Jesus Christ.....can't be those fuckers again...

I think cheese is suggesting we were never forced to take any EU laws as we were part of making those laws as we were part of the EU.

I am breaking my rules of engagement with you;

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

 

But, have a read of a link from The Mirror, which, even you will acknowledge, is not pro-Brexit;

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-many-britains-laws-really-7420612

 

 

In a follow-up blog, they admitted it was "possible to justify" any figure between 15% and 55% , and the real answer lies somewhere in between.

 

Right, I'll try again. Who do you think makes these laws? Do you think the EU is "26 countries V the UK"? If "the EU" can enforce laws upon other countries without their agreement, how is leaving going to change anything?

It takes 1 EU member to veto a proposal, and that proposal won't happen, or will need to be renegotiated.

27 countries, and just ONE has the power to stop the actions of the other 26 if they don't like it.

In certain circumstances, the 26 can amend the proposal so it only applies to them, but the ONE that vetoed it suffers no consequences beyond diplomatic awkwardness.

Yet it's widely believed we had "lost control".

Just look at the Canadian Trade deal. A small Belgian region were enough to disrupt that one, after 7 years of negotiations...

I think cheese is suggesting we were never forced to take any EU laws as we were part of making those laws as we were part of the EU.

He didn't say that, though!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure?wprov=sfla1

 

For those with fuck all to do today...

It takes 1 EU member to veto a proposal, and that proposal won't happen, or will need to be renegotiated.

27 countries, and just ONE has the power to stop the actions of the other 26 if they don't like it.

In certain circumstances, the 26 can amend the proposal so it only applies to them, but the ONE that vetoed it suffers no consequences beyond diplomatic awkwardness.

Yet it's widely believed we had "lost control".

Just look at the Canadian Trade deal. A small Belgian region were enough to disrupt that one, after 7 years of negotiations...

Doesn't matter if we were involved/agreed to it- I don't understand the complexities of it. What is the case is that this aspect is clearly bonkers. If it isn't changed then that shows how over bloated and unnecessary it all is.

Right, I'll try again. Who do you think makes these laws? Do you think the EU is "26 countries V the UK"? If "the EU" can enforce laws upon other countries without their agreement, how is leaving going to change anything?

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

This is counting votes in the EU Council of Ministers, which passes most EU laws jointly with the European Parliament.

 

You'll  never beat Cheese in an argument about the EU

 

Anyway, this sounds like it's come from Urban Dictionary.....

 

If they lost 2% then it follows the EU have indeed imposed something on us we didnt agree to. Even if its only 2%.

 

Also, look at 'directives'. Not laws. 

 

In a nutshell the EU decide (after thousands of hours of political waffle and civil service bollocks) to issue a 'directive' and the member state it applies to follows it.

 

Or else.

 

I'd hazard a guess there's quite a few of those we didn't agree to either.

If they lost 2% then it follows the EU have indeed imposed something on us we didnt agree to. Even if its only 2%.

 

Also, look at 'directives'. Not laws. 

 

In a nutshell the EU decide (after thousands of hours of political waffle and civil service bollocks) to issue a 'directive' and the member state it applies to follows it.

 

Or else.

 

I'd hazard a guess there's quite a few of those we didn't agree to either.

Its just a massive clutter of "unfathomables" and as that mirror article shows even senior politicians and government officials don't know what's going on. Don't expect one person to know everything but its just a huge network of non jobs swallowing nations' cash.

I agree on the EU being bureaucratic and all wishy washy but I see no reason that this will change when power is handed to our politicians.

 

No one in government inspires me whatsoever. I hope things change

I agree on the EU being bureaucratic and all wishy washy but I see no reason that this will change when power is handed to our politicians.

No one in government inspires me whatsoever. I hope things change

Just an extra layer we don't need.

I see we are ignoring their wishy washy air pollution laws.

I see we are ignoring their wishy washy air pollution laws.

We can adopt whatever standards we want can't we; European or other. Don't think our problem is unique

 

Just been two items on the news about all this pollution business. I'd like to see the government invest in cleaner technologies, get ourselves in a prominent position in the world. China is doing so in recognition of their massive problems

We've adopted the standards we want, none.

We've adopted the standards we want, none.

Very good.

We were never going to meet these targets if there's a chance of it harming the economy. Our population density makes it more difficult.

Yesterday there was a revelation that traffic pollution may contribute towards dementia; as more and more of these studies reveal potential long term issues then it makes meeting targets with investment now more plausible economically; long term savings etc.

terrorist attack gone down in Canada at a mosque in Quebec

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/americas/quebec-mosque-shooting/

Sad stuff. Some sick fuckers in this world.

terrorist attack gone down in Canada at a mosque in Quebec

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/americas/quebec-mosque-shooting/

 

'The attack, which took place at the city's Quebec Islamic Cultural Center, is being investigated as an act of terrorism by police.'

 

So the police did it?   apologies . . .

 

I really wish they'd call these things mass murders rather than terrorism - which is what most of them are.  Terrorism implies some kind of political idea or aim.  Most 'terrorist' acts are just acts of pure murderous hatred that may use race/religion as an excuse.

 

The IRA were terrorists (by UK definition/perspective anyway); I don't see how opening fire on a room full of innocent people can be called terrorism?  Are serial killers who kill prostitutes called terrorists or these loons that open fire inside their own school? 

Edited January 30, 20179 yr by madthatter

terrorist attack gone down in Canada at a mosque in Quebec

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/americas/quebec-mosque-shooting/

 

I'm surprised that we haven't seen more of this sort of behaviour to be honest

terrorist attack gone down in Canada at a mosque in Quebec

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/americas/quebec-mosque-shooting/

 

 

Murderous madness but, in the light of the monumental catalogue of atrocities committed by extreme Islam, no doubt the #illridewithyou brigade will make sure that this is elevated to no. 1 in the atrocity hit parade.

'The attack, which took place at the city's Quebec Islamic Cultural Center, is being investigated as an act of terrorism by police.'

 

So the police did it?   apologies . . .

 

I really wish they'd call these things mass murders rather than terrorism - which is what most of them are.  Terrorism implies some kind of political idea or aim.  Most 'terrorist' acts are just acts of pure murderous hatred that may use race/religion as an excuse.

 

The IRA were terrorists (by UK definition/perspective anyway); I don't see how opening fire on a room full of innocent people can be called terrorism?  Are serial killers who kill prostitutes called terrorists or these loons that open fire inside their own school? 

 

 

you seem to understand the nuance, but in light of the shit going down with isis, and the ban on muslims in the us, this is probably seen as an act of intimidation towards muslims, it's certainly seems less random and more political than your everyday american shooting - it's all about the message being sent, it's why folk like Anders Brevik is considered a terrorist and Raol Moat isn't

Murderous madness but, in the light of the monumental catalogue of atrocities committed by extreme Islam, no doubt the #illridewithyou brigade will make sure that this is elevated to no. 1 in the atrocity hit parade.

Why rate them. This was shit as was the Berlin attack.

you seem to understand the nuance, but in light of the shit going down with isis, and the ban on muslims in the us, this is probably seen as an act of intimidation towards muslims, it's certainly seems less random and more political than your everyday american shooting - it's all about the message being sent, it's why folk like Anders Brevik is considered a terrorist and Raol Moat isn't

 

Fair point and yes I get the nuance but it's been going on for a long time.  I'm not sure it sends out the right message to the populace at large describing every act like this as terrorist (or possibly) without knowing the full facts. 

 

Which is one of many reasons, imo, that we are at the point where we are.

Fair point and yes I get the nuance but it's been going on for a long time.  I'm not sure it sends out the right message to the populace at large describing every act like this as terrorist (or possibly) without knowing the full facts. 

 

Which is one of many reasons, imo, that we are at the point where we are.

 

I think it would send out the wrong message to try and label it as just mass murder, in this instance

 

tbh, can't think of anything recent or otherwise that might have been incorrectly "labelled" as being a terrorist act when it wasn't

 

end of the day, they are all murder, but it's the motives that defines how they are viewed

 

if it turns out the people who did it did so just for a laugh, fair enough, call it something else