Remain or leave:UK referendum

[InsaneApache]

It looks like we (the UK) will given a chance to vote on whether to stay in or leave the EU. I wasn't sure how I could put my own personal feelings that I haven't voiced before. Then I found this....

There's this guy next door who I just can't make out. A few years ago, he and his family joined a local Co-operative group with a bunch of other families in our village, apparently with the intent of enabling them to buy and sell with those families. They pay a ton of cash into it, but my neighbour claims that it's worth it and they get more back in return than they put in.

That seems questionable to me, given the amount he pays into the Co-op (it’s a lot), but regardless of that there's a couple of other things connected with being a member of the group that I think I should point out, just so you know where I’m coming from.

Firstly, being a member of the Co-op doesn't just mean that he gets to buy and sell with the other families, as he told his family when they first joined. That would be fine, but it’s much more complex than that. The group is run by a Central Committee, which is made up of representatives from all the other member families, and together they set rules for all the households (although I understand that the smaller households have very little clout in the Central Committee and most decisions are made by four or five of the richer families).

You might ask what kind of rules. Well there’s a lot, but just to give you an example of one of the oddest – at least to my way of thinking – the Central Committee gets a say in who my neighbour can or cannot let into his house, and what rights they have once they're in. No kidding!

So much for the first oddity, here's the second. As I say, my family is not a member of the Co-op, and so you might think that would mean we don’t get to buy and sell with any of the families that are in the group. Actually no. We have private arrangements with those who are on the Central Committee and with a number of other families who are also not in the group. Only the other day, my wife made a big batch of jam and we sold it to three families that are on the Committee and a couple that aren’t.

What I'm saying is that we're basically free to trade with whichever families we want to in our village, yet unlike my neighbour, we set all our own rules, we get to decide who does and doesn't come into our house, and we have our own rules of the household which are – frankly speaking – nothing to do with any other family. Oh, and, of course, we don't have to pay anyone for the privilege of deciding these things for us!

It seems obvious to me who has the better deal, yet my neighbour not only thinks I'm barmy, he periodically insults me for our stance. Says we're isolated. He's even come up with an imaginative insult to describe us. Calls us "Little Householders" he does. I just laugh at him. I’m not sure why being able to run our own household the way we want makes us a “little household”, but there you go. Make of it what you will.

Now that's all bizarre, I think you will agree, but it gets even stranger. I know for a fact that some of my neighbour's family think all this is a bit mad as well. I sometimes hear them complaining about being told what they can and can’t do by the Central Committee, especially as some of the diktats they have to follow are simply crazy and they come in a book of rules and regulations that makes the Encyclopaedia Britannica look like a pamphlet. I've even heard some of them float the idea of pulling out. How does my neighbour deal with this? Simple, he becomes all things to all men. Occasionally, I hear him scaring them with stuff about being left isolated, friendless and like those "Little Householders" next door (that's us you know). Yet because he can't entirely ignore their concerns – even though he clearly wishes he could – I sometimes hear him doing the exact opposite: railing against the Co-op, and sounding like he’s going to get really tough with the Central Committee to fight for the family’s rights.

It's transparent nonsense, of course. He can’t fight for their rights of course, since in agreeing to be a member of the Central Committee he has already agreed to let other families decide what those rights are. If he were really interested in fighting for their rights, there’s only one way of doing it, and that’s by pulling out and becoming a sovereign household once more. This’ll never happen though. The man's a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Co-op and of the Central Committee and will do anything he can to remain in.

What he has done, however, is to tell his family that he’ll let them have a vote on whether to stay in or pull out of the Co-op. But here’s the catch: he has told them that they will get to vote only after he has first renegotiated some of the terms of their membership. I marvel at his cheek. For me, as an outsider, it’s as transparent as clear glass. He hopes that if he sounds tough enough, and if he manages to wring a few sops out of the Central Committee, he’ll be able to sell it to his family that he has really looked after their rights and protected their interests.

