Remain or leave:UK referendum

[AE Bravo]

Leave and align closer with the Anglo world.

Ghostklan out of the closet!

I knew it was more than just jerking off to your civil war figurines!

[Slyspy]

I agree. It is a manipulaton technique. If the powers-that-be were so eager to find out what people think and obey their voting, why don't they hold referenda on immigation crisis, Syria intervention, marijuana legelization and so on.

The is that, but my objection is that it throws open a question of crucial importance to the ignorant masses (I include myself here) who are barely aware of the pros and cons of their own local council and it's effect on their lives and well being let alone the influence of Europe on the national good.

[Greyblades]

I'm still waiting on the recommended reading list for that very reason.

I can understand the gripes about the Commission and EU politics in general, but other than that I'm sceptical about most of the arguments in favor of a Brexit. The ones about "freedom of movement" in particular. IIRC there was a study a few months ago that showed that "welfare tourism", as Conservatives call it, is a marginal phenomenon. And there are almost 1.5 million Brits using their freedom of movement by residing in other EU member states

I'd like to see that study if you please as I'm fairly sure the reason welfare tourism isnt a big phenmoenon is due to the conservatives not letting them in at Calais. Also can you tell me how many of those 1.5 million Brits are out of the country to reap the rewards of benefits?

The core of the issue though is that you cannot expect the free movement of Capital if you do not want the free movement of People and Services. It is not realistic to expect Britain to pick the raisins out of the cookie.

I believe the issue comes with who this free movment extends to.
With the rich western europeans I dare say noone in Britain objects to the free movement; The Capital is plentiful, the services are similar in quality and the people are familiar in ideas.

With the eastern europeans we chafe; the Capital is relatively meagre, the services provided are generally cheaper which undercuts local services and the people are stranger, not to the point of frequent conflict but the culture clash is more noticable. Ultimately however the complaints are settled by a simple fact: these people want to fit in. Most follow the law, their culture is far from incompatable and some of them even outright want to become British.

When that freedom of movement is extended to the middle east, even in the relatively limited extent of the migrants, it becomes unacceptable. The people are alien in the extreme, raised under archaic laws with barbaic customs and a lot of them are prone to being hostile to us locals. Add to it that there is no real capital to be moved and their services are of extremely low quality and it becomes extremely hard to justify extending the freedom of movement to these people.

Their inclusion will provide much strife and little benefit to us and we fear the EU will extend the freedom movement to these people regardless of our wishes, the EU has done little to aleviate these fears.

Something which I understand to be a popular misconception in the general debate in UK about the issue. That being said if UK votes to leave then an amicable settlement should be reached where those things which are mutually beneficial and desirable remain, and those which are not will be gone. But I don't expect London to be the same financial hub if that happens.

I have to agree here; I believe that it is possible that such agreements can be reached but it is not guarenteed and it wont come quickly enough to prevent a lot of banks and buisnesses jumping ship. The question is: will staying cause as much or even more damage in the long run, it's too early to tell if the EU will stop charging towards the closest cliff.

Ghostklan out of the closet!

I knew it was more than just jerking off to your civil war figurines!

[Pannonian]

I'm still waiting on the recommended reading list for that very reason.

I'd like to see that study if you please as I'm fairly sure the reason welfare tourism isnt a big phenmoenon is due to the conservatives not letting them in at Calais. Also can you tell me how many of those 1.5 million Brits are out of the country to reap the rewards of benefits?

I believe the issue comes with who this free movment extends to.
With the rich western europeans I dare say noone in Britain objects to the free movement of services and people as the services are similar in quality and the people are familiar in ideas.

With the eastern europeans we chafe; the services provided are generally cheaper which undercuts local services and the people are stranger, not to the point of frequent conflict but the culture clash is more noticable. Ultimately the complaints are relatively minor; these people want to fit in, most follow the law and their culture is far from incompatable, some of them even outright want to become British.

When that freedom of movement is extended to the middle east, even in the relatively limited extent of the migrants it, becomes unacceptable. The people are alien in the extreme, raised under archaic laws with barbaic customs and a lot of them are prone to being hostile to us locals. Add to it that there is no real capital to be moved and their services are of extremely low quality and it becomes extremely hard to justify extending the freedom of movement to these people. We fear the EU will extend the freedom movement to these people, whose inclusion will provide much strife and little benefit to us, and the EU has not done anything to aleviate these fears.

