Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes. So are the EU regulations.

50 British MEPs getting smacked down by 500+ MEPs from the rest of the EU is not my idea of the British people getting a say in EU regulations!

YMMV.

Well you don't have to worry about that now, as we won't have those 50 MEPs anymore and we will still have to comply with many regulations and directives anyway with no say whatsoever.

It may also have helped if we hadn't elected quite so many UKIP MEPs, 24 in total, to represent us in Europe.
A party that can't even sustain a single MP was the majority representative in the EU. It a miracle we had as as good terms as we did.

Yes.

That's not what happens, though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


And today I read that there are over 12,000 bits of EU regulation in British law!!!!

12,000 Regulations!!! Holy horsegak!

Quite frankly, I'm glad to see the back of this bureaucratic montrosity.

So what? Is that a lot? Is it relatively little? If this is the best reasoning you can come up with, you're in for a tough time ahead indeed.

Probably because back in the 1970s, the UK was sold the dream that the EEC was a loose trading alliance. Since then, it has morphed

Nice bit of revisionism. The UK knew exactly what it was to become.

Precisely because of that the UK founded and sponsored the EFTA whose goal was free trade and free trade only.

When that didn't work, it joined the then EEC and we know how well that has turned out.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes. So are the EU regulations.

50 British MEPs getting smacked down by 500+ MEPs from the rest of the EU is not my idea of the British people getting a say in EU regulations!

YMMV.

If there is a single issue where UK interests are opposite to those of all other 27 members sure. Most of the time though the lines are drawn across ideology, not countries (liberal, conservative, socialist, etc).

Blame the UK MEPs for not being able to forge alliances, compromises or make their voice heard. You know, what they're supposed they're paid to do.

http://camdennewjournal.com/article/exclusive-popular-kentish-town-figure-held-at-detention-centre-awaiting-deportation

makes you proud eh ?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes.

That's not what happens, though.

We're you answering me?

If so, I'm not sure I follow.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


When it comes to pen pushing and red tape, Brussels makes the Federal government in Washington look like a bunch of amateurs.

Citation needed. I pointed out that you were railing against the number of regulations without providing any sort of context to your claim and you proceed to continue doing the same. That doesn't make for a very good argument.

Apparently google are so good at tax avoidance in the UK, we've ended up owing them money!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Apparently google are so good at tax avoidance in the UK, we've ended up owing them money!

Jesus wept.

I don't want to use google anymore. What's another good search engine?

Duckduckgo is increasing in popularity.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Apparently google are so good at tax avoidance in the UK, we've ended up owing them money!

Jesus wept.

I don't want to use google anymore. What's another good search engine?

I use sites that parasite off Google like Duckduckgo and Start page
and do senseless stuff with Google but
need to use more Good Gopher and Yandex..

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes.

That's not what happens, though.

We're you answering me?

If so, I'm not sure I follow.

I was answering DINLT's claim about the way politics works in the EU.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


When it comes to pen pushing and red tape, Brussels makes the Federal government in Washington look like a bunch of amateurs.

Citation needed. I pointed out that you were railing against the number of regulations without providing any sort of context to your claim and you proceed to continue doing the same. That doesn't make for a very good argument.

Citation? Common knowledge and logic tells me that the EU is a bureaucratic monster that is spinning out of control.

It started off with what? 7 members. Now it's 27.

More MEPs for each country. Staff to help those MEPs. More and bigger buildings to house them. Those buildings will need cleaners, janitors and security staff as well as restaurent staff etc etc

A civil service and commision to do all the paper work. Then you have another parliament in Strasbourg = more staff.

If there are 10,000 EU regulations in British law, then the same goes for every EU member. Somebody has to check that those regulations are obeyed = more pen pushers.

And because Britain wasn't in the Euro or Schengen, then those other nations would need more staff in Brussels to handle that.

Plus Juncker and Tusk will need their staff and hangers on etc etc etc

So, it's clear for all to see that the mission creep goes on and on, and if new members join, or the EU army takes shape, the EU bureaucracy will keep growing...

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

It was true in Ancient Rome, it is true in the EU...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes.

That's not what happens, though.

We're you answering me?

If so, I'm not sure I follow.

I was answering DINLT's claim about the way politics works in the EU.

It's all academic now as far as Britain is concerned.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


When it comes to pen pushing and red tape, Brussels makes the Federal government in Washington look like a bunch of amateurs.

Citation needed. I pointed out that you were railing against the number of regulations without providing any sort of context to your claim and you proceed to continue doing the same. That doesn't make for a very good argument.

Citation? Common knowledge and logic tells me that the EU is a bureaucratic monster that is spinning out of control.

It started off with what? 7 members. Now it's 27.

More MEPs for each country. Staff to help those MEPs. More and bigger buildings to house them. Those buildings will need cleaners, janitors and security staff as well as restaurent staff etc etc

A civil service and commision to do all the paper work. Then you have another parliament in Strasbourg = more staff.

If there are 10,000 EU regulations in British law, then the same goes for every EU member. Somebody has to check that those regulations are obeyed = more pen pushers.

And because Britain wasn't in the Euro or Schengen, then those other nations would need more staff in Brussels to handle that.

Plus Juncker and Tusk will need their staff and hangers on etc etc etc

So, it's clear for all to see that the mission creep goes on and on, and if new members join, or the EU army takes shape, the EU bureaucracy will keep growing...

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

It was true in Ancient Rome, it is true in the EU...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes.

That's not what happens, though.

We're you answering me?

If so, I'm not sure I follow.

I was answering DINLT's claim about the way politics works in the EU.

It's all academic now as far as Britain is concerned.

Its a paper mess...

Someone put it simpley.

There's 4 presidents... 3 layers to even make a law or so.
The main power level is unelected and MEP level is weaker than most Parlinents...

Before anyone moans that everyone has already spoken about Gibraltar a few pages back, I haven't had anytime to catch up what with working 6-8 6 days each week. Personally I think Brexit is being, and will be used by other EU nations as a blatant excuse to raise issues that they have either no sway in or indeed no authentic reasons against the UK. I don't believe any ground will be given by May and the Conservatives over Gibraltar as it would be a political blow that could finish them off in the Commons and in public polls. Spain's lobbying for Gibraltar now because it has no chance outside big brother EU forming some compromise deal in the leaving negotiation. I don't see why the Spanish want it, apart from saying '300 years of tyranny is over...'. Yes you could argue for economic reasons or some form of strategic position that isn't really paramount at the moment for a neutral Spain. The people there are British and want to remain British, Spain is simply 300 years too late to change that and I doubt there would be a warm welcome to a Spanish conversion. Slightly going off topic, looking back we shouldn't have given Hong Kong to the Chinese, if we had to give it up it should have become an independent state. Now, yes it has Chinese investment, but its politics are a farce and public freedoms are restrained. I am not saying Spain would ever do the same for Gibraltar, but I think the Gibraltarians probably would have better semi-independent freedoms as off shore UK territory, rather than a centralised Spanish block which would probably deface everything British about it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


When it comes to pen pushing and red tape, Brussels makes the Federal government in Washington look like a bunch of amateurs.

Citation needed. I pointed out that you were railing against the number of regulations without providing any sort of context to your claim and you proceed to continue doing the same. That doesn't make for a very good argument.

Citation? Common knowledge and logic tells me that the EU is a bureaucratic monster that is spinning out of control.

It started off with what? 7 members. Now it's 27.

More MEPs for each country. Staff to help those MEPs. More and bigger buildings to house them. Those buildings will need cleaners, janitors and security staff as well as restaurent staff etc etc

A civil service and commision to do all the paper work. Then you have another parliament in Strasbourg = more staff.

You are looking at this from an isolated viewpoint though and excluding a holistic wider view.

Most of the legislation has allowed all the EU countries to drop areas like import duties. That means you no longer have to employ people to undertake this work. When you sum across all the countries where each individually has to take on a certain role then that's a massive increase in bureaucracy you are complaining about when compared to one central organisation that you are dealing with. Yes there is more bureaucracy in the area you are focussed on, but overall there is much less across all the countries.

