Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.
She just rubber stamps things. In theory she could refuse to sign a bill but that would cause a crisis, the monarch hasn't refused a bill from parliament in hundreds of years.
Latest bit of propaganda is aimed at the middle classes - your house prices will fall if we leave! One of the things everyone is obsessed by in the UK, the value of their home regardless of whether they have any intention to sell or not. Successive governments have caused house prices to raise out of control, and well above increases in wages. Labour and Tory alike have failed to build enough houses or done enough to control profiteering landlords. Most people of my generation can't afford to save up a deposit for a house due to rental prices let alone buy a house without serious input from family, without that you're stuffed. It's about time house prices were driven down by some margin.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Most people of my generation can't afford to save up a deposit for a house due to rental prices let alone buy a house without serious input from family, without that you're stuffed. It's about time house prices were driven down by some margin.
Same! I don't think they thought this one through, saying that my generation might be able to afford a house in our own country is pretty good encouragement to me!
Going to vote "out" because I received a letter from David Cameron in the post ordering me to vote "in", and I don't appreciate being told how to think.
Even if we do vote out, it won't stick. It'll be messy, but we're staying in regardless. Referendum results are not legally binding, and there are precedents among other EU countries that have voted out in a referendum but remained in anyway.
Politcally, an "in" vote is best for the current government as the act of the referendum appeases UKIP voters and gets them ticking conservative again in 2020.
An out vote that then goes to "further negotiations" and eventually gets overturned and we stay in is a disaster for them, as the 2020 election then becomes a mirror of the 2015 election, only instead of SNP voters resulting in a conservative victory, it'll be UKIP voters resulting in a Labour victory.
Whilst I agree that the EU does have a history of telling referendums to go take a hike, us voting to leave and then not being able to is going to cause major riots. Like seriously major riots. There might even end up being British terrorists attacking EU targets.
Well, maybe not. But it would be bad on a scale never seen before.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Most people of my generation can't afford to save up a deposit for a house due to rental prices let alone buy a house without serious input from family, without that you're stuffed. It's about time house prices were driven down by some margin.
Same! I don't think they thought this one through, saying that my generation might be able to afford a house in our own country is pretty good encouragement to me!
It is a good thing although lenders will adjust their criteria in order to control the housing market, just as they do now. Interest rates will be adjusted and home builders and councils will drip feed property onto the market in order to exert control.
Lower house prices may also mean that many fall into negative equity. There is not much to be dons about that but older home owners (those more likely to vote) may find themselves sticking with the devil they know.
yellowfever wrote: Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.
We've been stripping power from the unelected parasites for years. Magna Cart and John was the initial event that kicked it all off. Henry VIII tried to exercise his divine right and ended up denouncing Catholicism, which caused about half the population to question whether the monarch was divinely inspired or not (ironic as the title of defender of the faith held by all English monarchs is a Catholic honorific). Elizabeth I had to tread a fine line with her succession as she could have easily been removed. Charles I lost his head trying to excersise divine right and James II was told to bugger off or the same would happen to him. The last monarch who held any real influence was Anne, then we invited the Germans in and have successfully turned the monarchy into an ornamental curiosity. Kind of like one of those knitted dolls that your Nan uses to hide the loo rolls in the toilet.
Most monarchies in Europe are the same. Theoretically they do have the power to override parliament, but were they ever to be that stupid you can bet heads would roll again. That's why, again theoretically, you don't hear from them as they're supposed to be politically neutral. There was a big stink when the Queen's opinon was outed in the Scottish referendum.
welshhoppo wrote: Whilst I agree that the EU does have a history of telling referendums to go take a hike, us voting to leave and then not being able to is going to cause major riots. Like seriously major riots. There might even end up being British terrorists attacking EU targets.
Well, maybe not. But it would be bad on a scale never seen before.
How would we not be able to? We literally just have to say, 'Sorry Guys, we're not playing anymore.'
If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.
If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.
I wouldn't see it lasting even that long. Half the tories want out and labour are in such a shocking state at the moment that they would be daft to not leap on the opportunity to call for a vote of no confidence.
If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.
I wouldn't see it lasting even that long. Half the tories want out and labour are in such a shocking state at the moment that they would be daft to not leap on the opportunity to call for a vote of no confidence.
If that nightmare scenario came to pass (Britain voting to leave and Westminster refusing to honour the result) then the SNP could rightly say that Westminster is a dictatorship and declare UDI for Scotland!
If the Government kept us in against the will of the electorate, that cart would be quickly upset at the next election, as they suffered a massive landslide defeat in favour of whoever pledged to adhere to the result.
I wouldn't see it lasting even that long. Half the tories want out and labour are in such a shocking state at the moment that they would be daft to not leap on the opportunity to call for a vote of no confidence.
But that's not a thing anymore is it? We have fixed term parliaments now.
But that's not a thing anymore is it? We have fixed term parliaments now.
Fixed term only relates to the duration of a parliament before it must be disolved. A general election can still be called with a vote of no confidence as parliament has effectively ceased to work.
From the remain side we have been told that house prices will fall and wages will raise if we leave. They said that these are not good (even that second one) but those sound pretty good to me!
For houses and jobs it's simple supply and demand. More people moving into the country means that more houses (and school and hospital spaces) are needed, which drives the prices of the existing ones out of control. And an oversupply of labor means that wages will stay low because there will always be someone somewhere willing to do it for cheap. The EU's suggestion is to just build more houses, but this is a small island with limited space. Were do you draw the line?
They say that if we leave the Eu and put a break on things we'll destroy the economy. It really makes you wonder how countries outside of the EU even survive doesn't it?
And if there is a resounding Out vote, and the EU starts messing around and tries to keep us in, I genuinely believe we would then have the right to start getting violent with them, because that is the official definition of tyranny. And sickeningly, they would probably say that the violence is our fault.
Remainers say that is wrong, yet they also tend to be those 'Unite Against Fascism' Fascists who think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them. The difference is, we would be getting violent because a democratic decision was being undemocratically suppressed. They get violent because the other side have different opinions. They get violent because their minority opinion is being democratically ignored. That's the key difference.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the BNP, EDL etc. But in a free society they have the right to get their opinions across. Just like the Jihadists the UAF type share platforms with. It's when they start physically attacking Tories and Kippers, who do represent the opinions of a sizable part of the electorate as their election victories demonstrate, that they show themselves up.
yellowfever wrote: Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.
We've been stripping power from the unelected parasites for years. Magna Cart and John was the initial event that kicked it all off. Henry VIII tried to exercise his divine right and ended up denouncing Catholicism, which caused about half the population to question whether the monarch was divinely inspired or not (ironic as the title of defender of the faith held by all English monarchs is a Catholic honorific). Elizabeth I had to tread a fine line with her succession as she could have easily been removed. Charles I lost his head trying to excersise divine right and James II was told to bugger off or the same would happen to him. The last monarch who held any real influence was Anne, then we invited the Germans in and have successfully turned the monarchy into an ornamental curiosity. Kind of like one of those knitted dolls that your Nan uses to hide the loo rolls in the toilet.
Most monarchies in Europe are the same. Theoretically they do have the power to override parliament, but were they ever to be that stupid you can bet heads would roll again. That's why, again theoretically, you don't hear from them as they're supposed to be politically neutral. There was a big stink when the Queen's opinon was outed in the Scottish referendum.
And yet should the Government ignore the referendum result, the following upheaval might cause such a crisis that the Monarch would enforce the will of the people by disolving said Governement and selecting other individuals to form a new government and enforce the result.
yellowfever wrote: Got a question for the brits that I'm not sure needed it's own thread. What does Elizabeth do. Every time I see a decision being made its cameron or someone else. I haven't seen anything about Elizabeth making decisions. Is she just a figure head now.
We've been stripping power from the unelected parasites for years. Magna Cart and John was the initial event that kicked it all off. Henry VIII tried to exercise his divine right and ended up denouncing Catholicism, which caused about half the population to question whether the monarch was divinely inspired or not (ironic as the title of defender of the faith held by all English monarchs is a Catholic honorific). Elizabeth I had to tread a fine line with her succession as she could have easily been removed. Charles I lost his head trying to excersise divine right and James II was told to bugger off or the same would happen to him. The last monarch who held any real influence was Anne, then we invited the Germans in and have successfully turned the monarchy into an ornamental curiosity. Kind of like one of those knitted dolls that your Nan uses to hide the loo rolls in the toilet.
Most monarchies in Europe are the same. Theoretically they do have the power to override parliament, but were they ever to be that stupid you can bet heads would roll again. That's why, again theoretically, you don't hear from them as they're supposed to be politically neutral. There was a big stink when the Queen's opinon was outed in the Scottish referendum.
And yet should the Government ignore the referendum result, the following upheaval might cause such a crisis that the Monarch would enforce the will of the people by disolving said Governement and selecting other individuals to form a new government and enforce the result.
Eh. I doubt her madge would risk the monarchy for anything less than a political party trying to seize permanent power.
Rubbish old chap; what could be more important than a Government ignoring a clear vote by the citizens of the country. And I don't imagine that Her Majesty would do so arbitrarily by herself but in response to a concerted protest by the people and a clear opposition to hand the reigns to.
I'll knock on her door and ask myself if needs be.
notprop wrote: Rubbish old chap; what could be more important than a Government ignoring a clear vote by the citizens of the country. And I don't imagine that Her Majesty would do so arbitrarily by herself but in response to a concerted protest by the people and a clear opposition to hand the reigns to.
I'll knock on her door and ask myself if needs be.
Oh dear God, I can see the BBC headlines now. 'Aggrieved Construction Manager arrested in Buckingham Palace Garden: Asked Queen if she'd Like a Pint and Discussion on Politics'.
Hm. So you really think that if the answer is "No, we should leave" in the referendum, UK will instantly get out of EU?
It's true there are a lot of scare stories right now, but I feel like the people for the Brexit are overestimating a bit too much the real power of this referendum.
After all, if it becomes a 51% in favor of the Brexit and 49% in favor of remain, I think your politicians will be able to find a way to say "actually, the difference is too low so we should rather stay for now and negotiate better terms for us" and get away with this excuse or another.
If it worked for others countries, honestly, there is no reason UK would escape that as well. It's not like you're really known for huge riots or strikes - unless it's football, of course. Just kidding for this last one.
Quite laughed a bit at the idea of UK terrorists against EU, I must say. I don't think someone would be stupid enough to sacrifice his life for that.
Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.
The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.
Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!
Ketara wrote: Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.
The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.
Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!
It's only getting more hysterical and ridiculous. Undecideds ask for sensible debate as well as straight information and get clobbered with Sterling Crash/recession/jobloss/hourse price crash/WW3/plague of locusts/death of firstborn.
All this noise from the treasury who couldn't even predict that 2008 banking crash but expect us to trust them on their "judgement" that they'll know what happens in 20+ years...
Sarouan wrote: Hm. So you really think that if the answer is "No, we should leave" in the referendum, UK will instantly get out of EU?
It's true there are a lot of scare stories right now, but I feel like the people for the Brexit are overestimating a bit too much the real power of this referendum.
After all, if it becomes a 51% in favor of the Brexit and 49% in favor of remain, I think your politicians will be able to find a way to say "actually, the difference is too low so we should rather stay for now and negotiate better terms for us" and get away with this excuse or another.
If it worked for others countries, honestly, there is no reason UK would escape that as well. It's not like you're really known for huge riots or strikes - unless it's football, of course. Just kidding for this last one.
Quite laughed a bit at the idea of UK terrorists against EU, I must say. I don't think someone would be stupid enough to sacrifice his life for that.
By that logic if we vote 51%-49% to remain then we should leave right?
A victory for leave is just that, the percentage doesn't matter. I've actually said all along that it would be interesting if the UK does vote to leave, the EU has a history of telling its members who vote against it that they didn't understand the question and that they need to vote again, I can see them at least trying this in an out vote.
Ketara wrote: Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.
The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.
Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!
Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!
Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.
Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.
Ketara wrote: Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.
The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.
Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!
Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!
Eh. He started off reasonably well, but fell apart when his predictions and plans for growth didn't quite pan out, and that meant he had to choose between doing what was best for the country, and what was best for the Conservative party. Naturally, he chose the latter, and resurrected the demons of PFI, slashing support from those who really needed it, and figure juggling to hide it.
Having said that, his economic stewardship is still better than Broon's was, but I'm really not sure how much of a ringing endorsement that is. Osborne's a mediocre chancellor at best, he has an alright grasp of the issues involved, but little imagination (or desire to express it) when things don't go according to plan.
Certainly, I wouldn't trust any of his predictions here, he seems to have enough trouble predicting three years into the future when he's already Chancellor and there are few bumps. That doesn't imply much skill at determining the economic consequences of ...well anything, really.
Future War Cultist wrote: From the remain side we have been told that house prices will fall and wages will raise if we leave. They said that these are not good (even that second one) but those sound pretty good to me!
I mean, sure, your opposition will clearly support your side if you misrepresent their arguments, that's Mildly-Dishonest Internet Argumentation 101.
Remainers say that is wrong, yet they also tend to be those 'Unite Against Fascism' Fascists who think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them.
Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.
Make. Better. Arguments.
Going "We'll get violent, but not that violence that that group they're all in do (even though they're not all in the group), ours is a better kind of violence because its ours! There aren't any gaping logical inconsistencies in this argument!" Is not a good point to make.
I could point at the Five President's Report again, but considering you called the issue of sovereignty 'hyperbole' despite that, you don't seem to even believe it straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Unless of course, you were just addressing the comment about the government, in which case, fair play.
Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.
Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.
Ah, okay. So "Wish to create a federated super-state" is now equivalent to "Loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state"? Got it. Glad we've managed to sort out the issue, which is evidently that you've forgotten that words actually have definitions beyond "It means what I want it to mean"! See, those two sentences actually have two entirely different meanings.
Ketara wrote: Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.
The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.
Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!
Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!
Eh. He started off reasonably well, but fell apart when his predictions and plans for growth didn't quite pan out, and that meant he had to choose between doing what was best for the country, and what was best for the Conservative party. Naturally, he chose the latter, and resurrected the demons of PFI, slashing support from those who really needed it, and figure juggling to hide it.
Having said that, his economic stewardship is still better than Broon's was, but I'm really not sure how much of a ringing endorsement that is. Osborne's a mediocre chancellor at best, he has an alright grasp of the issues involved, but little imagination (or desire to express it) when things don't go according to plan.
Certainly, I wouldn't trust any of his predictions here, he seems to have enough trouble predicting three years into the future when he's already Chancellor and there are few bumps. That doesn't imply much skill at determining the economic consequences of ...well anything, really.
Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.
Oh sure, because the Remain campaign are all angels who never stoop to making petty personal insults...
Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.
Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.
Ah, okay. So "Wish to create a federated super-state" is now equivalent to "Loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state"? Got it. Glad we've managed to sort out the issue, which is evidently that you've forgotten that words actually have definitions beyond "It means what I want it to mean"! See, those two sentences actually have two entirely different meanings.
I could point at the Five President's Report again, but considering you called the issue of sovereignty 'hyperbole' despite that, you don't seem to even believe it straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Unless of course, you were just addressing the comment about the government, in which case, fair play.
I'm not calling the issue of sovereignty hyperbole. It's one of the few arguments that the leave campaign is making that I actually agree is a valid point. My objection isn't to the argument about sovereignty, it's that people in this thread keep on making vast sweeping statements that aren't fact in order to muddy the remain side, and it's just gotten tedious.
Feel free to argue for Britain's sovereignty, it is (in my opinion) the main way that Leave can win the debate, just do it without going "The EU supports a european superstate (BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER)".
Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.
Oh sure, because the Remain campaign are all angels who never stoop to making petty personal insults...
I'm sure they have in the wider scheme of thing; I'd be surprised if they hadn't. In this thread though?
Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.
Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.
Ah, okay. So "Wish to create a federated super-state" is now equivalent to "Loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state"? Got it. Glad we've managed to sort out the issue, which is evidently that you've forgotten that words actually have definitions beyond "It means what I want it to mean"! See, those two sentences actually have two entirely different meanings.
Really, you're just embarrassing yourself now.
Because it's not a valid point somehow? Going "You're making yourself look stupid" doesn't change the fact that you seem to not understand that words have very specific definitions that you have been consistently ignoring in order to throw insults at the Remain side.
So your main contribution to this thread now is tone policing?
My objection isn't to the argument about sovereignty, it's that people in this thread keep on making vast sweeping statements that aren't fact in order to muddy the remain side, and it's just gotten tedious.
What did you expect? This is a wargaming forum. Not the Oxford University debating society. People don't always have the time and inclination to make well researched, fact checked and well cited essays to express their views.
Feel free to argue for Britain's sovereignty, it is (in my opinion) the main way that Leave can win the debate, just do it without going "The EU supports a european superstate (BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER)".
[RULE #1 - Alpharius] . You lecture me for the tone of my comments and mock me for using hyperhole, then characterize my comment as BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER"?
Ketara wrote: Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.
The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.
Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!
Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!
To be fair, "Economic woes" is relative. We've had consistent economic woes that I regularly criticise Osborne for, but even I won't pretend that they're on the same scale as Zimbabwe's, for exampl.
Feel free to argue for Britain's sovereignty, it is (in my opinion) the main way that Leave can win the debate, just do it without going "The EU supports a european superstate (BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER)".
You fething hypocrite. . You lecture me for the tone of my comments and mock me for using hyperhole, then characterize my comment as BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER"?
Practice what you preach.
An example of "Here's what you shouldn't do" is not me saying "Here's what you said". Going "Don't use hyperbole. Don't say '[Hyperbole]', for example" is not itself using hyperbole.
And no, my main contribution to thread has actually been me trying to get people to make better arguments by playing Devil's Advocate. This decision is important, and I'd quite like it to be made through actual reasoning rather than constantly misrepresenting the opposition and making illogical conclusions.
Goliath wrote: I mean, sure, your opposition will clearly support your side if you misrepresent their arguments, that's Mildly-Dishonest Internet Argumentation 101.
How the hell am I misrepresenting their arguments?
Goliath wrote: Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.
110% sure. It's hardly a ridiculous allegation since I spoke to a group of these types in person.
Goliath wrote:Make. Better. Arguments.
Fine.
Falling house prices, which the remain side forecast in the event of brexit, will make it easier for all those young people who are currently priced out of the market. And whilst raising wages might be bad for employers (I don't think I have to go into why its good for employees), it can be offset by a reduction in taxes and red tape, which we're free to fully control outside of the EU.
Goliath wrote: Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.
110% sure. It's hardly a ridiculous allegation since I spoke to a group of these types in person.
Okay, so just to clarify, you feel that you can make the statement that remainers as a whole "think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them"? That's the declaration that you're making based on the fact that you "spoke to a group of these types in person"?
John Redwood admitting that the "£350m a day" savings are a fantasy. He said he thought it would be half that amount. yesterday, I noticed another Brexit organisation put it at 40% of that amount.
When you start admitting in public that your propaganda is fantasy, you're probably already looking out for a bunker to hide in.
I'm looking forward to the fallout between all these future failures. It would be especially sweet if Boris, who saw this as the perfect vehicle for his leadership campaign, despite not believing in the cause, is wiped out as a contender.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm looking forward to the fallout between all these future failures. It would be especially sweet if Boris, who saw this as the perfect vehicle for his leadership campaign, despite not believing in the cause, is wiped out as a contender.
As mentioned earlier (and I don't single you out for this), and as I regularly caution to anyone who listens to my drivelings, don't fall into the trap of deciding to vote one way because of a dislike of personality on one side - this is too important for that.
Either way, regardless of the referendum result, there'll be blood letting in the Tory party. Should remain prevail, the local associations won't forgive those who got voted in on a brexit ticket and backed remain. Osbourne's ambitions (he's the current puller of strings in the party) are pretty much nobbled - he's already drastically unpopular in the party and his ratings continues to plummet. Should leave prevail, there'll be a big cull and the knives will definitely be out for Cameron and Osbourne.
Goliath wrote:Okay, so just to clarify, you feel that you can make the statement that remainers as a whole "think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them"? That's the declaration that you're making based on the fact that you "spoke to a group of these types in person"?
Goliath wrote:Okay, so just to clarify, you feel that you can make the statement that remainers as a whole "think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them"? That's the declaration that you're making based on the fact that you "spoke to a group of these types in person"?
I'm going to go ahead and stop responding to you.
Why? Those are direct quotes from your comment.
If you misspoke then fine, cop to it and move on, but otherwise you're stating that half the people in this country are opposed to free speech on the basis of their opinions on the EU, which is messed up.
And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.
zedmeister wrote: And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.
Well done. Maintains the standard that alongside the paranoid fantasies (the only fact there is consistent tax ID numbering across Europe, which would benefit me hugely by eliminating double-taxing) there is the obligatory mis-spelling of the word "sovereignty"
I wouldn't normally point out spelling errors, but is this the standard spelling on a UKIP website somewhere? Someone on Facebook posted this, this morning: "the whole Brexit idea is not about money but sovereignity that is lost now to an totalitarian institution as is the EU with its' commission (who voted them in?) and parliament (without any real democratic powers). These people can't even speak and understand English properly."
And I believe the implication was two *additional* years of austerity, in that however long the recovery takes (because obviously that'll be this century) will be two years longer than it otherwise would be.
zedmeister wrote: And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.
Well done. Maintains the standard that alongside the paranoid fantasies (the only fact there is consistent tax ID numbering across Europe, which would benefit me hugely by eliminating double-taxing) there is the obligatory mis-spelling of the word "sovereignty"
I wouldn't normally point out spelling errors, but is this the standard spelling on a UKIP website somewhere? Someone on Facebook posted this, this morning: "the whole Brexit idea is not about money but sovereignity that is lost now to an totalitarian institution as is the EU with its' commission (who voted them in?) and parliament (without any real democratic powers). These people can't even speak and understand English properly."
Beyond parody, I'd say!
Eh? Of all the objections to what I posted you pick out my atrocious spelling (yes, I did type that in and no, I don't visit UKIP sites and the like)?
Eh? Of all the objections to what I posted you pick out my atrocious spelling (yes, I did type that in and no, I don't visit UKIP sites and the like)?
It was a low blow personally, I admit, but it illustrates a larger point, that those who proclaim themself the most British tend to have the poorest command of the language, as shown by a third party quote.
Secondly, I did address the main point; a common tax ID would be a good thing. It stops something called with-holding tax which is a real problem. Every time I get money from Poland, Spain, Germany I have to fill out tax forms, it would be great if we could stop that.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: It was a low blow personally, I admit, but it illustrates a larger point, that those who proclaim themself the most British tend to have the poorest command of the language, as shown by a third party quote.
Secondly, I did address the main point; a common tax ID would be a good thing. It stops something called with-holding tax which is a real problem. Every time I get money from Poland, Spain, Germany I have to fill out tax forms, it would be great if we could stop that.
If you can find a post in this thread where I was drum beating and going on patriotic rants about "Britishness", johnny foreigner, etc, etc, then show me and I will apologise. Also, I fail to understand how spelling relates to being British. Surely that's a question of cultural identity, not a flippin' spelling test? Otherwise your 'point' veers towards argumentum ad hominem.
As to your second point (or first depending on which post), I can see why it would be useful to those working cross-border. On the tax avoidance point, it goes without saying that a business or individual hellbent on avoiding tax has all sorts of trickery to move money between different non-eu nations. Though, just spotted an article and looks like Ireland, UK and other nations are looking to reject the new rules at present.
zedmeister wrote: And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.
I'm trying to find a primary source/report for this and having real difficulty. I found the results of a consultation held two years ago, and another unsourced article about it on somewhere called 'The Daily Squib', but not a single news source reporting anything from last night. Anyone?
Eh? Of all the objections to what I posted you pick out my atrocious spelling (yes, I did type that in and no, I don't visit UKIP sites and the like)?
It was a low blow personally, I admit, but it illustrates a larger point, that those who proclaim themself the most British tend to have the poorest command of the language, as shown by a third party quote.
What a load of old tosh!
it would only illustrate that you would put your own (perceived) more eloquent missives above those what darn't talk lik U?
Not a Kipper myself but dismissing 14M of your countrymen on your perceived view of their spelling is not a convincing argument for anything..
zedmeister wrote: And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.
I'm trying to find a primary source/report for this and having real difficulty. I found the results of a consultation held two years ago, and another unsourced article about it on somewhere called 'The Daily Squib', but not a single news source reporting anything from last night. Anyone?
zedmeister wrote: And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.
I'm trying to find a primary source/report for this and having real difficulty. I found the results of a consultation held two years ago, and another unsourced article about it on somewhere called 'The Daily Squib', but not a single news source reporting anything from last night. Anyone?
Only other source I could find was the Irish times mention. This is looking a bit like a vote leave timed news dump and the debate the other night was just that - a debate, which I fell for
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm looking forward to the fallout between all these future failures. It would be especially sweet if Boris, who saw this as the perfect vehicle for his leadership campaign, despite not believing in the cause, is wiped out as a contender.
As mentioned earlier (and I don't single you out for this), and as I regularly caution to anyone who listens to my drivelings, don't fall into the trap of deciding to vote one way because of a dislike of personality on one side - this is too important for that.
Either way, regardless of the referendum result, there'll be blood letting in the Tory party. Should remain prevail, the local associations won't forgive those who got voted in on a brexit ticket and backed remain. Osbourne's ambitions (he's the current puller of strings in the party) are pretty much nobbled - he's already drastically unpopular in the party and his ratings continues to plummet. Should leave prevail, there'll be a big cull and the knives will definitely be out for Cameron and Osbourne.
So, after the vote, break out the popcorn!
I think that's probably going to be the best thing to come out of the referendum, the implosion of the Tories. I honestly don't think the result of the referendum will make that much difference to our lives one way or the other. Most of the arguments are hyperbole and exaggeration. As I've said before, both sides are willfully misleading the public.
If you can find a post in this thread where I was drum beating and going on patriotic rants about "Britishness", johnny foreigner, etc, etc, then show me and I will apologise. Also, I fail to understand how spelling relates to being British. Surely that's a question of cultural identity, not a flippin' spelling test? Otherwise your 'point' veers towards argumentum ad hominem.
I'm sorry. I apologise for the collateral ad hominem damage. This was mentioned in the context of the quote I pasted, from someone saying he wanted out because foreigners can't speak English, and who wanted to take away his sovereignity. A word that crops up so much I'm thinking it's a combination of sovereignty and dignity.
and of course i also agree with the previous post, that it would surely be insane to choose a side based on the politicians punting it. As a great Englishman once said, it would be like arguing precedence between a louse and a flea.
That said, I truly believe one side is being more mendacious than the other. Lying about how much we pay the EU is different from choosing an economic forecast that helps your case. And I'm surprised there's no reaction to the fact that many of the Brexiters, including John redwood and Andrea Leadsom, have dropped the "we're paying £20bn a year" argument, and are now saying it's £10bn (It's more like £8bn). There's a report on it here..
Because they're building a Super State comparable to the USA OR USSR and every State needs it's own currency (check), Bank (check) and military (WIP).
