|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 31, 2020 14:15:42 GMT
One school of thought has it that Brussels created laws that curbed our potential. There's probably some truth in it, but all I've heard is the nonsense about straight bananas. If you haven't seen Ed Balls' series Travels In Euroland on BBC2 then I'd thoroughly recommend it, regardless of what you think of him. It puts a lot of our problems in perspective. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl8s
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 31, 2020 14:26:59 GMT
British and America have common law. The metaphor is that laws are created by precedent. They emerge "bottom up" from the everyday interactions of society.
EU law is "top-down". It is issued by Brussels.
Furthermore, anybody who falls foul of a law in a country in the EU can refer their case to the European Court of Human Rights. It means that in many civil cases, the "native" country has no say in how the law is promulgated in it's own country if the ECJ overrides them.
Much of what many people didn't like about the EU was down to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 15:41:56 GMT
British and America have common law. The metaphor is that laws are created by precedent. They emerge "bottom up" from the everyday interactions of society. EU law is "top-down". It is issued by Brussels. Furthermore, anybody who falls foul of a law in a country in the EU can refer their case to the European Court of Human Rights. It means that in many civil cases, the "native" country has no say in how the law is promulgated in it's own country if the ECJ overrides them. Much of what many people didn't like about the EU was down to this. Was it? I mean how many people were actually affected by something like that? I think it's misleading to alight on these very specific factors as "the reason", I think it was more existential - a feeling of being ignored or neglected and anger at politicians mixed with a bit of old fashioned nationalism.
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Lou on Jan 31, 2020 15:46:15 GMT
One school of thought has it that Brussels created laws that curbed our potential. There's probably some truth in it, but all I've heard is the nonsense about straight bananas. If you haven't seen Ed Balls' series Travels In Euroland on BBC2 then I'd thoroughly recommend it, regardless of what you think of him. It puts a lot of our problems in perspective. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl8sIt seems they won't play here. I'll look them up on YouTube. It will be hard to point to any regulations that did indeed curb the UK's potential. There will undoubtly be some that can be seen as such but none of them were aimed at the UK - all regulations are valid in all member states. The straight banana crap is exactly what you hear if you ask for any specific examples. During its membership, the UK's GDP per capita multiplied by 10 In comparison, that of the USA only 8 times.
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Lou on Jan 31, 2020 15:54:11 GMT
British and America have common law. The metaphor is that laws are created by precedent. They emerge "bottom up" from the everyday interactions of society. EU law is "top-down". It is issued by Brussels. Furthermore, anybody who falls foul of a law in a country in the EU can refer their case to the European Court of Human Rights. It means that in many civil cases, the "native" country has no say in how the law is promulgated in it's own country if the ECJ overrides them. Much of what many people didn't like about the EU was down to this. The laws and regulations the EU creates are indeed bottom down. That will remain unchanged from tomorrow onwards in the UK too, all laws and regulations are created by your government. There is no jury of peers that's going to decide on taxation, environmental measures or whatever. On the European Court, have you ever looked at the number of cases where the EC court overrides national convictions?
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Lou on Jan 31, 2020 15:55:47 GMT
British and America have common law. The metaphor is that laws are created by precedent. They emerge "bottom up" from the everyday interactions of society. EU law is "top-down". It is issued by Brussels. Furthermore, anybody who falls foul of a law in a country in the EU can refer their case to the European Court of Human Rights. It means that in many civil cases, the "native" country has no say in how the law is promulgated in it's own country if the ECJ overrides them. Much of what many people didn't like about the EU was down to this. Was it? I mean how many people were actually affected by something like that? I think it's misleading to alight on these very specific factors as "the reason", I think it was more existential - a feeling of being ignored or neglected and anger at politicians mixed with a bit of old fashioned nationalism.
