Question Time

[Eric The Viking]

Where is the evidence for this proposed EU army Eric?

Here's the matter discussed by one EU organisation:
http://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/detail/article/envisioning-european-defence-five-futures/
Discussion on the European Army starts on page 31, conclusions on p.37 (no, I haven't read it all). The writers make clear that an EU army is congruent with the aims and objectives of the Project: "This future [an European army] is based on the concept of supranational European defence collaboration that dates back to the very beginning of European integration efforts after World War II."

More chillingly, the European Parliament think-tank http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EXPO_STU(2016)535003

From its abstract (prefacing the PDF):

"Several steps have already been initiated to answer the call for more defence in Europe. Since the beginning of his mandate, President Juncker has declared defence a ‘priority’, called for the implementation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and reiterated the long term vision of a ’European army’. In June 2016, a ‘global strategy’ will be issued and a Commission Defence Action Plan should follow by the end of 2016. A ‘Pilot Project’, adopted by the European Parliament in autumn 2014, has been launched and should open the path to a ‘Preparatory Action on Defence Research’ that may be voted in 2016 for the 20172020 budgets."

So they're following a standard EU approach, of calling something unsavoury by a different name ("defense research" - what a good idea!), in the hope that the rose-tinted specs brigade will simply go "Pah! Nothing to see here, move on!."

I can't find the exact debate/discussion (it'll be in committee, so harder to track down) and I haven't time this morning to chase it, but the direction of travel is clear, and reference to June 2016.

E.

PS: The European Council meets the w/e after our referendum. Unsurprisingly, the referendum result is on the agenda, but a lot of it is taken up with security issues. There's precious little detail available though.

 

[Jacob]

Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. .....

No it's outside the HOC range. Mid range would be 32.5% which sounds a lot but isn't a simple issue to start with and is explained well here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what ... uenced-eu/

In any case many of the directives would be ones we'd implement ourselves, even if we were out.

 

[Jacob]

Where is the evidence for this proposed EU army Eric?

Here's the matter discussed by one EU organisation:
http://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/detail/article/envisioning-european-defence-five-futures/
Discussion on the European Army starts on page 31, conclusions on p.37 (no, I haven't read it all). The writers make clear that an EU army is congruent with the aims and objectives of the Project: "This future [an European army] is based on the concept of supranational European defence collaboration that dates back to the very beginning of European integration efforts after World War II."

More chillingly, the European Parliament think-tank http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EXPO_STU(2016)535003

From its abstract (prefacing the PDF):

"Several steps have already been initiated to answer the call for more defence in Europe. Since the beginning of his mandate, President Juncker has declared defence a ‘priority’, called for the implementation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and reiterated the long term vision of a ’European army’. In June 2016, a ‘global strategy’ will be issued and a Commission Defence Action Plan should follow by the end of 2016. A ‘Pilot Project’, adopted by the European Parliament in autumn 2014, has been launched and should open the path to a ‘Preparatory Action on Defence Research’ that may be voted in 2016 for the 20172020 budgets."

So they're following a standard EU approach, of calling something unsavoury by a different name ("defense research" - what a good idea!), in the hope that the rose-tinted specs brigade will simply go "Pah! Nothing to see here, move on!."

I can't find the exact debate/discussion (it'll be in committee, so harder to track down) and I haven't time this morning to chase it, but the direction of travel is clear, and reference to June 2016.

E.

PS: The European Council meets the w/e after our referendum. Unsurprisingly, the referendum result is on the agenda, but a lot of it is taken up with security issues. There's precious little detail available though.

The point is - every possibility under the sun will be raised at one time or another by different individuals or groups.
This doesn't meant they will ALL be implemented, or that there's a cunning secret plan to implement them when no one is looking. :roll:

TBH not wishing to be rude but having to endlessly re-assure the paranoid is a bit like having to tell your kids thats there's nothing nasty hiding under the bed which will come out when the light is off!