My great fear is this: if we vote to stay in, then the EU can justifiably say that Britain has now voted twice to stay in Europe (1975 and 2016) and that Britain needs to put up or shut up.
We wouldn't have a leg to stand on if more integration happened.
NATO is the cornerstone of European defense policy. However this organization is completely depended on US military infrastructure. EU nations want some military expeditionary capability for interventions in Europe's backyard that the US can't be arsed with.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: My great fear is this: if we vote to stay in, then the EU can justifiably say that Britain has now voted twice to stay in Europe (1975 and 2016) and that Britain needs to put up or shut up.
We wouldn't have a leg to stand on if more integration happened.
That's my great fear as well. We've come too far. If we vote to stay after all this the EU is going to hammer us mercilessly. No more op outs on future integration, and a steady piling on of the pressure to join the euro etc. Our bluff will have been called. And we'll just sit there in the corner being ignored as more countries pile in...except when they want more money off us.
I have this feeling that remain are going to win. I've heard some people say that they'll vote to stay in just to avoid roaming charges on their phone. If people are willing to throw away national sovereignty for such shallow reasons maybe we didn't deserve it in the first place.
Zond wrote: It's a possibility. Or perhaps the EU will simply welcome us back and acknowledge that there is a need for internal change.
The same EU that has taken to searching our elected representatives for digital devices before they're allowed to go read proposed legislation in a secure room?
Haha, better than this mythical British Utopia that will arise once the shackles of these damned Europeans are lifted. We'll save so much money... the exact figure is hard to pin down. We'll have control over all this rampant immigration, like the 20,000 Syrians we have to find homes for of which we've taken in 1600. And if rumours are correct you'll finally be free of those bloody Scots.
It's a vote to see whether you want to get feth'd by the UK or the EU Parliament at this point. Like every vote.
Zond wrote: Haha, better than this mythical British Utopia that will arise once the shackles of these damned Europeans are lifted. We'll save so much money... the exact figure is hard to pin down. We'll have control over all this rampant immigration, like the 20,000 Syrians we have to find homes for of which we've taken in 1600. And if rumours are correct you'll finally be free of those bloody Scots.
It's a vote to see whether you want to get feth'd by the UK or the EU Parliament at this point. Like every vote.
Yeah, but I can kick the buggers off the gravy chain in one of those choices.
It dawned on me today. The Commission is the only group that initiates EU law and is lobbied by national governments and big businesses. The Commission is appointed by the Council, made up of the government ministers. Our leaders appoint these guys to dictate laws.
I see it all now. The EU is perfectly designed to allow so called democratic governments to rule without answering to the people. They appoint the commissioners who create laws they and big businesses have lobbied for, and when people complain about those laws they say 'aw sorry, but it's not us doing it. Blame the commission.'
The Commission, seemingly the ones in charge, are really a shield for the Council to do whatever the hell it wants. The only way this can be fixed if the commission is nominated by the parliament or from the parliament and voted in by the people. But thats never going to happen. Why would they upset this sweet deal they have going.
Look at past commissioners. Our governments sent Neil Kinnock, the guy who lost two general elections. So despite the British people clearly stating that they didn't want him in charge, off he went to the Commision to weild political power over us.
Zond wrote: You can? I think that requires societal collapse or revolution.
Nah mate. It's called the General Election.
Although it might seem like societal collapse for some of them. God only knows I was pleased when Galloway's arse ceased to warm his seat in Parliament.
Zond wrote: Meh, got to do something to break up the fearful doom and gloom in the echo chamber.
This place really has become an echo chamber hasn't it. Anyone with a hint of remain sentiment gets shot down as we saw a few pages back. It also make me laugh when all the brexiters talk about project fear without a hint of irony, while at the same time warning of an eu army/super state, and being forced to integrate more. Let alone all the nonsense spouted about how many immigrants could be coming in the next few years.
We can leave at any time we want if things get dodgy, this isn't a one off choice. We don't even need a referendum, all we need is a parliamentary act saying we are leaving. Simples. Right now there is no eu army, there is no third reich style super state, and net migration from the eu is around 150000. For perspective that's around 0.25 percent of the population. If that's putting a strain on public services, then perhaps the problem is with the capacity in our public services, not the people using them.
Zond wrote: Haha, better than this mythical British Utopia that will arise once the shackles of these damned Europeans are lifted. We'll save so much money... the exact figure is hard to pin down. We'll have control over all this rampant immigration, like the 20,000 Syrians we have to find homes for of which we've taken in 1600. And if rumours are correct you'll finally be free of those bloody Scots.
It's a vote to see whether you want to get feth'd by the UK or the EU Parliament at this point. Like every vote.
Yeah, but I can kick the buggers off the gravy chain in one of those choices.
Yeah, the further the decision point of "democracy" is removed from the people the harder it becomes for people to influence it.
Zond wrote: It's a possibility. Or perhaps the EU will simply welcome us back and acknowledge that there is a need for internal change.
If the EU starts internal change, I'll change my name to dakka dakka, and you can quote me on that!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've decided to shift my focus to what will happen after the referendum, and I found this Guardian article to be quite interesting. It's about the fragmentation of English politics.
I've said this numerous times, but if Remain don't win by a big margin, the problem won't go away.
Everybody predicted the death of the SNP after the 2014 referendum, but they cleaned up at the General Election a few months later.
If it's an IN vote, expect to see UKIP's support skyrocket in the months to come, especially in the old industrial areas of England. This will damage the Labour party and make a 2020 GE election victory even more unlikely.
Zond wrote: Meh, got to do something to break up the fearful doom and gloom in the echo chamber.
This place really has become an echo chamber hasn't it. Anyone with a hint of remain sentiment gets shot down as we saw a few pages back. It also make me laugh when all the brexiters talk about project fear without a hint of irony, while at the same time warning of an eu army/super state, and being forced to integrate more. Let alone all the nonsense spouted about how many immigrants could be coming in the next few years.
We can leave at any time we want if things get dodgy, this isn't a one off choice. We don't even need a referendum, all we need is a parliamentary act saying we are leaving. Simples. Right now there is no eu army, there is no third reich style super state, and net migration from the eu is around 150000. For perspective that's around 0.25 percent of the population. If that's putting a strain on public services, then perhaps the problem is with the capacity in our public services, not the people using them.
1. Please define "shot down". This is a public forum, and people are free to disagree with you. Don't like people disagreeing with your opinion? Don't post here then.
2. Warnings about an "EU army" and further integratiion are not fear mongering, these are actual proposals and plans being put forward right now. The Five Presidents Report lays out their plans for future integration in the next few years.
3. Net immigration is running at 300,000 a year. Several more countries are on track to join the EU, including Turkey, which is MASSIVE and quickly becoming an Islamist dictatorship , and its entire population will have the right to immigrate to this country. Just exactly how are complaints about this "nonsense"?
4. Yes, we can leave without a referendum if a Government makes the decision to leave and pushes it through Parliament. But thats never going to happen, because no prominent parliamentary party is in favour of leaving. Hence the surge in support for Eurosceptics like UKIP in recent years. At least a vote to Leave in this referendum will send a clear message to the political class that they're on the wrong side of the issue.
Zond wrote: Meh, got to do something to break up the fearful doom and gloom in the echo chamber.
This place really has become an echo chamber hasn't it. Anyone with a hint of remain sentiment gets shot down as we saw a few pages back. It also make me laugh when all the brexiters talk about project fear without a hint of irony, while at the same time warning of an eu army/super state, and being forced to integrate more. Let alone all the nonsense spouted about how many immigrants could be coming in the next few years.
We can leave at any time we want if things get dodgy, this isn't a one off choice. We don't even need a referendum, all we need is a parliamentary act saying we are leaving. Simples. Right now there is no eu army, there is no third reich style super state, and net migration from the eu is around 150000. For perspective that's around 0.25 percent of the population. If that's putting a strain on public services, then perhaps the problem is with the capacity in our public services, not the people using them.
I don't call it 'project fear', i call it 'sleepwalking the voter into having no say at all' - it's difficult enough to get something changed in this country, what makes you think that we will get any more accountability by introducing another layer of bureaucracy above them?
The answer is that we wont. It will become less accountable - that's not 'project fear', that's logical deduction.
The EU presidents release a report stating that the aim of the EU is complete integration of all member states, and assuming roles in all member states political systems which policymakers make the country legally accountable to as well as a blanket acceptance of any policy passed by the EU and thats 'project fear' whenever it's brought up', huh?
We cannot 'leave at any time' - once we are part of it the notion of us 'leaving' would have to be voted on by all member states.
Read that again - the notion of us 'leaving' would have to be voted on by all member states.
You think that would happen in a million years given the current EU member states reactions to us wanting out now?!?
France threatened to send every migrant in calais across the channel and shut of trade, Spain threatened to cut off trade and seize back gibraltar (start a war with us), EU policymakers threatened to cut off trade with all EU member states; Thank feth that's all they can do right now - imagine what kind of 'coercion' would be levelled at us when they have control over our policy of law?
The good thing about a BREXIT is that if we get cold feet we can join at any time we want to.
Zond wrote: Meh, got to do something to break up the fearful doom and gloom in the echo chamber.
This place really has become an echo chamber hasn't it. Anyone with a hint of remain sentiment gets shot down as we saw a few pages back. It also make me laugh when all the brexiters talk about project fear without a hint of irony, while at the same time warning of an eu army/super state, and being forced to integrate more. Let alone all the nonsense spouted about how many immigrants could be coming in the next few years.
We can leave at any time we want if things get dodgy, this isn't a one off choice. We don't even need a referendum, all we need is a parliamentary act saying we are leaving. Simples. Right now there is no eu army, there is no third reich style super state, and net migration from the eu is around 150000. For perspective that's around 0.25 percent of the population. If that's putting a strain on public services, then perhaps the problem is with the capacity in our public services, not the people using them.
1. Please define "shot down". This is a public forum, and people are free to disagree with you. Don't like people disagreeing with your opinion? Don't post here then.
2. Warnings about an "EU army" and further integratiion are not fear mongering, these are actual proposals and plans being put forward right now. The Five Presidents Report lays out their plans for future integration in the next few years.
3. Net immigration is running at 300,000 a year. Several more countries are on track to join the EU, including Turkey, which is MASSIVE and quickly becoming an Islamist superstate, and its entire population will have the right to immigrate to this country. Just exactly how are complaints about this "nonsense"?
4. Yes, we can leave without a referendum if a Government makes the decision to leave and pushes it through Parliament. But thats never going to happen, because no prominent parliamentary party is in favour of leaving. Hence the surge in support for Eurosceptics like UKIP in recent years. At least a vote to Leave in this referendum will send a clear message to the political class that they're on the wrong side of the issue.
1. I've no problem with people disagreeing with me, in fact I welcome it, however I don't welcome harassing behaviour or unpleasantness, there's no need for it, I'm sure we are all capable of having a reasoned discussion without getting insanely tribal about things. There was a user a couple of pages ago that was harangued by several users on the Brexit side. It reminded me of the many cybernats that plagued forums in the run up to the up to the Scottish independence vote a couple of years ago. I wasn't around here then, but there were other forums I visited where things became most unpleasant.
2. Net migration is 300,000 just around half of that is from the eu. Either way it's still a minuscule percentage of the population, we are in no way "overrun" the strain on things like the NHS, the police and councils are far more to do with austerity measures, and poor planning regards to social care provision, than a few thousand people from Poland.
Turkey isn't yet meeting the requirements needed to join the European Union. For a start, it's practically a dictatorship, so it doesn't meet the necessary requirements on democracy etc. Among other issues. Turkey, in short, is a mess.
So it's by no means assured that turkey will join, ergo the leave side are very much scaremongering about this by proclaiming Turkey are on the cusp of joining. It's very much in the Farrage handbook of scaremongering on immigrants. Remember when he told us 25 million Romanians were going to turn up as soon as we opened the borders? Where are these people?
4. The political class by the by, will do what they think is best for the country, we might not always agree with that, but at the end of the day they have their own self interests at heart, and that includes getting as many people as possible to vote for them. Could it possibly be, that the major political parties, all of them, are acutely aware that the best way to get as many people as possible to vote for them is by staying in a beneficial European Union? Yes support for UKIP has risen, but to date they have just ONE sitting MP. If the population as a majority felt SO strongly about leaving, I'm certain they would have more.
Leading us into a European superstate is unlikely to be on the agenda of either the Conservative or Labour Parties, politicians on the whole don't like ceding their own power to other people. As a rule they tend to try and accrue as much of it as possible.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become, I will vote on how it is now.
Right now we have a collective ability to do good things for people across the continent, we have a big say in what laws are made by the European Union (9/10 laws are passed with the agreement of British MEPs) we have access to a massive free market and I can, should I choose, live anywhere on the continent unempeeded. When I eventually get my business off the ground I can sell my produce to 500 million people without paying import/export duties, My sisters in laws can retire to France without the need to worry about visas or red tape, I can go and stay in their house for as long as I want, my cousin can go and live in Prague with his girlfriend, my family in Ireland can visit me without filling in visa declarations, and I can visit them too. Heck I could go and live with them should I choose.
Thanks to EU red tape, I can eat French meat safe in the knowledge that it's been produced in a safe manner, I can drink German beer knowing that it's not 10% bleach, and I can drive an Italian car knowing that it meets a good safety standard. Now some may argue that this red tape is stuff that we could easily implement our selves, but I would say to them, that they don't understand the power of collective bargaining. If we made a law saying our people had the right to holiday pay, what's to stop Holland from saying to companies "Look we don't make companies pay holiday pay here, set up your factory in Rotterdam instead of Hull"
If the price for that is letting in a few thousand people, (who by the way contribute more taxes than they take out in services) then so be it. I'm not going to let the likes of Cameron perseude me to vote in based on a hypothetical WW3 or that fop Boris perseude me based on dubious claims about our democracy and a Reich style superstate. Neither should anyone else. Ignore the tub thumpers and look at what you benefit from, and what you don't benefit from. Whichever way you decide to vote, don't be taken in by the exaggerations and lies of either campaign.
I can honestly say that neither campaign has had any effect whatsoever on my voting intentions. I'd already decided I wanted out of the EU a decade ago. Nothing since then has changed my mind, in fact the previous 10 years have only solidified my decision. So no, I have not been fooled by anybody's lies and exaggeration.
What you're advocating is essentially giving up Liberty for Security. You like the benefits of EU membership like product regulation, but in the process you're giving up liberties, i.e. your democratic influence and power to decide who governs us. As SirDonlad says, Democracy gets weaker with every degree of separation between the electorate and the people in charge. We can vote out a British government, but what if we dislike the laws being passed by the European government? What chance do we have of ever voting them out?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I can honestly say that neither campaign has had any effect whatsoever on my voting intentions. I'd already decided I wanted out of the EU a decade ago. Nothing since then has changed my mind, in fact the previous 10 years have only solidified my decision.
So no, I have not been fooled by anybody's lies and exaggeration.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
What a remarkably short-termist perspective. One can only hope that you don't utilise the same method of planning when it comes to borrowing credit.
As to 'fevered', I'm sure the Five Presidents will appreciate your description of their intended (and clearly laid out) aims. I certainly agree with you!
1. I've no problem with people disagreeing with me, in fact I welcome it, however I don't welcome harassing behaviour or unpleasantness, there's no need for it, I'm sure we are all capable of having a reasoned discussion without getting insanely tribal about things. There was a user a couple of pages ago that was harangued by several users on the Brexit side. It reminded me of the many cybernats that plagued forums in the run up to the up to the Scottish independence vote a couple of years ago. I wasn't around here then, but there were other forums I visited where things became most unpleasant.
2. Net migration is 300,000 just around half of that is from the eu. Either way it's still a minuscule percentage of the population, we are in no way "overrun" the strain on things like the NHS, the police and councils are far more to do with austerity measures, and poor planning regards to social care provision, than a few thousand people from Poland.
Turkey isn't yet meeting the requirements needed to join the European Union. For a start, it's practically a dictatorship, so it doesn't meet the necessary requirements on democracy etc. Among other issues. Turkey, in short, is a mess.
So it's by no means assured that turkey will join, ergo the leave side are very much scaremongering about this by proclaiming Turkey are on the cusp of joining. It's very much in the Farrage handbook of scaremongering on immigrants. Remember when he told us 25 million Romanians were going to turn up as soon as we opened the borders? Where are these people?
4. The political class by the by, will do what they think is best for the country, we might not always agree with that, but at the end of the day they have their own self interests at heart, and that includes getting as many people as possible to vote for them. Could it possibly be, that the major political parties, all of them, are acutely aware that the best way to get as many people as possible to vote for them is by staying in a beneficial European Union? Yes support for UKIP has risen, but to date they have just ONE sitting MP. If the population as a majority felt SO strongly about leaving, I'm certain they would have more.
Leading us into a European superstate is unlikely to be on the agenda of either the Conservative or Labour Parties, politicians on the whole don't like ceding their own power to other people. As a rule they tend to try and accrue as much of it as possible.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become, I will vote on how it is now.
Right now we have a collective ability to do good things for people across the continent, we have a big say in what laws are made by the European Union (9/10 laws are passed with the agreement of British MEPs) we have access to a massive free market and I can, should I choose, live anywhere on the continent unempeeded. When I eventually get my business off the ground I can sell my produce to 500 million people without paying import/export duties, My sisters in laws can retire to France without the need to worry about visas or red tape, I can go and stay in their house for as long as I want, my cousin can go and live in Prague with his girlfriend, my family in Ireland can visit me without filling in visa declarations, and I can visit them too. Heck I could go and live with them should I choose.
Thanks to EU red tape, I can eat French meat safe in the knowledge that it's been produced in a safe manner, I can drink German beer knowing that it's not 10% bleach, and I can drive an Italian car knowing that it meets a good safety standard. Now some may argue that this red tape is stuff that we could easily implement our selves, but I would say to them, that they don't understand the power of collective bargaining. If we made a law saying our people had the right to holiday pay, what's to stop Holland from saying to companies "Look we don't make companies pay holiday pay here, set up your factory in Rotterdam instead of Hull"
If the price for that is letting in a few thousand people, (who by the way contribute more taxes than they take out in services) then so be it. I'm not going to let the likes of Cameron perseude me to vote in based on a hypothetical WW3 or that fop Boris perseude me based on dubious claims about our democracy and a Reich style superstate. Neither should anyone else. Ignore the tub thumpers and look at what you benefit from, and what you don't benefit from. Whichever way you decide to vote, don't be taken in by the exaggerations and lies of either campaign.
Good, don't let people 'persuade' you either way when lies and fear are involved, anything you post up here is destined for scrutiny by all who come here and only truth should remain.
Erdogan added that if further bilateral talks on the visa issue didn't yield results, "the readmission agreement" on refugees wouldn't be approved by Turkey.
The refugee issue is coming to a head in Germany and merkel is stuck trying to delay the ramifications of the issue till after the uk referendum (and the Greek bail-out too) while trying to con the turks into jumping into the arrangement with both feet before the EU commits to it's side of the deal; obviously with the intention of screwing them after the fact.
When i was looking at migrating to europe i had to claim citizenship, register my address with local authorities, have a bank account with a defined amount of money in it and learn the local language (which was tested at the final stages of the citizenship tests) in order to move there.
Nobody will stop you buying a holiday house in Europe, but they have a big issue with people (brits mainly) living there without integrating properly. You may not need to get a visa but that doesn't mean you have no paperwork to do.
Strange really when you look at the amount of countries which can send citizens here visa-free..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom ....including the EU.
EU red tape did not stop decaying romanian horse-meat being found in our beef supply chain.
The repercussions are what keeps the Germans from putting 10% bleach in their beer - they are rather proud of their beer and their reputation for it.
The biggest safety scare to hit Italian cars was with the ferrari 458 italia where adhesive which was too close to the exhast caught fire was made using EU red tape. Second is the fiat 500 also built using EU red tape.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2271796/Fiat-500-named-worst-car-passenger-injuries-U-S-study-claims-bigger-better-protect-crash.html
I'm interested in truth, honour and integrity in my governance and i see none in the EU.
We say we want to leave and they resond with threats - these people do not deserve the power they are courting.
Our politicians aren't much better, but i can make life hard for the people calling the shots while they're in my country - i know where my local MP lives and if he makes life difficult for me then i can make life difficult for him; accountability which the EU cannot provide me.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
What a remarkably short-termist perspective. One can only hope that you don't utilise the same method of planning when it comes to borrowing credit.
As to 'fevered', I'm sure the Five Presidents will appreciate your description of their intended (and clearly laid out) aims. I certainly agree with you!
What on Earth is short termist about section you've quoted? I weight up the benefits and the draw backs. There's nothing short termist about that. There's also nothing short termist about ignoring the doom mongers who seem to make incredible leaps of logic when developing their "what ifs"
Britain has a say in what happens to the EU. A big say. None of this will happen without us having a veto on it. We aren't "sleep walking into federalism" as some would have us believe.
As I've said, voting to stay in doesn't lock us onto a track that we can't at any point leave. No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
Good, don't let people 'persuade' you either way when lies and fear are involved, anything you post up here is destined for scrutiny by all who come here and only truth should remain.
Erdogan added that if further bilateral talks on the visa issue didn't yield results, "the readmission agreement" on refugees wouldn't be approved by Turkey.
That has nothing to do with EU membership, only Turkey trying to use refugees as a bargaining chip for visa changes. Turkey won't be getting near EU membership until Cyprus is sorted out, which mother the Greek nor Turkish public will want, as neither side will want to give an inch.
The refugee issue is coming to a head in Germany and merkel is stuck trying to delay the ramifications of the issue till after the uk referendum (and the Greek bail-out too) while trying to con the turks into jumping into the arrangement with both feet before the EU commits to it's side of the deal; obviously with the intention of screwing them after the fact.
When i was looking at migrating to europe i had to claim citizenship, register my address with local authorities, have a bank account with a defined amount of money in it and learn the local language (which was tested at the final stages of the citizenship tests) in order to move there.
Nobody will stop you buying a holiday house in Europe, but they have a big issue with people (brits mainly) living there without integrating properly. You may not need to get a visa but that doesn't mean you have no paperwork to do.
Strange really when you look at the amount of countries which can send citizens here visa-free..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom ....including the EU.
You can move, live and work in any EU country, with no restrictions and be treated like any other citizen of the country. You do not need any paperwork beyond what any citizen of the country needs. It's only different if you want to claim citizenship, which does nothing. Treating people from any EU country differently to locals is a clear breach of EU law.
EU red tape did not stop decaying romanian horse-meat being found in our beef supply chain.
The repercussions are what keeps the Germans from putting 10% bleach in their beer - they are rather proud of their beer and their reputation for it.
The biggest safety scare to hit Italian cars was with the ferrari 458 italia where adhesive which was too close to the exhast caught fire was made using EU red tape. Second is the fiat 500 also built using EU red tape.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2271796/Fiat-500-named-worst-car-passenger-injuries-U-S-study-claims-bigger-better-protect-crash.html
Those have nothing to do with EU law at all. The horse meat scandal had nothing to do with EU red tape. People broke the law. Not EU law, but British law, and British checks did not stop it.
The cars have nothing to do with EU law. Recalls and issues happen all the time on cars, built all over the world. Being in or out of the EU makes no difference.
I'm interested in truth, honour and integrity in my governance and i see none in the EU.
We say we want to leave and they resond with threats - these people do not deserve the power they are courting.
Our politicians aren't much better, but i can make life hard for the people calling the shots while they're in my country - i know where my local MP lives and if he makes life difficult for me then i can make life difficult for him; accountability which the EU cannot provide me.
Why not? You have an MEP same as you have an MP. Why not do the same with them?
Your arguments are nothing to do with the EU. You are just picking random negative things and trying to blame the EU, without even making any argument as to why the EU is in any way responsible, or not telling the truth, such as with Turkey and free movement.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
In other words, "I got mine so everyone else can shove it".
No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
For the last few decades, the political elites in the Western World seem to be more and more detached from the ordinary people that elect them. Now, there are various reasons for this, and although the EU shares some of the blame for that, it's not solely responsible for this situation.
None the less, I get the impression that European and EU elites would press on with full integration, regardless of what ordinary voters want.
There seems to be this attitude of we know what's best for you.
No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
For the last few decades, the political elites in the Western World seem to be more and more detached from the ordinary people that elect them. Now, there are various reasons for this, and although the EU shares some of the blame for that, it's not solely responsible for this situation.
None the less, I get the impression that European and EU elites would press on with full integration, regardless of what ordinary voters want.
There seems to be this attitude of we know what's best for you.
The further we integrate, the weaker our ability to secede from the EU will be. Eventually we won't have the legal power to secede, because it'll have been given away and our Parliament will no longer be Supreme. This is not a conspiracy theory, European leaders are open about their desires for further, permanent integration.
No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
For the last few decades, the political elites in the Western World seem to be more and more detached from the ordinary people that elect them. Now, there are various reasons for this, and although the EU shares some of the blame for that, it's not solely responsible for this situation.
None the less, I get the impression that European and EU elites would press on with full integration, regardless of what ordinary voters want.
There seems to be this attitude of we know what's best for you.
The further we integrate, the weaker our ability to secede from the EU will be. Eventually we won't have the legal power to secede, because it'll have been given away and our Parliament will no longer be Supreme. This is not a conspiracy theory, European leaders are open about their desires for further, permanent integration.
Our own leaders over the years are equally to blame for giving away Britain's sovereignty.
Some people may disagree with me, but the Conservative party has been a Trojan Horse for Europe over the decades. They cannot be trusted with this nation's best interests, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why people vote for them.
No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
For the last few decades, the political elites in the Western World seem to be more and more detached from the ordinary people that elect them. Now, there are various reasons for this, and although the EU shares some of the blame for that, it's not solely responsible for this situation.
None the less, I get the impression that European and EU elites would press on with full integration, regardless of what ordinary voters want.
There seems to be this attitude of we know what's best for you.
The further we integrate, the weaker our ability to secede from the EU will be. Eventually we won't have the legal power to secede, because it'll have been given away and our Parliament will no longer be Supreme. This is not a conspiracy theory, European leaders are open about their desires for further, permanent integration.
Our own leaders over the years are equally to blame for giving away Britain's sovereignty.
Some people may disagree with me, but the Conservative party has been a Trojan Horse for Europe over the decades. They cannot be trusted with this nation's best interests, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why people vote for them.
Oh, I understand. We have two equally detestable governing parties. People vote for whoever they hate the least at the time, to throw out the party they hate more. The lesser of two evils. Though that thankfully is beginning to change with the SNP and ukip (who actually got more votes ).
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
What a remarkably short-termist perspective. One can only hope that you don't utilise the same method of planning when it comes to borrowing credit.
As to 'fevered', I'm sure the Five Presidents will appreciate your description of their intended (and clearly laid out) aims. I certainly agree with you!
