UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
NoNeed said:
Did Cameron ever have the report published on how much the EU effects our lives? In 2010 he commissioned it, I was wondering if it it finished and hidden or still unfinished.
It's here : https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-compet...
Essential reading for anyone who wants to know about our relationship with the EU. I've linked it about a dozen times in various places over the last year, unfortunately it's large, complicated and unsensational, so most people don't bother reading it.
handpaper said:
NoNeed said:
Did Cameron ever have the report published on how much the EU effects our lives? In 2010 he commissioned it, I was wondering if it it finished and hidden or still unfinished.
It's here : https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-compet...
Essential reading for anyone who wants to know about our relationship with the EU. I've linked it about a dozen times in various places over the last year, unfortunately it's large, complicated and unsensational, so most people don't bother reading it.
Halb said:
*Bulletpoints?
Not really, as noted above it's a complicated and generally quite dull document.For example, here's the conclusion of Chapter 3 of the section on the Single Market, which "examines the impact of the Single Market on the UK's national interest" :
RBC said:
Integration has brought to the EU, and hence to the UK, in most if not all observers’ opinions, appreciable economic benefits. It has also spread the UK’s liberal model of policy-making more widely across the EU. But it has brought with it constraints on policy-making of varying kinds, and a regulatory framework which some find difficult to operate within or find burdensome, even if the obligations are not necessarily any greater than would have been imposed nationally. Is that trade-off, between cost and benefit, between economics and politics, of overall benefit to the UK? ...
Most observers, and indeed most of the evidence received for this report, answer positively. They do so, not without qualifications or reservations, but with a focus on the economic benefits already achieved... and on those potentially available in the future.
Not much to point at or shout about there (even as a long-term Kipper I broadly agree with it), but the hard data and submitted evidence that informs these conclusions and that can be found deeper within these documents can certainly provide ammunition for either camp.Most observers, and indeed most of the evidence received for this report, answer positively. They do so, not without qualifications or reservations, but with a focus on the economic benefits already achieved... and on those potentially available in the future.
For example, the section dealing with Article 114 TFEU, introduced by the Single European Act (1987) suggests that it has the potential to be as dangerous to the principle of limited government as the Interstate Commerce clause of the United States Constitution :
RBC said:
2.49
There has been a vigorous debate about what Article 114 can be used to do. It is drafted very broadly. Some have argued that it is close to being a general legislative power for the EU. Perhaps sensitive to this debate, the CJEU drew a formal limit in 2000, in the Tobacco Advertising case. This was a challenge to the EU’s power to adopt the Tobacco Advertising Directive (98/43/EC) under Article 114. Germany argued that the Directive was really a public health measure, and that the Treaty article on public health, Article 168, did not give the EU the power to harmonise rules. The Court annulled the Directive on the grounds that not all of its provisions concerned inter-state trade or distortions of competition, and made clear that Article 114 could only be used for measures that genuinely improve the functioning of the Single Market, not just to eliminate differences between Member States.
2.50
This case was a symbolic and important recognition that there were limits to the use of Article 114 and hence to positive integration. That said, the CJEU has not, since 2000, struck down any other use of Article 114 TFEU, although this may be because the Commission has become more adept at drafting proposals which fit within the guidance provided by the Court. Indeed, some would say that in some ways the Court has broadened the scope of the Article. It has ruled, for example, that Article 114 can in some circumstances cover situations which concern only one Member State, i.e. where there is no cross border element; that it can be used to establish EU agencies, provided the Agency’s tasks are “closely linked” to existing Single Market legislation (the Meroni case sets the limits of discretion in this area); and that “approximation” can mean a wide range of measures, including in certain circumstances even banning a product.
On the other hand, regulation thus introduced can have welcome outcomes :There has been a vigorous debate about what Article 114 can be used to do. It is drafted very broadly. Some have argued that it is close to being a general legislative power for the EU. Perhaps sensitive to this debate, the CJEU drew a formal limit in 2000, in the Tobacco Advertising case. This was a challenge to the EU’s power to adopt the Tobacco Advertising Directive (98/43/EC) under Article 114. Germany argued that the Directive was really a public health measure, and that the Treaty article on public health, Article 168, did not give the EU the power to harmonise rules. The Court annulled the Directive on the grounds that not all of its provisions concerned inter-state trade or distortions of competition, and made clear that Article 114 could only be used for measures that genuinely improve the functioning of the Single Market, not just to eliminate differences between Member States.