I have to agree here; I believe that it is possible that such agreements can be reached but it is not guarenteed and it wont come quickly enough to prevent a lot of banks and buisnesses jumping ship. The question is: will staying cause as much or even more damage in the long run, it's too early to tell if the EU will stop charging towards the closest cliff.

Neither the UK nor Ireland are part of the Schengen area. Whatever freedom of movement there is for middle easterners within the EU does not apply to us, as we've never signed up to the agreements that facilitate this. I can't see any British government signing up to an agreement that will allow this, even were we to remain within the EU, and without our agreement, these free movements cannot take place.

[Greyblades]

Neither the UK nor Ireland are part of the Schengen area. Whatever freedom of movement there is for middle easterners within the EU does not apply to us, as we've never signed up to the agreements that facilitate this. I can't see any British government signing up to an agreement that will allow this, even were we to remain within the EU, and without our agreement, these free movements cannot take place.

I didnt say the fears were legitimate, I am leaning towards staying for that very reason. However I dont agree with your second point, I am concerned that our current crop of left leaning parties are liable to open the borders out of misplaced compassion should they gain a majority.

[Pannonian]

I didnt say the fears were legitimate, I am leaning towards staying for that very reason. However I dont agree with your second point, I am concerned that our current crop of left leaning parties are liable to open the borders out of misplaced compassion should they gain a majority.

You reckon Labour are going to form a government inside the next 10 years? I don't see it. And I speak as a Labour voter. With Corbyn at our head, blabbing his mouth off, the Tories are going to be in government for another decade at least.

[Greyblades]

Maybe not a majority, but a coalition with SNP? Possible, it depends how much the conservatives abuse their current untouchability in the next four years.

[Pannonian]

Maybe not a majority, but a coalition with SNP? Possible, it depends how much the conservatives abuse their current untouchability in the next four years.

All the Tories need to do is point to the Falklands and Trident, and it's another 5 years of blue. The Labour activists aren't going to tolerate the removal of Corbyn, and Corbyn will continue to follow Tony Benn on these issues, making Labour unpalatable to the vast majority of England.

[Kralizec]

Greyblades:
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_socia...0migration.pdf
http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/...k_27sept13.pdf
http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/...elfare-tourism
“ Thus, the average EU immigrant is fiscally beneficial. But while the average EU immigrant is a net contributor, some individuals may not be: the British government has argued that some migrants move to take up benefits, not to work, and thus can be called ‘benefit tourists’.15 Yet it has not offered any evidence of the scale of the problem.”

I only read parts of the second and third links, which is about the UK specifically. I did notice that some of the statistics differ. One explanation could be that one report focuses more on migrants from countries that joined the EU recently, while the other one focuses on EU migrants in general.
The ones from “newer” EU member states tend to make more use of child support and certain taks credit, but that’s because these migrants are generally young and therefore more likely to have young children. And even they are still net contributors, generally speaking.

Cameron has never backed up his claim that EU migrants are a net fiscal loss and the evidence points the other way. And still one of his recent negotiation proposals was to make EU migrant workers only elligable for social services after they’ve worked and paid taxes for multiple years in the country they moved to.

Another thing: EU law allows for countries to deport migrants from other member states if they’re an unreasonable burden on social services, under a few conditions. In the worst years of the recent economic crisis Belgium deported thousands of EU nationals to their home countries after they lost their jobs and were no longer self-sufficient. France deported thousands of Roma a couple of years ago under the same principle. The British government hinted that they’re thinking about doing the same - if benefit tourism is such a problem, why aren’t they already doing this?

As for refugees: third state nationals (meaning: people who aren’t citizens of an EU member state, but reside legally in one of them) don’t necessarily have the rights as EU citizens. IIRC refugees have to be long term residents (5 years) of their host state before they acquire the same freedom of movement. And even then, other EU member states can return them if they’re not self-sufficient, see above.

Schengen is technically a seperate issue from freedom of movement. I have to show my ID or passport when I travel to Britain and they might check my luggage for contraband, but other than that I have the same freedom of movement as in any EU state. Same thing applies for refugees after they become legal, long term residents.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Well, one argument is that in order to benefit fully from Europe's internal market it would have to negotiate a similar deal that Norway or Switzerland has. Britain is a larger country and therefore in a better position to negotiate a good deal, but it's still less influence on the package then an actual member state would have.

