• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Brexit |OT| UK Referendum on EU Membership - 23 June 2016

Did you vote for the side that is going to win?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ieu

Member
How about the bullshit that the EU is pulling with regards to E-Cigs and the Tobacco Products Directive (guess what, there is NO tobacco in E-cigs so it shouldn't even apply).. Here in the UK we want to encourage smokers to quit and E-Cigs are a fantastic way of getting people to quit (worked for me and I was a heavy 40 a day smoker) so the UK government is taking a more laid back attitude to E-Cigs. Hell we even have the NHS and Doctors recommending them

Not the EU, nope they are bringing in moronic restrictions and heavy handed regulation based on little or no actual scientific evidence whatsoever. They are bringing restrictions on the amount of e-liquid being sold (maximum limit will be 10ml). I believe the reason for this is because it is a poison, hm yeah so is bleach which you can buy in LITRES. They are bringing in restrictions on the E-Cig devices which are almost impossible to meet again based on no real scientific evidence whatsoever. The EU is going to heavily damage the fledging E-Cig industry and it's restrictions could end up reducing the E-Cig's ability to help people quit smoking.

You can read more about it here :-

http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/wp-c...rettes-and-Article-20-14th-September-2015.pdf

The UK government wants to take a more relaxed approach to E-Cigs but will have to implement this bullshit directive.

Mom-hmm and when's the last time you inhaled bleach exactly? You know, the product which is pretty damn clear about how dangerous it is and not suggesting you should boil it up and stick it in your lungs?

Right now I can see vaping becoming the new smoking in that people will be led to believe it's safe but decades later we'll start to see the cracks forming. So the smoke may be gone but there's still the nicotine (which is the addictive part remember) and god knows what's in those flavourings, I think the EU is right to be concern with e-cigs and the U.K. Government should be doing more to investigate the long term effects of the products and enforce regulations to make sure companies disclose what is inside those capsules and put restrictions on what they can use.
 
Mom-hmm and when's the last time you inhaled bleach exactly? You know, the product which is pretty damn clear about how dangerous it is and not suggesting you should boil it up and stick it in your lungs?

You know the restriction on quantity has absolutely fuck all to do with "inhaling" right. The restrictions on quantity is to prevent people from killing themselves drinking it which is funny If you drink e-liquid it will make you ill and can kill, if you drink bleach it will make you ill and can kill. As for warnings they are already present on e-liquids with all the lovely cosy lil skull and crossbones.

Right now I can see vaping becoming the new smoking in that people will be led to believe it's safe but decades later we'll start to see the cracks forming. So the smoke may be gone but there's still the nicotine (which is the addictive part remember) and god knows what's in those flavourings, I think the EU is right to be concern with e-cigs and the U.K. Government should be doing more to investigate the long term effects of the products and enforce regulations to make sure companies disclose what is inside those capsules and put restrictions on what they can use.

Yet all the scientific evidence so far suggest that E-Cigs are at least 95% safer than normal cigarettes. Yes the smoke is gone and pretty much all of the bad shit was in that smoke. But hey lets just ignore what actual EVIDENCE exists and just go with our gut feeling eh, Now it is fine for you to take that view as an ordinary person. However the commission come up with directives that effect millions of lives. They should be basing their directives on actual data not bullshit "gut feeling".

But the TPD is a classic example of Brussels interference. The UK recognises the E-Cig as a potentially very successful way of getting people off cigarettes and so far the science is showing that E-Cigs are vastly safer than smoking. The correct response is to gather further evidence and bring in sensible restrictions like "18's and over". However they are being over ruled by Brussels and are forced to introduce this draconian directive that makes little to no sense whatsoever and will actually HARM people rather than help them.
 

Lirlond

Member
Vaping, and smoking, should be banned anyway. Disgusting habit that shows you make poor decisions and don't have the willpower to stop.
 

Dambrosi

Banned
Vaping, and smoking, should be banned anyway. Disgusting habit that shows you make poor decisions and don't have the willpower to stop.
Hear, hear. They're both disgusting habits, especially in public. And I call bullshit on vaping helping smokers to quit - it's just swapping one horrible addiction for another.

Let the EU regulate them both out of existence. That'll be another good thing they've done for the people of Europe.
 
Hear, hear. They're both disgusting habits, especially in public. And I call bullshit on vaping helping smokers to quit - it's just swapping one horrible addiction for another.

Let the EU regulate them both out of existence. That'll be another good thing they've done for the people of Europe.

Ditto alcohol, cars, football and high-fat cheese. Come on EU, sort it out!
 

Hasney

Member
But the TPD is a classic example of Brussels interference. The UK recognises the E-Cig as a potentially very successful way of getting people off cigarettes and so far the science is showing that E-Cigs are vastly safer than smoking. The correct response is to gather further evidence and bring in sensible restrictions like "18's and over". However they are being over ruled by Brussels and are forced to introduce this draconian directive that makes little to no sense whatsoever and will actually HARM people rather than help them.

Here's the government response to a petition. Key part bolded.

The Government recognises the potential benefits of e-cigarettes to reduce the harms of smoking. The TPD introduces a regulatory framework which does not ban flavours or the use of refillable tanks.

Read the response in full
The revised Tobacco Products Directive (Directive 2014/40/EU) (TPD), was published in April 2014 and the UK is now required to transpose the TPD into domestic law by May 2016. A consultation on the draft regulations and impact assessment was held from July to September this year. The TPD will introduce additional rules on the composition, safety and presentation of e-cigarettes to ensure a high level of health protection for UK citizens.

Whilst the Government recognises the potential benefits of e-cigarettes and their role in reducing the harm of tobacco use and helping smokers quit, the quality of products on the market remains variable and they are not risk free. The regulatory framework introduced by the TPD is intended to provide for minimum standards for safety and quality of all e-cigarettes and e-liquids, information to consumers so that they can make informed choices, and an environment that protects children from beginning to use these products.

The TPD does not ban new flavours in e-cigarettes and e-liquids. The TPD permits Member States to make their own rules on flavours in e-cigarettes and e-liquids, however the Department of Health has no current plans to do so.

Refillable tanks will still be permitted under the TPD. Tanks will be limited to 2ml in size and rules to make refill mechanisms ‘leak free’ will be introduced. Consumers will remain able to purchase tank devices and separate e-liquids.

E-cigarettes do not fall under the definition of a tobacco product under the TPD. The UK’s implementing Regulations define “tobacco product” to mean a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco.

Following implementation of the new EU rules, there will remain a range of e-cigarette and e-liquid products on the UK market. In parallel, the prohibition on the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s, will help ensure these products are positioned as alternatives to smoking and not a product that introduces children to vaping or smoking.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105139

If there's no other objectionable parts (which I don't think there is in the regulation of an addictive substance personally. While being better than cigs, it should still be regulated to stop people being hooked on them) the Department of Health isn't being more relaxed at all. They're choosing not to take up options themselves.
 
But the TPD is a classic example of Brussels interference. The UK recognises the E-Cig as a potentially very successful way of getting people off cigarettes and so far the science is showing that E-Cigs are vastly safer than smoking. The correct response is to gather further evidence and bring in sensible restrictions like "18's and over". However they are being over ruled by Brussels and are forced to introduce this draconian directive that makes little to no sense whatsoever and will actually HARM people rather than help them.
How exactly is this harming people, except from carrying like 3 of those tiny bottles instead of 1 larger? What exactly is the draconian part here?

I think the current way e-cigarettes are framed as harmless is a bad thing and we should not encourage the use of them except for people already addicted to smoking and trying to quit.
 
How exactly is this harming people, except from carrying like 3 of those tiny bottles instead of 1 larger? What exactly is the draconian part here?

I think the current way e-cigarettes are framed as harmless is a bad thing and we should not encourage the use of them except for people already addicted to smoking and trying to quit.


I think no one is actually framing e-cigs as harmless, just as much less harmful than cigarettes.

3 tiny bottles instead of 1 larger: probably significantly more expensive, more unnecessary waste. On the flip side: zero positives.
 

Hasney

Member
How exactly is this harming people, except from carrying like 3 of those tiny bottles instead of 1 larger? What exactly is the draconian part here?

I think the current way e-cigarettes are framed as harmless is a bad thing and we should not encourage the use of them except for people already addicted to smoking and trying to quit.

I think no one is actually framing e-cigs as harmless, just as much less harmful than cigarettes.

3 tiny bottles instead of 1 larger: probably significantly more expensive, more unnecessary waste. On the flip side: zero positives.

It's not the bottles limited to 2ml, it's the tank in the e-cig. You will be able to buy top up amounts in any amount still and refill that tank as much as you like.
 

Daffy Duck

Member
Having watched the Brexit movie it makes me wish we got a levelled response from he remain cam, maybe instead of spunking millions up the wall on a leaflet (which I never got) they could've produced a well made video too.

Just the very though of the unaccountable, unelected EU makes me want to be out.
 
I think no one is actually framing e-cigs as harmless, just as much less harmful than cigarettes.

3 tiny bottles instead of 1 larger: probably significantly more expensive, more unnecessary waste. On the flip side: zero positives.
Positives can be people using it less since it would be a discouragement. Same reason you can't really walk into most stores and order cigarettes in bulk.

This e-cigarette thing is being a bit normalized I feel. With people smoking them inside more, telling people it is harmless, how they have different tastes for everyone. Of course that is everyone's own choice, however we also have rules for packaging and more with normal cigarettes and alcohol. So while you might not agree with this one regulation about it, regulation for it are a good thing.

Having watched the Brexit movie it makes me wish we got a levelled response from he remain cam, maybe instead of spunking millions up the wall on a leaflet (which I never got) they could've produced a well made video too.

Just the very though of the unaccountable, unelected EU makes me want to be out.
I think everyone agrees that there is waste there. How much is acceptable differs per person. And more accountability would be good.

However, I would also ask how much people think that officials in their own countries are accountable now? We do not elect a ton of people holding high offices. They are appointed and hired by other people. We don't elect most of government employees.
 

Hasney

Member
Having watched the Brexit movie it makes me wish we got a levelled response from he remain cam, maybe instead of spunking millions up the wall on a leaflet (which I never got) they could've produced a well made video too.

Just the very though of the unaccountable, unelected EU makes me want to be out.

What's unelected about them? Did you not vote for your MEP?

If we had a deal like Switzerland which is held up as a good thing in the video, we'd have no MEPs, but still have to follow a lot of the EUs rules on Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, Asylum quotas, traffic, agriculture and trade barriers. It seems like a much worse deal all around.
 
It's not the bottles limited to 2ml, it's the tank in the e-cig. You will be able to buy top up amounts in any amount still and refill that tank as much as you like.

Yeah, I know. I meant the 10ml limit for liquids. 2ml for the tank also is probably not all that much for a heavy vaper (I'm totally fine with 2ml tbh).

ClosingADoor said:
Positives can be people using it less since it would be a discouragement. Same reason you can't really walk into most stores and order cigarettes in bulk.

This e-cigarette thing is being a bit normalized I feel. With people smoking them inside more, telling people it is harmless, how they have different tastes for everyone. Of course that is everyone's own choice, however we also have rules for packaging and more with normal cigarettes and alcohol. So while you might not agree with this one regulation about it, regulation for it are a good thing.

You can't? I can only talk about Germany, over here you can get as much as you want.

Just btw. I'm not against regulation per se. 18+ is totally fine, not allowing indoor vaping is totally fine. Having some kind of regulation on the product itself - say: a max. amount of nicotin in it (like the 20mg) or certain safety requirements (child protection etc.) - is totally fine.

I also don't see your point in terms of cigarettes and alcohol. Both are scientifically proven to be much more dangerous (like 1000times+), yet they are free to be sold to everyone 16/18/21+ depending on the country. Cigarettes especially contain hundreds and thousands of substances that no one really knows how the react while being burnt. Yet e-liquids - which have like 4 ingredients in them that are all well known and very well researched in general - may only be sold in 10ml bottles. That just doesn't make sense. And it makes one feel like maybe, just maybe, some important players - namely the tobacco industry - are behind this, because they see their product being attacked by e-cigs.
 
You can't? I can only talk about Germany, over here you can get as much as you want.

Just btw. I'm not against regulation per se. 18+ is totally fine, not allowing indoor vaping is totally fine. Having some kind of regulation on the product itself - say: a max. amount of nicotin in it (like the 20mg) or certain safety requirements (child protection etc.) - is totally fine.
You can get as much as you want, but the packaging has limitations I think. You can buy as many of those bottles also of course. I don't think regulations for these things are bad. How long do you do with a 2ml tank anyway?

