European Parliament Exposed

Well, we're both off:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/p.../h-l/82332.stm

Quote:

---

At such sessions, and during debates on controversial matters, the Commons Chamber can become very crowded as it is not large enough for the current number of MPs - there are only 427 green leather seats for 646 MPs.

---

Pairing agreements:
http://www.parliament.uk/site-inform...ssary/pairing/

Quote:

---

Pairing is an arrangement where an MP of one party agrees with an MP of an opposing party not to vote in a particular division. This gives both MPs the opportunity not to attend. Pairing is an informal arrangement and is not recognised by the House of Commons' rules. Such arrangements have to be registered with the whips who check that the agreement is stuck to. Pairing is not allowed in divisions of great political importance but pairings can last for months or years.

---

EDIT:
I know that the Commons was not made smaller, but when it was to be rebuilt there was some support for a larger chamber because there were more MPs then there were when the old building was constructed. If I remember correctly one of my old teachers at university said that Churchil decided against it because the attendance was inevitably going to be less than 100% most of the time and he didn't like the idea of a half-empty chamber.

@Husar, like I said, you are not looking deeply enough.

Simple, who was helped by the light bulbs? Not the common guy, it was a special interest.

Who was helped by the change in copyrights? It did not help artist and authors but it did help the US recording industry.

Who was helped by the continuing education requirements for Engineers and Architects? Not the people, it drove up costs, not the engineers, it caused many to quit. It resulted in oversights and errors in construction that caused some buildings to collapse. It was a jobs program for the recently graduated.

Who was helped by not being able to sell undersized or oversized potatoes? Not the farmer! Not the consumer! They could not even be given to the poor or to live stock! But it was of mild benefit to wholesale packagers.

Do I need to keep going on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

@Husar, like I said, you are not looking deeply enough.

Simple, who was helped by the light bulbs? Not the common guy, it was a special interest.

---

How and which one?
CFLs and LEDs are cheaper than incandescents for the normal guy.
Additionally not wasting electric energy is good for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Who was helped by the change in copyrights? It did not help artist and authors but it did help the US recording industry.

---

How does abandoning the EU help any of this? Is national law any better?
The GEMA was said to ruin nightclubs with their recent changes to the cost calculation model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Who was helped by the continuing education requirements for Engineers and Architects? Not the people, it drove up costs, not the engineers, it caused many to quit. It resulted in oversights and errors in construction that caused some buildings to collapse. It was a jobs program for the recently graduated.

---

No idea what exactly you mean, searching for "continuing education requirements for Engineers and Architects" only brings up articles about the USA/Alaska apparently. The recently graduated aren't big business however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Who was helped by not being able to sell undersized or oversized potatoes? Not the farmer! Not the consumer! They could not even be given to the poor or to live stock! But it was of mild benefit to wholesale packagers.

---

Not very different from a national level, the whole giving food to the poor thing has been over for a while, companies in Germany do apparently have to pay sales tax if they do that (it counts as non-materialized but possible sales or so I was told) so they rather throw it away, it's what we did at the fuel station I worked at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Do I need to keep going on?

---

Maybe by explaining who was helped by the restrictions against false advertising on food packages?
Who is helped by the improvements in personal data protection?
Who is helped by the universal human rights?

It's easy to find some banana laws that will supposedly bring about the end of the world while ignoring the fundamental benefits that the EU offers its citizens in many other areas.

You misunderstand, I am not with those who would scrap the EU.

I do recognize that it has had some positive effects but I do see that there are also serious problems in need of addressing and reforms.

They need more oversight and they need to be responsible to the people. If these things are not done then the only ones represented are the lobbyists and their own whims.

As to the lights, if something is such a wonderful deal everyone will gladly jump on board and it does not need to be legislated. Denying choices to the public is not the way to go.

Do you need a nanny or do you have the capacity to make your own decisions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

You misunderstand, I am not with those who would scrap the EU.

I do recognize that it has had some positive effects but I do see that there are also serious problems in need of addressing and reforms.

They need more oversight and they need to be responsible to the people. If these things are not done then the only ones represented are the lobbyists and their own whims.

---

I do not disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement, there always is.
My point was merely that people never recognize the positive things and keep on harping about the negatives until they come to the wrong conclusion that it's all negative and needs to be abandoned.
In the USA the bodies that are directly responsible to the people are still more subject to lobbying than the non-responsible ones in the EU. If being directly responsible to the people would end all lobbying that would be nice but it's obviously not nearly the case.

The whole thing about paying them more is stuff that belongs in every capitalism 101 book. The more money these people get from taxpayers, the more loyal they will be to taxpayers. If they get hardly any, they will look for other means to buy their luxuries and some lobbyists and industrials will gladly help in return for some legislative favors.

The best argument for a lobbyist is to show the politicians how the constituents hate them anyway unless they live like priests and how big business can protect them and care for their expenses. The lobbyists do not furiously shout and scream at politicians, they pretend to be their best friends, since politicians are humans, they also want friends, like everyone else...
There's actually a new book by a former lobbyist who seems to describe it just like that, I only heard about it on the radio though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

As to the lights, if something is such a wonderful deal everyone will gladly jump on board and it does not need to be legislated. Denying choices to the public is not the way to go.

Do you need a nanny or do you have the capacity to make your own decisions?

---

I don't, I switched to cheaper lightbulbs long before they were mandated and I have lately decided to replace all broken ones with LEDs instead of CFLs.
The whole nanny thing is necessary because when it does not exist, people will not gladly jump on board of the better train because they don't calculate or research. Instead they are influenced by misleading advertisement and superstitions.
This kind of rational profit-oriented behavior is mostly found in companies and not even all of them. The big ones however invest so much in advertisement because it does indeed pay off for them since they know it will influence people more than the truth does.
Why else does bottled tap water sell for 10-20 times the price?

You don't rate your fellow man much do you? :shame:

Husar, if you watched those two vids closely, then you would've noticed that these people already get a more than decent wage. If you would've watched both closely, you'd have seen the part about MEP's hiring some Bulgarian at 1.200 € a month to drive around, so that the MEP can cash 3.000 € a week for travel expenses, why he does the actual travelling with an Easy Jet flight. You would've seen the part about MEP's "hiring" their own wife and cashing 20.000 € for it. You would've seen that hiring your own wife will no longer be allowed after the next election (why not now immediately?) but that in some parties, politicians already agreed to simply hire each others' wife. Then you have the practice of cashing 300 € a day by simply signing a document in some obscure office and then leaving the building instead of actually being present (what the 300 € fee is intended for).

That is actively abusing the system. These people already get payed more than decent wages. How much more do you want to throw at them?

If these people only wish to do a good job if they get paid completely absurd amounts of money (there was this Maltese Commissioner accused of corruption, an amount of 60 million euro was mentioned; do we now need to pay all commissioners more than the lobbyist would do, say more than 60 million euro a year for each commissioner???), then perhaps, the logical conclusion should not be that we don't pay enough, but that they are greedy bastardly scumbags that we should get rid off asap.

I never said the EU as a project needs to be abandoned. I'm very much of favour of the EU and the idea of integration, close cooperation and a united Europe. But that doesn't mean I am not allowed to criticise and to demand the despicable practices to be stopped and those who have been guilty of it punished.

I don't pay taxes so some guy who already earns a very good salary, can go dining in a restaurant for free and get served exquise dishes and Châteauneuf-du-Pape or can get driven around in an expensive Mercedes to all kinds of frivoulous parties. That's not what I am paying taxes for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You don't rate your fellow man much do you? :shame:

---

No, I've seen too many people who knew they're buying the worst tabloid and did it anyway, then discuss everything inside as though it's all 100% true.

The news these days are less politics and more celebrities because that is what people want, because it improves their ratings. If nothing were wrong with people, then news organisations would make the most money by performing quality reporting. But they don't. They make more money by talking about Beyonce's new boyfriend or what the Kardashians are up to because that is what people want and care about.