It’s actually been quite amusing – as an interested bystander that is – to see how he has been working out this little scheme. There he is, shuffling from one meeting to another, visiting other families on the Central Committee too, sounding tough, standing steadfast with a bunch of demands that they need to accept before he will allow his family to vote. Once they agree to his demands, he obviously plans to go back to his family, claim a famous victory, and then snigger to himself as they vote to remain in membership.

It's all an absolute farce of course. A lot of people are saying he's not going to get the concessions he's after, but call me a cynic when I say that I think he’s probably already worked out the details with the big families on the Central Committee already, but they all just have to have this ding dong in public to make it look to his family like he’s really fighting their corner. Even now I can hear him at the dinner table, calling his family together and, with that seriously pious face he puts on in such situations, saying, "Look what I negotiated. Of course we had to make some compromises – that's the nature of being in the Co-op – but I drove a hard bargain and got most of what I wanted. That's leadership for you". Then he’ll frighten them about the dangers of becoming a “Little Household” and about the dangers of all the other families snubbing them, and 101 other dangers of becoming a fully functioning, sovereign household. And then he’ll call a vote at a time he is sure he can win.

To an outsider like me, this is all really rather funny. The very fact that he has to get agreement from other families on the Central Committee on what rules he must adopt in his own household shows that he doesn’t even run a proper household in the first place. It’s certainly doesn’t qualify as an independent household under any reasonable definition of the words “independent household”, does it? That’s why the charge of being a “Little Householder” just cracks me up. I'd say that it perfectly describes a family that has wilfully agreed to abdicate its right to make major decisions about how it lives and functions to a committee made up of other families! But if he wants to continue calling us “Little Householders” for the perfectly natural desire to run our own house, why would that bother me? Sounds better than being a “Vassal Household”, does it not?

The only question that puzzles me is why he does it. Why cede control of your household to a group of other families, so that you have to go crawling to them whenever you don’t like some of the rules they’ve imposed on you? Why not just pull out and run the household yourself, trading with whomever wants your goods, and making up your own rules without having them imposed by other families? To my mind there is only one explanation that fits this bizarre behaviour: The Co-op allows him to get all sorts of rules passed in his family that he could never impose if it were just him doing it independently. But, you might ask, doesn’t this suggest that he doesn’t like his family very much? Yes, I rather think it does.

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/rob-slane-i-would-rather-be-a-little-englander-than-a-continental-serf/

Discuss.

[Don Corleone]

Happy New Year old friend! Hope that 2016 is a banner one for you.

I must confess that I'm not up to speed with the issues around the rules of the EU and membership agreements to offer an opinion of any meaningful value. However, what I will say is that while your article rings true to my libertarian heart, the UK should be prepared for some credit tightening should you vote against membership. The big guys tend to get steamed when you wrinkle their pretty plans.

[Beskar]

I was already eye-rolling after the first paragraph of the imaginary story and could smell where it was coming from a mile away. Could always change the story to reflect reality more...

I have to be first to admit, me and the folks in my village never really got on so great, especially with the Jones family near the middle, we have two village bustups with them over the last few years but after a while, we started to see eye-to-eye, especially when our village became under threat by nearby towns which are squeezing us out of trade and livelihoods, we started to realise that we couldn't really compete on our own, and we found that our often disagreements could have been easily resolved when we worked together, and when we almost lost our little village to these towns, we started to share some unity and instead of being vassals of these towns, we, as a village, could get together and build ourselves a town and stand on our own feet.

Progress was slow, as we had to get our neighbours to sign up. Mr. Jones and Louise were two of the first, getting their friends to start, though Robert with his big farmyard came a little later because they were worried he would dominant the town with his influence. But little by little, we got 28 of our neighbours in the village to start work on making us into a town.