What on Earth is short termist about section you've quoted? I weight up the benefits and the draw backs. There's nothing short termist about that. There's also nothing short termist about ignoring the doom mongers who seem to make incredible leaps of logic when developing their "what ifs"
Britain has a say in what happens to the EU. A big say. None of this will happen without us having a veto on it. We aren't "sleep walking into federalism" as some would have us believe.
As I've said, voting to stay in doesn't lock us onto a track that we can't at any point leave. No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
My point was that what the EU may turn into doesn't weigh into your calculation, which I view as shortsighted, but that's probably down to your espoused view on federalism., I disagree heavily, and the demographics of the referenda polls so far, and motivations quoted would appear to support me. Allow me to elaborate.
At the moment, the core voter base of both brexit and remain demographics are split quite specifically along certain economic/political viewpoints.
The Brexiters are heavily made up of a) the poorly educated, financially insecure, and lower employment level types of people who have suffered the most from the strains placed on job security, wage levels, house prices, and social services widescale immigration has brought, and b) the older generation of people who date back to a period where the concerns of the world were not as they were today, that is to say they are more likely to hold xenophobic views, be more concerned with political principle against dictatorial government than luxury/convenience, view Britain in a more nationalistic light with interests and direction in and of itself, and so on.
Those in favour of remaining are more comprised of a) the younger voters who have grown up in a post communist era, view anything nationalistic as being more distasteful, take comforts/luxuries (such as being able to order phones from abroad with no import charges, etc) for granted and more concerned with protecting such things, and generally have less interest in politics, and b) the more middle class educated types, with a more liberal bent, who value the options that being in the EU grants to people in their economic position, such as visa free travel/retirement, favourable trade conditions for those of an entrepreneurial bent, rising house prices (for the property owners) due to the benefits of the country being so in demand as a gateway, and so forth.
There are exceptions on all sides naturally, but according to the polls taken (which matches my personal experience), that's how the lines are drawn at the moment. But the fact that those in favour of remaining are heavily made up the younger generations, means that another referendum is unlikely to happen in the future. The political willpower won't be there again. The ideal of 'Britain', with it's own national interests completely separate to that of Europe, and the collective memories from looking over the channel at Nazi Germany and then the Soviet Union, and the aversion to security states which it engendered, will fade. The trend will be to value those comforts and security, which you have specified as your own motivations, above democratic accountability or national interest.
That's why I view this as something of a last gasp for 'Britain' as a truly separate entity. The political willpower will not exist in the future to 'go it alone', so to speak. As the European integrationist train continues to gather steam and accumulate power, opposition to it will dwindle in correlation. It'll take forty to fifty years, but Britain will eventually be a State of Europe. There won't be another referendum, and even if there was, the demographics would all but guarantee that we'd remain.
And y'know, maybe that's the way things should be. Certainly, national interests are unpopular now. The economic arguments for leaving which revolve around immigrants are self-rectifying, and the risks of leaving which centre upon economics are exaggerated and will be temporary. The argument from sovereignty is really, the only substantial argument Leave has. But it's a solid one, and it's what should be driving the debate. Having lived in a dictatorship, I personally value that additional democratic accountability above a mild increase in convenience/luxury. But I may well be in the minority there, and if the people of this country would rather sacrifice it for standardised imports, than I can only hope that it never goes awry in the future.
.the bit where you said that you weren't going to vote based on what the EU will become - what if it works to your detriment? you still going to ignore that in favour of short-term effects?
Once you're 'in' a majority of member states has to agree with your plan to 'leave' because if they don't then 55% of member states being against it is enough to veto the motion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105 Once you're in, you're in whether you like it or not and no backsies.
That BBC article also points out that...
The French wanted to underline was that Britain would not win any "exceptions to the rules of the EU"
Get into a club of people who hate us just so we can be involved in and meddle in their shitstorm? Nah, i'd rather stand back and watch them screw each other over.
There are bigger and more beneficial fish to hunt if dropping sovereignty is one of the basic rules. USNH ftw in that scenario.
Good, don't let people 'persuade' you either way when lies and fear are involved, anything you post up here is destined for scrutiny by all who come here and only truth should remain.
Erdogan added that if further bilateral talks on the visa issue didn't yield results, "the readmission agreement" on refugees wouldn't be approved by Turkey.
That has nothing to do with EU membership, only Turkey trying to use refugees as a bargaining chip for visa changes. Turkey won't be getting near EU membership until Cyprus is sorted out, which mother the Greek nor Turkish public will want, as neither side will want to give an inch.
The refugee issue is coming to a head in Germany and merkel is stuck trying to delay the ramifications of the issue till after the uk referendum (and the Greek bail-out too) while trying to con the turks into jumping into the arrangement with both feet before the EU commits to it's side of the deal; obviously with the intention of screwing them after the fact.
When i was looking at migrating to europe i had to claim citizenship, register my address with local authorities, have a bank account with a defined amount of money in it and learn the local language (which was tested at the final stages of the citizenship tests) in order to move there.
Nobody will stop you buying a holiday house in Europe, but they have a big issue with people (brits mainly) living there without integrating properly. You may not need to get a visa but that doesn't mean you have no paperwork to do.
Strange really when you look at the amount of countries which can send citizens here visa-free..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom ....including the EU.
You can move, live and work in any EU country, with no restrictions and be treated like any other citizen of the country. You do not need any paperwork beyond what any citizen of the country needs. It's only different if you want to claim citizenship, which does nothing. Treating people from any EU country differently to locals is a clear breach of EU law.
EU red tape did not stop decaying romanian horse-meat being found in our beef supply chain.
The repercussions are what keeps the Germans from putting 10% bleach in their beer - they are rather proud of their beer and their reputation for it.
The biggest safety scare to hit Italian cars was with the ferrari 458 italia where adhesive which was too close to the exhast caught fire was made using EU red tape. Second is the fiat 500 also built using EU red tape.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2271796/Fiat-500-named-worst-car-passenger-injuries-U-S-study-claims-bigger-better-protect-crash.html
Those have nothing to do with EU law at all. The horse meat scandal had nothing to do with EU red tape. People broke the law. Not EU law, but British law, and British checks did not stop it.
The cars have nothing to do with EU law. Recalls and issues happen all the time on cars, built all over the world. Being in or out of the EU makes no difference.
I'm interested in truth, honour and integrity in my governance and i see none in the EU.
We say we want to leave and they resond with threats - these people do not deserve the power they are courting.
Our politicians aren't much better, but i can make life hard for the people calling the shots while they're in my country - i know where my local MP lives and if he makes life difficult for me then i can make life difficult for him; accountability which the EU cannot provide me.
Why not? You have an MEP same as you have an MP. Why not do the same with them?
Your arguments are nothing to do with the EU. You are just picking random negative things and trying to blame the EU, without even making any argument as to why the EU is in any way responsible, or not telling the truth, such as with Turkey and free movement.
There's not much I can add to what you've already said, except that the post you are tearing to pieces was one of the best examples of scaremongers and misinformation I've ever read. It basically proves one of my points above wonderfully.
Thanks for challenging it so well.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
For the last few decades, the political elites in the Western World seem to be more and more detached from the ordinary people that elect them. Now, there are various reasons for this, and although the EU shares some of the blame for that, it's not solely responsible for this situation.
None the less, I get the impression that European and EU elites would press on with full integration, regardless of what ordinary voters want.
There seems to be this attitude of we know what's best for you.
So in short, your problem is with our elected politicians, the processes and checks are in place to prevent us being railroaded into something we don't like. If you don't trust our politicians, get involved and campaign against them at a local level. Demonstrate how they aren't serving your communities intrests and get someone who will elected. If you believe that our own politicians are acting undemocratically then the only difference between them and the European Union, is that the EU has some foreigners in it. The argument when put in a crucible, could be moved onto individual county councils and constituencies ceding from the uk.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
In other words, "I got mine so everyone else can shove it".
Short sighted and selfish.
Ahh if all else fails throw out a baseless personal attack. Stay classy. You've basically shown how my point about those with another opinion being shot down with attacks and harrasment, so thanks, I guess.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
What a remarkably short-termist perspective. One can only hope that you don't utilise the same method of planning when it comes to borrowing credit.
As to 'fevered', I'm sure the Five Presidents will appreciate your description of their intended (and clearly laid out) aims. I certainly agree with you!
What on Earth is short termist about section you've quoted? I weight up the benefits and the draw backs. There's nothing short termist about that. There's also nothing short termist about ignoring the doom mongers who seem to make incredible leaps of logic when developing their "what ifs"
Britain has a say in what happens to the EU. A big say. None of this will happen without us having a veto on it. We aren't "sleep walking into federalism" as some would have us believe.
As I've said, voting to stay in doesn't lock us onto a track that we can't at any point leave. No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
My point was that what the EU may turn into doesn't weigh into your calculation, which I view as shortsighted, but that's probably down to your espoused view on federalism., I disagree heavily, and the demographics of the referenda polls so far, and motivations quoted would appear to support me. Allow me to elaborate.
At the moment, the core voter base of both brexit and remain demographics are split quite specifically along certain economic/political viewpoints.
The Brexiters are heavily made up of a) the poorly educated, financially insecure, and lower employment level types of people who have suffered the most from the strains placed on job security, wage levels, house prices, and social services widescale immigration has brought, and b) the older generation of people who date back to a period where the concerns of the world were not as they were today, that is to say they are more likely to hold xenophobic views, be more concerned with political principle against dictatorial government than luxury/convenience, view Britain in a more nationalistic light with interests and direction in and of itself, and so on.
Those in favour of remaining are more comprised of a) the younger voters who have grown up in a post communist era, view anything nationalistic as being more distasteful, take comforts/luxuries (such as being able to order phones from abroad with no import charges, etc) for granted and more concerned with protecting such things, and generally have less interest in politics, and b) the more middle class educated types, with a more liberal bent, who value the options that being in the EU grants to people in their economic position, such as visa free travel/retirement, favourable trade conditions for those of an entrepreneurial bent, rising house prices (for the property owners) due to the benefits of the country being so in demand as a gateway, and so forth.
There are exceptions on all sides naturally, but according to the polls taken (which matches my personal experience), that's how the lines are drawn at the moment. But the fact that those in favour of remaining are heavily made up the younger generations, means that another referendum is unlikely to happen in the future. The political willpower won't be there again. The ideal of 'Britain', with it's own national interests completely separate to that of Europe, and the collective memories from looking over the channel at Nazi Germany and then the Soviet Union, and the aversion to security states which it engendered, will fade. The trend will be to value those comforts and security, which you have specified as your own motivations, above democratic accountability or national interest.
That's why I view this as something of a last gasp for 'Britain' as a truly separate entity. The political willpower will not exist in the future to 'go it alone', so to speak. As the European integrationist train continues to gather steam and accumulate power, opposition to it will dwindle in correlation. It'll take forty to fifty years, but Britain will eventually be a State of Europe. There won't be another referendum, and even if there was, the demographics would all but guarantee that we'd remain.
And y'know, maybe that's the way things should be. Certainly, national interests are unpopular now. The economic arguments for leaving which revolve around immigrants are self-rectifying, and the risks of leaving which centre upon economics are exaggerated and will be temporary. The argument from sovereignty is really, the only substantial argument Leave has. But it's a solid one, and it's what should be driving the debate. Having lived in a dictatorship, I personally value that additional democratic accountability above a mild increase in convenience/luxury. But I may well be in the minority there, and if the people of this country would rather sacrifice it for standardised imports, than I can only hope that it never goes awry in the future.
What additional democratic accountability? You seem to be conflating sovereignty with democracy. They are not the same thing. I don't see how the EU is less democratic than the UK. We vote for the parliaments of both. Many would argue the EU is more democratic as it uses a part PR system and our FPTP system is less democratic in many ways, as small parties get less representation and large parties are over represent compared to their portion of the vote.
What additional democratic accountability? You seem to be conflating sovereignty with democracy. They are not the same thing. I don't see how the EU is less democratic than the UK. We vote for the parliaments of both. Many would argue the EU is more democratic as it uses a part PR system and our FPTP system is less democratic in many ways, as small parties get less representation and large parties are over represent compared to their portion of the vote.
Hardly.
Giving our sovereignty away entails giving up aspects of the powers of the British Government. Losing democratic accountability entails switching to a position whereby the power to exercise the democratic will of the people of Great Britain is lessened. By initiating the former, it automatically entails the latter.
One could argue (badly) I suppose that the European Parliament is more democratic than the UK one, but just because something is more democratic to the people of 'Europe' is not equivalent to being more democratic to the people of 'Britain'. As more powers are given away to a body over which the will of the British people does not hold the deciding say, the level of democracy available for those within this country is naturally, diminished. For example, if I give away the power to control energy policy to the European Parliament from the British One, and the British people have full control of the latter, but not the former, than the level of British democratic control over energy policy has been reduced from total control to partial control.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
What a remarkably short-termist perspective. One can only hope that you don't utilise the same method of planning when it comes to borrowing credit.
As to 'fevered', I'm sure the Five Presidents will appreciate your description of their intended (and clearly laid out) aims. I certainly agree with you!
What on Earth is short termist about section you've quoted? I weight up the benefits and the draw backs. There's nothing short termist about that. There's also nothing short termist about ignoring the doom mongers who seem to make incredible leaps of logic when developing their "what ifs"
Britain has a say in what happens to the EU. A big say. None of this will happen without us having a veto on it. We aren't "sleep walking into federalism" as some would have us believe.
As I've said, voting to stay in doesn't lock us onto a track that we can't at any point leave. No one can force us to stay in the EU if it changes into something we don't like.
My point was that what the EU may turn into doesn't weigh into your calculation, which I view as shortsighted, but that's probably down to your espoused view on federalism., I disagree heavily, and the demographics of the referenda polls so far, and motivations quoted would appear to support me. Allow me to elaborate.
At the moment, the core voter base of both brexit and remain demographics are split quite specifically along certain economic/political viewpoints.
The Brexiters are heavily made up of a) the poorly educated, financially insecure, and lower employment level types of people who have suffered the most from the strains placed on job security, wage levels, house prices, and social services widescale immigration has brought, and b) the older generation of people who date back to a period where the concerns of the world were not as they were today, that is to say they are more likely to hold xenophobic views, be more concerned with political principle against dictatorial government than luxury/convenience, view Britain in a more nationalistic light with interests and direction in and of itself, and so on.
Those in favour of remaining are more comprised of a) the younger voters who have grown up in a post communist era, view anything nationalistic as being more distasteful, take comforts/luxuries (such as being able to order phones from abroad with no import charges, etc) for granted and more concerned with protecting such things, and generally have less interest in politics, and b) the more middle class educated types, with a more liberal bent, who value the options that being in the EU grants to people in their economic position, such as visa free travel/retirement, favourable trade conditions for those of an entrepreneurial bent, rising house prices (for the property owners) due to the benefits of the country being so in demand as a gateway, and so forth.
There are exceptions on all sides naturally, but according to the polls taken (which matches my personal experience), that's how the lines are drawn at the moment. But the fact that those in favour of remaining are heavily made up the younger generations, means that another referendum is unlikely to happen in the future. The political willpower won't be there again. The ideal of 'Britain', with it's own national interests completely separate to that of Europe, and the collective memories from looking over the channel at Nazi Germany and then the Soviet Union, and the aversion to security states which it engendered, will fade. The trend will be to value those comforts and security, which you have specified as your own motivations, above democratic accountability or national interest.
That's why I view this as something of a last gasp for 'Britain' as a truly separate entity. The political willpower will not exist in the future to 'go it alone', so to speak. As the European integrationist train continues to gather steam and accumulate power, opposition to it will dwindle in correlation. It'll take forty to fifty years, but Britain will eventually be a State of Europe. There won't be another referendum, and even if there was, the demographics would all but guarantee that we'd remain.
And y'know, maybe that's the way things should be. Certainly, national interests are unpopular now. The economic arguments for leaving which revolve around immigrants are self-rectifying, and the risks of leaving which centre upon economics are exaggerated and will be temporary. The argument from sovereignty is really, the only substantial argument Leave has. But it's a solid one, and it's what should be driving the debate. Having lived in a dictatorship, I personally value that additional democratic accountability above a mild increase in convenience/luxury. But I may well be in the minority there, and if the people of this country would rather sacrifice it for standardised imports, than I can only hope that it never goes awry in the future.
I agree, sovereignty is the only viable argument here. And really that's not much of an argument to me either. There's nothing that sovereignty does that negatively impacts on my life, or the lives of the vast majority of people in this country.
I'm not concerned about any lack of democracy in the eu. We elect members of the eu parliament and 9/10 times we get what we want from that parliament. We are incredibly well represented there. The European Commission is also made up of people appointed by our democratically voted politicians. The eu is by its very nature a democratic institution.
I completely disagree that this is a "last chance" vote. Right now many young people are all for the eu, that doesn't mean they will be if it turns into the third Reich Mark 2. The idea that we can't trust our own government to protect us from such a situation is ridiculous. If you don't trust them to make such a basic call such as that, then why on earth would anyone trust them to guide us outside the eu?
What additional democratic accountability? You seem to be conflating sovereignty with democracy. They are not the same thing. I don't see how the EU is less democratic than the UK. We vote for the parliaments of both. Many would argue the EU is more democratic as it uses a part PR system and our FPTP system is less democratic in many ways, as small parties get less representation and large parties are over represent compared to their portion of the vote.
Hardly.
Giving our sovereignty away entails giving up aspects of the powers of the British Government. Losing democratic accountability entails switching to a position whereby the power to exercise the democratic will of the people of Great Britain is lessened. By initiating the former, it automatically entails the latter.
One could argue (badly) I suppose that the European Parliament is more democratic than the UK one, but just because something is more democratic to the people of 'Europe' is not equivalent to being more democratic to the people of 'Britain'. As more powers are given away to a body over which the will of the British people does not hold the deciding say, the level of democracy available for those within this country is naturally, diminished. For example, if I give away the power to control energy policy to the European Parliament from the British One, and the British people have full control of the latter, but not the former, than the level of British democratic control over energy policy has been reduced from total control to partial control.
Britain doesn't have the deciding say? We get our way in 9 out I've every 10 decisions in the European Parliament. We aren't being railroaded into doing anything we don't want to do.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
In other words, "I got mine so everyone else can shove it".
Short sighted and selfish.
Ahh if all else fails throw out a baseless personal attack. Stay classy. You've basically shown how my point about those with another opinion being shot down with attacks and harrasment, so thanks, I guess.
Baseless? Hardly. You've made quite clear that you're basing your decision on the benefits that you personally enjoy from EU membership right now, and that you don't care about the potentially diminished democratic rights of future generations, an argument which you characterize as "fevered".
That is selfish.
Britain doesn't have the deciding say? We get our way in 9 out I've every 10 decisions in the European Parliament. We aren't being railroaded into doing anything we don't want to do.
Citation needed. You keep repeating this mantra that we almost always get our way in the EU. What you are basing this claim on?
I agree, sovereignty is the only viable argument here. And really that's not much of an argument to me either. There's nothing that sovereignty does that negatively impacts on my life, or the lives of the vast majority of people in this country.
I'm not concerned about any lack of democracy in the eu. We elect members of the eu parliament and 9/10 times we get what we want from that parliament. We are incredibly well represented there. The European Commission is also made up of people appointed by our democratically voted politicians. The eu is by its very nature a democratic institution.
I completely disagree that this is a "last chance" vote. Right now many young people are all for the eu, that doesn't mean they will be if it turns into the third Reich Mark 2. The idea that we can't trust our own government to protect us from such a situation is ridiculous. If you don't trust them to make such a basic call such as that, then why on earth would anyone trust them to guide us outside the eu?
You'll note we didn't manage to block Juncker, despite all our 'influence'. Or retain much in the way of our fishing quota.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that we have a fair chunk of power in the EU, but we're not in the driving seat by any stretch of the imagination. Merkel is far more firmly wedged in there than us. I also think that you are neglecting to mention the large number of European quangos about the place, granted we have plenty of our own at home, but there's enough abroad busily devising policy for the sake of devising policy. Christ, the Presidential office is practically one in itself.
I don't see the EU turning into the Third Reich Mk3 any time soon, and never said it would, so please either stop exaggerating, or discussing it with me. I personally believe though, that the level of democratic accountability provided by the Parliament is poor, the concept of the Commission is inherently anti-democratic, and generally speaking, the entire structure of the EU is a bit of a naff hodgepodge due to the way that it's evolved. Certainly, it's far inferior in terms of democratic accountability to the British people thanwhat we already have at home, and the crucial point here for me is, I don't see it getting any better.
If I could vote for the status quo, I would. But I have a choice between the tried and tested, or handing more and more powers over to bodies that I personally have less and less control over. If you're not concerned by that, that's entirely your prerogative, and as I said, I suspect the march of the generations means it will happen regardless. We shall see.
Britain doesn't have the deciding say? We get our way in 9 out I've every 10 decisions in the European Parliament. We aren't being railroaded into doing anything we don't want to do.
I'm sure that when the EU recalculated our growth/gdp/income rate, and demanded an extra few billion quid over the next few years, we were practically punching the Brussels letterbox we were so eager to get the cheque into it, right? Please stop exaggerating. There's plenty we do want that happens, and plenty we don't want that happpens anyway. I don't know where you've seized on this '9 times out of 10' figure from, but it's really misleading.
Now I won't pretend that there are some perseusive arguments for leaving, the cost of the beraucracy for is a good example, as is their treatment of countries like Greece. But frankly the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for me. I have no intention on voting based on the fevered dreams of what the European Union may become,
In other words, "I got mine so everyone else can shove it".
Short sighted and selfish.
Ahh if all else fails throw out a baseless personal attack. Stay classy. You've basically shown how my point about those with another opinion being shot down with attacks and harrasment, so thanks, I guess.
Baseless? Hardly. You've made quite clear that you're basing your decision on the benefits that you personally enjoy from EU membership right now, and that you don't care about the democratic rights of future generations, an argument which you characterize as "fevered".
That is selfish.
Britain doesn't have the deciding say? We get our way in 9 out I've every 10 decisions in the European Parliament. We aren't being railroaded into doing anything we don't want to do.
Citation needed. You keep repeating this mantra that we almost always get our way in the EU. What you are basing this claim on?
I'm basing it off what Paxo was saying in the very insightful programme about the eu that was on last week, it's likely still on iPlayer, I strongly recommend it.
How calling someone selfish isn't a personal attack I don't know, you say I only base it on benefits to myself, as if what benefits me doesn't benefit ANYONE else. The stuff I listed could benefit anyone in this country, or indeed continent. If I'd listed stuff that exclusively benefits me, then you might have a point.
You don't.
I've nowhere said I don't care about future generations democratic rights, again you're incorrect here. I've said no such thing, in fact I've said that there's nothing stopping us leaving in the future, or vetoing such changes. You simply disagree with my assertion that we don't need to worry about it. There's a difference there, that people like yourself desperately need to learn.
Just because you disagree with me, doesn't make me a pantomime villain. So don't call me "selfish" or "shortsighted" or say that I don't care about future generations. These are personal attacks, that frankly only have a tissue paper thin argument backing them up. And it's wet tissue paper at that.
Learn to debate without making personal attacks and discuss the issues at hand. If you think I'm wrong about democracy, say WHY you think I'm wrong. Otherwise your just going to drag this thread down into a flame war that breaks the first rule of the website. Be polite.
I agree, sovereignty is the only viable argument here. And really that's not much of an argument to me either. There's nothing that sovereignty does that negatively impacts on my life, or the lives of the vast majority of people in this country.
I'm not concerned about any lack of democracy in the eu. We elect members of the eu parliament and 9/10 times we get what we want from that parliament. We are incredibly well represented there. The European Commission is also made up of people appointed by our democratically voted politicians. The eu is by its very nature a democratic institution.
I completely disagree that this is a "last chance" vote. Right now many young people are all for the eu, that doesn't mean they will be if it turns into the third Reich Mark 2. The idea that we can't trust our own government to protect us from such a situation is ridiculous. If you don't trust them to make such a basic call such as that, then why on earth would anyone trust them to guide us outside the eu?
You'll note we didn't manage to block Juncker, despite all our 'influence'. Or retain much in the way of our fishing quota.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that we have a fair chunk of power in the EU, but we're not in the driving seat by any stretch of the imagination. Merkel is far more firmly wedged in there than us. I also think that you are neglecting to mention the large number of European quangos about the place, granted we have plenty of our own at home, but there's enough abroad busily devising policy for the sake of devising policy. Christ, the Presidential office is practically one in itself.
I don't see the EU turning into the Third Reich Mk3 any time soon, and never said it would, so please either stop exaggerating, or discussing it with me. I personally believe though, that the level of democratic accountability provided by the Parliament is poor, the concept of the Commission is inherently anti-democratic, and generally speaking, the entire structure of the EU is a bit of a naff hodgepodge due to the way that it's evolved. Certainly, it's far inferior in terms of democratic accountability to the British people thanwhat we already have at home, and the crucial point here for me is, I don't see it getting any better.
If I could vote for the status quo, I would. But I have a choice between the tried and tested, or handing more and more powers over to bodies that I personally have less and less control over. If you're not concerned by that, that's entirely your prerogative, and as I said, I suspect the march of the generations means it will happen regardless. We shall see.
Britain doesn't have the deciding say? We get our way in 9 out I've every 10 decisions in the European Parliament. We aren't being railroaded into doing anything we don't want to do.
I'm sure that when the EU recalculated our growth/gdp/income rate, and demanded an extra few billion quid over the next few years, we were practically punching the Brussels letterbox we were so eager to get the cheque into it, right? Please stop exaggerating. There's plenty we do want that happens, and plenty we don't want that happpens anyway. I don't know where you've seized on this '9 times out of 10' figure from, but it's really misleading.
As I said above, I got the figure from the analysis by Paxo the other night, you can either take it at face value, or try and besmirch me by calling it misleading. Third reich mk2 or no, your still arguing that the European Union could evolve into something we dislike in the future. The reich comparison is what the leave campaign have been tub thumping about. What exactly ARE you worried it will turn into?
I also find it laughable that you think the British system of democracy is more accountable the Brussels. Our upper house is unelected. A large amount of them are only there through hereditary means, some of them are only there because they are bishops for heavens sake.
Oh and it's all topped off by an unelected monarch. She may not have any power, but she's still an unelected figure head.
As I said above, I got the figure from the analysis by Paxo the other night, you can either take it at face value, or try and besmirch me by calling it misleading.
Did I besmirch your honour, sir? Do I bite my thumb at you?
No, but seriously, it's a terrible statistic, worded as is. It means nothing or everything depending on how you determine the exact definitions of the phrase, and hearing it third hand just makes it worst. If you'd like to provide something substantial I can see to challenge me with, please do. Otherwise, you'll forgive me if I don't take a suspect statistic some anonymous bloke on the internet heard on the telly at some point as a definitive counterargument. You can call that 'besmirching' you if you like.
Third reich mk2 or no, your still arguing that the European Union could evolve into something we dislike in the future. The reich comparison is what the leave campaign have been tub thumping about. What exactly ARE you worried it will turn into?
