The lobby-sensitive commission has a bizarre record on tobacco: [url= http://www.euractiv.com/section/science-policymaking/news/commission-in-breach-of-un-tobacco-lobbying-rules-says-eu-ombudsman/ ]Commission and tobacco lobbyiists[/url]
Not surprising then that the Commission wants to ban e-cigarettes even though the European parliament recognises that they are far less dangerous than cigarettes and may heop people to give up smoking.
[url= http://vaperanks.com/eu-commission-trying-to-ban-electronic-cigarettes-according-to-leaked-document/ ]The European commission want to overturn a European parliament vote in favour of e-cigarettes[/url]
And yet if the UK were not in the EU the British government could protect British farmers from low international prices just as Switzerland protects its farmers.
Ermmm I think that idealogically they are tied to the globalism/free-trade concept which would effectively screw UK farmers.
You are envisaging a world where Britain would impose tariffs on internationally low-priced commodities, let's examine an example shall we?
How about steel production?
This concept of protectionism is really working out with the full support of the UK gov't
Getting back to the OP - Yes - for me the EU is about way more that purely national economic interests. It is about remaing part of a greater europe, without further heading towards a federal model. Embracing and enjoying our neighbours and working together. This may seem naive, and it will always be frustrating.
Surely these 'trade deals' brexiters are always on about are the opposite of protectionist import tariffs?
If we leave the following will happen -
1. The rich will get richer
2. The poor will get poorer
3. The middle (class) will believe what ever they are told.
To be fair, that's already happening and isn't showing any sign of reversing....
You are envisaging a world where Britain would impose tariffs on internationally low-priced commodities, let's examine an example shall we?
How about steel production?
This concept of protectionism is really working out with the full support of the UK gov't
Good read...
The lobby-sensitive commission
In your opinion is Boris Johnson more or less 'lobby sensitive' than the European Commission? We pretty much invented the lobbying industry. It used to be called the old-boys network and was based on public school and oxbridge attendance, the only that's changed is that it's been commercialised.
"they" = we. You vote for the British government. Did you vote for Leon Brittain to become vice president of the European Commission? I know I didn't vote for Edith Cresson because she was named by Chirac (IIRC).
The current French Commissioner is Pierre Moscovici who knew about and covered up Jérôme Cahuzac's tax fraud before being named commissioner by François hollande (even though Germany objected) and is now Europe's tax commissioner. You really couldn't make it up: someone so corrupt that the French wouldn't vote for him anymore is named as a commissioner.
Ever heard of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hill,_Baron_Hill_of_Oareford ]Jonathon Hill?[/url], well he's Britain's commissioner. I don't suppose anyone of you voted for him but he is very much one of the non-elected elite who really run Britain.
Edukator that link on e -cigs is from an e-cigs website so I think you need to take it with a large dose of salt
All it seems to say - when you filter off the hyperbole is the commission want to treat 20 mg as a medicine and the parliament does not.
The leaked document drafted by the EU Commission is basically trying to sneak medical regulation by the back door, something that e-cigarette suppliers and users will not stand for - See more at:
Basically the e-cig industry don't want to be regulated. Not really a surprise that one.
I really believe that both the British and French public health authorities are more accountable to the public and more likely to act in our interests than the European commission
I think the more independent you are the more free from influence you are. How exactly do you sack a commissioner? Its like judges at arms lengths ensure "neutrality".
Its also true that the EU commissioners look at what helps the EU which may well not be what helps France or their cherry growers.
In your opinion is Boris Johnson more or less 'lobby sensitive' than the European Commission?
A depressingly valid point - we have to stick with the EU because our own shower of shite are even worse.
Basically the e-cig industry don't want to be regulated. Not really a surprise that one.
Pretty shocking that they're not given no one knows what it their products...
A depressingly valid point - we have to stick with the EU because our own shower of shite are even worse.
That's pretty much why I'll vote In.
Please have a look at the background of the EU Commissioners and their "achievements" whilst in power, Junkyard. They are most definitely not neutral.
Its like judges at arms lengths ensure "neutrality"
They are people with strong agenda of their own. Have a good read up on Jonathon Hill, does he in any way represent your views or interests?
You've misunderstood - France banned the pesticide which is first and foremost a problem fro French cherry growers who will lose most of their income. But the public won't be poisoned!
Did you vote for Leon Brittain to become vice president of the European Commission
But I did get to vote for my MEP, however the elected UK Gov't chooses the European Commissioner for the UK so much like any other ministerial post.
I didn't choose [s]Dolores Umbridge[/s] Nicky Morgan for Education Minister, nor Gove for Injustice or Jeremy "I'm a" *unt for Health for that matter
A depressingly valid point - we have to stick with the EU because our own shower of shite are even worse.