I don't think that the EU will try to financially harm Britain out of spite. It makes no economic sense and I don't think that any country in Europe is vindicative enough to push for it - and even so, countries like the Netherlands would never agree to it. But if a particular policy would earn Europe 5 bucks while costing the UK 10 bucks, there's nothing to prevent the EU from going for it except good neighbourship.

I can understand the gripes about the Commission and EU politics in general, but other than that I'm sceptical about most of the arguments in favor of a Brexit. The ones about "freedom of movement" in particular. IIRC there was a study a few months ago that showed that "welfare tourism", as Conservatives call it, is a marginal phenomenon. And there are almost 1.5 million Brits using their freedom of movement by residing in other EU member states

My arguments have nothing to do with freedom of movement. As a net mporter from the EU the UK would not be faced with any kind of 'sanction'...it makes no sense to harm your own economy to spite another. My argument is against the structurally non-democratic nature of the EU. The Executive is, by statute, the commission. The make up of the parliament is entirely unimportant in decision making - and that commission is currently negotiating, behind closed doors, TTIP...which is absolutely an attack on sovereignty and the principles of democratic representation.

That is, essentially, what you are really being asked to vote for....though no-one will tell you this because...the commission doesn't believe in telling the truth about their aims.

Just what is it you think the EU does for you? I'm asking because I feel confident that I can disavow you of those beliefs...because most of what people believe they get from the EU is...from an entirely different place.

[Snowhobbit]

I believe the issue comes with who this free movment extends to.
With the rich western europeans I dare say noone in Britain objects to the free movement; The Capital is plentiful, the services are similar in quality and the people are familiar in ideas.

With the eastern europeans we chafe; the Capital is relatively meagre, the services provided are generally cheaper which undercuts local services and the people are stranger, not to the point of frequent conflict but the culture clash is more noticable. Ultimately however the complaints are settled by a simple fact: these people want to fit in. Most follow the law, their culture is far from incompatable and some of them even outright want to become British.

When that freedom of movement is extended to the middle east, even in the relatively limited extent of the migrants, it becomes unacceptable. The people are alien in the extreme, raised under archaic laws with barbaic customs and a lot of them are prone to being hostile to us locals. Add to it that there is no real capital to be moved and their services are of extremely low quality and it becomes extremely hard to justify extending the freedom of movement to these people.

Their inclusion will provide much strife and little benefit to us and we fear the EU will extend the freedom movement to these people regardless of our wishes, the EU has done little to aleviate these fears.

I have to agree here; I believe that it is possible that such agreements can be reached but it is not guarenteed and it wont come quickly enough to prevent a lot of banks and buisnesses jumping ship. The question is: will staying cause as much or even more damage in the long run, it's too early to tell if the EU will stop charging towards the closest cliff.

Well, the EU includes all of the EU. The pillars of free movement extend to all member countries (with the exception of a brief hiatus for some new members, but long term they too will be in), you can't pick the raisins out of the cookie and only have free movement up until Germany. It all comes as a package and the good come with the bad. I'm not very knowledgeable on the situation in UK with various immigrant groups, but I would wager that the EU-migrants are generally net payers into your tax system, given that they are very likely to be working. Hence they are good for your economy. Freedom of movement has not and most likely will not be extended to the ME in our lifetimes, unless revolutionary changes happen world-wide.

Of course such agreements can be reached, generally we are all adults and not toddlers who will throw our toys out of the pram. But I firmly believe that UK will not get free movement of Capital without People and Services/Jobs. I do not agree with the evaluation that the EU is charging towards the closest cliff, is that how it is portrayed in UK media? There has been several improvements on the Migrant issue, and there will be further changes this summer if the same thing happens again. The biggest issue with the EU moving slowly is that it consists of a lot of countries and there are various checks and balances in place to make sure that one/a few countries rule the EU. Something that I would think the UK approves of ;)

[Snowhobbit]

My arguments have nothing to do with freedom of movement. As a net mporter from the EU the UK would not be faced with any kind of 'sanction'...it makes no sense to harm your own economy to spite another. My argument is against the structurally non-democratic nature of the EU. The Executive is, by statute, the commission. The make up of the parliament is entirely unimportant in decision making - and that commission is currently negotiating, behind closed doors, TTIP...which is absolutely an attack on sovereignty and the principles of democratic representation.

