Dude, this is 2018, never ever ever ever cite iflscience as a source

That’s it? A policy which has been ruled unlawful us all you have? For the record I want these guys in our country, you don’t.

Did you delete your post lol

So you're saying is X had powers to pass laws overriding parliament, and you personally hadn't found a law that X had made to be particularly bad, you'd be fine with X overriding parliament forever? I don't mean a few years or decades, I mean forever.

Yes? Thats what you're saying?


Big picture, dude.

yeah i deleted it cos I realised you'd nitpick it rather than actually address the real issue - you are fine with the EU deciding laws applied here, I'm not.

Since when have these powers overrided parliament??? Again, you seem to think that Eu powers override the powers we used to have. Note, used to, we don’t have them anymore thanks to you.

OMG google primacy of European Union Law

It's like debating with someone with Alzheimers

see if this makes sense to you, little trooper

"The primacy of European Union law (sometimes referred to as supremacy) is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. "

All I ask is for you to state one apparent Eu law that subjugates us. That is all. The floor is yours

Erm, The Primacy of EU Law is clearly a subjugation.

I really don't know how many ways I can say the same thing.

Does this help?

Subjugation: 'the action of bringing someone or something under domination or control.'



is anyone else thinking I'm not being clear?... please state it a different way for this guy.

Is this some nitty argument about that being a 'directive' not a 'law' or some other nitpickery? lol.

It's a common disconnect. Some people sometimes say we need an example of actual bad use of a 'power' before we worry about the fact that the 'power' can be used badly.

Generally it's terrible idea to wait until things have gone wrong before we worry about it. In this case it's just an unhelpful argument. Obviously powers can be used to pass laws we don't like at some point but that's true whatever we do. And in both cases we can work to get the laws changed by democratic means

where are you on the single market diebitter? that's probably a majority of those decision

Trading being as frictionless as possible is good, but some checking/regulation to guard against exploitative/criminal behaviours is needed (I'm not sure it needs to be more or less than it is now - my point is a general one about the principle rather than what goes on now).

But ceding national powers forever to get it to the lowest possible barriers is a terrible idea. Id take a little more paperwork alongside a little more national democracy vs the alternative any day.

(and the annoying thing is, it'd all work pretty damn close to what it is now without the need to cede significant powers permanently imo - the agreements would just have to cyclic - to coincide with budget planning maybe? - rather than permanent)

Directives, as they are. Name one we’ve adopted to our detriment. Just one.

It's lucky that the UK has a robust written constitution that protects us from any subjugation.












Oh wait!

Primacy of EU Law

Please look up recursion in the dictionary


Let me try this in kid's terms. The Primacy of EU Law is the equivalent of the genie in Aladdin allowing the wish to have more wishes.

Does that help at all?


Or are you going to prevaricate again? sigh.

Yes, we can all see you making the exact same evasion.

You never cite or post any specifics, again, and I tried to explain this to you earlier ITT, this is a general claim, we want you to post specifics.

Claim?

It's a fact. Do you know the percentage of laws enacted in the UK come from the EU? Over, say, the last 20 years?

OK the directives that decimated the British fishing Industry or Clinicial Trials Industry

Is that good enough?

Hahahahaha the fishing industry. Are you a fisherman?

Actually let's get specific.

Clinical trials directive

Before it came in, britain had 12% of world market.

After first version of directive kicked in, it fell to 1%.

Cos red tape.

Sounds detrimental to me.

QED?

My mother was an actual clinical scientist, she knows more than you. She hates Brexit, as she should.

You have to cite that.

Try to keep up.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...59804906008495

I think that demonstrates an EU directive that is detrimental to UK industry.

Gotta love google "uk fishing industry". 2nd hit after wikipedia:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-uk-government

It would make a great case study but it's not QED. Wondered if this would ever come up, I worked in clinical trials during the relevant period and have to be a bit careful what I say. Few things though:

The regulation of clinical trials were dreadful imo (and everyone's as far as I know). It's been a terrible burden on the industry and on progress in drug development while often actually making things worse.

Rather than argue the above - let's suppose it's true. You want to blame the clinical trials directive but the reality is that the regulations from Europe and the FDA were being imposed on us whatever we did. That's because our clients (drug companies) had to meet their own regulatory requirements and, crucially, that increasingly included making sure their suppliers (i.e. us) met their regulatory standards. We were increasingly being forced to meet all the regulations by our clients regulators even if our own regulators had done nothing. So argue against the regulations but there was no opt out for us by being outside the EU - all we can lose is influence in global regulations. The burden on our company (starkly obvious by the fast growing regulatory group) was obviously going to hurt us a great deal but also obviously unavoidable.

I think we can very justifiably criticise our government for not doing enough to shape the regulations and for ignoring the concerns of the industry but being out of the EU wasn't going to help.