First thing we realised, is that we needed a common marketplace. At the moment, many of the farms in the village simply trade from the back of their sheds, and each using different weights, with different rates, with vastly different standards and criteria to the products. This evidently became a problem when we were trading banana's on the shop floor, then the state of them sat there...I swear to you, Mr Smiths banana's looked and tasted more like jenkins! We thought the best way was instead of having 28 different rules and standards, all with niggling interferences and confusions, we will work from the same system. Now, the banana's are indeed bananas, very tasty too.

We noticed other issues too, like the village pond was being overfished and our stocks are facing extinction! We decided to come together to come to some arrangement about quotas, so instead of losing all the fish, we all cut back so it can be done at managable levels.

We also came together to do a few funds because of the flooding due to climate change ruining our homes in the downpour, especially the ones who live near the channel. This way, when someone in the town needs help, we have rainy day fund to tackle these issues together.

We also had a big issue with crime and some disruptive neighbours. So we got together and decided on a set of laws which each neighbour had to abide to, giving everyone rights, so they are protected, even if the head of the family is in the wrong. These arbitration system even extended to a nearby town and villages, who decided they wanted to be involved in it as well.

Now, you would think everything is all rosey with the progress we are making, and even though the village is starting to be a town, with everyone being civil, becoming more self-sufficient and becoming recognised as a very important town, there are those that object.

Most of this is due to the town being used as a scape-goat, with all the ills in the world being attributed to one policy or another, and Robert is one of those bad for doing this. Robert has one of the big farms in the town, and even though he benefits greatly from us, he likes to grumbles about everything petty even when it doesn't make sense, even bemoaning that he could sell to a neighbouring town and be their vassal that he could get more money. He is a spoilt brat with no vision sometimes, even though Ms Robert said she would divorce him if he left the town, because the town ensures she isn't enslaved to the kitchen by his demanding tendencies...


etc

[Beskar]

The big guys tend to get steamed when you wrinkle their pretty plans.

Curse that Abraham Lincoln!

[Don Corleone]

I was more thinking of those other great American agents of foreign policy: Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon and George Soros.

[InsaneApache]

We also came together to do a few funds because of the flooding due to climate change EU diktats ruining our homes in the downpour, especially the ones who live near the channel. This way, when someone in the town needs help, we have rainy day fund to tackle these issues together.

Fixed it for you.

[Beskar]

Fixed it for you.

Nope. The UK for example, is eligible for funding EU to increase flood defences, a fund which Germany has previously used before too. Instead, the conservative government cut funding, put up shoddy defences, and allowed the North to be flooded for giggles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. The UK for example, is eligible for funding EU to increase flood defences, a fund which Germany has previously used before too. Instead, the conservative government cut funding, put up shoddy defences, and allowed the North to be flooded for giggles.

Yhe defences were hardly shoddy, the downpour was unprecedented and nothing short of Dutch engineering would have stopped it.

Play fair ot don't play at all.

[rory_20_uk]

We should apply to join NAFTA. All the trade and little of the interference.

~:smoking:

[Crandar]

Also, the committee decided to commemorate the creation of the co-operative group in the 9th of May, in a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the fact that in the same day, the Communists crushed nazism once and for all.

Quite a coincidence, I would have bought it, if it wasn't for the Two Extremes theory and Communism=Fascism.

Out I say, but could the OP add a public poll, please?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where was the bald eagle named Small Government?

[Sarmatian]

We should apply to join NAFTA. All the trade and little of the interference.

~:smoking:

Until Trump decides to build a wall around UK for which you have to pay.

[Beskar]

Yhe defences were hardly shoddy, the downpour was unprecedented and nothing short of Dutch engineering would have stopped it.

Play fair ot don't play at all.

They are lacklustre at best and it has always been a gripe where everyone have always said as such, but ended up hand-waved away, only to be proven right. It isn't unprecedented as it happened a few years ago as well, but the same exact issue happened again.

Though, I am sure the Dutch like the praise given to them.

