|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:19:53 GMT
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 . Most EU countries had referendums on whether they would join the EU. They voted for the current system. We can take that as an indication that it is acceptable to them. Another indicator of its acceptability is the fact that not one member state has used the available mechanism to change it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:22:28 GMT
I'll try to explain my position again:
The EU has standardised a lot of laws across Europe. I’m not sure if they’ve standardised copyright law yet, but let’s assume they haven’t for the sake of the current argument.
Suppose you had your way, and the structure of the EU was changed to allow Parliament to initiate legislation. Next week, the Germans, Dutch, and Scandinavians would put a bill before the Parliament asking for their law of copyright to be the standard law of copyright across the EU (as I said previously, these countries tend to have similar legal systems). They would probably have a majority and the new law of copyright in all 27 member states would be this German/Scandinavian model.
Is that the best way to do it? Wouldn’t it be better if there was an independent body that actually decided which was the best law of copyright, a body that considered the law of copyright in all 27 member states and introduced a standard law of copyright that is of the highest possible quality and least disruptive to the legal systems of all member states? That is the better approach. The EU would fall apart literally within years of this new system being introduced, because the bigger blocks with similar legal systems would get their way on everything. The laws that are introduced wouldn't be the best possible laws, they would be mirror images of the law in the biggest states which have initiated legislation to mirror their own laws because that would be least disruptive to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 14:23:10 GMT
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 . Most EU countries had referendums on whether they would join the EU. They voted for the current system. We can take that as an indication that it is acceptable to them. I suspect that most of the people who live in those countries were aware of the the systems . Was that system clearly pointed out and discussed with the voters? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:26:36 GMT
Most EU countries had referendums on whether they would join the EU. They voted for the current system. We can take that as an indication that it is acceptable to them. I suspect that most of the people who live in those countries were aware of the the systems . Was that system clearly pointed out and discussed with the voters? I've no idea. But it's hardly information they couldn't easily have got hold of. Whether they would have been interested enough to get hold of it is another matter. After all, wasn't 'what is the EU?' the most googled question in the UK the day after the Brexit vote result was announced. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 4, 2022 14:29:17 GMT
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. No because it wouldn't become 'law' unless a) it was within the limited areas of competence the EU has b) it wasn't one of the areas any one nation could veto c) it was approved by the Commission The weakness right now is the Commission prepares draft rules and the Parliament has to accept it or reject it. In practice there are routes where the main voting blocks privately tell the Commission 'if you change this to this we'll approve" (as they did to approve Von der Leyen) but a better democratic process whould be more open than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:33:02 GMT
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. No because it wouldn't become 'law' unless a) it was within the limited areas of competence the EU has b) it wasn't one of the areas any one nation could veto c) it was approved by the Commission The weakness right now is the Commission prepares draft rules and the Parliament has to accept it or reject it. In practice there are routes where the main voting blocks privately tell the Commission 'if you change this to this we'll approve" (as they did to approve Von der Leyen) but a better democratic process whould be more open than that. Changing laws is a big deal. It is highly disruptive. The Commission has worked on a set of contract laws that accommodate all the member states. They have invested a lot of time, money and energy in getting the right balance between the member states. What are you proposing as an alternative? That Germany draw up plans which mirror its own system? That every country do that and then every country lay their bill before Parliament for a vote? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 14:34:06 GMT
I suspect that most of the people who live in those countries were aware of the the systems . Was that system clearly pointed out and discussed with the voters? I've no idea. But it's hardly information they couldn't easily have got hold of. Whether they would have been interested enough to get hold of it is another matter. After all, wasn't 'what is the EU?' the most googled question in the UK the day after the Brexit vote result was announced. So even if a voter is unaware of parts of the system , a vote for the system makes all parts of the system agreeable? Are you basing your claim on the presumption that everyone who voted had studied and understood the whole system or claiming those that didn’t agreed by default ? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:36:07 GMT
I've no idea. But it's hardly information they couldn't easily have got hold of. Whether they would have been interested enough to get hold of it is another matter. After all, wasn't 'what is the EU?' the most googled question in the UK the day after the Brexit vote result was announced. So even if a voter is unaware of parts of the system , a vote for the system makes all parts of the system agreeable? Are you basing your claim on the presumption that everyone who voted had studied and understood the whole system or claiming those that didn’t agreed by default ? All I know is that it's the only system that will work. Are you suggesting that everyone should be forced to familiarise themselves with EU structures before they get to vote in a referendum? How would you enforce that? The only thing to do is to make that information freely available. If people choose not to familiarise themselves with all the facts, nothing can be done about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 4, 2022 14:41:16 GMT
So even if a voter is unaware of parts of the system , a vote for the system makes all parts of the system agreeable? Are you basing your claim on the presumption that everyone who voted had studied and understood the whole system or claiming those that didn’t agreed by default ? All I know is that it's the only system that will work. Are you suggesting that everyone should be forced to familiarise themselves with EU structures before they get to vote in a referendum? How would you enforce that? The only thing to do is to make that information freely available. If people choose not to familiarise themselves with all the facts, nothing can be done about that. Your attempt to mirror my question to you is noted. However we seem to have found the reason why you insist the system is agreeable. Its because you agree with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 14:43:07 GMT
