leaflet from Nigel Farage's party distributed in the recent Eastleigh by-election - you may remember it - it says here that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians may come to this country - there aren't even 29 million Romanians or Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. Let's have this debate, John, but let's have this debate on facts."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bulgaria+population&oq=bulgaria+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4115j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romania+population&oq=romania+population&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5325j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
21.33+7.305 = 28.635
"I've got here a leaflet from Nigel Farage {brandishes leaflet}. This is a leaflet from Nigel Farage's party distributed in the recent Eastleigh by-election - you may remember it - it says here that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians may come to this country - there aren't even 29 million Romanians or Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. Let's have this debate, John, but let's have this debate on facts."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bulgaria+population&oq=bulgaria+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4115j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romania+population&oq=romania+population&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5325j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
21.33+7.305 = 28.635
Uh? So Clegg was right?
Original post by TheMagicRat
Uh? So Clegg was right?
No, because the figure is around 28.635 and the figure UKIP gave is 29.
It is statistically insignificant. You do realise a) it is customary to round up or down to the nearest figure with statistics, particularly those used in debates/politics, b) these statistics are estimates from 2012 figures, c) the exact numbers change daily - in a single year each of these countries may differ by a larger number than the discrepancy above.
"Estimates" being the important word. We simply do not know how many people are in most countries to the exact 100000. The last census in Bulgaria was in 2011 gave a figure of 7364570, higher than the 2012 estimate.
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
No, because the figure is around 28.635 and the figure UKIP gave is 29.
It is statistically insignificant. You do realise a) it is customary to round up or down to the nearest figure with statistics, particularly those used in debates/politics, b) these statistics are estimates from 2012 figures, c) the exact numbers change daily - in a single year each of these countries may differ by a larger number than the discrepancy above.
"Estimates" being the important word. We simply do not know how many people are in most countries to the exact 100000. The last census in Bulgaria was in 2011 gave a figure of 7364570, higher than the 2012 estimate.
It is statistically insignificant. You do realise a) it is customary to round up or down to the nearest figure with statistics, particularly those used in debates/politics, b) these statistics are estimates from 2012 figures, c) the exact numbers change daily - in a single year each of these countries may differ by a larger number than the discrepancy above.
"Estimates" being the important word. We simply do not know how many people are in most countries to the exact 100000. The last census in Bulgaria was in 2011 gave a figure of 7364570, higher than the 2012 estimate.
Oh, right. You do realise Clegg made no reference to total populations. He said there aren't that many Romanians or Bulgarians there, giving no mention of any other nationalities that contribute to the total populations that you've posted.
Original post by TheMagicRat
Oh, right. You do realise Clegg made no reference to total populations. He said there aren't that many Romanians or Bulgarians there, giving no mention of any other nationalities that contribute to the total populations that you've posted.
It's good to know you're only slightly less dense than I thought! Since of course you didn't actually explain why you disagreed.
I don't accept that. I understand if you are to take just the Romanians and Bulgarians in those countries it might amount to a couple of million less, and as Farage went on to suggest, a couple of million may have already left for the Continent. After all, the Romanian population figures have decreased by about 2 million in the last few years alone.
That aside, I don't accept the point because I don't take it to be the ordinary meaning of the words. I *see* the argument: I am not blind to it. I took it to mean the population of both countries. Again, it's doublespeak on the part of Clegg. It's the nuance between saying "29 people can come from Romania and Bulgaria" and "29 million Romanians and Bulgarians can come here" - in ordinary parlance, it's a distinction without a difference.
In fact, it is so out of kilter with the ordinary meaning of the words, as I understand it, that I had trouble understanding what you were talking about in the first instance. I assumed you had a problem with a discrepancy of a few hundred thousand.
Sadly all of this is pointless as the traitors in Westminster will not give the people a say. Democracy, pffft.
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Nick Clegg:
"I've got here a leaflet from Nigel Farage {brandishes leaflet}. This is a leaflet from Nigel Farage's party distributed in the recent Eastleigh by-election - you may remember it - it says here that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians may come to this country - there aren't even 29 million Romanians or Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. Let's have this debate, John, but let's have this debate on facts."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bulgaria+population&oq=bulgaria+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4115j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romania+population&oq=romania+population&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5325j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
21.33+7.305 = 28.635
Er....