Who says it has to turn into anything to be bad? I think it's pretty pisspoor right now in terms of structure.
I also find it laughable that you think the British system of democracy is more accountable the Brussels.
It is. Definitively. We elect the entire House of Commons. We don't elect the entire EU Parliament. By that very, very basic measurement, it is less accountable from the word go/
Our upper house is unelected.
The funny thing is, you seem a-okay with random personages being plonked into positions of power by our current government when it's the EU commission. That's /literally how it works with the Commission, only with the addition of inter-country jostling to make it slightly worse.
The difference is, our unelected upper house doesn't propose legislation, and has limited powers to block it. Their unelected rank of bureaucrats (The Commission) are the ones that propose it in Europe. Our 'elected' representatives aren't actually allowed to do that. Not only that, even if they oppose it, the Council of Europe can still proceed with it anyway. The European Parliament is an absolute joke.
Seriously, how on earth can you consider that more democratic? I mean, by every conceivable reasonable analytical measure, using standard concepts of the word 'democracy', our current setup is infinitely more democratic. If we duplicated their system here, it would be if the House of Lords were the only ones who could propose legislation, The House of Commons could only debate/amend it, and a separate body made up of the Mayors of each locality were the ones to both pick who went to the House of Lords, and had the ability to ram the legislation from the House of Lords through the Commons regardless.
It's a literal democratic clusterfeth.
Oh and it's all topped off by an unelected monarch. She may not have any power, but she's still an unelected figure head.
That's the very definition of unaccountable.
She doesn't need to be accountable so long as she doesn't wield any actual power. You don't need to be accountable to have pretty pictures taken and wave at racecourses.
Ketara wrote: Or retain much in the way of our fishing quota.
I'm pretty sure that would be because people elected those useless wastes of space UKIP MEP's into power, resulting in them never bothering to show up for things, even when one, (a certain Mr "F"...) was supposedly (I believe) running the fisheries committee...
Good, don't let people 'persuade' you either way when lies and fear are involved, anything you post up here is destined for scrutiny by all who come here and only truth should remain.
Erdogan added that if further bilateral talks on the visa issue didn't yield results, "the readmission agreement" on refugees wouldn't be approved by Turkey.
That has nothing to do with EU membership, only Turkey trying to use refugees as a bargaining chip for visa changes. Turkey won't be getting near EU membership until Cyprus is sorted out, which mother the Greek nor Turkish public will want, as neither side will want to give an inch.
Are you not getting the feeling that turkey has Europe over a barrel on it's membership of Europe with regards to it's input to stopping unwanted migration?
Maybe i just look at things deeper than you do.
Also, on the subject of 'sorting cyprus out' what about this?
https://www.rt.com/news/341652-travel-eu-turkey-visa/ Turkeys inclusion to the EU is inevitable and my claim is that this fact is being kept quiet as part of a plan to keep britain (and it's money) in the EU because they are trying to starve the 'leave' campaign of solid reasons to leave in the hope that 'project fear' will do its job.
The refugee issue is coming to a head in Germany and merkel is stuck trying to delay the ramifications of the issue till after the uk referendum (and the Greek bail-out too) while trying to con the turks into jumping into the arrangement with both feet before the EU commits to it's side of the deal; obviously with the intention of screwing them after the fact.
When i was looking at migrating to europe i had to claim citizenship, register my address with local authorities, have a bank account with a defined amount of money in it and learn the local language (which was tested at the final stages of the citizenship tests) in order to move there.
Nobody will stop you buying a holiday house in Europe, but they have a big issue with people (brits mainly) living there without integrating properly. You may not need to get a visa but that doesn't mean you have no paperwork to do.
Strange really when you look at the amount of countries which can send citizens here visa-free..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom ....including the EU.
You can move, live and work in any EU country, with no restrictions and be treated like any other citizen of the country. You do not need any paperwork beyond what any citizen of the country needs. It's only different if you want to claim citizenship, which does nothing. Treating people from any EU country differently to locals is a clear breach of EU law.
Uh, not true - Britain isn't part of the Schengen agreement which enshrines that concept, it was one of our few exceptions.
We are part of the EEA which allows free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the internal market of the European Union. You do NOT have the right to live permanently or work there.
WE have to get a visa to go live and work in the EU but anyone form an EU nation can come here visa-free - cause thats fair by EU reconing.
EU red tape did not stop decaying romanian horse-meat being found in our beef supply chain.
The repercussions are what keeps the Germans from putting 10% bleach in their beer - they are rather proud of their beer and their reputation for it.
The biggest safety scare to hit Italian cars was with the ferrari 458 italia where adhesive which was too close to the exhast caught fire was made using EU red tape. Second is the fiat 500 also built using EU red tape.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2271796/Fiat-500-named-worst-car-passenger-injuries-U-S-study-claims-bigger-better-protect-crash.html
Those have nothing to do with EU law at all. The horse meat scandal had nothing to do with EU red tape. People broke the law. Not EU law, but British law, and British checks did not stop it.
The cars have nothing to do with EU law. Recalls and issues happen all the time on cars, built all over the world. Being in or out of the EU makes no difference.
Romania is a European Member State. So your assertion that the EU stops bad meat from France is flat wrong - and checks in britain is what discovered it in the first place - they had to trace the meat back to the original abattoir which was discovered to be in romania and it was stopped.
The cars have nothing to do with EU law?!? did i just read that? what about EURO ncap testing? what about EU legislation governing the design and safety requirements for the cars? both key legislation against the failures of both examples and proof that 'EU red tape' had no effect on poor consumer products coming from europe.
I'm interested in truth, honour and integrity in my governance and i see none in the EU.
We say we want to leave and they resond with threats - these people do not deserve the power they are courting.
Our politicians aren't much better, but i can make life hard for the people calling the shots while they're in my country - i know where my local MP lives and if he makes life difficult for me then i can make life difficult for him; accountability which the EU cannot provide me.
Why not? You have an MEP same as you have an MP. Why not do the same with them?
My MEP doesn't live anywhere near me and i don't know where she lives, nor can you find out where she lives - i see the local MP near his house when i walk past it on a weekend.
This would be even worse because the MEP's are not the policy-makers - they are even further away (in a different damn country) and even less available or accountable.
Your arguments are nothing to do with the EU. You are just picking random negative things and trying to blame the EU, without even making any argument as to why the EU is in any way responsible, or not telling the truth, such as with Turkey and free movement.
Yeah they did, you're just not thinking deeply enough OR you didn't bother to read the articles i posted.
I am confident that if we remain eventually laws will start being passed which we do not agree with but are powerless to repeal - the same people wanting to remain will be asking people why nobody is doing anything about it.
Take a peek at the American politics junkie thread for how a state (could have been a nation state, unlucky) the size of texas has less influence worldwide than an island nation (britain) which is less than a third of its size.
As I said above, I got the figure from the analysis by Paxo the other night, you can either take it at face value, or try and besmirch me by calling it misleading.
Did I besmirch your honour, sir? Do I bite my thumb at you?
No, but seriously, it's a terrible statistic, worded as is. It means nothing or everything depending on how you determine the exact definitions of the phrase, and hearing it third hand just makes it worst. If you'd like to provide something substantial I can see to challenge me with, please do. Otherwise, you'll forgive me if I don't take a suspect statistic some anonymous bloke on the internet heard on the telly at some point as a definitive counterargument. You can call that 'besmirching' you if you like.
Third reich mk2 or no, your still arguing that the European Union could evolve into something we dislike in the future. The reich comparison is what the leave campaign have been tub thumping about. What exactly ARE you worried it will turn into?
Who says it has to turn into anything to be bad? I think it's pretty pisspoor right now in terms of structure.
I also find it laughable that you think the British system of democracy is more accountable the Brussels.
It is. Definitively. We elect the entire House of Commons. We don't elect the entire EU Parliament. By that very, very basic measurement, it is less accountable from the word go/
Our upper house is unelected.
The funny thing is, you seem a-okay with random personages being plonked into positions of power by our current government when it's the EU commission. That's /literally how it works with the Commission, only with the addition of inter-country jostling to make it slightly worse.
The difference is, our unelected upper house doesn't propose legislation, and has limited powers to block it. Their unelected rank of bureaucrats (The Commission) are the ones that propose it in Europe. Our 'elected' representatives aren't actually allowed to do that. Not only that, even if they oppose it, the Council of Europe can still proceed with it anyway. The European Parliament is an absolute joke.
Seriously, how on earth can you consider that more democratic? I mean, by every conceivable reasonable analytical measure, using standard concepts of the word 'democracy', our current setup is infinitely more democratic. If we duplicated their system here, it would be if the House of Lords were the only ones who could propose legislation, The House of Commons could only debate/amend it, and a separate body made up of the Mayors of each locality were the ones to both pick who went to the House of Lords, and had the ability to ram the legislation from the House of Lords through the Commons regardless.
It's a literal democratic clusterfeth.
Oh and it's all topped off by an unelected monarch. She may not have any power, but she's still an unelected figure head.
That's the very definition of unaccountable.
She doesn't need to be accountable so long as she doesn't wield any actual power. You don't need to be accountable to have pretty pictures taken and wave at racecourses.
You and the leave campaign are completely misrepresenting the power of the commission, we appoint people to it, so do other democratically elected governments. If the people don't like who are being appointed, they can vote in a different government. It's THAT simple.
You say we don't elect the entire eu parliament, that would be a smidge unfair on the other countries don't you think? The eu parliament is accountable to its people. To say otherwise is nonsense. The commission is accountable in a different way, would I rather it was elected? Sure, but it's current state is hardly akin to a cabal of mysterious dictators, which is what many seem to paint it as. Theyre appointed in much the same way as non hereditary peers. Except it's not for life.
The way brexiters talk about the eu, you'd think we don't make ANY decisions for ourselves any more. It's a very thin argument based on exaggeration and misrepresentation.
Simply, I don't think the eu is as bad as people like to paint it, as ive said above I think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. And not one of the current arguments is enough to perseude me otherwise.
You and the leave campaign are completely misrepresenting the power of the commission, we appoint people to it, so do other democratically elected governments. If the people don't like who are being appointed, they can vote in a different government. It's THAT simple.
But that logic is exactly the same as saying that if we dislike who is in the House of Lords, we should vote in a different Government. Just because I elect someone who picks a third party for a different position, it doesn't mean the person in that different position reached it democratically, or that they are particularly susceptible to democratic accountability.
If I'm misrepresenting it, please point out where.
You say we don't elect the entire eu parliament, that would be a smidge unfair on the other countries don't you think? The eu parliament is accountable to its people. To say otherwise is nonsense. The commission is accountable in a different way, would I rather it was elected? Sure, but it's current state is hardly akin to a cabal of mysterious dictators, which is what many seem to paint it as. Theyre appointed in much the same way as non hereditary peers. Except it's not for life.
Cabal of shady dictators?
*looks behind self to spot the strawman*
Focus man, you're debating with me, not that thing in the corner.
The way brexiters talk about the eu, you'd think we don't make ANY decisions for ourselves any more. It's a very thin argument based on exaggeration and misrepresentation.
What? You mean completely unlike the way you keep talking past me to address things I'm not saying...?
Simply, I don't think the eu is as bad as people like to paint it, as ive said above I think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. And not one of the current arguments is enough to perseude me otherwise.
Feel free to hold that viewpoint. But when you make statements about how the EU is more democratic than our actual government, a statement that can be clearly, logically, and definitively disproven by examination of the political structures involved, don't be surprised if people don't always agree with you.
The way brexiters talk about the eu, you'd think we don't make ANY decisions for ourselves any more. It's a very thin argument based on exaggeration and misrepresentation.
TTIP negotiations. Behind closed doors
Greek bailout negotiations. Behind closed doors.
Proposals for an EU army. Behind closed doors.
EU's response to the Ukraine situation. Behind closed doors.
EU's choice for head of Italian government during financial crisis. Behind closed doors.
Netherlands, France., Ireland, saying No in referenda. EU ignores vote. Behind closed doors.
EU's response to the Ukraine situation. Behind closed doors.
EU's choice for head of Italian government during financial crisis. Behind closed doors.
Netherlands, France., Ireland, saying No in referenda. EU ignores vote. Behind closed doors.
It's not hard to see a pattern developing here.
Oh man, that list makes me sad. the EU will be a sorry end for a once-glorius nation.
America will be pleased - the overlord becomes the serf thanks to ignorance and sloth.
You and the leave campaign are completely misrepresenting the power of the commission, we appoint people to it, so do other democratically elected governments. If the people don't like who are being appointed, they can vote in a different government. It's THAT simple.
But that logic is exactly the same as saying that if we dislike who is in the House of Lords, we should vote in a different Government. Just because I elect someone who picks a third party for a different position, it doesn't mean the person in that different position reached it democratically, or that they are particularly susceptible to democratic accountability.
If I'm misrepresenting it, please point out where.
You say we don't elect the entire eu parliament, that would be a smidge unfair on the other countries don't you think? The eu parliament is accountable to its people. To say otherwise is nonsense. The commission is accountable in a different way, would I rather it was elected? Sure, but it's current state is hardly akin to a cabal of mysterious dictators, which is what many seem to paint it as. Theyre appointed in much the same way as non hereditary peers. Except it's not for life.
Cabal of shady dictators?
*looks behind self to spot the strawman*
Focus man, you're debating with me, not that thing in the corner.
The way brexiters talk about the eu, you'd think we don't make ANY decisions for ourselves any more. It's a very thin argument based on exaggeration and misrepresentation.
What? You mean completely unlike the way you keep talking past me to address things I'm not saying...?
Simply, I don't think the eu is as bad as people like to paint it, as ive said above I think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. And not one of the current arguments is enough to perseude me otherwise.
Feel free to hold that viewpoint. But when you make statements about how the EU is more democratic than our actual government, a statement that can be clearly, logically, and definitively disproven by examination of the political structures involved, don't be surprised if people don't always agree with you.
The misrepresentation is the constant assertion that it's unaccountable, whoever we appoint is accountable to our government, whoever Germany appoints is accountable to them. Also the fact that the parliament can issue a vote of no confidence in the commission and dissolve it, appears to have passed you by.
Please don't mistake flowery language for strawman arguments.
I still hold the view that the European Parliament is more democratic than our own, but that's a debate about PR that would take us way off topic. I also still hold the view that the commission is accountable to those who appoint it, we've got our man in there fighting our corner. We could have a European executive house that was completely elected and it would operate it much the same manner. I'd prefer that if I'm honest, it would get rid of this whole undemocratic argument. But as I said above, it's far from unaccountable.
The misrepresentation is the constant assertion that it's unaccountable, whoever we appoint is accountable to our government, whoever Germany appoints is accountable to them. Also the fact that the parliament can issue a vote of no confidence in the commission and dissolve it, appears to have passed you by.
Precisely. Accountable to the government. Not to the electorate. Which is inherently less democratic, and less accountable than being directly elected by the populace of Great Britain. Firstly by virtue of the fact that there's a third party the process is contingent upon, secondly because the entire commission is not accountable to our government, just a few members. To restate, the EU commission is less accountable to the British electorate than the House of Commons. The European Parliament is less accountable to the British electorate. The Council of Europe is less accountable to the British Public.
No, they are not completely 100% unaccountable. But that's just veering from one ludicrous extreme to the other. There are levels of accountability. Technically we could say that if David Cameron took over the government and instituted a dictatorship tomorrow, so long as he promises his mum he'll give it up if she asks, he's accountable.
When considered as a whole though,the European political system is less accountable to the British electorate than their current setup. So where's the advantage in switching? Sure, it gets you the ability to retire to France, but at a cost of the level of democratic accountability. If you are happy for that to be the case, that is fine. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the EU, both where it is now and where it is going, is somehow more democratically accountable to the population of Great Britain than the setup that exists right now.
Please don't mistake flowery language for strawman arguments.
Flowery language...? You kept addressing ridiculous statements I never made. Again, that's practically the definition of a strawman....
I still hold the view that the European Parliament is more democratic than our own,
It would be a meaningless debate as both Parliaments fulfill separate roles in the legislative process. One (the House of Commons) can propose, debate and pass legislation without sanction from any other body, the other only debates (whether legislation passes is up to the Council of Europe ultimately). You seem to think that because they have the same word in their title, that they should be directly comparable when considering what is more 'democratic'. They're really, really not. For someone who keeps slating the Brexit side for not understanding how European Government works, you're not looking so good at it yourself.....
I also still hold the view that the commission is accountable to those who appoint it,
Yup. Those people being the Government's of all the nations of the EU. Not the British electorate.
it's far from unaccountable.
No-one says it is completely 100% unaccountable. That is foolish. But it is not accountable to the British electorate, and that is the context in which the statement is being debated. Nobody is querying that the Commission is accountable to somebody. We all know everyone has a boss. The problem is that it is not accountable to us (the British electorate). And whilst people are content for that to be the case on certain smaller issues (nobody feels the need to have the colour printing policymaker of Slough council be fully accountable in a general election), once a certain threshold of power is passed, people get progressively more and more uncomfortable with it being the case.
General Kroll wrote: I notice you've conveniently ignored the fact that the EU parliament can dissolve the commission at any time by making a vote of no confidence.
Might that be because it doesn't fit your narrative?
More because it was irrelevant, and I was covering for you by gliding over it.
Alright then though. Taking the view that you're claiming the fact that the EUP can dissolve the EUC makes it more democratically accountable to the British people, you're still wrong. Why?
a) It would take a majority in the EUP. Britain does not hold a majority in the EUP. Therefore it is (obviously) not a tool that the British electorate can use. Ergo, it does nothing whatsoever to address the fact that the discussion is around what is more democratically accountable to the British electorate, the current UK Parliamentary setup, or the European one. And it's obviously the British one.
b) If the European Commission proposes a piece of legislation, it can still be forced through by the European Council even if the EUC is subsequently dissolved by the EUP.
In other words, that EUP power is really quite irrelevant in the context of the current discussion at best, and prey to similar counterarguments as have already been made at worst.
General Kroll wrote: I notice you've conveniently ignored the fact that the EU parliament can dissolve the commission at any time by making a vote of no confidence.
Might that be because it doesn't fit your narrative?
More because it was irrelevant, and I was covering for you by gliding over it.
Alright then though. Taking the view that you're claiming the fact that the EUP can dissolve the EUC makes it more democratically accountable to the British people, you're still wrong. Why?
a) It would take a majority in the EUP. Britain does not hold a majority in the EUP. Therefore it is (obviously) not a tool that the British electorate can use. Ergo, it does nothing whatsoever to address the fact that the discussion is around what is more democratically accountable to the British electorate, the current UK Parliamentary setup, or the European one. And it's obviously the British one.
b) If the European Commission proposes a piece of legislation, it can still be forced through by the European Council even if the EUC is subsequently dissolved by the EUP.
In other words, that EUP power is really quite irrelevant in the context of the current discussion at best, and prey to similar counterarguments as have already been made at worst.
Lol now who's putting up strawmen...not once did I say it made it more accountable to the British people. It does however make it accountable to the people of Europe.
The European Council is not a legislative body, and it's made up of various heads of state. They can suggest legislation to the commission, but little else, the commission is needed to instigate legislation.
Lol now who's putting up strawmen...not once did I say it made it more accountable to the British people. It does however make it accountable to the people of Europe.
So...what you're saying is that my initial impression was right? And that it's irrelevant when discussing what's more democratically accountable to the British electorate? Grand.
The European Council is not a legislative body, and it's made up of various heads of state. They can suggest legislation to the commission, but little else, the commission is needed to instigate legislation.
I'm aware of that. But they have they also have the power to pass any proposed legislation, regardless of the will of the EUP. Look it up.
Lol now who's putting up strawmen...not once did I say it made it more accountable to the British people. It does however make it accountable to the people of Europe.
So...what you're saying is that my initial impression was right? And that it's irrelevant when discussing what's more democratically accountable to the British electorate? Grand.
The European Council is not a legislative body, and it's made up of various heads of state. They can suggest legislation to the commission, but little else, the commission is needed to instigate legislation.
I'm aware of that. But they have they also have the power to pass any proposed legislation, regardless of the will of the EUP. Look it up.
"the European Council has no formal legislative power"
We clearly aren't going to agree, and could obviously go round and round in circles until the end of time. We are arguing issues of semantics and minutiae now, so I suggest we leave it there.
Lol now who's putting up strawmen...not once did I say it made it more accountable to the British people. It does however make it accountable to the people of Europe.
So...what you're saying is that my initial impression was right? And that it's irrelevant when discussing what's more democratically accountable to the British electorate? Grand.
The European Council is not a legislative body, and it's made up of various heads of state. They can suggest legislation to the commission, but little else, the commission is needed to instigate legislation.
I'm aware of that. But they have they also have the power to pass any proposed legislation, regardless of the will of the EUP. Look it up.
I did, they don't.
Clearly someone should tell them that then, considering it's currently laid out in Article IV-444 of the Constitutional Treaty, and used when setting setting the external tariff (Article 31)and when negotiating trade issues under the Common Commercial Policy.
We clearly aren't going to agree, and could obviously go round and round in circles until the end of time. We are arguing issues of semantics and minutiae now, so I suggest we leave it there.
If you like. But frankly, you made a statement ( "I also find it laughable that you think the British system of democracy is more accountable then Brussels.") ) which I've demonstrated factually, logically, and with evidence, to be wrong. There's no semantics, or 'we can both be right' involved on this one, I'm afraid. You can claim the sky is full of flying cheese all you like (that's entirely within your prerogative), but until you can produce the gorgonzola, so to speak, it doesn't mean very much. I take no issue with you voting 'Remain because that's what's best for you economically, and have full respect for that (and indeed, any integrationist/federalist desire anyone might have). But the idea that European institutions are somehow more democratically accountable to the British populace than their own government is a outright falsehood, and demonstrably so.
Lol now who's putting up strawmen...not once did I say it made it more accountable to the British people. It does however make it accountable to the people of Europe.
So...what you're saying is that my initial impression was right? And that it's irrelevant when discussing what's more democratically accountable to the British electorate? Grand.
The European Council is not a legislative body, and it's made up of various heads of state. They can suggest legislation to the commission, but little else, the commission is needed to instigate legislation.
I'm aware of that. But they have they also have the power to pass any proposed legislation, regardless of the will of the EUP. Look it up.
I did, they don't.
Clearly someone should tell them that then, considering it's currently laid out in Article IV-444 of the Constitutional Treaty, and used when setting setting the external tariff (Article 31)and when negotiating trade issues under the Common Commercial Policy.
We clearly aren't going to agree, and could obviously go round and round in circles until the end of time. We are arguing issues of semantics and minutiae now, so I suggest we leave it there.
If you like. But frankly, you made a statement ( "I also find it laughable that you think the British system of democracy is more accountable then Brussels.") ) which I've demonstrated factually, logically, and with evidence, to be wrong. There's no semantics, or 'we can both be right' involved on this one, I'm afraid. You can claim the sky is full of flying cheese all you like (that's entirely within your prerogative), but until you can produce the gorgonzola, so to speak, it doesn't mean very much. I take no issue with you voting 'Remain because that's what's best for you economically, and have full respect for that (and indeed, any integrationist/federalist desire anyone might have). But the idea that European institutions are somehow more democratically accountable to the British populace than their own government is a outright falsehood, and demonstrably so.
For a start, buddy, I never said what your arguing I did. I never once mentioned it being solely accountable to the British people, (Europe is about far more than just the British people) and secondly I would never have been crass enough to use "then" instead of "than"
I could spend days arguing with you about which parliament is more democratic, but your so entrenched in your position, that there is little point. Ergo, I have my beliefs about Europe and you have yours. Just as I have concerns about the accountability of the British political system that you seem rather blazé about, you have concerns about the eu that I'm just not bothered about.
This is a perfect case in point about what I said yesterday about remain voters being harangued and harassed in this thread, the exact same thing happened to a user the other day, where he politely decided to stop going round in circles with one of you fanatics. And one you simply refused to let him do that. Its as if you're all so insecure about your reasons for voting out that you MUST have the last word and MUST be proven right. I mean how dare someone else hold a different view from you...quick let's chase him around the thread and MAKE him agree with us.
If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
Compel wrote: If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
The scale of it all is just too big.
It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.
Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.
It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.
I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.
Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.
if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.
Compel wrote: If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
The scale of it all is just too big.
It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.
Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.
It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.
This. This point is raised again and again and really it is a ridiculous argument. It basically boils down to the UK electorate not taking an interest in the european elections and then complaining that they get no say. You do get a say if you vote for effective representation in the european parliament instead of ignoring the european elections and ending up with a load of UKIP MEPs who don't even bother to show up to the EU parliament.
I think Malus and the General are missing a very importsnt point: the more layers between the people and their representatives, the more detached they feel from the decision making process. I know who my MEP is, as I'm actively interested in politics, but even as somebody as engaged as myself still feels disillusioned at times.
I live in a part of Britain where 56 of the 59 MPs are from the SNP, and yet, every amendment they made to last year's Scotland Bill was shot down by MPs from the rest of the UK, and now, because of EVEL, Scottish MPs can't even vote on some bills, because they are deemed to be 'English,' even though they potentially affect the block grant funding for Scotland.
And you call that Democracy?
Then we have the EU and all its institutions, and the UK finds itself sidelined and marginalised on decisions that effect the British people, and again, it makes a mockery of democracy.
I'm as engaged as well as anybody when it comes to taking an interest in these things, but even I feel disillusioned with the democratic process at times.
Compel wrote: If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
The scale of it all is just too big.
It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.
Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.
It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.
I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.
Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.
if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.
I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.
The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think Malus and the General are missing a very importsnt point: the more layers between the people and their representatives, the more detached they feel from the decision making process. I know who my MEP is, as I'm actively interested in politics, but even as somebody as engaged as myself still feels disillusioned at times.
I live in a part of Britain where 56 of the 59 MPs are from the SNP, and yet, every amendment they made to last year's Scotland Bill was shot down by MPs from the rest of the UK, and now, because of EVEL, Scottish MPs can't even vote on some bills, because they are deemed to be 'English,' even though they potentially affect the block grant funding for Scotland.
And you call that Democracy?
Then we have the EU and all its institutions, and the UK finds itself sidelined and marginalised on decisions that effect the British people, and again, it makes a mockery of democracy.
I'm as engaged as well as anybody when it comes to taking an interest in these things, but even I feel disillusioned with the democratic process at times.
On the flip side, only half of Scottish votes went to the SNP and somehow they got 95% of the seats. Which is also extremely undemocratic.
But it is better than the EU.
The law making process is bounced between the European Parliament (MEPs) and the council, which is the heads of each countries government.
Basically, if every soul in Britain felt strongly about a certain topic, at most we would end up with less than 10% of the EP, and only 1/28 of the Council.
It doesn't matter if you personally know your MEP, it doesn't matter if you have Cameron over for lunch every Tuesday and then go drag racing in his wives new Renault Clio, it doesn't matter if everyone in the UK did exactly the same thing, there is almost no connection between the average European and the legislature. That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.
welshhoppo wrote: That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.
Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have. Not being arsed to vote is not a good enough reason to complain about the unfairness of the system. We get the system we deserve. As has been mentioned, perhaps the fishing quotas would have been better off if Farage did his job instead of deliberately breaking the system so that he'd be proven right and get more votes?
Compel wrote: If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
The scale of it all is just too big.
It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.
Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.
It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.
I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.
Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.
if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.
I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.
The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!
I've already said that's not the thrust of my argument...so what pint are you trying to score there with all that snark? I acknowledged that the scale of it can be daunting, what more do you want? I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it.
Out of interest which laws made by the European Parliament do you object to?
welshhoppo wrote: That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.
Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have. Not being arsed to vote is not a good enough reason to complain about the unfairness of the system. We get the system we deserve. As has been mentioned, perhaps the fishing quotas would have been better off if Farage did his job instead of deliberately breaking the system so that he'd be proven right and get more votes?
Precisely, what makes me laugh the most about UKIP and their MEPs is the fact that they always harp on about the "European gravy train" when they are some of the worst offenders regarding claiming expenses and not doing their actual job.
For a start, buddy, I never said what your arguing I did. I never once mentioned it being solely accountable to the British people, (Europe is about far more than just the British people) and secondly I would never have been crass enough to use "then" instead of "than"
If that wasn't what you were arguing with your comment? Then your comment was pointless. Saying, 'Well, the EU is more accountable for the people of the EU collectively' has little relevance to a thread to a thread about British voters and their concerns unless you're taking a federalist/integrationist position in which we're better off as part of a larger organisation regardless of our level of democratic accountability. Which would be fine, but if that's the case, why you've spent three pages arguing with me saying I prefer the enhanced democratic accountability the status quo/leave offers the British people is beyond me.
But that wasn't quite how you put it, was it?
I could spend days arguing with you about which parliament is more democratic, but your so entrenched in your position, that there is little point.
No, there's little point because it;s chalk and cheese, and not really comparable, as already pointed out. The EUP does not fill the same legislative role as the House of Commons. One can propose, debate and pass legislation, the other can only ultimately debate it.
Ergo, I have my beliefs about Europe and you have yours. Just as I have concerns about the accountability of the British political system that you seem rather blazé about, you have concerns about the eu that I'm just not bothered about.
It's nothing to do with being blase. It's understanding how the systems work. You are free to believe that the European parliament can propose legislation if you like, but considering you've already said elsewhere that isn't the case, I have no idea why you persist in talking about comparisons between the two. It's like arguing that the Army fulfills a defence role better than the Navy,. Yes both work in the same department (the military), but they fulfill different functions.
This is a perfect case in point about what I said yesterday about remain voters being harangued and harassed in this thread,
You can try and play the martyr if you like, but considering that you immediately follow up with:-
the exact same thing happened to a user the other day, where he politely decided to stop going round in circles with one of you fanatics.
it kind of ruins the act. I'm not a fanatic. Seriously. Skim back through my posts to the start of this thread. I was undecided until relatively recently. The only thing that tipped me over the edge was reading future plans for further integration by the EU, laid out by the EU themselves, and even then, I'm kind of annoyed by that. I look at both the good and the bad the EU brings to our country. Christ, a good chunk of my employment sector gets it's funding from the EU. I have every reason to support 'Remain'.
But the way you've just tried to paint me as the evil aggressor in your own little internet drama follows on with much of your style of argument so far, where you've ranted repeatedly about the evils of brexiters, how little they understand the system (which you've proven even you don't fully understand over the course of this conversation), and generally hammed it up a bit like an amateur in a Shakespeare play instead of making solid, logical, arguments.
I have no desire to make you agree with me. You can believe what you like.I repeatedly point out where you've said something valid, or where it would be opinion to hold a specific viewpoint. Like indeed, in the first paragraph of this post. But I will continue to challenge factual falsehoods, because this is too important a vote for people to be misled by sloppy inaccurate reasoning. We get enough of that from the press without people like yourself stirring the cauldron for good measure.
For that matter, I've seen several other posts (some by leave, some by remain) which I would have challenged, but I've been too absorbed with debating with you. I only have so many hours a day to type things on the internet!
welshhoppo wrote: That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.
Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have
.
No, our say would remain just as insignificant. We would still have less than 10% of the EUP and 1/28th of the EUC. Which is such a small number that people just can't be bothered. Our views are not perceived to change things one way or another for the British Electorate, so people just don't bother expressing them.
I fully accept that this is part of the functioning of an international organisation, and expecting to control it all would be foolish. But the feeling is generally that if you can't even come close to controlling it, why bother paying any attention to it? Yet the amount of power that has accrued to the EU has left people beginning to feel as if they would like a greater say in any organisation which has such control over their lives (in a legislative capacity). But despite this ever increasing control, the level of control/influence the British electorate has over the European machine remains static (and not particularly large).
Hence the view that our current system, for all of it's flaws, is still of infinitely greater democratic accountability to the British people, and therefore, better (unless one has integrationist/federalist beliefs, which is a-ok).
The UK is told that there cannot be a renegotiation of treaties such as schengen and yet the EU is blatantly changing their own rules when it suits in order to prevent a collapse.
The growth and stability pact limited EU government debt levels to 60% of GDP. The Schengen treaty prevents financial bailouts.
EU treaties specifically prevent EU countries from leaving the single currency.
Italy currently has liabilities totalling 134% of GDP. The ECB is pumping out £80b per month to prop up governments with high levels of debt.
Tied to a single currency Italy has lost 30% of its labour competitiveness to Germany since 1999. A situation that could be resolved if Italy had the Lira and could devalue it.
Greece is being bailed out, even with serious reforms Italys banks are close to insolvent and the situation in Spain and Portugal is probably marginal.
Why should we enter a union which is artificially kept alive even against its publicly stated regulations?
For a start, buddy, I never said what your arguing I did. I never once mentioned it being solely accountable to the British people, (Europe is about far more than just the British people) and secondly I would never have been crass enough to use "then" instead of "than"
If that wasn't what you were arguing with your comment? Then your comment was pointless. Saying, 'Well, the EU is more accountable for the people of the EU collectively' has little relevance to a thread to a thread about British voters and their concerns unless you're taking a federalist/integrationist position in which we're better off as part of a larger organisation regardless of our level of democratic accountability. Which would be fine, but if that's the case, why you've spent three pages arguing with me saying I prefer the enhanced democratic accountability the status quo/leave offers the British people is beyond me.
But that wasn't quite how you put it, was it?
I could spend days arguing with you about which parliament is more democratic, but your so entrenched in your position, that there is little point.
No, there's little point because it;s chalk and cheese, and not really comparable, as already pointed out. The EUP does not fill the same legislative role as the House of Commons. One can propose, debate and pass legislation, the other can only ultimately debate it.
Ergo, I have my beliefs about Europe and you have yours. Just as I have concerns about the accountability of the British political system that you seem rather blazé about, you have concerns about the eu that I'm just not bothered about.
It's nothing to do with being blase. It's understanding how the systems work. You are free to believe that the European parliament can propose legislation if you like, but considering you've already said elsewhere that isn't the case, I have no idea why you persist in talking about comparisons between the two. It's like arguing that the Army fulfills a defence role better than the Navy,. Yes both work in the same department (the military), but they fulfill different functions.
This is a perfect case in point about what I said yesterday about remain voters being harangued and harassed in this thread,
You can try and play the martyr if you like, but considering that you immediately follow up with:-
the exact same thing happened to a user the other day, where he politely decided to stop going round in circles with one of you fanatics.
it kind of ruins the act. I'm not a fanatic. Seriously. Skim back through my posts to the start of this thread. I was undecided until relatively recently. The only thing that tipped me over the edge was reading future plans for further integration by the EU, laid out by the EU themselves, and even then, I'm kind of annoyed by that. I look at both the good and the bad the EU brings to our country. Christ, a good chunk of my employment sector gets it's funding from the EU. I have every reason to support 'Remain'.
But the way you've just tried to paint me as the evil aggressor in your own little internet drama follows on with much of your style of argument so far, where you've ranted repeatedly about the evils of brexiters, how little they understand the system (which you've proven even you don't fully understand over the course of this conversation), and generally hammed it up a bit like an amateur in a Shakespeare play instead of making solid, logical, arguments.
I have no desire to make you agree with me. You can believe what you like.I repeatedly point out where you've said something valid, or where it would be opinion to hold a specific viewpoint. Like indeed, in the first paragraph of this post. But I will continue to challenge factual falsehoods, because this is too important a vote for people to be misled by sloppy inaccurate reasoning. We get enough of that from the press without people like yourself stirring the cauldron for good measure.
For that matter, I've seen several other posts (some by leave, some by remain) which I would have challenged, but I've been too absorbed with debating with you. I only have so many hours a day to type things on the internet!
welshhoppo wrote: That is probably the main reason why we feel no attachment to the system, a thought which held across the entire EU because the turnout for MEPs hasn't been over 50% in years, because we have no literal say in the decision making process.
Except if people got their asses out of their couches and voted, we would have
.
No, our say would remain just as insignificant. We would still have less than 10% of the EUP and 1/28th of the EUC. Which is such a small number that people just can't be bothered. Our views are not perceived to change things one way or another for the British Electorate, so people just don't bother expressing them.
I fully accept that this is part of the functioning of an international organisation, and expecting to control it all would be foolish. But the feeling is generally that if you can't even come close to controlling it, why bother paying any attention to it? Yet the amount of power that has accrued to the EU has left people beginning to feel as if they would like a greater say in any organisation which has such control over their lives (in a legislative capacity). But despite this ever increasing control, the level of control/influence the British electorate has over the European machine remains static (and not particularly large).
Hence the view that our current system, for all of it's flaws, is still of infinitely greater democratic accountability to the British people, and therefore, better (unless one has integrationist/federalist beliefs, which is a-ok).
Whatever dude, I politely tried to end the circular debate...you seem intent on trying to force me to continue in it. I call that harassment in my book. You can go on the ignore list
Mr. Burning wrote: The UK is told that there cannot be a renegotiation of treaties such as schengen and yet the EU is blatantly changing their own rules when it suits in order to prevent a collapse.
The growth and stability pact limited EU government debt levels to 60% of GDP. The Schengen treaty prevents financial bailouts.
EU treaties specifically prevent EU countries from leaving the single currency.
Italy currently has liabilities totalling 134% of GDP. The ECB is pumping out £80b per month to prop up governments with high levels of debt.
Tied to a single currency Italy has lost 30% of its labour competitiveness to Germany since 1999. A situation that could be resolved if Italy had the Lira and could devalue it.
Greece is being bailed out, even with serious reforms Italys banks are close to insolvent and the situation in Spain and Portugal is probably marginal.
Why should we enter a union which is artificially kept alive even against its publicly stated regulations?
People talk a lot about the problems with maintaining the currency, but few talk about the issues surrounding dissolving it (or even just revoking it in a single country). It would seriously shock the European market and currency in several ways, not to mention the issues that permitting the precedent would cause. For example, what would be to stop countries running up vast Euro debts, and then leaving five years later, defaulting and converting to another currency, and taking advantage of the disruption in the market they'd sabotaged? Christ, it would be like the problems they had with the original private banks hundreds of years ago.
The united currency should never have been attempted without some form of budgetary union or control, but they can't admit that now, and nobody will agree to it democratically. So all they can do is try and hurry along the gently gently slowly slowly approach as much as possible (as seen in the five presidents report), and keep pumping cash in to keep it afloat until they reach a point where it isn't a liability anymore. In the face of that, I don't see anyone trying to force us into the Euro any time soon, and frankly, I'm not convinced they would want to even then. There are uses to having a country with a currency as strong as sterling in the Eurozone.
Whatever dude, I politely tried to end the circular debate...you seem intent on trying to force me to continue in it. I call that harassment in my book. You can go on the ignore list
General Kroll : *throws ad hominems and runs away*
The only one making circular arguments here is you, General Kroll. You've mocked other people for "always wanting the last word", yet here you are stomping your foot down and saying "no more! I will ignore you".
You've mocked other people for making personal attacks and ad hominem, and yet here you are ignoring his arguments, labelling him a fanatic and accusing him of harassment. This is a public debate on a public forum where everyone including you can express their opinions freely and disagree with opinions. People disagreeing with your opinion is NOT harassment. If you wish to continue expressing your opinions in this thread, people have the right to continue disagreeing with you, whether or not you wish to speak to them.
You should withdraw the accusation of harrassment against Ketara and your remark calling him a "fanatic" and apologise for those personal attacks. Such an accusation might be credible against someone like me who tends to lose their temper, but Ketara is one of the only true moderates in this thread, and the way you've treated him is beyond belief. Of all the people in this thread, and Dakka Dakka in general, he is one of the people you really should not be burning bridges with.
I have this terrible, sinking, depressing feeling that Remain is going to win this. And we'll all come to regret it.
I would bet money that if we vote to remain, Cameron's...for the sake of argument, I'll call them reforms, will be ditched asap. And that'll only be the beginning. They'll demand more money, more control, and if we argue back they'll say 'what are you going to do? Leave? Yeah right'.
I would also bet money that they will make it impossible to leave after this too.
Compel wrote: If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
The scale of it all is just too big.
It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.
Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.
It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.
I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.
Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.
if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.
I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.
The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!
I've already said that's not the thrust of my argument...so what pint are you trying to score there with all that snark? I acknowledged that the scale of it can be daunting, what more do you want? I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it.
Out of interest which laws made by the European Parliament do you object to?
Hoi! i asked you to explain how the MEP made me better represented! aren't you going to answer?
Well, i guess that means i'm NOT better represented by an MEP rather than my local MP.
Fine, but it's the thrust of MY argument and it's decidedly more compelling than your fantasy about how you can freely move, live, work and retire in the EU despite the fact that you cant.
It also highlights the inescapability of the hidden legislation which will be forced upon all member states.
Part of what makes our relationship with the EU currently (what you stated you were judging your vote on) is our exceptions - units and measures, currency, border controls, etc - other EU states have made it clear that they view any exceptions britain has as unacceptable and are working to remove our concessions - this is compounded by the 'groupthink' scenario we will be entering into - If britain decides it wants out after getting involved we have to convince 55% of all member states to agree to let us leave and they wont.
The laws i dislike right now are few because so far we have had the choice to adopt it or not - future policy and whether or not we are able to influence or reject that is my real issue; one which you stated you were not going to be considering when you vote which as others pointed out is incredibly short-sighted.
To answer your question (maybe you'll do me the same courtesy?)
Current laws i dislike....
All road signage and vehicle dial readings have to be in KPH (covered by an exception)
All weights and measures used in trading must be metric (covered by an exception)
All member states must use the euro (covered by an exception)
The schengen 'agreement' (covered by an exception)
Emissions testing for military vehicles. The concept is absurd.
Fishing quota's: woefully under-considered and shows a general callousness by the EU toward britain as well as a lack of consideration for consequences of the decision along with a refusal to address concerns by one nation over the actions of another.
The 'trade union bill' states that if the turnout of an industrial strike ballot was under 50% then the result is void and strike action would be illegal - they have no such concession for themselves. they're above the laws which govern you and i apparently.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm I could go on but i have a life to attend to.
Upcoming issues I object to...
The upcoming forced integration of our national defence capability. We can look after ourselves and have been doing so for centuries - Fascism washed against our shores in 1945 and was turned back thanks to our technological advancement and the English channel.
The financial instability of the whole arrangement - why wont merkel declare her deal for greece to the IMF until after our referendum? financial shenanigans to cover the disparity created by insisting a weak/failing economy (greece) tries to keep the same valued currency as one which is prospering nicely (germany).
The two faced nature of deals with the EU - EU citizens don't need visas to come here, but we need them to go there; similar with turkeys 'negotiations' over inclusion.
Being locked into being ruled by someone who doesn't even live here. They don't know us, and they won't know our hardships as a result. nothing good can come of this.
There being no way to repeal or challenge laws which have been forced upon us. Mob rule is frustrating in our own politics - mix that with 28 nations all vying over the details makes for no real say at all.
The reduction in my democratic representation while vocal minorities try to claim it is increasing. You can lie to yourself, but don't lie to me.
The generation of a new 'superpower' on russias border. Look whats happened with the missile systems in poland! one side builds up a threat, the other responds.. ad infinitum
If everything was going to stay the same then everything would be sort of manageable, but it's not.
'Remaining' requires adopting every law the EU comes up with without question; that we are to trust them as 'fair' and 'reasonable' - so when i consider the amount of hidden deals they have done (listed by 'DO_I_NOT_LIKE_THAT earlier in the thread) i know there is worse to come. Secret societies have never had the interests of the people at heart.
I'd like to point out that some of the dakkites living in the EU (DaBoss among others) have noted that they would like britain to join and admit that there are a lot of flaws in the EU currently and that they were hoping that britains 'influence' would start to sort things out; but given the politicians we have want to screw everyone so they and their mates can line their pockets at the taxpayers expense that aint going to happen. Which is kinda where the EU overlords (the five presidents) are at right now too. (striving to develop positions of unimpeachability and wealth)
Future War Cultist wrote:I have this terrible, sinking, depressing feeling that Remain is going to win this. And we'll all come to regret it.
I would bet money that if we vote to remain, Cameron's...for the sake of argument, I'll call them reforms, will be ditched asap. And that'll only be the beginning. They'll demand more money, more control, and if we argue back they'll say 'what are you going to do? Leave? Yeah right'.
Of course. But as regards regretting it? Eh. Depends highly on what you believe the place of Britain in the world is. I don't doubt for a minute that the amount of democratic accountability of the poilitical class to the average British voter will decrease as Europe slowly absorbs more power. But by the same measure, being part of a large power bloc is rarely a disadvantage, and has much to be said for it. I suspect we'll just fade away into a region, much as Wales within Britain. And that isn't necessarily a good or bad thing.
Ultimately, the USA's political class has been removed from the average voter for some time now (there's a reason their Presidents run in dynasties) and big corporate money talks far louder there than any real domestic concerns. I suspect we will simply end up becoming something similar as the United States of Europe. (USE). Perhaps we'll be slightly less involved on a political level, but I doubt the USE will be organising the Stazi MK2.
An interesting question will be what it means when the USE finishes it's transition to superpower status, and what that bodes on the international level. Certainly, we would far outstrip the USA in terms of power, and most likely China too. I'm not sure how either of those places would feel about being relegated to second and third in the superpower department.
And Shadow Captain, I appreciate the endorsement. I think it's probably wasted here, but it's always nice to hear that someone appreciates the effort you put in!
Compel wrote: If I ever were sufficiently brassed off about something politically contentious that can't be resolved locally. I know where my MPs office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not against just the needs of my town but of near enough a million people. Then the whinges would not just needed to be weighed against the UK but also against the people's concerns in FrancIf I ever hurt sufficiently brassed off about something political. I know where my mood office is, its down the high street. I can go whinge there. My MP can then balance my whinges against that of the rest of my town and immediate surrounding villages and if it is sufficiently sensible a whinge, could then go to parliament where what is now his whinge will be balanced against the whinges of only another 600ish people and some of them might have the same whinge.
EU wise, I have no idea where my MEPs office is, or who it is. If I did, he, singularly would have to weigh up my whinges not with 'just' my town, but another near enough million people. Then for it to go anywhere he'd not just be needing to argue it with the rest of the country's interests but also France, Portugal, Finland and Bulgaria's.
And that's just a "best case scenario" assuming everyone involved is working in good faith at peak efficiency.
The scale of it all is just too big.
It's really not that hard to find out who your MEP is you know.
Just like any democratically elected person, they usually have a presence on the Internet, and you know there's usually a list of them somewhere.
It took me about thirty seconds to find the address, email, and even the phone number of mine. It wasn't hard.
I get what you are saying about the scale of the whole thing, but let's face it the majority of our laws are made at the local level. Most of the stuff they rule on is pretty mundane, like whether or not phone companies can apply roaming charges in the free market area, some of the stuff they try to rule on is useful, like clamping down on tax loopholes. Some of the stuff they rule on is ludicrous, like the shape of bananas (for the record, they didn't ban any kind of shaped banana, there was just a rule on classification) it's really that boring.
Some stuff can be argued to have a massive negative effect on an industry, like the fishing quotas, but it's not as if we don't have our say, heck, Nigek Farrage was CHAIR of the fisheries committee, he just hardly ever turned up. Others might argue that quotas protect fish stocks, but that's for another debate.
if you have something you need to whinge about, you're probably still best moaning to your MP. Since they make most of the laws in this country.
I've highlighted the bit you need to read about his point for you - it's valid and you're ignoring it for convenience.
The MEP in my area has to balance the interests of 858300 people, my MP has to balance the interests of 112779 people. Explain how the MEP makes me better represented.
>straps in<
Okay go!
I've already said that's not the thrust of my argument...so what pint are you trying to score there with all that snark? I acknowledged that the scale of it can be daunting, what more do you want? I'm not going to just agree with you for the sake of it.
Out of interest which laws made by the European Parliament do you object to?
Hoi! i asked you to explain how the MEP made me better represented! aren't you going to answer?
Well, i guess that means i'm NOT better represented by an MEP rather than my local MP.
Fine, but it's the thrust of MY argument and it's decidedly more compelling than your fantasy about how you can freely move, live, work and retire in the EU despite the fact that you cant.
It also highlights the inescapability of the hidden legislation which will be forced upon all member states.
Part of what makes our relationship with the EU currently (what you stated you were judging your vote on) is our exceptions - units and measures, currency, border controls, etc - other EU states have made it clear that they view any exceptions britain has as unacceptable and are working to remove our concessions - this is compounded by the 'groupthink' scenario we will be entering into - If britain decides it wants out after getting involved we have to convince 55% of all member states to agree to let us leave and they wont.
The laws i dislike right now are few because so far we have had the choice to adopt it or not - future policy and whether or not we are able to influence or reject that is my real issue; one which you stated you were not going to be considering when you vote which as others pointed out is incredibly short-sighted.
To answer your question (maybe you'll do me the same courtesy?)
Current laws i dislike....
All road signage and vehicle dial readings have to be in KPH (covered by an exception)
All weights and measures used in trading must be metric (covered by an exception)
All member states must use the euro (covered by an exception)
The schengen 'agreement' (covered by an exception)
Emissions testing for military vehicles. The concept is absurd.
Fishing quota's: woefully under-considered and shows a general callousness by the EU toward britain as well as a lack of consideration for consequences of the decision along with a refusal to address concerns by one nation over the actions of another.
The 'trade union bill' states that if the turnout of an industrial strike ballot was under 50% then the result is void and strike action would be illegal - they have no such concession for themselves. they're above the laws which govern you and i apparently.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm I could go on but i have a life to attend to.
Upcoming issues I object to...
The upcoming forced integration of our national defence capability. We can look after ourselves and have been doing so for centuries - Fascism washed against our shores in 1945 and was turned back thanks to our technological advancement and the English channel.
The financial instability of the whole arrangement - why wont merkel declare her deal for greece to the IMF until after our referendum? financial shenanigans to cover the disparity created by insisting a weak/failing economy (greece) tries to keep the same valued currency as one which is prospering nicely (germany).
The two faced nature of deals with the EU - EU citizens don't need visas to come here, but we need them to go there; similar with turkeys 'negotiations' over inclusion.
Being locked into being ruled by someone who doesn't even live here. They don't know us, and they won't know our hardships as a result. nothing good can come of this.
There being no way to repeal or challenge laws which have been forced upon us. Mob rule is frustrating in our own politics - mix that with 28 nations all vying over the details makes for no real say at all.
The reduction in my democratic representation while vocal minorities try to claim it is increasing. You can lie to yourself, but don't lie to me.
The generation of a new 'superpower' on russias border. Look whats happened with the missile systems in poland! one side builds up a threat, the other responds.. ad infinitum
If everything was going to stay the same then everything would be sort of manageable, but it's not.
'Remaining' requires adopting every law the EU comes up with without question; that we are to trust them as 'fair' and 'reasonable' - so when i consider the amount of hidden deals they have done (listed by 'DO_I_NOT_LIKE_THAT earlier in the thread) i know there is worse to come. Secret societies have never had the interests of the people at heart.
I'd like to point out that some of the dakkites living in the EU (DaBoss among others) have noted that they would like britain to join and admit that there are a lot of flaws in the EU currently and that they were hoping that britains 'influence' would start to sort things out; but given the politicians we have want to screw everyone so they and their mates can line their pockets at the taxpayers expense that aint going to happen. Which is kinda where the EU overlords (the five presidents) are at right now too. (striving to develop positions of unimpeachability and wealth)
Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?
I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.
We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The only one making circular arguments here is you, General Kroll. You've mocked other people for "always wanting the last word", yet here you are stomping your foot down and saying "no more! I will ignore you".
You've mocked other people for making personal attacks and ad hominem, and yet here you are ignoring his arguments, labelling him a fanatic and accusing him of harassment. This is a public debate on a public forum where everyone including you can express their opinions freely and disagree with opinions. People disagreeing with your opinion is NOT harassment. If you wish to continue expressing your opinions in this thread, people have the right to continue disagreeing with you, whether or not you wish to speak to them.
You should withdraw the accusation of harrassment against Ketara and your remark calling him a "fanatic" and apologise for those personal attacks. Such an accusation might be credible against someone like me who tends to lose their temper, but Ketara is one of the only true moderates in this thread, and the way you've treated him is beyond belief. Of all the people in this thread, and Dakka Dakka in general, he is one of the people you really should not be burning bridges with.
How about you withdraw your personal attacks against me then?
I withdraw NOTHING. I've not ignored anyone's arguments, I've responded with my opinions, and suggested that there isn't anywhere else to go with the discussion. There isn't. In response, I've been harassed by Ketara and had personal insults thrown at me by both him and you. So much for freedom of debate.
People can agree to disagree about things, I recognised that the argument was going to go in circles and I decided to withdraw from it, I've mocked no one. I've merely stated an opinion.
I made an attempt to end the discussion politely. It was rejected. So be it.
Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?
I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.
We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.
It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.
Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.
Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.
The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.
Very well. I apologise for calling you selfish. I do believe its selfish to think only of your own short term economic interests and not the democratic rights of future generations (I believe there may come a time in the next century when we'll be too integrated to secede, and we'll have ceased to exist as an independent sovereign nation and therefore lack the power to secede anyway) but I admit it wasn't helpful for this debate.
Now, are you going to apologise for labelling Ketara a fanatic and falsely accusing him of harassing you? He is probably the most polite, reasonable and patient person in this thread. Burning bridges with such a person is very unwise.
I would also suggest looking up the proper definition of harassment. Harassment would be Ketara following you from thread to thread, making repeated personal attacks and constantly bringing up the EU and trying to continue the argument in unrelated threads. It sure as hell is not criticising and disagreeing with your opinion in one single thread. Losing patience with a discussion with someone whose mind you have failed to change is not harassment.
Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?
I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.
We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.
It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.
Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.
Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.
The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.
I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.
Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?