 

[Inoffthered]

Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. Bear in mind that most EU law does not receive any UK Parliamentary scrutiny, so there are no reports on it's passage through Parliament.

EU Army - it's the Guardian, so it must be true! - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... on-miltary - and it's been discussed several times on various BBC Radio current affairs programmes I've heard, usually in the context of it's being a threat to NATO.

The percentage of laws made in Brussels is a red herring. It is not the percentage of laws but the effect they have. Only last week the it was revealed that 50 top EU criminals could not be deported because of a European Court of Justice ruling.
Whatever Cameron says, a vote to stay in is a vote for the united states of europe, further loss of sovereignty and acceptance of being controlled by unelected Eurocrats. The safeguards he thinks he has are illusory. We will get dragged in to financing the eurozone even though we are not part of it.

Still look on the bright side, given that the economies of southern europe are broken with youth unemployment over 50%, there will be an unlimited supply of cheap labour to keep labour costs down here. Added to this, there is no way the government can build enough house to cope with the natural increase in population let alone the additional 300,000 job seekers coming in each year so property prices and rents will stay high , so despite George Osbourn's recent interventions, buy to lets still look good investments. Happy days.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Proportion of Law entering the UK Statute Book from the EU - I've heard proportions ranging from 15% to 75%, so the HoC Library suggestion of 55% is about mid-range. .....

No it's outside the HOC range. Mid range would be 32.5% which sounds a lot but isn't a simple issue to start with and is explained well here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what ... uenced-eu/

In any case many of the directives would be ones we'd implement ourselves, even if we were out.

I disagree with your arithmetic. However...

If the UK were to adopt some law 'off it's own bat', that law would be debated and voted on in the House of Commons, then scrutinised by Commons committee, then subject to Second Reading and vote in the Commons - all by people we elect. It would then pass to the Lords for further debate, committee scrutiny and free vote, and if the Lords were not content, returned to the Commons for amendment. That's the procedure for any law or legislation proposed by UK government Ministers (elected representatives).

If it arrives from Brussels, it goes straight onto the Statute Book unscrutinised by anybody in Parliament, because EU law and legislation has primacy over UK law and legislation.

 

[Jacob]

.
I disagree with your arithmetic. ...

In 2010, the House of Commons library published a comprehensive analysis of the variety of ways this percentage can be calculated. There are difficulties with all measurements, but it concluded "it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts".

Midway is (15+50)/2 = 32.5

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The percentage of laws made in Brussels is a red herring. It is not the percentage of laws but the effect they have. Only last week the it was revealed that 50 top EU criminals could not be deported because of a European Court of Justice ruling.
Whatever Cameron says, a vote to stay in is a vote for the united states of europe, further loss of sovereignty and acceptance of being controlled by unelected Eurocrats. The safeguards he thinks he has are illusory. We will get dragged in to financing the eurozone even though we are not part of it.

Still look on the bright side, given that the economies of southern europe are broken with youth unemployment over 50%, there will be an unlimited supply of cheap labour to keep labour costs down here. Added to this, there is no way the government can build enough house to cope with the natural increase in population let alone the additional 300,000 job seekers coming in each year so property prices and rents will stay high , so despite George Osbourn's recent interventions, buy to lets still look good investments. Happy days.

Broadly, I'd agree. Of course, the constant supply of cheap labour will keep big business happy, because it will keep wages down (as Stuart Rose mentioned early in the referendum campaign). Bit of problem for any young UK couples looking to set up home, as house prices soar and wages plummet, though.

 

[Jacob]

.....
If the UK were to adopt some law 'off it's own bat', that law would be debated and voted on in the House of Commons, then scrutinised by Commons committee, then subject to Second Reading and vote in the Commons - all by people we elect. It would then pass to the Lords for further debate, committee scrutiny and free vote, and if the Lords were not content, returned to the Commons for amendment. That's the procedure for any law or legislation proposed by UK government Ministers (elected representatives).

If it arrives from Brussels, it goes straight onto the Statute Book unscrutinised by anybody in Parliament, because EU law and legislation has primacy over UK law and legislation.