[lars573]

Until Trump decides to build a wall around UK for which you have to pay.
Actually they should be more worried about being held to every line of the agreement while the Yank's just do whatever they want. Treaty be damned.

[Fragony]

Hope you guys vote a solid no, we also voted no against a eurpean conitution but they just call it something else and do it anyway.

Juncker when as usual drunk: we decide something, if there is no (actual) resistance we push it through, nobody knows what we are doing anyway (loose translation)

[rory_20_uk]

Until Trump decides to build a wall around UK for which you have to pay.

God helped matters by putting the English Channel there already.

And given that this is a trade block, with no intention for political union it is the better option - like the EEC all those years ago.

When NAFTA signs the agreement with the EU we'd keep our market access anyway.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

When NAFTA signs the agreement with the EU we'd keep our market access anyway.

OK, may that all trade agreements in the world be nullified until they can be consolidated under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

:sneaky:

[Idaho]

I have no love of the corrupt, secretive and wasteful EU - but I can't see that an exit now would be of any benefit. The experience of Denmark is that they have to abide by all the EU rules, but have no influence over them. Voting for an exit is just little englander belligerence and cutting off our nose to spite our faces.

[Myth]

Leave the EU, restore the Empire. Restore the Monarchy. Bring back longbows in service.

[Gilrandir]

And billmen.

[Greyblades]

I have no love of the corrupt, secretive and wasteful EU - but I can't see that an exit now would be of any benefit. The experience of Denmark is that they have to abide by all the EU rules, but have no influence over them. Voting for an exit is just little englander belligerence and cutting off our nose to spite our faces.

Probably not the best comparison for a pro eu argument considering denmark seems to be one of the only countries in europe not floundering.

[Idaho]

Your propensity to confuse a number of issues and then make a poor judgement based on the hash you present is always entertaining.

We are not comparing in or out countries and their economies (in fact Denmark is having much the same issues as it's neighbours).

I wouldn't describe myself as pro EU. Just not aligned with the ukip fruitloops.

[Fragony]

Why are ukip fruitloops when eurocrats don't even understand the difference between a continent; europe, and an ultra-undemocratic institution; EU. The end of the EU is not the end of Europe, just less gin-tonics for Juncker.

[Idaho]

Why are ukip fruitloops when eurocrats don't even understand the difference between a continent; europe, and an ultra-undemocratic institution; EU. The end of the EU is not the end of Europe, just less gin-tonics for Juncker.Because they are a motley band of old farts, racists, would be mob demogogues, Tories that are too nuts for even the tory party, and plain old buffoons who want twice as much power as they have brain cells. I haven't seen a single ukipper who I would trust to tie my shoe laces.

[InsaneApache]

Do you know what a 'little Englander' is Idaho?

You do seem a bit confused, (or brainwashed).


1. (Historical Terms) (esp in the 19th century) a person opposed to the extension of the British Empire

I hope that helps clear up the issue for you mate.


I haven't seen a single ukipper who I would trust to tie my shoe laces.

I'd learned to tie up my own by the time I was six years old. :)

[Fragony]

Because they are a motley band of old farts, racists, would be mob demogogues, Tories that are too nuts for even the tory party, and plain old buffoons who want twice as much power as they have brain cells. I haven't seen a single ukipper who I would trust to tie my shoe laces.

If ukip gets more swords to wield that can still be your opinion on them withour you having a problem. Have you looked up what eurocrats actually say? Especially Juncker, drunks tend to speak what's on their mind. Ukip are true liberals imo, dying kind.

[Greyblades]

Your propensity to confuse a number of issues and then make a poor judgement based on the hash you present is always entertaining.
It's surprising you have enough room there for montmorency's words, considering what else of his you've already taken to mouth... I mean heart.

[Furunculus]

Voting for an exit is just little englander belligerence and cutting off our nose to spite our faces.

Or, perhaps, a simple necessity to avoid be embroiled in a political and economic union that is an absolute precondition to the eurozones survival.

