My dear boy, it's not a question of being wrong, it's a matter of being right.
Of course not, but I'm seldom wrong.
^
'TheGents' your arse licker is active.
Nice to see the German constitutional court tell the ECJ (and ECB) to fark orf...
&, seemingly, the ECJ can do nothing about it... So, with regard to Brexit: what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the ECJ absolutely has zero jurisdiction for Britain...
These links tell the story well:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
German court lays down EU law – POLITICO
How a German court fired a shot that could unravel the EU
Here's a general discussion:
Last edited by Bettyboo; 18-05-2020 at 03:01 PM.
Cycling should be banned!!!
The German court has no primacy and if it is subsequently determined by the CJEU that it is not compliant with the relevant law then it will find accordingly.
For anti-EU neurotics to divine the end of the EU has been heralded by this irrelevant German court's finding is simply more piffle-waffle from the right wing propaganda machine.
Quite why our resident cut 'n paste merchant should seize on this twaddle in his bizarre campaign against the EU is mystifying. I mean, just who would read this shite in the first place?
Yet another group of people that Paddy O'Sausages knows more than; the German Constitution Court...
German Constitution Court ............fine oxymoron, almost as good as German diplomacy.
Britain will never break free of the EU’s regulatory gravity – here’s why
Anthony Robinson 11 May 2020
Britain will never break free of the EU's regulatory gravity - here's why – Yorkshire Bylines
Image by Comfreak from Pixabay
The UK government is fooling itself if it thinks we will ever be free from the massive gravitational field of the world’s only genuine regulatory superpower. Even Americans don’t realise how much their lives are ruled by the European Union.
Brussels has risen to accidental pre-eminence as the global regulator. In 2012, a Finnish-American academic from Columbia law school, Professor Anu Bradford, wrote an article for the Northwestern University Law Review entitled “The Brussels Effect”. She explains the effect as follows:“Few Americans are aware that EU regulations determine the makeup they apply in the morning, the cereal they eat for breakfast, the software they use on their computer, and the privacy settings they adjust on their Facebook page. And that’s just before 8:30 AM. The EU also sets the rules governing the inter-office phone directory they use to call a co-worker. EU regulations dictate what kind of air conditioners Americans use to cool their homes and why their children no longer find soft plastic toys in their McDonald’s Happy Meals.”
I don’t believe the EU ever started out with the goal of becoming the world’s regulator, or that America invited them to occupy that position. So how did it happen?
Firstly, the single market created a need for stringent regulations. Brussels became extraordinarily good at writing these regulations: consulting widely and coming up with clear, logical rules for ensuring safe, high-quality food and product standards. This was despite all the myth-making articles from Boris Johnson in The Daily Telegraph.
As the EU grew in size it became the world’s largest importer and the key pieces began to fall into place. It was able to impose its standards on exporters in non-EU countries, as the price of gaining access to the single market. EU standards were invariably the highest. To keep costs down producers preferred to make things to just one standard, usually the EU one, which allowed them to meet and exceed any other (lower or non-existent) national standard.
This is what Bradford’s paper calls the de facto adopting of EU rules, which frequently turns to de jure (legally enforced) adoption by the other country. When the non-EU company finds itself unable to compete at home, due to other domestic makers producing to a lower and cheaper standard, they have two options: (a) persuade their government to adopt the higher EU standard or (b) move to the EU. Either way the EU wins.
Only last month, the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU confirmed, “current EU rules are often de facto global standards that we have adapted to and understand”.
Secondly, EU companies also export or acquire other companies in third countries. Since they have already incurred what Bradford calls the “adjustment costs of conforming to common European standards”, they prefer that those standards are institutionalised globally. As such, they seek to export them to the third country, perhaps even making it a condition of investing.
Thirdly, the USA in effect ceded the role of global regulator to the EU probably because of a lot of right-wing dogma and belief that free markets always know best and can be trusted without being regulated. This at a time when life is more complex and greater regulation is essential. As I once heard Lord Heseltine say, “civilisation is built on regulation”.