That is, essentially, what you are really being asked to vote for....though no-one will tell you this because...the commission doesn't believe in telling the truth about their aims.

Just what is it you think the EU does for you? I'm asking because I feel confident that I can disavow you of those beliefs...because most of what people believe they get from the EU is...from an entirely different place.

I'm curious, do you not understand how the EU law making process works? It is understandable because it is rather complex and convoluted, but it is simply not true to claim that the make up of the parliament is entirely unimportant in decision making. The result of the TTIP negotiations will have to be voted on, and it would not be the first time that the parliament stops an unpopular international treaty.

Where does the free movement of people come from, that allows me to move to Spain/Germany/Italy next week if I get a job, without filling a ton of paperwork and applications? Where does the mostly no passport required border crossings come from? And could you explain to me how you think the legislative process works? I think that last question would be particularly enlightening.

[Brenus]

"The result of the TTIP negotiations will have to be voted on" No. International treaties (peace, trade, etc) are not voted. Laws are. And what happened with the Pacific equivalent is not encouraging...

We are coming back to the age of the Compagnie des Indes (Dutch, English and French) conquering the world without any control from the states...

[Snowhobbit]

"The result of the TTIP negotiations will have to be voted on" No. International treaties (peace, trade, etc) are not voted. Laws are. And what happened with the Pacific equivalent is not encouraging...

We are coming back to the age of the Compagnie des Indes (Dutch, English and French) conquering the world without any control from the states...

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...t-rejects-ACTA

This ACTA thing, it is an international treaty right? For treaties to become law (ie ratified) they have to be approved by parliament. Like I said, it is highly complex how the systems work and people seem to think they know how they work without actually knowing.

[Gilrandir]

The is that, but my objection is that it throws open a question of crucial importance to the ignorant masses (I include myself here) who are barely aware of the pros and cons of their own local council and it's effect on their lives and well being let alone the influence of Europe on the national good.

This is always the way with referenda - ignorant masses are to take a decision on the issue they are barely aware of. That's why I don't like referenda.

[InsaneApache]

This is always the way with referenda - ignorant masses are to take a decision on the issue they are barely aware of. That's why I don't like referenda.

Thats an argument for not having democracy at all.

[Gilrandir]

Thats an argument for not having democracy at all.

Democracy? Why don't then democratic countries hold referenda on retirement age, gasoline prices, capital punishment restoration and uber taxi service? Just ask the polulation whether they would like to buy milk for 1 eurocent a liter. I guarantee the lanslide yeah.

A referendum results can be easily manipulated. Just word the question correctly. That's why I don't like it.

[Snowhobbit]

Democracy? Why don't then democratic countries hold referenda on retirement age, gasoline prices, capital punishment restoration and uber taxi service? Just ask the polulation whether they would like to buy milk for 1 eurocent a liter. I guarantee the lanslide yeah.

A referendum results can be easily manipulated. Just word the question correctly. That's why I don't like it.

Referendums require a mature and knowledgeable electorate with a democratic tradition, something which exists in the western area of Europe.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I'm curious, do you not understand how the EU law making process works? It is understandable because it is rather complex and convoluted, but it is simply not true to claim that the make up of the parliament is entirely unimportant in decision making. The result of the TTIP negotiations will have to be voted on, and it would not be the first time that the parliament stops an unpopular international treaty.

Where does the free movement of people come from, that allows me to move to Spain/Germany/Italy next week if I get a job, without filling a ton of paperwork and applications? Where does the mostly no passport required border crossings come from? And could you explain to me how you think the legislative process works? I think that last question would be particularly enlightening.

Please do show me the legislation that requires that TTIP be ratified by the EU parlaiment.

Read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiat...d/details/2041

(There is a pdf download explaining the reasons the commission have refused the request)

Read it very carefully. The commission believes that it has a mandate from the Council to negotiate and sign the treaty as they see fit.

[Snowhobbit]

Please do show me the legislation that requires that TTIP be ratified by the EU parlaiment.

