On 20/08/2013 18:19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

On 20/08/2013 16:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/08/13 15:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 20/08/2013 14:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...

You can see for yourself what is covered by 'regulations'

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-regulations-2012/

69 of them in 2012 alone

As compared to 3328 Statutory Instruments produced by the Parliament
at Westminster in 2012. So 2% of our legislation of that type came
from the EU and, so far as I can see from the list, it all dealt with
things that needed to have a uniform approach across the whole EU.

right down to
69 COM 2012 2 Proposal on the special schemes for non-established
taxable persons supplying telecommunications services, broadcasting
services or electronic services to non-taxable persons

http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu...012-2-proposal


-on-the-special-schemes-for-non-established-taxable-persons-supplying-tele


communications-services-broadcasting-services-or-electronic-services-to-no

n-taxable-persons.html

sheesh. That really is a show stopper, what would we do without that
one.!

If you are in the business of supplying the relevant goods to
consumers across the EU, a lot more paperwork. It is part of the
process of making a common market work, which is something we, as a
country, have agreed is within the remit of the EU.

Except we as a country, never agreed.

Our elected representatives agreed, so the country agreed,
irrespective of whether some citizens disagreed. That is how our
democracy works.

I'd say no government has the right (whether in their manifesto or not)
to give away sovereignty.

Indeed. That is the prerogative of Parliament.

They're elected to operate a government under
the existing rules.

Which are that a political party publishes a manifesto in an attempt to
sway floating voters. If elected, they are then expected to turn the
manifesto into legislation that is put before Parliament. If Parliament
accepts the legislation, possibly modified, then it becomes law.

They can suggest it and put it to a referendum. This
is what ought to have happened every time including when Grocer Heath
got us in.

There are serious disadvantages to a referendum. Not least being that
the turnout is often well below that of a General Election, so it is
even less representative of public opinion than an election. There is
also the question of whether the people are likely to understand the
issues and make an informed decision or whether they will be guided by
political leanings or media rhetoric. On the plus side, a referendum
allows an unpopular decision to be made without blame being levelled at
the government or dividing it. There is also the faint hope for those
who have no other realistic hope of success, that the inherent faults of
the referendum will result in a decision that a well-informed majority
would never reach.

Colin Bignell