According to this report 80% of our laws now come from the EU

Run_to_da_hills

According to the text in this report 80% of EU nations laws now come from the EU.This report was to clarify Fine Gael’s rubbish claims that only 30% of laws are due to the EU.

It is getting to the stage where our own Government must think twice on every new law and regulation it comes out with as it could be contrary to EU legislation and in some cases this can be a good thing. An example of this would be the imposed "recycling taxes" as seen at local council recycling centers. Which I can foresee being abolished.

However despite all this to have 80% of legislation coming from the EU is kind of scary. Particularly when it comes to "counter terrorism" legislation where our civil liberties and privacy are continuously being erroded ane even more so when we cannot do anything about it..

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=945

damonjewel

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the text in this report 80% of EU nations laws now come from the EU.This report was to clarify Fine Gael’s rubbish claims that only 30% of laws are due to the EU.

It is getting to the stage where our own Government must think twice on every new law and regulation it comes out with as it could be contrary to EU legislation and in some cases this can be a good thing. An example of this would be the imposed "recycling taxes" as seen at local council recycling centers. Which I can foresee being abolished.

However despite all this to have 80% of legislation coming from the EU is kind of scary. Particularly when it comes to "counter terrorism" legislation where our civil liberties and privacy are continuously being erroded ane even more so when we cannot do anything about it..

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=945

I can understand the scary bit, but I don't think its a bad thing. Ireland has always been behind Europe with regard to Social reform and worker's rights, I would much prefer the benefits and conditions normally enjoyed by our German and French counterparts. Also I would think regulation and laws for control of our economics is also a good thing considering how our own government had really lost control of the situation.

P. Breathnach

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the text in this report 80% of EU nations laws now come from the EU.This report was to clarify Fine Gael’s rubbish claims that only 30% of laws are due to the EU...

I may not have learned much in my life, but I have learned how to identify cheap propaganda. This is particularly cheap and tacky.

View

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the text in this report 80% of EU nations laws now come from the EU.This report was to clarify Fine Gael’s rubbish claims that only 30% of laws are due to the EU.

Fine Gael's claim was based on an actual analysis of the laws and regulations of Ireland, not on some "He said that he said that he said that..." claim that has already been shown to be false.

It is kinda of sad that this sort of drivel is the best that our domestic Eurosceptics can come up with. Still, it is easier than actually trying to advance an actual alternative to Ireland's EU membership, isn't it?

USE

Some people are still trying to give the United States of Europe or Federal Europe thing as something that everyone should be scared about.

Well, this is what I want.

I could give you so much documents where it is written clearly "United States of Europe - the way Europe should go". Maybe this is new for you, but not for your governments. I can give such documents from Italy, from France, even from UK. It is possible to find those in a book called "Documents on the History of European Integration" (Volume 3). Written by Walter Lipgens and others.

When Britain considered to join European Economic Community (EEC) or not to, the Mutual Aid Committee (MAC) was established in Britain. MAC was asked to give evaluations of Britains interests (regarding EEC and the Commonwealth). It has made such a conclusion while analysing advantages and disadvantages of the accession to the EEC of Britain:

(iii) practically, participation [in the EEC] would gradually lead to the deeper integration and eventually probably to the political federation, that would not be acceptable to the public opinion in Britain

Probably we could not afford to be outside such an important market but we can't see how to achieve that without eventually paying a price of a common currency and a transfer of large part of political sovereignty.

Andrew Moravcsik, "Europos pasirinkimas" (in Lithuanian; the name in English is "The Choice for Europe"). Vilnius, 2008. P. 164-165.

So I consider that it is very important to emphasize that while joining EEC UK has understood all of this. And it still has joined the EEC. You can ask yourself, why. Maybe because country borders were not the limits of the perception for the people who have made those decisions.

And believe me, countries like Germany, France or Italy are much more federalistic regarding this question than Britain.

Winston Churchill

"If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and the glory <...>"

"We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes
which make life worth living."

"<...> we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe."

"Therefore I say to you: l e t _ E u r o p e _ a r i s e !"

Winston Churchill's speech to the academic Youth, 1946 - Zurich


Jean Monnet

"<...> here will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty...
The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development.
The European states must constitute themselves into a federation <...>"

Jean Monnet, 1943


Victor Hugo

"A DAY WILL COME when your arms will fall even from your hands! A day will come when war will seem as absurd and impossible between Paris and London, between Petersburg and Berlin, between Vienna and Turin, as it would be impossible and would seem absurd today between Rouen and Amiens, between Boston and Philadelphia. A day will come when you France, you Russia, you Italy, you England, you Germany, you all, nations of the continent, without losing your distinct qualities and your glorious individuality, will be merged closely within a superior unit and you will form the European brotherhood <...>"

"A day will come when the only fields of battle will be markets opening up to trade and minds opening up to ideas.
A day will come when the bullets and the bombs will be replaced by votes, by the universal suffrage of the peoples,
by the venerable arbitration of a great sovereign senate which will be to Europe what this parliament is to England,
what this diet is to Germany, what this legislative assembly is to France. A day will come when we will display cannon in museums
just as we display instruments of torture today, and are amazed that such things could ever have been possible."

