Government to spend Nine million on leaflets

[tzijlstra]

The Express is written in English.

 

Is it now. I really want to think my confirmation bias that Brexiters are on a certain intellectual plane isn't actually true. But sometimes....

[ricgem2002]

don't our eu partners bend the rules a little thou tim when it comes to protects its own workers you know the ones like " Some countries, Italy for example, have found ways of getting round state aid rules by saying that financial support is designed to meet tougher EU environmental standards" I wonder why we don't do the same

[retep]

Is it now. I really want to think my confirmation bias that Brexiters are on a certain intellectual plane isn't actually true. But sometimes....

 

 

Did you watch the link in my post where Farage gave it to the EU on democracy.

Here it is again,

 

 

Needs no translator.

[tzijlstra]

don't our eu partners bend the rules a little thou tim when it comes to protects its own workers you know the ones like " Some countries, Italy for example, have found ways of getting round state aid rules by saying that financial support is designed to meet tougher EU environmental standards" I wonder why we don't do the same

 

They interpret the rules in a way that suits them, just as the British government does. That is why the Tories are not protecting any business and keep harping on about the joys of privatisation. I happen to agree with that stance, but I certainly hate the constant deferring to the EU as being the reason things can't happen. That is why people in the UK don't like the EU, simple as.

 

Did you watch the link in my post where Farage gave it to the EU on democracy.

Here it is again,

 

 

Needs no translator.

 

Soooooo.... I debunk your point because it comes from a ridiculous source and then you want me to believe Farage? And even better the nonsense that he 'stunned parliament into silence'? Farage is a completely discredited clown in Europe who is doing an awful lot to damage British interests in the EU.

[PeteMorris]

Says the man who says: 'I don't know, just don't like it' like he is from a Little Britain sketch.

 

It is absolutely preposterous that you didn't even bother checking what I said Pete, if you had done, you wouldn't say I was biased. In fact, let me push that further - you explain to me how the EU is stopping state aid to the steel industry when Germany succeeds?

 

Whilst we are at it, explain to me how the Dutch have had the regulations about EU migrants not being allowed benefits after a number of years in place for years now, whilst the UK prime minister dithers around stating he needs EU approval?

 

It is pretty darned clear that is the result of the UK not understanding what situation it is in and it is people like you that cause that situation. Get your head out of your backside and learn about the world you live in instead of reminiscing about the bleeding past thinking it were all better.

 

/rant.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2016 at 20:05 ----------

 

Whilst I am at it by the way, I'd like a reply from Truman and Unbeliever to my arguments. I am getting pretty darned sick of people seeking an argument, getting an answer, ignoring it or stating 'I am biased' and then repeating the same damned argument two days later like they never got a retort.

 

The reason I said you're biased, is that no amount of evidence or persuasion will ever convince you that the UK needs to come out of the EU. Indeed I have vague recollections of you once saying in a thread that you were somehow 'involved' in the EU in the past (I may be wrong about that though). So no amount of argument is ever going to change your pro-EU stance.

 

You keep saying those of us who are anti-EU are somehow brainwashed by the media and newspapers. Do you really expect people to switch off from all media contact and only listen to you because you're always right? Because all of the media keep spreading lies? How ridiculous is that?

 

Has it not occurred to you that 'some' of the pro-EU media might also be telling lies, or at best massaging the truth?

 

In regard to energy costs, and in particular steel making, here's an extract from the Financial times (I trust you 'might' consider this as a reliable source?), which highlights the problem, and points to the EU in terms of Carbon emissions and renewable energy directives.

 

Modern industrial policy should be aimed at preparing a fertile business environment for the breakthrough sectors of the future, not propping up tottering giants of the past. In the case of Britain’s energy intensive industries, the problem is not a surfeit of state subsidy but its opposite. Higher energy bills are the direct result of government policy, which obliges customers to source a portion of their electricity from renewable technologies. In 2010 these put UK electricity users at a £15/MWh disadvantage compared to those in Germany. This adds £8 to the cost of a tonne of steel. For a product now selling at less than £200 a tonne, that is enough to wipe out any margin.

