Comprehensive study finds 64.7% of British laws made in Brussels

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://order-order.com/2015/03/02/co...e-in-brussels/

Comprehensive study finds 64.7% of British laws made in Brussels

Research from Business for Britain published today takes a detailed statistical approach to the question of who makes Britain’s laws. On the one hand we had Nick Clegg claiming in his debate with Nigel Farage that only 7% of British laws were made in Brussels. On the other side Nigel Farage, quoting Viviane Reding, the former European Commissioner for Justice, claimed 75% of legislation originates from the EU. Turns out Nigel was far closer…

Today’s report‘s key findings:

• Between 1993 and 2014, 64.7% of UK law can be deemed to be EU-influenced. EU regulations accounted for 59.3%t of all UK law. UK laws implementing EU directives accounted for 5.4% of total laws in force in UK.
• This body of legislation driven by EU regulations consists of 49,699 exclusively ‘EU’ regulations, 4,532 UK measures which implement EU directives and 29,573 UK only laws.
• This large percentage is driven by EU regulations. This is important because EU regulations are transposed into national law without passing through Parliament. Hence, they do not appear in studies by the House of Commons Library such as the most recent, placing the proportion of EU legislation at just 13.3 per cent.

Analysis of the EU’s influence on British law is continually hijacked for political purposes, leading to disputes over the true number:

Nobody believes the 7% figure Nick Clegg advanced in his disastrous debate with Nigel Farage. Europhiles like to cite the various House of Commons Library which put the percentage in the mid-teens, however EU regulations are transposed into national law without passing through Parliament. Hence they do not appear in studies by the House of Commons Library which most recently estimated the proportion of EU legislation at just 13.3%. If most of our laws and regulations are being made abroad without reference to parliament, do we really need full-time MPs in Westminster?

I suggest a 64.7% pay cut for all politicians in light of their lower workload. I'm sure a cut in pay of those proportions would help focus their minds on whether or not they wanted to keep giving away our birthright without levelling with us once as to why in over 40 years.

Nigel has been constantly far closer than any Westminster politician in every statistic or projection that he gives.

He never gets any credit for this from the BBC or majority of the MSM though.

First the immigration statistics now this.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

"First the immigration statistics" which you failed to give an actual source for ever besides the lower figure which actually shows nothing new happening
"And now this" in which we see figures inflated by claiming influence is the same as enforced legislation, and in which it conflates regulations of a wide governing body with changes to existing law.

It's also definitely worth noting that this supposed comprehensive study is actually just a Britain First-esque report on data already in existence which don't actually support its supposed findings. In fact the genuine figures (ie: the raw data, not some stats gymnastics using improper maths to reach a new number out of nowhere) show the total as 249/945 - around 26% of legislative acts. Let's not at any point pretend that the UK and most of Europe hasn't already been going by most of the things put into EU regulation since forever anyway, and so no changes have been necessary for the larger part - any overarching governing body needs to put on paper their rules and regulations in order to unify things properly, even if it's stuff that everyone already goes by.

It's well worth actually reading studies before blindly reporting on them just because they look like they might support your own views

[-:Undertaker:-]

"First the immigration statistics" which you failed to give an actual source for ever besides the lower figure which actually shows nothing new happening

The immigration figures showed a surge, plain and simple. Yet despite posting Guardian, BBC, DM and above all: ONS figures, you still dispute them. It's like trying to explain the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of a Moon to a chimp. It's impossible.

What is important though is that people other than you out there will see the surge in the figures, as they will see this BfB report, and will realise that their gut feeling was confirmed by the statistics - rather than attempt to do mental gymnastics like you just have and pretty much always do when you've been proven wrong and made a fool out of yourself.

"And now this" in which we see figures inflated by claiming influence is the same as enforced legislation, and in which it conflates regulations of a wide governing body with changes to existing law.

It's also definitely worth noting that this supposed comprehensive study is actually just a Britain First-esque report on data already in existence which don't actually support its supposed findings. In fact the genuine figures (ie: the raw data, not some stats gymnastics using improper maths to reach a new number out of nowhere) show the total as 249/945 - around 26% of legislative acts. Let's not at any point pretend that the UK and most of Europe hasn't already been going by most of the things put into EU regulation since forever anyway, and so no changes have been necessary for the larger part - any overarching governing body needs to put on paper their rules and regulations in order to unify things properly, even if it's stuff that everyone already goes by.

It's well worth actually reading studies before blindly reporting on them just because they look like they might support your own views

The report is very clear in its conclusions.

You using 'raw data' is like when people who read scientific polls they don't like then go into the raw data and say "OH BUT HAHA, SEE MORE PEOPLE ANSWERED LABOUR THAN TORY THAT MEANS WE'RE AHEAD REALLY DESPITE THE POLL HAVING A TORY LEAD" when infact the raw data is weighted and put through methodology to take account of the demographics, voter turnout, past voting and so on and so forth. And it's like this here, not all EU laws are as heavy as others just as not all British law are as heavy as others hence why certain laws are weighted against others and hence why there's always been such a dispute over the numbers. But again I wonder why I have to explain this [methodology] all over again as everytime I do you just completely ignore it.

So a nice try Tom, but again you've crashed and hit the buffers.

[FlyingJesus]

The immigration figures showed a surge, plain and simple. Yet despite posting Guardian, BBC, DM and above all: ONS figures, you still dispute them. It's like trying to explain the rotation of the Earth and the orbit of a Moon to a chimp. It's impossible.

