Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

Hitman Actual

dresden8 wrote: »

Also, because some of these fools are in opposition does not protect them from being labelled fools. Even these fools were calling for a yes to Lisbon. Comforting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the "fools in opposition" that sink was talking about were SF, Libertas, Coir, etc?

I have to agree with begob to a certain extent: You do seem to "strategically" attack posts while ignoring the main point. I think the main point that sink was making (and a very well made point at that) was in the ability of the electorate to employ 'critical thinking', and you haven't responded to that point at all, just twisted the thread for your own means.

sink

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed the "fools in opposition" that sink was talking about were SF, Libertas, Coir, etc?

While those groups are most certainly fools I was talking more about the general opposition in government and I didn't call them 'fools' as that word implies a more negative meaning than I intended. There were members of FG and Lab who were not well informed on the treaty. When asked why anyone should vote yes they would give a vague answer like 'it's good for the country'. If they are not well informed themselves they can not hope to convince anyone of anything. It would be like a creationist trying to convince an atheist.

dresden8

Begob wrote: »

dresden8

Not everybody subscribes to your conspiracies.

Thats not what sink said.
You have an awfull habit of spinning posts on this thread to say what they don't say.
Sadly I have to inform you that most readers can see you are doing this and just mostly Waffling on at this stage with no substance.Thats probably why only Sink at this stage is bothering with your waffle.
You don't have to know the nth degree of something to know that it is right or wrong.
For example if my doctor doesn't know what is causing my pain ,he refers me to a specialist who usually will know and explain it to the doctor suffeciently for me to understand it.

The same goes on in government every day.
A minister explains to a competent civil servant that he/she wants X,Y and Z done.
The Civil servant works on it and comes back with the legislation.
It's full of legalese but the minister is happy with the effect of it.

If the voting public isn't , then they vote them out.

It's the exact same with Lisbon despite the unmitigated rubbish and conspiracy theories you've been pedaling for the last few pages.

Conspiracies? What conspiracies am I peddling?

Begob

*yawn*

*puts dresden on ignore where he belongs*

Will continue to discuss substantive issues with people that are bothered to want a discussion rather than a post count ( ie everyone else )

dresden8

Begob wrote: »

*yawn*

*puts dresden on ignore where he belongs*

Will continue to discuss substantive issues with people that are bothered to want a discussion rather than a post count ( ie everyone else )

Well, that puts me in my place. He must be afraid I'll have him rubbed out if he reveals the conspiracy.

krpc

Originally Posted by i-bloodhound
Out of complete curiosity, do you believe (to Sink) that the leaders of the respective countries of the EU were/are representing the majority of the people correctly and in a manner that they were elected to?

Originally Posted by sink
Yes (with reservations).

I appreciate the response, Sink.

Further on from the question I asked, the French and Dutch people voted 'no' to a treaty containing quite a similar set of documents to The Lisbon Treaty and yet in 2008, the leaders of those two countries accepted it without putting it to their people. Suspicion would clearly arise regarding this as based on the result of the previous referendum there was no mandate to accept the treaty and subsequently it could be perceived that the leaders did not represent or act in the interest of their people. Do you have an opinion on that?

Similarly, the province of Bavaria ran a mock poll / ballot after the treaty was signed to find out how many people supported The Lisbon Treaty and there was an overwhelming opposition to it. Clearly Bavarians were angered by the fact that they were not given the option to vote on a treaty that shapes Europe for the future. I'm sure it could be assumed, if one were equally suspicious as in the French/Dutch situation, that a referendum was not put to the people in Germany because of the fear that it would not be passed.

In terms of the second question I asked you and your response, which was excellently detailed, I certainly agree with you about the culture we presently live in.

utick

No means No.
What part of no do these political elite not understand.
Now they want the people to vote again because the people had the audacity not to bend to the will of their political masters.
What a joke these referendums are

krpc

utick wrote: »

No means No.
What part of no do these political elite not understand.
Now they want the people to vote again because the people had the audacity not to bend to the will of their political masters.
What a joke these referendums are

I do agree that no means no. The Irish government cannot simply put this matter to referendum again simply because they and the higher echelons of EU government did not like the result.

However, I have no doubt that this issue will continue to go to a referendum until it is accepted, even with opt out clauses which political representatives are constantly mentioning in the media.