2.50
This case was a symbolic and important recognition that there were limits to the use of Article 114 and hence to positive integration. That said, the CJEU has not, since 2000, struck down any other use of Article 114 TFEU, although this may be because the Commission has become more adept at drafting proposals which fit within the guidance provided by the Court. Indeed, some would say that in some ways the Court has broadened the scope of the Article. It has ruled, for example, that Article 114 can in some circumstances cover situations which concern only one Member State, i.e. where there is no cross border element; that it can be used to establish EU agencies, provided the Agency’s tasks are “closely linked” to existing Single Market legislation (the Meroni case sets the limits of discretion in this area); and that “approximation” can mean a wide range of measures, including in certain circumstances even banning a product.
RBC said:
Air transport had been traditionally a highly regulated industry, dominated by national flag carriers and state-owned airports. Liberalisation began in 1987 but the key element was the Third Air Transport Package, agreed in 1992, and coming into force fully in 1997. Liberalisation covered carrier licensing, market access, and fares. The result was that decades of restrictions that had limited air transport markets in Europe and prevented cross- border investment by European airlines were removed.
The internal aviation market now gives every EU carrier freedom to carry out flights within any EU Member State and/or between them, whatever the airline’s home country, and complete freedom to set tariffs. The regulatory framework ensures appropriate safety and security. It also allows Member States to serve certain areas which are not economically viable, but have to be served for reasons of territorial cohesion, by imposing a public service obligation on such a route.
This means that Europe has the world’s most open and competitive market for airline passengers. Passenger traffic has doubled. The number of intra-EU air routes increased by 140% between 1992 and 2010. As early as 2000, economy fare prices had fallen by 5% in real terms and promotional prices by about 30%. New business was generated, including new low-cost airlines, now more than a third of all EU airlines.
There will still be biases within any such analysis, but I feel I am justified in believing this to be the most thorough and balanced study available anywhere.The internal aviation market now gives every EU carrier freedom to carry out flights within any EU Member State and/or between them, whatever the airline’s home country, and complete freedom to set tariffs. The regulatory framework ensures appropriate safety and security. It also allows Member States to serve certain areas which are not economically viable, but have to be served for reasons of territorial cohesion, by imposing a public service obligation on such a route.
This means that Europe has the world’s most open and competitive market for airline passengers. Passenger traffic has doubled. The number of intra-EU air routes increased by 140% between 1992 and 2010. As early as 2000, economy fare prices had fallen by 5% in real terms and promotional prices by about 30%. New business was generated, including new low-cost airlines, now more than a third of all EU airlines.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. We had the AV vote, it failed. We had the GE vote, UKIP failed.
"But it's so unfair!!" >stamps feet<
In other news the "100% united UKIP" isn't quite as united as Farage would hope as Carswell yet again impresses. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip...
"But it's so unfair!!" >stamps feet<
In other news the "100% united UKIP" isn't quite as united as Farage would hope as Carswell yet again impresses. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip...
TKF said:
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. We had the AV vote, it failed. We had the GE vote, UKIP failed.
"But it's so unfair!!" >stamps feet<
In other news the "100% united UKIP" isn't quite as united as Farage would hope as Carswell yet again impresses. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip...
Shouldnt you be in school?"But it's so unfair!!" >stamps feet<
In other news the "100% united UKIP" isn't quite as united as Farage would hope as Carswell yet again impresses. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip...
No ones said it's unfair, certainly given the constraints the system forces participants to operate under the outcome is always going to be preferential to the status quo, hence its no big surprise that one or tother got in, is it?
As for carswell, he's entitled to spout off what he likes but it don't make him right just coz you think you sense a bit of internal conflict.
Farage made a completely valid point, the use of hiv ( screw your sensitivities) as an example was just as valid as if he'd used foreign pregnancies landing here for medical treatment , but nobbers like yourself focus on one thing only : " he's attacking hiv sufferers!" That's your battle cry wilful ignorance of the argument combined with malevolent intent to derail objective discussion and get back control to keep things the way you want them.
It's an old trick, just like shouting "racist"" as you point and gesticulate to divert attention but as with that also it can't alter the fact that Farage was accurate in what he said at the core of his point, which was as you well know, this isn't an International health service, it's for the sole use of those who pay into it.
Obviously you disagree as is your right but it'll not make you any less wrong when the final analysis is all done and dusted.
Now be a good boy and evaporate.
4v6 said:
As for carswell, he's entitled to spout off what he likes but it don't make him right just coz you think you sense a bit of internal conflict.
My point about Carswell is that, for a politician, he's an impressive bloke. I begrudgingly respected him for standing down and sparking a by-election when he defected. The way he's conducted himself since has been very refreshing. He stands by what he believes and appears to want to do his job, not score political points or trough.The fact that Kippers appear to have no respect for him ("spouting off" and "a prat") is very telling.
I put some money on him not being a UKIP by 2020. I could only get evens but to me it seems like safe money.
Guam said:
The thread has been heading in a confrontational direction for quite some time, hopefully it is over and done now so that it can move on!
Sadly not4v6 said:
Shouldnt you be in school?
......... but nobbers like yourself focus on one thing only ..........
Now be a good boy and evaporate.
......... but nobbers like yourself focus on one thing only ..........
Now be a good boy and evaporate.
TKF said:
The fact that Kippers appear to have no respect for him ("spouting off" and "a prat") is very telling.
I put some money on him not being a UKIP by 2020. I could only get evens but to me it seems like safe money.
Telling you say. I'll tell you what. Get that fact right. SOME, ie., a few UKIP supporters may have done that, rather more did not. Your casual inaccurate generalisations in various posts long ago became a PITA for SOME of us.I put some money on him not being a UKIP by 2020. I could only get evens but to me it seems like safe money.
In a two horse yes-no bet, Evens is not a bad price. It also means that it is ODDS-ON that the bookies think otherwise to you. They are usually right but, not always.
TKF said:
My point about Carswell is that, for a politician, he's an impressive bloke. I begrudgingly respected him for standing down and sparking a by-election when he defected. The way he's conducted himself since has been very refreshing. He stands by what he believes and appears to want to do his job, not score political points or trough.
The fact that Kippers appear to have no respect for him ("spouting off" and "a prat") is very telling.
I put some money on him not being a UKIP by 2020. I could only get evens but to me it seems like safe money.
Which is maybe why Carswell was elected as MP by his constituents and not a single other UKIP candidate, including Farage, managed the same. I get the impression that Carswell would have been elected had he stood as a Conservative or as an Independent, his election wasn't so much an endorsement of UKIP but rather an endorsement of Carswell.The fact that Kippers appear to have no respect for him ("spouting off" and "a prat") is very telling.
I put some money on him not being a UKIP by 2020. I could only get evens but to me it seems like safe money.
I might be wrong, but I also suspect that if Carswell had said that he would stand down if he lost he would have done just that, not relied upon weasel words to stay in post.
Mojocvh said:
DJRC said:
Mojocvh said:
MGJohn said:
Scuffers said:
MGJohn said:
Only a matter of time. For some time now no Ford vehicles are made here despite my heighbour castigating the good folks of Dagenham for the reliability of her Fiesta. If Ford and the rest could totally upsticks and leave they would do so immediately always provided they could still vend their stuff here at UK prices and margins.
YupRemind us again where ford moved transit production?
Ref. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/fundin...
Where's Zod/DJRC to call us all morons and imbeciles ?
Why am I calling you a moron and an imbecile this time?
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by this but hey it's win win for me
DJRC said:
Mojocvh said:
DJRC said:
Mojocvh said:
MGJohn said:
Scuffers said:
MGJohn said:
Only a matter of time. For some time now no Ford vehicles are made here despite my heighbour castigating the good folks of Dagenham for the reliability of her Fiesta. If Ford and the rest could totally upsticks and leave they would do so immediately always provided they could still vend their stuff here at UK prices and margins.
YupRemind us again where ford moved transit production?
Ref. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/fundin...
Where's Zod/DJRC to call us all morons and imbeciles ?
Why am I calling you a moron and an imbecile this time?
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by this but hey it's win win for me
markh1973 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Interesting snippet on Radio 2 this morning, if the UK used the same voting system as the EU UKIP would have got eighty seats.
How does this EU voting system work?markh1973 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Interesting snippet on Radio 2 this morning, if the UK used the same voting system as the EU UKIP would have got eighty seats.
How does this EU voting system work?On UKIP's 12.9% share of the national vote they would indeed have won just over 80 seats.
The European Parliament elections use the D'hondt methodfor calculating seats.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff