So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

19 minutes ago, The Lurker said:

You've just described national government, local government and every professional body in existence; we always have and always will be governed by 'superior' authorities which leads to the only possible conclusion that your objection to the EU is due to the presence of Johnny Foreigner within the legislature. 

I have no objection to the EU directing my life as I quite like having human rights, cleaner air and limitations on the hours I can be made to work; all three of which I have severe concerns for if the current shower in government maintain control post brexit.

The question is neither spurious nor disingenuous; and I have yet to hear anyone provide an example of a law that the UK has been forced to enact that they really want to see repealed. taking back control of our laws was one of the cornerstones of the leave argument but no one can provide me of an example of an actual piece of legislation that they want to be rid of. 

If you still refuse to name me a law then how about this; you state that the EU controls 'your freedom to act independently'. 

how has your freedom to act independently suffered? what can't you do now that you look forward to doing come brexit? 

You are asking the same question once again, and that is because you don't understand self-determination. Nobody was ever asked if they wanted to be governed by a foreign legislature with all of the hostage to fortune that sets up for the future. The fact that you think you have no human rights without the EU tells us everything we need to know.

[Bobbie Bobster]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

The fact that you think you have no human rights without the EU tells us everything we need to know.

Yeah, tells me don't trust Boris.

[The Lurker]

12 minutes ago, quilp said:

The extent to which the UK has freedom to act independently can only be revealed as time passes. 

So, we'll have less human rights whilst breathing dirtier air and forced to work all the hours god sends without the guiding hands of grey men in greyer suits issuing directives for their greater good.

Aren't you jumping the gun a tad here?

 

Have you seen the current cabinet? 

[woolley]

1 minute ago, The Lurker said:

Have you seen the current cabinet? 

They can be removed. We are on a slippery slope to pan-continental "ever closer union".

[The Lurker]

9 minutes ago, woolley said:

You are asking the same question once again, and that is because you don't understand self-determination. Nobody was ever asked if they wanted to be governed by a foreign legislature with all of the hostage to fortune that sets up for the future. The fact that you think you have no human rights without the EU tells us everything we need to know.

You're straying into Woody2 territory there with that abstruse response.

I'm asking the same question again because you're refusing to answer it; probably because you can't but I really do want to understand why you dislike the EU so much and in case you didn't read my post thoroughly and just went full-gammon after the first sentence I did actually ask a different question as you're struggling so much with naming laws you don't like.   

Instead you patronisingly waffle about not understanding self-determination; I understand it; I also understand that I feel no more control over my governance with a bunch of over privileged morons in charge than a group of Europeans running the show. 

I just don't understand why it's so important to you; I really don't understand what the EU has forced on the UK that makes people want to leave and lose the benefits of membership. 

The fact that you think you have no human rights without the EU tells us everything we need to know.

What does it tell 'us'? 

[The Lurker]

10 minutes ago, woolley said:

They can be removed. We are on a slippery slope to pan-continental "ever closer union".

Are we really?

Do you understand the irony of dismissing people's genuine fears over brexit as 'project fear' and then scaremongering about a federated Europe?

Do you believe the guff about the Eu army too?

[Freggyragh]

The problem with any trade agreement, even one that does not require membership of a trading bloc is that it will nearly always require the U.K. to legislate in accordance with the agreement. If the U.K. were to be in the situation of having to accept an FTA with the US then there would be an avalanche of legislation to rush through on everything from privatising medicine to lowering food standards. We have some idea of how a US trade deal would impact on sovereignty, and that’s why we’d like to know what particular bits of EU derived legislation (or, even just one bit) it is that you don’t like and think brexit would allow the U.K. to change.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Aren't you jumping the gun a tad here?

It's a view but why would anyone risk rights they currently have?  

One answer might be that some have got so used to them that they believe they are cast in stone.

 

[The Lurker]

7 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

The problem with any trade agreement, even one that does not require membership of a trading bloc is that it will nearly always require the U.K. to legislate in accordance with the agreement. If the U.K. were to be in the situation of having to accept an FTA with the US then there would be an avalanche of legislation to rush through on everything from privatising medicine to lowering food standards. We have some idea of how a US trade deal would impact on sovereignty, and that’s why we’d like to know what particular bits of EU derived legislation (or, even just one bit) it is that you don’t like and think brexit would allow the U.K. to change.

