Off Topic Politics Thread

[Schad]

Britain loses three of four cases taken to European Court of Justice ...

https://www.express.co.uk › News › UK 2 Mar 2016 - More proof of meddling: Britain has lost 'more than 75 PER CENT' of EU court cases. BRITAIN has lost more than three quarters of the cases the Government has fought in the European Union's court, new figures revealed last night. ... Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group ........

Just one I could be bothered to find...........

https://www.instituteforgovernment....analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court

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 highest success rate of any country that joined the EU before 2004 and the third-highest success rate of any country in the EU now.

Here's the full report:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_ECJ_v10FINAL web.pdf


That even undersells it: the UK's success rate of 25% from 2003-2016 dwarfs the 18% success of the Netherlands, the second-most successful long-established EU nation. There is a simple reason that most cases involving national governments are losses: if it ends up before the ECJ, it's generally because the government is in the wrong but has dug in their heels because the remedy is either politically or economically difficult.

A great many of those lost cases involved flouting environmental law, because waste treatment and the like is expensive. But waste treatment is good! It's something with enormous societal benefits! The UK will be much worse off if there isn't someone to give it a smack upside the head and tell it to stop polluting its waterways!

I mean, that report really speaks to how much of a not-problem the ECJ is for the UK: the UK is called on the carpet less than most EU countries. It resolves more of those cases in early stages than the vast majority, and consequently doesn't face ECJ judgment very often. And when it does appear, it loses less than anyone else.

And this is the reason for the UK to set itself alight?

 

[Archers Road]

Britain loses three of four cases taken to European Court of Justice ...

https://www.express.co.uk › News › UK 2 Mar 2016 - More proof of meddling: Britain has lost 'more than 75 PER CENT' of EU court cases. BRITAIN has lost more than three quarters of the cases the Government has fought in the European Union's court, new figures revealed last night. ... Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group ........

Just one I could be bothered to find...........

You googled an Express headline. Did you read the article?

 

[StJabbo]

Britain loses three of four cases taken to European Court of Justice ...

https://www.express.co.uk › News › UK 2 Mar 2016 - More proof of meddling: Britain has lost 'more than 75 PER CENT' of EU court cases. BRITAIN has lost more than three quarters of the cases the Government has fought in the European Union's court, new figures revealed last night. ... Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group ........

Just one I could be bothered to find...........

The express sorry can't take that seriously. What cases have been lost? Deservefly so? Schad's detailed reply is well put and well sourced. The express, mail and other tabloid rags don't have any place in a reasoned argument.

 

[StJabbo]

https://www.instituteforgovernment....analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court



Here's the full report:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_ECJ_v10FINAL web.pdf


That even undersells it: the UK's success rate of 25% from 2003-2016 dwarfs the 18% success of the Netherlands, the second-most successful long-established EU nation. There is a simple reason that most cases involving national governments are losses: if it ends up before the ECJ, it's generally because the government is in the wrong but has dug in their heels because the remedy is either politically or economically difficult.

A great many of those lost cases involved flouting environmental law, because waste treatment and the like is expensive. But waste treatment is good! It's something with enormous societal benefits! The UK will be much worse off if there isn't someone to give it a smack upside the head and tell it to stop polluting its waterways!

I mean, that report really speaks to how much of a not-problem the ECJ is for the UK: the UK is called on the carpet less than most EU countries. It resolves more of those cases in early stages than the vast majority, and consequently doesn't face ECJ judgment very often. And when it does appear, it loses less than anyone else.

And this is the reason for the UK to set itself alight?

Yes indeed spot on well sourced.

 

[fatletiss]

No-one can say whether we will be better or worse because we have a sh** shower of politicians above us talking the meaningless talk. All leaving the EU does is remove one lot of that BS about how it is "all for us" at which point in this modern era hopefully internal politics can change to a point that the public can actually get politicians to do their jobs instead of spieling for the globals.

“All Leaving the EU does...” Really? You’ve argued and argued the value of leaving, just in the belief that eventually our politicians may actually do their jobs. That’s what all this grief is about?