Read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiat...d/details/2041

(There is a pdf download explaining the reasons the commission have refused the request)

Read it very carefully. The commission believes that it has a mandate from the Council to negotiate and sign the treaty as they see fit.

I'm sorry, I'll have to insist that you show that you understand how the legislative procedure works. I would invite you to examine why they use the word proposal in that link. You might also want to study what "ratifying a treaty" means and entails, in this specific scenario and in general.

Thank you also for showing that you are full of hot air by not addressing my questions about free movement of people or no border controls inside Europe.

This whole exchange does a good job of showing that the debate on the EU on the other side of the channel is plagued by ignorance and an unwillingness to learn and understand how the systems work. Better to just blame it all on the horrible EU.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I'm sorry, I'll have to insist that you show that you understand how the legislative procedure works. I would invite you to examine why they use the word proposal in that link. You might also want to study what "ratifying a treaty" means and entails, in this specific scenario and in general.

Thank you also for showing that you are full of hot air by not addressing my questions about free movement of people or no border controls inside Europe.

This whole exchange does a good job of showing that the debate on the EU on the other side of the channel is plagued by ignorance and an unwillingness to learn and understand how the systems work. Better to just blame it all on the horrible EU.

You were the one who made the claim that TTIP cannot be passed without EU parliamentary agreement. As you made the claim it is for you to evidence that. Simply claiming that I have shown I don't understand is not sufficient having made a positive claim. The clues as to the procedures of the EU, via the Council, the Commission and the parliament are all there in the PDF I linked you to.

Let me ask you a more direct question (as you apparently seem not actually to have any evidence at all that parliament is required to ratify the treaty). Do you believe that once the Commission has made a recommendation to parliament that parliament can overturn that? And if so, how?

As for free movement.....given that I had stated outright that my argument is not about free movement.....why would I be expected to explain my thoughts on it? As it happens, whenever I have traveled within the EU I have had to proffer exactly the same documents I have had to outside the EU. What percentage, exactly, of the UK population is at any time working in other countries in the EU? And what percentage are working ex-patria but outside the EU?

[Kralizec]

That is, essentially, what you are really being asked to vote for....though no-one will tell you this because...the commission doesn't believe in telling the truth about their aims.

Just what is it you think the EU does for you? I'm asking because I feel confident that I can disavow you of those beliefs...because most of what people believe they get from the EU is...from an entirely different place.

Pasportless travel, great freedom to move in general, nuclear safetly across the continenent. Some good legislation on consumer rights, labor rights, business competition and so on, and the possibility to involve a European court if the national courts don't enforce them properly. That's just on top of my head.

Please do show me the legislation that requires that TTIP be ratified by the EU parlaiment.

Read this:
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiat...d/details/2041

(There is a pdf download explaining the reasons the commission have refused the request)

Read it very carefully. The commission believes that it has a mandate from the Council to negotiate and sign the treaty as they see fit.

That's not how I read it (allthough the language in that link is incredibily opaque). It interprets the petition as asking the commission "withdraw the mandate to negotiate TTIP" while a petition may only ask the Commission to make substantive proposals, "do nothing / sit still" is not a valid request. Furthermore the negotiations don't have any binding effect themselves, and the mandate to negotiate doesn't come from the commission itself but from the council.

The Commission negotiates the treaty, but does not get to sign it- that job belongs to the council. This link explains it well. The European parliament has the ability to vote down legislation on a wide range of issue. If the finalized TTIP text touches even one of those areas then their consent is required.

A more interesting question is wether the TTIP will also have implications for issues in where the EU doesn't have the authority to legislate...in that case, the involvement of all the legislatures of the member states seems inevitable.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Pasportless travel, great freedom to move in general, nuclear safetly across the continenent. Some good legislation on consumer rights, labor rights, business competition and so on, and the possibility to involve a European court if the national courts don't enforce them properly. That's just on top of my head.

Well, let's address these. Passportless travel in the EU? We in the UK do not have this. We in the UK have to show our passports to travel across borders in the EU. This rather suggests that whatever passportless travel you enjoy is not via the EU but is rather via individual treaties - highlighting my point that what people seem to believe comes from the EU actually comes from something else entirely.