Sums things up more eloquently than my efforts.

No modern nation can survive in isolation, ultimately the brexit question comes down to who you'd rather jump into bed with? I'd prefer to be an equal or possibly even a senior partner in Europe than a very junior partner in a trans-Atlantic trade alliance. 

[ballaughbiker]

A lot of the bile on bookface and twatter is due to poor understanding of why and how directives come about. Some initially do seem ludicrous and over the top but on that ever so rare further investigation, are nearly always for the common good.

Entre nous , I was mildly pissed off when (eg) big watt incandescent lamps were stopped years ago and vacuum cleaner's power was limited. It would have been soooo easy to fall for Haw-Haw's clever mental picture of "being ordered about by a few old men" but I was wrong on both these example accounts. 

My son designs controls for (very) big electric motors for a global company and tells me than with just a little design effort, it is possible to get a much more efficient motor that uses less power than the type I initially wanted to continue to have the right to keep buying and what maniac would still buy 150W incandescent lamps (I won't stoop to jeer at an obvious candidate ) ?

Cherry picked examples with biased conclusions can always be found to justify a mad decision but in the vast majority of cases, EU directives on just about any topic are usually found to have sound basis that is for the general good of the majority.

Trouble is our current pm's earlier employment was writing a column for a now brexit supporting rag where he had to, on a daily basis, take the piss out of EU directives after he got the push for making up quotes from the previous rag.

Edited September 18, 2019 by ballaughbiker

[woolley]

1 hour ago, The Lurker said:

You're straying into Woody2 territory there with that abstruse response.

Hardly my fault that you do not understand the point I am making. It is clear and concise.

I'm asking the same question again because you're refusing to answer it; probably because you can't but I really do want to understand why you dislike the EU so much and in case you didn't read my post thoroughly and just went full-gammon after the first sentence I did actually ask a different question as you're struggling so much with naming laws you don't like.   

It is a question that cannot be answered because it is a step beyond where we are in the debate. How can I give you a list of EU laws I don't like when I do not accept the premise of an outside body legislating over a sovereign state in the first place? Asking how my independence of action has been affected is confusing the analogy, rendering your question meaningless.

Instead you patronisingly waffle about not understanding self-determination; I understand it; I also understand that I feel no more control over my governance with a bunch of over privileged morons in charge than a group of Europeans running the show. 

OK, so accept you understand it. In that case, like my good friend PK, you place no value on it which is far worse. You are effectively saying that we are incapable of clearing our our stable so let's have a foreign elite clique running the show instead. Perhaps you like the current clique, although they seem quite an unsavoury bunch. Future cliques? Maybe not so much? This is not just about Britain incidentally. I see the EU as just as dangerous to all of the European nations in which I spend a lot of time.

 

 

[woolley]

35 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

The problem with any trade agreement, even one that does not require membership of a trading bloc is that it will nearly always require the U.K. to legislate in accordance with the agreement. If the U.K. were to be in the situation of having to accept an FTA with the US then there would be an avalanche of legislation to rush through on everything from privatising medicine to lowering food standards. We have some idea of how a US trade deal would impact on sovereignty, and that’s why we’d like to know what particular bits of EU derived legislation (or, even just one bit) it is that you don’t like and think brexit would allow the U.K. to change.

You know very well that the EU is far more than a trading bloc.  Many quantum leaps there too, just to appear provocative. There is no chance that privatising medicine will form part of a trade deal with anyone. Whatever is accepted will be a negotiation nation to nation. It will not be arranged over anyone's head and then handed down as a fait accompli.

[woolley]

31 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

It's a view but why would anyone risk rights they currently have?  

One answer might be that some have got so used to them that they believe they are cast in stone.

 

I would make exactly the same observation about the dangers of the EU for the nations of the continent of Europe.

[woolley]

32 minutes ago, The Lurker said:

Sums things up more eloquently than my efforts.

No modern nation can survive in isolation, ultimately the brexit question comes down to who you'd rather jump into bed with? I'd prefer to be an equal or possibly even a senior partner in Europe than a very junior partner in a trans-Atlantic trade alliance. 

5th largest economy in the world. Others far smaller seem to do pretty well.

[ballaughbiker]

 

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

I would make exactly the same observation about the dangers of the EU for the nations of the continent of Europe.

Examples?