Nick Clegg:
"You'll hear from Nigel Farage, that's it's 75% of our laws...NO, actually the House of Commons has shown roughly 7% of all new laws are related to the European Union, but they do need to be there that 7% so that you and everyone else exporting into the European Union can do so without fear that the rules are going to work against you"
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf
"Before EU statistics were available electronically, the House of Commons Library attempted to answer the question frequently asked by Members of Parliament about the amount of EC legislation by measuring the shelf-space occupied by
the bound ‘L’ series (legislation) of the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJL). An estimate of
the proportion this formed of national legislation was calculated by comparing the OJ shelf measurement
with the shelf-space occupied by bound volumes of UK Acts and SIs. However, this was a crude and very
rough guide, as the length and presentation of the two types of instruments are very different; also, the ‘L’
volumes contain the texts of all EC legislation, whether or not laws apply in the UK. "
The relevant statistic the House of Commons library came up with in any event was 14.1%, not 7%. I cannot stress strongly enough that the 7% figure does not come from the House of Commons library - it seems to come from Polly Peck at BBC's Question Time.
"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws (see table on page 20), while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation (see table above). The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two approaches. The limitations of data also make it impossible to achieve an accurate measure. We do not know, for example, how many regulations have direct application in the UK - olive and tobacco growing regulations are unlikely to have much impact here, but the UK implements such regulations along with olive and tobacco-growing Member States."
The study would contend that the 75% figure is justifiable for certain sectors, but most suggest figures above 70% are too high and figures below 10% are too low - but, it would be wrong, to contend any figure or be with absolute certainty because there is no certainty to be had.
Nigel Farage:
"Oh dear, oh dear. 7%. What are on about? We had one of your friends from Brussels, Commissioner Vivian Reding saying we should all sign up to United States of Europe and that it was so important because made 75% of our laws, even Gordon Brown said over 50% of our laws are made in Brussels, in Germany the President conducted a review and said it was so important because it made 84% of their federal laws are made in Brussels.....Well that's the estimate we've made, if I went with the German figure I would have gone higher..."
Nick Clegg:
"Can I tell you someone who is serious? It's the House of Commons library. I suspect the House of Commons library is going to know better than Nigel Farage or indeed the German President is going to know better on how many laws in the House of Commons are transposed onto the statute book here in Britain. Their estimate is 7%, not 75%. What we've heard today on jobs, on investment and immigration and now on EU laws again and again and again are the wrong facts. We owe it to you that this debate is at least based on facts. And the House of Commons library has been unambiguous with 7%, not 75%, and I believe them."
Nick Clegg, as above, repeated warned against rhetoric throughout and urged people to listen to the facts. Of note, he repeated "the world's largest economy" over 8 times (to my count) during this debate. Of course, "economy" used in world terms always refers to countries. The EU is not a country, it is a trading bloc - it is the largest single economic entity. Whilst it is also referred to by the Commission as such, this is a technique called doublespeak, whereby the debater attempts to distort the meaning of words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
"I've got here a leaflet from Nigel Farage {brandishes leaflet}. This is a leaflet from Nigel Farage's party distributed in the recent Eastleigh by-election - you may remember it - it says here that 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians may come to this country - there aren't even 29 million Romanians or Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. Let's have this debate, John, but let's have this debate on facts."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bulgaria+population&oq=bulgaria+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4115j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=romania+population&oq=romania+population&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.5325j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
21.33+7.305 = 28.635
Er....
Nick Clegg:
"You'll hear from Nigel Farage, that's it's 75% of our laws...NO, actually the House of Commons has shown roughly 7% of all new laws are related to the European Union, but they do need to be there that 7% so that you and everyone else exporting into the European Union can do so without fear that the rules are going to work against you"
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf
"Before EU statistics were available electronically, the House of Commons Library attempted to answer the question frequently asked by Members of Parliament about the amount of EC legislation by measuring the shelf-space occupied by
the bound ‘L’ series (legislation) of the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJL). An estimate of
the proportion this formed of national legislation was calculated by comparing the OJ shelf measurement
with the shelf-space occupied by bound volumes of UK Acts and SIs. However, this was a crude and very
rough guide, as the length and presentation of the two types of instruments are very different; also, the ‘L’
volumes contain the texts of all EC legislation, whether or not laws apply in the UK. "
The relevant statistic the House of Commons library came up with in any event was 14.1%, not 7%. I cannot stress strongly enough that the 7% figure does not come from the House of Commons library - it seems to come from Polly Peck at BBC's Question Time.
"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws (see table on page 20), while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation (see table above). The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two approaches. The limitations of data also make it impossible to achieve an accurate measure. We do not know, for example, how many regulations have direct application in the UK - olive and tobacco growing regulations are unlikely to have much impact here, but the UK implements such regulations along with olive and tobacco-growing Member States."