Opening Address to the Peace Congress (Paris, August 21, 1849)


"Fellow citizens of the United States of Europe, Allow me to give you this name, for the European Federal Republic is established in right
and is waiting to be established in fact. You exist, therefore it exists. You confirm it by the union from which unity is taking shape.
You are the beginning of a great future."

Peace Congress in Lausanne: message, September 4 1869


"<...> we shall hear France cry out: It's my turn, Germany, here I am! Am I your enemy? No! I am your sister.
I have taken back everything and I give you everything, on one condition, that we shall act as one people, as one family, as one Republic.
I shall demolish my fortresses, you will demolish yours. My revenge is fraternity! No more frontiers! The Rhine for everyone!
Let us be the same Republic, let us be the United States of Europe, let us be the continental federation <...>"

For war in the present and for peace in the future, March 1, 1871


"As for myself, I have written for all, with a profound love for my own country, but without being engrossed by France
more than by any other nation. In proportion as I advance in life, I grow more simple, and I become more and more patriotic for humanity.
This is, moreover, the tendency of our age, and the law of radiance of the French Revolution; books must cease to be exclusively French,
Italian, German, Spanish, or English, and become European, I say more, human, if they are to correspond to the enlargement of civilization."

The Enlargement of Civilization (Les Miserables, Ch. 83, 318 & 365)

Victor Hugo: "My Revenge is Fraternity!"


Robert Schuman

"The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development
as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture
of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."

Robert Schuman, Declaration of 9 May 1950

Some of you will consider this post as an offtopic, but it is not. I've got bored of those phobias and emotion-based nationalistic oftenly radicalistic and inadequate claims. Take logics, geopolitics, global context and long term perspective into account and you'll have the conclusions necessary. The conclusions that are already done by our ancestors (maybe it's too early to call them "ancestors" yet).

Basically what I mean is that we shouldn't criticize the fact of how much law comes from EU. There is nothing wrong in that. We should criticize the law itself if we consider it harmful.

P. S. Further integration does not mean downgrade of cultures and our distinctions.

P. Breathnach

USE wrote: »

... Basically what I mean is that we shouldn't criticize the fact of how much law comes from EU. There is nothing wrong in that. We should criticize the law itself if we consider it harmful...

Sometimes in a lengthy post, an important point is easily overlooked by the reader. The point above is well worth considering.

limklad

Here a cost saving measure, Since 80% of our Laws are coming from the EU , then we should reduce the Dáil Éireann by 80% and make it a condition for the Next EU Referendum.

PopeBuckfastXVI

USE wrote: »

Some people are still trying to give the United States of Europe or Federal Europe thing as something that everyone should be scared about.

Well, this is what I want.

+1

Scofflaw

Unfortunately, I followed this discussion over on politics.ie, where a rather fundamental piece of dishonesty in the Herzog figures was exposed.

This is the original German quote:

In the years 1998 to 2004, a total of 18 167 EU Regulations and 750 EU Directives (including Amendment Regulations or policies) was adopted. In the same period, at the federal level, a total of 1 195 Laws (889 of them in Federal Law Gazette Part I and 306 in the Federal Law Gazette, Part II), and 3 055 Regulations (including amending law or regulations) promulgated.

This is the quote as used by Open Europe, and in turn by Anthony Coughlan:

This is State Secretary Parliamentary Undersecretary Alfred Hartenbach Hartenbach saying: From 1998 until 2004 167 EU regulations and 750 directives have been passed. During the same period the German Parliament has in total 1.195 laws (as well as 3055 Rechtsverordnungen) passed.

Notice the dropping of the word "Federal"? The German Federal Parliament is not the sole source of laws in Germany - most law is made in the 17 Lander Parliaments, and further laws are made by municipalities (a historical hangover from Germany's pre-unification existence as a patchwork of tiny states).

So Coughlan is comparing apples and ostriches here. That's before we consider a very fundamental point, which is that the regulations put out by the EU are largely just that - regulations. They are not the equivalent of either Acts or Statutory Instruments, but the equivalent of the regulations issued by our civil servants under the authority of Acts and SIs.

Nor is Coughlan honest when he claims that no other figures can be found than the German ones. We now have the Irish ones, and we also have the following:

Figures for other EU countries,

2.A study of Poland shows that 32 of the 128 acts adopted by their senate had dealt with EU issues (25%).

