UK to leave EU

[Edwardo Piet]

But you won't be rioting yourself? What makes you think everyone else will be instead?

Just a feeling, I guess. We'll see what happens.

And if it does happen, you'll enjoy watching it? Nice.

[I_am_not_mafia]

[Edwardo Piet]

I normally vote Labour but now I'm gonna vote Liberal Democrat unless Labour do something similar.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Instead of a petition calling for another referendum, we need one calling for a vote of no confidence. There would be a legitimate reason to ask for that, even debating it in parliament would have repercussions. I'd sign that. It should be easy to get enough signatures.

[abaris]

It would require some Tories to rebel though, but I am sure that there are enough pro EU Tory landowners now suddenly financially worse off because they will lose payments from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

If the Tories are anything like other European conservatives, they also look after bankers and corporatists. They won't be too happy over the decision either. The City obviously is already on full alert with some banks actually considering to move shop to Ireland and Germany. The EU is withdrawing it's banking section from Londong also. A logical step, justified by saying you can't very well house an EU institution in a country that just declared to leave.

All of this won't make Tory supporters the happiest persons in the world right now.

[Edwardo Piet]

Instead of a petition calling for another referendum, we need one calling for a vote of no confidence. There would be a legitimate reason to ask for that, even debating it in parliament would have repercussions. I'd sign that. It should be easy to get enough signatures.

If it's easy to get the signatures, how do I start one?

[I_am_not_mafia]

[madog]

 


Madog: Dude...what? First off, it's pretty clear from the language in the law you linked that they're targeting advertisements and nothing else. The idea that more rights will follow if we don't let vape vendors advertise to the public is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. Is that a restriction on freedom of speech? Maybe for people who want to sell you vape pens on TV, but for anyone else the law is practically irrelevant.
 

The example I chose to make a point on was about a much bigger issue, which was ridiculed prior to any evidence being considered .... so no I won't further discuss the issue and certainly not  with those who have showed they have formed their opinions and don't give a shit for evidence if it challenges their beliefs, other than to point out what should have been obvious to any one with any understanding of law ....

Law isn't just how you interpret the articles, but how the important terms are defined ....

There is no independently legal definition for "Commercial Communication" or "Information Society services" except for some specific legislation for example a European Directive 2000/31/EC .... But an important note the acts/dirctives define those terms and in particular only for the purposes of those acts or Directives where they have been used.

Commercial Communication is a broad term when undefined, discussing any product in a any medium when it was Commercially available is "Commercial Communication" when taken to its broadest interpretation ... because of this these and other similar broad terms are defined so the Courts are limited to the intentions of the Act or Directive....

Note The European Commission failed to define "Commercial Communication" or "Information Society services" this issue is presently before the European Parliament ...

[emjay]

[LastPoet]

 


Madog: Dude...what? First off, it's pretty clear from the language in the law you linked that they're targeting advertisements and nothing else. The idea that more rights will follow if we don't let vape vendors advertise to the public is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. Is that a restriction on freedom of speech? Maybe for people who want to sell you vape pens on TV, but for anyone else the law is practically irrelevant.
 

The example I chose to make a point on was about a much bigger issue, which was ridiculed prior to any evidence being considered .... so no I won't further discuss the issue and certainly not  with those who have showed they have formed their opinions and don't give a shit for evidence if it challenges their beliefs, other than to point out what should have been obvious to any one with any understanding of law ....

Law isn't just how you interpret the articles, but how the important terms are defined ....

There is no independently legal definition for "Commercial Communication" or "Information Society services" except for some specific legislation for example a European Directive 2000/31/EC .... But an important note the acts/dirctives define those terms and in particular only for the purposes of those acts or Directives where they have been used.

Commercial Communication is a broad term when undefined, discussing any product in a any medium when it was Commercially available is "Commercial Communication" when taken to its broadest interpretation ... because of this these and other similar broad terms are defined so the Courts are limited to the intentions of the Act or Directive....

Note The European Commission failed to define "Commercial Communication" or "Information Society services" this issue is presently before the European Parliament ...

Dude, all I want from you is the contact of the guy that sells you whatever you are vaping. Must be awesome