Bradford again:
“Until the 1980s, the United States set the global norms in consumer and environmental regulation, leading European firms to adjust to higher standards originating from the United States. Since then, the roles have been reversed as the EU has increasingly adopted tighter standards of consumer and environmental protection while the United States has failed to follow the EU’s lead. The only way for the USA to supersede the European standards today would be to adopt even higher standards itself –something that it does not consider to be welfare enhancing and thus in its interest.”
If you doubt the sheer power and reach of the EU, Bradford cites two examples that might convince you.
When the huge American company General Electric wanted to acquire Honeywell International (another global brand), US regulators cleared it under their own anti-trust laws. But the EU blocked it because they thought it would reduce competition. The acquisition was therefore banned worldwide because it was legally impossible to let the merger proceed in one market and prohibit it in another.
Similarly, when Boeing and McDonnell Douglas wanted to merge, the EU threatened to block it even though US authorities had already approved the deal without pre-conditions. In the end, the EU let the merger proceed subject to extensive commitments, including Boeing abandoning exclusive contracts dealing with various US carriers.
And the EU often dictates the code of conduct for dominant companies worldwide. For example, it has imposed record-high fines and behavioural remedies against giant US companies, including Microsoft, Intel and most recently, Google.
Britain seems to believe it can set its own standards after Brexit, but shows no inclination to make them higher – or better for that matter. The notion that we alone can resist the colossal regulatory pull of the Brussels effect after Brexit is really quite risible. We will still be an EU rule taker, if sometimes vicariously, whatever Boris Johnson says.
All the talk of being governed by unelected bureaucrats without democratic accountability is countered by Bradford when she says, “The EU’s regulatory reach may have the effect of balancing the overrepresentation of business interests in American public life by empowering consumers.” In other words, the choice is not between being ‘ruled’ by bureaucrats or elected politicians, but between bureaucrats and big business.
Bradford concludes:
“Acknowledgment of the EU’s global regulatory power might give pause to both the EU’s relentless critics, who emphasize the EU’s weakness and irrelevance, as well as to its most ardent defenders, who call for increasing integration and a gradual move towards a federation that allows the EU to rise to global prominence. For the critics, the discussion has shown that to portray the EU as powerless focuses on a narrow and outdated vision of what power and influence mean. The EU is already a superpower and, importantly, a superpower of a meaningful kind.”
Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd
Putting the article into a context that the typical Brexiteer moron might comprehend, the alleged critical reason for quitting the EU that was trotted out by the demagogues at their endless rabid rallies, to "take back control", was founded on the fanciful and erroneous notion that the UK was a 'vassal' rule taker and subordinate to the imagined governance of the EU dictators.
This of course was all tosh, in all the debates held at the European parliament the UK representatives only voted against 3% of the motions proposed. The UK was never controlled by the EU, Britain set its own budgets, its own educational standards, it declared its own wars, and passed its own civil and criminal codes etc but the vast majority of the EU inspired legislation absorbed into the socio-economic framework of Britain related to regulatory instruments ensuring compliance with standards of products and services to be supplied within the EU, harmonising health and safety issues and outlawing unfair and predatory trading practices. The CE kite mark is sought by all global suppliers on their product because they know it will be of a standard acceptable by all and a bench mark for assured quality.
If Britain wants to sell its products when it reverts to a coon, WTO third country status no different to Africa or Papua New Guinea it will still have to conform to EU standards.
As indeed it will still have to conform with the 'level playing field' regime if it wishes to enjoy a trading status benefiting from legacy preferment i.e no loosening of legislation inhibiting worker exploitation, no state subsidy of products undermining intra-EU competition etc.
Even after four years of Brexit babblespeak it is still shocking so many can still be so profoundly stupid as to laud th decision to unravel the 45 years of socio-economic progress that created modern Britain.
Christ, even the Greeks weren't that bloody stupid.
Looking over that fellas articles, he is yet another meaningless and boring remoaner bed wetter, no wonder Idiot Sausages laps it up...