Andres, it doesn't matter who you put in office because every human is a greedy scumbag once the chance to be one arises. That's why capitalism works so well, because it uses the greedy scumbag in every human in an attempt to make everything work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Andres, it doesn't matter who you put in office because every human is a greedy scumbag once the chance to be one arises. That's why capitalism works so well, because it uses the greedy scumbag in every human in an attempt to make everything work.

---

So, you are willing to accept this, because you believe every human being is the same: a greedy scumbag who'll grab whenever he can.

That is very cynical.

But if everybody would have that rather apathic attitude, because of his own conviction about the evilness of men, then our MEP's could just continue and go further and further, until you end up with a bunch of dictators who force you into slave labour for their benefit and execute you if you look funny at the picture of the puppet they put forward as the glorious leader.

Wasn't it you who said in an earlier thread that the Cyriots or Greeks didn't have the right to complain about their corrupt politicians, since they elected them themselves and thus only have themselves to blame? If you become apathic and just accept everything, then, by your own logic, you'll have no right to complain either when disaster strikes you personnally. By your own logic, you'll be to blame yourself, since you didn't care/were apathic.

EDIT: and capitalism doesn't work. If not controlled, it eventually leads to complete destruction of the majority of humankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

So, you are willing to accept this, because you believe every human being is the same: a greedy scumbag who'll grab whenever he can.

That is very cynical.

---

You have to be if you want to succeed in life, the world is a cynical place.
Even if there are people who are not greedy scumbags, they will never rise to such an office because they will be perceived as "weak" and not elected or promoted by anyone. It's like the women who stay with the guy who treats them badly because he seems more able to defend his family or something. Men show the same behavior when it comes to electing leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

But if everybody would have that rather apathic attitude, because of his own conviction about the evilness of men, then our MEP's could just continue and go further and further, until you end up with a bunch of dictators who force you into slave labour for their benefit and execute you if you look funny at the picture of the puppet they put forward as the glorious leader.

---

And then a bloody revolution happens. Such is the never ending circle of life. Well, until the sun is burnt out.
The other fallacy may be that you assume they will go further and further when in fact they do not. They just use some perks they technically shouldn't have because it makes them happy and spices up their life, nobody likes people who stick to zero tolerance policies in all cases because they end up throwing little children into jails. It's a long way from using your business car to attend a birthday to supporting a dictator but don't let reason stop you from making the wildest accusations.

As for putting family into high positions for no good reason, in Greece this happened on a much larger scale but we all know they're really just the poor victims of the Eurozone so I don't know why you're angry at the MEPs.

@Husar

You have a stilted mind set. People should be free to chose what they want from life.

Free to be brilliant or free to be a fool. It is their choice.

We do not live our lives to be of benefit to society or government. Those are personal choices we make. It is the job of government to give us those choices, not to inhibit them. To protect our rights as individuals and to set limits so we do not deprive others of their rights.

You would have a benign dictator tell us these things so we do not need to make choices. But who is that to be? And what is to keep them from going bad?

I would just as soon suffer the fools making poor choices as having someone dictate how we are to live our lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

@Husar

You have a stilted mind set. People should be free to chose what they want from life.

Free to be brilliant or free to be a fool. It is their choice.

We do not live our lives to be of benefit to society or government. Those are personal choices we make. It is the job of government to give us those choices, not to inhibit them. To protect our rights as individuals and to set limits so we do not deprive others of their rights.

You would have a benign dictator tell us these things so we do not need to make choices. But who is that to be? And what is to keep them from going bad?

I would just as soon suffer the fools making poor choices as having someone dictate how we are to live our lives.

---

If you never let anyone dictate what you can or cannot do then you will never get a job.
And without a job you don't get to do a lot. Men have deprived women of their rights for thousands of years and now you tell me people want to be free and want everyone else to be free. People are more free with the big government that we have now than they've ever been before. Even the LGBTs are now more free after having been repressed by society and all the "benign idiots" around them for hundreds of years. The unification of the USA was pushed through by the politicians against the will of all the fools around them. Should that not have happened?