 

Expensive energy should encourage companies to economise on its use. But the strategy fails when higher costs merely encourage carbon-intensive activity to shift overseas, perhaps to jurisdictions where standards are more lax. This “carbon leakage” is a blow on two counts: the global environment suffers and so does local employment. (https://next.ft.com/content/9c918afe-62a9-11e5-a28b-50226830d644)

 

Finally. Please don't get overheated and ask me to remove my head from my arse.

 

I have as much right as you to choose how I wish to vote in the referendum.

[truman]

[/color]Whilst I am at it by the way, I'd like a reply from Truman and Unbeliever to my arguments. I am getting pretty darned sick of people seeking an argument, getting an answer, ignoring it or stating 'I am biased' and then repeating the same damned argument two days later like they never got a retort.

 

 

Which argument is that ..? I'm not seeking an argument..I am honestly undecided...when I ask a question I get told it's a silly question to ask..I haven't said you're biased...what do you want me to answer..?

[unbeliever]

I didn't blame economic problems on UK independence, I pointed to UK economic recovery as being in part due to being a member of the EU, a very significant difference that is easily forgotten by Brexiters.

 

 

Correlation is not causation. We also had a new national government with radically different economic policy.

 

Firstly - what is a free trade deal? It is essentially a bilateral legally binding agreement that governs trade between two nations. It is indeed likely that the EU will want to sign a deal with Britain, in particular to keep Britain in the EEA - the highest level of free trade outside of being in the EU itself. This states that as part of the free movement of goods (which you want, because that is free trade) the EU will demand free movement of people and that the UK ensures compatibility with EU law concerning trade. Nothing will change in that respect.

 

You want facts, look at the amount of laws that Norway, Iceland and Switzerland adopt as part of the EEA that have been unilaterally decided by the EU. They do this because they need to maintain their EEA status. In fact, Norway adopts almost all EU laws without having any major influence on these rules.

 

So my argument stands - leaving the EU and joining the EEA will not significantly lower the EU-laws adopted in the UK, it will just mean the UK is sidelined in discussions and will have to try and force things through behind the scenes. I will elaborate on this as per your wish to have facts (and you can check this):

 

 

You don't know this. That's what I keep saying. Your facts about Norway (which depends on the EU for 80% of its trade) are not transferable to the UK case.

 

The EU has free trade agreements (not as many as they should) outside Europe and none of these require free movement, or extend lawmaking to outside matters of trade with the EU

 

 

 

You used a rather baseless 50% for trade laws and 50% for everything else, you will find that the EU releases directives that get adopted by member-states in a form acceptable to them and that all these directives are bound by the treaties of the EU.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that 50% of our laws emanated from the EU. I don't have the figure for that. I referred to less than 50% of our trade being with the EU.

 

In the case of the UK almost all of these treaties relate exclusively to trade and some relate to the quality of the environment. The UK is already excempt from Schengen treaty law, it is excempt from Eurozone treaty law.

 

That means there is hardly any other law being adopted in the UK, that is directed by the EU, than trade-law and occasional preservation (Quality of the environment) law. This is pretty darned noticeable in recent years - the UK did not agree to the immigrant redistribution negotiations (Schengen), so it didn't have to. The UK did not have to bail out Greece (although the government chose to help a little, a purely sovereign decision). The UK does not have to agree to setting up an international anti terrorism task-force but is driving that issue in the EU - because it has that influence.

 

If you don't want to believe me that is fine, but just have a look at legislation.gov.uk - it is where all new legislation in the UK is announced. You will be very hard pressed to find anything that is not related to trade or the quality of the environment.

 

 

The "environment" or trade can be used to justify laws on almost any area of life. Trade and the environment cover almost everything. You can't just add in "environment" like it's a detail and then brush it away. What has the environment got to do with trade anyway?

 

This is typical tripe, it is irrelevant if the EU has problems or not, if it was relevant than the UK would have the same problems, it doesn't. The only reason you put this here is to put the EU down without foundation. Pretty darned ironic when you then follow it up with:

 

I bring up the EU's problems not to score points, but to illustrate their weakness when it comes to negotiating a trade agreement with an independent UK. As you did earlier for the UK position.

