14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I have never denied that there would be economic and other problems. Not just for the UK, though.

 

Treaty law, directives and regulations.

That does not answer my question. You stated: "I think that your method to calculate sovereignty by legislation by voting is flawed. We don't get a vote on most of the legislation that we have to accept".

 

I asked you to quote me examples of instances where EU "law" has passed into UK law that the UK objected to, but where the UK did not have the opportunity to vote against it? 

 

In reply, you simply state the different types of EU legislation.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

I asked you to quote me examples of instances where EU "law" has passed into UK law that the UK objected to, but where the UK did not have the opportunity to vote against it?

It's irrelevant now.  

2 hours ago, RayC said:

99% of economists and their models point to both the UK and the EU losing economically as a result of Brexit (Patrick Mumford is the only outlier who springs to mind, and outlier is definitely the operative word). Of that 99%, almost all believe that the UK will suffer the greatest hit. Example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2019/03/21/brexit-will-cost-the-eu-40-billion-annually-study-founds

Even in the unlikely event that the EU suffers more than the UK, this in itself seems to be an economic sado-masochistic justification (We will suffer pain but your's will be greater). 

 

The only rational argument for leaving the EU rests on the notion of sovereignty. Yes by leaving the EU Westminster, rather than Brussels, will be sovereign. But what does that mean in practice? 

 

"Since 1999, when legislative records became available to the public for the first time in an accessible format, the UK has voted “no” to legislation on 57 occasions. It has voted “yes” 2,474 times and abstained from voting 70 times. This translates into the UK opposing 2% of legislation" (Source: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/how-often-is-the-uk-outvoted-in-brussels/#).

 

So, 4 years of wrangling, likely future depressed economic growth plus (probably) upteen millions of future manhours in unnecessary trade related work, all for the sake of claiming back 2% more sovereignty. Worth it? Not in my book. 

 

PS. Will we really be any more sovereign? In the absence of a deal with the EU, the UK will be even more desperate for a trade deal with the US. The likely price? Amongst other things, a lowering of animal welfare standards requiring a change in UK law. Sovereignty and choice indeed!

Come on! Don't be nasty! The UK will be sovereign again for setting the amount of E154 allowed for tainting kippers!

44 minutes ago, RayC said:

Please elaborate. What examples are there of EU regulations having passed into UK law that the UK objected to but did not have the opportunity to vote against?

You will never get any precise answer from them. Only general considerations such as red tape regulation blah blah!

1 hour ago, torturedsole said:

It's irrelevant now.  

True but it's yet another falsehood peddled to support Brexit.

1 hour ago, candide said:

Come on! Don't be nasty! The UK will be sovereign again for setting the amount of E154 allowed for tainting kippers!

 

not only colouring of kippers

but also;

UK is now free to grow both bananas and cucumbers that bend in the opposite direction, if they so wish

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Your argument is fundamentally flawed - the continental Europeans don't have the same taste for Irish dairy products that the UK has.

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that!

Ah right so the UK likes Irish milk, cheese and butter but the Europeans dont. They prefer UK milk, cheese and butter and will be willing to pay a premium for it just because it comes from dear old blighty. 

You are right. I did not know that.

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

You just said it but you were promoting the EU and their most recent piece of bartering, which has just caused even more disunity within the "union". My point is that the EU has not made up the shortfall but forced some individual but relatively wealthy nations to do it, as well as be the main donors of the virus recovery fund. These nations are understandably unhappy. 

what do you mean by nations?shouldn't they give their citizens a vote if they want to leave or stay?

4 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

not only colouring of kippers

but also;

UK is now free to grow both bananas and cucumbers that bend in the opposite direction, if they so wish

and free to decide who we let into our country.

5 hours ago, candide said:

Come on! Don't be nasty! The UK will be sovereign again for setting the amount of E154 allowed for tainting kippers!

how much a pair of hairy kippers now?last time i looked i couldn't afford them.

16 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Really? What trade agreements specifically would wipe out what and how? 
 

Just looking at the very first in the list: dairy products. 

1) 91% of UK dairy exports go to the EU. You’re pretty much losing your only customer. You need to find a new customer who’s willing to buy c. 1 Mt of dairy products per year. 

2) That 1 Mt is about half the dairy imports of China, and about the dairy that Russia imports. It’s twice the amount of what Mexico, Algeria, Indonesia and Japan import. Those are the biggest dairy importers (excluding the EU) in the world. 
 

3) UK’s dairy industry is not particularly competitive. And I’m talking production cost here. Any tariffs go on top and make your product even less competitive. 
 

So who are you going to sell all that overpriced dairy products to? 

Not only are Brit. dairy products overpriced, based on the jolly Brexiteer brigade at TV, they seem to be acquiring a bitter taste.

17 hours ago, evadgib said:

HMG clearly getting on with it:

 

UK Statement to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on Appellate Body Appointments

 

Joint Statement of the 14th Meeting of the India-UK Joint Economic and Trade Committee

 

Negotiations on the UK’s future trading relationship with New Zealand: Update

getting on with it? As Exit looms,  01/01/2021 - you must be joking. To quote your UK Gov. news release, dated July 2020, 'An FTA with New Zealand can bring investment, better jobs, higher wages and more affordable prices just when we need them the most.' 

15 hours ago, kingdong said:

cause the eu needs us more than we need it,whos going to make up the shortfall of our financial contribution?glad you,ve finally saw sense.

chicken feed: example according to the House of Commons library: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7886/

In 2018 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.2 billion. The UK received £4.3 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.9 billion.

7 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

not only colouring of kippers

but also;

UK is now free to grow both bananas and cucumbers that bend in the opposite direction, if they so wish

and wiggle a bit too.

1 hour ago, paddypower said:

chicken feed: example according to the House of Commons library: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7886/

In 2018 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.2 billion. The UK received £4.3 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK’s net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.9 billion.

Sounds about right for the net bung. 

Edited August 1, 20205 yr by nauseus

9 hours ago, RayC said:

That does not answer my question. You stated: "I think that your method to calculate sovereignty by legislation by voting is flawed. We don't get a vote on most of the legislation that we have to accept".

 

I asked you to quote me examples of instances where EU "law" has passed into UK law that the UK objected to, but where the UK did not have the opportunity to vote against it? 

 

In reply, you simply state the different types of EU legislation.

Well it does answer your question. Treaty law and regulations (and "decisions") are immediately binding on member states. Directives have deadlines for future incorporation into national law. We don't have the option to vote against any of these.

8 hours ago, candide said:

You will never get any precise answer from them. Only general considerations such as red tape regulation blah blah!

Out on the raz last night?

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Ah right so the UK likes Irish milk, cheese and butter but the Europeans dont. They prefer UK milk, cheese and butter and will be willing to pay a premium for it just because it comes from dear old blighty. 

You are right. I did not know that.

That's not what I said and you did know that.

arguing with a Brexiteer is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.

Then <deleted>s all over the board.

Then struts around like it won.

27 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

arguing with a Brexiteer is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.

Then <deleted>s all over the board.

Then struts around like it won.

Sounds strangely like 49.

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Sounds strangely like 49.

 

re 49 and similarities, (my preference is 42);

 

49er is a US West Coast footballteam

 

49er is a very popular Olympic class sailing vessel, dinghy/skiff for 2 persons

NOT easy to master - requires deep concentration and 100% attention ALL the time

 

any similarities with TVF's 49er?

 

(since it is Saturday)

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

re 49 and similarities, (my preference is 42);

 

49er is a US West Coast footballteam

 

49er is a very popular Olympic class sailing vessel, dinghy/skiff for 2 persons

NOT easy to master - requires deep concentration and 100% attention ALL the time

 

any similarities with TVF's 49er?

 

(since it is Saturday)

 

 

 

My last sail was longer ago. Fireballs and 505s.

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

My last sail was longer ago. Fireballs and 505s.

long ago ie -->49 observed as tricky

 

Fireball and 505 (rather big?) are both 1 trapeze?

49er is double trapeze (trickier to nail down and catch)

 

anyway,

I don't think it would be good for UK to come out of this with no deal,

not so much because of the sell/buy economy satang aspect but

because UK will, once again, have demonstrated to the rest of the world her lack of talent in lubricating

difficult political issues sufficiently to land some results.

 

UK's track record since the run up to the referendum is not shiny

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

long ago ie -->49 observed as tricky

 

Fireball and 505 (rather big?) are both 1 trapeze?

49er is double trapeze (trickier to nail down and catch)

 

anyway,

I don't think it would be good for UK to come out of this with no deal,

not so much because of the sell/buy economy satang aspect but

because UK will, once again, have demonstrated to the rest of the world her lack of talent in lubricating

difficult political issues sufficiently to land some results.

 

UK's track record since the run up to the referendum is not shiny

 

 

 

Fireball about the same size, 505 a bit bigger. Both used to be single trapeze. Just checked - both classes still sailing and racing worldwide. 

 

I don't think it would be good for UK to come out of this with no deal either but it is difficult dealing with an EU that still wants to control us.

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Well it does answer your question.

 

But unfortunately it doesn't!!!!

 

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Treaty law and regulations (and "decisions") are immediately binding on member states. Directives have deadlines for future incorporation into national law.

Correct. 

 

Worth noting that Treaty and Treaty change require the unanimous backing of all member states. Until the UK left on 31/1/20, it - or any other member state - could effectively veto any new or proposed change becoming law. Therefore in such cases, I hope that you will agree that it was impossible for the EU to impose law on the UK?

 

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

We don't have the option to vote against any of these.

Incorrect.