If foolish people get to make foolish choices as much as they want to, they make everyone else around them suffer for it as well.
If people get to use 4-5 times as much energy as necessary and we burn more fossil fuels as a result, then that affects us all, that's probably why the US decided pretty much the same thing and stopped fools from using incandescents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

If you never let anyone dictate what you can or cannot do then you will never get a job.
And without a job you don't get to do a lot. Men have deprived women of their rights for thousands of years and now you tell me people want to be free and want everyone else to be free. People are more free with the big government that we have now than they've ever been before. Even the LGBTs are now more free after having been repressed by society and all the "benign idiots" around them for hundreds of years. The unification of the USA was pushed through by the politicians against the will of all the fools around them. Should that not have happened?

If foolish people get to make foolish choices as much as they want to, they make everyone else around them suffer for it as well.
If people get to use 4-5 times as much energy as necessary and we burn more fossil fuels as a result, then that affects us all, that's probably why the US decided pretty much the same thing and stopped fools from using incandescents.

---

You seem to like to take things to illogical extremes. Choosing to work by an employers rules is a choice we can make. We can also choose to leave that job for another.

Big government doesn’t make you freer, they make not laws or decisions that smaller ones cannot.

And just what we are discussing here is foolish people in government making choices for everyone.

No matter what rules are in place you cannot stop some people from abusing them or using more than others. It is a waste of time and resources to try to police everyone. It only puts limits on those who choose to obey.

Does anyone have a written source on this?

Videos are for fascists and the incompetent, and I refuse to watch them.

Edit: ah, no need, I see Andres made a good summary of it. So it's about pocket-change going in the wrong pockets, eh?

I don't see why I should get all worked up about such small sums.

Why should you get worked up about 'pocket money'. You aren't paying it. We are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Why should you get worked up about 'pocket money'. You aren't paying it. We are.

---

Of course I am paying it, just as much as a member state actually. The difference is that we only have taxation, we don't have representation.

I seem to recall some revolution or something based on such a situation....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

You seem to like to take things to illogical extremes. Choosing to work by an employers rules is a choice we can make. We can also choose to leave that job for another.

Big government doesn’t make you freer, they make not laws or decisions that smaller ones cannot.

And just what we are discussing here is foolish people in government making choices for everyone.

No matter what rules are in place you cannot stop some people from abusing them or using more than others. It is a waste of time and resources to try to police everyone. It only puts limits on those who choose to obey.

---

Exactly, and that's why the lightbulb law is a good example of a very effective law since everyone follows it and benefits from it in the long run. If you think not being able to allow incandescents turns your county into a dictatorship then I don't know how to help you.

And what HoreTore said.

Because they have no choice?

I am sure there are still some of the old bulbs out there, so wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Because they have no choice?

I am sure there are still some of the old bulbs out there, so wrong!

---

No, not wrong, the law is effective and good because it does not punish the customer who uses the bulb but simply stops production and sale of the bulbs entirely. Unlike certain other countries where the possession of even small quantities of marijuana alone is responsible for filling large parts of private prisons and ruining a lot of lives. Not only is such punishment counter productive, it's also far less effective than simply stopping production.

Of course it's possible that the lightbulb mafia will find ways to deliver incandescents to addicts but I doubt the EU is bothered by that or plans to criminalize owning an incandescent. Now that would be wrong.

This is a not so witty tangent but I will humor you.

And of course one can not object to the mandated mercury vapor lamps on safety reasons, even though they have a tendency to violently explode. Because they are so green and energy saving.

Endangering the public is perfectly all right if it is done in a good cause. Spending a few thousand euro to clean up the spill is noting in comparison to the energy saved by all those light and it has to come from the consumers pocket, and if he doesn’t spend it, then he only leaves the house as a health hazard for a decade or two.

