Pro and Anti EU - The Arguments - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14980070
I quote this from way back on page 4.
noemon wrote:Let us be quite clear Ter, mr Connolly is arguing that the ECJ supersedes national law but what he fails to mention to his audience is that the ECJ only applies the law that national governments have instituted at EU level. He also fails to mention the following:
wikipedia on ECJ wrote:
The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ.[5] However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. Although, only courts of final appeal are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is addressed. The treaties give the ECJ the power for consistent application of EU law across the EU as a whole.

Noemon, IStM that the part I bolded does, in fact, give the ECJ the power to override national laws. How else can it deal for the situation where 2 nations have laws that cover the same subject and allow or force opposite behavior?
#14980101
Steve_American wrote:I quote this from way back on page 4.

Noemon, IStM that the part I bolded does, in fact, give the ECJ the power to override national laws. How else can it deal for the situation where 2 nations have laws that cover the same subject and allow or force opposite behavior?


When a European nation legislates against the European treaties(which all EU nations have approved) such as Italy for example putting custom duties on other European products, then certainly the ECJ has the power to impose penalties against Italy or any other EU country. That country then has the option to either pay the penalty or remove herself from the group if their national policy is adamant on imposing custom duties for example.
#14980198
noemon wrote:You are not making any sense. The EU Council does not need to increase its power, it has the Ultimate Power. It is as I wrote above the Alpha and Omega. The EU Council is composed of the elected Prime Ministers of the EU member countries. For a change in governance to occur, all national governments are required to vote for such a change unanimously.



Nonsense -

noemon - " unanimously" , Therein lays the 'LIE' that Jeremy CORBYN declares when he said, " The E.U is 'flexible'. :hmm:

The trouble is, if there is no 'unanimity' then nothing changes, unlike previously when 'majority' voting, with 'veto's' applied.

The Lisbon Treaty that Gordon BROWN signed this country up to WITHOUT the PROMISED manifesto REFERENDUM, is a major contributor to the negativity towards the E.U.
The E.U should rewrite the Treaties from MAASTRICHT, LEAVING OUT ANY REFERENCE TO 'THIRD COUNTRIES'.

The E.U is democratically remote from the people, the same is true of the U.K since & with the 5 year 'Fixed Parliament' Act.

The point is that time, as well as distance creates remoteness, but, of course, 'democracy' is presented as the 'ideal' form of government,well, up to & including election day of which thereafter the 'hangover' reveals the temporary effects of the 'democratic' elixir.
#14980200
Nonsense wrote:Therein lays the 'LIE' that Jeremy CORBYN declares when he said, " The E.U is 'flexible'. :hmm:

He means there are many ways the UK can leave the EU, which is true, and the EU also wouldn't oppose delaying Brexit if necessary.
#14980202
noemon wrote:Stephen Fry's Arguments






I recall studying ONS statistics back in 2008-9 regarding population & migrants in respect of claiming social benefits.

What I recall, compared to FRY's FAKE portrayal of the 'benefits' of immigration, is of absolutely no surprise to me at all.

Let me explain, government, business or pro-migration groups(ALL of whom have motivation to destroy national identity or culture)have their own vested interest in telling lies about the actuality of it all.

I recall those statistics(now archived) from 2008, that gave stats on origin of migrants, benefits claimed, gender etc.

Now, WITHIN 3 months of arriving on our shores-legally or 'otherwise' - 6.8% claimed DLA benefit, that's just one benefit, not counting housing, tax credits, NHS etc,etc.

Now, those benefits are paid for by taxpayers, the increases of which reduce real disposable incomes of the working class of this country, along with job displacement, where migrants take jobs, for which our fit unemployed should be agressively coerced into taking, before allowing migrants to perform them.

Also, LABOUR 'created' ONE MILLION public, civil service jobs that they allowed many migrants to fill.

Is it any wonder that the 'RIGHT' have made progress throughout europe when we are facing a crisis of identity & with a pro-Lisbon Treaty E.U superstate?
#14980227
Steve_American wrote:@noemon,
Do you really want me to believe that those treaties cover every possible sort of law that can be written.