 

EU Directives and Regulations are proposed by the EU Commission and passed to the European Parliament - whose members are elected by the public - and the Council of Ministers - a body comprising of Ministers from the member states - for discussion, amendment and approval. Therefore, in both cases individual member states - including the UK until 31/1/20 - are democratically represented.

 

If the UK disagreed with a proposal, it had the opportunity to make its' feelings known at these fora and if necessary, vote against the proposal. A normal democratic process.

 

It is therefore, simply not true that the UK didn't have the option to vote against any proposed EU directives or regulations.

 

Since 31/1/20, this is no longer the case. Under the EU Transition bill the UK is still legally obliged to enact EU law but, of course as it is no longer an EU member it has no say in the matter. A case of Westminster willingly ceding sovereignty to Brussels. Oh, the irony!!!

 

So - yet again - apart from the 2% of cases where the UK has been outvoted,  please give me examples where EU law has been imposed upon the UK against its' will.

On 7/31/2020 at 3:04 PM, evadgib said:

On 7/31/2020 at 1:38 PM, 7by7 said:

 In other words, you don't know.

 

So I'll tell you; they never existed!

 

As for the deals which have actually been concluded, apart from those rolled over from EU deals listed earlier, there are none.

'Do your own legwork'!

 

Another cop out from you. Another typical TVF Brexiteer response.

 

As ever, when challenged you have shown that you are all bluster and no substance.

On 7/31/2020 at 4:08 PM, evadgib said:

49 is ???????????????????????????? is he not?

 

No, I am not a flag.

 

I am English. But I do not adhere to the arrogance evident amongst many English, or Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish come to that, expats if posts on this board are typical.

23 hours ago, Loiner said:

Were I live (or don't live) makes no difference to the way I feel about a bright future for UK. It's a positive mindset, not one subservient to the EU masters.

I give you the facts and the benefit of my opinion, but simply don't feel the need for reassurance from the internet as you seem to do. Do you actually believe everything you read there? As I've told you before, I won't go searching for your entertainment.

You have no idea how Boris and his ministers perform. I suspect very few people actually do, even those in the higher echelons. Definitely not those who make a living from writing about it in the left leaning press, so you as an avid reader would have even less idea.

 

Blah, blah, blah; again.

 

You give your prejudiced, ignorant opinions, but facts in your post are rarer than hen's teeth.

 

Should I accept that Boris and his minister's performances, as watched live on TV, in Downing Street press conferences, PMQs etc., have been somehow altered before being broadcast live by the left wing press you are so obsessed with?

 

No, I prefer sanity to alt-right nonsense.

 

 

23 hours ago, nauseus said:

On 7/31/2020 at 1:14 PM, 7by7 said:

 What trade agreements?

 

How many countries are lining up outside Liz Truss' office wanting to do deals with us?

Future agreements, Grumpy.

 What future agreements? 

 

 With no one queuing up to negotiate agreements, where will your future agreements come from?

 

In 2016 Vote.Leave told us that countries were already falling over themselves to do trade deals with us once we were out of the EU. Four years later, those deals are very few and far between; and we have none with any of our major partners and are nowhere near close to getting any! 

42 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

And again.... You do not directly address my original proposition. No concrete counter-examples, just tangential rhetoric.

 

The absence of referenda for 41 years has meant that new treaties have been passed through by Europhile UK governments with compliant oppositions.

 

(Nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Now you have a problem with UK parliamentary democracy.

 

Treaty law, yes (as above). After we sign them we're screwed.

 

Then don't sign! As I pointed out previously, EU Treaty law/ change requires unanimous support. If the UK was so opposed to a Treaty (change), it had a veto and it could not have become EU law. QED.

 

But EU law is imposed on the UK or any other member state.

 

Tosh (see above and below).

 

What you say is true but directives and regulations can be passed by QMV now - vetoes or noes don't stop them. 

 

And this is 2% where the UK was forced to enact EU law with which it didn't agree. As I said at the outset, all this toil and trouble for 2% greater sovereignty. 

 

Disagree - see above. Certainly not a normal democratic process. 

 

The UK system doesn't fulfill your criteria for a democratic process (see my reply above, point 1). The EU system doesn't meet your requirements. What do you want?

 

Disagree in that a no vote will rarely count and never count if the UK votes no alone - see above.

 

Again. The 2% (see above)

 

Yes, oh the irony! We should have just left 2 years after the A50 trigger.

 

The reason we didn't was a failure on the part of the UK government. However, if we had we would now be trading on WTO rules with most of the world. Do you seriously think that would have been beneficial? 

 

If there is a deal to be had, we won't get a decent one until we are fully out.

 

Really? The EU, having had to put into place measures to deal with the UK leaving (measures that it did not want to have to take), would then be more inclined to look favourably upon the UK? I think not.

 

And finally in this exchange.... To return to the original issue:  Is there any chance of you finding example(s) where EU law has been imposed upon the UK (pre 31/1/20) without the UK firstly having been able to challenge it?