johnnybangkok

20 minutes ago, aright said:

I realise these questions are difficult for cult followers

I have answered each and every one of your question in full with facts and supported sources. 

Am I a cult follower too because we can support our position with facts rather than you with your “feelings”? 

Name calling is the last bastion of the ill informed so if we are to continue any of this, please stop. 

On 8/3/2019 at 3:12 PM, aright said:

 

 

Firstly the Express link I gave was in part a quotation from Dominic Raab not an Express opinion

Tory justice minister Dominic Raab said:

"The EU has a long-track record of shifting the goal-posts. Britain thinks it is signed up for one thing, only to find something very different imposed on us. In 40 years, we've lost three-quarters of cases at the Luxembourg Court, when we've tried to resist these incursions. They affect everything from the price of beer to the cost of home insulation, and undermine basic principle of our democracy - that the British people can hold to account those who write the laws of the land."

 

As for finding neutral opinions on anything political……..good luck with that.  

 

I can’t see your so called simple answer to my question beyond a Tory plug and a desperate attempt to obfuscate. You have made no attempt to explain why living under EU/ECJ rules is preferable to living under Westminster rules from your perspective.. To put it another way what specific benefits do you see from living under EU/ECJ rules that you wouldn’t get from Westminster rules ? This question still needs to be answered.

 

As for your question also name 5 EU laws in the last 15 years that you think are particularly egregious. 

The EU have passed no laws or done anything of any significance in the last 15 years that have affected me personally. However you should be aware that I voted in the referendum based on what was best for my country’s future not the past, the now or next year but long term. For the future I have no desire to be part of a superstate which increasingly forces it's federal agenda on all member states. I have no desire to be a minority part of an outside community which wants flags, anthems and an army...…...I have those at home in an independent, sovereign, country run by an elected government.

 

I have answered your question directly; I hope you will answer mine in the same way. 

 

'The EU have passed no laws or done anything of any significance in the last 15 years that have affected me personally'.

So by your own admission there has been nothing that has directly affected you, yet you 'feel' that the EU is following a 'federal agenda' and that was good enough for you to vote against your own interests. There is literally no facts or evidence to back up your assertion, yet the 'Little Britain' mentality that so many Brexit fans demonstrate has led us to a point where expert advice and individuals with more insight than all of us are routinely ignored in favour of jingoistic nonsense.

Why living under EU/ECJ rules is preferable to living under Westminster rules for the average working man/woman

1. The EU introduced the working Time Directive which specifically limited the time a worker can be forced to work to no more than 48 hours per week. The UK successfully lobbied for an 'opt out clause' for some workers, which I for one used when I worked in London.

2.  EU rules also secure British workers’ legal right to paid annual leave. The introduction of these laws gave six million Britons better rights to paid leave, including two million workers who had previously not been entitled to any paid leave at all.

3. Equal pay between men and women - The British government had refused to incorporate into law the idea that pay should be based on value, meaning a woman doing a more valuable or senior job could legally be paid only the same as a more junior male colleague.  The UK government amended this only after enforcement action by the EU Commission. 

4. EU law guarantees women a minimum of 14 weeks maternity leave. The European Court of Justice has made clear any discrimination towards a woman because of her pregnancy or maternity leave is sexism and should be treated at such. The ECJ also ruled that employers must give women on maternity leave the same contractual rights as they do to other employees, for example by continuing to pay in to pension schemes. 

5. EU law says parents must be allowed to take 18 weeks of unpaid leave from work to look after a child.  It also says workers must be allowed additional time off for other family reasons, such as an ill child. 

6. UK laws banning discrimination on the grounds of age, religion or sexual orientation come directly from the EU’s Equal Treatment Directive.

7. The EU’s Health and Safety Framework Directive forces employers to assess and act to reduce workplace risks. Other rules cover issues such as disabilities, noise and specific regulations for staff working with chemicals, asbestos or other potential hazards. The TUC says 41 of the 65 new health and safety regulations introduced in the UK between 1997 and 2009 came from EU laws. 

8. Freedom of movement - the ability to travel between any member states without any need for visa's etc.

9. Being employed in the EU is made much, much easier by being a member of the EU.  Also, any EU citizen living in another EU country enjoys equal treatment with nationals of the host country in terms of welfare protection.

10. Cheap phone calls - During the 1990s, the EU broke the monopolies held by public telecoms operators. The result was a doubling of the number of fixed-line operators between 1998 and 2003, rapid introduction of new technology, and lower prices. According to the European Commission, the price of international telephone calls in the EU has fallen by 80% since 1984. The EU has now begun taking action to reduce the cost of roaming on mobile phones.

11. Consumers can send back a product bought anywhere in the EU if it breaks down within two years of purchase. People shopping on the internet, by telephone or mail order, can also change their mind within seven days, and cancel the contract without giving a reason. EU law prohibits misleading advertising and requires that all products put on the market are safe. Shoppers who buy goods for their own use in one EU country can take them to another EU country without paying excise duty, as long as they accompany them.