The main power level of the UK is unelected.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Before anyone moans that everyone has already spoken about Gibraltar a few pages back, I haven't had anytime to catch up what with working 6-8 6 days each week. Personally I think Brexit is being, and will be used by other EU nations as a blatant excuse to raise issues that they have either no sway in or indeed no authentic reasons against the UK. I don't believe any ground will be given by May and the Conservatives over Gibraltar as it would be a political blow that could finish them off in the Commons and in public polls. Spain's lobbying for Gibraltar now because it has no chance outside big brother EU forming some compromise deal in the leaving negotiation. I don't see why the Spanish want it, apart from saying '300 years of tyranny is over...'. Yes you could argue for economic reasons or some form of strategic position that isn't really paramount at the moment for a neutral Spain. The people there are British and want to remain British, Spain is simply 300 years too late to change that and I doubt there would be a warm welcome to a Spanish conversion. Slightly going off topic, looking back we shouldn't have given Hong Kong to the Chinese, if we had to give it up it should have become an independent state. Now, yes it has Chinese investment, but its politics are a farce and public freedoms are restrained. I am not saying Spain would ever do the same for Gibraltar, but I think the Gibraltarians probably would have better semi-independent freedoms as off shore UK territory, rather than a centralised Spanish block which would probably deface everything British about it.

Umm Hong Kong was far as I know on a fixed term lease like agreement so we had to give it back to China at that point as it had been laid down a long time ago that the agreement would end at x date.

We have no such agreements with fixed dates over Gibralter and Falklands which are legaly supported overseas outposts and intrests and security are guaranteed by thr united kingdom, we have every right within there self determination to choose to act in there interests and defend with physical force is needed.

 Whirlwind wrote:


You are looking at this from an isolated viewpoint though and excluding a holistic wider view.

Most of the legislation has allowed all the EU countries to drop areas like import duties. That means you no longer have to employ people to undertake this work. When you sum across all the countries where each individually has to take on a certain role then that's a massive increase in bureaucracy you are complaining about when compared to one central organisation that you are dealing with. Yes there is more bureaucracy in the area you are focussed on, but overall there is much less across all the countries.

Yes but what he means is that the bureaucracy is too centralised in one big mass. Countries would be better off if they could do their own share rather than rely on the current expanding mass. You could quite easily counter-argue that over centralisation has hypothetically cost people potential jobs. If it was less centralised there would be more employment opportunities for people in areas like import duties etc. Yes it would be more local bureaucracy but it would be more controllable and adaptable for each country. The member states have already admitted major reforms needed to happen in such areas as no one is really pleased about it, tough luck that they never raised a finger (well maybe they did) to Cameron when he tried to negotiate for a reformed EU. Now that the leaving process is finally becoming set in EU legislation they may actually act on what was on everyone's minds all along...

I've always said that the EU needs reforming but the only way to convince it to do so is a massive shock to its system.

Because the upper echelons seem to believe it is the best thing since sliced bread and refuse to reform it.

I had a rant on the US politics thread, so here's another rant here!

To expand on a point Kilkrazy made a while ago:

Yes, the UK could have 'owned' the EU.

If we had taken it seriously from the start, the UK could have been the beating heart of the whole damn project.

Sadly, we as a nation still think it's 1940 most of the time, and worse, we were seduced by this special relationship horsegak.

Our leaders would do well to read a history book and remember that for most of its history, the USA and the UK have been enemies and rivals. Even after WW1, there was respect, but no real love. The USA considering the British to be money grabbing imperialists who would fight to the last American soldier. The British considered the Americans to be naive amateurs on the world stage and two faced on their imperialism accusations, especially with their Jim Crow laws and the near extermination of their native population.

I like America and Americans - they are good friends and allies whom we should trust and respect, but I never lose sight of the fact that they are a foreign power. Kissinger summed it up best: "America has no friends, only interests."

We think because they speak our language and because we won two world wars with them, then they'll throw us a bone. Like all sensible nations, America puts America first.

We tried to be all things to all men and ended up losing both sides. We won the war but well and truly lost the peace. Basil Fawlty being our default position when it came to France and Germany. Especially Germany...