I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.
We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.
It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.
Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.
Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.
The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.
I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.
You don't know that. You're taking the modern day status quo of treaties and our current legal status, and assuming it will always remain so. But the further we integrate, the more sovereignty we relinquish, the more difficult it will be for us to leave. Eventually, if we continue on this path, we won't have the power to secede. This is not hypothetical, its the stated aim of the EU - a federalised super state.
I called you selfish because you refuse to consider a long term perspective, and are only basing your decision on your own economic interests today. This decision will impact on future generations for the next century. Its bigger than us.
Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?
I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.
We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.
It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.
Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.
Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.
The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.
I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.
That's certainly your prerogative. However, to make a truly informed decision, one has to look at the long view in addition to everything else. If you don't take into account what WILL (not "could") be forced on you years down the road, that's just shortsighted in my humble opinion. By then, it will be too late, because Britain will too integrated to pull out of an federated, European superstate, with a Euro military, with out violence or outside assistance. The powers that be in Brussels will NOT let the British to pull out of the EU in that instance, without taking harsh measures, out of fear that others may get the same idea (like they are going apeshit behind closed doors over Brexit right now) You will just be another province in the new Euro Empire. Your fate won't be your own anymore. Do you want that for your descendants? For your land with centuries of a precious cultural tradition, that spread that tradition and ideas of government over a quarter of the globe?
This is not a crackpot, paranoid conspiracy theory. It's the same sad story of conquered peoples throughout history. Only in this instance, Britain won't be conquered by force of arms, but by lies, false idealism, selfishness, and apathy.
If you are wondering why an American gives a damn about the United Kingdom's future, it's easy to explain. Much of our founding principles and system of government is based on the British tradition. The original 13 colonies were British. A lot of folks in the UK may despise us and our politics. But we are still FAMILY. The British Isles is, for all intents and purposes, the mother country of the United States, even if we misbehaved and started a revolution back in 1775.
It's your right to vote as you see fit, and I respect that. But it's Brexit or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is a historical crossroads for Britain. Will a proto-totalitarian, overbearing entity possibly pull off what the French and Germans couldn't over the last thousand years? Or will Britain retake it's own destiny? And that's just how I see on this side of the pond.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Very well. I apologise for calling you selfish. I do believe its selfish to think only of your own short term economic interests and not the democratic rights of future generations (I believe there may come a time in the next century when we'll be too integrated to secede, and we'll have ceased to exist as an independent sovereign nation and therefore lack the power to secede anyway) but I admit it wasn't helpful for this debate.
Now, are you going to apologise for labelling Ketara a fanatic and falsely accusing him of harassing you? He is probably the most polite, reasonable and patient person in this thread. Burning bridges with such a person is very unwise.
I would also suggest looking up the proper definition of harassment. Harassment would be Ketara following you from thread to thread, making repeated personal attacks and constantly bringing up the EU and trying to continue the argument in unrelated threads. It sure as hell is not criticising and disagreeing with your opinion in one single thread. Losing patience with a discussion with someone whose mind you have failed to change is not harassment.
Fair enough, thanks for the apology. I never intended my opinions to come across as selfish, there's plenty of people that benefit from the things I've listed. But sure that's another case where we will have to agree to disagree.
As for Ketara,mi do feel very put upon, since I offered to end the debate he's made repeated posts at me in this thread as well as openly mocked me. In my view that's harassment. If he wants to withdraw those posts, then fine. But I still feel wronged. And let's be clear about this, I'm fine with someone holding a different view on something, there's no problem there, what's annoyed me is the attempt to continue the argument when I clearly have no interest in doing so. I was polite enough to offer to end if, I even wished him an enjoyable bank holiday. That olive branch was rejected.
Half of the laws you list there don't even apply to us...what relevance do they have?
I agree with you on the fishing quotas, but we've been in a strong position to change that, unfortunately the man we elected to go to the eu parliament decided not to attend most of the meetings.
We don't need a visa to go to the eu, that's an outright fallacy. Pull the other one.
It would just be a matter of time before those laws were forced on the United Kingdom by treaty. And attending meeting don't amount to much.
Britain's fishing industry was ruined long ago due to Euro regulations. Why wasn't something done long before now? Easy. Because there would be no change. None then and none now.
Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union "the new European Soviet". And he wasn't far from being spot on.
The EU is nothing more than an oligarchy that does nothing for anybody, except for the elites in a handful of member-states. They only people who would vote remain are those running on idealism, like the petty conveniences that comes with membership, or those with cushy jobs (British EU employees and Eurocrats) and money to lose. They don't give a damned about Britain's future, or are misinformed. And that is from an outsider's perspective.
I'm not going to vote on what hypothetically could be forced on us in years to come. There's absolutely nothing stopping a government withdrawing from the eu under such conditions. Right now, I see it as a benefit to stay in. I'm not going to vote based on the fevered dreams of what might happen. I will vote on the here and now thanks.
That's certainly your prerogative. However, to make a truly informed decision, one has to look at the long view in addition to everything else. If you don't take into account what WILL (not "could") be forced on you years down the road, that's just shortsighted in my humble opinion. By then, it will be too late, because Britain will too integrated to pull out of an federated, European superstate, with a Euro military, with out violence or outside assistance. The powers that be in Brussels will NOT let the British to pull out of the EU in that instance, without taking harsh measures, out of fear that others may get the same idea (like they are going apeshit behind closed doors over Brexit right now) You will just be another province in the new Euro Empire. Your fate won't be your own anymore. Do you want that for your descendants? For your land with centuries of a precious cultural tradition, that spread that tradition and ideas of government over a quarter of the globe?
This is not a crackpot, paranoid conspiracy theory. It's the same sad story of conquered peoples throughout history. Only in this instance, Britain won't be conquered by force of arms, but by lies, false idealism, selfishness, and apathy.
If you are wondering why an American gives a damn about the United Kingdom's future, it's easy to explain. Much of our founding principles and system of government is based on the British tradition. The original 13 colonies were British. A lot of folks in the UK may despise us and our politics. But we are still FAMILY. The British Isles is, for all intents and purposes, the mother country of the United States, even if we misbehaved and started a revolution back in 1775.
It's your right to vote as you see fit, and I respect that. But it's Brexit or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is a historical crossroads for Britain. Will a proto-totalitarian, overbearing entity possibly pull off what the French and Germans couldn't over the last thousand years? Or will Britain retake it's own destiny? And that's just how I see on this side of the pond.
No offence, but that sounds JUST like crackpot conspiracy theories to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and here's a nice balanced article on the "threat" of an eu army coming along and making us all bend to its will.
You are wrong GK. If you no longer wished to participate in a discussion, you could have walked away from the thread. You could have stopped responding to Ketara, and that would have been the end of it.
Instead, you're trying to have the last word, then petulantly demanding that Ketara shut up and stop responding to you. That's not how debates work. If someone wishes to respond to your "final" comment on on issue, they have every right to. Its your decision to walk away and end the discussion, or continue the discussion. You chose to continue it. You did not offer an olive branch, you wanted to end the discussion on your terms.
If you wish to continue participating and expressing your opinion in this thread, Ketara has every right to continue responding to you, whether you wish to speak to him or not.
You don't get to just mic drop, then complain that you're being harassed if the other person picks up his mic.
Your accusation is absurd and false.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is Ketara following you around Dakka Dakka, trying to continue the eu debate in completely unrelated threads? That would be harassment. Disagreeing with you in one thread is not.
Its as absurd as me accusing people in the Ukraine thread of harassing me when they disagree with and criticize me because I'm one of perhaps just three people who are sympathetic to Russia's position. Holding a minority opinion and being "ganged up on" for holding an unpopular opinion is not harassment. They don't follow me from thread to thread.
That article is disingenuous at best and a distraction. But I would expect that from The Guardian.
1. The leadership of the EU have made it perfectly clear that the end goal is a federalized Europe There is no conspiracy theory here. It's common knowledge and the long-term policy of the European Union.
2. You are the one that's trying to twist it into me spouting off conspiracy theories, and citing horsegak articles to support this.
It doesn't take rocket science for those who know basic geopolitics. But I state it anyway.
If you have a nation-state, you need the means to defend it or project policy. That means a military answerable to the political leadership of said nation-state. Not every national entity has the luxury of not having armed forces like Costa Rica. Even Japan, which supposedly doesn't have a military "on paper", has a defacto military in the JSDF.
Only the blind, overly idealistic, or incredibly stupid would believe that a European Union, existing as a nation-state, would not have it's own armed forces. You seriously think that a federal European Union is going to rely on the seperate militaries of the FORMERLY independent nation-states or NATO for it's defense? You seriously think that a federalized Europe is going to refrain from forming a military, with troublesome members and a potentially hostile Russian Federation on their doorstep? You seriously think that a federalized European super-state is going to continue to rely on the United States to play a part in European defense?
It's not a damned "conspiracy theory", Hoss. It damned plain old common sense.
There will be a Euro army if Europe federalizes into a sovereign political nation-state. Period. And if a member decides to leave the union? You can bet that there will policies in place to prevent that in the interests of "national cohesion".
To think otherwise is whistling in the dark while walking through a graveyard.
That's certainly your prerogative. However, to make a truly informed decision, one has to look at the long view in addition to everything else. If you don't take into account what WILL (not "could") be forced on you years down the road, that's just shortsighted in my humble opinion.By then, it will be too late, because Britain will too integrated to pull out of an federated, European superstate, with a Euro military, with out violence or outside assistance. The powers that be in Brussels will NOT let the British to pull out of the EU in that instance, without taking harsh measures, out of fear that others may get the same idea (like they are going apeshit behind closed doors over Brexit right now) You will just be another province in the new Euro Empire. Your fate won't be your own anymore. Do you want that for your descendants? For your land with centuries of a precious cultural tradition, that spread that tradition and ideas of government over a quarter of the globe? .
Eh. I don't see a 'AHA!' moment, where the European People's Narkom Building (formerly known as Westminster) announces their latest decree from the Continent to dissolve the House of Commons, and the European jackboots surround and arrest all protestors of the decision. I have no doubt that we'll retain the ability to leave legally whenever we want.
Remember, in Britain, all legislative power technically derives from the Monarchy, and HM Government is just that. Her Majesty's Government. They are legally unable to sign the country or the Armed Forces away, for the same reason they could never use them for a dictatorship, i.e. the fact is they don't belong to them. Unless the Monarch decided to officially sign over all legislative power, it will remain here within the UK, and I don't see that ever happening. I mean, Christ, you think this is bad now, the outcry of the wording of the referendum worded 'Give all power to the European President' would raise the roof. And the Monarch would never willingly sign a piece of paper to that effect without some kind of referendum, and no politician would try and force it.
No, legally, I would say regardless of what happens, even if merely a technicality, sovereignty will officially remain within the UK. Too much of our political and legal system is constructed around it. What is far more likely, is that the desire to be a separate nation will simply fade, bar a small corner of nationalism that causes headaches for all politicians involved every decade or so.
It's your right to vote as you see fit, and I respect that. But it's Brexit or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. This is a historical crossroads for Britain. Will a proto-totalitarian, overbearing entity possibly pull off what the French and Germans couldn't over the last thousand years? Or will Britain retake it's own destiny? And that's just how I see on this side of the pond.
We lost our 'own destiny' back when the US forced us to pull out of Suez. Our American debtmasters more or less pulled our foreign policy strings up until the 1980's, we only barely avoided being sucked into Vietnam and that was only because our economy was in such doldrums the idea was a joke in itself.
Since then, we've built our own little niche where we hang around irritating people both in Europe and Washington, but remain too crucial in relations between the two for anyone to say anything about it. We've rebuilt an economy based on everyone else's money (a bit of a throwback to the eighteenth and nineteenth century there), and we trundle along alright. But the only way we can ever wield substantial power again is to harness Europe to our own yoke.
Remember, we're projected to be the largest and most prosperous nation in Europe within twenty years. We're the only ones who retain a military and foreign strike capacity, and we're economically one of the strongest two. Europe has no ability to project anything onto us that we do not care to accept. And we'll drive a steep price in pursuit of our own goals, you can be sure of that. If we end up staying in the EU, we will integrate on a legislative level to a large extent, of that I have no doubt. But the EU may well find their official language is English, their military runs off British produced and maintained tech, and all of their banks are based here. In fact, I'd predict it's not only likely, but probable. We're not going to fade into the night and be a backwater province, no sir. If the EU ends up as the USE, we'll alternate between being in the driving seat and leaning heavily over the shoulder of whoever else is occupying it.
Lord Palmerston wrote:“It is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Ketara wrote:Remember, we're projected to be the largest and most prosperous nation in Europe within twenty years. We're the only ones who retain a military and foreign strike capacity, and we're economically one of the strongest two. Europe has no ability to project anything onto us that we do not care to accept. And we'll drive a steep price in pursuit of our own goals, you can be sure of that. If we end up staying in the EU, we will integrate on a legislative level to a large extent, of that I have no doubt. But the EU may well find their official language is English, their military runs off British produced and maintained tech, and all of their banks are based here. In fact, I'd predict it's not only likely, but probable. We're not going to fade into the night and be a backwater province, no sir. If the EU ends up as the USE, we'll alternate between being in the driving seat and leaning heavily over the shoulder of whoever else is occupying it.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. We're on the verge of leaving, yet our Prime Minister had to grovel on his hands and knees for scraps from them. Scraps which are going to be vetoed by other leaders at the first opportunity. And if we vote to stay it'll only get worse.
And the EU has been going after the banks here. Check out this article which shows how the EU sabotages Britain's enterprises. Fishing, Auctions, Clinical Trials...the EU has screwed them all up with it's directives, and the city is next in line. The inner cynic in me thinks that this is deliberate. And I have a suspicion that it's because of Germany. It's not enough for them to have car manufacturing. They want the financial markets as well, but we have them beaten to it. So they're using the EU which, lets face it, they own, to take them.
A quote:
In the wake of the 2008 crisis, a Financial Transaction Tax was proposed by the bureaucrats in Brussels. Britain would have been the country overwhelmingly damaged by this. Our business would have been driven away to America, Singapore and elsewhere. The Chancellor, George Osborne, described the proposal as “a bullet aimed at the heart of London”. Incidentally, what sort of friendly “union” is it that aims a gun at one of the biggest and most successful industries of one of its members?
Would Germany stand for an EU bullet aimed at its car manufacturing? Would they balls.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. We're on the verge of leaving, yet our Prime Minister had to grovel on his hands and knees for scraps from them. Scraps which are going to be vetoed by other leaders at the first opportunity. And if we vote to stay it'll only get worse.
That's because he's acted moronically in several regards here, quite frankly. The immigration issue was one of minimal importance in the grand scheme of things that he tied himself in knots over. What he should have done was ignore it altogether. Like Osborne in economics, Cameron has found himself well out of his depth on the international stage when dealing with issues of import. Love her or hate her, Thatcher knew how to play the EU to British advantage.
And the EU has been going after the banks here. Check out this article which shows how the EU sabotages Britain's enterprises. Fishing, Auctions, Clinical Trials...the EU has screwed them all up with it's directives, and the city is next in line. The inner cynic in me thinks that this is deliberate. And I have a suspicion that it's because of Germany. It's not enough for them to have car manufacturing. They want the financial markets as well, but we have them beaten to it. So they're using the EU which, lets face it, they own, to take them.
A quote:
In the wake of the 2008 crisis, a Financial Transaction Tax was proposed by the bureaucrats in Brussels. Britain would have been the country overwhelmingly damaged by this. Our business would have been driven away to America, Singapore and elsewhere. The Chancellor, George Osborne, described the proposal as “a bullet aimed at the heart of London”. Incidentally, what sort of friendly “union” is it that aims a gun at one of the biggest and most successful industries of one of its members?
I'll be honest, that article is a leetle bit OTT. The Financial Transaction tax came as a knee-jerk reaction to the global economic downturn, and was fended off easily enough. It was far from a illogical move, it just hadn't been thought through. I daresay you could point out hundreds of failed pieces of legislation both here and abroad, it doesn't necessarily mean much. Meanwhile, we got nailed at the fishing end because our good chum Nige was off boozing instead of doing his job. Auction houses? Really? Clinical Trials? I for one, am glad of additional safety regulation that end of things. Sure, it means lost cash, but at the additional safety of the human guinea pigs who have things tested on them. There are some areas where things other than financial needs take priority.
I'm not one to overestimate our power within the EU (crikey, look at my statements for the last two pages!), but this is going too far in the other direction. Does the EU over-legislate? Yes. Do we occasionally have to enact legislation to our detriment? Yes. Are we currently in control of the EU bull? No.
But keep in mind my statements in my last post are future predictions based upon a) current trends in population and gdp within the Eurozone, and b) on the assumption that if we stay, we will gradually become far more engaged as a result of that than we are now.
I mean, sure, you win some, you lose some. We screwed up on the fisheries thing (thanks Nige). But that doesn't mean it can't be reopened. It doesn't mean we can't demand changes and throw our weight around. Because we like to think of ourselves as being outside Europe, Britain tends to take a very stand-offish approach to the whole thing. We don't propose much in the way of policy. We don't dicker over minutae. If we stay, that will have to change, because make no mistake about it. The EU is changing, and if we're going to be part of it? We need to have our hand firmly on the steering wheel. And with our economic power, military, might, and global diplomatic influence, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot. Assuming we get some half-competent people involved over there that is, instead of the castoff political third rankers who everyone wants exiled from Britain or UKIP.
As an outsider, remains had better stop telling the leaves that they are in control of their destiny in the EU. It comes off as pretty insulting after looking at the numbers.
And with our economic power, military, might, and global diplomatic influence, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot.
A lot of remain supporters say that we don't have any of that anymore, which is why we have to let the EU handle things for us.
And like I said before, I think our power within the EU is only set to diminish.
Then they're fools who don't understand economics or military affairs, to put it bluntly. There's a lot of this 'we need the EU to operate' coming from remain, and a lot of 'the EU is only restraining us' from leave.
As ever though, the truth is somewhere in the middle. We have far more clout/leverage negotiating as a trade bloc, but we have less input in terms of exactly what is negotiated. If we left, we'd have full control, but less clout, so to speak. All things considered, the final result is about the same in terms of what is favourable for us in outcomes either way.
Scrabb wrote: As an outsider, remains had better stop telling the leaves that they are in control of their destiny in the EU. It comes off as pretty insulting after looking at the numbers.
Indeed.
A friend of mine from the U.K. that I met at an informal shoot some years ago sent me this in an e-mail. He's pro UKIP and pro-Out. The following is what influences his support for Brexit:
* Because we joined a Common Market, not a European superstate.
* Because TARIC adds 50% to the average British family's living costs over a year and wrecks free trade.
* Because CAP means we have to pay lazy European farmers to do nothing.
* Because CFP has wrecked the British fishing industry while doing nothing to maintain fishing stocks.
* Because the EU is the only trading bloc whose share of global GDP is shrinking (down from 24% when we joined to 13% now).
* Because most of our trade is outside the EU.
* Because every EU economy except Germany's is in full-on recession and literally cannot afford to buy our goods.
* Because, since 2008, we have added more jobs to our economy than every other country in the EU combined.
* Because we have no interest in handing our national sovereignty over to countries that have been our enemies for the last 1,000 years so we can help them oppose countries that share our language, culture and way of life.
* Because we value a tradition of democracy and individual liberty which simply does not exist in the other countries of the EU.
* Because we have no interest in having our pockets picked to pay for handouts to the collapsing economies of the Eurozone.
* Because the EU is inevitably going to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
* Because we are tired of European criminals migrating her to rob, steal and rape.
* Because our "friends" in the EU see the entire organisation as an excuse to conspire against us and steal from us.
* Because outside the EU we can actually trade on an even footing with friendly countries like Canada, Australia, the US and India instead of being trapped in an economic union where we must gak all over those countries in order to maintain our relationship with powerhouses like Malta, Portugal, Greece and Bulgaria.
And most of this is more true than the "Remain" crowd likes to admit.
Oh yeah, the Tories are not going to survive this referendum in one piece.
Also, remember the Austrian election where the right wing candidate came to within an inch of winning? The Commission said that they wouldn't be engaging with the right wing in any capacity. Well I just found out that there is an EU clause that says that if a member state deviates from 'constitutional norms', the EU has the right to deny them funding and lock them out of decision making processes.
Anyone else feel like this is open to massive abuse?
Future War Cultist wrote: Oh yeah, the Tories are not going to survive this referendum in one piece.
Also, remember the Austrian election where the right wing candidate came to within an inch of winning? The Commission said that they wouldn't be engaging with the right wing in any capacity. Well I just found out that there is an EU clause that says that if a member state deviates from 'constitutional norms', the EU has the right to deny them funding and lock them out of decision making processes.
Anyone else feel like this is open to massive abuse?
^
All sound reasons to leave.
Juncker was warning of 'consequences' if Austria had voted in that right-wing candidate, which tells you all you need to know about Juncker. How dare the Austrians vote express their democratic right to pick a candidate of their own choosing.
As for the Tories, even though I despise them, part of me would love to be a Tory rebel, plotting and scheming on the back benches
Juncker was warning of 'consequences' if Austria had voted in that right-wing candidate, which tells you all you need to know about Juncker. How dare the Austrians vote express their democratic right to pick a candidate of their own choosing.
"You can believe in any values you want, so long as they are ours". Sums up the EU in a nutshell.
Also, the SNP supporter I know is still being a hypocrite. He says that every single Brexiter is a xenophobic moronic scumbag etc. etc no matter who they are and whatever you say. Yet when a Scottish Nationalist says something embarrassing? No, that's only them, not all of us. And it's a smear to say otherwise so don't.
Future War Cultist wrote: Oh yeah, the Tories are not going to survive this referendum in one piece.
Also, remember the Austrian election where the right wing candidate came to within an inch of winning? The Commission said that they wouldn't be engaging with the right wing in any capacity. Well I just found out that there is an EU clause that says that if a member state deviates from 'constitutional norms', the EU has the right to deny them funding and lock them out of decision making processes.
Anyone else feel like this is open to massive abuse?
^
All sound reasons to leave.
Group Think is literally enshrined in the Constitution?
Its counter-productive and will do more to aid the Far Right than hinder them. Remember, Hitler and the Nazi's were suppressed and banned in their early days, and look how that ended up.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its counter-productive and will do more to aid the Far Right than hinder them. Remember, Hitler and the Nazi's were suppressed and banned in their early days, and look how that ended up.
So what you're saying is, suppress the far right, and they'll eventually be dealt with by America?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its counter-productive and will do more to aid the Far Right than hinder them. Remember, Hitler and the Nazi's were suppressed and banned in their early days, and look how that ended up.
So what you're saying is, suppress the far right, and they'll eventually be dealt with by America?
No. But considering that most of Europe is failing to meet its % of GDP NATO Defence spending targets, that is the logical conclusion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
And? The whole point of a democracy is that one person or group does not get to dictate the actions of the majority. Or are we not criticizing the EU for being too democratic for listening to the majority of MEPs rather than one country?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
I'm not surprised. At least the Dutch were given a voice on a matter, unlike the rest of us.
I know, right? If only we were given the opportunity to voice our opinions on a matter as a nation. We could call it some sort of "EU Referendum", and hold it on the 23rd of June!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
And? The whole point of a democracy is that one person or group does not get to dictate the actions of the majority. Or are we not criticizing the EU for being too democratic for listening to the majority of MEPs rather than one country?
But that's not at all what's happening is it? Only one member state out of 28 was allowed a vote on the issue. We don't know what the electorates of the other 27 states want, because they haven't been asked. That's not democracy.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
And? The whole point of a democracy is that one person or group does not get to dictate the actions of the majority. Or are we not criticizing the EU for being too democratic for listening to the majority of MEPs rather than one country?
But that's not at all what's happening is it? Only one member state out of 28 was allowed a vote on the issue. We don't know what the electorates of the other 27 states want, because they haven't been asked. That's not democracy.
It only riles up the masses. No need to bother them with the pesky minutiae of running an anti democratic institution.
Donald Tusk admits that total integration is the aim of the EU and that they are aware that they are doing this against the will of the people of the EU
'Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm'
So it appears that the claims that the Brexiter were 'living in fantasy land' when they claimed that the EU was aimed at total integration were wrong, that is the EU aim (which I think we all knew anyway) - as said straight from the organisations head.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
I'm not surprised. At least the Dutch were given a voice on a matter, unlike the rest of us.
I know, right? If only we were given the opportunity to voice our opinions on a matter as a nation. We could call it some sort of "EU Referendum", and hold it on the 23rd of June!
We're talking about a specific issue, Ukraine's accession to the EU, not British membership of the EU. We have not been given a voice on this issue.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
I'm not surprised. At least the Dutch were given a voice on a matter, unlike the rest of us.
I know, right? If only we were given the opportunity to voice our opinions on a matter as a nation. We could call it some sort of "EU Referendum", and hold it on the 23rd of June!
We're talking about a specific issue, Ukraine's accession to the EU, not British membership of the EU. We have not been given a voice on this issue.
Except that he very specifically typed "A matter" not "this matter", implying that we are not consulted about anything at all, something which is proven false by the subject of this thread.
What is the point of the EU parliament if it cannot pass or enact any laws and exists only to rubber stamp what the EU commission presents to it.
As was said before, to give the appearance of democracy. Remember that even if the parliament voted down legislation, the commission can just find a way to get it through anyway. There's a reason why people call them the EUSSR. It's disturbingly similar to the old Soviet Union in how it's organised and how decisions are made.
Goliath wrote: I know, right? If only we were given the opportunity to voice our opinions on a matter as a nation. We could call it some sort of "EU Referendum", and hold it on the 23rd of June!
You're being deliberately obtuse. If the EU was more democratically accountable, and listened to the people more often rather than carrying out the agenda of an unelected cabal that's detached from the people we might be more inclined to stick with them. Because we aren't asked about any big decisions we're now left asking if we should even be in it anymore.
EDIT:
Now I see you're complaining about a very specific word. OK, you got me. It was supposed to be 'the matter' but it came out wrong. Probably my tablets autocorrect.
What is the point of the EU parliament if it cannot pass or enact any laws and exists only to rubber stamp what the EU commission presents to it.
As was said before, to give the appearance of democracy. Remember that even if the parliament voted down legislation, the commission can just find a way to get it through anyway. There's a reason why people call them the EUSSR. It's disturbingly similar to the old Soviet Union in how it's organised and how decisions are made.
Goliath wrote: I know, right? If only we were given the opportunity to voice our opinions on a matter as a nation. We could call it some sort of "EU Referendum", and hold it on the 23rd of June!
You're being deliberately obtuse. If the EU was more democratically accountable, and listened to the people more often rather than carrying out the agenda of an unelected cabal that's detached from the people we might be more inclined to stick with them.
EDIT:
Now I see you're complaining about a very specific word. OK, you got me. It was supposed to be 'the matter' but it came out wrong. Probably my tablets autocorrect.
That's a real bug bear for you isn't it?
I'm autistic. I've learned to not try and assume what people mean if they might have made a mistake, so I base my arguments around the literal interpretation of what they've typed.
If they mis-typed then fine, it gets corrected, but it means that I don't misinterpret what people have written.
In this case it looks like you mis-typed, in which case I'll retract my point, but counter with the fact that we don't get consulted on UK legislation either.
And if national governments enact legislation we don't like we can get rid of them in elections. You can't do that with the EU.
Do you have any response to the accusations about the EU's lack of democratic accountability or are you just going to continue to monitor my posts for mistakes?
8 March 1973: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland (yes to remaining part of the UK)
5 June 1975: UK – Membership of the European Community referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Community (yes)
1 March 1979: Scotland – Scottish devolution referendum on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (40 per cent of the electorate had to vote yes in the referendum, although a small majority voted yes this was short of the 40 per cent threshold required to enact devolution)
1 March 1979: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
11 September 1997: Scotland – Scottish devolution referenda on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether the Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (both referendums received a yes vote)
18 September 1997: Wales – Welsh devolution referendum on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
7 May 1998: London – Greater London Authority referendum on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes)
22 May 1998: Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
3 March 2011: Wales - Welsh devolution referendum on whether the National Assembly for Wales should gain the power to legislate on a wider range of matters (yes)
5 May 2011: UK – referendum on whether to change the voting system for electing MPs to the House of Commons from first past the post to the alternative vote (no, first past the post will continue to be used to elect MPs to the House of Commons)
18 September 2014: Scotland – referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country (no, the electorate voted 55 per cent to 45 per cent in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK.
The key point about these referenda is that the government has followed the will of the people after one - the welsh even got a second go at getting their own parliment!
Future War Cultist wrote: And if national governments enact legislation we don't like we can get rid of them in elections. You can't do that with the EU.
Do you have any response to the accusations about the EU's lack of democratic accountability or are you just going to continue to monitor my posts for mistakes?
No, you can't get rid of them in elections. You can vote out your local MP, but the government as a whole is determined by the overall distribution of MPs, not by electing a specific government or PM.
I don't like any of the policies that the tories have instituted since they were voted in, but I can't just go "I want to get rid of David Cameron" and vote against him. I need to vote out my local conservative MP and hope that enough people agree with me to cause Cameron to be ousted.
It's the same mechanism with Europe. We don't specifically for Juncker, we vote in/out the local MEPs, the distribution of whom determines who is president of the commission. If you don't want Juncker in power then in the next election you can vote for an MEP who doesn't support Juncker, and hope that enough of Europe agrees with you to cause Juncker to be ousted.
As mentioned in the post above, I didn't "monitor your post for mistakes" I responded to it based on the words written. That you mis-typed and wrote something that you didn't intend to is not my fault.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember that Dutch referendum in which the Dutch people rejected the Ukraine treaty? Yeah, the EU is ignoring it and proceeding anyway.
And? The whole point of a democracy is that one person or group does not get to dictate the actions of the majority. Or are we not criticizing the EU for being too democratic for listening to the majority of MEPs rather than one country?
But that's not at all what's happening is it? Only one member state out of 28 was allowed a vote on the issue. We don't know what the electorates of the other 27 states want, because they haven't been asked. That's not democracy.
Yes it is democracy. Just because you didn't get a referendum on something does not mean it is not a democracy. Just because one country decided to have a vote it does not mean that we all should. Like it or not the EU is democratic by any reasonable definition. Repeating "the EU is not democratic" again and again does not make it true.
Those all go along exactly the same lines "it's not democratic because I say so". No one has provided any evidence that the EU is not democratic, just conspiracy and ignorance of how the EU works.
Can't the yanks just keep their noses out of this?
Can we re-use this for all the times the poms post in US politics/current events threads?
If you like. I generally don't comment on the US politics threads.
In any case, what I'm specifically referring to (and should have made clear) is foreign political leaders sticking their noses in and interfering in the democratic elections and referenda of other nations. Obama etc. I resent being told what to think and how to vote by my own country's leader, never mind foreign leaders.
I'm sure you can sympathise with the US Presidential election thats going on.
Steve steveson wrote: Those all go along exactly the same lines "it's not democratic because I say so". No one has provided any evidence that the EU is not democratic, just conspiracy and ignorance of how the EU works.
At best, a single nation has control over less a tenth of the European Parliament and 1/28 of the European Council.
As far as democracy goes, it's about as close to undemocratic as you can get.
Source: I spent a year of my law degree studying the European Union. I know exactly why it works and that is why I want to leave.
Steve steveson wrote: Those all go along exactly the same lines "it's not democratic because I say so". No one has provided any evidence that the EU is not democratic, just conspiracy and ignorance of how the EU works.
Have you read through this thread? I could have sworn people posted a dozen or so examples of the EU's lack of democracy.
The larger an electorate is, the less valuable each individual vote is and the influence that voters wield.
In the UK, I am one voter out of some 45 million. My vote is weighed up against the other voters of my constituency, and then my constituency's choice of MP is weighed up against the chosen MP's of some 600 or so other constituencies.
Whereas the EU has a population of 500 million. I can't find a number for the size of the EU electorate, so let assume 2/3. 333 million, which is a low estimate. My vote is now not just being weighed against the other votes of my UK EP constituency (North East, which is a lot bigger than the UK Parliament constituency) and against the other constituencies of Britain, its being weighed against the votes of 300 million other Europeans.
Thats a massive dilution of my electoral influence. Even if the EU is democratic, I don't care. I don't want to be part of such a huge electorate, because it diminishes my influence as a voter over the government(s) that govern my country and enact the laws I have to obey. The largest electorate I wish to be a part of is the nation state. Britain. I do not want a political union and integration with 450 million other people.
Democracy does not work on a large scale. The larger an electorate becomes, the less valuable our votes become and the wider the gap between the governed and the governors.
Steve steveson wrote: Those all go along exactly the same lines "it's not democratic because I say so". No one has provided any evidence that the EU is not democratic, just conspiracy and ignorance of how the EU works.
Have you read through this thread? I could have sworn people posted a dozen or so examples of the EU's lack of democracy.
You know, if you'd just stick to arguing that the dilution of the value of votes is bad I think you'd have a much stronger point than claiming that the EU isn't democratic. There's a difference between the two points.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know, if you'd just stick to arguing that the dilution of the value of votes is bad I think you'd have a much stronger point than claiming that the EU isn't democratic. There's a difference between the two points.
Well, no, the two points are not mutually exclusive.
We elect the Members of the European Parliament, but the European Parliaments powers are very limited, hence the complaints about the democratic deficit. If we did away with the Commission (unelected bureaucrats appointed by politicians), and treated the European Council as the upper House of the Parliament (like an equivalent of a Senate or the House of Lords) and transferred most powers to the lower house/Parliament, that would go some way to addressing the democratic deficit.
As it is, the EU has a veneer of democracy, but the balance of power favours the unelected bureaucracies, not the directly elected representatives. And thats not good enough. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, the EU is not democratic enough for our liking.
If its hyperbole to claim the EU is not democratic at all, its also hyperbole to claim the EU is some shining beacon of democracy to the world. The answer lies somewhere in between.
The EU sadly has a track record of ignoreing referendum vote - just look at what happened when the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, and before you jump up and say that it was democratic because 27 nations voted it in the rule originally said that ALL nations had to vote yes, until the Irish said no so the EU decided to just change the rules.
As for democratic there are arguments on both sides - but what you cannot argue is this simple fact. If something is bad for Britain and good for the rest of the EU then Britain will probably be forced to do it whilst we remain in the EU. Even if 100% of the British electorate and our MEPs didn't want it we would get out voted, I do not like this fact - I fail to see how this is any good for Britain.
So regardless of the fact of if you think the EU is democratic or not (I personally think not but you may disagree) the simple fact is that for the people of Britain it IS less democratic than our own governement because even with a 100% vote from us we could still end up being rules by people we don't want. Maybe you are happy with this situation, I am not.
And considering that the President of the EU just today came out and admitted that they 'forgot' that they were supposed to enact the will of the people (see my link on page 46) then you can surely see how many people feel it is undemocratic.
Yes, I've been sharing that link on face book. No comment from myself was necessary, I just quoted straight from the horse's mouth.
"Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm." -Donald Tusk, President of the European Council.
There are 3 things that I picked up on from this sentence alone.
1) He admits that their aim is total integration. A United States of Europe as it were. 2) He admits that European voters do not want this. 3) He describes ordinary voters as "Ordinary people". They're an out of touch Elite, and they know it.
European Council president Donald Tusk has warned EU leaders in the bluntest terms that their “utopian” illusions are tearing Europe apart, and that any attempt to seize on Brexit to force through yet more integration would be a grave mistake.
In a passionate plea to Europe’s top conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool’s paradise and provoking the eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries.
“It is us who today are responsible,” he said, speaking at a conclave of Christian-Democrat and centre-right leaders in Luxembourg. “Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.”
....“Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euroskepticism, or even Euro-pessimism, have become an alternative to those illusions,” the Council president said.
“We will either understand that the views of Angela [Merkel] and Viktor [Orbán] are compatible with each other and only together can they provide a full answer, or people will search for other radical and brutal recipes for how to solve the crisis.” Merkel and Orbán who have clashed over migration, are both EPP members.
Tusk’s predecessor as Council president, Herman Van Rompuy, said: “We can no longer be in agreement in Brussels yet blame Brussels whenever things go wrong.”....
In a passionate plea to Europe’s top conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool’s paradise and provoking the eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries.
The EU's lack of democratic accountability stems from a much wider problem; a complete and utter inability to trust the 'little people' to do anything for themselves.
All those rules about bendy bananas and straight cucumbers and how to legally define what chocolate is just go to show that they are completely incapable of letting ordinary people make up their own minds on what's acceptable to them. If the person felt that the fruit on offer was too curved or whatever then they don't have to buy it. They can simply pass and go look for ones that are more to their standards. But no, that's simply not acceptable to the EU. You have to pay through your taxes for them to sit down in long drawn out committees to figure it out for you and issue a directive.
If we were free of that crap we could have one simple rule...is it toxic? No? OK then, this is food.
OK, maybe that's a little simplistic but sometimes I think that 90% of laws are laws for the sake of laws.
In a passionate plea to Europe’s top conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool’s paradise and provoking the eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries.
“It is us who today are responsible,”
That...is remarkably self aware.
I wouldn't go that far, he did refer to the Leave side as "anti-Liberal" in his speech.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I too dislike quality control regulations. Enforcing standards of what consumers think things should be like.
Regulations such as the controls on size shape and colour etc of food stuffs are just measures which growers, producers and suppliers want so they can maximise their profits. A lot of regulation is also just a front for protecting manufacturing. You see it a lot in tenders for for government contracts. Specific manufacturing tolerances and measures are used which favours a limited number of bidders - those bidders also happen to be the ones pushing for such regulations....
In a passionate plea to Europe’s top conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool’s paradise and provoking the eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries.
“It is us who today are responsible,”
That...is remarkably self aware.
I wouldn't go that far, he did refer to the Leave side as "anti-Liberal" in his speech.
Anyone against the EU is still a radical uneducated heathen.
Steve steveson wrote: Those all go along exactly the same lines "it's not democratic because I say so". No one has provided any evidence that the EU is not democratic, just conspiracy and ignorance of how the EU works.
At best, a single nation has control over less a tenth of the European Parliament and 1/28 of the European Council.
As far as democracy goes, it's about as close to undemocratic as you can get.
Source: I spent a year of my law degree studying the European Union. I know exactly why it works and that is why I want to leave.
So I guess citizens of other countries don't count as voters By that argument, Scotland can only have 1/9 of the seats in the House of Commons so the UK isn't much of a democracy either?
I feel that since non of the major countries able to control the EU through the parliament, council and commission is one of it's better features. Currently we already see the problems now Merkel is able dominate decision making on an informal bilateral basis as both Hollande and Cameron are lame ducks in the EU.
Antario wrote: So I guess citizens of other countries don't count as voters By that argument, Scotland can only have 1/9 of the seats in the House of Commons so the UK isn't much of a democracy either?
For the UK as a rule it is democratic, but yes, Scotland/Wales and NI can and often do get outvoted - which is why they have steadily campaigned to get more power for themselves over the last 100 years. Indeed Scotland came very close to voting out of the UK because they don't like the current setup, which makes me laugh when I see that so many of them want to stay in the EU which is even worse.
Now the UK is giving more and more power to the devolved nations (maybe not as quick as they would like, but they are slowly doing it) - on the other hand the EU is gradually taking more and more power from it's member states. So your comparison is a little flawed.
What a shambles. Let's hope this is quickly nipped in the bud for the sake of the referendum's integrity.
The Government's fethed up big time now. Even if Remain wins, the Leave side now have their Casus Beli. They can claim, with justification, that the vote is null and void because of voting fraud. Even if we vote to remain, this is going to be an ongoing controversy with lots of recrimination and legal challenges for years.
What a shambles. Let's hope this is quickly nipped in the bud for the sake of the referendum's integrity.
The Government's fethed up big time now. Even if Remain wins, the Leave side now have their Casus Beli. They can claim, with justification, that the vote is null and void because of voting fraud. Even if we vote to remain, this is going to be an ongoing controversy with lots of recrimination and legal challenges for years.
I was really hoping for a fair vote. Feths sake.
Totally agree. I don't believe for a minute that there is a conspiracy to 'steal' the vote from the OUT campaign, but I can understand why people would be angry. It's all about perception.
Frozocrone wrote: Polling cards =/= vote. You need to be registered on the electoral register to receive the voting ballot.
We have to be vigilant for people that lie about their nationality when registering, but in no way have EU nationals just been handed a vote.
Totally agree, but given that a number of Tory constituencies are being investigated over expenses fraud from last year's GE, and given that that we now have this problem springing up, I don't blame people for thinking that Britain is turning into a banana republic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the other hand, no matter who wins there's going to be people yelling about voter fraud.
Well, considering the revelations coming out from last year's GE, they may have a point.
It all depends on the proof of identity the polling stations will demand and how vigorously they are checked.
Which all seems rather 'last line of defence' to me. checks should have been undertaken with the issue of the polling card not left to a volunteer on polling day. I don't imagine there will be retrospective checking.
Not that I think theres anything in the story but can't resist
If there is election fraud, it will be eligible voters that did not vote for whatever reason whos vote is used, not non eligible people who were given voting papers. The leak of a story like this could well be a red herring to get any accusations looking in the wrong spot. I have no doubt if leave loses, that some of the leave MPs will take the bait too.
The best way to coverup a conspiracy is controlling what conspiracies people listen to. Control both the official version of events and the conspiracy and youve already controlled the situation.
Regulations such as the controls on size shape and colour etc of food stuffs are just measures which growers, producers and suppliers want so they can maximise their profits. A lot of regulation is also just a front for protecting manufacturing. You see it a lot in tenders for for government contracts. Specific manufacturing tolerances and measures are used which favours a limited number of bidders - those bidders also happen to be the ones pushing for such regulations....
I figured that it would be something like this. This is what people mean when they say that the EU is a cabal made up of the national leaders, unelected Eurocrats and big business. The petty over regulations are just there to put all business into the hands of a few big companies. It's very simple; bring in loads of expensive regulations that hamper your business slightly but cripple your smaller competitors who can't afford to deal with them.
I read in the news today that Farage is planning on leading a flotilla of boats up the Thames as part of a pro-Brexit rally!
Say what you want about the guy, but he's comedy gold: trapped in a pub in Edinburgh, plane crashes, 'assassination' attempts, dodgy interviews, chucked out the EU parliament etc etc
Thos youtube videos of Farage always make me laugh - espeically when he took on Nick Clegg.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
I'd hope that the more principled of them would happily lose their seats if it meant stopping the country sliding into utter ruin.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
I'd hope that the more principled of them would happily lose their seats if it meant stopping the country sliding into utter ruin.
If the vote is BREXIT, then the British people will demand no less than BREXIT. Shabby parliamentary deals, cooked up in Westminster backrooms to keep us in on a technically will, inevitably, lead to trouble, and nobody wants to go down that route...
As for Farage's flotilla, I bet a virtual £10 that Farage's boat hits an iceberg in the Thames
Or a WWII UXB silently waiting to sink the flotilla
In other news, some polls are showing Leave in the lead. Game on! Though with the drubbing Cameron got on those debates, it is unsurprising. Watching him squirm as his spin was dismantled by the public was just delicious!
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
Called it a few pages back.
IMO, this is the most likely outcome in the event of an out vote.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
Called it a few pages back.
IMO, this is the most likely outcome in the event of an out vote.
It's also the outcome that's most likely to lead to riots and civil disorder
notprop wrote: It all depends on the proof of identity the polling stations will demand and how vigorously they are checked.
Which all seems rather 'last line of defence' to me. checks should have been undertaken with the issue of the polling card not left to a volunteer on polling day. I don't imagine there will be retrospective checking.
Will they check for proof of identity at the polling stations? They don't for general elections. And what about postal votes? If they've sent those out to ineligible people by accident...
notprop wrote: It all depends on the proof of identity the polling stations will demand and how vigorously they are checked.
Which all seems rather 'last line of defence' to me. checks should have been undertaken with the issue of the polling card not left to a volunteer on polling day. I don't imagine there will be retrospective checking.
Will they check for proof of identity at the polling stations? They don't for general elections. And what about postal votes? If they've sent those out to ineligible people by accident...
If there is a query on identity then identity will be asked for.
It seems however that the Electoral register will note what the voter is entitled to vote for and includes anything anomalous information.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
I'd hope that the more principled of them would happily lose their seats if it meant stopping the country sliding into utter ruin.
I'm guessing you are voting remain? The idea of just ignoring the will of the people because 'you know best' is exactly the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
The worst thing is these MPs don't even see what would happen - if the established parties went ahead and decided to neglect the will of the people and use a back door to keep our connection to the EU we can expect a massive surge to UKIP in 2020.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
I'd hope that the more principled of them would happily lose their seats if it meant stopping the country sliding into utter ruin.
I'm guessing you are voting remain? The idea of just ignoring the will of the people because 'you know best' is exactly the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
The worst thing is these MPs don't even see what would happen - if the established parties went ahead and decided to neglect the will of the people and use a back door to keep our connection to the EU we can expect a massive surge to UKIP in 2020.
The latest YouGov poll gives BREXIT a 4 point lead, so it's no wonder that Pro-EUMPs are planning a campaign of guerrilla warfare.
They can play their Parliamentary games all they want, but if the British public think they're getting a raw deal, then most of these MPs can pack their bags in 2020.
I'd hope that the more principled of them would happily lose their seats if it meant stopping the country sliding into utter ruin.
I'm guessing you are voting remain? The idea of just ignoring the will of the people because 'you know best' is exactly the kind of thing that the EU does all the time.
The worst thing is these MPs don't even see what would happen - if the established parties went ahead and decided to neglect the will of the people and use a back door to keep our connection to the EU we can expect a massive surge to UKIP in 2020.
The latest YouGov poll gives BREXIT a 4 point lead, so it's no wonder that Pro-EUMPs are planning a campaign of guerrilla warfare.
More and more papers are running the story that MPs would try and keep Britain in, even if we voted to leave. Well, if it ever came to that, I'd stay out of London this June - we could end up witnessing the House of Commons being stormed by the British Public.
Blimey gents, this is all getting a bit much isn't it? Let's leave the viva la revolucion until after the vote? You're all making us start to sound like a third world South American country!
Ketara wrote: Blimey gents, this is all getting a bit much isn't it? Let's leave the viva la revolucion until after the vote? You're all making us start to sound like a third world South American country!
I dunno, I find it a refreshing change from the similarly huge levels of 'Vote Remain' hype I get from being an avid Twitter user. Every third tweet is someone retweeting a complaint about Leave voters or making comments about how anyone voting Leave must be delusional.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More and more papers are running the story that MPs would try and keep Britain in, even if we voted to leave. Well, if it ever came to that, I'd stay out of London this June - we could end up witnessing the House of Commons being stormed by the British Public.
That will not happen, at least in any numbers which would approach anything like representing the british public.
Ketara wrote: Blimey gents, this is all getting a bit much isn't it? Let's leave the viva la revolucion until after the vote? You're all making us start to sound like a third world South American country!
It's British tradition to storm the house of commons every hundred years
Chartism, suffragettes, New Model army...l
On a serious note Ketara, if Britain votes to stay, I'll be unhappy, but I'll accept the result and defend that result, because I'm a democrat, but if these reports are true, and I hope to God they are not, and MPs defy the will of the British people...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More and more papers are running the story that MPs would try and keep Britain in, even if we voted to leave. Well, if it ever came to that, I'd stay out of London this June - we could end up witnessing the House of Commons being stormed by the British Public.
That will not happen, at least in any numbers which would approach anything like representing the british public.
Not least because most of the British public wouldn't be able to get there easily; imagine how packed the trains would be, if they even turn up on time or you can afford to get one into London at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More and more papers are running the story that MPs would try and keep Britain in, even if we voted to leave. Well, if it ever came to that, I'd stay out of London this June - we could end up witnessing the House of Commons being stormed by the British Public.
That will not happen, at least in any numbers which would approach anything like representing the british public.
Not least because most of the British public wouldn't be able to get there easily; imagine how packed the trains would be, if they even turn up on time or you can afford to get one into London at all.
Exactly. And then most of the tickets people bought wouldn't work when they tried to get through the barriers so they have to all queue up for the single barrier with a member of staff on checking tickets. It'll make the Munich Putsch seem like a roaring success!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More and more papers are running the story that MPs would try and keep Britain in, even if we voted to leave. Well, if it ever came to that, I'd stay out of London this June - we could end up witnessing the House of Commons being stormed by the British Public.
That will not happen, at least in any numbers which would approach anything like representing the british public.
I hope to God it doesn't happen, but if that scenario ever played out, there would be a lot of angry people. Who knows what would happen...
If they do this; a general election should be called so people can say if they're happy with their MP ignoring their decision. If not...I think we'll be within our rights to get a bit more 'forceful' with them.
Future War Cultist wrote: If they do this; a general election should be called so people can say if they're happy with their MP ignoring their decision. If not...I think we'll be within our rights to get a bit more 'forceful' with them.
You beat me to it. We would need a snap General Election to sort this out. Only then would MPs have the blessing of the British public to do this, if they were elected on that pledge.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You beat me to it. We would need a snap General Election to sort this out. Only then would MPs have the blessing of the British public to do this, if they were elected on that pledge.
There is the risk of 'voter fatigue' but that's the MPs fault for ignoring the voters.
notprop wrote: [starts hoarding glass, plywood, scaffold poles, brick bats, empty milk bottles and petrol]
Roll Up, Roll Up, getchya window protection and replacement here.......
[Next Street}
Roll Up, Roll Up, getchya democracy brand emergency window breakers and yer bottles o' Freedom Fire here.......
Should be the start of November by time things get going - Perfeck!
A quote Napoleon made about Britain and shopkeepers springs to mind.....
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It's British tradition to storm the house of commons every hundred years
I dunno, the whole 'storming thing' seems very...well, continental. The Bastille, the Reichstag, the Winter Palace, and so forth. I'd much rather just lob a half eaten chip butty/half a dozen eggs at my local MP's house and key his tyres every other week, you know? Perhaps push him off the train and back onto the platform during rush hour?Or, if we get really serious, get a group of old ladies to hit him with handbags and scold him angrily. You know, that sort of thing. I'm sure Gillian Duffy needs something to do.
Avatar 720 wrote:Not least because most of the British public wouldn't be able to get there easily; imagine how packed the trains would be, if they even turn up on time or you can afford to get one into London at all.
if Britain leaves the Euro it will cause sconomical disturbances of which Europe will suffer the hardest with Euro dropping in value being potentially disastrous, but now if Greece left the Euro the Euro might go up in value but this stems from an economic strength, the UK is one of the strongest economical links in the EU, without it, the EU will suffer.
Asterios wrote: if Britain leaves the Euro it will cause sconomical disturbances of which Europe will suffer the hardest with Euro dropping in value being potentially disastrous, but now if Greece left the Euro the Euro might go up in value but this stems from an economic strength, the UK is one of the strongest economical links in the EU, without it, the EU will suffer.
The UK is not part of the Eurozone and there is little reason to a Brexit will effect the value of the Euro other than some short term fluctuations. Currency value is primarily driven by exports and fiscal policy, neither is likely to change overnight.
Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
A weaken'ed Euro... would that necessarily be a bad thing?
That means, the current debt would be cheaper to pay off... no? Such that, it may be the lifeline to get the other member states back on more solid grounds...
Which would mean that the UK Sterlings would be stronger, hypothetically... which, may depress UK exports a bit (UK goods/services being more expensive).
Please note that this isn't an endorsement nor rejection of a Brexit... I'm not confident that I know the particulars to make an informed decision.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
The EU contribution is a trivial amount on national budgets, most members spend more on development aid. Trade might be negatively affected a bit depending on what political arrangement is decided upon post exit , but even in a worst case scenario, only Ireland is exposed to the UK to any significant degree. An emotional response to a member leaving the Eurozone could lead to some short term volatility in the markets but can't effect the economic fundamentals. So yeah, virtually no effect at all.
A weaken'ed Euro... would that necessarily be a bad thing?
That means, the current debt would be cheaper to pay off... no? Such that, it may be the lifeline to get the other member states back on more solid grounds...
Which would mean that the UK Sterlings would be stronger, hypothetically... which, may depress UK exports a bit (UK goods/services being more expensive).
Please note that this isn't an endorsement nor rejection of a Brexit... I'm not confident that I know the particulars to make an informed decision.
No, it wouldn't be a bad thing for a while as it improve exports which could help the recovery (even though it negatively affects purchasing power over time). However it's unlikely to happen as the Euro remains very stable even with the ECB hitting full QE as most countries have chosen austerity programs instead of deficit spending to deal with the down turn.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
The EU contribution is a trivial amount on national budgets, most members spend more on development aid. Trade might be negatively effected a bit depending on what political arrangement is decided upon post exit , but even in a worst case scenario, only Ireland is exposed to the UK on any significant degree. An emotional response to a member leaving the Eurozone could lead to some short term volatility in the markets but can't effect the economic fundamentals. So yeah, virtually no effect at all.
.
The current contribution to the EU budget is around 1.8% of what the UK spends in a year. Not a vast amount on a national level for us, but certainly not a negligible sum in total. It would be a far higher proportion of a less wealthy countries income.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
The EU contribution is a trivial amount on national budgets, most members spend more on development aid. Trade might be negatively effected a bit depending on what political arrangement is decided upon post exit , but even in a worst case scenario, only Ireland is exposed to the UK on any significant degree. An emotional response to a member leaving the Eurozone could lead to some short term volatility in the markets but can't effect the economic fundamentals. So yeah, virtually no effect at all.
.
The current contribution to the EU budget is around 1.8% of what the UK spends in a year. Not a vast amount on a national level for us, but certainly not a negligible sum in total. It would be a far higher proportion of a less wealthy countries income.