Absolutely.
Its also true that the EU commissioners look at what helps the EU which may well not be what helps France or their cherry growers.
Seems that the EU always looks at what helps big business rather than the little guy.
As for e-cigarettes [url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/refillable-electronic-cigarettes-face-eu-ban ]read the Guardian version if you prefer (though they appear to thik the parliament is more lobby sensitive than the Commission which is doubtful)[/url]
Why ban something the medical profession recognises as much less toxic that cigarettes but not ban cigarettes? Big tobacco wins again.
That article is from 2013
I know, that's when the debate was.
Seems that the [s]EU[/s] government always looks at what helps big business rather than the little guy.
FTFY
Did big tobacco win?
They are most definitely not neutral
So your argument is the industry that supplies these products is more Neutral than commissioners . I don't think many will agree.
Have a good read up on Jonathon Hill, does he in any way represent your views or interests?
Of course not he was picked by a Tory MP to represent the interests of the UK govt
However once appointed they must serve the interests of the EU not the UK.
Why ban something the medical profession recognises as much less toxic that cigarettes but not ban cigarettes? Big tobacco wins again
They are not banning them they are banning ones with a strength above 20 mg
DO you think the EU would approve fags now if they could?
Whilst one would assume they must be safer than fags the evidence is somewhat weak - mainly as it takes time to acquire it
Safer than fags is not exactly that high a bar to achieve and it is someway short of safe.
You're putting words in my mouth again, Junkyard, I didn't argue anything of the sort.
Defending Britain's financial sector is in the interests of the Uk or the EU ? I say the UK.
Perhaps the Commission should put exactly that question on fags to the EU parliament.
Do you really think the evidence that e-cigarettes are much safer is "weak"? I think it is strong, convincing even.
Safer than Bispenol A, safer than the pesticides the Commission approves? I really don't believe that the Commissions decision is based on how objectively safe e-cigarettes are when they are prepared to attack a country that bans Bisphenol A in food packaging. They are simply pandering to the cigarette lobby which we know has been spending a fortune on influencing EU commissioners to the point some have been dismissed.
To be fair, that's already happening and isn't showing any sign of reversing....
Which bus did you catch!?
If you repeat things enough times people do start to believe them!!
"Theresa May has suggested Brexit would potentially mean us withdrawing from both. "Human rights stuff that is.
And why is that bad?
Its the farcical elements of human rights that put so many people off.
I for one suspect that economically we may well be at least as well off staying in but the ridiculous impositions on our society make me want out. Each and every country should be able to make up its own mind on how its people live. If we want to stop, for example , prisoners voting then we should be able to do so.
Just on be example
And why is that bad?
Its the farcical elements of human rights that put so many people off.
Each and every country should be able to make up its own mind on how its people live. If we want to stop, for example , prisoners voting then we should be able to do so.
Like executing it's citizens, beating women etc.?
Sometimes people need to be held to account, such as the US would probably benefit from the ECHR
Russia and North Korea agree about the farcical nature of human rights...good for them for not being in the EU and being told how to govern their citizens....and yes I do know North Korea would geographically find it difficult to join!!!
ridiculous impositions on our society
please provide some examples...
[i]Sometimes people need to be held to account, such as the US would probably benefit from the ECHR [/i]
Yes...
http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/46907/us-police-fire-more-bullets-month-germans-use-year
but the ridiculous impositions on our society make me want out.
Really? I'd like to see some examples too, please.
Unless this is about how difficult it is to deport brown people who don't fit in?
brown people who don't fit in?
is that awkward teenagers returning from their summer hols in Shagaluf? 😆
I do know North Korea would geographically find it difficult to join!!!
If dear leader commanded the continents to move they would faithfully obey
Just spotted this thread. Aint the time to read 8 pages now.
Addressing the title. It appears quite straight forward to me.
Remainistas threaten economic apocalypse to frighten that the public into selecting economic wonderful at the price to accepting their political agenda.
"[i] To save your economic future, accept our political ideology[/i]"
Of course, theres no certainty of the UK economy being permanently diminished after brexit.
Nothing is a foregone conclusion.
As for not trusting the UK gov, I'd suggest EU parliament is worse.
Brussels recently admitting they've got it wrong.
Unfortunately, a vote to remain will only cement the UK into place, after which Brussels wont do anything useful for the UK.
The actions and behaviour coming out of Brussels pretty much forces the UK to leave, imo.
Any specifics?
Any examples from Solo or mattsccm?
If we want to stop, for example , prisoners voting then we should be able to do so.