All I know is that it's the only system that will work. Are you suggesting that everyone should be forced to familiarise themselves with EU structures before they get to vote in a referendum? How would you enforce that? The only thing to do is to make that information freely available. If people choose not to familiarise themselves with all the facts, nothing can be done about that. Your attempt to mirror my question to you is noted. However we seem to have found the reason why you insist the system is agreeable. Its because you agree with it. Note what you like, Benny. I say that the current system is acceptable to the EU member states because they voted for it in a referendum. You say leaving the EU is acceptable to Britain because Britain voted for it in a referendum. Looks like we're on the same page. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 4, 2022 15:49:36 GMT
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 . Most EU countries had referendums on whether they would join the EU. They voted for the current system. We can take that as an indication that it is acceptable to them. Another indicator of its acceptability is the fact that not one member state has used the available mechanism to change it. Some even had a referendum on a Constitution for the EU, which was rejected , but they got it anyway by means of something they could not have a referendum on. On such things are pictures drawn of what one is dealing with |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 16:06:41 GMT
Most EU countries had referendums on whether they would join the EU. They voted for the current system. We can take that as an indication that it is acceptable to them. Another indicator of its acceptability is the fact that not one member state has used the available mechanism to change it. Some even had a referendum on a Constitution for the EU, which was rejected , but they got it anyway by means of something they could not have a referendum on. On such things are pictures drawn of what one is dealing with I don't quite know what you're talking about. Do you have a link? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 4, 2022 16:18:34 GMT
Not all Labour voters or MPs opposed Brexit The problem for me is the lying bitch Jessica Morden who got back in as the Labour MP for Newport East said categorically in the 2017 election manifesto that it was time for her and the party to recognise the referendum result and work to deliver the best possible outcome from it, and as soon as her arse was safely on the green leather again the bitch went into all out conspiracy mode to do her utmost short of actually bombing people to derail the process. The key fact you must realise in connection with her treachery is that AT THE TIME we were a somewhat marginal seat and there were a whole range of voices asking to be elected ranging from ‘burn the 1972 Act and come straight out now’ to ‘burn the referendum result and as many leave voters as we can round up and stick in a gas oven’ and pretty much every shade of political opinion in between and HAD THIS BITCH TOLD THE TRUTH about her intent she would NOT have got back in. Why should I believe a bloody word these scum day when they pull stunts like that ?? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 4, 2022 16:21:54 GMT
You are one of the people who post entirely misleading posts about the EU. 1. The commission is not all powerful. They do have a responsibility to see that EU rules, regs and Laws are followed BUT, IT HAS NO POWER TO PASS ANY rules, regs or laws. It can only put forward suggested changes or propositions, which are then scrutinized by the EU Committee (not the Commission) where if areas of the proposition are considered not acceptable it can be returned to the Commission, repeatedly if necessary, before passing it to the EU Parliament for acceptance. IIRC. some propositions have been kicked into the long grass in the past. 2. The commission is made up from head of governments or head of parliaments of EU member states (all elected individuals in their own right). Its members also have to be accepted by the EU Committee and the EU Parliament. 3. The idea that it avoids scrutiny, behind closed doors, is a nonsense exaggeration of normal procedures. That is plainly obvious because everything they put forward is doubly scrutinised by elected bodies. Yes, a shining example of representative democracy, and despite the often very misleading comments and accusations put out against the EU I fully endorse their honesty and their future aims for a United Europe. The EU Commission in their own words. "The European Commission is responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European laws. It has the right to do this on its own initiative"ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/what-european-commission-does/law_enThe unelected Commission is not obliged to accept amendments from the elected parliament. This shows which body has the real power. The EU is set up to give the impression of democracy. But the fact is, the EU parliament is like no parliament anywhere in the world, it's a toothless parliament who rubber stamps legislation proposed by an unelected executive. Not just on its own initiative, that is exactly the job of the Commission and its civil servants(?). I.E., to do the research amongst member countries, collate the information available, look at the history of existing laws etc., look into the legality of what needs to be or what might be advisable to do and to come up with a proposition based upon the information available. Amendments are suggested by the EU Committee which IIRC is made up of 50% members of parliament and 50% members of EU member countries. The MPs have the final word on whether the proposition goes to parliament, or it goes back to the Commission. The Commission has no power to force the EU parliament to accept anything because that is not part of its remit. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 4, 2022 16:27:39 GMT
Here's another problem with the EU Parliament initiating legislation. It’s just off the top of my head, so point out any flaws.
Let’s use a scenario. It’ll be easier if we imagine that the UK is still in the EU. Suppose Labour are in power. The party is broken up into different factions, with each faction having widely opposing views on a bill that is before the House. Faction A loses the vote.
Faction A is not at all happy, so they go to the Labour party in the EU Parliament and ask them to put a bill before the EU Parliament that would achieve the result they failed to achieve in the UK parliament. This bill succeeds. Now, the law that they failed to pass in the UK Parliament becomes the law in the UK.
I can’t see people being very happy with that. It would be disastrous for the EU if this sort of thing happened regularly across the EU. It could be even worse. Suppose the Labour party wasn’t in government in the UK and they lose a vote to the Torys on an issue they feel strongly about. They would then have the option of going to the Labour party in the EU Parliament and asking them to pass an EU law which would override the result in the UK Parliament.
|
|