 

 

We've been through all this so many times now.

 

You may be right that the UK media blames the EU unfairly for unpopular UK laws. There is a reverse effect as well that the government frequently announces new laws and policies as if they're theirs and a bit of research demonstrates that they emerge from EU directives.

 

What I want above all else is to know definitively who is responsible for what law and who I can write to or vote for/against if I don't like it.

Right now I find that extremely difficult.

The EU makes a directive. The UK government interprets that directive. If I complain to the UK government they tell me that it's the EU, if I complain to the EU they tell me it's the UK's interpretation.

 

 

Example. The UK parliament wanted to remove VAT from tampons in the UK on the grounds that they're not a luxury. They told us that despite the vote passing they couldn't do it because of the EU. Are they right, or are they scapegoating. Can they pursue the matter in the UK courts, or the ECJ, or elsewhere. Should I object to the UK government, the UK courts, the European courts, the EU commission, or the EU parliament.

 

Who in the name of Odin is in #*$@ing charge around here?

Edited April 15, 2016 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

Which argument is that ..? I'm not seeking an argument..I am honestly undecided...when I ask a question I get told it's a silly question to ask..I haven't said you're biased...what do you want me to answer..?

 

I explained to you what the UK gets back for its payments to the EU, you asked me to. I spend a lot of time answering questions about the EU and pointing out fallacies in reasoning when it comes to the EU but keep getting the same nonsense coming back. I am particularly annoyed with the regular 'Brexit posters' and you got caught in the crossfire. Apologies for that.

 

The reason I said you're biased, is that no amount of evidence or persuasion will ever convince you that the UK needs to come out of the EU. Indeed I have vague recollections of you once saying in a thread that you were somehow 'involved' in the EU in the past (I may be wrong about that though). So no amount of argument is ever going to change your pro-EU stance.

 

Mirror: You literally stated, "I just don't like the EU." Rather than telling me I am biased, why don't you try and measure what I say with the reality. You keep on ignoring the points I make, as is clear from this post. Your first point is:

 

You keep saying those of us who are anti-EU are somehow brainwashed by the media and newspapers. Do you really expect people to switch off from all media contact and only listen to you because you're always right? Because all of the media keep spreading lies? How ridiculous is that?

 

Have you seen the article Retep linked to? Is that genuinely the level of information you are comfortable with? I am telling you, and others, to stop believing everything you read in highly biased papers that exist in this country and use publicly available information to see what is going on.

 

Has it not occurred to you that 'some' of the pro-EU media might also be telling lies, or at best massaging the truth?

 

I have said this before - I don't trust media full stop. It is a result of my ability to approach complex problems with a critical mind as well as having worked in a media-environment and realising that all journalists care for is the next saucy quote. Life doesn't exist of quotes and in particular politics are very poorly served by working on the basis of scoring cheap points.

 

In regard to energy costs, and in particular steel making, here's an extract from the Financial times (I trust you 'might' consider this as a reliable source?), which highlights the problem, and points to the EU in terms of Carbon emissions and renewable energy directives.

 

You are linking to an article behind a paywall, so I can't read it. But let's consider those directives which were agreed on by all member-states and are the result of the various global energy treaties (With at the foundation the Kyoto protocol and the Doha extension, of which the UK is not only a signee but also an instigator).

 

It is up to the individual member-states how they implement these targets, the UK has its own interpretation of this and that is by increasing energy costs for industry.

 

Tata Steel recently stated it is happy to carry on in the Netherlands, partly because the energy-costs are structured differently than they are in the UK. That is because the EU does not decide how the individual member states implement the rules. Something that is constantly ignored in these debates.

 

Finally. Please don't get overheated and ask me to remove my head from my arse.

 

I have as much right as you to choose how I wish to vote in the referendum.

 

And I have as much right to be annoyed at being called biased by someone who states: I just don't like the EU. I hear no arguments from you to support that statement.

 

Correlation is not causation. We also had a new national government with radically different economic policy.

 

It is not, I am well aware of that. But don't hide behind that to dismiss the argument. I did not blame economic problems on UK independence, which you accused me off. That is a nonsense.

 

You don't know this. That's what I keep saying. Your facts about Norway (which depends on the EU for 80% of its trade) are not transferable to the UK case.

 

But the EEA is, this is a result of you and others keep saying - we will just negotiate a free trade agreement. You keep making that point like it is a unilateral decision for the UK. It is not. I know what the EU has said about this. But I'd like to know what sort of free trade agreement you are talking about, because I am the only one in this debate actually offering tangibles - an EEA-treaty is very likely at Brexit, an EEA-treaty comes with a built-in free movement of people and goods clause. Are you denying that and if so, what is your alternative?

 

The EU has free trade agreements (not as many as they should) outside Europe and none of these require free movement, or extend lawmaking to outside matters of trade.

 

Let's take that a step further, you are right that there aren't as many trade agreements as there should be, that is because they are negotiating them. China, USA, Canada etc. That takes years and years. Yet when confronted with the question how long it will take to negotiate this Brexit free-trade agreement the reply often is: Ah, but we are important to Europe, so it will happen quickly. Give me a time-frame? The shortest possible route is that the UK stays as part of the EEA, which comes with all those things I have talked about. So the uncertainty in the economy argument all of a sudden looms massively, unless it is an EEA-treaty which only achieves that Britain loses influence whilst still being subject to the perceived negatives.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that 50% of our laws emanated from the EU. I don't have the figure for that. I referred to less than 50% of our trade being with the EU.

 

You don't have the figure for that? Than why use it as an argument?

 

The "environment" or trade can be used to justify laws on almost any area of life. Trade and the environment cover almost everything. You can't just add in "environment" like it's a detail and then brush it away. What has the environment got to do with trade anyway?

 

I knew you, personally, would pick up on that. Most UK citizens are perfectly happy to have the environment protected, we now have otters in the Don...

 

But let's look at the environment treaty - the UK is a signee of the Kyoto treaty. Simple as, nothing is going to change regarding environmental law at Brexit. The UK already implements the EU law in a manner that is most suitable to the UK (or what the government of the day thinks it is). There are huge differences in interpretation across the whole of Europe which means that Tata is unhappy in the UK due to high energy costs but perfectly ok with staying in the Netherlands because those costs are not a factor there. Explain to me how that difference exists if the implementation of these laws is due to EU dictating how it should be?

 

You can't. Because you don't understand how the EU process works.

 

I bring up the EU's problems not to score points, but to illustrate their weakness when it comes to negotiating a trade agreement with an independent UK. As you did earlier for the UK position.

 

You did highlight it to score points you rambled on about EU problems without any context. But that aside, what is the GDP of the Eurozone? And what is the GDP of the UK? Did you check that excellent site I linked to by the way? Did you get an idea of how much trade there is between Europe and the UK? It is completely intertwined, the UK exports gas turbines to the EU and the EU exports gas turbines to the UK. That is because there are huge multinationals that work throughout the EU. They will hate the uncertainty that would come from a Brexit as evident in the number of signees stating the UK should stay in the EU compared to the pathetic (another point ignored in the past) number of signees that state to be in favour of a Brexit.

 

We've been through all this so many times now.

 

You may be right that the UK media blames the EU unfairly for unpopular UK laws. There is a reverse effect as well that the government frequently announces new laws and policies as if they're theirs and a bit of research demonstrates that they emerge from EU directives.

 

I am right about it, any reasonably thinking human being, of which I believe you are one, only has to read the article Peter Retep posted to see that.

 

What I want above all else is to know definitively who is responsible for what law and who I can write to or vote for/against if I don't like it.

Right now I find that extremely difficult.

 

I agree that is difficult to work out. But it is made immensely more difficult by the influence of the anti-EU press in this country, as you say, we have been over this so often, so I am repeating myself ad infinitum. As long as the UK keeps 'protesting' against the national government by abusing the MEP ballot, it will remain an ill-trusting relationship. The EU really tries to address this problem but it can only achieve that if the UK press picks up their overtures.

 

The EU makes a directive. The UK government interprets that directive. If I complain to the UK government they tell me that it's the EU, if I complain to the EU they tell me it's the UK's interpretation.

 

That is exactly how it works, except that it is important to remember that the EU is the UK and the UK is the EU. All those directives coming from the EU have been proposed by the Council, with Cameron on it, or the Commission, with a UK representative on it, and have been vetted by the Parliament, with Brits in it. There is no us and them.

 

Example. The UK parliament wanted to remove VAT from tampons in the UK on the grounds that they're not a luxury. They told us that despite the vote passing they couldn't do it because of the EU. Are they right, or are they scapegoating. Can they pursue the matter in the UK courts, or the ECJ, or elsewhere. Should I object to the UK government, the UK courts, the European courts, the EU commission, or the EU parliament.

 

I've never come across this example, but let me state this unequivocally - the EU does not decide on tax matters in the UK or any other member-state, it has no authority to do so. So knowing that, answer this question yourself:

 

Who in the name of Odin is in #*$@ing charge around here?

 

Can I, as a final point, send you to the Kyoto treaty Wiki and then to the International Emissions Trading section. There is a link there to a little-known law in the UK - the CRC which operates only in Britain, it is the UK government that decided to go above and beyond the ETS agreement (The EU directive that commits to the Kyoto Protocol).

Edited April 15, 2016 by tzijlstra

[PeteMorris]

I explained to you what the UK gets back for its payments to the EU, you asked me to. I spend a lot of time answering questions about the EU and pointing out fallacies in reasoning when it comes to the EU but keep getting the same nonsense coming back. I am particularly annoyed with the regular 'Brexit posters' and you got caught in the crossfire. Apologies for that.

 

 

 

Mirror: You literally stated, "I just don't like the EU." Rather than telling me I am biased, why don't you try and measure what I say with the reality. You keep on ignoring the points I make, as is clear from this post. Your first point is:

 

 

 

Have you seen the article Retep linked to? Is that genuinely the level of information you are comfortable with? I am telling you, and others, to stop believing everything you read in highly biased papers that exist in this country and use publicly available information to see what is going on.

 

 

 

I have said this before - I don't trust media full stop. It is a result of my ability to approach complex problems with a critical mind as well as having worked in a media-environment and realising that all journalists care for is the next saucy quote. Life doesn't exist of quotes and in particular politics are very poorly served by working on the basis of scoring cheap points.

 

 

 

You are linking to an article behind a paywall, so I can't read it. But let's consider those directives which were agreed on by all member-states and are the result of the various global energy treaties (With at the foundation the Kyoto protocol and the Doha extension, of which the UK is not only a signee but also an instigator).

 

It is up to the individual member-states how they implement these targets, the UK has its own interpretation of this and that is by increasing energy costs for industry.

 

Tata Steel recently stated it is happy to carry on in the Netherlands, partly because the energy-costs are structured differently than they are in the UK. That is because the EU does not decide how the individual member states implement the rules. Something that is constantly ignored in these debates.

 

 

 

And I have as much right to be annoyed at being called biased by someone who states: I just don't like the EU. I hear no arguments from you to support that statement.

 

 

 

It is not, I am well aware of that. But don't hide behind that to dismiss the argument. I did not blame economic problems on UK independence, which you accused me off. That is a nonsense.

 

 

 

But the EEA is, this is a result of you and others keep saying - we will just negotiate a free trade agreement. You keep making that point like it is a unilateral decision for the UK. It is not. I know what the EU has said about this. But I'd like to know what sort of free trade agreement you are talking about, because I am the only one in this debate actually offering tangibles - an EEA-treaty is very likely at Brexit, an EEA-treaty comes with a built-in free movement of people and goods clause. Are you denying that and if so, what is your alternative?