The study would contend that the 75% figure is justifiable for certain sectors, but most suggest figures above 70% are too high and figures below 10% are too low - but, it would be wrong, to contend any figure or be with absolute certainty because there is no certainty to be had.
Nigel Farage:
"Oh dear, oh dear. 7%. What are on about? We had one of your friends from Brussels, Commissioner Vivian Reding saying we should all sign up to United States of Europe and that it was so important because made 75% of our laws, even Gordon Brown said over 50% of our laws are made in Brussels, in Germany the President conducted a review and said it was so important because it made 84% of their federal laws are made in Brussels.....Well that's the estimate we've made, if I went with the German figure I would have gone higher..."
Nick Clegg:
"Can I tell you someone who is serious? It's the House of Commons library. I suspect the House of Commons library is going to know better than Nigel Farage or indeed the German President is going to know better on how many laws in the House of Commons are transposed onto the statute book here in Britain. Their estimate is 7%, not 75%. What we've heard today on jobs, on investment and immigration and now on EU laws again and again and again are the wrong facts. We owe it to you that this debate is at least based on facts. And the House of Commons library has been unambiguous with 7%, not 75%, and I believe them."
Nick Clegg, as above, repeated warned against rhetoric throughout and urged people to listen to the facts. Of note, he repeated "the world's largest economy" over 8 times (to my count) during this debate. Of course, "economy" used in world terms always refers to countries. The EU is not a country, it is a trading bloc - it is the largest single economic entity. Whilst it is also referred to by the Commission as such, this is a technique called doublespeak, whereby the debater attempts to distort the meaning of words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
I don't agree on your 'doublespeak' point, like it or not, the EU is widely regarded now as a trading and economic entity, so it isn't unreasonable to describe it as the largest economy, etc, even if the statistics are arguable.
However, I agree that Cleggie was being a bit fast and loose with the facts, relying on the slightly bogus interpretation that the H of C Library put on it. I tend to be EU-minded on some things, but even a tight definition of what is "EU-related" in Parliament would probably come up with something close to a 50% of legislation mark.
What really muddies the waters is something like HS2, for example, which is plainly part of the EU-driven high speed rail programme and which will spawn hundreds of hours of Parliamentary work. HS2 is not being officially touted in the UK as an EU project and you will hardly hear that mentioned in any of the media debates about it, but it does come from the EU, albeit with some UK interpretation and revision.
Original post by PropagandaBuster
Do you trust these faces?EU is the new soviet union and we all know who was behind that.
EU is the new soviet union and we all know who was behind that.Looking at how they've managed so far in Ukraine under the new combined foreign policy of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to compare them to the Soviets - they may have been somewhat fossilised, but Brezhnev and his pals were probably more effective at foreign affairs.
Joking aside, these comparisons with the Soviet system are absurd. The EU is democratic, no matter how much Farage and his gang of ex-Tory right nutters want to claim it isn't. Policies in the EU are driven by democratic national governments, by the EU Parliament and by EU Commissioners appointed by democratic national governments. The Soviet Union was nothing like that in any way.
Original post by the mezzil
Likewise Farage did for Clegg.
For example: 3m people arent going to lose their jobs if we leave the EU.
Posted from TSR Mobile
For example: 3m people arent going to lose their jobs if we leave the EU.
Posted from TSR Mobile
So you accept that he has a ''popular opinion'' based on incorrect information?
Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen
Sadly all of this is pointless as the traitors in Westminster will not give the people a say. Democracy, pffft.
Do not fret. The people will be able to have their say in 2015.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by PropagandaBuster
Do you trust these faces?EU is the new soviet union and we all know who was behind that.
EU is the new soviet union and we all know who was behind that.Do you trust this face?
UKIP is the new Nazi Party.
(If you don't understand, this respond is just mocking your post)(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Ninth Session
- Philosophical and Ethical Debates from TV and Film Hub Thread
- Official University of Chester Clearing 2023 thread
- hull vs york
- A Level AQA English Literature and Language help?
- help me
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
- Why have applications dropped off so much?
- URGENT - Kent vs Cardiff
- SQE2
- EPQ help
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- EPQ help
- Read & Marking History A-level Essay on American Dream
- SQE2 prep course ULaw vs Barbri for SQE2 April 2023
- Graduate Entry Medicine (GEM) A101- Oxford University Entry (2024)
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities! - Sixth Session
- Imperial College no rejection mail
- Question regarding eligibility
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