And AGAIN as I've had to explain to you over and over, none of those things showed any numbers that actually added up to 187,000. It's like you don't even know what a source is or how to read a post. I repeat: no-one has claimed that the numbers didn't go up, what was claimed is that you showed an unsourced unreliable figure and refused time and time again to give any indication that you know where it even came from

You using 'raw data' is like when people who read scientific polls they don't like then go into the raw data and say "OH BUT HAHA, SEE MORE PEOPLE ANSWERED LABOUR THAN TORY THAT MEANS WE'RE AHEAD REALLY DESPITE THE POLL HAVING A TORY LEAD" when infact the raw data is weighted and put through methodology to take account of the demographics, voter turnout, past voting and so on and so forth. And it's like this here, not all EU laws are as heavy as others just as not all British law are as heavy as others hence why certain laws are weighted against others and hence why there's always been such a dispute over the numbers. But again I wonder why I have to explain this [methodology] all over again as everytime I do you just completely ignore it.

So a nice try Tom, but again you've crashed and hit the buffers.

It's nothing like that at all because the number of laws is not a weighted figure and I can't believe you've even tried to claim that, it's a very basic one. It doesn't matter how intrusive or not the laws may be, what matters is the number because that is what we are looking at here. I know you like to claim victory where there isn't one (as a true UKIP supporter must) but if you genuinely think you're right here at all then you're even more delusional than I thought. Stating the correct figures is not the same as crashing and hitting the buffers no matter how many false analogies and avoidance tactics you employ

[-:Undertaker:-]

And AGAIN as I've had to explain to you over and over, none of those things showed any numbers that actually added up to 187,000. It's like you don't even know what a source is or how to read a post. I repeat: no-one has claimed that the numbers didn't go up, what was claimed is that you showed an unsourced unreliable figure and refused time and time again to give any indication that you know where it even came from

I didn't actually mention any numbers I just said it went up, and posted numerous sources many of which had different numbers depending on whether it was going by National Insurance numbers, the starting dates (ONS uses quarters) as well as the organisation. Indeed, the Daily Mail actually said it estimates the number to be even higher than the ONS as the ONS was apparently going by NI numbers which of course doesn't count those who have come for crime purposes, with family or simply to beg as many have. Given how sneaky government is with statistics, I would say that is likely to be true.

Again, detracting from the argument and splitting hairs which is that my side said it would surge and it bloody well did.

It's nothing like that at all because the number of laws is not a weighted figure and I can't believe you've even tried to claim that, it's a very basic one. It doesn't matter how intrusive or not the laws may be, what matters is the number because that is what we are looking at here. I know you like to claim victory where there isn't one (as a true UKIP supporter must) but if you genuinely think you're right here at all then you're even more delusional than I thought. Stating the correct figures is not the same as crashing and hitting the buffers no matter how many false analogies and avoidance tactics you employ

Urm, yes it is like that although I know you won't like that.

There's debate, as written in the paper and discussed in other papers before it, as to what is counted as an EU law and what does not. As the report itself says, there's the issue of national governments pre-emptively enacting EU mandated legislation before the EU takes action (which then the HoC library would count as domestic law when it clearly isn't) as well as the indirect effect on any new legislation from parliament on existing EU laws or vice versa.

The report is very clear in its conclusions and even addresses claims by other reports in the past, which I have never seen before.

[FlyingJesus]

I didn't actually mention any numbers

Try reading your opening post in that thread again, it explicitly mentions 187,000 which is the only thing in the thread that was disputed

Again, detracting from the argument and splitting hairs which is that my side said it would surge and it bloody well did.

Again, no-one said that the numbers didn't go up. You are literally inventing an argument which never occurred - all that was asked was that you give a source for the 187,000 number and you have failed time and time again to do so. The sources given (of which only one contained an actual study) had lots of numbers, none of them were that one except for a passing unsourced mention

Urm, yes it is like that although I know you won't like that.

You're really going to argue that, for example, changing the wording in a law on murder sentencing actually counts as 50 laws and a change to recycling bin prices only counts as 1? Brilliant

The report is very clear in its conclusions and even addresses claims by other reports in the past, which I have never seen before.

Having a clearly written conclusion does not detract from the fact that their figures are made up from some pointless equation that serves to show nothing other than their fabulous table-making abilities. You have very clear conclusions in your mind that you actually have a point in any of your arguments (which you tend to leave after a while once shown to be wrong) but that doesn't mean your conclusions are founded or correct

[Chippiewill]

Dan there have been a million different figures from a million different studies. What on bloody earth makes you think this is the one?

And citing comments?! You may as well cite yourself.

[GommeInc]

From what I can see from the database I use, these 2015 Acts so far:

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 c. 6
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 c. 2
Infrastructure Act 2015 c. 7
Insurance Act 2015 c. 4
National Insurance Contributions Act 2015 c. 5
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 c. 3
Stamp Duty Land Tax Act 2015 c. 1

Are all primarily based on and for the UK. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act is based on recent ISIS developments. CJCA is based on us giving up caring about justice with cuts here and there. The IA is based on fracking and letting these companies frack under your house without your permissions (thanks to the Crown owning your land). The NICA is obviously British. The SARHA focuses on vigilantism and SDLA is as it says on the tin. So far we have a 100% domestic law situation. So where is this 67% coming from? Case judgments from the ECJ are few and far between, Directives are the same as are Regulations. There are more Directives at the moment as Regulations are frowned upon still as the EU is acting slowly to fix economic issues.

I am fascinated to know which laws are actually made by the EU. Numbers are one thing but actual names would be useful, especially when we do actually write in Regulations - they have immediate effect, yes, but we still like to write them into our own legislation as is the nature of a dualist nation.