Yes we have delegated some responsibility to the EU. This is just a basic simple fact. Like any contract of any sort. But we ARE part of any negotiations and they aren't unscrutinised. We even have a veto over some measures, and if all else fails we can have another referendum and pull out.

Paranoia :roll:

 

[Jacob]

......Of course, the constant supply of cheap labour will keep big business happy, because it will keep wages down (as Stuart Rose mentioned early in the referendum campaign). Bit of problem for any young UK couples looking to set up home, as house prices soar and wages plummet, though.

We need realistic minimum wages strictly enforced so that employers can't underpay anybody, whoever they are. Then there is a level playing field.
Incidentally we all have been benefitting from cheap EU labour in the price of fruit and veg amongst other things. It wouldn't be picked if there wasn't a mobile labour force. There are not enough local unemployed in Boston to pick all those potatoes and strawberries!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

.
I disagree with your arithmetic. ...

In 2010, the House of Commons library published a comprehensive analysis of the variety of ways this percentage can be calculated. There are difficulties with all measurements, but it concluded "it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts".

Midway is (15+50)/2 = 32.5

Nitpicking. I said I'd seen estimates between 15% and 75%, so 55% (the figure Eric quoted) was about mid-range. Exactly half way between 15% and 75% is 45%, so 55% is about mid RANGE. NOT exactly half-way, and not using somebody else's figures.

The real point is that ANY legislation enforced on us by Brussels is placed on the UK Statute Book without any UK parliamentary scrutiny of the sort domestic legislation is subject to, so we are governed by some laws not subject to the scrutiny of our elected representatives. That's because EU law takes primacy over UK law - something we have never been allowed to endorse or reject through the ballot box (until now). Even now, the Remain campaigners won't be bringing this one up, and they try very hard to shut down debate or move the subject on if a Leave campaigner does - which speaks volumes.

Edit to add - we don't 'delegate powers to Brussels'. Brussels forces it's powers on us, whether we like it or not, because various politicians have signed up to treaties (Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon) without being honest with the UK population what those treaties stipulated.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

" Farage spent the first ten years or so of his political career spending time and money, talking to crowds of twenty in village halls across the country, pushing leaflets through letterboxes (that he'd paid for) ..."
Have you actual proof that he paid for their letterboxes, Eric?

 

[Jacob]

.
I disagree with your arithmetic. ...

In 2010, the House of Commons library published a comprehensive analysis of the variety of ways this percentage can be calculated. There are difficulties with all measurements, but it concluded "it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts".

Midway is (15+50)/2 = 32.5

Nitpicking. .....

No it isn't. I am quoting the correct figures which you and Eric are misquoting.
You can't just choose figures from out of the air!

I find it increasingly strange this desperate anxiety to pick up on every bit of information/misinformation and attempt to make an issue of it. Brexit seems to be a form of mass hysteria and, with the passage of time, increasingly irrelevant and uninteresting.

Paranoia rules! :roll:

PS

Exactly half way between 15% and 75% is 45%, so 55% is about mid RANGE

.
1 45% is mid range of your figures.
2 Your figures are wrong to start with.

Why are you so anxious to misrepresent so many things?

PS "The midrange is the mean of the maximum and minimum values of the data set"

 

[Eric The Viking]

The point is - every possibility under the sun will be raised at one time or another by different individuals or groups.
This doesn't meant they will ALL be implemented, or that there's a cunning secret plan to implement them when no one is looking. :roll:

TBH not wishing to be rude but having to endlessly re-assure the paranoid is a bit like having to tell your kids thats there's nothing nasty hiding under the bed which will come out when the light is off!

Why don't you just come out with it - "I have my fingers firmly in my ears: La, La, La, I can't hear you."

The references I posted are unusually frank for the EU - they're usually more oblique than that. Sadly 'wait and see' won't cut it - decision day is 23rd June. So use Google: the European Army is being taken very seriously on both sides of the Atlantic. US military manufacturers seem quite keen on the idea (can't imagine why :shock: ).