You've linked to an EU site that you claim is ensuring nuclear safety........when EURATOM is, essentially, a lobbying body promoting nuclear energy. Of course, it is in the interest of the nuclear industry to ensure we believe in the safety of nuclear power. This is a lobbying body that is funded by tax-payers' money, in a nut-shell. This is what is wrong with the EU, not what is right.

And then we come to this concept of "good legislation" 'on workers' rights etc. Try telling that to Greek workers, or in fact the many lower down the pecking order who are struggling against EU wide austerity measures (imposed beyond the will of their electorates in Greece and in Italy, for example). Please show me some legislation that has helped workers, rather than some vague notion of 'some legislation'.

The real reason for workers' rights, that have slowly been eroded since, were the union/labour movements and actions that
gained them in the first place. Again, the idea that people think whatever rights they have come through Brussels is incorrect.

Extra layers of the paraphernalia of court proceedings is not a necessarily positive proposition. All that can realistically lead to is an increase in the time it takes to get issues resolved. There is also something suspect in allowing an extra-soveriegn body the ability to overturn either the legislation or the independent courts of a state. Especially where the democratic prinicple in that over-arching body is suspect.

That's not how I read it (allthough the language in that link is incredibily opaque). It interprets the petition as asking the commission "withdraw the mandate to negotiate TTIP" while a petition may only ask the Commission to make substantive proposals, "do nothing / sit still" is not a valid request. Furthermore the negotiations don't have any binding effect themselves, and the mandate to negotiate doesn't come from the commission itself but from the council.

The Commission negotiates the treaty, but does not get to sign it- that job belongs to the council. This link explains it well. The European parliament has the ability to vote down legislation on a wide range of issue. If the finalized TTIP text touches even one of those areas then their consent is required.

A more interesting question is wether the TTIP will also have implications for issues in where the EU doesn't have the authority to legislate...in that case, the involvement of all the legislatures of the member states seems inevitable.

Read it properly and understand how the commission acts as the Executive, how parliament cannot trump it. There can be no "negative" legislative proposals. Once the commission have agreed and recommended, the parliament is de facto forced to accept it is some form. Any changes in form (amendments to - which is all that can be proposed) require either a qualified majority or, in special cases (as defined by the commission) unanimous support. Rejection ( a no vote) can only be carried through by unanimous support.

The EU parliament is, in effect, simply a "rubber stamp" bound (de facto) to approve commission decisions.

[Husar]

Read it properly and understand how the commission acts as the Executive, how parliament cannot trump it. There can be no "negative" legislative proposals. Once the commission have agreed and recommended, the parliament is de facto forced to accept it is some form. Any changes in form (amendments to - which is all that can be proposed) require either a qualified majority or, in special cases (as defined by the commission) unanimous support. Rejection ( a no vote) can only be carried through by unanimous support.

The EU parliament is, in effect, simply a "rubber stamp" bound (de facto) to approve commission decisions.

Where does it say that?
Also keep this in mind:

The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners").[4] There is one member per member state, though members are bound to represent the interests of the EU as a whole rather than their home state. One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament.[5] The Council then appoints the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

The commission needs approval from the parliament to become (and stay) the commission in the first place.
Compare to the guy who makes a lot of the decisions in Britain nowadays:

The office is not established by any constitution or law but exists only by long-established convention, which stipulates that the monarch must appoint as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party or coalition of parties that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber. The position of Prime Minister was not created; it evolved slowly and erratically over three hundred years due to numerous acts of Parliament, political developments, and accidents of history.

As the "Head of Her Majesty's Government" the modern Prime Minister leads the Cabinet (the Executive). In addition the Prime Minister leads a major political party and generally commands a majority in the House of Commons (the lower house of the legislature). As such the incumbent wields both legislative and executive powers. Under the British system there is a unity of powers rather than separation.[5] In the House of Commons, the Prime Minister guides the law-making process with the goal of enacting the legislative agenda of their political party. In an executive capacity the Prime Minister appoints (and may dismiss) all other cabinet members and ministers, and co-ordinates the policies and activities of all government departments, and the staff of the Civil Service. The Prime Minister also acts as the public "face" and "voice" of Her Majesty's Government, both at home and abroad. Solely upon the advice of the Prime Minister, the Sovereign exercises many statutory and prerogative powers, including high judicial, political, official and Church of England ecclesiastical appointments; the conferral of peerages, knighthoods, decorations and other honours.[6] Although he or she may sometimes appear to be heavily under the influence of their aides, in reality the Prime Minister is in control.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_...United_Kingdom

It's a position assigned by a king that has no basis in law or constitution and whoever the king appoints to it can can appoint all important ministers of the country, welcome to your banana kingdom!