For all your months and years of posting article after article, telling us we’ll be better out, all your giving me is this.

I’m a bit shocked

 

[rednright]

The problem with that is not everyone votes for the party. Some vote for the person.

I will be amazed if Anna soubry wins her seat again!

 

[rednright]

the pitch being EU regulations on the building standards. He was saying it was uneven so was talking about removing them. i was asking how removing them will make other EU countries increase their building standards to match ours.

Edit. We would still need procurement regulations and I'm not suggesting the sector is unregulated. All I'm saying is that this area is a good example of countries in the 'club' doing there own thing.

 

[The Ides of March]

I will be amazed if Anna soubry wins her seat again!

Not if Labour and the Lib Dems chose not to field a candidate against the Conservatives. But hey ho, Labour must field a candidate to let the Tories win the seat. Not very clever thinking.

 

[The Ides of March]

PS: In a previous post, I suggested that Boris Johnson's and Rees-Mogg's British citizenship should be revoked a la Begum. I should have added that I am not in favour of Begum losing her rights to being a British and EU citizen. She went to support ISIS as a child, she still is very much a child {19} so to punish her in this fashion is rather punitive. Furthermore, I do not even think she would be a threat as she would be constantly monitored if allowed back in. I would hope she could be rehabilitated through education to become a more open-minded and productive citizen, contributing positively to British culture and the economy.

 

[StJabbo]

“All Leaving the EU does...” Really? You’ve argued and argued the value of leaving, just in the belief that eventually our politicians may actually do their jobs. That’s what all this grief is about?

For all your months and years of posting article after article, telling us we’ll be better out, all your giving me is this.

I’m a bit shocked

Several posts ago the leavers were asked to list the benefits of brexit, similar questions have been asked across a range of social media. I've yet to see a viable, well sourced reply. Plenty of vitriol not much in the way of logical argument.

 

[The Ides of March]

Several posts ago the leavers were asked to list the benefits of brexit, similar questions have been asked across a range of social media. I've yet to see a viable, well sourced reply. Plenty of vitriol not much in the way of logical argument.

Have you not been reading the Gospels of Saint Boris, Saint Jacob, Saint William and Saint Nigel and put forth in the new testaments of the Telegraph, Express, Mail and the Spectator? How can you expect to enter the gates of heaven if you have not read this Truth?

 

[StJabbo]

Have you not been reading the Gospels of Saint Boris, Saint Jacob, Saint William and Saint Nigel and put forth in the new testaments of the Telegraph, Express, Mail and the Spectator? How can you expect to enter the gates of heaven if you have not read this Truth?

Are those Sainted gospel writers known as the new gang of four?

Would those pearly gates be at UK immigration as me and my Indonesian wife come to visit from our home in The Hague? We look forward to meeting the entry requirements of a post brexit Britain. We'll bring ample supplies of hard to get expensive foodstuff (and drink) so as not to be a burden on strained resources. Oh, a thought, will our goods be subject to WTO tariffs in the new order? I wonder what the duty free allowances will be in the brave new world of the brexiteers.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Several posts ago the leavers were asked to list the benefits of brexit, similar questions have been asked across a range of social media. I've yet to see a viable, well sourced reply. Plenty of vitriol not much in the way of logical argument.

Brexit seems to be emotion v logic. The two sides of the brain.

Anyone with the even slightest logic would realise the enormity of the gamble we are facing. Those that are highly emotional vote leave at all costs. That’s a big part of why nobody can agree.

Like FLT, I have tried and tried and tried to find any reasons for taking a risk with the countries financial health. Still haven’t found one that holds up to any scrutiny. Literally the only argument is “the Eu is bad”

 

[Beddy]

Truth is guys......"There is non so blind as those that don't want to see" That phrase really does cover both sides of the spectrum.........There is for's and against.........over this problem of Brexit. Sadly it is out of our hands now. Seemingly in the hands of a very incompetent government.........

