|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 13:25:04 GMT
I'm pretty sure it does. If no member state or EU citizen has petitioned for a change, that must mean there is no momentum for change. ] Anyhow, how would a different system work? You want the representatives from the different EU nations in Parliament to be able to introduce legislation. The vast majority of legislation is about standardising laws in the EU to facilitate trade. I can't remember why the system was set up in the way it is, but I can think of a possible reason. I could be wrong, but one reason is that it just couldn't work fairly. Suppose the issue the was the standardisation of trademarks. Wouldn't the countries with similar trademark laws just group together in Parliament to make sure that the new standardised law across all the EU is the same as their trademark law? That would mean less disruption for their own system. This would happen again and again, with the countries with the most votes in Parliament always getting their own way. Isn't it better to have an independent commission with no national affiliations drawing up a trademark law which works best for everyone, rather than one that is just most convenient for the countries with the largest trading blocks? If the Commission wasn't drawing up the best standardised laws, then the whole of the EU would just end up with versions of the law in the countries with the biggest voting blocks, not the best and most efficient laws. That's just off the top of my head. There might be a flaw in it that's not apparent, but I'm sure you'll point out if it's there. ] The strongest argument for current system is that allowing the Parliament to initiate legislation would take sovereignty away from the member states. They don't want that. If they did, there is a mechanism by which they can have the issue voted on in the Council. You just made my point . The process could be so embedded in the system that it makes it near impossible to change . What you doing is using the fallacy that it must be good because it hasn’t been challenged . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 13:34:32 GMT
I'm pretty sure it does. If no member state or EU citizen has petitioned for a change, that must mean there is no momentum for change. ] Anyhow, how would a different system work? You want the representatives from the different EU nations in Parliament to be able to introduce legislation. The vast majority of legislation is about standardising laws in the EU to facilitate trade. I can't remember why the system was set up in the way it is, but I can think of a possible reason. I could be wrong, but one reason is that it just couldn't work fairly. Suppose the issue the was the standardisation of trademarks. Wouldn't the countries with similar trademark laws just group together in Parliament to make sure that the new standardised law across all the EU is the same as their trademark law? That would mean less disruption for their own system. This would happen again and again, with the countries with the most votes in Parliament always getting their own way. Isn't it better to have an independent commission with no national affiliations drawing up a trademark law which works best for everyone, rather than one that is just most convenient for the countries with the largest trading blocks? If the Commission wasn't drawing up the best standardised laws, then the whole of the EU would just end up with versions of the law in the countries with the biggest voting blocks, not the best and most efficient laws. That's just off the top of my head. There might be a flaw in it that's not apparent, but I'm sure you'll point out if it's there. ] The strongest argument for current system is that allowing the Parliament to initiate legislation would take sovereignty away from the member states. They don't want that. If they did, there is a mechanism by which they can have the issue voted on in the Council. You just made my point . The process could be so embedded in the system that it makes it near impossible to change . What you doing is using the fallacy that it must be good because it hasn’t been challenged . What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 4, 2022 13:36:11 GMT
Some insights into the demise of the Uk mass car production, mostly before joining the then Common Market. __"But other car makers have gone despite early successes. Recessions killed many and bundled others into doomed liaisons. Misreadings of the market, the complacency that came with selling sub-standard cars to Britain’s colonies, destabilising government policies, failure to spot the competition and poor management all contributed to the demise of car makers. www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/remembering-britains-failed-car-companies-picture-special#:~:text=But%20what%20annihilated%20great%20chunks%20of,car%20might%20build%20a%20better%20business.&text=But%20what%20annihilated%20great,build%20a%20better%20business.&text=annihilated%20great%20chunks%20of,car%20might%20build%20a Yes, I'm very well aware that there are several reasons why we've lost our whole car industry. In fact the last British manufacturer was Morgan which is now Italian. And, yes, the trades unions were a thorn in their side for years. But exposing our industry (without any tariff protection) to the might of the EU was the major cause of the complete loss of the industry. The Germans have bought two of our most prestigious car makers. It's not only the UK that has been damaged by the EU. The USA has also found it impossible to compete with German car manufacturers. Trump asked the question why are there so many VWs in NY? And the answer is obvious. Germany is trading with a devalued currency. The euro has been undervalued by about 20% for decades. They hide behind the single currency. It's not just the British manufacturers who can't compete. Nor can the USA. But they haven't joined the EU. But that was just another example. Do you understand the basic principle that making a blanket trading agreement with a large trading bloc such as the EU is very dangerous? It's just fundamental economics, but you EU supporters don't understand economics. And neither does the EU or it wouldn't have imposed the single currency. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 13:41:26 GMT