[Snowhobbit]

You were the one who made the claim that TTIP cannot be passed without EU parliamentary agreement. As you made the claim it is for you to evidence that. Simply claiming that I have shown I don't understand is not sufficient having made a positive claim. The clues as to the procedures of the EU, via the Council, the Commission and the parliament are all there in the PDF I linked you to.

Let me ask you a more direct question (as you apparently seem not actually to have any evidence at all that parliament is required to ratify the treaty). Do you believe that once the Commission has made a recommendation to parliament that parliament can overturn that? And if so, how?

As for free movement.....given that I had stated outright that my argument is not about free movement.....why would I be expected to explain my thoughts on it? As it happens, whenever I have traveled within the EU I have had to proffer exactly the same documents I have had to outside the EU. What percentage, exactly, of the UK population is at any time working in other countries in the EU? And what percentage are working ex-patria but outside the EU?

You are the person claiming intricate knowledge of the workings of the EU while proving yourself to be ignorant of even the most basic things. If you claim the sun rises in the south, do I have to prove that? You have claimed a whole lot about the legislative procedure with fuck all to prove that your delusions are true. Fortunately some more generous posters have explained the situation to you, unfortunately that does not seem to have cured your delusional view of reality. They overturn it the same way they did ACTA, they vote against it and it is scrapped.

If you want to know labour figures of other countries I suggest that you consult those countries. And lets not blame it on the EU that your country does not wish to be part of Schengen (which is an EU thing by the way).

Incidentally, you have not informed me yet of how these things are not EU related:
Where does the free movement of people come from, that allows me to move to Spain/Germany/Italy next week if I get a job, without filling a ton of paperwork and applications? Where does the mostly no passport required border crossings come from? And could you explain to me how you think the legislative process works? I think that last question would be particularly enlightening.

[Snowhobbit]

Well, let's address these. Passportless travel in the EU? We in the UK do not have this. We in the UK have to show our passports to travel across borders in the EU. This rather suggests that whatever passportless travel you enjoy is not via the EU but is rather via individual treaties - highlighting my point that what people seem to believe comes from the EU actually comes from something else entirely.

You've linked to an EU site that you claim is ensuring nuclear safety........when EURATOM is, essentially, a lobbying body promoting nuclear energy. Of course, it is in the interest of the nuclear industry to ensure we believe in the safety of nuclear power. This is a lobbying body that is funded by tax-payers' money, in a nut-shell. This is what is wrong with the EU, not what is right.

And then we come to this concept of "good legislation" 'on workers' rights etc. Try telling that to Greek workers, or in fact the many lower down the pecking order who are struggling against EU wide austerity measures (imposed beyond the will of their electorates in Greece and in Italy, for example). Please show me some legislation that has helped workers, rather than some vague notion of 'some legislation'.

The real reason for workers' rights, that have slowly been eroded since, were the union/labour movements and actions that
gained them in the first place. Again, the idea that people think whatever rights they have come through Brussels is incorrect.

Extra layers of the paraphernalia of court proceedings is not a necessarily positive proposition. All that can realistically lead to is an increase in the time it takes to get issues resolved. There is also something suspect in allowing an extra-soveriegn body the ability to overturn either the legislation or the independent courts of a state. Especially where the democratic prinicple in that over-arching body is suspect.




Read it properly and understand how the commission acts as the Executive, how parliament cannot trump it. There can be no "negative" legislative proposals. Once the commission have agreed and recommended, the parliament is de facto forced to accept it is some form. Any changes in form (amendments to - which is all that can be proposed) require either a qualified majority or, in special cases (as defined by the commission) unanimous support. Rejection ( a no vote) can only be carried through by unanimous support.

The EU parliament is, in effect, simply a "rubber stamp" bound (de facto) to approve commission decisions.

It is super cute the way you mix things and remain constantly unable to understand what legislation means. It is not EU-legislation that is behind the changes in Greek worker status or even austerity. An austerity which is being done by the Italian and Greek government btw, but lets just ignore that.

Please educate yourself on the legislative process before you start critiquing it, you might actually be able to make points which are related to reality then.

[Slyspy]

Thats an argument for not having democracy at all.

Nope. We vote for the person who we think can do the best job representing or interests as part of a governing body. We can easily check on that individual's manifesto (or the manifesto of their party). Hopefully that person is then duly elected and paid to represent us in government, if enough of the electorate think like us and support them. This individual is then charged with making decisions on our behalf. If not satisfactory, you'll get another chance in a few years. This sort of indirect democracy is relatively informed compared to the direct democracy of the referendum on Europe.

Referendums require a mature and knowledgeable electorate with a democratic tradition, something which exists in the western area of Europe.

Haha. Oh, wait, you weren't joking. The population is wallowing in ignorance on the subject of Europe and battered by the shower of propaganda from both sides of the debate. In the end they will choose based on whether or not they believe the story about straight bananas.

[Snowhobbit]

Haha. Oh, wait, you weren't joking. The population is wallowing in ignorance on the subject of Europe and battered by the shower of propaganda from both sides of the debate. In the end they will choose based on whether or not they believe the story about straight bananas.

The fact that they exist does not mean they are prevalent in the UK nor that the UK electorate is knowledgeable on this issue. But as the interaction with Gaius has proven, I fear you might be right about the straight bananas.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Where does it say that?
Also keep this in mind:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

The commission needs approval from the parliament to become (and stay) the commission in the first place.
Compare to the guy who makes a lot of the decisions in Britain nowadays:





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_...United_Kingdom

It's a position assigned by a king that has no basis in law or constitution and whoever the king appoints to it can can appoint all important ministers of the country, welcome to your banana kingdom!

What, wait... you think I'm some sort of 'Little Englander', passionate about my country's position as the 'mother of democracy' or some such bullshit? I'm a confirmed Republican (not in the American meaning, btw). It isn't or some democratic virtue of old Britannia that I argue for getting out of the EU, it is that I am against the centralising of power further away from electorates.

By the way...you say the parliament has to approve the commission, but that's all it has the power to do. It cannot legislate without the commission so, if it rejects the President and/or the commission then all that the parliament can do is stop the EU from operating. You feel that is sufficiently democratic?

As for what parliament can do....

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

You are the person claiming intricate knowledge of the workings of the EU while proving yourself to be ignorant of even the most basic things. If you claim the sun rises in the south, do I have to prove that? You have claimed a whole lot about the legislative procedure with fuck all to prove that your delusions are true. Fortunately some more generous posters have explained the situation to you, unfortunately that does not seem to have cured your delusional view of reality. They overturn it the same way they did ACTA, they vote against it and it is scrapped.

If you want to know labour figures of other countries I suggest that you consult those countries. And lets not blame it on the EU that your country does not wish to be part of Schengen (which is an EU thing by the way).

Incidentally, you have not informed me yet of how these things are not EU related:
Where does the free movement of people come from, that allows me to move to Spain/Germany/Italy next week if I get a job, without filling a ton of paperwork and applications? Where does the mostly no passport required border crossings come from? And could you explain to me how you think the legislative process works? I think that last question would be particularly enlightening.

So ACTA is dead and buried is it? The EU is still a signatory to the treaty (because the commission signed prior to any agreement from parliament...so they do not require parliamentary accord - just as they make clear in the PDF I linked to) , as are 22 member states. If those member states were to ratify the treaty then...that would leave a huge question mark over whether or not the non-signatory EU members are beholden to the treaty or not. Even if they are not, those member states that do ratify can essentially do so without a level of scrutiny that is appropriate for that legislation.

Schengen is an agreement between member states...in other words between nations. Schengen did not and does not require the EU; those nation states could have come to exactly the same agreement without the EU. You can argue that the EU made that agreement easier, but it is not legislation of the EU.

As for free movement.....I don't friggin' care. I think in the grand scheme of things the ability to move "more freely" is not as important as the defence of the concept of democratic rights. That's why I asked how many people you consider this affected? And whether this ease of free movement is reflected in a greater number of inter-EU ex-patria moves than extra-EU?