 

[fatletiss]

Truth is guys......"There is non so blind as those that don't want to see" That phrase really does cover both sides of the spectrum.........There is for's and against.........over this problem of Brexit. Sadly it is out of our hands now. Seemingly in the hands of a very incompetent government.........

Beddy

That’s a cop out. I’m trying to see and have asked time and time again, but none of you can give me anything. I’m not standing on any side when I ask this. I had accepted that Brexit was coming but I just wanted to lnow what the good would be.

Still nothing. I WANT TO SEE BUT NOBODY WILL SHOW ME!

It is fairly telling to me that you can’t give me what will be better.

 

[fatletiss]

Double post

 

[ChilcoSaint]

https://www.instituteforgovernment....analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court



Here's the full report:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_ECJ_v10FINAL web.pdf


That even undersells it: the UK's success rate of 25% from 2003-2016 dwarfs the 18% success of the Netherlands, the second-most successful long-established EU nation. There is a simple reason that most cases involving national governments are losses: if it ends up before the ECJ, it's generally because the government is in the wrong but has dug in their heels because the remedy is either politically or economically difficult.

A great many of those lost cases involved flouting environmental law, because waste treatment and the like is expensive. But waste treatment is good! It's something with enormous societal benefits! The UK will be much worse off if there isn't someone to give it a smack upside the head and tell it to stop polluting its waterways!

I mean, that report really speaks to how much of a not-problem the ECJ is for the UK: the UK is called on the carpet less than most EU countries. It resolves more of those cases in early stages than the vast majority, and consequently doesn't face ECJ judgment very often. And when it does appear, it loses less than anyone else.

And this is the reason for the UK to set itself alight?

An excellent find Schad. Just shows how the Leave campaign distorted the facts to suit its argument, as shown in that Express article quoted by @Beddytare.

Glancing through the full report, one thing that jumped off the page was that the involvement of the ECJ with member states, including the UK, has dropped significantly over the years. The UK received 111 letters of formal notice in 2003, but only 28 in 2016. And the UK has resolved 69% of disputes with the EU Commission at the formal notice stage, without proceeding to the “reasoned opinion” stage, and only 11% of the 753 cases since 2003 have ever actually made it to court.

Hardly counts as “meddling” does it?

 

[The Ides of March]

Double post

Read the Gospels of the four "saints" in my earlier post. They think they know the way to salvation. Who are we to doubt such wizened men? On the other hand there is the message from Lucifer, {Blair} that bears an alternative script.

 

[Schad]

An excellent find Schad. Just shows how the Leave campaign distorted the facts to suit its argument, as shown in that Express article quoted by @Beddytare.

Glancing through the full report, one thing that jumped off the page was that the involvement of the ECJ with member states, including the UK, has dropped significantly over the years. The UK received 111 letters of formal notice in 2003, but only 28 in 2016. And the UK has resolved 69% of disputes with the EU Commission at the formal notice stage, without proceeding to the “reasoned opinion” stage, and only 11% of the 753 cases since 2003 have ever actually made it to court.

Hardly counts as “meddling” does it?

It's almost as if it's a resolution process specifically designed to foster cooperative decision-making, with binding court decisions being rendered only when that is impossible. Tyranny!

 

[Beddy]

Beddy

That’s a cop out. I’m trying to see and have asked time and time again, but none of you can give me anything. I’m not standing on any side when I ask this. I had accepted that Brexit was coming but I just wanted to lnow what the good would be.

Still nothing. I WANT TO SEE BUT NOBODY WILL SHOW ME!

It is fairly telling to me that you can’t give me what will be better.

Its not a cop out Fats.......
Fats mate there is no good answer as such or bad for that matter............All I want is for this country to make its own decisions and not be over ruled by unelected people and their cronies. I prefer us to make decisions as to who can or cannot come into the country. Thats not to say they can't be the same or similar to Europe. Just that we make them good or bad! All we get from the stay side is what they think will happen....... fair enough......You get much the same from the out side. All of us is guessing non can prove anything until it happens. A few of us have a different view is all. Perhaps I'm not the best one to argue the out argument because my reasons are very personal. Trust me when I say they are very real though........