apelike Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Two ways: 1. If we have over-delivered then downgrade through an act of parliament 2. If the directives are too stringent seek directive review and amendments through the EU - note the recent allowance of wonky fruit and veg etc... Directives, and the laws in response them, are not set in stone forever. These aren't the 10 commandments etched on tablets of stone by the Lord Almighty To argue otherwise is utterly dumb, and betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of legislation making, within and without an EU context No one suggested they are set in stone forever and I'm not arguing otherwise but pointing out that its not done that way. If it was so then why did Cameron have to negotiate changes when he could have just gone to Parliament and made changes with a new act? Is it because he first has to seek approval from the EU to review and amend directives? Is that also on condition that the other members agree? Why do we allow us to be fined by the EU for not adhering to the directives when all we need to do is change them with an act of parliament? As Hairyloon stated, we can always change them with a new bill and act. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 If it was so then why did Cameron have to negotiate changes when he could have just gone to Parliament and made changes with a new act? Because he is an utterly incompetent imbecile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Because he is an utterly incompetent imbecile. Well that I have to agree with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 It's called geopolitics. We all know there's an ongoing power struggle for dominance in Europe. We know that there is an increasingly authoritarian anglophile portion of the world that sees it as a struggle for dominance in Europe. Most Europeans don't agree with this sort of moronic rhetoric at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 It's interesting because it's not mainstream. Brexit is a dream come true for many strategists and visionaries within the echelons of power. Stepping out of the union provides an opportunity for Britain to re-align herself on the global stage and find new purpose. I was referring to the MoD's [Global Strategic Trends out to 2045] document which was published in 2014. On page 119 they caution the rise of a European power. If you read between the lines you know they're referring to Germany. There have been grumblings and unease for years about Germany's influence within the Eueorpean Union. It's not just Britain that is uncomfortable with the current hierarchy. Our friends across the pond are too. It surprised nobody when Edward Snowden released details of "five eyes" that showed the English speaking world were spying on Merkel. 'Our friends across the pond'..........and they are the ones uncomfortable with Merkel?...........is everybody comfortable with the 'nutjob' that might have been in charge of the spying,or the one that called him a nutjob.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) It's called geopolitics. We all know there's an ongoing power struggle for dominance in Europe. What nonsense. What is actually happening are attempts to destabilise Europe. For example, attempts to undermine and disintegrate the EU. Brexit suits undemocratic Putin most of all the European leaders. Non-Brexit would not have made much difference to Merkel or her democratically elected successor. Edited May 21, 2017 by I1L2T3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 It's called geopolitics. We all know there's an ongoing power struggle for dominance in Europe. Rather odd then that the people who are worried about a German domination of Europe think the best way to deal with it is to remove the UK from it's position of influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Rather odd then that the people who are worried about a German domination of Europe think the best way to deal with it is to remove the UK from it's position of influence. No, they don't think: they just believe what the tabloids tell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puggie Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 We know that there is an increasingly authoritarian anglophile portion of the world that sees it as a struggle for dominance in Europe. Most Europeans don't agree with this sort of moronic rhetoric at all. When David Cameron made a speech on the EU back in 2013 he called for a 'loosly connected' union with 'flexibility'. What do you think he was alluding to? The European Union is becoming a German proxy and many on the continent are uneasy with the idea of being held hostage by Berlin. When the results of the in/out referendum were announced last year it was Merkel who summoned Tusk to her residence, not the other way round. Again last month when the PM hosted a pre-talk dinner it wasn't mere coincidence that Junker was reporting back to Merkel. Who do you think Theresa May was referring to when she talked about "threats by European politicians"? The Slovakian PM? The Italians? The Spanish? The French? Rather odd then that the people who are worried about a German domination of Europe think the best way to deal with it is to remove the UK from it's position of influence. Germany doesn't want to be the public face of the European Union for obvious reasons. It takes advantage of other large EU members to dilute it's influence where necessary. Once the UK steps out of the union this will place tremendous pressure on Germany to re-balance its priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 When David Cameron made a speech on the EU back in 2013 he called for a 'loosly connected' union with 'flexibility'. What do you think he was alluding to? The European Union is becoming a German proxy and many on the continent are uneasy with the idea of being held hostage by Berlin. When the results of the in/out referendum were announced last year it was Merkel who summoned Tusk to her residence, not the other way round. Again last month when the PM hosted a pre-talk dinner it wasn't mere coincidence that Junker was reporting back to Merkel. Who do you think Theresa May was referring to when she talked about "threats by European politicians"? The Slovakian PM? The Italians? The Spanish? The French? Germany doesn't want to be the public face of the European Union for obvious reasons. It takes advantage of other large EU members to dilute it's influence where necessary. Once the UK steps out of the union this will place tremendous pressure on Germany to re-balance its priorities. 'The EU is becoming a German proxy' 'Germany doesn't want to be the public face of the EU' So there you have it,2 different answers to two different people,both of them directly contradicting the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts