Brexit: The EU’s “red tape”?
A constant refrain of the out campaigners seems to be the EU’s red tape and how Europe interferes with British law. On occasion they go on to say the UK has been taken to court 23 times for failing to implement EU legislation. It’s interesting to note that they never expand much on the concept.
The truth is most member states have been taken to court for various reasons. When the Spanish government allowed banks to sell dodgy financial products and the Spanish courts didn’t protect Spanish consumers- the EU courts were the only recourse. This past month it was the EU court who said that Spain’s fast-track-eviction law had been abused by a number of banks who wanted to increase their profits.
When Italy was allowing the refuse of the Lazio landfill to go untreated creating a verifiable hazard to human life, it was the EU who had to step in. When Germany failed to create legislation curtailing water pollution by fertilizers, it was the EU who had to step in. When the UK failed to protect its citizens by not implementing air pollution controls, it was the EU who stepped in. And when France singled out Roma gypsies for deportation a few years ago, it was the EU who stepped in.
What we see again and again are national governments embracing agendas that are not in the best interest of their citizens. Before the EU we had nowhere to go, no one to turn to- no recourse. An independent third party arbitrator guarantees at least a chance of fairness. So the next time you see the Brexit cartoon above, ask yourself what that judge might have been doing that got him handcuffed?
I mean really- was he *handcuffed* by the statutory right to a paid holiday? The EU legal limit on the number of hours employees can be required to work? Or did he have a problem with EU laws that prevent employers discriminating against workers who are disabled? If there are people in our countries who believe those are constraints and intolerable meddling in sovereignty we should be asking ourselves what they envision for the future?
My Mazamet 
It’s undemocratic, and if it went to a referendum, I suspect the public would vote to abolish it. No, not the EU, but our unelected second chamber here in Britain, the House of Lords, which in some respects acts in the way you are suggesting the EU does on our behalf, though prior to legislation being sanctioned in parliament. The EU referendum looks like being a very close run thing over here, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it go either way. My only hope is that it tears the Tories apart, which it appears to be doing. It’s one of those situations where I find myself holding my nose and willing on some of that ghastly, nasty party.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, that part is amusing…
The unfortunate aspect is it’s currently a purely emotional, dog whistle debate. No talk on the merits or demerits of farm subsidies. No talk on the nitty gritty of free trade agreements. Just grand sweeping (meaningless) statements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the majority will vote instinctually, being unable to unravel the matter objectively, which, after all, is not an easy task given the lack of objectivity being presented. There’s something in the air currently about going against authority generally, so even though the pols and the MSM are urging voters to remain, it may well not happen. Telephone polls have the Remain camp ahead; internet polls have Brexiters ahead. If the under 45’s don’t turn out strongly, the Brexiters could well have the day. I’m not yet convinced this referendum is going to be the last word on it though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And we’ve still got over a month of having to listen to idiots debating this on television.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, the under 45’s tend not to watch television, or watch it a lot less, and they are the ones who can swing this to the Remain camp. The fact that internet polls have Brexiters clearly ahead might suggest the U45’s are leaning to an anti-establishment stance.
LikeLike
I think the reason that so many people see this as a good move is because they equate the European Union with globalization and all the negatives attributed to that. The problem is that once again they are going after the wrong culprit. Without the strength of the Union they will be even more at the mercy of the wealthy elite who are steamrolling their self serving corporate agendas through global trade deals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been really wondering what actual advantages Britain might have for exiting the EU rather than staying in it. The argument you presented for the pro-secession group is a lot like “states’ rights” language here in the US. That reasoning is predicated on some sense of autonomy that is more important than the welfare of its citizens.
A while back, I heard that Scotland’s vote for independence was a play to garner more concessions from the government on home rule. Is there a possibility that Britain is just trying to do the same to the rest of the EU?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes and no. They did use the threat of the referendum to get some concessions- just none that actually benefit the average citizen.
The problem with how the issue is presented is in the us vs. them scenario. Who’s really the us and who’s really the them?
The people in power in one’s own country might very well be people who have values one is opposed to. Do we want to give them carte blanche to do as they will?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. The prime minister tried to renegotiate our treaties as a prelude to the referendum- we are voting on the concessions he gained. Not much, actually. But as TTIP is going to make law protecting the Environment, consumers or employees a tort against multinational corporations, which will be awarded compensation by shadowy, er, multinational corporations from governments…
er, what was my point again?
Ah, that was it. We’re all screwed anyway. Still, we might be slightly better off inside the EU.
The Brexiteers have been compared unfavourably to Trump voters in the US.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually an article I just read suggests 58% lead for Remainers… We’ll see…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since Obama rode into town on April 22nd., 18 polls have been conducted, with 9 each going to either side of the argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
LikeLike
What does Nate Silver say?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing so far it seems, Pink, but maybe he’s lying low as regards Britain after the General Election in which he forecast that the Tories would have 283 seats (they actually won 330), Labour would have 270 (they actually won 232), and the Lib Dems at 24 (they won just 8). The lesson from that particular election seems to be that it’s trends that should be watched, over and above anything else, and the trend in recent weeks on the EU referendum since Obama weighed in appears to be a slight closing of the Remain side’s lead, with the undecided voters clearly seeming able to determine the outcome. Who are they? If they’re largely over 45’s, it could be enough for Brexit, as that demographic is more Euro-sceptical, as you know.
LikeLike
Did the trends take into account illegal spending?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahahaha – they’re utterly nasty bastards those Tories, aren’t they?
LikeLike
Really? Then do me favour and re-explain the history of oppressor vs. oppressed. Left vs. right?
LikeLike
All the way back to the French assembly.
LikeLike
It’s true that those on (what you’re calling) the Left are as keen on Gerrymandering as those on the Right, but I much prefer to bash the latter, and besides, I’ve not mentioned ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, just the Tories. Still, if I must refer to ‘the Left’ here, then I wouldn’t include the psychopathically Totalitarian Leftist regimes of the past, which (it seems) you’re alluding to. Cheer up, have another brandy.
LikeLike
Everything seems to be boiling down to the functional incompatibility of “justice” and “law”.
Because while justice requires abiding by a generally accepted infrastructure of common-sense rules based on some equalitarianism, the “rule of law” is entirely arbitrary, serving only those promulgating them.
The Right’s been historically, since Constantine, religiously backed, while Left should have been the democratic, vox populi, where the “electorate” would legislate through national consensus, and not through a farcical circus of “representatives”.
And yes, Leftism requires control of prices, taxes, wages etc. in order to prevent “one percentism”.
Unfortunately, with the arising of the “people’s representatives” proletarian totalitarianism is born, no better than any other form of dictatorship.
When the “demos” will come to be understood (not that anyone cares anymore…), some sort of genuine Justice would have been born.
And as for the Right and Left of today, it’s the soundest proof of mankind’s utter loss of understanding, after being successfully converted into a religiously inspired “flock” of sheep-like, advertisement grazing mass.
LikeLiked by 1 person