Camicus
New member
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...wQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHHt7Nr5pwA86U5vb49vzoWt8xwEQ other than that eu constitution. been in place since 2004. We as British subjects don't
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
EU to charge Britain more money due to success of economy....
- Thread starter larus
- Start date
Really??
"Most EU regulations or orders do not need our Parliament to pass an Act. The form of law where EU influence shows more is in regulations produced by individual departmental Ministers, which tend to look in more detail at a subject area.
The estimates consist of regulations called Statutory Instruments which are made as part of the European Communities Act – which authorises the Government to implement EU law by Acts or forms of regulations – as well as regulations of the same type which relate to the EU."
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_law-29587
"EU Business Regulation
A
Business for Britain Briefing Note
When discussing the European Union (EU) with UK business owners, it doesn’t take long for
the i
nevitable bugbear of Brussels
“red tape”
to be mentioned
.
Surveys conducted by
business groups like the Institute of Directors (IoD),
and even the more
EU
-friendly CBI,
find
that their members are concerned by the volume of regulation produced the EU
.
According to a 2010 House of Commons Research Paper (10/62)
: “The
British government
estimates that around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates
from EU legislation”
and Open Europe estimates that EU regulation introduced since 1998 will
cost the UK £184 billion between 2010 and 2020. In practice very few bosses ever have time
to read even a fraction of the laws passed by Brussels that impact upon their business; a job
they leave instead to lawyers, lobbyists and compliance teams who, accordingly, put up
administrative costs. However, it is worth looking at the amount of business regulation that
has come into effect as a means of highlighting the gross excess of EU detail that British
businesses are contending with on a day to day basis
In this Parliament alone,
a total of 3,580 regulations and directives have been passed by
the EU
that affect British businesses.
The total word count of all 3,580 regulations is
over 13 million words
(13,3
21
,
530
words).
It would take a UK business person, working an average 40 hours a week and reading at
the average reading speed of 300 words per minute,
92
days to read all the EU red-tape
enacted since the current government came to power.
The EU has a number of institutions, such as the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament. Acting together or separately, these institutions pass laws (such as regulations, directives or decisions), which may take effect automatically in the UK’s legal systems or require the UK to pass national legislation to give effect to the EU laws. The UK may also be affected by the treaties themselves, which may restrict what the UK can do, for example, restricting the UK’s power to limit imports from other Member States.
The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets the treaties and the laws which the EU passes and decides if Member States have abided by them.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
You could not be more wrong.
EU Regulations go straight to the member state's statute book without any requirement to be approved by the members state's democratically elected representatives. As it states on the Commissions own website.
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_regulation_en.htm
Currently, aspects of the EU's Capital Requirements Regulations are being opposed by the UK Govt in relation to the restrictions they set on bankers pay, and regardless of whether you think its a good thing that theses restrictions are being imposed, it's an example of how law has been drafted and imposed on the UK by foreigners without any direct democratic mandate by the UK electorate.
It is a fact of life these days that anyone who opposes conventional orthodoxies, such as the EU is a good thing, are labelled as the irrational loonies yet as this example proves, it is those who are blindly obedient to the dogma who are actually the real fruits of the forest.
The Spanish
Well-known member
why cant you have it both ways?
brighton fella
New member
- Mar 20, 2009
- 1,645
so what you are basically saying then is there is no need for us to negotiate deals with the EU on migration because Westminster makes all the decisions. that is not true and you know it.
FREDBINNEY
Banned
- Dec 11, 2009
- 317
Absolute bollocks , its always been a " soft" border.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
But it wasn't always a borderless gateway to Europe via the Shengen (sp) agreement.
FREDBINNEY
Banned
- Dec 11, 2009
- 317
You might have a point if Ireland was in the schengen area, but it isn't.