I also don't see your point in terms of cigarettes and alcohol. Both are scientifically proven to be much more dangerous (like 1000times+), yet they are free to be sold to everyone. Cigarettes especially contain hundreds and thousands of substances that no one really knows how the react while being burnt. Yet e-liquids - which have like 4 ingredients in them that are all well known and very well researched in general - may only be sold in 10ml bottles. That just doesn't make sense. And it makes one feel like maybe, just maybe, some important players - namely the tobacco industry - are behind this, because they see their product being attacked by e-cigs.
Could be lobbying behind it, but also not repeating the mistakes made with cigarettes. We made those acceptable for a long time and we are still feeling the consequences of that. Don't want to repeat that cycle with something new.

That's why I am fine with regulations for this. Aside from maybe some arguments for the size thing, I don't see anything strange or bad in the regulations I read now (and you agree with them also the nicotine and child safety). So if that is the one thing people are up in arms about, that is a pretty minor thing to point to the EU for I think.

That is the problem with a lot of anti-EU people. The focus is on the few laws that might for some be a bit too much. Meanwhile, tons of regulations that do make sense are ignored or just accepted as normal, while those are much needed anyway.
 
Hear, hear. They're both disgusting habits, especially in public. And I call bullshit on vaping helping smokers to quit - it's just swapping one horrible addiction for another.
When I quit I used 0% nicotine "juices" for a couple of months, just to kill the habit aspect. What exactly was I addicted to?

I can tell you for a fact that I never would have quit without them (Initially I didn't even want to quit, but I found that it was quite easy to swap smoking for vaping, then easy to quit after dropping the nicotine completely). That was 5 years ago.
 

Hasney

Member
When I quit I used 0% nicotine "juices" for a couple of months, just to kill the habit aspect. What exactly was I addicted to?

I can tell you for a fact that I never would have quit without them (Initially I didn't even want to quit, but I found that it was quite easy to swap smoking for vaping, then easy to quit after dropping the nicotine completely). That was 5 years ago.

You were addicted to the vape nation.

Seriously though, it makes sense and which is why . That was going to be my path if the champix didn't work (which it did, a treat). Watching my mum be on an e-cig with nicotine for 3 years and then go back to smoking anyway always felt silly.
 
You can get as much as you want, but the packaging has limitations I think. You can buy as many of those bottles also of course. I don't think regulations for these things are bad. How long do you do with a 2ml tank anyway?


Could be lobbying behind it, but also not repeating the mistakes made with cigarettes. We made those acceptable for a long time and we are still feeling the consequences of that. Don't want to repeat that cycle with something new.

That's why I am fine with regulations for this. Aside from maybe some arguments for the size thing, I don't see anything strange or bad in the regulations I read now (and you agree with them also the nicotine and child safety). So if that is the one thing people are up in arms about, that is a pretty minor thing to point to the EU for I think.

That is the problem with a lot of anti-EU people. The focus is on the few laws that might for some be a bit too much. Meanwhile, tons of regulations that do make sense are ignored or just accepted as normal, while those are much needed anyway.

I think what vapors don't like are three main points:

- 2ml for the tank; that's probably not enough for many of the heavy vapors to get through a day and tons of products that have (far) larger tanks won't be sold anymore, atleast not in the legal market; this will probably lead to some kind of black market and/or people buying directly from China and waste taxpayers money
- 10ml for the liquids. It just seems to be a rather arbitrary limit; although many of the heavy vapors probably just buy PG and VG in bottles; this I would compare to, say, limiting 40% vol. alcohol only to be sold in 20ml bottles or less. The same argument (just buy more of the small bottles) could be applied here.
- as far as I understand the regulations, it makes it very, very difficult for anything but all-in-one e-cigs to be sold (only all of the unit being one piece makes it ~impossible for the e-cig to be drip-safe among other stuff
 

Jasup

Member
You can get as much as you want, but the packaging has limitations I think. You can buy as many of those bottles also of course. I don't think regulations for these things are bad. How long do you do with a 2ml tank anyway?
Yes, only the packaging has limitations, there is no mention of limiting the amounts of liquid you can buy.

