UKIP Press update

mkpdavies · 19-11-2006, 10:10 PM

Because stats are massaged depending on who is making the argument, just like everything else in life.

Which is why the 1% is too much is all that matters.

blank_frackis · 19-11-2006, 10:20 PM

If it's the Sun versus the Daily Star then maybe, but when the German government is saying one thing and Andrew Moravcsik (one of the most famous/respected scholars who writes on the EU) are saying two separate things there's obviously some reason for it.

mkpdavies · 19-11-2006, 10:38 PM

Because he is biased in favour of a superstate.

http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/puchala.pdf

Quote:

Andrew Moravcsik affirms as he concludes The Choice for Europe that ‘over
forty years European politicians and peoples have repeatedly widened and
deepened the EC’. He applauds this peaceful ‘transfer of sovereign prerogatives’as a ‘unique achievement in world history’. Yet explaining it, Moravcsik
modestly acknowledges in his closing sentence, remains ‘the ongoing social
scientific puzzle’.

The peoples have been lied to in Britain aswell as other European nations, which he forgets to say.

Bloke sounds like as biased, subversive cretin to me. Just right for the EU cause.

blank_frackis · 19-11-2006, 11:12 PM

Andrew Moravcsik supports an EU superstate? Please, at least educate yourself on what you're talking about before you say such nonsense. He formulated an entire theory explaining why the EU had not reduced the powers of national governments at all, he sees the EU as nothing more than some glorified intergovernmental association and questions virtually all political integration. The key academic debates are between people like him on the one side and the dogmatic Federalist/Neo-functionalist types who you describe on the other.

SponPlague · 20-11-2006, 12:34 AM

Bavaria have this spin on it:

http://www.stmugv.bayern.de/en/eu/zus_allgem.htm

Quote:

As an example, close on 80% of German environmental law is determined by Brussels, while in the food sector it is as much as 100 %, and a similar trend is already becoming apparent in the field of legal and economic consumer protection. This situation affects the Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (StMUGV) in two ways: on the one hand, it is essential to ensure that matters of major concern to Bavarian environmental, public health and consumer protection policy are considered in the EU legislative process, while on the other any excessive or misplaced regulation, e.g. in the form of unsatisfactory implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, incoherence in EU environmental law, exaggerated reporting obligations or too stringent or unreasonable standards are to be avoided.

mkpdavies · 20-11-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

He applauds this peaceful ‘transfer of sovereign prerogatives’

Which part of that don't you understand Blank?

SGK · 20-11-2006, 10:07 AM

The argument is a pointless one. As part of the EU the UK is bound within tight limitations on what it can and cannot make as law. A few days ago, on a different thread, I said how EU manipulation has been magnificent and this is one of the prime examples.
If the EU had a system where it simply made a rule and told all Member States to implement it, the EU would have collapsed ages ago. Instead, that is only one (minor) way it rules. There are frameworks within which Member States are required to make their laws. So who's making that law then? What about a law made purely at the initiative of the Member State's government but the EU has the power to over-ride it if it contravenes a previous law or treaty? Almost all studies would say that it is a nationally made law, but if it is made in the knowledge of what is 'allowed' how is that not directed from Brussels?
The fact is that any higher government is responsible for ALL laws created under its jurisdiction. The smoke and mirrors the EU uses to do this simply allows those who wish to believe that sovereignty has not been surrendered.

blank_frackis · 22-11-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Quote:

He applauds this peaceful ‘transfer of sovereign prerogatives’

Which part of that don't you understand Blank?

Why don't you try reading some of his articles (like the one I linked to) and then argue that he supports a centralised superstate. Not only does he not support it, he's been perhaps the strongest critic of that idea in all of the literature on the European Union. If you actually read any of the academic literature on the subject you have such strong opinions on you would be aware of this (and it's obvious you don't read any of it or you would know who Andrew Moravcsik was and what his opinions are as he's possibly the most well known scholar who writes on the EU).

I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it any more than I would waste my time arguing with a blind man who's overheard someone say that grass is really pink with purple spots. If you want to know what he stands for then you can find out in about 5 minutes.

mkpdavies · 22-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

He applauds this peaceful ‘transfer of sovereign prerogatives’

So he didn't say this?

SponPlague · 22-11-2006, 05:50 PM

Here's a couple of sample of what he does say:

Quote:

Current constitutional arrangements are substantively effective, institutionally protected, and democratically legitimate. The EU has reached constitutional maturity.

Quote:

In 1988, Jacques Delors famously predicted that in ten years '80 percent of economic, and perhaps social and fiscal policy-making’ applicable in Europe would be of EU origin.(72) This prediction has become a fundamental ‘factoid’ in discussions of the EU – often cited as 80 percent of lawmaking in all issues in Europe already comes from Brussels.(73)

Yet recent academic studies demonstrate that the actual percentage of EU- based legislation is probably between 10 and 20 percent of national rule- making.(74) A. Moravcsik: The Constitutional Compromise and neofunctionalism 365

Quote:

Many areas are essentially untouched by direct EU policy-making, including taxation, fiscal policy, social welfare, health care, pensions, education, defense, active cultural policy, and most law and order. Moreover, none among the latter policies appears a promising candidate for communitarization.

I'd like to see the author try to persuade Chris Boooker that defence policy is untouched by the EU :twisted:

19-11-2006, 10:10 PM	#21 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,053 Party: Libertarian Party	Because stats are massaged depending on who is making the argument, just like everything else in life. Which is why the 1% is too much is all that matters. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

19-11-2006, 10:20 PM	#22 (permalink)
blank_frackis Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 312 $blank_frackis is just starting out$	If it's the Sun versus the Daily Star then maybe, but when the German government is saying one thing and Andrew Moravcsik (one of the most famous/respected scholars who writes on the EU) are saying two separate things there's obviously some reason for it.
$blank_frackis is offline$

19-11-2006, 11:12 PM	#24 (permalink)
blank_frackis Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 312 $blank_frackis is just starting out$	Andrew Moravcsik supports an EU superstate? Please, at least educate yourself on what you're talking about before you say such nonsense. He formulated an entire theory explaining why the EU had not reduced the powers of national governments at all, he sees the EU as nothing more than some glorified intergovernmental association and questions virtually all political integration. The key academic debates are between people like him on the one side and the dogmatic Federalist/Neo-functionalist types who you describe on the other.
$blank_frackis is offline$

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

20-11-2006, 10:07 AM	#27 (permalink)
SGK Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,237	The argument is a pointless one. As part of the EU the UK is bound within tight limitations on what it can and cannot make as law. A few days ago, on a different thread, I said how EU manipulation has been magnificent and this is one of the prime examples. If the EU had a system where it simply made a rule and told all Member States to implement it, the EU would have collapsed ages ago. Instead, that is only one (minor) way it rules. There are frameworks within which Member States are required to make their laws. So who's making that law then? What about a law made purely at the initiative of the Member State's government but the EU has the power to over-ride it if it contravenes a previous law or treaty? Almost all studies would say that it is a nationally made law, but if it is made in the knowledge of what is 'allowed' how is that not directed from Brussels? The fact is that any higher government is responsible for ALL laws created under its jurisdiction. The smoke and mirrors the EU uses to do this simply allows those who wish to believe that sovereignty has not been surrendered.