Other alternatives were not available at the time, but no big deal, right?

The European Parliament only has the peoples best interests at heart and are infallible so this is only a misperception. And what if some people get sick or die, look at all the energy it saved and a few less people to feed.

How caring of them!

Regardless of how green you are, if you don’t see anything wrong in this approach then you should invest heavily in bridges and swampland.

Deaths........?

Hyperbole, anyone?

That's the main problem with those who oppose the EU: things are always taken to ridiculous and imagined extremes.

"Prisons are made more comfortable? What's next, they're going to pay people to come and rape my wife?"

I suppose you have proof that there is no such thing as mercury poisoning?

The other excuse is that you have been exposed to too much of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I suppose you have proof that there is no such thing as mercury poisoning?

The other excuse is that you have been exposed to too much of it.

---

You've thrown away all those lethal and genocidal thermometers as well, or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

This is a not so witty tangent but I will humor you.

And of course one can not object to the mandated mercury vapor lamps on safety reasons, even though they have a tendency to violently explode. Because they are so green and energy saving.

Endangering the public is perfectly all right if it is done in a good cause. Spending a few thousand euro to clean up the spill is noting in comparison to the energy saved by all those light and it has to come from the consumers pocket, and if he doesn’t spend it, then he only leaves the house as a health hazard for a decade or two.

Other alternatives were not available at the time, but no big deal, right?

The European Parliament only has the peoples best interests at heart and are infallible so this is only a misperception. And what if some people get sick or die, look at all the energy it saved and a few less people to feed.

How caring of them!

Regardless of how green you are, if you don’t see anything wrong in this approach then you should invest heavily in bridges and swampland.

---

First of all there are LED lightbulbs and even if they were hardly available when this law was made, it may just have caused them to surface even faster.
Secondly the amount of serious CFL accidents lacks some credible statistics, anecdotal evidence is not very useful.
Thirdly, cars kill more people than CFLs and we still continue to use them, the endangering the public argument is full of fake outrage and hyperbole.

Let me quote you right back:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

You seem to like to take things to illogical extremes.

---

That said, there's no doubt that LED is superior to CFL but noone should really miss incandescents.

The thing is governments are evil. Oh they don't mean to be but they are. Having worked in the public and private sectors and can tell you which one has the most devastating effects on people when they don't get it right.

What was it C.S. Lewis said....

Quote:

---

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

---

He has a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The thing is governments are evil. Oh they don't mean to be but they are. Having worked in the public and private sectors and can tell you which one has the most devastating effects on people when they don't get it right.

What was it C.S. Lewis said....



He has a point.

---

How does he know the robber baron doesn't have a clean conscience?
And the answer is thus anarchy because all governments are evil?

I might as well say people are even more evil that's why we have historically favoured any government over anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The thing is governments are evil. Oh they don't mean to be but they are. Having worked in the public and private sectors and can tell you which one has the most devastating effects on people when they don't get it right.

What was it C.S. Lewis said....



He has a point.

---

How does he know the robber baron doesn't have a clean conscience?
And the answer is thus anarchy because all governments are evil?

I might as well say people are even more evil that's why we have historically favoured any government over anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The thing is governments are evil. Oh they don't mean to be but they are. Having worked in the public and private sectors and can tell you which one has the most devastating effects on people when they don't get it right.

What was it C.S. Lewis said....



He has a point.

---

Hammer on nail equals nailed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

How does he know the robber baron doesn't have a clean conscience?
And the answer is thus anarchy because all governments are evil?

I might as well say people are even more evil that's why we have historically favoured any government over anarchy.

---

I heard you the first time :wink:

It about some types of people who think they know best (Euro anyone?) and imposing that will on others whether they like it or not.

In theory democracy is supposed to counter that. However we no longer have democracy within the EU anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It about some types of people who think they know best (Euro anyone?)

---

You mean everyone. If someone admits they don't know best, you're just talking about the wrong topic. And I know this best.