In a similar position to Ireland, Denmark rejected the Maastrict Treaty in 1992 and created the same turmoil in the EU as Ireland's recent rejection has. Denmark was then offered four key opt outs, including not having to accept the single currency and yet since then there have been two referendums in Denmark for them to accept the Euro as their currency. The same thing will happen in Ireland - the Irish government and the EU will agree to compromise and allow Ireland to accept certain opt outs; the core of the treaty will then be passed; over the next decade the Irish government will pester the people with referendums about the opt outs until they eventually get each one passed. The result? The unsuspecting people of Ireland will accept The Lisbon Treaty albeit a little longer than expected at a substantial cost to the Irish tax payer, all the while commenting on how politicians can be trusted.

djpbarry

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Further on from the question I asked, the French and Dutch people voted 'no' to a treaty containing quite a similar set of documents to The Lisbon Treaty and yet in 2008, the leaders of those two countries accepted it without putting it to their people. Suspicion would clearly arise regarding this as based on the result of the previous referendum there was no mandate to accept the treaty and subsequently it could be perceived that the leaders did not represent or act in the interest of their people.

As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum already, Sarkozy was quite open, during his presidential election campaign, about his intention to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a popular referendum.

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Similarly, the province of Bavaria ran a mock poll / ballot after the treaty was signed to find out how many people supported The Lisbon Treaty and there was an overwhelming opposition to it.

Could you provide a link to the result of this poll?

i-bloodhound wrote: »

I'm sure it could be assumed, if one were equally suspicious as in the French/Dutch situation, that a referendum was not put to the people in Germany because of the fear that it would not be passed.

I think it’s far more likely that a referendum was not put to the people of Germany because it would have been illegal to do so.

utick wrote: »

What a joke these referendums are

Yeah! Down with Referenda! Boo! Hiss!

i-bloodhound wrote: »

The Irish government cannot simply put this matter to referendum again simply because they and the higher echelons of EU government did not like the result.

I see. So what do you think should happen next?

i-bloodhound wrote: »

However, I have no doubt that this issue will continue to go to a referendum until it is accepted...

I think that’s pretty unlikely. There may be a Lisbon II, but if that is rejected, then I cannot see the current government surviving to carry out a Lisbon III. Besides, I cannot imagine the other 26 states will be prepared to wait around for Ireland to say ‘Yes’.

i-bloodhound wrote: »

In a similar position to Ireland, Denmark rejected the Maastrict Treaty in 1992 and created the same turmoil in the EU as Ireland's recent rejection has. Denmark was then offered four key opt outs, including not having to accept the single currency and yet since then there have been three referendums in Denmark for them to accept the Euro as their currency.

That’s not true – there has only been one referendum on the euro in Denmark. This took place in September 2000, with 53.2% voting ‘No’. A referendum on abolishing all four Maastricht opt-outs is planned by 2011. Recent opinion polls show a majority of Danes favour eurozone membership:
www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/danes_still_willing_to_adopt_euro

i-bloodhound wrote: »

The same thing will happen in Ireland - the Irish government and the EU will agree to compromise and allow Ireland to accept certain opt outs...

Oh how awful! Those evil EU tyrants are willing to listen to Irish concerns and compromise were possible! Damn fascists!

i-bloodhound wrote: »

...the core of the treaty will then be passed; over the next decade the Irish government will pester the people with referendums about the opt outs until they eventually get each one passed.

Why are you assuming that the electorate will vote ‘Yes’ to every referendum the government puts to them?

sink

i-bloodhound wrote: »

I do agree that no means no. The Irish government cannot simply put this matter to referendum again simply because they and the higher echelons of EU government did not like the result.

Let me ask you. Would you object to any part of the Lisbon treaty ever being put to a vote? If that's the case how do you think the EU is going to react over the next decade?

i-bloodhound wrote: »

However, I have no doubt that this issue will continue to go to a referendum until it is accepted, even with opt out clauses which political representatives are constantly mentioning in the media.

If the government fails in the next referendum they won't have the option to hold another. If they attempt to do so, I am certain that the Greens or Independents will pull out and the government will collapse triggering a general election, in which Fianna Fail will loose badly.

i-bloodhound wrote: »

In a similar position to Ireland, Denmark rejected the Maastrict Treaty in 1992 and created the same turmoil in the EU as Ireland's recent rejection has. Denmark was then offered four key opt outs, including not having to accept the single currency and yet since then there have been three referendums in Denmark for them to accept the Euro as their currency. The same thing will happen in Ireland - the Irish government and the EU will agree to compromise and allow Ireland to accept certain opt outs; the core of the treaty will then be passed; over the next decade the Irish government will pester the people with referendums about the opt outs until they eventually get each one passed. The result? The unsuspecting people of Ireland will accept The Lisbon Treaty albeit a little longer than expected at a substantial cost to the Irish tax payer, all the while commenting on how politicians can be trusted.