About the 2ml tank:
- The Tobacco Products directive states that the maximum emission for nicotine is 1mg per regular cigarette.
- The Nicotine-containing liquid in electronic cigarettes can't contain more than 20 mg/ml of nicotine
- 2ml tank of electronic cigarette liquid is comparable to up to 40 regular cigarettes in terms of nicotine

And by extension, 10ml refill container of the liquid is comparable to 200 regular cigarettes in amount of nicotine.

You can find the directive here: http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/products/revision/index_en.htm
There's a link to the directive in .pdf -form on the page
You can find the numbers I used in pages: 13 for tobacco and 26 for E-cig -stuff

EDIT: I should point out that the nicotine amounts are the maximum allowed for both cigarettes and e-cig liquids. The most commonly sold strenght for e-cigarette liquid is 17-18 mg/ml of nicotine, so 2ml tank is comparable to 34-36 cigarettes and the 10ml refill container is comparable to 170-180 cigarettes.
 
Yes, only the packaging has limitations, there is no mention of limiting the amounts of liquid you can buy.

About the 2ml tank:
- The Tobacco Products directive states that the maximum emission for nicotine is 1mg per regular cigarette.
- The Nicotine-containing liquid in electronic cigarettes can't contain more than 20 mg/ml of nicotine
- 2ml tank of electronic cigarette liquid is comparable to up to 40 regular cigarettes in terms of nicotine

And by extension, 10ml refill container of the liquid is comparable to 200 regular cigarettes in amount of nicotine.

You can find the directive here: http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/products/revision/index_en.htm
There's a link to the directive in .pdf -form on the page
You can find the numbers I used in pages: 13 for tobacco and 26 for E-cig -stuff
So if that 2ml if 40(!) cigarettes, what exactly is the refill problem here. Not a lot of people smoke that amount a day. And a refill is 200, which sounds more then reasonable. People complaining about refilling make it sounds like they need to after every hour or something.

I read the PDF file earlier, couldn't find that much wrong with it.
 

Jasup

Member
So if that 2ml if 40(!) cigarettes, what exactly is the refill problem here. Not a lot of people smoke that amount a day. And a refill is 200, which sounds more then reasonable. People complaining about refilling make it sounds like they need to after every hour or something.

I read the PDF file earlier, couldn't find that much wrong with it.

Well, only the amounts of nicotine intake is comparable here. With electronic cigarettes it's harder to track the amount you smoke and it's easier to smoke more due to inhaling vapour, taste, convenience or what have you compared to regular cigarettes.

They are different products.

And up until 2014 (when the directive was put to force) there really wasn't any EU wide regulatory framework in place for them (apart from General Product Safety Directive).
 
2ml is nowhere cloe to 40 cigarettes. Depending on the coil and the battery, it can be sth. like 10 cigarettes. You usually can't vape through all of the tank either, because the liquid flow might not work as well with the last ~20%. And 18mg of nicotine is HUGE. I vape like 6...
 

Jasup

Member
2ml is nowhere cloe to 40 cigarettes. Depending on the coil and the battery, it can be sth. like 10 cigarettes. You usually can't vape through all of the tank either, because the liquid flow might not work as well with the last ~20%. And 18mg of nicotine is HUGE. I vape like 6...

Then you should be glad that the directive also contains this:

Article 20, Paragraf 3, subparagraf f: [Member States shall ensure that] electronic cigarettes deliver the nicotine doses at consistent levels under normal conditions of use;

Basically it means that minimum quality requirements are put into place for the electronic cigarettes in that regard.
 

Arksy

Member
What's unelected about them? Did you not vote for your MEP?

MEPs have no legal authority to propose legislation. The EU Commission, which is not elected, has the sole legal right to propose legislation. In Britain, you elect your MPs which form the head of the executive government. This is done in an open and transparent manner. Legislation can only be proposed by someone who holds the public confidence. (An MP of the HoC).

The EU Commission is an appointed body, none of whom have been elected and none of whom are accountable to anyone. This is completely contrary to over seven hundred years of Westminster Democracy. America changes this by having non-elected ministers (secretaries) with an elected President and in that system, their non-executive power is almost non-existent.

Democracy isn't an end in and of itself, it's one facet of about a hundred that Britain has developed in order to stop people vested with power taking it for granted or abusing it. Talking about the EU being democratic because it has a parliament with elected MEPs is missing the point.
 