No I do not. Because that does not follow from what I said. EU treaties do not cover every possible law and nor do they intend to.

Of course, if a law violates one of the sacred treaties then the ECJ can step in, otherwise what happens?


Nothing.

Nonsense wrote:I recall studying ONS statistics back in 2008-9 regarding population & migrants in respect of claiming social benefits.
What I recall, compared to FRY's FAKE portrayal of the 'benefits' of immigration, is of absolutely no surprise to me at all.


Before you call something fake, you need to prove it's fake and that you have certainly not done, so your criticism is fake.
#14980229
noemon wrote:No I do not. Because that does not follow from what I said. EU treaties do not cover every possible law and nor do they intend to.



Nothing.



Before you call something fake, you need to prove it's fake and that you have certainly not done, so your criticism is fake.


Nonsense - NOT so, It is not I that said there were\are 'benefits' to the U.K economy, it was the government, 'academics',MP's etc, funded with our taxpayers money from the E.U & YET, NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED THAT PROVES THEIR CASE.

I myself need to do NOTHING, they above made that case WITHOUT any declared proof.
#14980236
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense - not so, It is not I that said there were\are 'benefits' to the U.K economy, it was the government, 'academics',MP's etc, funded with our taxpayers money from the E.U & yet, not one single piece of empirical evidence has ever been produced that proves their case.
I myself need to do nothin, they above made that case WITHOUT any declared proof.


Of course there is scientific proof: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent- ... 250df6dbba

Before you slander it as fake you are supposed to prove these facts wrong.
#14980244
noemon wrote:Of course there is scientific proof: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent- ... 250df6dbba

Before you slander it as fake you are supposed to prove these facts wrong.



Nonsense -

The link & it's 'data' are NOT scientific proof, that's complete & utter nonsense.


No need to 'slander' such nonsense, the facts speak for themselves, so please don't inflate your case with nothing behind it, of which I do see nothing(evidence & sources of)

The data which you mention, of which there is no SOURCE, is NOT a FACT, it is 'data', which is the Oxfordeconomics OWN 'data', compiled from any number of publications tailored to suit the clients needs.

They are a commercial company operating for profit & are employed to give their client's(the government, through the MAC),paid for by taxpayers money to the Tories friends in business.

That 'data' could be anything,just a publication for instance of the government's own DWP figures & being a government Department is barely credible,complete or independent.

There is no substitute for seeing source material with one's own eyes.

ALL data is useless until it is utilised within a proper accounting context, not merely staistical or presentatonal, as such it is mere propaganda, used to influence any argument according to needs.
#14980249
Nonsense wrote:The link & it's 'data' are NOT scientific proof, that's complete & utter nonsense.
No need to 'slander' such nonsense, the facts speak for themselves


What facts are those? Slandering immigrants as scroungers? And your facts come from...where?....your prejudice I guess, for every person ones own prejudice speaks for itself and when the prejudice is faced with hard facts, it starts screaming "fake news"! Unless you debunk the data, the only thing that is "fake news" is your outrageous screaming.
#14980256
noemon wrote:What facts are those? Slandering immigrants as scroungers? And your facts come from...where?....your prejudice I guess, for every person ones own prejudice speaks for itself and when the prejudice is faced with hard facts, it starts screaming "fake news"! Unless you debunk the data, the only thing that is "fake news" is your outrageous screaming.



The only 'fake news' is your depicting such nonsense as a link describing it as, "scientific proof", don't make me laugh. :knife: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol:
#14980258
Nonsense wrote:The only 'fake news' is your depicting


A good thing then that the only fake news is my description and your description of it but not the data itself. For that you would actually need an argument. ;)
#14980330
Steve_American wrote:
@noemon,
Do you really want me to believe that those treaties cover every possible sort of law that can be written.

noemon replied:
No I do not. Because that does not follow from what I said. EU treaties do not cover every possible law and nor do they intend to.

Steve_American wrote:
Of course, if a law violates one of the sacred treaties then the ECJ can step in, otherwise what happens?

noemon replied:
Nothing.

noemon, sorry I was unclear. I meant, "Of course, if a law violates one of the sacred treaties then the ECJ can step in, otherwise what happens when 2 nations make laws on a subject that make people do [or not do] opposite actions.?
. . . The quote from Wikipedia that you supplied said that the ECJ must or can act to enforce unifomativity across the EU. So, what will it do in this case? If it chooses to enforce uniformativity then it must override a national law. If it doesn't then it is not enforcing uniformativity.
#14980364
noemon wrote:A good thing then that the only fake news is my description and your description of it but not the data itself. For that you would actually need an argument. ;)

What you saw was just a presentation, you never saw data & I am not sure that you would recognise it if you did see it,.

Have a nice day. :lol: :lol:
#14980377
Steve_American wrote:noemon, sorry I was unclear. I meant, "Of course, if a law violates one of the sacred treaties then the ECJ can step in, otherwise what happens when 2 nations make laws on a subject that make people do [or not do] opposite actions.?
. . . The quote from Wikipedia that you supplied said that the ECJ must or can act to enforce unifomativity across the EU. So, what will it do in this case? If it chooses to enforce uniformativity then it must override a national law. If it doesn't then it is not enforcing uniformativity.


There is no "uniformativity" for laws outside the European treaties.

The quote:

consistent application of EU law


Not "all law". The ECJ does not have the power to apply Law outside its mandate.

Nonsense wrote:What you saw was just a presentation, you never saw data & I am not sure that you would recognise it if you did see it,.


Dear it is funny that you give yourself away like this, perhaps what you saw was just a presentation and failed to click the button "Read the Full Report".
#14980498
Departure of UK from the EU presents a historical opportunity for the EU to go through a major reform. There are many people who believe the EU in its current form is dying. It needs to take a bold step forward (just like its "glorious" predecessor Austria-Hungary when it declared war on Serbia) and introduce some major changes.

1. Contributions by EU member states are replaced by EU wide tax
2. European parliament is given full legislative powers and ideally have mid term elections, instead of all MPs being elected at once. Have power to initiate vote of no confidence in European commission.
3. Abolish council of ministers and have European Council (prime ministers) approve/veto legislation or initiate it if needed.

The EU will either survive it and work better or fall apart.
#14980671
fokker wrote:Departure of UK from the EU presents a historical opportunity for the EU to go through a major reform. There are many people who believe the EU in its current form is dying. It needs to take a bold step forward (just like its "glorious" predecessor Austria-Hungary when it declared war on Serbia) and introduce some major changes.

1. Contributions by EU member states are replaced by EU wide tax
2. European parliament is given full legislative powers and ideally have mid term elections, instead of all MPs being elected at once. Have power to initiate vote of no confidence in European commission.
3. Abolish council of ministers and have European Council (prime ministers) approve/veto legislation or initiate it if needed.

The EU will either survive it and work better or fall apart.


You realize the tax you suggest will be the end of any national autonomy? The US federal income tax was the major weapon to force federal control where it has no authority. The current budget the E.U. has is a big enough potential threat.
It appears from your other suggestion this is not a concern of yours however.
#14980747
One Degree wrote:You realize the tax you suggest will be the end of any national autonomy? The US federal income tax was the major weapon to force federal control where it has no authority. The current budget the E.U. has is a big enough potential threat.
It appears from your other suggestion this is not a concern of yours however.

In the aftermath of WWII, the Allies set out to systematically destroy any sense of national pride or national autonomy in the souls of the German people. They eventually succeeded, and now the Germans are returning the favour. Ain't karma a bitch? Lol. :excited:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 14
Trump and Russiagate

Like I said, watch "The World According to D[…]

Election 2020

Just a tip on how to get elected irrelevant of dem[…]

Don't get me wrong in any way, if people indulged […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

I'm taking into account FPTP and how I think fanat[…]