In the case of Denmark most of the fears the people had were not realised in other countries. The opt-outs they had gained because the were scarred they would damage their country had proven to work well in the rest of the EU. The Euro is the perfect example. During the campaign for Maastricht the no camp warned that the Euro would be unsuccessful and that it would collapse in just a few years. The Euro actually turned into a huge success and stole some ground from the US dollar as the one of the worlds reserve currencies. That is why Denmark in now reconsidering membership of the euro and many of the other opt-outs.

If we gain opt-outs and after a few years in other countries corporate taxes remain under the control of state governments, babies are not being micro chipped, abortion and divorce remain up to individual states, France and Germany don't start to dictate everything, conscription is not being introduce and the EU does not launch any wars of aggression, why should we not reconsider the opt-outs?

sink

i-bloodhound wrote: »

I appreciate the response, Sink.

Further on from the question I asked, the French and Dutch people voted 'no' to a treaty containing quite a similar set of documents to The Lisbon Treaty and yet in 2008, the leaders of those two countries accepted it without putting it to their people. Suspicion would clearly arise regarding this as based on the result of the previous referendum there was no mandate to accept the treaty and subsequently it could be perceived that the leaders did not represent or act in the interest of their people. Do you have an opinion on that?

The exit polls in France and Holland clearly showed that people voted against the constitution for two main reasons. They did not like the EU gaining auspices of a state (flag, anthem, constitution as well as an already existing currency). The second reason was because they were deeply unhappy with their governments and they voted down the treaty to damage them. It worked as Jaques Chirac became a lame duck president and after a year of staggering on Dutch government itself collapsed and a general election was called.

In the following French presidential election, Nicolas Sarkozy vowed to pass the Lisbon treaty without a referendum. He went on to win the election by a significant margin. I'm not as familiar with Dutch politics but the new Dutch government appears to be more popular. There were no major rallies or other popular movements to put Lisbon to a vote and the population seemed content to let the new government handle things.

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Similarly, the province of Bavaria ran a mock poll / ballot after the treaty was signed to find out how many people supported The Lisbon Treaty and there was an overwhelming opposition to it. Clearly Bavarians were angered by the fact that they were not given the option to vote on a treaty that shapes Europe for the future. I'm sure it could be assumed, if one were equally suspicious as in the French/Dutch situation, that a referendum was not put to the people in Germany because of the fear that it would not be passed.

Germany has had a bit of a rough history with referendums. Hitler used them to grab power from other political institutions and he eventually became a dictator. As a result referenda at the federal level are illegal in Germany so the government couldn't put Lisbon to the people even if they wanted to.

i-bloodhound wrote: »

In terms of the second question I asked you and your response, which was excellently detailed, I certainly agree with you about the culture we presently live in.

Thanks

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

I'm not as familiar with Dutch politics but the new Dutch government appears to be more popular. There were no major rallies or other popular movements to put Lisbon to a vote and the population seemed content to let the new government handle things.

It turned out to be a constitutional issue. The Dutch constitution makes their Parliament supreme, and referendums are non-binding 'indicative' votes only. However, the rejection of the EUC in the referendum effectively did bind the Parliament to non-ratification, thus abrogating Parliamentary sovereignty. As a result, the Dutch have rejected the idea of further referendums because they would incidentally produce de facto constitutional change.

I'm very tempted to add "not a lot of people know that"!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Out of complete curiosity, do you believe (to Sink) that the leaders of the respective countries of the EU were/are representing the majority of the people correctly and in a manner that they were elected to?

Alas, poor representatives! They have two functions that sometimes conflict - doing what their constituencies want, and doing what they believe to be good for their constituencies. Like parenting, really.

When those two run together, the politician is happy, and you will see him smiling. When they conflict, the politician usually prefers to do the former, like any bad parent - sometimes, though, he does the latter and blames someone else (in this case, and many others, the EU).

musingly,
Scofflaw

K-9

jhegarty wrote: »

So a goverment never over spent to try and buy an election ?