Even so, a roughly 10 billion pound reduction of the EU budget isn't going to affect the value of the Euro in the slightest. It just means some farmers will miss out on a bit of subsidy, poor regions will receive less infrastructure, and some conservation projects will be scrapped.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
The EU contribution is a trivial amount on national budgets, most members spend more on development aid. Trade might be negatively effected a bit depending on what political arrangement is decided upon post exit , but even in a worst case scenario, only Ireland is exposed to the UK on any significant degree. An emotional response to a member leaving the Eurozone could lead to some short term volatility in the markets but can't effect the economic fundamentals. So yeah, virtually no effect at all.
.
The current contribution to the EU budget is around 1.8% of what the UK spends in a year. Not a vast amount on a national level for us, but certainly not a negligible sum in total. It would be a far higher proportion of a less wealthy countries income.
Even so, a roughly 10 billion pound reduction of the EU budget isn't going to affect the value of the Euro in the slightest. It just means some farmers will miss out on a bit of subsidy, poor regions will receive less infrastructure, and some conservation projects will be scrapped.
but when you combine it with the economical issues going on in Greece or Spain or France even, it could be enough and most likely will be enough to destabilize the Euro as a whole.
but when you combine it with the economical issues going on in Greece or Spain or France even, it could be enough and most likely will be enough to destabilize the Euro as a whole.
Depends on what you mean by 'destabilise'. Currencies 'destabilise', in that they lose value, about as easily as my downstairs bog toilet seat, namely every other week. Markets get jittery all the time.
We're not part of the EU, so us leaving won't have a direct impact on the Euro, it's still being used in just as many countries as it was before, and still guaranteed by just as many governments as it was before. It might lose some minimal (and it will be minimal) value on a longer term basis due to the indirect effect of Brexit reducing the size of the common economic trade area (and all that entails), but as a currency, it's still as stable as it was before. The Euro has massive problems, but brexit isn't particularly one of them.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
The EU contribution is a trivial amount on national budgets, most members spend more on development aid. Trade might be negatively effected a bit depending on what political arrangement is decided upon post exit , but even in a worst case scenario, only Ireland is exposed to the UK on any significant degree. An emotional response to a member leaving the Eurozone could lead to some short term volatility in the markets but can't effect the economic fundamentals. So yeah, virtually no effect at all.
.
The current contribution to the EU budget is around 1.8% of what the UK spends in a year. Not a vast amount on a national level for us, but certainly not a negligible sum in total. It would be a far higher proportion of a less wealthy countries income.
Even so, a roughly 10 billion pound reduction of the EU budget isn't going to affect the value of the Euro in the slightest. It just means some farmers will miss out on a bit of subsidy, poor regions will receive less infrastructure, and some conservation projects will be scrapped.
but when you combine it with the economical issues going on in Greece or Spain or France even, it could be enough and most likely will be enough to destabilize the Euro as a whole.
The only reason why Greece was a danger to the Euro was because a lot of EU commercial banks were exposed to Greek banks and/or Greek government debt and a default could bring down the whole banking system. That risk is gone now permanently whatever happens to Greece in the near future. France and Spain face painful reforms of their labor markets in the coming years but that is nothing new.
For the same measure I can't see much happen with the UK economy and pound sterling in case of a Brexit. The UK was already on the periphery of the EU as it's not part of Schengen or the Euro so little changes there. The only two major headaches are services and the legal status of UK residents in the EU and vice versa but there is two years to reach some form of agreement anyway.
notprop wrote: Other than the imminent loss of revenue for the the EU, loss of trade, reduced confindemce in the Euro because a major backer of it's parent entity has withdrawn.
Yeah, virtually no effect at all.
The EU contribution is a trivial amount on national budgets, most members spend more on development aid. Trade might be negatively effected a bit depending on what political arrangement is decided upon post exit , but even in a worst case scenario, only Ireland is exposed to the UK on any significant degree. An emotional response to a member leaving the Eurozone could lead to some short term volatility in the markets but can't effect the economic fundamentals. So yeah, virtually no effect at all.
.
The current contribution to the EU budget is around 1.8% of what the UK spends in a year. Not a vast amount on a national level for us, but certainly not a negligible sum in total. It would be a far higher proportion of a less wealthy countries income.
Even so, a roughly 10 billion pound reduction of the EU budget isn't going to affect the value of the Euro in the slightest. It just means some farmers will miss out on a bit of subsidy, poor regions will receive less infrastructure, and some conservation projects will be scrapped.
but when you combine it with the economical issues going on in Greece or Spain or France even, it could be enough and most likely will be enough to destabilize the Euro as a whole.
The only reason why Greece was a danger to the Euro was because a lot of EU commercial banks were exposed to Greek banks and/or Greek government debt and a default could bring down the whole banking system. That risk is gone now permanently whatever happens to Greece in the near future. France and Spain face painful reforms of their labor markets in the coming years but that is nothing new.
For the same measure I can't see much happen with the UK economy and pound sterling in case of a Brexit. The UK was already on the periphery of the EU as it's not part of Schengen or the Euro so little changes there. The only two major headaches are services and the legal status of UK residents in the EU and vice versa but there is two years to reach some form of agreement anyway.
The UK leaving would see the EU project vulnerable to further referenda. Something EU leaders have publicly been dismissive of.
Recent talk of reform would have to be backed up by deeds. Which is a PR nightmare for the EU as it is tantamount to admitting the project has been flawed from the start. They would be fire fighting as far right and left parties are further guaranteed to gain ground on the back of the UK leaving.
The TTIP will still be a bone of contention and with more recognition of its prospective regulatory changes the EU will have to battle to keep it on track - The UK leaving could actually see the EU "put to the back of the que" as growing concern for the somewhat closed negotiations grows.
There are a lot more problems that The EU faces as the UK negotiates its exit. These are going to be problematic for the the performance of the Euro..
And Greece is a danger for the EU as saving Greece goes against EU rules regarding how much government debt a country may have...60% of GDP was the rule...
Italy is running at an unsustainable 160% or so of GDP and could be the next country needing a financial bailout...these were verboten under EU law too....
but you are looking at each instance by itself, you pick up a rock and put it in your pocket,you don't really notice it and it does not effect you, you pick up another rock and put it in your pocket, now you notice they are there, but not really effecting you, then you put another rock in your pocket and so on and so on until it becomes noticeable and effects you. you get enough incidents happening and things will take notice, then there is the VAT situation, how will VAT be handled between Europe and the UK now? how will trade and travel be handled? how will the Chunnel be effected? so many questions all of which can effect things.
Asterios wrote: but you are looking at each instance by itself, you pick up a rock and put it in your pocket,you don't really notice it and it does not effect you, you pick up another rock and put it in your pocket, now you notice they are there, but not really effecting you, then you put another rock in your pocket and so on and so on until it becomes noticeable and effects you. you get enough incidents happening and things will take notice, then there is the VAT situation, how will VAT be handled between Europe and the UK now? how will trade and travel be handled? how will the Chunnel be effected? so many questions all of which can effect things.
Trade can carry on relatively unchanged. Making items for the EU means adhering to certain regulations. the same regulations which other trading blocks have to adhere to as well.
It is in the EU and UKs interests to change very little regarding trade and travel.
As a Brit I don't expect my travel to EU countries to change that dramatically.
Asterios wrote: but you are looking at each instance by itself, you pick up a rock and put it in your pocket,you don't really notice it and it does not effect you, you pick up another rock and put it in your pocket, now you notice they are there, but not really effecting you, then you put another rock in your pocket and so on and so on until it becomes noticeable and effects you. you get enough incidents happening and things will take notice, then there is the VAT situation, how will VAT be handled between Europe and the UK now? how will trade and travel be handled? how will the Chunnel be effected? so many questions all of which can effect things.
What do you mean the 'VAT situation'? What rate our Government chooses to set Value Added Tax at after Brexit will have absolutely no impact on the Euro, and neither will an extra twenty minute wait time at the Channel.
I appreciate you are interested to see how things will impact on other things, but what rate we set VAT at will affect the value of the Euro about as much as that bottle of cider I had to drink last night. The two are really not related beyond the concept that they both have something to do with money. If we were still in the EU, the European set rate of VAT would have slightly (and really, slightly) more relevance, but our VAT after brexit would have nothing to do with it.
Asterios wrote: but you are looking at each instance by itself, you pick up a rock and put it in your pocket,you don't really notice it and it does not effect you, you pick up another rock and put it in your pocket, now you notice they are there, but not really effecting you, then you put another rock in your pocket and so on and so on until it becomes noticeable and effects you. you get enough incidents happening and things will take notice, then there is the VAT situation, how will VAT be handled between Europe and the UK now? how will trade and travel be handled? how will the Chunnel be effected? so many questions all of which can effect things.
Trade can carry on relatively unchanged. Making items for the EU means adhering to certain regulations. the same regulations which other trading blocks have to adhere to as well.
It is in the EU and UKs interests to change very little regarding trade and travel.
As a Brit I don't expect my travel to EU countries to change that dramatically.
Asterios wrote: but you are looking at each instance by itself, you pick up a rock and put it in your pocket,you don't really notice it and it does not effect you, you pick up another rock and put it in your pocket, now you notice they are there, but not really effecting you, then you put another rock in your pocket and so on and so on until it becomes noticeable and effects you. you get enough incidents happening and things will take notice, then there is the VAT situation, how will VAT be handled between Europe and the UK now? how will trade and travel be handled? how will the Chunnel be effected? so many questions all of which can effect things.
What do you mean the 'VAT situation'? What rate our Government chooses to set Value Added Tax at after Brexit will have absolutely no impact on the Euro, and neither will an extra twenty minute wait time at the Channel.
I appreciate you are interested to see how things will impact on other things, but what rate we set VAT at will affect the value of the Euro about as much as that bottle of cider I had to drink last night. The two are really not related beyond the concept that they both have something to do with money. If we were still in the EU, the European set rate of VAT would have slightly (and really, slightly) more relevance, but our VAT after brexit would have nothing to do with it.
trade between European countries usually avoided VAT import taxs and such because it was part of the Euro agreement, without that, people on both sides of the channel could see an increase in product costs.
trade between European countries usually avoided VAT import taxs and such because it was part of the Euro agreement, without that, people on both sides of the channel could see an increase in product costs.
With all due respect, and in the spirit of friendliness (I really don't want this to sound condescending, even though I know it probably will), the way you just phrased that shows that you're not very familiar with how currency fluctuations work, or what financial factors impact upon what economic factors. That's not a bad thing (God only knows, most people don't know their Adam Smith from their John Keynes), and I make no pretence at being the world's greatest expert on these matters. But please accept my most sincere assurance however, that our VAT rate post Brexit will not cause the euro to lower in value.
trade between European countries usually avoided VAT import taxs and such because it was part of the Euro agreement, without that, people on both sides of the channel could see an increase in product costs.
With all due respect, and in the spirit of friendliness (I really don't want this to sound condescending, even though I know it probably will), the way you just phrased that shows that you're not very familiar with how currency fluctuations work, or what financial factors impact upon what economic factors. That's not a bad thing (God only knows, most people don't know their Adam Smith from their John Keynes), and I make no pretence at being the world's greatest expert on these matters. But please accept my most sincere assurance however, that our VAT rate post Brexit will not cause the euro to lower in value.
didn't say VAT would by itself, but it will be one of a hundred factors with a split that will effect it.
Asterios wrote: but you are looking at each instance by itself, you pick up a rock and put it in your pocket,you don't really notice it and it does not effect you, you pick up another rock and put it in your pocket, now you notice they are there, but not really effecting you, then you put another rock in your pocket and so on and so on until it becomes noticeable and effects you. you get enough incidents happening and things will take notice, then there is the VAT situation, how will VAT be handled between Europe and the UK now? how will trade and travel be handled? how will the Chunnel be effected? so many questions all of which can effect things.
Trade can carry on relatively unchanged. Making items for the EU means adhering to certain regulations. the same regulations which other trading blocks have to adhere to as well.
It is in the EU and UKs interests to change very little regarding trade and travel.
As a Brit I don't expect my travel to EU countries to change that dramatically.
but you do not know for sure.
.
No one does, but with all the evidence I wont be too concerned with changes.
Even outside the EU we are still connected and of Europe. It behoves all parties to keep a certain status quo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Somewhat related:
Turkish premier Erdogan is celebrating the EUs ethos again.
On my way to a meeting this morning I found another benefit to voting leave; In discussing it with a Cabby I got a free ride. Good old London Cabbies, you can always rely on their steadfast views!
So! Has the conservatives finished imploding yet? Between my PM dropping elbows on MPs and the American circus, I haven't been keeping up to well with jolly ol Britain.
Its actually incredibly difficult to pick the right choice here because both sides are right in their scaremongering.
Immigration is swamping the UK but in the pension choked financial sector this is necessary to keep the wheels turning. The remain side hide the fact that without the open borders the country will be better able to handle its internal issues.
The average cost to Britons of leaving will undoubtedly be higher than it is now but not as much as the remain side claim. The problem is that most Brexiter's campaigning so hard are amongst those least likely to be hit by these costs. If you are a self employed person providing a service your job will be unaffected but if you are a small business trading with European partners or with companies in the UK that rely also on EU business your costs will rise drastically.
Brexiters state that unelected bureaucrats decide British laws but the MEP's are elected by us who then put those bureaucrats into place in the same way as we elect the government who then decide who sits in the cabinet. We can't control the EU bureaucrats in the same way we can't control the damage done to the education sector by gove and morgan. That is the danger of a pseudo democratic system.
I am totally undecided as each option is just as bad but we have to choose one. Leave and make a debatable better short term future or remain and hope for a better long term future? But on balance I lean towards Brexit ever so slightly.
Brexiters state that unelected bureaucrats decide British laws but the MEP's are elected by us who then put those bureaucrats into place in the same way as we elect the government who then decide who sits in the cabinet.
Only some of those MEPs are voted in by us. The rest are elected by 27 other nations, so Britain, could, and does, find itself outvoted on many issues that effect it.
I honestly don't think it matters how you vote. Many MP's have clear their intention to ignore a Leave vote by voting in Parliament to keep Britain in. This referendum isn't going to achieve anything substantial, but a Leave vote would be a clear Feth You to the establishment and the EU. I don't for one second believe that this Government will actually respect a Leave vote. The only way we will ever leave is if we elect a genuinely Eurosceptic government, and that ain't Labour or the Tories (in their current incarnation).
Brexiters state that unelected bureaucrats decide British laws but the MEP's are elected by us who then put those bureaucrats into place in the same way as we elect the government who then decide who sits in the cabinet.
Only some of those MEPs are voted in by us. The rest are elected by 27 other nations, so Britain, could, and does, find itself outvoted on many issues that effect it.
Yes you are absolutely right. My point was only to illustrate that the point about unelected officials is only partially true. I find that every argument from both sides when you dig deeper is the same. Partial truths exaggerated for motivation by fear.
I hate that! Regardless of the outcome of this vote life will keep on keeping on. Its still gonna be hard work for the hard workers and no work for the rest. I just want people to educate themselves before they vote whichever way they vote!
Brexiters state that unelected bureaucrats decide British laws but the MEP's are elected by us who then put those bureaucrats into place in the same way as we elect the government who then decide who sits in the cabinet.
Only some of those MEPs are voted in by us. The rest are elected by 27 other nations, so Britain, could, and does, find itself outvoted on many issues that effect it.
Yes you are absolutely right. My point was only to illustrate that the point about unelected officials is only partially true. I find that every argument from both sides when you dig deeper is the same. Partial truths exaggerated for motivation by fear.
I hate that! Regardless of the outcome of this vote life will keep on keeping on. Its still gonna be hard work for the hard workers and no work for the rest. I just want people to educate themselves before they vote whichever way they vote!
Whilst of course, the cabinet isn't set in stone, we do at least know with a good degree of probability who will fill which roles.
I'd also suggest that the...."mentality" surrounding electing MPs vs MEPs could be different. During a domestic GE parties campaign on the basis of a manifesto of what they will do over the next 5 years (at least you'd like to think so, IMO the UK electorate is far too tribal and really the manifesto doesn't matter enough to enough of the electorate - but that's another debate). With an MEP election we're voting for (a rather weaksauce IMO) ideological influence over whatever the EU's ongoing agenda is.
Brexiters state that unelected bureaucrats decide British laws but the MEP's are elected by us who then put those bureaucrats into place in the same way as we elect the government who then decide who sits in the cabinet.
Only some of those MEPs are voted in by us. The rest are elected by 27 other nations, so Britain, could, and does, find itself outvoted on many issues that effect it.
Yes you are absolutely right. My point was only to illustrate that the point about unelected officials is only partially true. I find that every argument from both sides when you dig deeper is the same. Partial truths exaggerated for motivation by fear.
I hate that! Regardless of the outcome of this vote life will keep on keeping on. Its still gonna be hard work for the hard workers and no work for the rest. I just want people to educate themselves before they vote whichever way they vote!
If you're looking for education, you've come to the wrong place. Education is frowned upon in dakka land
On a serious note, I'm quite interested in politics - it's a hobby of mine, so I've been following the issues for years. Unfortunately, living in Scotland, I doubt if my vote will make any difference. The referendum will be decided in England.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I honestly don't think it matters how you vote. Many MP's have clear their intention to ignore a Leave vote by voting in Parliament to keep Britain in. This referendum isn't going to achieve anything substantial, but a Leave vote would be a clear Feth You to the establishment and the EU. I don't for one second believe that this Government will actually respect a Leave vote. The only way we will ever leave is if we elect a genuinely Eurosceptic government, and that ain't Labour or the Tories (in their current incarnation).
If your scenario played out, and I've said something similar myself, there would be civil disorder with UKIP's support going through the roof. I seriously doubt if our MPs are that stupid. Yeah, the bar isn't exactly set high
On another note, I'll say again that regardless of the result, UKIP's support can only go up. The Scottish independence referendum didn't kill the SNP - it gave them rocket fuel. Expect a similar thing to happen to UKIP. Europe will dominate British politics for at least a decade.
If your scenario played out, and I've said something similar myself, there would be civil disorder with UKIP's support going through the roof. I seriously doubt if our MPs are that stupid. Yeah, the bar isn't exactly set high
Oh, I think they are that stupid and vindictive. Theres been lots of headlines in the last week with MP's saying they'll vote against any motion in Parliament to withdraw from the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: . The Scottish independence referendum didn't kill the SNP - it gave them rocket fuel. Expect a similar thing to happen to UKIP. Europe will dominate British politics for at least a decade.
If we successfully vote to leave that should surely trigger the need for another Scottish referendum because its my understanding that Scotland is generally pro Europe ( I might be wrong about that).
I heard Salmond saying this very thing on LBC last week. That is also a serious negative to the leave campaign as being a southerner from not so sunny London I was kinda moved by the better together campaign and really glad that the Scottish referendum went the way it did!
If your scenario played out, and I've said something similar myself, there would be civil disorder with UKIP's support going through the roof. I seriously doubt if our MPs are that stupid. Yeah, the bar isn't exactly set high
Oh, I think they are that stupid and vindictive.
It's unwise to do this, but I make 2 predictions:
1) Whoever wins the referendum will do so by a narrow margin.
2) UKIP will be kingmakers in 2020.
I base my UKIP prediction on the fact that Middle England will never buy into Corbyn, the Tories will be divided, the Lib Dems will be as useless as always, and UKIP's post referendum support will skyrocket.
If you vote to leave in the referendum, why would you go back to Tories/Labour/Lib Dems?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: . The Scottish independence referendum didn't kill the SNP - it gave them rocket fuel. Expect a similar thing to happen to UKIP. Europe will dominate British politics for at least a decade.
If we successfully vote to leave that should surely trigger the need for another Scottish referendum because its my understanding that Scotland is generally pro Europe ( I might be wrong about that).
I heard Salmond saying this very thing on LBC last week. That is also a serious negative to the leave campaign as being a southerner from not so sunny London I was kinda moved by the better together campaign and really glad that the Scottish referendum went the way it did!
I'm a Scottish independence supporter, so I'm not glad the referendum turned out as it did
I thinki I'm the exception up here (I'm voting to leave) but you right to say that Scotland is pro-EU. And yes, it could trigger another independence referendum.
Why is Scotland pro-EU? I think it's because the levels of immigration up here haven't been as bad as they been in South West England.
Either way though, we will not be withdrawing from the EU within this Parliament even with a vote to Leave no matter how strong the margin. The current Members of Parliament just will not have it, they'll obfuscate and dither and put up as many barriers as they can to kick the issue into the long grass for as long as they can.
The 2020 Parliament is what will finally decide the issue.
Why is Scotland pro-EU? I think it's because the levels of immigration up here haven't been as bad as they been in South West England.
Be careful what you wish for. Illegal immigration besides (Dover-Calais will always remain the primary entry point for illegals no matter what happens - they ain't gonna be crossing the North Sea), if the UK breaks up and England leaves the EU but Scotland stays in, Scotland will likely become a much more attractive destination for legal immigrants from the EU.
I personally feel that it's better to stay in Europe (with my reasons why). In my opinion, the reason this referendum is occuring is because we have had several weak leaders (Clegg, Cameron, Brown, Blair) who seem to want to be PM for the sake of being PM and not for the benefit of the country/people.
If Brexit does happen, it's going to be a slow process as all the details are ironed out and new trade agreements are established - and a period I'm not going to be comfortable living in.
It's frightening how the Europe is spiraling out of control and the USA has a presidential election between a businessman with no political experience and a proven liar. What a time to be alive.
Frozocrone wrote: I personally feel that it's better to stay in Europe (with my reasons why). In my opinion, the reason this referendum is occuring is because we have had several weak leaders (Clegg, Cameron, Brown, Blair) who seem to want to be PM for the sake of being PM and not for the benefit of the country/people.
If Brexit does happen, it's going to be a slow process as all the details are ironed out and new trade agreements are established - and a period I'm not going to be comfortable living in.
It's frightening how the Europe is spiraling out of control and the USA has a presidential election between a businessman with no political experience and a proven liar. What a time to be alive.
Agreed. I'm going to live in the jungles of Africa and become a professional spoon whittler.
Also, on the notion of us not leaving by 2020, we have to wait two years before we leave anyway. Same thing that happened to Greenland when they left in the 80s.
Besides, if we vote leave there is a good chance that parliament will dissolve in a month or two, it would be a gigantic show of no confidence to the entire parliament seeing as they all want to stay. Although why Corbyn and the SNP want to is absolutely beyond me.
welshhoppo wrote: Although why Corbyn and the SNP want to is absolutely beyond me.
Cause it provides them with a 'legitimate' reason as to why they can't do anything about what will be going on (future laws and inclusion) and also provides them with a snappy retort to any question about why they are incapable of initiating change; "thats a scandal and i'm going to vote it down if i get a chance to vote on it!" followed by "well the reason i couldn't do anything about it is because all the other MEPs in Europe voted for it, there was nothing i could do"
If we stay in, the EU protects their 'job', shifts blame away from them and creates new 'jobs' of power and no responsibility for them and their friends.
....the reason this referendum is occuring is because we have had several weak leaders (Clegg, Cameron, Brown, Blair) who seem to want to be PM for the sake of being PM and not for the benefit of the country/people......
....If we stay in, the EU protects their 'job', shifts blame away from them and creates new 'jobs' of power and no responsibility for them and their friends.....
In a nutshell.
Ever since Blair positioned himself to become leader of the EU, maybe a bit before, I have been very distrustful of the motives of our pro EU politicians. Withdrawing from the EU may..may.. see a change in how our politicians behave when there is no parachute to help in their retirement.
I anticipate we will see a lot of Europe bashing for many years to come though!
welshhoppo wrote: Although why Corbyn and the SNP want to is absolutely beyond me.
Cause it provides them with a 'legitimate' reason as to why they can't do anything about what will be going on (future laws and inclusion) and also provides them with a snappy retort to any question about why they are incapable of initiating change; "thats a scandal and i'm going to vote it down if i get a chance to vote on it!" followed by "well the reason i couldn't do anything about it is because all the other MEPs in Europe voted for it, there was nothing i could do"
If we stay in, the EU protects their 'job', shifts blame away from them and creates new 'jobs' of power and no responsibility for them and their friends.
that's wrong. well, a bit of it is right actually! see later comments..
firstly, corbyn himself has long been a critic of the EU, from a left-wing perspective. The argument being that the EU is a huge capitalist jolly designed to make it easier for wealthy corporations to make money, which takes away national sovereignty and makes it very difficult for left-wing governments to operate - as both Spain and Greece have seen lately. In a fantasy world where a Corbyn-led socialist labour party has a mandate to run this country along socialist lines they are going to need to renegotiate or leave anyway.
So why is he enthusiastically Remain? Well, because both the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Constituency Labour Parties are both overwhelmingly pro-Remain (the Blairites believe in at and love the gravy train and love having something to blame*; the CLPers are generally wet liberal capitalists who love Europe because to not love Europe is exactly the same to them as being a massive racist and most of them have no idea how awful it actually is but they are more scared of Tories and UKIP running the country than they are scared of corporations doing same). So Corbyn, as a materialist, realises that uniting the labour party on the matter is easier and better than dividing it even more.
*this is the bit that you were right about. politicians love gravy trains.
What is worth remembering is that Britain can opt-out of pretty much any European stuff it wants. If you doubt that for a second, you must have forgotten the European directive about letting prisoners have the right to vote.
The whole thing remains nonsense and I still haven't heard a sensible or well-informed argument to sway me either way.
I won't quote because it would start looking like a wall of text, but I agree with you on the parts about Corbyn. It just strikes me as so peculiar that some people really like him despite the fact is a still a hypocritical politican, then again there aren't many there aren't.
Britain does have the power to deviate from some directives, but we don't have a choice over which ones we can deviate from. That power comes from the council who will basically write at the end of the directive *deviation applies / doesn't apply* and even then, the prisoner one is still going back and forth. Even then we haven't actually opted out of it. We just chose to ignore it and told the EU to go bite its own butt. But as late as last October, the EU courts decided that it wasn't unlawful for voting to be banned with a serious crime. We haven't seen the end of it yet. Unless we leave of course.
daddyorchips wrote: they are more scared of Tories and UKIP running the country than they are scared of corporations doing same.
Good point, i suppose i just expect MPs to be more savvy with regards to trusting private corporations to do 'whats right'.
I can't decide if corbyn has shown genuine leadership by making a difficult tactical decision or if he simply sold out on his principles to further his political career.
The answer is number two. He's decided that being labor leader is more important than standing up for his beliefs. But I wouldn't expect anything less from the thing.
And the votes for prisoners thing is another bug bear of mine with the EU. They try to say that only a complete blanket ban is unacceptable and that if we just gave the vote back to non violent offenders serving less than three months that would be enough to meet the terms. But the though of anyone in prison getting a vote sickens me. The whole point of prison is you're being punished. You need to repay that debt before you get that privilege back. And who the hell wants prisoners as a voting block for politicians to pander to?
silly!