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
Well Westminster ratifies an EU law. Each can be challenged and the UK has the least amount of challenges in the EU. Also up until last year as almost everyone knows, most immigrants to the uk, legal and illegal came from outside the EU and still around 45% do. So Westminster have had years and years to curb the flow if it had wanted to. It hasn't. Immigration only becomes an issue when a new member state enters and suddenly Farage et al start the scaremongering. Yet no one mentions the influx from the Middle East, Asia, Africa or the Indian sub continent, of which we see huge migration to the uk all the time. Before anyone else says 'yes but it's the French that let them get to the UK', would this stop if we left the EU? Of course not. Westminster hasn't ever got its sh*t together on this. Yet all the ukips bang on about are our own laws etc and we seem incapable of doing a better job at Westminster than the Euro Parliment.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
hmm another one. nothing the EU passes on has to be ratified as its submarined under the powers given away in the various EU treaties, themselves often not ratified or passed on a different pretext. i wonder how many pro-europeans really understand the loss of power and soveriegnty from membership, and if they did, would they still be in favor. it isnt about immigration at all really, thats just a recent focal point to pick up popular support.
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
Aaaah. I'd always assumed they were good Europeans.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
You misunderstand me. Taxes on money laundered are already in the Exchequer records - marked as clean money. If you record the same transaction twice for the same event as you would if you include money laundering as part of the black economy and as part of the clean economy then it would be double-counting. I'm not talking about what happens with the money further on down the line or even prior to that.
And to back up my point further I did some checking and the ONS does NOT include money laundering as part of its black economy calculations, only drugs and prostitution:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...-prostitution-in-the-uk-national-accounts.pdf
I've read the background to why they include these items and it's to get a better idea of turnover of UK plc of which money laundering is already in the records. I hope you can now see that even though the turnover of UK/Greece/Italy/Holland will undoubtedly increase by including estimates of drugs and prostitution, the countries don't see any of the income tax on that money. Only sales tax that is, as I've explained cost-neutral because it would have been paid anyway whether by drug user or drug dealer.
Under the EU treaties our parliament has no choice but to do so. It's smoke and mirrors to give the EU a hint of respectability and democracy.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
Exactly, and what's more do they understand that the EU got many of these executive powers in the Lisbon Treaty, which was a repackaged version of the treaty rejected in referenda in Holland and France.
The same treaty Labour promised they would also put to the electorate in their 2005 Manifesto.
But they didn't because ex EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson referred to the Lisbon Treaty as a "tidying up exercise".
Quite.......
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Nailed it.
Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!
Primary data is fact
I don't believe that's so; the implementation of an EU directive is the responsibility of the national authorities (ie governments) of the EU member states. The UK Parliament could vote down a government proposal for implementation if it so wished, even though the directive itself will have already been approved by the UK government (via the Council of Ministers) and the European Parliament.
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
I think the UK would go for a far looser relationship with Brussels allowing repatriation of law making and immigration control but that ain't ever gonna happen is it.
We would cause a massive earthquake if we were to exit...but, until that looks very likely, we won't get anything from the commission.
Witness the tragic surrender by Dave and the others when SNP took a two point lead in the Scottish referendum. The EU fought tooth and nail to kep hold of Greece and Portugal who are, and have always been, net costs to the community. The UK, as one of the largest net payers, are far more important.
We'll have to be a lot further out of the door to get anything like what we would like.
We would cause a massive earthquake if we were to exit...but, until that looks very likely, we won't get anything from the commission.
Witness the tragic surrender by Dave and the others when SNP took a two point lead in the Scottish referendum. The EU fought tooth and nail to kep hold of Greece and Portugal who are, and have always been, net costs to the community. The UK, as one of the largest net payers, are far more important.
We'll have to be a lot further out of the door to get anything like what we would like.
Camicus
New member
Once more you blame immigration. Why does no one get its not eu migration that is the problem
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Who are you referring to? Between your penultimate post and this one, no-one's blamed immigration as far as I can see. And one eurosceptic has written:
And 2 other euro-sceptics (myself included) agreed with him.