3. A Swedish study shows that an average of 6.3% of legislation between 1995-2005 had an EU origin.

4. Lithuania, a new member (which had a back log of law to implement to join the EU) had 12.77% of laws were "Euro integration laws" between 2000-2004. This increased to 19% between 2004-2008

5. Two studies in the UK

(a)The first by Edward Page between 1987-1997 estimates that 15.8% of legislation comes from the EU

(b) And a House of Commons study 1998-2005 9.1%

6. A Finnish Parliament study 1995-2005 showed that 600 out of 5000 laws had EU origins (12%).

In contradiction to Roman Herzog the retired German President (who claims 84% or German law stems from the EU), two academics Andrew Moravcsik and Annette Elisabeth Toller, have analysed the topic and found that 34.5% of legislation in 2005 came from the EU and 34.6% in 2006 (in Germany).

Now, if Coughlan wants to challenge all those figures, he would certainly appear to have the time to do the research. He hasn't, though - he has simply claimed they don't exist. Could he be more obviously dishonest?

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'TOOLE79

Yeah same here USE

PopeBuckfastXVI

How many times does the same lie have to be refuted in this forum?

Scofflaw, you have the patience of a saint.

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How many times does the same lie have to be refuted in this forum?

What's interesting is that Coughlan evidently feels that supporting the 80% claim is more important than any degree of accuracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the text in this report 80% of EU nations laws now come from the EU.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=945

Thats Amazing!!!! I think this is linked to it....
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1806

What do ye reckon?

hatrickpatrick

ITT: Why I am euroskeptic.
We are a democratic and sovereign nation. Irish people, and only Irish people, should be able to decide how their country is run. Having only a 13% say in a "federal government" that the EU is turning into is not acceptable.

The EU is an economic organization. It was never designed to be a United States of Europe. You are not "anti Europe" for rejecting a proposal to change it from an economic union to an all powerful overlord.

And until we get some guarantees that Lisbon will not make this situation worse, I oppose.

BlitzKrieg

The EU is an economic organization. It was never designed to be a United States of Europe. You are not "anti Europe" for rejecting a proposal to change it from an economic union to an all powerful overlord.

You could argue that the areas where we have only 13% say would predominantly fall under economic cooperation. While areas outside of that still require our national governments approval at minimum via the european council or at most a full on referendum from us in the more extreme cases.

PopeBuckfastXVI

How can you have a free and open market if people don't play by the same rules?

How can you compete with a country that allows it's workers to work 100 hour weeks, with no health and safety protections, for peanuts?

How can you have food on a shelf that comes from a country that pours toxins into its animal feed?

How can you have these rules if national governments can override them at will?

The Irish government has an implicit approval over EU laws, if they didn't approve we wouldn't be in the Union. Laws that Irish people have a hand in drafting by the way... commissioner/council of ministers/european parliament.

You can't have it both ways, you're either in and you play by the rules, or you don't and you pack your things and leave.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You are not "anti Europe" for rejecting a proposal to change it from an economic union to an all powerful overlord.

I absolutely agree, but I haven't seen any such proposal recently, have you and could you please provide a link?

USE

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

ITT: Why I am euroskeptic.
We are a democratic and sovereign nation. Irish people, and only Irish people, should be able to decide how their country is run. Having only a 13% say in a "federal government" that the EU is turning into is not acceptable.

That is a hard debate (hard in terms that country borders are oftenly limits of interests and understanding for the people). It is necessary to understand the situation wider than only within your country borders. One should think about long perspective of Europe as a whole, of global geopolitics. Where is this world going.

It is clear that European countries are small and they will lose their influence also they will not be able to ensure their interests in the future on the same level as they can do that now.

Our advantages were determined by history, for example, industrialization has evolved in Europe first of all. But now world is global and this will change. The geopolitical power will converge to the size of population (this goes only for the constructive countries like China). Present power of such a small countries like Germany, France or UK will end, it was anomalous.

So if we want to retain our influence we have to unite. While acting separately with time we will have no voice at all.

I understand that here comes conservatism and nationalism and these barriers are hard to overcome. But we will have to improve in terms of mentality and to do this.

For me it is a question of time. Earlier - better. As later we will do that, as more positions we will lose.

What I am really for is preserving our cultures. But both the casted-off Constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon acknowledges our distinctions, respects them and rises as valuables.

The EU is an economic organization.

Well, that is clearly some mistake of yours and I'm sure it is made accidentally. Because EU is not only economical but also political organization for a nice number of years already.

It was never designed to be a United States of Europe. You are not "anti Europe" for rejecting a proposal to change it from an economic union to an all powerful overlord.

I have already given a bunch of speeches of men who have designed EU (EC at that moment) and I have also given some quotations, clearly identifying that EU from the beginning was treated as federation of the future and I have also given an example showing that a country, in my example, it is UK, has understood that before joining the Union. I can give an example for Italy also if you want, but I have already proved the point.

And until we get some guarantees that Lisbon will not make this situation worse, I oppose

It makes "this situation" to get better

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We are a democratic and sovereign nation. Irish people, and only Irish people, should be able to decide how their country is run. Having only a 13% say in a "federal government" that the EU is turning into is not acceptable.

How can you have a free and open market if people don't play by the same rules?

How can you compete with a country that allows it's workers to work 100 hour weeks, with no health and safety protections, for peanuts?

How can you have food on a shelf that comes from a country that pours toxins into its animal feed?

How can you have these rules if national governments can override them at will?

The Irish government has an implicit approval over EU laws, if they didn't approve we wouldn't be in the Union. Laws that Irish people have a hand in drafting by the way... commissioner/council of ministers/european parliament.

You can't have it both ways, you're either in and you play by the rules, or you don't and you pack your things and leave.

To synopsise that: we can't have a common market in which we have the only say, which should be relatively obvious - and without a common market we in Ireland are completely screwed, because nobody needs access to the Irish market.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

i feel sorry for the senior members here who repeatedly show these cheap arguments to be false

over and over and over ...

yee sure have more patience than me

P. Breathnach

ionix5891 wrote: »

i feel sorry for the senior members here who repeatedly show these cheap arguments to be false

over and over and over ...

We have a never-ending supply of idiots in this little country of ours, but you cannot blame a person for an inability to understand things.

There are people out there with the ability to understand the nature of the Lisbon Treaty but who, for reasons of their own, choose to put forward what they must know to be false arguments. Such people are, in my view, reprehensible, and should be driven from public life.

RiverWilde

Oh here we go again ... quick hide under the bed the big nasty EU is going to take our money, our women and our jobs.

We joined the ECC back when the country was banjaxed economically and socially. Joining the EEC gave us access to the wider european community and by joining we were given a shed load of cash to get us going. We're still getting some cash, although not as much.

We agreed to hand over some of our sovereignty when we joined ... the whole point of the project is that it's a pooling of national sovereignty for the betterment of europe as a whole.

Important progressive legislation has flowed from europe - European Convention on Human Rights - the ability to appeal to europe when things go haywire in Irish law etc etc etc.

Who the hell would want to go back to a time when you needed a passport to go anywhere in Europe? Go back to a time where we were divided economically and militarily?

Given the world as it now exists ... being active and full members of the EU is the only way forward. Hiding under the bed and hoping the big bad world will go away is just childish.

Riv

P. Breathnach

RiverWilde wrote: »

... We agreed to hand over some of our sovereignty when we joined ... the whole point of the project is that it's a pooling of national sovereignty for the betterment of europe as a whole...

Let us remember what pooling of sovereignty means. In exchange for giving the EU some influence on Irish affairs, we get some influence in the affairs of our fellow-members. In effect, because of how the European institutions are configured, we (like other small states) get to exercise proportionately more influence than the larger states.

The Mad Hatter

Ah yes, wiseupjournal - that paragon of journalistic integrity.

ART6

USE wrote: »

I have already given a bunch of speeches of men who have designed EU (EC at that moment) and I have also given some quotations, clearly identifying that EU from the beginning was treated as federation of the future and I have also given an example showing that a country, in my example, it is UK, has understood that before joining the Union. I can give an example for Italy also if you want, but I have already proved the point.

While I don't dispute your argument, when Edward Heath took the UK into what was then the Common Market, he might well have worked out that eventual federation was inevitable but the British people certainly didn't. In fact I suspect that a large majority of the population now feel that he deliberately lied to them which, if fact, he did. The British have never wished to be a part of anyone's federation and their hostility to the EU demonstrates that. That is why Gordon Brown didn't dare to hold the referendum he promised and why he didn't dare to ditch the pound in favour of the euro. He and Heath and Churchill et al might well be right about the need to be in the EU, but the evidence is that the people certainly don't see it that way. I suspect that they would be quite happy to see a federal Europe as long as they are not part of it.

ionix5891

ART6 wrote: »

While I don't dispute your argument, when Edward Heath took the UK into what was then the Common Market, he might well have worked out that eventual federation was inevitable but the British people certainly didn't. In fact I suspect that a large majority of the population now feel that he deliberately lied to them which, if fact, he did. The British have never wished to be a part of anyone's federation and their hostility to the EU demonstrates that. That is why Gordon Brown didn't dare to hold the referendum he promised and why he didn't dare to ditch the pound in favour of the euro. He and Heath and Churchill et al might well be right about the need to be in the EU, but the evidence is that the people certainly don't see it that way. I suspect that they would be quite happy to see a federal Europe as long as they are not part of it.

i wouldn't worry about UK

they have higher debts than Weimar Germany and are busy printy printy money

seems UK Labour are bend on destroying the country before next election (sounds familiar?)