Warning On Buying Cheap Foreignclothes
Shopping & Style4 mins ago
Would You Class The Eu As A " Tyranny "?
82 Answers
Clearly they are not openly using the traditional tyrannical methods but I assert that the imposition of arbitrary rules and a an unstoppable march to federalism by an unelected corrupt entity does constitute a form of Tyranny over independent democratic nations. What say you?
Answers
Tyranny Def. Dictionary.
11:11 Mon 02nd Apr 2018
There you go ZM, the floor is yours; https:/
You see, unlike you, I am not terrified to start a thread on a new but related subject.
You see, unlike you, I am not terrified to start a thread on a new but related subject.
//Give me 3 examples of the EU’s despotic behaviour directly affecting the UK. //
1. EU law lays down that the standard rate of VAT must be at least 15 per cent, and the reduced rate, which can only apply to certain specified goods and services, must be at least 5 per cent. It does not allow governments the freedom to decide that there should be no VAT on chosen items - hence that long argument over VAT on sanitary goods, dubbed the ‘tampon tax’.
2. updated EU directive 2006/126/EC says that diabetics who need regular insulin treatment should only be issued with driving licences “in very exceptional circumstances.” road safety should be a domestic government responsibility.
3. The Common Fisheries Policy gives European fishing fleets equal access to the waters of all EU states within 12 nautical miles of the coast. Quotas are imposed by the EU to preserve fish stocks; the commission is not answerable to the UK fishing industry, which has no right of appeal or challenge.
1. EU law lays down that the standard rate of VAT must be at least 15 per cent, and the reduced rate, which can only apply to certain specified goods and services, must be at least 5 per cent. It does not allow governments the freedom to decide that there should be no VAT on chosen items - hence that long argument over VAT on sanitary goods, dubbed the ‘tampon tax’.
2. updated EU directive 2006/126/EC says that diabetics who need regular insulin treatment should only be issued with driving licences “in very exceptional circumstances.” road safety should be a domestic government responsibility.
3. The Common Fisheries Policy gives European fishing fleets equal access to the waters of all EU states within 12 nautical miles of the coast. Quotas are imposed by the EU to preserve fish stocks; the commission is not answerable to the UK fishing industry, which has no right of appeal or challenge.
Mush:
1. So why is our VAT rate 20%? Are you suggesting it would be lower than 15% when we are out of the EU? Don’t hold your breath.
2. Seems very sensible to me.
3. It was up to TM to negotiate a better deal for the fishing industry. She didn’t but yet you still feel it advantageous to give her complete control. Very logical.
1. So why is our VAT rate 20%? Are you suggesting it would be lower than 15% when we are out of the EU? Don’t hold your breath.
2. Seems very sensible to me.
3. It was up to TM to negotiate a better deal for the fishing industry. She didn’t but yet you still feel it advantageous to give her complete control. Very logical.
From the DVLA for drivers and motorcyclists-
Must meet the criteria to drive and must notify the DVLA.
All the following criteria must be met for the DVLA to license the person with insulin-treated diabetes for 1, 2 or 3 years:
■ adequate awareness of hypoglycaemia
■ no more than 1 episode of severe hypoglycaemia while awake in the preceding 12 months or the most recent episode occurred more than 3 months ago
■ practises appropriate blood glucose monitoring as defined below
■ not regarded as a likely risk to the public while driving
■ meets the visual standards for acuity and visual field (see Chapter 6, visual disorders)
■ under regular review.
Seems reasonablecto me.
Must meet the criteria to drive and must notify the DVLA.
All the following criteria must be met for the DVLA to license the person with insulin-treated diabetes for 1, 2 or 3 years:
■ adequate awareness of hypoglycaemia
■ no more than 1 episode of severe hypoglycaemia while awake in the preceding 12 months or the most recent episode occurred more than 3 months ago
■ practises appropriate blood glucose monitoring as defined below
■ not regarded as a likely risk to the public while driving
■ meets the visual standards for acuity and visual field (see Chapter 6, visual disorders)
■ under regular review.
Seems reasonablecto me.
"But, in fact, this is less stringent than the present UK ban on HGV lorry driving for those on insulin. Diabetes UK has said that this could mean Britain's "discriminatory" practices coming to an end. It says "many HGV and lorry drivers" have lost their licences and "consequently their employment" when they were moved on to insulin to treat their condition."
The Directive actually helped HGV drivers then...
The Directive actually helped HGV drivers then...
>>Give me 3 examples of the EU’s despotic behaviour
1) Donald Tusk is head of the European Council. Could I vote for him if I wanted - NO I never got the chance.
2) Juncker is head of the European Commissions. Could I vote for him if I wanted - NO I never got the chance.
3) Tajani is head of the European Parliament. Could I vote for him if I wanted - NO I never got the chance.