I will vote to stay in primarily because I have German family and a Swedish girlfriend, so the ease of movement is greatly beneficial to me and a lot of people I know. I also have economic reasons, but when talking about things that would be immediately and personally obvious to me, the removal of free movement would be the main one.

Edit: as for the post above me, but I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, but we do have an unelected House of Lords that has been marred in corruption many times before.
 
Then you should be glad that the directive also contains this:

Article 20, Paragraf 3, subparagraf f: [Member States shall ensure that] electronic cigarettes deliver the nicotine doses at consistent levels under normal conditions of use;

Basically it means that minimum quality requirements are put into place for the electronic cigarettes in that regard.

I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about. Those e-cigs work just like intended.
 

Arksy

Member
Edit: as for the post above me, but I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face, but we do have an unelected House of Lords that has been marred in corruption many times before.

It's a false equivalence. The HoL doesn't have the sole right of initiative. It can propose or amend some laws but can not make any appropriations or spending bills as they must constitutionally be initiated in the HoC. Furthermore, the HoC can overrule the HoL.
 
MEPs have no legal authority to propose legislation. The EU Commission, which is not elected, has the sole legal right to propose legislation. In Britain, you elect your MPs which form the head of the executive government. This is done in an open and transparent manner. Legislation can only be proposed by someone who holds the public confidence. (An MP of the HoC).

The EU Commission is an appointed body, none of whom have been elected and none of whom are accountable to anyone. This is completely contrary to over seven hundred years of Westminster Democracy. America changes this by having non-elected ministers (secretaries) with an elected President and in that system, their non-executive power is almost non-existent.

Democracy isn't an end in and of itself, it's one facet of about a hundred that Britain has developed in order to stop people vested with power taking it for granted or abusing it. Talking about the EU being democratic because it has a parliament with elected MEPs is missing the point.
This all does have some reason however. The European Commission consists of people from each European country, so all are represented evenly. That way, not all the positions would go to the biggest countries.

They write the proposals. Then the Parliament and Council vote on it. The Parliament is voted directly by the people. The Council consists of the ministers of the particular field the legislation is about from different countries.

If we would do it totally democratic and vote for everyone there, countries would be complaining about their influence in the process and how France, Germany and the UK decide everything, because they would have the most seats and people there.

It's a balance between directly electing representatives and making sure certain areas and countries don't decide everything for everyone. Same reason the US has a Congress and Senate which are appointed differently. Over here in Holland we do the same, just with a bit of different election process. The UK has the House of Lords. But when it comes to the EU, suddenly people are up in arms because this process is not democratic enough for them.
 

Arksy

Member
This all does have some reason however. The European Commission consists of people from each European country, so all are represented evenly. That way, not all the positions would go to the biggest countries.

They write the proposals. Then the Parliament and Council vote on it. The Parliament is voted directly by the people. The Council consists of the ministers of the particular field the legislation is about from different countries.

If we would do it totally democratic and vote for everyone there, countries would be complaining about their influence in the process and how France, Germany and the UK decide everything, because they would have the most seats and people there.

Firstly, you could just make it so that each country elected their own commissioner..but that would still be missing the point.

For example, let's say legislators pass a law that the overwhelming majority of people affected strongly disagree with. In almost every single democracy on earth, you can throw the government out and elect in their place a different government who can then repeal the legislation.

In the EU however, if you elected an entirely new set of MEPs there's no guarantee that the law will be repealed....because MEPs don't have the power to repeal legislation. That's vested in the EU Commission. So in other words, you can't. You'd basically have to wait an obscenely long amount of time until a new commission was appointed, by that stage a decade may have passed.

Edit: In response to your edit, in the US, everyone in the HoR and the Senate is directly elected, the President is technically indirectly elected but he's democratically elected nonetheless.
 
It's a false equivalence. The HoL doesn't have the sole right of initiative. It can propose or amend some laws but can not make any appropriations or spending bills as they must constitutionally be initiated in the HoC. Furthermore, the HoC can overrule the HoL.

See, I understand that... But our system isn't wholly democratic. Ultimately, the Queen has no power, yet it didn't stop The Sun for running a story on her rumoured position. Same with Scottish independence. We can, rightly, state the eu has I undemocratic institutions, but so does the UK... And we have plenty of power to democratise the lords with or without the EU, which has been promised and blocked countless times for successive governments.
 