 

 

 

Let's take that a step further, you are right that there aren't as many trade agreements as there should be, that is because they are negotiating them. China, USA, Canada etc. That takes years and years. Yet when confronted with the question how long it will take to negotiate this Brexit free-trade agreement the reply often is: Ah, but we are important to Europe, so it will happen quickly. Give me a time-frame? The shortest possible route is that the UK stays as part of the EEA, which comes with all those things I have talked about. So the uncertainty in the economy argument all of a sudden looms massively, unless it is an EEA-treaty which only achieves that Britain loses influence whilst still being subject to the perceived negatives.

 

 

 

You don't have the figure for that? Than why use it as an argument?

 

 

 

I knew you, personally, would pick up on that. Most UK citizens are perfectly happy to have the environment protected, we now have otters in the Don...

 

But let's look at the environment treaty - the UK is a signee of the Kyoto treaty. Simple as, nothing is going to change regarding environmental law at Brexit. The UK already implements the EU law in a manner that is most suitable to the UK (or what the government of the day thinks it is). There are huge differences in interpretation across the whole of Europe which means that Tata is unhappy in the UK due to high energy costs but perfectly ok with staying in the Netherlands because those costs are not a factor there. Explain to me how that difference exists if the implementation of these laws is due to EU dictating how it should be?

 

You can't. Because you don't understand how the EU process works.

 

 

 

You did highlight it to score points you rambled on about EU problems without any context. But that aside, what is the GDP of the Eurozone? And what is the GDP of the UK? Did you check that excellent site I linked to by the way? Did you get an idea of how much trade there is between Europe and the UK? It is completely intertwined, the UK exports gas turbines to the EU and the EU exports gas turbines to the UK. That is because there are huge multinationals that work throughout the EU. They will hate the uncertainty that would come from a Brexit as evident in the number of signees stating the UK should stay in the EU compared to the pathetic (another point ignored in the past) number of signees that state to be in favour of a Brexit.

 

 

 

I am right about it, any reasonably thinking human being, of which I believe you are one, only has to read the article Peter Retep posted to see that.

 

 

 

I agree that is difficult to work out. But it is made immensely more difficult by the influence of the anti-EU press in this country, as you say, we have been over this so often, so I am repeating myself ad infinitum. As long as the UK keeps 'protesting' against the national government by abusing the MEP ballot, it will remain an ill-trusting relationship. The EU really tries to address this problem but it can only achieve that if the UK press picks up their overtures.

 

 

 

That is exactly how it works, except that it is important to remember that the EU is the UK and the UK is the EU. All those directives coming from the EU have been proposed by the Council, with Cameron on it, or the Commission, with a UK representative on it, and have been vetted by the Parliament, with Brits in it. There is no us and them.

 

 

 

I've never come across this example, but let me state this unequivocally - the EU does not decide on tax matters in the UK or any other member-state, it has no authority to do so. So knowing that, answer this question yourself:

 

 

 

Can I, as a final point, send you to the Kyoto treaty Wiki and then to the International Emissions Trading section. There is a link there to a little-known law in the UK - the CRC which operates only in Britain, it is the UK government that decided to go above and beyond the ETS agreement (The EU directive that commits to the Kyoto Protocol).

 

Jesus wept Tim...You complain that people don't read your post, and links...With the length of this one are you surprised?

 

I won't be answering all your points you raise otherwise my post will be twice as long as yours and nobody will read it!

 

You said the link I gave was behind a paywall...Which surprised me, because I don't subscribe to the FT. It must be something to do with the address on that page.

 

However if you google "German energy subsidies for steel making" it comes up as the second item in that search, and 'is' accessible.

 

Oh and if you're referring to me viewing the rantings of Nige', yes I agree youtube can be a very unreliable source, so I don't pay too much credence to it. So please don't put me in the same boat as that...

[unbeliever]

I've never come across this example, but let me state this unequivocally - the EU does not decide on tax matters in the UK or any other member-state, it has no authority to do so. So knowing that, answer this question yourself:

 

 

I'll try to come back to the other points later, but I have to jump on this one.

This is just false. The EU does not technically "decide on tax matters" but all manner of tax changes are illegal under EU law.

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006L0112