Just a quick point, we can and do use arbitration in civil law on a fairly regular basis. It is part of civil law that you can choose to use a court of arbitration to solve as dispute if both parties agree. ACAS is an example of this.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (April Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Just a quick point, we can and do use arbitration in civil law on a fairly regular basis. It is part of civil law that you can choose to use a court of arbitration to solve as dispute if both parties agree. ACAS is an example of this.
Absolutely, parties can mutually choose to go to arbitration or binding arbitration. But this is not the back stop for our law; for that we rely on the gold standard of the court system. The TTP, and various other trade deals, place arbitration above the court system and allow companies to press commercial interests against public or governmental interests through opaque arbitration.
Last edited:
Give me a good English king or even an average one, over EU or Cameron any day
Trouble is, sooner or later, the good king gets replaced by someone else, and then that one gets replaced, and so on. Sooner or later, one of the kings in this progression will turn out to be a complete git or incompetent.
What do you mean, 'nobody elected'? We have elections to the European Parliament every 5 years, and even the non-elected members of the European Council, Council of the European Union and other legislative bodies are appointed by either democratic national governments or by the European Parliament.
I honestly think that when people complain about 'unelected bureaucrats' in the European context what they are actually saying is that they don't understand, and can't be bothered to educate themselves, on just how the EU actually works.
Last edited:
Only the examples from other ISDS clauses which have been used to prevent public health measures such as restrictions on pesticides. Since TTIP has not been agreed or finalised there is no final document that can be pointed to. With the TTP the Tobacco industry was specifically exempted because of concerns about how they would use ISDS to fight public health measures but this is fighting yesterday's dragons; we need to ensure that TTIP does not ever allow a multi-national corporation to use their financial muscle to defeat public health measures.
ISDS is not a new evil invented for TTIP; it's an evil that is present NAFTA, TTP and others. It represents the elevation of corporate interests over national ones and that needs to be opposed. There is no good reason to elevate these corporate interests to their own dispute resolution system rather than insisting they fight their corner through our common systems of justice.
Of course, if both parties are happy with arbitration in a particular case then it is a useful system but ISDS elevates it universally and in manner which is not in the public interest.
Indeed. Laws in the UK are made by unelected bureaucrats in the UK to the same degree as they are in the EU. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise: you need to employ people of skill and knowledge to prepare, draft and scrutinise laws in much greater number than it is possible, or sensible, to elect. Democratic accountability comes through a small number of guiding individuals who direct the bureaucracy.
I "need" to show you a concrete example? I've already given you 55 examples, and a bunch of other evidence as to how we have no influence further back in this thread. If you're so convinced we have influence then why don't you prove it? I asked that a while ago and never got a good answer. People can see examples of us being ignored by the EU everywhere; our significantly weakened, non-legally binding "deal" we only got as we're close to leaving, excessive red tape that even the Government acknowledges is a problem and costs us £30bn+ a year etc. Where was our "influence" in all of this?
Other than spouting fear and comparing anyone who votes Leave to a trump supporter (I stopped taking you seriously around then) you've not made a single convincing argument.
Again, you're conflating the argument, why group the EU and EFTA together? The whole point is about whether we'd be better off in EFTA/EEA rather than the EU.
And why are you only looking at a two year time frame? We're voting in the referendum based on a 40+ year time frame so a longer view is needed. Let's look at UK Services export growth since 2004 (using the very link you posted):
UK Services Export Growth 2004 - 2014
EFTA average - 162% (Switzerland is 191%)
China - 130%
India - 99%
Americas average - 90%
Australia - 87%
Africa - 88%
EU Average - 75%
So the EU accounts for c.30% of all our services exports, and has grown more slowly than all of the above in the last 10 years, none of whom we can do services deals with that are in our best interests.
Many of them understand the process, what they don't understand is how a True Brit's position/vote can be equally important to that of a Eastern European. That's what's really bothering them, not the sovereignty bs.
I disagree, the Norway option is certainly an appealing alternative to full EU membership. The countries who have taken this option seem to agree with this too.
That's very appealing. Being able to get our own trade agreements could be very powerful. There is a significant saving on membership and we do not need to take on as many laws.
Sounds like you're the one suffering from delusions.
Nothing Delusional about it my friend. The Nazis won the second world war - it just took them an extra 70 years to do it.
Because the alternative is not pretty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTnNKhF-EU
If you're going to disagree, please don't invoke the holy nathan fillion.
Theresa May has blasted Remain campaign scaremongering as “nonsense“, admitting “of course” Britain could cope outside the EU:
“I want to deal with several arguments that should not count. The first is that in the 21st century Britain is too small a country to cope outside the European Union. That’s nonsense. We’re the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re growing faster than any economy in the G7, we attract nearly a fifth of all foreign investment in the EU, we have a military capable of projecting its power around the world, intelligence services that are second to none, and friendships and alliances that go far beyond Europe. We have the greatest soft power in the world, we sit in exactly the right timezone for global trade and our language is the world’s language. Of course Britain could cope outside the European Union.”
And here is the killer line on what remaining in the EU means for immigration:
“Free movement rules mean it’s harder to control the volume of European immigration, and that is clearly no good thing.”
“I want to deal with several arguments that should not count. The first is that in the 21st century Britain is too small a country to cope outside the European Union. That’s nonsense. We’re the fifth biggest economy in the world, we’re growing faster than any economy in the G7, we attract nearly a fifth of all foreign investment in the EU, we have a military capable of projecting its power around the world, intelligence services that are second to none, and friendships and alliances that go far beyond Europe. We have the greatest soft power in the world, we sit in exactly the right timezone for global trade and our language is the world’s language. Of course Britain could cope outside the European Union.”
And here is the killer line on what remaining in the EU means for immigration:
“Free movement rules mean it’s harder to control the volume of European immigration, and that is clearly no good thing.”
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
If anything I'd say it was delusions of socialism.
I linked to a report that shows Britain is one of the most important countries during the EU negotiation process. You showed me Britain wins 86% of the votes and yet you still claim it lacks influence. The second most powerful country in the block not having influence is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.
Oh and you mentioned the number 55 but you failed to mention exactly which laws we are discussing. Is this because, unlike the S&Y report, you can't find them on the first Google hits page?
The EFTA countries have to accept what the EU decides. The Swiss voted to end free movement in 2014 yet they gave Croatians free movement 3 weeks ago. You want Britain in a similar position?
You said China and India are the fastest growing markets for our services. You were talking in the present and you were wrong. They are not the fastest, not even close as China is actually contracting. I advised you to check the ONS before answering, now you're trying to weasel your way out of the initial claim.
Yes, historically speaking, the services exports to those countries grew faster but considering they have had double digit economic growth, that's normal. Those markets are still incredibly tiny compared to the EU, despite having much larger populations. A loss of services exports after Brexit will not be recovered from those small markets.
- Status