12. The EU is widely credited with forcing the pace on improvements to the quality of air, rivers and beaches. Member states might have done the job independently in their own time, but peer pressure upped the tempo when European ministers got together to pass laws. Measures such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive have led to dramatic improvements in the rivers over the last 30 years, making possible, for example, the return of otters to the British countryside. Other legislation has greatly reduced the problem of acid rain; the UK, once the "dirty man of Europe" cut sulphur emissions by 73% between 1990 and 2002. And if 30 years ago most British beaches failed the test of the EU Bathing Water Directive, now 98% of them get the thumbs-up.

13. The free movement of goods within the EU through 'friction-less' borders gives every EU member a massive advantage over any one else trying to import into the EU.

SOURCES :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6455879.stm

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-10-ways-eu-protects-british-workers-rights-in-danger-european-union-a7531366.html

I could go on but my point is these are NOT the action of some omnipotent Big Brother forcing us all in to some federal super state that you so desperately want to be true. The EU has done more for the common working man than ANY Westminster government would ever even dream of and if you think for one moment that Boris and his cronies are going to have the interest of the working man at the centre of their policies rather than their business chums, well I'm sorry but I don't do deluded.   

Here is a particular good example of what I am talking about that came out today. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pollution-no-river-in-england-is-safe-for-swimming-q8thdx678

Under EU rules, none of this would happen, but when left to its own devices, the current U.K. government let water companies off with punitive fines and slaps on the wrist because big business takes precedent over the good of the general population. 

But back to you. Name 5 EU laws in the last 15 years that you think are particularly egregious. 

15 hours ago, aright said:

Thanks but I really don't need your advice on who to quote to substantiate an argument; you can accept or reject I am not interested in how well the UK did against the ECJ in some cases, outside the EU we would do well in all cases because proposed legislation is voted on by our democratically elected representatives. 

Let me ask you a question. 

Why do you find it preferable to have our laws enacted by unelected bureaucrats and decided by a diverse set of MEP foreign cultures in Brussels where we have only 10% of the vote rather than by a democratically elected Westminster with a single culture and 100% of the vote?      

My apologies if you are offended about who to quote. I was simply stating that more neutral sources fit this argument better. 

As far as you other question the answer is Simple. I don’t see the vested interest you are so desperate to claim and see more vested interest from a Tory government (as I would all parties) that can enact laws according to wealth and business and who cater to their base rather than the good of the common man.

I have a question for you. Tell me exactly what laws the EU have enacted say in the last 15 years that you particularly don’t like? 5 will do. 

15 minutes ago, aright said:

I am not a lawyer but if memory serves with the exception of human rights issues yes as does the links I have provided. The water is a little muddy but at best I think it runs parallel with the UK Supreme Court...….I don't want that either. I want our laws enacted and voted in by our elected representatives in Westminster and for the UK Supreme Court to be "supreme"

"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 European Court of Justice over the last 40 years. 

Rulings against the UK Government included prolonging a ban on world-wide export of British beef and scrapping a cut in beer duty. 

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." 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648899/Britain-loses-most-cases-taken-to-European-Court-EU-referendum-Vote-Leave-Gove

 

Please don’t quote the Express or the Vote Leave campaign when trying to back up your statements. They are hardly neutral. 

I already showed you this in previous post that showed the U.K. did very well in its cases with most of them being thrown out before they got to Europe and when they did go to the ECJ they won more than any other country. They lost mostly in environmental cases. My figures where from government stats NOT partisan sources. 

On 7/31/2019 at 5:21 PM, aright said:

Have you considered one of the reasons we want to leave the EU is because we don't want to be subject to EU law. Sovereignty was a key issue in the referendum We are grown up and would prefer our laws be made and democratically enacted through our elected representatives in Westminster, not enacted by the EU Commission and rubber stamped by MEP's in Brussels.

However like so many Remainers you shy away from the difficult questions.

To repeat

What's the point in being in a club where you can ignore the rules and pick and mix the laws you want to adopt or discard?

Can I add a further question to your statement "What I said about the UK Parliaments ability to contradict EU laws still stands as it theoretically possible for it to do so"

Question.   Since EU law overrides UK law.....How? 

EU Law only overrides UK law in as much as Parliament has chosen it to do so. As a sovereign nation, Parliament holds absolute sway over any law enacted in the UK.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty.

As I said before, it's semantics but worth noting that we chose EU law as the overriding law when we got more closely involved with Europe.

1 hour ago, bert bloggs said:

and remainers still quote rubbish .their delusion is something to behold .

Tell me exactly what I have said that is 'rubbish'?

'Manufacturing is reporting large scale falls in output' - exactly what this article is about.

'The car industry is talking about leaving altogether' - https://europe.autonews.com/blogs/hard-brexiters-are-ill-informed-about-britains-car-industry.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49170387

The financial institutions have already set up in Frankfurt - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-latest-banks-commit-frankfurt-germany-eu-london-goldman-sachs-a8294651.html

Got any facts to back your argument up or is it just Brexit rhetoric accompanied by awful grammar? 

54 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Its been reported today that if we leave without a deal Germany will fall into recesion with massive job losses ,Britain is one of her largest importers of cars ,also they will have to make up the cash we will not be donating ,so why wont they make a deal ,stupid or what?

They have made a deal. It's just that no one wants the deal as so much more was (stupidly) promised by the Brexit brigade.

46 minutes ago, aright said:

What Remainers like to do is incorrectly quote the ECA. 

The ECA states that in the event of conflict EU Law overrides national law. 

Where the interpretation of EU law is in doubt, the 1972 Act requires UK courts to refer judgment to the European Court of Justice...…...and we can all guess the outcome to that one

It is not legally possible for Parliament to contradict EU Law but if they were to do so for whatever reason the reasonable question to ask is......

What's the point in being in a club where you can ignore the rules and pick and mix the laws you want to adopt or discard. Better to be independent to prevent such conflict.

I'm glad that you can 'guess the outcome to that one' as the realities of how this actually plays out is vastly different to what most Brexiters would have you believe.

'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 (so the vast majority of cases don't even get to court). In the end, the Commission decided to refer only 83 of these cases to the European Court. The UK won around a quarter of the cases against it: 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. 

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'.   

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/news/latest/new-analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court

What I said about the UK Parliaments ability to contradict EU laws still stands as it theoretically possible for it to do so BUT since the UK became a member of the EU it has set EU law as precedent which of course requires adherence to its laws. However, I would suggest that this is much more to do with the fact that the vast majority of EU law is sensible and there to protect the populace rather than business or those with a bigger bank balance than anything else. 

We can argue semantics about this all day but the point of the scaremongering from Brexiters about 'losing control to crazy EU laws' does not bear out when you take the realities of the situations that have come around over the last 16 years. There has simply been no where near the amounts of disputes happening as the Brexit camp would have you believe and scare stories about 'wrong shaped bananas' and 'water doesn't stop dehydration' are just simply that; scare stories trying to convince a gullible populace that the EU is just a bunch of crazy, overpaid (might have a point there) bureaucrats.   

6 hours ago, vogie said:

Don't try and over think this RR, you might miss the point I was making.

But having said that, if you get independence will you have your own legal systems etc, of course not, you would have the EUs.

It could be said that the SNP are not Scottish nationalists, but are indeed EU nationalists.

Remember you are not talking for all of Scotland.

Firstly Scotland already has it's own legal system that is separate and different from England - http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/the-differences-between-the-english-and-scottish-law/

Secondly, this idea that EU law will overtake Scottish law (or indeed British law) does not hold water as in the UK, we also have the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, which holds that Parliament is the highest source of authority to make laws without restriction. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. However what the Brexit brigade love quoting is The European Communities Act, passed by Parliament in 1972, which accepted the supremacy of EU law. However this does not stop Parliamentary sovereignty, it is very possible for Parliament to contradict EU laws

4 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Seems they want another chance......... and another maybe....... until they get a result that only a current minority want.

 

 

Sound familiar ?

Oh change the record for gods sake. You Brexiters use this inane argument all the time and frankly it's getting boring.

Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014 by a pretty small margin, 2 Million to 1.6 million (55% to 45%) before the matter of leaving the EU was even a thing. In the EU referendum, 62% voted to remain in the EU, a significant increase. The logical argument therefore goes that if those that voted to stay in the UK thought that meant also leaving the EU, what would the numbers have been then?

Unlike you Brexiters with your 'it was voted on, so it must happen', most Scots are sensible enough to know that the goalposts have moved so significantly since the original vote and another vote MAY be the appropriate and right thing to do.

I also think that now a no deal Brexit is looking highly likely, another referendum should occur because NO ONE (be honest when you answer this) had even heard about a no-deal situation never mind voted for it.

Both situations need to be looked at again as things have changed so dramatically. First another EU referendum and if Leave wins (absolutely no question about it then) then a Scottish independence vote. 

Not sure why this is sooooo difficult for Brexit fans to get their head around.

10 minutes ago, aright said:

You are right England doesn't own them; the British do and when you gain your independence you will no longer be a part of Great Britain and have no claim on them. 

One could argue that with just England and Wales (Northern Ireland not being part of Great Britain), there wouldn't be much of a Great Britain left to constitute the name but I'm being obtuse. 

There have been proposals put forward about what happens to the pound which would have to be seen if it can work but my point is it's not just up to the English what happens to a currency that is used by 4 countries.

And just to make things clear, I'm not for Scottish independence but my reply was to combat the inane arrogance of a previous poster who was taking everything away from Scotland because he felt that Scotland wouldn't deserve it. My point was it wasn't his to take away.

14 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Wow, that is a really great response. Anyone that disagrees with you is insane.

Typical

 

Well if the cap fits.

Trump basically said that there was 'fine people on both sides' and your defense of him was he was referring to 'good people on both sides of the protest'. How can there be 'good people on both sides of the protest' when one of the sides are a bunch of neo-Nazis? 

I'm going to take a wild guess and go with there are no 'good' or 'fine' neo-Nazis. Would you like to refute this?