You just made my point . The process could be so embedded in the system that it makes it near impossible to change . What you doing is using the fallacy that it must be good because it hasn’t been challenged . What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? I have no need or obligation to construct an alternative system . My point was that the system isn’t good by default because it hasn’t ( yet) been challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 4, 2022 13:45:11 GMT
What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? I don't think that the EU model will ever work. You can't tinker with it - you just have to junk it entirely. They've already bankrupted Greece and Italy isn't far behind now. The richest country in Europe (per capita) is Switzerland and it's not a member of the EU - and not a member of either the Single Market or the Customs Union. It trades via bilateral agreements on products. That's what we should have done. But our MPs wouldn't allow it. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 13:53:11 GMT
What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? I have no need or obligation to construct an alternative system . My point was that the system isn’t good by default because it hasn’t ( yet) been challenged. The brilliant but sadly late Karl Popper would approve of that point |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 13:54:28 GMT
You just made my point . The process could be so embedded in the system that it makes it near impossible to change . What you doing is using the fallacy that it must be good because it hasn’t been challenged . What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? That the EU Parliament could directly initiate EU rules and amendments to proposed new rules |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 13:54:42 GMT
What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? I have no need or obligation to construct an alternative system . My point was that the system isn’t good by default because it hasn’t ( yet) been challenged. Fine, so there is no fair workable alternative system, then. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 4, 2022 13:55:23 GMT
The Credit Suisse knock-on efect might push Swiss business to argue for joining.
The other factor now is Scotland it would be bizarre to have another referendum on the EU before we know if they are going to stay in the Union.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:00:28 GMT
What alternative system would you propose, bearing in mind what I said above? Would you like all the laws standardised across the EU to be mirror images of German and French laws(assuming they have most votes), or would you rather that a commission with no national affiliations drew up the laws that are the best laws and which work best for everyone? That the EU Parliament could directly initiate EU rules and amendments to proposed new rules Okay, the Commission has been drawing up plans for a common contract law for the EU for a long time. The Austrian, Dutch, German and Scandinavian legal systems are very similar. Under the approach you appear to favour, they would get together and initiate a vote on legislation that made their law of contract the standard throughout Europe. They could probably get the votes, given their numbers. Is that ideal? Instead of working out the best system that works best for everyone because it takes into account all the different legal systems, the EU ends up with the German, etc. model. This would happen again and again, with all standardising laws throughout Europe. I'm sure some would like your idea. But there seems to be a preference for an independent body (the Commission) to draft standardising laws that address flaws in national systems and work to facilitate all the members. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 14:01:27 GMT
I have no need or obligation to construct an alternative system . My point was that the system isn’t good by default because it hasn’t ( yet) been challenged. Fine, so there is no fair workable alternative system, then. You support claim that the system is the best because it hasn’t been challenged it and I won’t give you a new one . Ffs…. 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:03:29 GMT
Fine, so there is no fair workable alternative system, then. You support claim that the system is the best because it hasn’t been challenged it and I won’t give you a new one . Ffs…. 😆 I said it was acceptable to the 27 member states. If you think there is one that would be more acceptable, let's hear it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 14:04:22 GMT
You support claim that the system is the best because it hasn’t been challenged it and I won’t give you a new one . Ffs…. 😆 I said it was acceptable to the 27 member states. If you think there is one that would be more acceptable, let's hear it. Just read the post you answered . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:07:50 GMT
I said it was acceptable to the 27 member states. If you think there is one that would be more acceptable, let's hear it. Just read the post you answered . Right, so you can't think of an alternative. You like the idea of the big countries with most of the votes being able to initiate legislation that suits them best and ignores the smaller members. How long do you think the EU would last if that approach was taken? Every small country would just leave. The current approach allows the Commission to put national affiliations aside and work on the basis of what is best for the EU as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 14:13:03 GMT
Just read the post you answered . Right, so you can't think of an alternative. You like the idea of the big countries with most of the votes being able to initiate legislation that suits them best but ignores the smaller members. How long do you think the EU would last if that approach was taken? Every small country would just leave. The current approach allows the Commission to put national affiliations aside and work on the basis of what is best for the EU as a whole. The claim that because I’m not giving you another system proves that the system is ‘ acceptable’ is nonsense . Ive already given you one possibility why it hadn’t been challenged . I don’t know and don’t care if it’s the best system or not . What I am challenging is the fallacy that it is acceptable because it hadn’t been challenged yet. Is a system only deemed acceptable at the point or after it is challenged or is it deemed acceptable before it has been challenged? Was the Soviet system of government quite acceptable until it was challenged ? Thats the trouble with fallacies . |
|
