I'm going to take this advice. You apparently have no desire for honest discourse.Originally Posted by Mein Teil
When you, JUST ONE TIME, honestly represent the conversation I will gladly discuss the topic like an adult with you. Just one time. This obfuscation, red herrings, misrepresentation, it is just mind numbing. I already forgot my original point because i've been trying to catch this buttered up pig
Man you are currently trying to make your case for EU power grabbing. Which is like claiming the UN is expanding its global governance...
It is really fruity and doesn't stand scrutiny. So you take that advice if you want. But you are failing to remotely link the EU and its legal frame with power grabbing.
That is the context that kalerab was basing his view on. EU legal framework. So please come again.
question for you Kote...what is WTD?
what government body, agency, bureaucracy, whatever you want to call it....Whose rule is that?, who enforces WTD?
they don't try?Which is like claiming the UN is expanding its global governance...
really?
lmao
Piss poor attempt showing your ignorance of the EU.
Eu directive on Working Hours.
Voted by the Euro Parliament under the Nice Treaty framework.
As all EU directives it is based on a legal revolving door. Nation States sign a treaty, Treaty enters in force, Parliament legislates on its basis, EU directive goes back to National Legislation and is adapted.
In this process.
Origin: Nation States through Treaty.
Initiative: Euro Council and EP.
Vote: Euro Parliament whose members are elected by the Nations States.
Outcome: Legislation passed according to directive, by National Parliaments and enforced by National Agencies.
The revolving door shows quite simply that the EU cannot grab ****.
On what basis can the UN expand its power...the UN charter has article 108 read upon it.
so who decided that they should have this Work directive? Clearly not all the countries agree...who decided its format and implementation, why even bother? Why does it matter if greece wants to have a 2 hour work week, why is it anyones concern? be careful how you answer that. Hint: You will continue to prove my point
you are unable to grasp that this VERY legislation is a power grab. Too deep in the forest perhaps. The process of signing off on such a thing is neither here nor there. An outside entity just made a rule. with input of course, but still an outside entity. The very act itself is by definition - power and control. Your non-entity, is...in fact...an entity
Are you aware of the Members of the EU council? Who sits on the Euro Parliament?
Do you know that directives can be discarded and Members states opt out of the treaty effectively blocking them?
Hum now oustide body? How? Every government ratified the Enabling treaties. You abide by what you sign, that is a basic rule of the EU. So who decided? The Members.
Does any position matter on this...well given that most articles require a double majority (Euro Council and Euro Parliament) and some even outright Unanimity from the Euro Council yes, it is a peers assembly, there are, at least legally, no pushovers.
This very legislation is a power grab? How...who grabbed the power and to do what? The paranoidal character of this post is very disturbing. Given, as I said, that the directives cannot overrule national Legislation as a bulk. Hence the fact the UK did was allowed a leeway of WTD.
But as I said, this would mean that you would consider governance for what it is, not what you dream it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...reaucracy.htmlWhen the WTD was adopted, the UK insisted on British individuals having the right to opt out of the 48-hour week. At the time, we were the only country in Europe to do so and there has been pressure from Brussels ever since to scrap the opt-out. I have continued to fight a rearguard action, so far successfully, with a blocking minority of allies including Germany and many Eastern European countries ensuring this vital flexibility is maintained.
so who decided that they should have this Work directive? did each country all make their own individual legislation and they happen to match?
who decided its format and implementation? did UK decide for UK, France for France?
Why does it matter if greece wants to have a 2 hour work week, why is it anyones concern?
They can. Because it is not about minimum work hours but maximum work hours. It is an attempt at creating a common framework to have unified standards. So that workers get some sort of protection. What's wrong with that? If you want to work 80 hours a week without any regulations you can move to China.
Ha Ha typical, when you do not know go straight to the UK sewer, I mean Press. Knowing the agenda of the Telegraph, this is hardly a first. The thing I like is that he speaks of pressure. What is the pressure? Are there Eu stormtroopers menacing the Frail Albion? Nope, these are other EU members who abide by the treaties they sign and who are stuffed by the fact the UK wants the Milk and the Milk money. But even then, you see that there is a possibility to have those issues stalemated. Hardly EU going all Charlemagne on the UK.