Indeed, logical, coherent, rational, fact-based and objective, how on earth could he be otherwise.
nice article, and basically explaining what we know already, the UK sans EU aka Hard Brexit is not achievable
BINO aka Soft Brexit is perfectly acceptable and the best compromise,
^^ & ^^^
wrong time after time, but it never gets old for you; still reading from the guardian (only), still content to be wrong at every turn - the word loser was invented just for you two; keep up the good work...
& here's some music for you:
Top 10 Loser Songs
That is really extraordinarily juvenile. How old did you say you were. Was it 50? I find it truly incredible that anyone approaching their old age could be so demonstrably puerile.
It's like he just went out of his way to prove my point.
I bet Brexit has nothing to do with it
Coronavirus: Rolls-Royce to cut 9,000 jobs amid virus crisis - BBC News
Rolls-Royce has said it will cut 9,000 jobs and warned it will take "several years" for the airline industry to recover from the coronavirus pandemic.
The Derby-based firm, which makes plane engines, said the reduction of nearly a fifth of its workforce would mainly affect its civil aerospace division.
"This is not a crisis of our making. But it is the crisis that we face and must deal with," boss Warren East said.
The bulk of the job cuts are expected to be in the UK.
Rolls-Royce employs 52,000 people globally and Mr East told the BBC's Today programme that the company had not yet concluded on "exactly" where the job losses would be, due to having to consult with unions.
But he said: "It's fair to say that of our civil aerospace business approximately two-thirds of the total employees are in the UK at the moment and that's probably a good first proxy."
Unite the union said the decision was "shameful opportunism".
"This company has accepted public money to furlough thousands of workers," said Unite's assistant general secretary for manufacturing, Steve Turner.
"Unite and Britain's taxpayers deserve a more responsible approach to a national emergency. We call upon Rolls-Royce to step back from the brink and work with us on a better way through this crisis."
But Mr East said: "No government can extend things like furlough schemes for years into the future. We have to look after ourselves and make sure we meet medium term demand."
The second paragraph wording is totally unacceptable. Boris is going to have to sell that compromise in red line uncompromising terms that suggest more of a hard brexit.
How's he doing with NI being in the EU and a border in the Irish sea? Still selling it as per the party conference whilst doing the opposite.
Covid-19 gives Boris the perfect excuse to clear the easy bits and delay the hard bits.
why do you claim that soft Brexit is not acceptable? it's the only way, and Boris will have to abide to it, no other choice for him
awesome news for our Brexit friends
UK migration: Net migration from outside EU hits 'highest level' - BBC News
Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has risen to its highest level for 45 years, the Office for National Statistics says.
Figures show an estimated 282,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in 2019, the highest since the information was first gathered in 1975.
The ONS says a rise in students from China and India has driven this.
In contrast, the number of people arriving from EU countries for work has "steadily fallen".
In 2019, an estimated 49,000 more EU citizens came to the UK than left - down from the "peak levels" of more than 200,000 in 2015 and early 2016, the ONS says.
In total, an estimated 270,000 more people moved to the UK with an intention to stay for 12 months or more than left the UK in 2019.
The ONS says more than 677,000 people moved to the UK and about 407,000 people left.
Jay Lindop, director of the Centre for International Migration at the ONS, said: "Overall migration levels have remained broadly stable in recent years, but new patterns have emerged for EU and non-EU migrants since 2016.
"For the year ending December 2019, non-EU migration was at the highest level we have seen, driven by a rise in students from China and India, while the number of people arriving from EU countries for work has steadily fallen.
"We know the coronavirus pandemic has had a significant impact on travel since December and new analysis today shows how international travel to and from the UK has decreased in recent months."
The ONS says overall migration levels "have remained broadly stable" since the end of 2016, but patterns for EU and non-EU citizens "have followed different trends".
"This in part reflects the different trends in immigration for employment and study, with EU migrants predominantly arriving for work-related reasons and non-EU migrants arriving for study," its report says.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)