What's Italian for 'kipper? Anti-migrant stunt goes awry.

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

My work revolves to a large extent around legislation and regulations. Most of it has nothing to do with the EU, and most of it has nothing to do with Parliament. It's mostly prepared by departmental (UK) civil servants, and often badly (but that's another debate).

We are very badly misgoverned (party in power regardless), but the misgovernment happens mainly in Whitehall and Downing Street, not in Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg.

'Mats Persson, director of the think-tank Open Europe, said: “This study reveals that putting a number on the percentage of UK laws coming from the EU is almost impossible. But, in any case, it is far more important to measure the actual impact that EU laws have on the economy and individuals on a day-to-day basis.

“Our research, based on the Government’s own figures, shows that in 2009, 59 percent of the regulatory costs facing individuals, businesses and the public sector in the UK stemmed from EU legislation. This is a far more useful measure than merely counting individual laws without any sense of their relative importance – and it shows that the EU now has a massive impact on the UK.”


That was a few years ago. Since then the EU has taken over regulation of banks and financial services. So it will be higher now.

So I call BS BV, even the House of Commons believes that the EU has over 50% control of our law.

No, it doesn't. Read the stuff again, unless perchance you were engaged in deliberate spin (UKIP would never do that, of course). At work I look at quite a lot of laws (oddly enough, being a lawyer), and I think that I might just have noticed if over half of the legal conundrums that my clients get themselves into required me to hit the purple law reports to find the answers, instead of the old fashioned green, red, and brown ones. If more than half of the law applied in the UK is EU law, why aren't more than half of the legal disputes seen by a very average lawyer such as me dependent on EU law for their outcome?

You should know the answer to that BV.

Quite simply, most of our laws pre-date our accession to the EEC/EU.

Are you being just a teeny, weeny bit disingenuos?

[anonymous-user]

FredClogs said:

...

The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.

...

There's a lot in that. It is often not about "them" being foreign, brown, or whatever (sadly, it all too often is about that as well) it's about them being competition. True laissez faire free market liberals should welcome open door immigration. I am not one of those so I would opt for door half open. You have to deal with demands on infrastructure, and recent Governments failed to do that, leading to stresses and tensions in some areas (in other areas people complain about migrants but never see any). Cultural dilution will take care of itself, and no culture is set in stone anyway. One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Then I would appreciate your thoughts on;

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_law-29587

It is an excellent site that fairly summarises the arguments and makes good the point that the question "how much from where?" has no single answer, and is a meaningless question in any event. If by any chance you think that site is supporting the UKIP argument for 70% plus (a figure seemingly plucked, possibly by accident but more likely on purpose, from the Euro Parliament mix up alluded to on the site), then you must have a different copy of the internet to the one I've got here.

The 70% figure was mentioned as being very specific to a particular body. The HoC library report was a research paper which admitted to the difficulty of estimating the impact of the EU, but did assert that a figure of 50% was credible. That was in 2010 and the impact of all the new EU led financial laws in response to the 2008 banking crisis will have increased that figure.
So was Nige lying? Possibly, but not by much. Even Mats Persson from the Open Europe think tank estimates nearly 60%. Anyway it looks like Farrage was a lot closer to the truth than Cleggs 7%.

[FredClogs]

Breadvan72 said:

FredClogs said:

...

The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.

...

There's a lot in that. It is often not about "them" being foreign, brown, or whatever (sadly, it all too often is about that as well) it's about them being competition. True laissez faire free market liberals should welcome open door immigration. I am not one of those so I would opt for door half open. You have to deal with demands on infrastructure, and recent Governments failed to do that, leading to stresses and tensions in some areas (in other areas people complain about migrants but never see any). Cultural dilution will take care of itself, and no culture is set in stone anyway. One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

Aye, but I wouldn't use the term Laissez faire, can't we say "let it be", we've got a language to protect!

[otolith]

FredClogs said:

The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.

Very similar to people with immense wealth compared to most of the world's population wringing their hands about inequality.

For the avoidance of doubt, that's you.

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

Where do you get that idea from?

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

You should know the answer to that BV.

Quite simply, most of our laws pre-date our accession to the EEC/EU.

Are you being just a teeny, weeny bit disingenuos?

No, and disingenuous is a word that I invite you to refrain from using in this context, as it is just posh people speak for "lying". We are self evidently talking about legislation since the UK joined the EU, not the whole corpus of law since 1189. We are not talking about the common law, although that makes a good point against Farage, as large tracts of the law by which people live is still common law and unaffected by the EU. The average common law Judge deciding the average common law case relatively rarely has to reach for an EU point. By contrast, if you are dealing with stuff like telecoms regulation and competition policy, it's almost 100% EU law, which goes to show that the argument is meaningless when expressed in across the board generalities, but such are the stuff of Nige.

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

Where do you get that idea from?

1953.

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

Where do you get that idea from?

1953.

I was hoping for enlightenment. Oh well.

[anonymous-user]

Guam said:

Breadvan72 said:

What? You mean people politically active in the old Soviet Block nations were (gasp!) Communists? Holmes, you astound me.

An analogy: I am not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think that he's a right winger. When he was at Brasenose, he was an awful right winger, snob, and Bullingdon Hooray. Then he grew up. He changed his opinions and behaviour, and became a moderately statesmanlike Prime Minister somewhere centre right ish. Sometimes, people change. The Lega Nord is still the Lega Nord.

Hahaha yeah if you say so, Marxists always change their views of course

Especially when they cant sell the line to the electorate. Only those on the left are capable of change of course <snigger>.

Dont worry you have given me plenty to work with, as I said earlier thank you for pointing me down this road, it really is something I should have fleshed out earlier.

I am glad for you that you are able to hug yourself so tightly, but have to re mark your homework, as Cameron was never a Marxist and has never been any sort of left winger. Try harder.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

Where do you get that idea from?

1953.

(1) It's a gag. They still have those on PH, I think.

(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.

[WinstonWolf]

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

You should know the answer to that BV.

Quite simply, most of our laws pre-date our accession to the EEC/EU.

Are you being just a teeny, weeny bit disingenuos?

No, and disingenuous is a word that I invite you to refrain from using in this context, as it is just posh people speak for "lying". We are self evidently talking about legislation since the UK joined the EU, not the whole corpus of law since 1189. We are not talking about the common law, although that makes a good point against Farage, as large tracts of the law by which people live is still common law and unaffected by the EU. The average common law Judge deciding the average common law case relatively rarely has to reach for an EU point. By contrast, if you are dealing with stuff like telecoms regulation and competition policy, it's almost 100% EU law, which goes to show that the argument is meaningless when expressed in across the board generalities, but such are the stuff of Nige.

Cleggy lied about the amount of legislation that comes from the EU.

"Oh them's not law's, them's directives". He's kinda like a pirate, but less trustworthy.

[FredClogs]

otolith said:

FredClogs said:

The irony and hypocrisy of the free marketeer, hard working, "competition drives success" ideals of the majority of Tory and Kipper supporters in contrast to their fear of labour competition never ceases to be shame to have to highlight.

Very similar to people with immense wealth compared to most of the world's population wringing their hands about inequality.

For the avoidance of doubt, that's you.

You have no idea what I do with my hands, I most certainly do not wring them.

Just for clarity are you suggesting I am wrong to want to offer equality of chance and opportunity to all the worlds people based purely on the happenstance of their parents birth place? You think that is inherently a faulty or immoral judgment?

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

Cleggy lied about the amount of legislation that comes from the EU.

"Oh them's not law's, them's directives". He's kinda like a pirate, but less trustworthy.

I think you are praising him too highly.

I would place the real life rough guesstimate answer to the entirely meaningless question (basing this on doing some actual lawyering for nearly 30 years) as somewhere between 10 and 20% most of the time, zero per cent for some of the time, and 100% some of the time, which perhaps goes to show that it is a daft question. Has it changed (ie grown) much since the mid 1980s when I first started noticing it? I would say yes, quite a bit, and in many ways far too much, but not so much as to transform things beyond recognition.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 17:35

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 17:36

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

One of the most laughable things about UKIP is their vision of a sort of eternal 1953. Hell, it wasn't even 1953 when it was 1953!

Where do you get that idea from?

1953.

(1) It's a gag. They still have those on PH, I think.

(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.

(2) makes no sense. If the bus you are on isnt going to where you want to be, then get off and catch another bus. Or better still, as this is PH, get a car and drive wherever you want to go.

[anonymous-user]

Guam said:

Wow what are you smoking?

Where did I mention Cameron (that was you), do they allow strange substances in the Inns of court now?

I was referring to the Bulgarian Socialists part of Labours S And D grouping, damn I hope the counsel I am meeting with on Friday has a better attention span than you (or I might be in for an expensive period of time).

Top tip: Try to remember your own stuff. You were so busy hugging yourself and slapping yourself on the back that you forgot your simply hilarious show stopper gag about only leftists changing. It is to that that I was referring. The demands of the syllabus are not high, although I appreciate that for some they will always be a struggle, but try at least to aim for internal consistency.

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

...

(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.

(2) makes no sense. If the bus you are on isnt going to where you want to be, then get off and catch another bus. Or better still, as this is PH, get a car and drive wherever you want to go.

The bus is called history. In history, you take the bus, or you walk. No cars, sorry.

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

Breadvan72 said:

...

(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.

(2) makes no sense. If the bus you are on isnt going to where you want to be, then get off and catch another bus. Or better still, as this is PH, get a car and drive wherever you want to go.

The bus is called history. In history, you take the bus, or you walk. No cars, sorry.

I think you will find that history isnt a bus, and that we, collectively, have influence on the path history takes. There is no historical inevitability about the EU superstate, on the contrary it looks like a good thing to avoid.

[FredClogs]

Breadvan72 said:

s2art said:

Breadvan72 said:

...

(2) The serious point is that you can't stop the bus, and - until you finally fall under the wheels - you can't get off it. What you can do is try to give tips to the driver. He may not listen.

(2) makes no sense. If the bus you are on isnt going to where you want to be, then get off and catch another bus. Or better still, as this is PH, get a car and drive wherever you want to go.

The bus is called history. In history, you take the bus, or you walk. No cars, sorry.

Of course if UKIPs chums at Lega Nord (to bring the thread back to its roots) had their way we'd be on a special white mans bus, or at least at the back in the special white man's comfy seats.

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

I think you will find that history isnt a bus, and that we, collectively, have influence on the path history takes. There is no historical inevitability about the EU superstate, on the contrary it looks like a good thing to avoid.

I said a bus, not a train. The bus can be steered and does not run on rails. There is no historical inevitability, but the bus doesn't wait, and can't be parked in 1953, never to move forward (unless you want it to be a broken down old bus with badgers living in the engine compartment).