On a side note, did you decided for your own laws? I mean as a citizen, did the man you voted in decided exactly in the sense you want, be that State policies or Federal policies? I guess not Unless you are a closet Obama-man.
The point you are trying to make is inherently dumb. The UK signed a treaty, ratified it. Was not happy as usually the UK is when **** does not go its way. See Thatcher and her I want my money back. This is how collective entities work out. Someguys are in minorities. This is made to ensure the collective works out despite misguided nationalist ramblings.
Now as for the directive, it usually is spun by people within the system. Nominally it is the ad hoc ministers who deal with it, therefore transcending the national level. IE Europe finds that there are too many discrepancies in the Labour market that result in inefficiencies and abuse. They get together to work out a compromise. In 1993 it ends up with a 11-1 vote at the Eu Council. In my book that is way above similar proceedings in Nation States.
But as I said overall your post simply points to your general ignorance of the EU. It points to the fact you tried a sweeping generalization, then back pedaled with a goofball of an example, and finally went all Gran Slam by posting a Telegraph piece. And an opinion piece at that.
Picanha: Not only that, but you can still work 80 hours a week. With overtime pay. Nothing illegal about it. Except for those who do not want fair play in labour relationships.
Last edited by KoTeMoRe; 06-01-2012 at 06:24 AM.
Missing the point. WTD is an EU directive, correct?
If the answer is yes, that is my only point.
...And? In what way the EU is a stand alone external entity? This is the point since the beggining. The position that would make the EU infringe National Sovereignty and Freedom by autonomously grabbing power is ridiculous ... at best.
I've been looking at this for a few minutes and it is time spell everything out one last time. Everything below works together to make the point, they are not individual points:
Well how do those definitions relate to reciprocity...which is the basis of Freeduhm. IE if you have unrestricted course of action, the guy next to you fatally has not.
Complete freedom? How would you define it?
It is sad that you've lost any/all ability to properly characterize freedom. You realize freedom is ONLY an individual construct, right?
Groups CANNOT have freedom, groups do not exist. It is a explanation/description of a number of individuals together. A group cannot "be" anything. For example:
Jewish Group = 2+ Jewish individuals. The "group" cannot be jewish, only the individual. If all the jewish individuals happen to have black hair I could call the group the black hair group. Group is nothing but language construct which is defined by the writer/speaker.
You cannot have a "Free group". Only free individuals.
So now that we've established that freedom is only can only be an individual construct, lets move on to the next step... governance.
Absolute freedom is anarchy. Under the premise of anarchy the individual has absolute freedom with NO restrictions. If Joe wants to kill people then he is free to kill people, he is intruding on other peoples freedoms, yes...but freedom is only for the individual. Obviously this is detrimental to the develop of a society. So what do they do? Laws/Rules are developed..an entity to create and force these laws and rules is formed - ie government. The laws and rules by their very nature restrict freedoms in an effort of society building.
Joe that likes to kill people, if he wants to be part of the society, can no longer kill people. His freedom of killing people has now been restricted.
Anarchy (absolute freedom) -----> ------> Libertarian (minimal restrictions just enough to have a functioning society) -----> -----> .....................Totalitarian (heavily restricted, almost zero freedoms)
by its very nature a government CANNOT give or provide freedoms. It can only restrict more or less.
so what does this all mean?
In the context of the discussion and the established above....centralization is the establishment and implementation of another government body. A body designed because of a common interest, currency.Centralization =/= lack of freedom
This body is making and/or designing directives. These directives are being adopted by its members, these directives DO impact the individual, therefore, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, restrict freedoms.
centralization, by itself, does not restrict freedoms. In the context of this conversation centralization is not a stand-alone word. It is in the context of an additional government body/bureaucracy
Last two pages is just a fvcking wall of text.
Fact is, the two can't be compared and worst amount of nationalist tentions we can come up with here is throwing plastic beer cups at eachother in a football qualifyer. THE ****ING END.
x2
But some people who have never traveled extensively or lived in Europe disagree with you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote