Which is why it should never have been put in the hands of Joe public the majority of whom are misinformed.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
Which is why it should never have been put in the hands of Joe public the majority of whom are misinformed.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
This.
They can claim any tax increases will be blocked but if they are necessary then they won't be blocked.
So when it suits the remain campaign we get special treatment like opt outs, not being part of ever closer union etc? But equally they tell us the EU will not negotiate on free movement as it's not fair. Seems double standards to me. Either we can negotiate or we can't.
The remain camp are just discrediting themselves.
I agree with you that Treaty change will happen - but all that means in reality is (as history has shown) further, faster and deeper integration. Something most Europeans don't want.
Ah ok, thank you. How do they distinguish between the two and who decides that?
I think you have it the wrong way round? There is generally discretion as to how directives are implemented within a certain time period. Regulations are binding once passed.
But you're comparing 'special treatment' and 'opt-outs' (which are benefits of being IN) against a condition of free movement which is a result of being OUT
Actually, I think it's something a lot of Europeans (including those voting to remain) DO want.
http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm has a nice summary of the EU side of law making. As has been pointed out the Parliament and Council do not propose legislation, but both can amend proposals and both can prevent legislation from passing. Parliament is made up of the MEPs we elect directly, the Council is the heads of state or government of the member countries, so again elected.
Good article from Business Insider who are leaning toward supporting Brexit.
Interesting analysis of the single market too.
Interesting analysis of the single market too.
The thing is, which part of the economy is predicted to shrink.
It is perfectly possible to envisage a smaller economy that actually leaves most people better off.
EG, lets say hypothetically that, say, financial services take a real hit, but manufacturing grows. Top earners would have it bad (But still be better off than everybody else) Everybody else could well be better off than before, despite the overall GDP being lower.
And in the longer term, growth might well be more solid and spread more evenly and fairly across the population.
I would regard that as a result!
Directives also contain a minimum set of regulations that must be implemented by member states. States are free to expand upon them though.
For example, the Tobacco Products Directive that was recently transposed in the member states' law regulates e-cigarettes and vaping products. Some of the minimum requirements:
Tanks can't be bigger than 2ml (thanks, now I have to fill my device several times a day)
Advertising banned (So existing smokers can't find out about them and maybe not die from smoking)
All products must submit a pre-market report to legislators detailing the device, liquid and it's specs before going on the market and pay a fee - not too expensive in the UK but some states have placed crippling fees on this (To make it harder for small companies to compete with tobacco and pharmaceutical companies)
Liquid for e-cigarettes cannot be of strength greater than 20mg/ml (so that new vapers who are trying to switch from smoking cannot get enough nicotine)
Refill bottles can only be sold in bottles of 10ml (great for reducing plastic waste that is....)
Ban on sales to under 18s (good)
Mandatory leak-free refilling method (not actually specified how this is supposed to work)
The UK has done a light-tough implementation of it, only sticking to the minimums requested by the EU. Other countries have gone much further by doing things such as banning cross-border sales etc.
There are also provisions within the TPD that say that if 3 member states choose to ban e-cigarettes outright, then all member states will be obliged to follow suit.
So, directives are sort of a minimum set of rules that are mandatory for EU member states but the actual legislation is enacted at a local level.
For example, the Tobacco Products Directive that was recently transposed in the member states' law regulates e-cigarettes and vaping products. Some of the minimum requirements:
Tanks can't be bigger than 2ml (thanks, now I have to fill my device several times a day)
Advertising banned (So existing smokers can't find out about them and maybe not die from smoking)
All products must submit a pre-market report to legislators detailing the device, liquid and it's specs before going on the market and pay a fee - not too expensive in the UK but some states have placed crippling fees on this (To make it harder for small companies to compete with tobacco and pharmaceutical companies)
Liquid for e-cigarettes cannot be of strength greater than 20mg/ml (so that new vapers who are trying to switch from smoking cannot get enough nicotine)
Refill bottles can only be sold in bottles of 10ml (great for reducing plastic waste that is....)
Ban on sales to under 18s (good)
Mandatory leak-free refilling method (not actually specified how this is supposed to work)
The UK has done a light-tough implementation of it, only sticking to the minimums requested by the EU. Other countries have gone much further by doing things such as banning cross-border sales etc.
There are also provisions within the TPD that say that if 3 member states choose to ban e-cigarettes outright, then all member states will be obliged to follow suit.
So, directives are sort of a minimum set of rules that are mandatory for EU member states but the actual legislation is enacted at a local level.
Interesting that you've chosen to highlight the negatives of most of those points rather than potential reasons for their existence. There are negatives to them but they haven't just been pulled out of thin air.
Agreed, just another week of it, and this week could be the worst week for it.
Still, all this arguing and ******** will be over.
David Cameron's visiting Gibraltar today. Lets see what he has to say for himself. Locally its going to be an overwhelmingly "remain" vote, but I guess the main thing we'd like to hear is what assurances/actions will be taken if our neighbours use a brexit result in the way the Spanish Government's rhetoric is already suggesting.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,734
- Location
- Auckland
One issue is that the side-taking and smack-talking prior to the vote is only half of the problem, maybe even less than half. The real issues come once the votes have been counted and decisions made because one way or the other you're going to have a lot of very, very unhappy people.
[FnG]magnolia;29633912 said:
^This. It'll be like the Scottish referendum all over again and people won't let it go because they've become so invested in their desired outcome.
I'll admit I'm more fired up over this than I've ever been about anything political before even though in reality, things are unlikely to change much for me either way.
- Status