Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 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.

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 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.

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 ).

 General Kroll wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

Some very sound arguments there, Ketara, but never underestimate the power of nationalism. Rumours of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.

And I say that as a nationalist, myself. It's a very potent and heady mix.

Steve steveson wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

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.


So, to that 'scrutiny' bit....

Turkeys membership is being fast-tracked as part of a deal to act as a 'buffer zone' against the refugees which will be free to continue to Europe as soon as turkey becomes a full member of the EU.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkeys-president-no-refugee-deal-without-eu-visa-182011347.html

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.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

 Steve steveson wrote:


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.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


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.

 General Kroll wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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?

 General Kroll wrote:


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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

to be honest I always saw Britain as standing apart from the EU.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


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.

That's the very definition of unaccountable.

 General Kroll wrote:


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...

 Steve steveson wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

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.


So, to that 'scrutiny' bit....

Turkeys membership is being fast-tracked as part of a deal to act as a 'buffer zone' against the refugees which will be free to continue to Europe as soon as turkey becomes a full member of the EU.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkeys-president-no-refugee-deal-without-eu-visa-182011347.html

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


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.

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

It's not hard to see a pattern developing here.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

 General Kroll wrote:

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.

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?

 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.

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

 General Kroll wrote:


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.

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council

"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.

Have a good bank holiday

 General Kroll wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:


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.