Yes they did, as did Libertas, your point?

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Similarly, the province of Bavaria ran a mock poll / ballot after the treaty was signed to find out how many people supported The Lisbon Treaty and there was an overwhelming opposition to it. Clearly Bavarians were angered by the fact that they were not given the option to vote on a treaty that shapes Europe for the future. I'm sure it could be assumed, if one were equally suspicious as in the French/Dutch situation, that a referendum was not put to the people in Germany because of the fear that it would not be passed.

Unfortunately, Bavarians cannot decide for Germany, same as Leinster cannot decide for Ireland. Also there are Constitututional requirements in Germany. Their Constitution is as important as ours!

Anyway to prove this is undemocratic, I'll vote No if I see only one box to tick! Oh wait, THERE'S TWO BOXES!

PS. I agree with Sink, if a poster is proven to be incorrect, it should be ordered to be taken down. Nobody can argue the "We'll lose a Commissioner" poster was incorrect! It should have been taken down because some took it as FACT!

auerillo

landan wrote: »

Leave the EU, if only they would allow this. You see such a move would rapidly as the ordinary people of every other european country demanded such actions. The EU serves the elite, and only the elite.

With 80% of our laws now being made by unelected officials in brussels, accountable to no one but to other unelected officials, perhaps it is time to discuss wholesale reform of the EU.

Begob

auerillo wrote: »

With 80% of our laws now being made by unelected officials in brussels, accountable to no one but to other unelected officials, perhaps it is time to discuss wholesale reform of the EU.

The council of Europe consisting of government ministers from all EU countries who nominate commissioners and have the final say in laws passed are unelected ??
Thats the first I've heard of that..

Methinks you need to study up on your EU structures.
I'll start you off with step one:
All our legislation is framed by unelected officials.It always will be,they are called civil servants.
However the idea behind and the final say in, the legislation comes from elected officials.
That goes throughout the EU countries and internally with actual EU legislation.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

It seems to me that no amount of logic is going to persuade a no voter to vote yes, or a yes voter to vote no.

It seems to me that you're suffering from selective perception, as several posters (prior to the referendum) indicated that they had changed their positions as a direct result of the discussions on this forum.

I will agree that some people will never change their minds. Obstinacy isn't reserved for political debate.

The yes voters do not respect the views of the no voters, in fact they will claim anything they can to try to claim that Ireland really voted yes, because the no voters were duped, were too stupid to understand it, were drunk at the time, were drugged by the evil Libertas who were really a front for sinister american forces etc etc etc.

Some yes voters don't respect the views of some no voters, because those views are flawed, illogical or uninformed. Some yes voters respect the views of other no voters (while disagreeing with them), because they are at least based in logic and reason.

Of course, some posters like to lump everyone they disagree with into a single category that they can sweepingly attack, because it saves them from having to engage in intelligent debate and makes them look like they're making valid points.

The claim that it's the rest of Europe for the treaty against us, and we are the odd ones out, simply won't wash.

The number of countries who have ratified the treaty, versus the number who have not, give the lie to this assertion.

We simply don't know how many citizens of the EU want this treaty as the politicians of their countries didn't dare ask them for fear they, too, might have voted against it. That's not democracy, its a stich up.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, the EU is not an organisation of member state citizens, but of member states. There is nothing - nothing - in the treaties which created the EU that states that a majority of its citizens, or majorities of the citizens of its member states, are required to agree to ratify treaties.

You may argue that this makes the EU undemocratic, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the way the EU is. In the same way that a group water scheme is an organisation whose members are households, each household gets a vote, no matter how many people live in each household. Is a GWS undemocratic, because it doesn't require that each household conduct a ballot to ensure that the majority of the family are happy before voting at an AGM?

Equally, as a director of a company I can (and do) sign up to multilateral agreements with other companies. Perhaps I convene a meeting of the board of directors to take a vote on whether to enter into such an agreement; perhaps I don't. Should I have a say in whether the other companies hold board meetings before signing up to those agreements?

No doubt there will be those who will make clever arguments that it's more democratic not to allow one person one vote, in the Orwellian climate in which we live.

I agree that one person should have one vote - in circumstances where such is the agreement that has been made with the people in question. Can you point out anywhere in the EU treaties where such an arrangement has been made?

auerillo wrote: »

With 80% of our laws now being made by unelected officials in brussels, accountable to no one but to other unelected officials...