Exactly that. And, the UK's not alone with that sentiment lingering aroud, it's just the first country in which it DIRECTLY led to Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by oleandermedian on Jan 31, 2020 16:35:17 GMT
British and America have common law. The metaphor is that laws are created by precedent. They emerge "bottom up" from the everyday interactions of society. EU law is "top-down". Israel and Myanmar and other bastions of freedom and tolerance have common law systems too. Your point is...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 16:52:12 GMT
I saw a news report today about this being the last day and I had a thought that the UK must have to substantially increase their trade department with all the new treaties they'd have to engage in with individual countries now.
Is this true?
|
|
|
Post by oleandermedian on Jan 31, 2020 23:08:23 GMT
Well that’s the end of that then.
We were never really in it anyway :-(
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 1, 2020 11:58:26 GMT
We were never really in it, that's true. I'm 50/50 about it. The vote ensured it had to happen. The manner in which the process was engaged was not thought through properly. If it had been me, I would have said 5 year grace period for the EU and the UK to sort out an agreement rather than the triggering of Article 50. There has been a lot of nastiness on both sides. In the cold light of day, some of this was utter barminess though. www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/31/the-10-maddest-remainer-moments/
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 1, 2020 12:33:56 GMT
The vote ensured it had to happen. This is a prime example of what I was talking about the other day, T. This thing where cold objectivity rules over personal feelings. The fact that you can look at something like this in this way - I don't get it. Are you like this with football? Maybe you are. Anyway - leave didn't gain anything LIKE a large majority, so we're left with almost half of voters feeling dissatisfied. Or worse. A really fucking stupid idea to take the vote to the people, regardless of what you think of the outcome. Most people had no idea. All the vox pops that we've seen on the TV in the last couple of years clearly indicate that. "I just think we should look after our own", that type of rubbish. I'm trying to be realistic, but I think this could mark the start of the further decline of the UK in economic terms. At the very least we're looking at several months of tough negotiations that will tie up parliament almost as much as it did over the last three years, giving it less time than it needs to look at domestic issues. Did you see Barroso on Newsnight last night? He made a lot of sense and pointed out some things that are rarely mentioned in relation to Brexit - mainly, that the EU had learned from the UK, that we had introduced a lot of trade regulations and NOT Brussels. He gave the example that the European internal market was in fact Thatcher's idea. We contributed a lot. They'll miss us. He also emphasised the fact that any future trade deals between the UK and the US are going to be hampered by the very different attitudes of both countries, essentially protectionism versus globalism. And this is a man who is not trying to sell newspapers - he's not writing headlines. He's using his own wide-ranging experience and his expertise to look at the situation objectively, and he wasn't optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 1, 2020 12:42:36 GMT
You keep going over this John.
Where do you draw the line on how political decisions are made? Democracy is founded on the notion that the majority in a population who have the vote will have the right as to what happens if it is put them to directly.
If you want to draw up an alternative system where the majority of the electorate are ignored in favour of a minority - which in itself is authoritarian by nature - then be my guess. There is no doubt that a lot of people probably wouldn't mind living in that sort of scenario as long as it didn't directly affect them.
Objectivity is necessary in this instance because a Liberal Democracy is what we live in and operate by. It is by far the most successful form of government known. I have to be objective in this scenario because it is realism. We do not live in an Authoritarian state where an intellectually able few, unrepresentative of the population, make enlightened decisions on our behalf. Maybe, objectively, that might be the best system - Plato's Philosopher Kings. But, as witnessed in Animal Farm, it is the Pigs who are the Communists, and we all know how that ended.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 1, 2020 13:13:02 GMT
I don't disagree.
You miss my point, again.
Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Feb 1, 2020 13:24:58 GMT
Your point seems to be that lots of people didn't vote for something so therefore it is unfair to subject them to that thing.
In this context, I would argue that the Treaty of Lisbon, where Gordon Brown made an "enlightened decision" on behalf of the British people to integrate the country into Europe politically without any explicit consent is what led us to the Referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Feb 1, 2020 13:31:44 GMT
Your point seems to be that lots of people didn't vote for something so therefore it is unfair to subject them to that thing. Nope!
|
|