We, as part of the EU, made the anti-competition laws. Why is it so hard for you to see that EU law is not imposed? We help to make it. Vin
"Vote Leave referendum campaign group" dodgy bunch indeed. Manipulated info, 101 in 131 cases in 40 years. All part of the demonisation of the EU. Re beef ban https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ban-lifted-on-the-export-of-british-beef-j9wr5tvfvlg lifted in 2006 after BSE Can't find any evidence re EU and beer only articles about the removal of the duty escalator https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_real_impact_of_beer_duty and https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2013/03/uks-beer-duty-escalator-scrapped/ From The Institute for Government link "The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds. Who’s afraid of the ECJ?, published today by the independent Institute for Government (IfG), charts the UK’s experience at the ECJ compared to the 14 other longest standing members of the EU. The UK won around a quarter of all the cases against it in the last 14 years: the highesabt success rate of any country that joined the EU before 2004 and the third-highest success rate of any country in the EU now. Since 2003 the European Commission has opened over 750 complaints against the UK for failing to follow or apply EU law. The UK resolved 668 of these complaints before even reaching the court through negotiation and informal dispute resolution. In the end, the Commission decided to refer only 83 of these cases to the European Court. Environmental issues are those most likely to see the UK end up at the European Court, the paper reveals, because such cases are often costly to resolve. For example, the UK has repeatedly been taken to court for failing to implement a 1991 directive on the management of urban waste water because water treatment plants are expensive to provide." Jab
In truth Vin I don't think we had much option.........I haven't seen many of the laws changed when they are found not to be working so well. Although in truth it is probably the working of the various governments that made them not work so well.
To say we didn't have a say (that's what I'm reading "don't think we had much option" to mean) in the making of those laws is false. It's either a misunderstanding or a lie. Can you give an example of a law that hasn't been changed when it wasn't working well? To start, I'll give an example of when it was. EU fisheries rules meant that perfectly good fish was being thrown, dead, into the sea. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall corralled public opinion and the EU Parliament changed the law. Your go. Vin
Let's have the full story source Ned, your cut and paste job from the express Mar 2, 2016 - Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group found that the UK has been defeated in 101 out of 131 legal actions taken to the ... The failure rate of 77.1 per cent for Britain in the Luxembourg-based court was last night being seen as fresh evidence of the urgent need for country to quit the EU.
What I mean by not much option......is if the majority are agreeing it didn't much matter that we objected. Although in truth Vin I'm not sure we would have objected anyway. Can you remember when we used our veto I don't remember ever using it........although I am sure you will do........
Do you think we don't negotiate to try to change people's minds? Do you consider us to washed up that we just collapse? Do you have any evidence to back that up bar your innate underdog feeling that the EU is somehow an overlord and we are cowering, scared to say anything against it? Don't worry, it's the last time I'm going to ask one of these questions. I'm bored of vague personal unease presented as insider fact. Vin
Did you examine the beef yourself? An outbreak would have been disastrous. We would have done the same thing had it been another country. And they were obviously protecting UK spirit makers as our spirit makers were the ones complaining to the EU! You are just being prejudiced here. But in a general sense the laws are applied equally, created by the combine decisions of representatives from European countries. Had the increase in duties affected French wine makers they may have put a trumpesque increase on our beers to protect their wine industry increasing the price for spirits for consumers both in the UK and France causing everyone to lose out. In the end it was only our government losing face due to having a populist policy fail. There was nothing stopping us from carrying out a fair decrease of duty.
I'm glad that your bored Vin........I obviously worry you because I still speak to a variety of people that have differing views. Its obvious that no matter what I or others say your view is the only one that counts. I don't pretend to have insider knowledge as I clearly don't. It just so happens that through out my career I have had a lot of dealings with the European community. I don't consider us under dogs Vin I just don't like another country telling us what we should or shouldn't do. You don't mind it fair enough......... but I do.....simple.
I don't think he's saying that his view is the only one that counts at all, I think he's saying that all the evidence from logical and trustworthy sources backs up remaining. All the propaganda and nonsense favours leaving...
There was ways of testing the Beef is my understanding and it was tested. I also understand that the Beef came from unaffected farms, Well away from infected areas. Bearing in mind they had cordoned the ares affected with a limit. I totally agree an out break would have been disastrous. Yes I do remember doing just that after actually finding contaminated beef landing on our shores.
Oh.Dont. They........Who.Is.Telling.Us.We.Cant.Trade.With.Them.Unless.We.Agree.To.There.Conditions.Then???
Bizarre, isn’t it? This is not aimed at Beddy, or any other individual - but collectively, Brexit voters constantly reference some supposed lack of freedom at the hands of an overbearing EU. In reality, modern Britons (and Germans, Italians, French, Dutch etc) continue to enjoy historically unprecedented levels of civil and personal liberty.
You were telling us why we should leave. You were giving as a reason to leave that other countries tell us what to do. Sorry it's dull but the reality is that we are part of a group (the EU) that creates the rules. That's not "other countries" telling us anything. You've now moved the argument to talking about what should happen after we've left the group. And you're factually incorrect there as well. We haven't even begun to discuss how we'll trade with the EU so it's impossible for them to be teling us anything about how we'll trade with them. All the current kerfuffle is about how we leave, not about trade deals afterwards. There's between five and seven years of negotiating that to look forward to. Vin
That's actually a pretty good pocket guide. As anyone can see, there is no sovereignty loss because nation states vote and decide, and the direction that the EU takes is entirely in the hands of people who wish to help steer that direction. The thing is, do you wish to be part of it or not? Does the UK wish to have an influence in the world or not?
I don't blame anyone for not understanding our relationship with the EU. The British press has been drip-feeding misinformation and poison about Europe for a couple of decades. They have always stated it in them v us terms so it's no wonder people think that's the way it is. It's not easy to withstand this torrent of hatred and outright racism. Examples: please log in to view this image More: please log in to view this image Yet more: please log in to view this image Still, the Mail does rather have form on this going back awhiles, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised: please log in to view this image Vin
Here's a better story from the EU. In 2018, CO2 emissions across the Union decreased by 2.5%, compared to 2017. These are early estimates, but there is every reason to suggest that they are correct. Here's a graph [we all like graphs, don't we?] As you can see from the indicators, rising CO2 levels tended to come from the less well developed clean energy infrastructure of the member states, where their growing economies brought an overall rise in their levels. Incidentally, it used to be a kind of indicator that the faster the CO2 levels a country emitted, the better its economy was doing. That one was from pre-nuclear power days, but these things tend to hang around. Reductions in emissions have come for a variety of reasons from changing energy infrastructures to economies doing less well. A surprising statistic perhaps comes from Germany. For long held in criticism for abandoning new nuclear power, and burning high sulphur content coal in the their power stations, their super fast transition to renewables is making rapid progress. The UK likes to think of itself as the leader in wind technology [and rightly so in several cases], but Germany is making giant strides and is actually the leader in Europe. A wide ranging report earlier this year showed that CO2 emissions worldwide rose in 2018 to the highest they've ever been. The biggest contributors were [in order] China, USA and India. To some extent, one can understand why China and India contributed so much. Their energy infrastructures are growing and maturing. China is making huge changes away from traditional power generation to clean power and renewables, but at the same time, coal power stations have been coming online. India is much the same. The USA has largely reversed its policy to achieve a cleaner power generation infrastructure, for the time being.
