Scottish Hate Crime law

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Stu »

Shilo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:34 pm
All I will say is that there has been a faction lobbying for exit from Europe since the original referendum votes to enter.
While there were still some Eurosceptics around after the 1975 referendum, I am not aware of any significant "faction" who lobbied to extricate the UK from the EEC. That claim is a myth promulgated by remainers. Those who lost the referendum accepted and respected the result (unlike many remainers after the 2016 referendum). I voted to remain in the EEC in 1975 and, had it stayed the same in terms of its geographical and political scope, and had there not been the mass migration crisis in which the likes of Merkel opened the doors of Europe to millions of people from heaven knows where, I would be perfectly content for Britain to continue as a member of the Common Market. But the greater ambitions of the Europhiles became increasingly evident with the Maastricht Treaty, the accession of more nations including some with vastly different economies, and the inception of the Euro and Schengen.
Shilo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:34 pm
It was I who raised patriotism as the fiction employed by these campaigners with the argument that we should regain our sovereignty.
Yes, you conflated patriotism, which is essentially an emotional affinity to one's own country, with a wish to regain national sovereignty, which is chiefly pragmatic. Without national sovereignty there can be no democracy, and I rather value democracy. There are some in the Remain camp who say we should never have had a referendum because they think the issue is far too sophisticated for the average voter, which illustrates their view of their countrymen and a breathtaking arrogance. Of course, the EU is essentially anti-democratic, so that is no surprise.
Shilo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:34 pm
Many of those who followed didn’t even know what that meant and yes they were sheep!
One could say that about those who voted Remain. They allowed themselves to be intimidated by the Project Fear nonsense and instead voted the way the Establishment told them. But unlike you, I don't think of people as being sheep, otherwise democracy would indeed be pointless. We don't let sheep vote, do we? I have more respect for my fellow citizens.
Shilo wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:34 pm
I didn’t say you were but if wish to be considered one I won’t stop you
I reckon you know that I am not a sheep. I think for myself; I challenge hegemonies and I am willing to be labeled a heretic. That applies to everyone who posts on here by virtue of championing the right for men to wear skirts.
rode_kater
Active Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by rode_kater »

Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
The old EEC had legislative powers only in respect of matters relating to international trade. It could not, for example, have decided that menthol cigarettes must be banned from sale in member states, or that lawnmowers and golf buggies must have third party risk insurance when used on private land. Energy policy offers another example. As part of an annual review of the bloc’s ‘Energy Union’ – plans to unite member states' energy systems – the EU Commission set out plans to end the requirement for a unanimous vote by all 27 countries in the EU to make changes to energy taxation rules. BTW - under the proposal, such votes would move to qualified majority voting, which gives each country voting power based on its population.
How is the sale of menthol cigarettes not an international trade issue? If it's legal for sale in any EU country, then it can be sold to all EU countries. If you want to make it illegal (which many countries in the world have) then it needs to be done in all countries in the EU at once.

The whole issue about lawnmowers I'd never heard of but was caused by unclear wording (the drafters apparently thought the meaning of the word "vehicle" was obvious but apparently it wasn't). It's being fixed. Third party insurance is an international issue because if you drive your car across the border and hit someone, your insurance better cover it. In any case, as a citizen you cannot be in violation of a directive, only your government can be.

The proposal to end the requirement for unanimous voting requires a unanimous vote. If countries don't like that then they should vote against it. I really don't see the problem with sovereign states being able to make agreements with each other about things like this.
Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
There are many other examples because, slowly but surely, the EU is expanding its scope far beyond international trade.
The EU is a treaty-making machine. It can do anything sovereign states can agree in a treaty. International agreements = good.
Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
We have seen how this fails with the recent conflict between the ECB and the German Federal Court, the latter concluding not only was the ECB acting unlawfully in providing financial stimulus, but even the ECJ had made a judgment outside its authority.
Sorry, a German Court doesn't get to decide if the ECB or ECJ have done their job correctly. That is the role of the combined heads of government of the EU, as represented by the Council.
Stu wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 pm
Harmonisation should ONLY apply to trade between nations and not to matters which are strictly internal.
Sure, but the list of things that are "strictly internal* is quite a bit shorter than most people think. Here in NL we have several nations within a stone's throw and near the borders everything up to and including family law, health, education, law & order can become international issues which need to be resolved and the EU is the obvious place to do that. That puts it beyond a simple trade bloc, but that was always the intention anyway. The trade bloc is called the EEA.
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Scottish Hate Crime law

Post by Stu »

The sale of tobacco products by British retailers to British consumers on British soil is absolutely nothing to do with Brussels. The use of lawnmowers by landowners on private land in Britain with or without insurance is also no business of Brussels. It is different if we are talking about trade or motor vehicles crossing borders, but we are not. These are examples of the EU over-reaching and becoming an unelected pan-European government. I don't want foreign bureaucrats making laws that are pertinent only within British borders.

Next, you are talking about directives - I am not. I am talking about EU regulations which have direct force of law across member states with no requirement for ratification by domestic governments.

The German constitutional court does not agree with you on the issue of judicial supremacy and a legal fight will inevitably ensue. The issue at stake cannot, or at least should not, be decided the "combined heads of government" because this is a judicial matter rather than an executive one and it would be a flagrant breach of the principle of the separation of powers.

The British electorate voted to stay in the EEC in 1975 in large part because it was a relatively small trading bloc of a handful of developed western European countries and it had limited scope beyond that. It has since morphed into something vastly different, with a massive increase in its geographical domain and a much greater ability to interfere in the lives and activities of ordinary citizens going about their lives in their own country. If the majority of Dutch voters are content with the EU and its direction of travel, then that's fine. Good luck to them. But we British perceive the EU to be a substantial threat to our national sovereignty and democracy, and we want out.
Post Reply