So a combination of that + rightwing rags, plus idiotic backbench Tory MPs, ultimately scuppered that...

And on the subject of those Tory backbenchers, they railed against the EU taking over the UK for years, and yet, those same people will happily sell out the UK to the Arabs, or the Chinese or Trump...

So yes, I voted leave, but I can see the merit in the arguments of the other side.

Rant over!

The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

On and off Spain has been making travel from Gibraltar difficult just for the sake of it in recent years. Trumping up excessive checks and searches just to cause difficulties or in return for some recent disagreement with the UK.

Herzlos wrote:
The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.

Heck, Gib gave a very clear indication of their priorities today when they said that they'd take a hard border before they'd take any ceding of sovereignty. They're determined that they won't let Madrid gets so much as a toe of authority over that border. Which everyone knew. As I said earlier though, it was only ever proposed as a negotiating ploy, so it'll be taken off the table within a month or two.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
*Rant*

I'd just like to say that while I disagree with your stance on Brexit and Scottish independence, I totally agree with your rant

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.

Heck, Gib gave a very clear indication of their priorities today when they said that they'd take a hard border before they'd take any ceding of sovereignty. They're determined that they won't let Madrid gets so much as a toe of authority over that border. Which everyone knew. As I said earlier though, it was only ever proposed as a negotiating ploy, so it'll be taken off the table within a month or two.

It's not on the table. It's a separate table to be talked between the Spain, the UK and Gibraltar.

The UK and the EU will talk terms, then Spain and the UK will negotiate which of those terms apply to Gibraltar post-Brexit.

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.

Heck, Gib gave a very clear indication of their priorities today when they said that they'd take a hard border before they'd take any ceding of sovereignty. They're determined that they won't let Madrid gets so much as a toe of authority over that border. Which everyone knew. As I said earlier though, it was only ever proposed as a negotiating ploy, so it'll be taken off the table within a month or two.

It's not on the table. It's a separate table to be talked between the Spain, the UK and Gibraltar.

The UK and the EU will talk terms, then Spain and the UK will negotiate which of those terms apply to Gibraltar post-Brexit.

Same with Ireland.
We negotiate with them and agree a deal which allows both counties to do business.

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.

Heck, Gib gave a very clear indication of their priorities today when they said that they'd take a hard border before they'd take any ceding of sovereignty. They're determined that they won't let Madrid gets so much as a toe of authority over that border. Which everyone knew. As I said earlier though, it was only ever proposed as a negotiating ploy, so it'll be taken off the table within a month or two.

It's not on the table. It's a separate table to be talked between the Spain, the UK and Gibraltar.

The UK and the EU will talk terms, then Spain and the UK will negotiate which of those terms apply to Gibraltar post-Brexit.

I think the issue is that if Spain can't twist our arm to get something on Gibraltar separately, they'll veto any EU deal the other countries can agree on. Only last year Wallonia held up a deal the whole EU was trying to get with Canada, it can be done if one party is stubborn enough. It doesn't matter it's a separate issue/deal. Makes you wonder what other countries will seperately demand with threats to veto a Brexit deal.

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.

Spain is currently ruled by the spanish tories after all

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.

Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.

Heck, Gib gave a very clear indication of their priorities today when they said that they'd take a hard border before they'd take any ceding of sovereignty. They're determined that they won't let Madrid gets so much as a toe of authority over that border. Which everyone knew. As I said earlier though, it was only ever proposed as a negotiating ploy, so it'll be taken off the table within a month or two.

It's not on the table. It's a separate table to be talked between the Spain, the UK and Gibraltar.

The UK and the EU will talk terms, then Spain and the UK will negotiate which of those terms apply to Gibraltar post-Brexit.

I think the issue is that if Spain can't twist our arm to get something on Gibraltar separately, they'll veto any EU deal the other countries can agree on.

Nope, because the Gibraltar deal will be worked separately, after the main UK-EU deal is through.

Don't forget the Gibraltar border was closed for decades and was only opened because of EU pressure on Spain while it was trying to get in the then-EEC. That allowed Gibraltar economy to boom and fully develop.

Spanish Tories have never fully forgiven the socialists for that deal.