Do you consider UKIP good or bad? Watch

geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#461
Report 4 years ago
#461
(Original post by lerjj)
Yes, she has stated that she was referring to EU laws, 75-80% of which are made by the EP.
No she had previously referred to the EU as being responsible for 75% of Swedish laws. It was a statement she had previously made to justify EU membership to Swedes.

During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#462
Report 4 years ago
#462
(Original post by geokinkladze)
Only confusing if you confuse "climate change" with "man made climate change".

Data looking at "climate change" over the past 10,00 years would be pretty odd if the phrase "climate change" was replaced with "man made climate change".

Hopefully, that explains your confusion and the reason why the two should be kept separate.
There is no confusion, just you trying to create confusion by being pedantic. The 'climate change debate' is not a debate between people who think the earths climate has remained perfectly level and stable for 10,000 years and people who don't, no one thinks or is claiming that.
1
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#463
Report 4 years ago
#463
(Original post by geokinkladze)
No she had previously referred to the EU as being responsible for 75% of Swedish laws. It was a statement she had previously made to justify EU membership to Swedes.

During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
This is going in circles- she was confused, alright? The question she thought she was giving the correct answer to was that EU laws, which afaik do affect Sweden are 80% or whatever made by the European Parliament. I've given you a report by our own Parliamentary commision which states that only 6.8% of statues made in this country are influenced by Brussels, to a greater or lesser degree. Yet you persistently refuse to accept my source over Reding in an impromptu debate.

I don't know how many of Sweden's laws are made by the EU, but I expect that its a similarly low amount. The confusion is that she didn't understand the question.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#464
Report 4 years ago
#464
(Original post by geokinkladze)
No she had previously referred to the EU as being responsible for 75% of Swedish laws. It was a statement she had previously made to justify EU membership to Swedes.

During a different debate, when asked if Sweden was a special case, she explained it applied to all EU nations. It certainly wasn't off the cuff as she had already made the point previously and had an opportunity to clarify her earlier statement if it wasn't what she meant.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_...per_cent-29589

Is the commissioner you are referring to?
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#465
Report 4 years ago
#465
(Original post by geokinkladze)
Only confusing if you confuse "climate change" with "man made climate change".

Data looking at "climate change" over the past 10,00 years would be pretty odd if the phrase "climate change" was replaced with "man made climate change".

Hopefully, that explains your confusion and the reason why the two should be kept separate.
Data looking at climate change over the last 10,000 years would be quite odd if it was described as natural climate change. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago, the mean global temp has been pretty much 14 for the entire period you're talking about. It's only if you look at the most recent 100-200 years that there is any noticeable trend. That is in itself highly alarming.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#466
Report 4 years ago
#466
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
They don't favour nuclear IN ORDER TO REDUCE C02 EMISSIONS. They favour nuclear because nuclear is a good source of energy regardless of emissions.
taken from the UKP leaflet so many people keep quoting:

(Original post by UKIP)
we could achieve Brussels’ emissions targets more cheaply, and more securely, by a combination of gas and nuclear
They are talking about reducing CO2 emissions right there.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#467
Report 4 years ago
#467
(Original post by geokinkladze)
taken from the UKP leaflet so many people keep quoting:



They are talking about reducing CO2 emissions right there.
There is simply no need to appeal to CO2 as an explanation for natural variation. But even if you accept the IPCC CO2 theory, there are two more serious problems.
They don't believe in climate change (or anthropogenic climate change if we're being pedantic) but are saying that their policy is the best and will reduce CO2 anyway.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#468
Report 4 years ago
#468
Whether you agree or disagree with their polices, everyone should be concerned with the collusion between the media and mainstream parties in trying to slander UKIP in recent weeks.

And of course, it is a good thing that the Conservatives/Labour become more aware that the man on the street is very angry with the metropolitan elite's dominance in deciding the direction of this country.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#469
Report 4 years ago
#469
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_...per_cent-29589

Is the commissioner you are referring to?
That is the one, so this website you link to is concluding that the European Commision Vice President doesn't know what she is talking about?

Strange how she was able to "get away" with saying this in Sweden but as soon as she says it in the UK we are all told she made a mistake. If it is a mistake why was it not corrected when she said it to the Swedes?

That Youtube video people don't seem to able to load is pretty clear (and was stated separately to the debate in the link you post). Here are her words

"I don't know if the figure is 75% or 80% but the truth is that most laws which are applied and executed at national level are based on European laws or directives which have to be translated into national laws, so the biggest part of the legislation in any member state is decided by European parliament in co-decision with the council of European ministers."

She has said it on more than one occasion (at least three separate occasions that I know of). Even the link you posted, they weren't able to get her office to deny her words, instead they have clarified her words on her behalf.

Something smells fishy and I'm not talking about EU throwback rules.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#470
Report 4 years ago
#470
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
They don't believe in climate change (or anthropogenic climate change if we're being pedantic) but are saying that their policy is the best and will reduce CO2 anyway.
You are quite clearly wrong.

They DO believe in Climate Change.

They believe natural cycles are NOT explained by CO2.

They DO believe in reducing CO2.

They do not believe in reducing CO2 via expensive wind turbines.

They believe in reducing CO2 by cheaper nuclear power stations.


None of the statements above are contradictory in any way, unless maybe if you are the type of person who feels that "climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are one and the same.
0
reply
lerjj
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#471
Report 4 years ago
#471
I just found out that TSR has an article on the elections, with this thread linked off of it. So if we could *possibly* stop having a petty squabble over global warming and stick to UKIP policies. I'm aware that they intend to cut a lot of green policies because a certain number of UKIP MPs don't believe in it (that's the most neutral way I could say that, honestly), but it really shouldn't be a major concerning factor.

Since I need to revise anyway, I'm leaving with the statement: CO2 has been proven unequivocally to act as a greenhouse gas on small, observable scales. Global temperatures have risen with increasing CO2 output. This is AFAIK the fastest rate of climate change ever, homo sapiene evolved during an ice age and are not equipped for high temperatures, and the rate is accelerating (see the IPCC graph earlier). Even if you refuse the linking to man's activities, you're blind or stupid if you think that at some point releasing huge quantities of a known greenhouse gas won't have an adverse effect.

Unless someone has notes on Blood Brothers, Lord of the Flies or Tourism, don't contact me until the weekend or reply to this pose directly. I don't care anymore.
0
reply
Suntzu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#472
Report 4 years ago
#472
(Original post by Rakas21)
The EU is already creating trade agreements with the USA (and Canada).
The commission insists that its Translantic Trade and Investment Partnership should include a mechanism called the investor-state dispute settle. Where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big corporations to sue governments before secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass domestic courts and override the will of parliaments. Also you are ignoring India, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the fact we do not need to be in the EU for our own trade agreements, nor to trade with the EU, a point I assume you accept due to you ignoring it in your reply.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#473
Report 4 years ago
#473
(Original post by geokinkladze)
That is the one, so this website you link to is concluding that the European Commision Vice President doesn't know what she is talking about?

Strange how she was able to "get away" with saying this in Sweden but as soon as she says it in the UK we are all told she made a mistake. If it is a mistake why was it not corrected when she said it to the Swedes?

That Youtube video people don't seem to able to load is pretty clear (and was stated separately to the debate in the link you post). Here are her words

"I don't know if the figure is 75% or 80% but the truth is that most laws which are applied and executed at national level are based on European laws or directives which have to be translated into national laws, so the biggest part of the legislation in any member state is decided by European parliament in co-decision with the council of European ministers."

She has said it on more than one occasion (at least three separate occasions that I know of). Even the link you posted, they weren't able to get her office to deny her words, instead they have clarified her words on her behalf.

Something smells fishy and I'm not talking about EU throwback rules.
I don't understand your confusion. The link clearly shows that in that one example the 70% figure was referring to EU law.

(Original post by geokinkladze)
You are quite clearly wrong.

They DO believe in Climate Change.

They believe natural cycles are NOT explained by CO2.

They DO believe in reducing CO2.

They do not believe in reducing CO2 via expensive wind turbines.

They believe in reducing CO2 by cheaper nuclear power stations.


None of the statements above are contradictory in any way, unless maybe if you are the type of person who feels that "climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are one and the same.
I am quite clearly not wrong, and quite clearly said anthropogenic climate change. I still don't understand why you are being so obtuse and insisting on misrepresenting the debate. The climate change debate is not about whether the Earth's climate is eternal and unchanging or not.

UKIP do not believe in ANTHROPOGENIC climate change

They do not believe in reducing CO2

We do not however regard CO2 as a pollutant. It is a natural trace gas in the
atmosphere which is essential to plant growth and life on earth.

Have you even read their energy policy document?
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#474
Report 4 years ago
#474
(Original post by lerjj)
Data looking at climate change over the last 10,000 years would be quite odd if it was described as natural climate change. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago, the mean global temp has been pretty much 14 for the entire period you're talking about. It's only if you look at the most recent 100-200 years that there is any noticeable trend. That is in itself highly alarming.
Well it is pretty simple really.. there is climate change, which we can attribute to two major types: man made and natural. If you don't refer to one, then I wouldn't assume it unless it is plainly obvious. Climate change from 10,000 years ago can be safely assumed to be natural. Assuming climate change in the last 100 years is all man made is frankly ridiculous.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#475
Report 4 years ago
#475
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Have you even read their energy policy document?
Yes, it is what I keep quoting to you, it is where they state they wish to reduce emissions by building nuclear power stations rather than wind turbines. Clearly you don't understand it. But then you think Climate change means man made climate change. They are two different things. Which is cause for your confusion.. you believe that..

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Climate change has become to mean man made global warming
You back this up by saying that...

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
The 'climate change debate' is not a debate between people who think the earths climate has remained perfectly level and stable for 10,000 years and people who don't, no one thinks or is claiming that
Frankly there are quite a few people who DO claim precisely that. However that is an aside, the people you so conveniently miss out are those who believe climate change is not entirely man made. You conflate the two terms showing that you don't accept there is a difference between the two.

Either way climate change does not mean man made climate change, they are two separate things. One is a part of the other, I can't believe you can't even understand that basic principle. It's not about being pedantic, it's just the truth.

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
The climate change debate is not about whether the Earth's climate is eternal and unchanging or not.
Of course it's not, it's about to what extent climate change is man made or not, that is the basic principle about which you don't understand. You are putting people into boxes. You assert people are either for or against climate change based on whether they agree with you to what extent climate change is not natural. It's a ludicrous argument and can't reasonably be justified.

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
UKIP do not believe in ANTHROPOGENIC climate change

They do not believe in reducing CO2


Evidence again that the extent to which climate change is man made, in your eye's is an absolute. issue. It is either man made or not. it has to be, because you also said that "climate change" and "man made climate change" are one and the same.

But again, you said that
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
everyone accepts that their are natural cycles
yet you criticise UKIP for claiming we are experiencing a natural cycle.

So the question to you is this:

Do you believe the climate change for the last 100 years is entirely man made?

If not, to what extent do you believe it is man made?


0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#476
Report 4 years ago
#476
(Original post by hexagonalRod)
Look at the arrogance you've got. This is common across all of UKIP supporters, I don't think this is the way forward.
...and you think making broad statements like that are the way forward?
0
reply
RumpeIstiltskin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#477
Report 4 years ago
#477
(Original post by geokinkladze)
they wish to reduce emissions by building nuclear power stations rather than wind turbines. Clearly you don't understand it. But then you think Climate change means man made climate change.
You can say whatever pointless crap you want but at the end of the day if climate change isn't man made then why do we need to spend money building nuclear power stations to 'reduce emissions'
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#478
Report 4 years ago
#478
(Original post by lerjj)
I don't know how many of Sweden's laws are made by the EU, but I expect that its a similarly low amount. The confusion is that she didn't understand the question.
She made the comments on at least three separate occasions. The first time that is on record was in Stockholm to a Swedish audience, specifically about Swedish laws.

In fact when she made the same comments in the UK, she apologises to someone before she does so. In my view she had been advised not to do it again, but refused the advice. Please note, by the time she was in the UK she had her argument well versed, she was in no way confused, I'm not even sure whether she was actually answering a question by that point. She was trying to defend the EU's value for money on the basis that 75-80% of our laws came from the EU.

This cannot be misrepresented as a confused person answering the wrong question. The fact that the debate was shut up pretty quickly, and the spin doctors went into overdrive afterward, is a lot more telling to me.
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#479
Report 4 years ago
#479
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
They don't believe in climate change (or anthropogenic climate change if we're being pedantic)
because they said...

(Original post by UKIP)
There is simply no need to appeal to CO2 as an explanation for natural variation.
but then you say...

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
everyone accepts that their are natural cycles
hmmmm :rolleyes:
0
reply
geokinkladze
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#480
Report 4 years ago
#480
(Original post by RumpeIstiltskin)
You can say whatever pointless crap you want but at the end of the day if climate change isn't man made then why do we need to spend money building nuclear power stations to 'reduce emissions'
I guess you are also an absolutist. Either Climate change is man made or not, there is no in between... and you accuse me of spouting pointless crap.

If climate change was entirely man made then we wouldn't be here to make it. Get your head around that one.

If climate change was entirely natural then we can pour whatever crap we want into the atmosphere and not worry about it.

Both are scientifically unsound. I'm for neither.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (17)
94.44%
No (1)
5.56%

Watched Threads

View All