I suggest you produce a source for that assertion as your very next post to this forum.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

With 80% of our laws now being made by unelected officials in brussels, accountable to no one but to other unelected officials, perhaps it is time to discuss wholesale reform of the EU.

And perhaps wholesale review of information sources, too! I've seen the "80%" thing floating about - where does it come from, please? Is there any fact-checking behind it at all?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

auerillo wrote: »

With 80% of our laws now being made by unelected officials in brussels, accountable to no one but to other unelected officials, perhaps it is time to discuss wholesale reform of the EU.

You need to learn more.


Council of the European Union - DIRECTLY ELECTED government ministers from 27 states

European Parliament - 785 DIRECTLY ELECTED parliamentarians from all states

European Commission - Elected by the Council and confirmed by the parliament - held accountable to both



3 Legislative procedures

Codecision Procedure
Jointly adopted by Parliament and Council based on proposal by commission.

Assent Procedure
Adopted by Council with prior assent from Parliament based on proposals from Commission

Consultation procedure
Unanimously adopted by the Council which consults the Parliament based on proposals by the Commission


The Lisbon treaty would have opened up the council to public scrutiny. The Parliament would have gained greater power as the Codecision would have become the standard way for legislation to pass for 95% of areas (it's currently only 80%).

Now let me ask you. Who are these unelected and unaccountable officials who make our laws in the EU?

Flex

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh dear molloy. We're being set up and softened up. How can you not see that?

He's not going to come out and say "You fecked up, vote again you tossers".

First the tame press come out and tell us how stupid we are and call for Cowen to do the brave thing and over-ride the result. Then the analysis as to why we're so stupid to have voted no. Pr1ck Roche then comes out and speaks in a personal basis. Which as a Minister in the government responsible for the issue, he cannot reasonably do.

Spurred on by his Ministers brave stand Cowen does indeed not rule out a second referendum.

Then there'll be som "Emperors new clothes" kind of deal where they will bang on for a few months about how "No" voters really were duped, gullible and idiotic. But God love them, we'll give them another chance to prove they're not stupid.

Then they'll bus every granny in the country to a polling station.

It you think that's not going to happen we'll just have to re-visit that scenario in a few months time.

Hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, is anyone actually surprised we're going to be made vote on this again?

oscarBravo

Flex wrote: »

Hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, is anyone actually surprised we're going to be made vote on this again?

I'm not surprised, but probably for different reasons from yours.

auerillo

sink wrote: »

You need to learn more.


Council of the European Union - DIRECTLY ELECTED government ministers from 27 states

European Parliament - 785 DIRECTLY ELECTED parliamentarians from all states

European Commission - Elected by the Council and confirmed by the parliament - held accountable to both

I love your "you need to learn more"! But then , I am sure we all do, even you.

It may be that, for you, its ok that, for example, Peter Mandleson etc, are nominated by the british PM. For me, that is not the same thing as being elected, which is generally thought to mean by one person one vote.

If you really think the power in the EU lies with the only body elected by universal suffrage, the parliament, then again we have to disagree.

It seems that some guys here, in their desire to promote the EU, are unable to do so while at the same time realising that it is not perfect. That the real power lies with individuals who we, the people, can't remove. Inevitably these arguments seem to become personal ( for example "you need to learn more"), and then the argument changes from an argument about the EU, to an argument based more on a desire to prove someone else wrong, becoming more personality based, with the truth being a casulty.

As someone pointed out in a different thread, the EU was never set up to be democratic. Perhaps that is its flaw.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

I love your "you need to learn more"! But then , I am sure we all do, even you.

It may be that, for you, its ok that, for example, Peter Mandleson etc, are nominated by the british PM. For me, that is not the same thing as being elected, which is generally thought to mean by one person one vote.

If you really think the power in the EU lies with the only body elected by universal suffrage, the parliament, then again we have to disagree.

It seems that some guys here, in their desire to promote the EU, are unable to do so while at the same time realising that it is not perfect. That the real power lies with individuals who we, the people, can't remove. Inevitably these arguments seem to become personal ( for example "you need to learn more"), and then the argument changes from an argument about the EU, to an argument based more on a desire to prove someone else wrong, becoming more personality based, with the truth being a casulty.

As someone pointed out in a different thread, the EU was never set up to be democratic. Perhaps that is its flaw.

...and your source for "80% of our laws"...?

inquiringly,
Scofflaw

Rsaeire

If the public were given the chance to vote and they voted no, then why should they be asked to vote again? No means no.

sink

auerillo wrote: »

I love your "you need to learn more"! But then , I am sure we all do, even you.

It may be that, for you, its ok that, for example, Peter Mandleson etc, are nominated by the british PM. For me, that is not the same thing as being elected, which is generally thought to mean by one person one vote.

If you really think the power in the EU lies with the only body elected by universal suffrage, the parliament, then again we have to disagree.

It seems that some guys here, in their desire to promote the EU, are unable to do so while at the same time realising that it is not perfect. That the real power lies with individuals who we, the people, can't remove. Inevitably these arguments seem to become personal ( for example "you need to learn more"), and then the argument changes from an argument about the EU, to an argument based more on a desire to prove someone else wrong, becoming more personality based, with the truth being a casulty.

As someone pointed out in a different thread, the EU was never set up to be democratic. Perhaps that is its flaw.

This is not personal and I'm sorry if you feel so but that is probably more a reflection of your attitude towards the EU than anything else.

Peter Mandelson while not someone I would support was nominated by the Brits in the same way McCreevy was nominated by the Irish. The commission president then gives out the portfolios. Once all commissioner are selected they are passed to the Parliament for approval. If the parliament does not approve the selection process has to start again.

The president of the commission is nominated by the council who is then approved by the parliament. In reality the parliament pretty much gets to decide who it wants. A centre right coalition insisted on Barroso who was a member of the European Peoples Party of which Fine Gael are members.

You can read more about the 2004 commission appointment here.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1237192,00.html

I don't have a direct say in who is on the commission in the same way I don't have a direct say in who is a member of Brian Cowens cabinet. I never had the option to cast a vote for Mary Coughlan or Micheál Martin yet they are ministers none the less. Just as I don't get a direct say in who is on the commission but the people I elect do.

oscarBravo

Rsaeire wrote: »

If the public were given the chance to vote and they voted no, then why should they be asked to vote again? No means no.

So I'll ask the question I keep asking, over and over again, in response to the slogan "no means no": is it your assertion that not a single provision contained in the Lisbon treaty should ever again be put to a vote in Ireland?

Scofflaw

Rsaeire wrote: »

If the public were given the chance to vote and they voted no, then why should they be asked to vote again? No means no.

1. if they're being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing, then they can say No again - the worst one can say is that their time is being wasted.

2. if they're not being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing, then they're voting on something they haven't voted on before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote: »

And perhaps wholesale review of information sources, too! I've seen the "80%" thing floating about - where does it come from, please? Is there any fact-checking behind it at all?

Would it bother you if it turned out to be true? Would it in any way change your mind about the EU if it was found that 80% of our laws really are made outside of our national parliament?

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Would it bother you if it turned out to be true? Would it in any way change your mind about the EU if it was found that 80% of our laws really are made outside of our national parliament?

Personally it would not surprise me. Our parliament has a very poor track record of introducing progressive rights protection legislation. The EU on the other hand is very good at it.

Just look at where the majority of workers protection, consumer protection, equality protection and health and safety legislation comes from. It pretty much all comes from the EU. If it were up to our parliament I would think we would not have anywhere near the protection the EU affords us. Admittedly the EU can be a bit over zealous at times but that is better than none at all in my book.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

And perhaps wholesale review of information sources, too! I've seen the "80%" thing floating about - where does it come from, please? Is there any fact-checking behind it at all?

Would it bother you if it turned out to be true? Would it in any way change your mind about the EU if it was found that 80% of our laws really are made outside of our national parliament?

Interesting question. If you mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty", then definitely not. Otherwise, hmm, not sure.

Mostly, though, I'd be quite surprised if it were the case, and even as stated, the claim is misleading, since it would make one assume that 80% of our whole legal system is based on EU directives/regulations, which seems extraordinarily unlikely.

I presume the claim really means that 80% of the current 'legislative output' (laws currently being made) is based on EU directives/regulations - in which case it may be the case in some years.

Mainly my objection is to people bandying about a figure without any attempt whatsoever to substantiate it - as if it were obvious and beyond challenge, which clearly is not the case.

After all, what's the point of me deciding whether it would bother me without knowing if it's anywhere even close to the reality? It's like deciding whether I'd rather be attacked by Sasquatches or Yetis.

cordially,
Scofflaw