EU & Brexit Bunker

[Ian H]

Such as?

Remember that a lot of news stories in the British Press were fantasies created by Alexander DePfeffel Boris Pinocchio Loverman Johnson.

Straight bananas? (I typed that with a curved face).

 

[briantrumpet]

Aha, data roaming!

Oh no, that was useful too.

 

[PurplePenguin]

USB C

Oh, sorry, actually that's really useful.

It's a good example. It's a Brexit benefit as people in the UK can prevent electrical wastage and buy up old stock with micro USB.

Banker's bonuses was another bit of pointless legislation. They've spent ages discussing whether individual countries should apply day light savings time. The VAT rules often don't make sense e.g. VAT on private schools, which would not be allowed under EU rules, would not distort the single market. The fishing rules are also rubbish - another Brexit benefit is that the UK is implementing more environmental protection with regard to fishing.

 

[First Aspect]

In the long term I'm more concerned about employment rights. Labour seem sensible (if not "too sensible") on this, but if Garage or BadEnoch get in next time, that could change quickly. You can imagine all the bollocks about making the UK more competitive by allowing business to screw us even harder.

 

[First Aspect]

It's a good example. It's a Brexit benefit as people in the UK can prevent electrical wastage and buy up old stock with micro USB.

Banker's bonuses was another bit of pointless legislation. They've spent ages discussing whether individual countries should apply day light savings time. The VAT rules often don't make sense e.g. VAT on private schools, which would not be allowed under EU rules, would not distort the single market. The fishing rules are also rubbish - another Brexit benefit is that the UK is implementing more environmental protection with regard to fishing.

It would have been much better if they had pressed on with something useful, like sending 2 or 3 people to Rwanda at a cost of £50 million each.

 

[PurplePenguin]

It would have been much better if they had pressed on with something useful, like sending 2 or 3 people to Rwanda at a cost of £50 million each.

They proposed the idea. The people voted them out. What's not to like about that system?

 

[briantrumpet]

It's a good example. It's a Brexit benefit as people in the UK can prevent electrical wastage and buy up old stock with micro USB.

Banker's bonuses was another bit of pointless legislation. They've spent ages discussing whether individual countries should apply day light savings time. The VAT rules often don't make sense e.g. VAT on private schools, which would not be allowed under EU rules, would not distort the single market. The fishing rules are also rubbish - another Brexit benefit is that the UK is implementing more environmental protection with regard to fishing.

Of course all governments get stuff wrong. Probably just as well the EU didn't copy the UK's Dangerous Dogs Act, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of misdirected legislation from the EU. A pity we get no say in that now, as we are still affected by whatever they do, simply through the volume of trade and proximity.

The art is to pass legislation at the right level, whether that's national or supra-national, and that legislation receives the appropriate level of scrutiny by technical and political bodies to reduce the likelihood of bad legislation.

 

[secretsqirrel]

They proposed the idea. The people voted them out. What's not to like about that system?

Fair

 

[Psamathe]

Are you suggesting that there is no lobbying in Brussels?

"No" is a big word. Of course thgere is some but the big issue is the effect that has on resulting legislation and EU certainly used to be more benefit of people focused and less benefit of business focused. Mostregulation would go through long and extensive consultations.

Just look at Westminster today, legislate without proper impact assesments, trash the environment 'cos vested interests want higher profits. Madness and at least in last few days we've seen some push back against leadership pushing through what appear are ill considered changes (without full impact assesments).

Ian

 

[icowden]

They proposed the idea. The people voted them out. What's not to like about that system?

It was more than proposed. We gave Rwanda £290 million for something that we never actually used because it would never have worked.

 

[First Aspect]

Fair

Being in the EU is no different, it's just that British people didn't vote in great numbers for their MEPs then whinged about the EU.

On a side note, EU membership would have nipped the Rwanda option in the bud at the "safe“ country stage, and avoided all the attempts to politically influence the courts and finesse the outcome they didn't like so they could try to do it anyway.

That's the interia I was talking about.

 

[PurplePenguin]

"No" is a big word. Of course thgere is some but the big issue is the effect that has on resulting legislation and EU certainly used to be more benefit of people focused and less benefit of business focused. Mostregulation would go through long and extensive consultations.

Just look at Westminster today, legislate without proper impact assesments, trash the environment 'cos vested interests want higher profits. Madness and at least in last few days we've seen some push back against leadership pushing through what appear are ill considered changes (without full impact assesments).

Ian

I think the EU has vastly more lobbyists influencing policies and you're being naive. It's one of the things the UK does comparatively well which doesn't mean it can't be improved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying

 

[Psamathe]

I think the EU has vastly more lobbyists influencing policies and you're being naive. It's one of the things the UK does comparatively well which doesn't mean it can't be improved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying

As I said, the important thing isn't the amount lobbying it's the resulting impact it has on legislation. UK, particularly current incumbents only seem to listen to lobbyists and they have a totally disproportionate impact on legislation to the detriment of the people living here.

Ian

 

[PurplePenguin]

As I said, the important thing isn't the amount lobbying it's the resulting impact it has on legislation. UK, particularly current incumbents only seem to listen to lobbyists and they have a totally disproportionate impact on legislation to the detriment of the people living here.

Ian

As I said, I think that view is naive.

 

[briantrumpet]

As I said, I think that view is naive.

Unfortunately lobbying is pervasive in politics everywhere. I don't know if there are any vaguely neutral bodies that track/index the relative influence and transparency internationally, but my hunch would be that it's worst in the US, where Senators seem to be virtually owned by the businesses/sectors that pay them, e.g. Manchin and the coal industry (not to mention that it's still legal for HoR representatives to deal in shares in sectors in which they have influence).