Firstly, you could just make it so that each country elected their own commissioner..but that would still be missing the point.

For example, let's say legislators pass a law that the overwhelming majority of people affected strongly disagree with. In almost every single democracy on earth, you can throw the government out and elect in their place a different government who can then repeal the legislation.

In the EU however, if you elected an entirely new set of MEPs there's no guarantee that the law will be repealed....because MEPs don't have the power to repeal legislation. That's vested in the EU Commission. So in other words, you can't. You'd basically have to wait an obscenely long amount of time until a new commission was appointed, by that stage a decade may have passed.

Edit: In response to your edit, in the US, everyone in the HoR and the Senate is directly elected, the President is technically indirectly elected but he's democratically elected nonetheless.
But that is because countries don't want to give their lawmaking powers over to others. So we get this roundabout way. It's not perfect of course, but if they elected them directly there would be other complaints.

And the EP has the power to dismiss the Commission if they feel the need.
 

Jasup

Member
I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about. Those e-cigs work just like intended.

Of course not, I'm not very well versed in the intricacies of electronic cigarettes. I'm just reading the directive.

But if the e-cigs you described work just like intended, meaning they don't deliver nicotine doses at consistent levels, then doesn't that mean they're not working according to directives and the manufacturers should therefore invest more on R&D to produce better products? A bit like Energy Efficiency Directive sets the minimum requirements for energy efficiency forcing manufacturers to make such products.

edit: and looking from the other way, without standards couldn't almost anyone manufacture and sell electronic cigarettes as electronic cigarettes even if they would not work as intended?
 
Of course not, I'm not very well versed in the intricacies of electronic cigarettes. I'm just reading the directive.

But if the e-cigs you described work just like intended, meaning they don't deliver nicotine doses at consistent levels, then doesn't that mean they're not working according to directives and the manufacturers should therefore invest more on R&D to produce better products? A bit like Energy Efficiency Directive sets the minimum requirements for energy efficiency forcing manufacturers to make such products.

edit: and looking from the other way, without standards couldn't almost anyone manufacture and sell electronic cigarettes as electronic cigarettes even if they would not work as intended?

E-cigs work just as intended and they DO deliver nicotine doses at consistent levels; it's just that no one that uses a coil with, say, 25W is gonna use a liquid with 18mg nicotine in it. That's just way, way, way too much.

Edit: Say you an e-cig that is set to use 5W. That's gonna lead to less vape, less taste and less nicotine per inhalation (assuming a "standard" inhalation), compared to an e-cig that uses, say, 25W. The latter one will use more liquid, will generate more (hopefully also: better) taste, but also more nicotine relatively speaking. Which means unless you wanna get a headache pretty soon, you have to reduce the amount of nicotine relative to the amount of liquid (say: from 18mg to 6mg) with that e-cig.
 

pigeon

Banned
MEPs have no legal authority to propose legislation. The EU Commission, which is not elected, has the sole legal right to propose legislation. In Britain, you elect your MPs which form the head of the executive government. This is done in an open and transparent manner. Legislation can only be proposed by someone who holds the public confidence. (An MP of the HoC).

The EU Commission is an appointed body, none of whom have been elected and none of whom are accountable to anyone. This is completely contrary to over seven hundred years of Westminster Democracy. America changes this by having non-elected ministers (secretaries) with an elected President and in that system, their non-executive power is almost non-existent.

Democracy isn't an end in and of itself, it's one facet of about a hundred that Britain has developed in order to stop people vested with power taking it for granted or abusing it. Talking about the EU being democratic because it has a parliament with elected MEPs is missing the point.

So I'm an American who's very much anti-Brexit but I will say this is a really weird system. You left out a couple of checks and balances here -- the EU Commission and Commission President are approved by the EU Parliament, so they're at least a little bit elected -- but it does seem like a relic of the days where European cooperation could only happen through huge multilateral summits.
 

Jasup

Member
E-cigs work just as intended and they DO deliver nicotine doses at consistent levels; it's just that no one that uses a coil with, say, 25W is gonna use a liquid with 18mg nicotine in it. That's just way, way, way too much.