That for me is 3 pretty good reasons.
I can vote for the party I want to run the UK, I can vote (by default) for the person I want to be Prime Minister of the UK, I can vote for my local councillor, I can vote for my local mayor, I can vote for my local Police Commissioner.
But I CANT vote for anyone who runs the EU. The MEPs just sit there and debate the new rules the non elected people who run the EU come up with.
That is why I voted leave.
1) Donald Tusk is head of the European Council. Could I vote for him if I wanted - NO I never got the chance.
2) Juncker is head of the European Commissions. Could I vote for him if I wanted - NO I never got the chance.
3) Tajani is head of the European Parliament. Could I vote for him if I wanted - NO I never got the chance.
That for me is 3 pretty good reasons.
I can vote for the party I want to run the UK, I can vote (by default) for the person I want to be Prime Minister of the UK, I can vote for my local councillor, I can vote for my local mayor, I can vote for my local Police Commissioner.
But I CANT vote for anyone who runs the EU. The MEPs just sit there and debate the new rules the non elected people who run the EU come up with.
That is why I voted leave.
“All I’m asking for is a leave voter or two to explain why they voted to leave this ‘tyrannical / despotic’ organisation which they can back up with a few practical examples of how this tyranny manifests itself in our daily lives.
I seem to be a bit of a lone wolf here. You would think with so many Brexiters around, they’d be able to come up with a few (putting aside NJ’s reasons of not being able to buy his favourite electric lightbulbs or a decent vacuum cleaner, which is hardly despotic)”
Have a look at my answer at 15:47 to this question, Zacs.
https:/
In fact, to save you the bother, here’s my final two paragraphs:
======
You keep on asking (as if it matters) how the EU influences the daily life of people who oppose our membership. People on here keep on telling you. All you do is dismiss their reasons as trivialities. Many of them, taken alone, are trivialities. But taken together they form a regime which people see as interference by a foreign and unelected cabal of people of whom most have never heard, over whom they had no say in appointing to their powerful posts and whom they have no opportunity to dismiss. I keep telling you that it is that which people dislike about the EU. I’ve even said that I would not care if the EU did not effect my life but that I saw the referendum as a clear choice between governance by unelected foreign civil servants or UK politicians. You keep on saying that that doesn’t really matter either because UK politicians are just as distant and/or corrupt.
In short, you don’t understand the viewpoint of Leavers in much the same way as they don’t understand the viewpoint of Remainers. To continually ask the same questions, to be greeted with the same or similar replies and then either pick holes in those replies or rubbish them is utterly pointless.”
======
Your continued “give me three reasons for this” or “two examples of that” is very wearing. The answers to such questions are largely subjective and you don’t agree with them. That’s your privilege but it would be nice, for a change, if you would address the point I made in the first of those two paragraphs above. I imagine you’d simply say “what a stupid premise on which to make a decision”. But then, of course, all Leavers are stupid, so my reasons fit the bill perfectly.
I seem to be a bit of a lone wolf here. You would think with so many Brexiters around, they’d be able to come up with a few (putting aside NJ’s reasons of not being able to buy his favourite electric lightbulbs or a decent vacuum cleaner, which is hardly despotic)”
Have a look at my answer at 15:47 to this question, Zacs.
https:/
In fact, to save you the bother, here’s my final two paragraphs:
======
You keep on asking (as if it matters) how the EU influences the daily life of people who oppose our membership. People on here keep on telling you. All you do is dismiss their reasons as trivialities. Many of them, taken alone, are trivialities. But taken together they form a regime which people see as interference by a foreign and unelected cabal of people of whom most have never heard, over whom they had no say in appointing to their powerful posts and whom they have no opportunity to dismiss. I keep telling you that it is that which people dislike about the EU. I’ve even said that I would not care if the EU did not effect my life but that I saw the referendum as a clear choice between governance by unelected foreign civil servants or UK politicians. You keep on saying that that doesn’t really matter either because UK politicians are just as distant and/or corrupt.
In short, you don’t understand the viewpoint of Leavers in much the same way as they don’t understand the viewpoint of Remainers. To continually ask the same questions, to be greeted with the same or similar replies and then either pick holes in those replies or rubbish them is utterly pointless.”
======
Your continued “give me three reasons for this” or “two examples of that” is very wearing. The answers to such questions are largely subjective and you don’t agree with them. That’s your privilege but it would be nice, for a change, if you would address the point I made in the first of those two paragraphs above. I imagine you’d simply say “what a stupid premise on which to make a decision”. But then, of course, all Leavers are stupid, so my reasons fit the bill perfectly.
Might this definition fit the EU?
https:/
https:/
Contained in Bookbinder's link.
//Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.//
//Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.//
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Charging Order On Leasehold Flat
Law6 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music9 mins ago
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.