What if we want to do this without trial or recourse to any redress at all?Is there literally no limit to our power to impose whatever the hell we like?
Essentially having leaders whose powers were limitless led us to Hitler. We cannot have another Hitler as there are courts that would overrule what they are trying to do.
I dont see this as a bad thing. There is an international check on the powers of our govt to abuse our rights.
I dont see it as bad thing
The certainty is that it will be in the short to medium termtheres no certainty of the UK economy being permanently diminished after brexit
We will recover - as we will from the great slump and bankers crash but the question is when.
[i] Junkyard - lazarus
We will recover - as we will from the great slump and bankers crash but the question is when.[/i]
This raises a curious point. We all know that in general, the future is a mystery to all. So I find it slightly strange the public ask what will the outcome be. Any answer is conjecture at best, scaremongering at worst.
If the UK remains, there's no incentive for Brussels to change. Indeed, Brussels might argue that the UK remaining is confirmation the EU is just fine as is, which it is not.
Back to the original Q. The remain side have identified their strongest card is fear over the economy and remain now seek to fight their cause in that particular field. The public should recognize this and keep an open mind to the full spectrum of potential changes we might enjoy once we are free of Brussels, in our current situation.
Leaving is separation, not divorce and I have little doubt London and Brussels can be "grown up" about brexit.
History, even very recent history, suggests otherwise.
Of course the onto facts are current and historical. Any future issues are merely conjecture/estimates.
The problem is that the Brexit boys can't cope with the current facts - or to be generous are unaware of them - so have to live in the world of distortion (immigration, cost etc) or fantasy (Gove's speech last week)
EU is broken. I can't see it changing. Dave went to Europe with what he wanted and didn't get it.
A 'in' vote will just see the Tories accelerate their plans as they have the people consensus as the people agreed with call me Dave.
When Greece gets handed even more money. It'll happen, what then? We close our eyes and pretend Greece isn't the catalyst to a shit storm?
Either be fully in Europe with the Euro as our currency or not at all. We must look ridiculous. We aren't fully in but we want all the benefits.
Out for ****s sake.
Leaving is separation, not divorce and I have little doubt London and Brussels can be "grown up" about brexit.
Or more likely, in a panic that the likes of Spain, Italy and the new Eastern European nations will also want to leave, causing a collapse of the entire EU, they will make an example of the UK to demonstrate the idiocy of leaving to other waverers.
When Greece gets handed even more money. It'll happen, what then?
What about it? We're not part of the Euro so have no direct exposure.
Either be fully in Europe with the Euro as our currency or not at all. We must look ridiculous. We aren't fully in but we want all the benefits.
Why? We currently do have all the benefit, without the dangers of the euro. I suspect other countries envy us rather than thinking we're ridiculous. Yet you want to throw that all away?
the future is a mystery to all. So I find it slightly strange the public ask what will the outcome be. Any answer is conjecture at best, scaremongering at worst.
The sun will rise tomorrow - is a prediction
Tomorrow there will be a socialist revolution in the Uk
Both of these are predictions and therefore carry equal weight.
keep an open mind to the full spectrum of potential changes we might enjoy once we are free of Brussels
If the brexit lot could agree and actual quantify what they want it would help them do this immeasurably
I get the point we wont end if we leave but it's undeniably true that in the short to medium term out of the EU is worse than the one in it.
Personally I think its fine to ignore this and want freedom or sovereignty or whatever but its not fine to pretend that it wont be worse,economically, initially.
as well as conjecture and at worst scaremongering you forgot the fantastically optimistic whilst railing against "predictions".Leaving is separation, not divorce and I have little doubt London and Brussels can be "grown up" about brexit.
Almost all your points were then just predictions of the future - its inevitable we have to do this so its pointless to moan about it. What e have to do is evaluate whether the prediction is useful, informed and realistic. there is precious little of that [ from both sides to be fair]
you are looking at the tory party today and thinking they have some sort of plan over Europe - they could not be more divided. I dont even know what "fear" you are trying to portray here tbhthe Tories accelerate their plans
There would be very little to stop a UK government amending things like working time regulations, human rights without the Europe court, which also acts as a higher court than our supreme court.
We have a tory government who clearly belive their job spec is to further enrichen themselves before performing the duty of public servants.
Do the maths.
I'm in.
Essentially having leaders whose powers were limitless led us to Hitler. We cannot have another Hitler as there are courts that would overrule what they are trying to do.
I dont see this as a bad thing. There is an international check on the powers of our govt to abuse our rights.
International ? what about your mate in North Korea, the on with the funny haircut !
The UK is not the only EU country that doesn't want or have the Euro.