Edit: Say you an e-cig that is set to use 5W. That's gonna lead to less vape, less taste and less nicotine per inhalation (assuming a "standard" inhalation), compared to an e-cig that uses, say, 25W. The latter one will use more liquid, will generate more (hopefully also: better) taste, but also more nicotine relatively speaking. Which means unless you wanna get a headache pretty soon, you have to reduce the amount of nicotine relative to the amount of liquid (say: from 18mg to 6mg) with that e-cig.

Ok, thanks for the information.
How does that affect the last ~20% problem you described? It sounds like a huge waste and an issue that should be addressed through product development.
 

Rubbish King

The gift that keeps on giving
Lads I'm not sure whether I want in or out


Is there a real source of information where I can look at some non-biased facts on the matter?

I am happy to sift through manipulated data views either way but I just want arguments both ways that aren't just Punch and Judy back and forth over the NHS and fear mongering.
 

Jasup

Member
So I'm an American who's very much anti-Brexit but I will say this is a really weird system. You left out a couple of checks and balances here -- the EU Commission and Commission President are approved by the EU Parliament, so they're at least a little bit elected -- but it does seem like a relic of the days where European cooperation could only happen through huge multilateral summits.

Not forgetting that the individual members of the Commission (apart from the president) are elected on the basis of the suggestions made by member states.

I could also point out that even though European Parliament doesn't have the power to propose legislation, they have power to initiate legislation. Basically asking the commission to submit a proposal. It's the same power European Council (i.e. member state governments) has.
 
Ok, thanks for the information.
How does that affect the last ~20% problem you described? It sounds like a huge waste and an issue that should be addressed through product development.

It's not wasted, it's just that you need to refill the tank early to make sure that you don't damage the coil (it mustn't run "dry"). I do think that you can't totally prevent this issue, although the coils that get fed from the very bottom of the tank work better in this regard.
 

Arksy

Member
So I'm an American who's very much anti-Brexit but I will say this is a really weird system. You left out a couple of checks and balances here -- the EU Commission and Commission President are approved by the EU Parliament, so they're at least a little bit elected -- but it does seem like a relic of the days where European cooperation could only happen through huge multilateral summits.

That is definitely a check, but I don't think it's necessarily a very good one, and it's no where near as good as election given that they have legislative powers. Saying that these commissioners are a little bit elected, I think, is entirely bogus. It would be akin to saying that the judiciary is a little bit elected. The difference being that these are political entities whom make proactive decisions on the way people live their lives. They're not an independent organ like the judiciary whose primary function is to resolve disputes between two parties based on law.

Every step removed from direct election significantly removes the democratic legitimacy of the position, this is what some people call the democratic deficit. Again the point is not to set up some sort of direct democratic state but to hold people accountable for their decisions in order to act as a restraining device on the exercise of power. Currently, it's incredibly difficult to hold the EU to account for the decisions they make. Some of which have been good, some of which have been a disaster. At the end of the day the EU is incredibly difficult to reform. As we've found out, the second largest net contributor asking for better terms with the threat of leaving was almost entirely unsuccessful.

Unfortunately the only EU on the question ballet paper is the one that currently exists, and its democratic credentials are sorely lacking.
 
Most federalists would love the idea of an EP appointed pan European government as opposed to the commission. Honestly no one apart from the national governments likes the commission.

To hear the same thoughts from brexiters is quite amusing because it doesn't seem like something they would actually want. So might 'lack of democracy' just be a red herring for a majority of people opposed to the EU? Because what they really mean is: 'We don't like the EU because of it's blatant lack of democracy. However we wouldn't like it any more if it were more democratic'. QED
 

Jasup

Member
Most federalists would love the idea of an EP appointed pan European government as opposed to the commission. Honestly no one apart from the national governments likes the commission.

To hear the same thoughts from brexiters is quite amusing because it doesn't seem like something they would actually want. So might 'lack of democracy' just be a red herring for a majority of people opposed to the EU? Because what they really mean is: 'We don't like the EU because of it's blatant lack of democracy. However we wouldn't like it any more if it were more democratic'. QED

Well of course, if the EP had similar legislative powers as national parliaments, the argument would be that the majority of them would be elected by others.

I've heard this argument in Finland for example during EP-elections. The question was how can a MEP protect our national interests if the vast majority of the parliament is foreigners? The problem seems to always be that the majority making decisions is not [enter nationality].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom