The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Well the BBC has admitted it has received 2 million of EU funding in the run up to the referendum under some framework agreement.
Also back in March it denied that any EU money was used in the making of the great EU disaster movie in the run up to the election. That denial was possibly a lie, being generous as it's now clear that the alarmist propaganda film was sponsored by EU money to the production company contracted by the beeb. Shame on them, and, as you might already know, don't rely on the beeb to fulfil the objective reporting criteria which is one of the foundations of its original charter.
The 2 million report is in the Telegraph, behind a pay wall unfortunately though it's possible to view a limited number of free articles.
Conservative Home reported the other issue back in August.
Also back in March it denied that any EU money was used in the making of the great EU disaster movie in the run up to the election. That denial was possibly a lie, being generous as it's now clear that the alarmist propaganda film was sponsored by EU money to the production company contracted by the beeb. Shame on them, and, as you might already know, don't rely on the beeb to fulfil the objective reporting criteria which is one of the foundations of its original charter.
The 2 million report is in the Telegraph, behind a pay wall unfortunately though it's possible to view a limited number of free articles.
Conservative Home reported the other issue back in August.
'We need a seat at the “top table”, and that isn’t the EU.'
http://thescepticisle.com/2015/12/19/the-origin-of...
http://thescepticisle.com/2015/12/19/the-origin-of...
Scuffers said:
sanctimonious claptrap dressed up to sound plausible.
Use some big words and interstate with half quotes etc, and it looks like something credible.
The thrust of the argument seems valid to me - that having the EU vacillate over the specific problems of 28 nations means that trade deals take a lot longer to sign than they should. It's a similar issue for every issue within the EU - migrants, economy, foreign relations, finance, you name it.Use some big words and interstate with half quotes etc, and it looks like something credible.
If we had been trying to sign a trade deal with the US it would have been concluded much faster than TTIP, and I don't think there's anyone that would argue with that. The suggestion that leaving the EU means that the UK is withdrawing from the international community is silly, since in many respects it would mean completely the opposite.
Yep there's some very valid points from The Sceptic Isle there.
In reality it's somewhere between the points made. True that an increasing amount of regulation originates at a global level, eg UNECE, and the EU is simply a very expensive and unwieldy intermediary.
However it's also true that soft "law" comes out of the EU, not directives and not regulations, but based on special reports, recommendations, resolutions, observations, guidelines and various other non legal devices which are intended to influence the way member states operate. Clearly some of these have significant influence if the member states comply. Some do, some don't, UK civil service have a bit of a deserved reputation for compliance and sticking a bit of gold plated on for good measure.
The way this soft law operates is largely ignored by the Sceptic Isle piece, a more comprehensive coverage can be found in SOFT LAW, SELF-REGULATION AND CO-REGULATION IN EUROPEAN LAW: Where Do They Meet? Linda Senden Electronic Journal of Comparative Law vol 9.1
In reality it's somewhere between the points made. True that an increasing amount of regulation originates at a global level, eg UNECE, and the EU is simply a very expensive and unwieldy intermediary.
However it's also true that soft "law" comes out of the EU, not directives and not regulations, but based on special reports, recommendations, resolutions, observations, guidelines and various other non legal devices which are intended to influence the way member states operate. Clearly some of these have significant influence if the member states comply. Some do, some don't, UK civil service have a bit of a deserved reputation for compliance and sticking a bit of gold plated on for good measure.
The way this soft law operates is largely ignored by the Sceptic Isle piece, a more comprehensive coverage can be found in SOFT LAW, SELF-REGULATION AND CO-REGULATION IN EUROPEAN LAW: Where Do They Meet? Linda Senden Electronic Journal of Comparative Law vol 9.1
FiF said:
Yep there's some very valid points from The Sceptic Isle there.
In reality it's somewhere between the points made. True that an increasing amount of regulation originates at a global level, eg UNECE, and the EU is simply a very expensive and unwieldy intermediary.
However it's also true that soft "law" comes out of the EU, not directives and not regulations, but based on special reports, recommendations, resolutions, observations, guidelines and various other non legal devices which are intended to influence the way member states operate. Clearly some of these have significant influence if the member states comply. Some do, some don't, UK civil service have a bit of a deserved reputation for compliance and sticking a bit of gold plated on for good measure.
The way this soft law operates is largely ignored by the Sceptic Isle piece, a more comprehensive coverage can be found in SOFT LAW, SELF-REGULATION AND CO-REGULATION IN EUROPEAN LAW: Where Do They Meet? Linda Senden Electronic Journal of Comparative Law vol 9.1
Fif and davepoth, thank you for flagging some of the important points.In reality it's somewhere between the points made. True that an increasing amount of regulation originates at a global level, eg UNECE, and the EU is simply a very expensive and unwieldy intermediary.
However it's also true that soft "law" comes out of the EU, not directives and not regulations, but based on special reports, recommendations, resolutions, observations, guidelines and various other non legal devices which are intended to influence the way member states operate. Clearly some of these have significant influence if the member states comply. Some do, some don't, UK civil service have a bit of a deserved reputation for compliance and sticking a bit of gold plated on for good measure.
The way this soft law operates is largely ignored by the Sceptic Isle piece, a more comprehensive coverage can be found in SOFT LAW, SELF-REGULATION AND CO-REGULATION IN EUROPEAN LAW: Where Do They Meet? Linda Senden Electronic Journal of Comparative Law vol 9.1
Scuffers, you may not agree with what is written within The Sceptic Isle...it is, after all, only a public blog with one primary contributor...but, it is respected as being correctly researched, well written and presented. A.E. North has had a good career to date and frequently has perspective that others miss. It would be worth you, and others, fully reading Flexcit http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf and other linked publications before damning the subject source that is The Sceptic Isle.
Ultimately...and irrespective of the publication...do we want to continue being part of a truly non-democratic organization that costs the UK £13+Bn per annum, has forcibly destroyed our highly profitable fishing industry, has forcibly destroyed our national immigration policy, has forcibly removed our independent sovereignty, has forcibly removed the UK's genuine ability to international free trade, has forced upon the UK unsustainable population growth, has forcibly removed many of our intrinsic policy and regulation, replacing them with Euro-centric policy and regulation that simply have no place in UK?
For objective viewing watch the Peter Hitchens documentary produced over a decade ago. Since then the UK's condition, economic stability and life standards have deteriorated in extreme...as Biffen quite rightly states...sovereignty lies within national parliament, not to transfer the authority of Government...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_BgnZdwko
We need to stop the UK being treated as an arse-end Sceptic Isle and return...what is a remarkable country...to its rightful status as a truly Sceptred Isle
Unwanted or unsuitable regulation is a recurring theme from Euro sceptics and I'd exercise a note of caution. Not sure there will be a bonfire of regulations, and probably we don't want such a wholesale effort. In reality there will be things subject to regulation from the EU where being honest it's a good idea to have some sort of plan or control, and maybe the EU way on that issue is a good way, equally it may be not suitable for UK as it's tailored to take account of some hill farmers in Corsica. We have to be honest in our review.
Furthermore as we want to trade on a world stage, including the european bit, then we have to comply with those regs, and do it properly, not like some other nations who do what the hell they want and just stick the appropriate approval mark on. Might sound jingoistic but let's get back to the point where the BSI kitemark (or equivalent) is respected and actually means something worth having.
Furthermore as we want to trade on a world stage, including the european bit, then we have to comply with those regs, and do it properly, not like some other nations who do what the hell they want and just stick the appropriate approval mark on. Might sound jingoistic but let's get back to the point where the BSI kitemark (or equivalent) is respected and actually means something worth having.
FiF said:
Furthermore as we want to trade on a world stage, including the european bit, then we have to comply with those regs, and do it properly, not like some other nations who do what the hell they want and just stick the appropriate approval mark on. Might sound jingoistic but let's get back to the point where the BSI kitemark (or equivalent) is respected and actually means something worth having.
simply don't agree...if we want to sell into a market that has specific regs, fine, we comply with them, as we do for US regs when we sell to them, it does not mean we have to rigidly adopt the same regs for *all* our stuff.
consider in this that the EU market is actually shrinking too.
Last point, having a CE sticker on something is great, works really well when you think that 99.9% of the stuff from China has the CE sticker on it, apparently they are really cheap to print! (look at the current farce on hover boards).
Scuffers said:
simply don't agree...
if we want to sell into a market that has specific regs, fine, we comply with them, as we do for US regs when we sell to them, it does not mean we have to rigidly adopt the same regs for *all* our stuff.
consider in this that the EU market is actually shrinking too.
Last point, having a CE sticker on something is great, works really well when you think that 99.9% of the stuff from China has the CE sticker on it, apparently they are really cheap to print! (look at the current farce on hover boards).
Sometimes Scuffers you seem a bit odd. If we want to sell into a market then we have to comply with the regs of that market, we seem to agree on that. if we want to sell into a market that has specific regs, fine, we comply with them, as we do for US regs when we sell to them, it does not mean we have to rigidly adopt the same regs for *all* our stuff.
consider in this that the EU market is actually shrinking too.
Last point, having a CE sticker on something is great, works really well when you think that 99.9% of the stuff from China has the CE sticker on it, apparently they are really cheap to print! (look at the current farce on hover boards).
Nowhere did I say that everything then has to comply, it might make sense for some products to do so, in others not, but manufacturers would have the choice. Also those EU or US regs might just make sense, but we could decide about that.
Last point, are you really claiming that it's a good idea to just print approval marks on stuff even though it's not in compliance? Surely not, though agree Chinese seem to get away with it, but the world needs to get to grips with a nation that has such contempt for intellectual and other property rights.
My point while specifically using kitemark was really more widely aimed at wanting this nation to stand up for something. With CMD at the help, some hope, he doesn't stand up for anything much.
FiF said:
Sometimes Scuffers you seem a bit odd. If we want to sell into a market then we have to comply with the regs of that market, we seem to agree on that.
Nowhere did I say that everything then has to comply, it might make sense for some products to do so, in others not, but manufacturers would have the choice. Also those EU or US regs might just make sense, but we could decide about that.
Last point, are you really claiming that it's a good idea to just print approval marks on stuff even though it's not in compliance? Surely not, though agree Chinese seem to get away with it, but the world needs to get to grips with a nation that has such contempt for intellectual and other property rights.
My point while specifically using kitemark was really more widely aimed at wanting this nation to stand up for something. With CMD at the help, some hope, he doesn't stand up for anything much.
I'm not disagreeing with you, so much as making the point that all these different stamps/marks are all very well and good, but I bet more than half of them are just stuck on with zero compliance/testing.Nowhere did I say that everything then has to comply, it might make sense for some products to do so, in others not, but manufacturers would have the choice. Also those EU or US regs might just make sense, but we could decide about that.
Last point, are you really claiming that it's a good idea to just print approval marks on stuff even though it's not in compliance? Surely not, though agree Chinese seem to get away with it, but the world needs to get to grips with a nation that has such contempt for intellectual and other property rights.
My point while specifically using kitemark was really more widely aimed at wanting this nation to stand up for something. With CMD at the help, some hope, he doesn't stand up for anything much.
in the past, before EU bull, the UK would take responsibility for ensuring goods meet standards, now, the EU supposedly does, but looking at the amount of crap flooding the EU that clearly does not meet anything, you have to ask.
FiF's point was that with UK based control of the compliance system we'd be able to control compliance, unlike the current state of affairs with the CE mark. Yes, we would still need to meet with the regs in foreign countries, but if all the EU worries about is the presence of a sticker then we don't have much of a problem, do we?
So Little Willie Hague who asked you for your opinion then? Nobody really, but seeing as you've given it here let's have the executive summary.
Basically he says that the EU is corrupt, useless and undemocratic, plus despite near all the reasons he can give for staying in have been debunked or very much open to debate we should still stop in, wait for Dave's "negotiation" and then vote to stay in regardless.
Twerp.
Basically he says that the EU is corrupt, useless and undemocratic, plus despite near all the reasons he can give for staying in have been debunked or very much open to debate we should still stop in, wait for Dave's "negotiation" and then vote to stay in regardless.
Twerp.
Jeez so you're not much for having a different view then?
I read that as yes it's flawed but with good questions to be asked around are the dangers of breaking the British Union up and potentially make the Balkan states more likely to fragment or become influenced by Russia worth the bureaucratic flaws of the EU, especially when the economic case for leaving the EU is far from being made.
They're interesting questions IMO
I read that as yes it's flawed but with good questions to be asked around are the dangers of breaking the British Union up and potentially make the Balkan states more likely to fragment or become influenced by Russia worth the bureaucratic flaws of the EU, especially when the economic case for leaving the EU is far from being made.
They're interesting questions IMO
FiF said:
So Little Willie Hague who asked you for your opinion then? Nobody really, but seeing as you've given it here let's have the executive summary.
Basically he says that the EU is corrupt, useless and undemocratic, plus despite near all the reasons he can give for staying in have been debunked or very much open to debate we should still stop in, wait for Dave's "negotiation" and then vote to stay in regardless.
Twerp.
Coward. It's like saying well at least Stalin provided stability.Basically he says that the EU is corrupt, useless and undemocratic, plus despite near all the reasons he can give for staying in have been debunked or very much open to debate we should still stop in, wait for Dave's "negotiation" and then vote to stay in regardless.
Twerp.
Re the stabilisation of the Balkan states claim, this is only being done through the EU enlargement programme, and if you read the programme statement and the three principle benefits then the EU is failing, not just failing but doing so dismally.
That's before we even consider the issue that further enlargement will put the finances under even more strain. Only 9 net contributor countries supporting 28, let's not forget that.
The economic case for in/out will never be made conclusively in one or other direction imo, depends on too many imponderables and assumptions whichever case is being made.
The out campaign wishes to continually argue the case of fear of what may happen outside, which is fair, it won't be easy, but at the same time being completely happy to sign up to being part of a club with an unknown destination, except that the one destination that is the club's raison d'être is one that the majority of the population absolutely do not want.
As for the rebellious Scots. They know which side their bread is buttered.
That's before we even consider the issue that further enlargement will put the finances under even more strain. Only 9 net contributor countries supporting 28, let's not forget that.
The economic case for in/out will never be made conclusively in one or other direction imo, depends on too many imponderables and assumptions whichever case is being made.
The out campaign wishes to continually argue the case of fear of what may happen outside, which is fair, it won't be easy, but at the same time being completely happy to sign up to being part of a club with an unknown destination, except that the one destination that is the club's raison d'être is one that the majority of the population absolutely do not want.
As for the rebellious Scots. They know which side their bread is buttered.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff