Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So not knowing the name of every last directive and regulation doesn't mean they exist? Most don't even have nice short titles like items from most legeslatures.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That doesnt sufficiently answer OPs question. Stop drifting off on a tangent.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lolatmaths)
    That doesnt sufficiently answer OPs question. Stop drifting off on a tangent.
    Says the one drifting off on a tangent

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Says the one drifting off on a tangent

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Getting desperate eh?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lolatmaths)
    Getting desperate eh?
    If you can prove to me that there are no directives with uk law to go with them for CAP or the Common Fisheries Policy, the VAT directives aren't things written into uk law and that the regulation or directive (probably I directive, which we can at least say "go stuff yourself" for a while with) mandating internal competition in ports which was passed less than 2 months ago all aren't things maybe you would start having a point, but given you can't you don't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you can prove to me that there are no directives with uk law to go with them for CAP or the Common Fisheries Policy, the VAT directives aren't things written into uk law and that the regulation or directive (probably I directive, which we can at least say "go stuff yourself" for a while with) mandating internal competition in ports which was passed less than 2 months ago all aren't things maybe you would start having a point, but given you can't you don't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Youve named problems, youre not giving solutions.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lolatmaths)
    Youve named problems, youre not giving solutions.
    Ummm, you do realise laws and parts of laws can be amended or repealed, right?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    This one needs a little explaining.
    It tends to take a lot of explaining.

    It's not a movement with a single set of ideas and adherence but one that people often fall into by accident. Often people are tought things as they grow up such as that racism is bad but don't actually know what it is or truly understand it. On the other hand you do get self interested people who fanatically jump onto the bandwagon for their own purposes. We have a belief in the altruism of others that has blinded us.

    At the core of it are that the rights to a racial, national, ideological, cultural or religious identity are denied the local inhabitants and when we complain about this or merely point it out then we are called racists, bigots, etc but that makes no sense when that argument itself promotes other groups against our own, at the expense of our own within our own territory except we apparently aren't allowed that either, it cannot be neutral.

    Original sin relying on selected historic atrocities or merely based on historic success is invoked against us on a regular basis.

    The principle of privilege has become even more absurd leading to called for affirmative action based on prejudice generalisation in the form of misusing statistics.

    A number of leftists have told me that the UK will be coffee coloured anyway in a century and that race doesn't matter, essentially we're to have the colour bred into us. Try telling that to the Australian aborigines.

    The more I engage with the left to really get to the bottom of what they support the more it turns out that they are genuinely racist against us.

    It's really though the double standards that gives the game away. White British are held to a standard by the left that they don't hold to other groups or circumstances.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, you do realise laws and parts of laws can be amended or repealed, right?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lets say we leave, we'll make a deal with the EU to join the EU trading bloc and we'll still need to abide by these laws.

    And anyway, its not as simple as ''we'll just amend the laws'', thats very idealistic of you
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lolatmaths)
    Lets say we leave, we'll make a deal with the EU to join the EU trading bloc and we'll still need to abide by these laws.

    And anyway, its not as simple as ''we'll just amend the laws'', thats very idealistic of you
    If we left and the sixth vat directive legislation were in place just 5 years later, for instance, there is something wrong. It is one of many items we could expect to be repealed or amended very quickly when we are not bound to having them. Sixth vat is also one where even if we took "the Norway deal" we could still get rid of.

    May I remind you what percentage of regulation Norway and Switzerland must follow? 9pc and 0p respectively. Any goods sold to the eu would need to conform with their regulations, just like any goods exported to another country, the difference is 94pc of businesses being potentially released from their restrictive grip.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrControversial)
    It tends to take a lot of explaining.

    It's not a movement with a single set of ideas and adherence but one that people often fall into by accident. Often people are tought things as they grow up such as that racism is bad but don't actually know what it is or truly understand it. On the other hand you do get self interested people who fanatically jump onto the bandwagon for their own purposes. We have a belief in the altruism of others that has blinded us.

    At the core of it are that the rights to a racial, national, ideological, cultural or religious identity are denied the local inhabitants and when we complain about this or merely point it out then we are called racists, bigots, etc but that makes no sense when that argument itself promotes other groups against our own, at the expense of our own within our own territory except we apparently aren't allowed that either, it cannot be neutral.

    Original sin relying on selected historic atrocities or merely based on historic success is invoked against us on a regular basis.

    The principle of privilege has become even more absurd leading to called for affirmative action based on prejudice generalisation in the form of misusing statistics.

    A number of leftists have told me that the UK will be coffee coloured anyway in a century and that race doesn't matter, essentially we're to have the colour bred into us. Try telling that to the Australian aborigines.

    The more I engage with the left to really get to the bottom of what they support the more it turns out that they are genuinely racist against us.

    It's really though the double standards that gives the game away. White British are held to a standard by the left that they don't hold to other groups or circumstances.
    I don't believe that any significant proportion of the left hold these views. It comes down to the vocal minority yet again, in the same way the vast majority of the Eurosceptic right aren't racists. Discussion over the internet gives a very skewed image of a group's views when the average person on the street is likely to be a lot more moderate.

    I don't know a single person, in real life, who thinks positive discrimination is a good idea or that an ethnic minority should be treated any differently compared to a White British person when it comes to laws or any sort of standard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    I don't believe that any significant proportion of the left hold these views. It comes down to the vocal minority yet again, in the same way the vast majority of the Eurosceptic right aren't racists. Discussion over the internet gives a very skewed image of a group's views when the average person on the street is likely to be a lot more moderate.

    I don't know a single person, in real life, who thinks positive discrimination is a good idea or that an ethnic minority should be treated any differently compared to a White British person when it comes to laws or any sort of standard.
    It is true that a minority are far worse. However I've spoken to otherwise reasonable people whose views in these areas are extreme and this is growing.

    I can give you an example of the dissonance that is very widespread among the left. Every argument in the left comes down to Godwin's law, the Nazis, Hitler, etc. But here's something interesting, huge swaths of the left have now taken up the cause against Islamophobia. Islamophobia is a concept preached by the left at the highest levels, including government and schools. The concept is that those who do not like or respect Islam are part of a dangerous ideology that ultimately leads to violence against Muslims.

    Well the thing is that nearly everyone who does something unacceptable has some idea in their head and those kinds of people are usually just evil or have something wrong with them. Ideas don't kill people, people kill people and in the hands of a madman any idea is deadly.

    At the same time as defending other ideologies you also have the left denying nationalism and race because of the Nazis. When it comes to Muslims and crimes, extreme acts or atrocities done in the name of Islam then it's only extremists, fanatics, mad people, nothing to do with the ideology of Islam. I would somewhat agree with them. I believe that Islam is a bad idea but it's what people do with ideas those ideas that count.

    The left fails to actually understand the human flaws that really lead to these things and themselves the left fall into fanaticism and dogma. When you blindly follow a cause such as anti-racism you tend to do more harm than good and this is what has happened to the left. When ideas become dogma that cannot be questioned, this is when they become dangerous.

    Even now we cannot talk of preserving culture because we have no right to according to the left who do all they can to preserve, protect, promote and even indirectly support the spread of Islam at the same time. You say it's a few but nearly every mainstream outlet is afraid to talk of our people from fear of slander from the left who throw around terms such as racist and bigot around liberally without regard. The way they use these terms is like calling someone a rapist for looking at a woman without her consent. We have to only complain about wages and stuff when it comes to immigration. We aren't allowed to say well actually what about us as a group? We have no right and when we have no right to defend ourselves then we have no right not to have what happened to the native Americans, Palestinians, native Australians and so on happen to us in our time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leinad2012)
    But both of these statements are absolutely false.
    We have HUGE new trade deals with China which we agreed last year independently from the EU. Yes we can't negotiate our of tariff agreements, but by and large the EU negotiates a far better deal than we have ever done on the international trade front due to their much bigger clout. And with extremely low to no tariffs on EU goods, the UK consumer better off within the EU with respect to prices of EU goods sold in the UK.
    As for providing state aid, not only is that not true in the sense that numerous UK markets have seen investment and help from the UK government (e.g. driverless tech has had large government support) but the type of state aid I'm guessing you are talking about (e.g. propping up Tata Steel) has been proven to be negative for the UK. Nick Craft and Christopher Wren I believe (an economic historian) have both written very good papers, and there is a paper commissioned by the government (https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ies-since-1945) analysing government state intervention in the last 60 odd years and found that almost all large scale state intervention was "backing losers" rather than helping "young markets". In essence, where as support for driverless cars is helping a young market grow to potentially be a world leader, due to political pressure most of our state aid to markets in the past has been propping up failing markets like steel or coal, at a HUGE net loss to the UK.
    And anyway, if we leave the EU we will undoubtedly join the WTO (unless you don't want to trade at all), which largely forbids large scale state aid of domestic markets due to the unfair competition disparity it brings between nations. And lots of the trade deals in the WTO are bilarteral and individual (although this is starting to change), so it isn't an exaggeration to say negotiating with every important country on every goods market will take years and more likely DECADES to do.

    You can try to put these general comments like "we want control back" but generally, when you actually look into it, you find most of these comments are absolute rubbish
    It's quite clear that the EU has exclusive competence over trade deals for its member states, so I'm not sure how the UK managed to negotiate its trade deal with China independently. Perhaps all is not as the government would like us to believe? Politicians should be honnest about EU membership and the effect it has on UK policy, then we could accept what they tell us.

    I don't really have much faith in a government report that supports a government position, but either way it should be a decision for the British Parliament, not the EU. And China has been a member of the WTO since 2011 and massively supports its own industries with state aid. Competing with China's state subsidised steel industry has been one of the British steel industry problems.

    I have never used the term 'we want our country back'. I do believe decisions made about Britain should be made in Britain, with democratically accountable British politicians free to react to decisions taken by other countries and outside bodies as they see fit. These decisions should also be subject to revision as necessary. If you think that's rubbish, please explain why.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Tamora)
    It's quite clear that the EU has exclusive competence over trade deals for its member states, so I'm not sure how the UK managed to negotiate its trade deal with China independently. Perhaps all is not as the government would like us to believe? Politicians should be honnest about EU membership and the effect it has on UK policy, then we could accept what they tell us.

    I don't really have much faith in a government report that supports a government position, but either way it should be a decision for the British Parliament, not the EU. And China has been a member of the WTO since 2011 and massively supports its own industries with state aid. Competing with China's state subsidised steel industry has been one of the British steel industry problems.

    I have never used the term 'we want our country back'. I do believe decisions made about Britain should be made in Britain, with democratically accountable British politicians free to react to decisions taken by other countries and outside bodies as they see fit. These decisions should also be subject to revision as necessary. If you think that's rubbish, please explain why.
    We negotiated our trade deal because it is just trade, not free trade


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Won't go into it, but the bottom line is he tried to make it so that foreigners pay a toll but Germans not. And you can't do that in the EU.
    I think the issue is that you cannot say what the outcome will be, only the CJEU can make that decision.

    What is clear is that the EC is taking the UK through the process, it doesn't have the power to tell the UK that it is wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I think the issue is that you cannot say what the outcome will be, only the CJEU can make that decision.

    What is clear is that the EC is taking the UK through the process, it doesn't have the power to tell the UK that it is wrong.
    I don't understand what your post has to do with the German Maut?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    How long do you think it would take to type out all the EU regulations and directives even just for, say, the last year, one per line, you'll be scrolling for a while. You went and listed 21 bills and use that to declare "it isn't that bad from the EU"; when you dig through the figures you find that there are nearly twice as many directives and regulations from the EU Parliament as there are bills and statutory from our own.
    Then please list them.

    Apart from that, these are not the only UK-based laws/regulations that will come into force this year, these are just the ones that the government wants to shout about.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Judas69)
    All of the bills you mentioned are very insignificant, especially when the conservatives have waited 23 years to be government. The cabinet is focued in saving Camerons career in june.
    That's not really my problem, these are the pieces of legislation proposed by the government - none of them have anything to do with the EU.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    The UK government needed permission from the European Commission to bail out the banks.
    Please cite a source for this claim. Apart from anything else the EC cannot give permission - only the CJEU can say whether a measure a member state has taken is compliant or not.

    The point I was making about national security and subsidies to state industries is that national security is not an EU competence. So if you make that claim, and can defend it (as some states have), then there is nothing the EU can do about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So not knowing the name of every last directive and regulation doesn't mean they exist? Most don't even have nice short titles like items from most legeslatures.
    Actually, most of them do have nice short titles that everyone uses. But, I don't know, you could maybe match the list of UK bills - ie find 21 EU pieces of legislation?

    Here are a couple of examples:

    The Treaty of Lisbon: Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community

    The InfoSoc Directive: Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I don't understand what your post has to do with the German Maut?
    My original post was about tariffs on foreign lorries entering the UK, comparing this to the tolls Germany wants to introduce on passenger cars. The issue is that only the CJEU can rule on this issue. So if the governments of those states want to introduce those measures no one can stop them doing so - and no one has stopped the UK imposing those tariffs (as was claimed).

    But, the states can later be found to not be complying with their treaty obligations.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.