Sigh.

And stop quoting apologists for the EU - what do you expect they will say??? It's no more proof you're right than the people claiming NASA never sent anyone to the moon "because there's no evidence".

Incidentally I actually met someone who went to the moon, last week.

Not that I'm smug or anything. Or that it was fulfillment of a boyhood dream that I never thought possible. Or that I couldn't think of anything to say, but just grinned like an silly person whilst BUZZ ALDRIN autographed my book...

... did I mention it was BUZZ ALDRIN? It's ridiculously unlikely, but absolutely true.

Gotta go: nurse is coming.

 

[Eric The Viking]

" Farage spent the first ten years or so of his political career spending time and money, talking to crowds of twenty in village halls across the country, pushing leaflets through letterboxes (that he'd paid for) ..."
Have you actual proof that he paid for their letterboxes, Eric?

Bother! You exposed the fatal flaw in my argument.

[Slinks off, head hanging low]

 

[Jacob]

....
Why don't you just come out with it - "I have my fingers firmly in my ears: La, La, La, I can't hear you."....

I'm listening quite hard to the paranoid army. In fact it's hard to avoid it - they shout loudest and longest!
And I believe what they say less and less.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

C'mon, Eric - we all know that for something to be true it must be published by either -
1/ Fullfact
2/ Europa or
3/ The Gruaniad. (OK - The "Independent" at a push)

 

[RobinBHM]

.....
If the UK were to adopt some law 'off it's own bat', that law would be debated and voted on in the House of Commons, then scrutinised by Commons committee, then subject to Second Reading and vote in the Commons - all by people we elect. It would then pass to the Lords for further debate, committee scrutiny and free vote, and if the Lords were not content, returned to the Commons for amendment. That's the procedure for any law or legislation proposed by UK government Ministers (elected representatives).

If it arrives from Brussels, it goes straight onto the Statute Book unscrutinised by anybody in Parliament, because EU law and legislation has primacy over UK law and legislation.

Yes we have delegated some responsibility to the EU. This is just a basic simple fact. Like any contract of any sort. But we ARE part of any negotiations and they aren't unscrutinised. We even have a veto over some measures, and if all else fails we can have another referendum and pull out.

Paranoia :roll:

In theory, yes another referendun is possible. In practise no. No government would be interested in a referendum for decades. So to suggest that 'vote remain, we can change our mind at any point', is not a valid point.

We are part of negotiations in theory. In practice no prime minister has achieved any positive outcome in the eu for UK benefit.

 

[Jacob]

...
In theory, yes another referendun is possible. In practise no. No government would be interested in a referendum for decades. So to suggest that 'vote remain, we can change our mind at any point', is not a valid point......

Why do you say that? Can you see into the future? What is it you have seen? How do you know no government would be interested in a referendum for decades?

 

[Eric The Viking]

Phil P.: You got me again!

The European army stuff was europa.eu though, and the second quote refers to the paving language in the 'not-really-a-constitution-honest' (Lisbon) treaty, wot we already signed up to.

On the % of EU law thing - I WAS mistaken. I heard a reference to it over the w/e and assumed the HoC library had updated their number (from 2014). They haven't; somebody exaggerated and I believed them; I am sorry.

As has been said, though, the actual number doesn't matter. What does is that any legislation can be pushed straigh past our parliament without review. And, as has also been said here, that can have dramatic consequences for the British population, fishing, transport and daft energy/environmental policies being but the tip of an iceberg (and boy the analogy is appropriate!).

E.

PS: the "Grauniad" was real too - Private Eye picked it up in the 1970s on a page header. They thought at the time the typesetters were having a competition to do the worst mistake that would get past the proofreaders. But others thought it was just a conspiracy theory put out to discredit Guardian raiders.

 

[Jacob]

....
As has been said, though, the actual number doesn't matter. .....

Unless misquoting them serves a purpose.
Who are you working for Eric? 8)