This being but [[[one]]] small example:

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf


De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:

• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.

• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.

• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.

Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.

In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.

This would have reduced the EU’s value in British eyes, bringing a serious disconnect between the perception of the price we pay (in constitutional terms) vs the value we derive (in economic terms).

If we dodge this bullet then great, content (not happy, mind), to stay In. Otherwise, I will be happy (not merely content), to leave.

[Fragony]

Because they are a motley band of old farts, racists, would be mob demogogues, Tories that are too nuts for even the tory party, and plain old buffoons who want twice as much power as they have brain cells. I haven't seen a single ukipper who I would trust to tie my shoe laces.

Why are UKIP racist, don't see how. Actual racists vote BNP, and I think you can't accuse most of them of racism either, not sure about the voters though. A lot of people are just fed up with the EU, c'est ca. A vote for a pro-EU party is volunteering for serfdom.

[InsaneApache]

Just heard David Lammy MP on the daily politics tell Steven Wolf from UKIP that a million Indian soldiers died in WWII to save the EU. He's either a friggin lier or as thick as pig shit. My monies on the latter......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwyVQ2IQuE

There you go....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CkpWOiLfXU

[Papewaio]

2.5 million Indians served the British Empire in WWII.

Casualties thankfully were way less then a million.

[Pannonian]

2.5 million Indians served the British Empire in WWII.

Casualties thankfully were way less then a million.

The largest all volunteer force outside the main powers. A sizeable chunk of the British and Commonwealth army serving on the western front in the first war were Indians too. Even if he got the details wrong, the MP was closer to the mark in remembering their service than InsaneApache is in ridiculing the claim.

[Beskar]

Maybe he thought he was talking about Apache Indians.

[Husar]

I think what IA ridiculed is the claim that they fought for the EU or the European project. The only one who had a European project back then was Hitler and they didn't fight for him I think.

[InsaneApache]

The largest all volunteer force outside the main powers. A sizeable chunk of the British and Commonwealth army serving on the western front in the first war were Indians too. Even if he got the details wrong, the MP was closer to the mark in remembering their service than InsaneApache is in ridiculing the claim.

The only ridicule is for the cretin Lammy.

BTW British Indian Army casualties in WWII was around 85,000

Oh and my grandad was in the British Army in India.

[Greyblades]

So was mine, though he was a radio operator so I'm not sure how much actual fighting he did.

The indians in world war 2 fought for two things: the British Empire and their own independance.

Thanks to an agreement between britain and the independance movement, to let india go after the war in exchange for aid during, both motivations were fulfilled through fighting the axis powers.

[InsaneApache]

So was mine, though he was a radio operator so I'm not sure how much actual fighting he did.

The indians in world war 2 fought for two things: the British Empire and their own independance.

Thanks to an agreement between britain and the independance movement, to let india go after the war in exchange for aid during, both motivations were fulfilled through fighting the axis powers.

IIRC they were offered British passports.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because they are a motley band of old farts, racists, would be mob demogogues, Tories that are too nuts for even the tory party, and plain old buffoons who want twice as much power as they have brain cells. I haven't seen a single ukipper who I would trust to tie my shoe laces.

And you accuse ME of talking cobblers.

UKIP is the party for traditionalists in the most part, that leads to a certain level of Anti-EU sentiment and isolationism. That's not the same as racism and xenophobia.

Expecting the general population to accept change or see it as positive is naive, people only want change when their live really suck. Like for example, one of my housemates tried to break down the toilet door, so now I'm moving house.

[Snowhobbit]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35471117

Will the deal be enough to pacify the electorate?
Is it enough to satisfy our very own IA?

[rory_20_uk]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35471117

Will the deal be enough to pacify the electorate?
Is it enough to satisfy our very own IA?

It is very, very weak stuff - mainly aimed at headlines "red card", "emergency break" whilst in the detail it is practically impossible to get these things actioned.

It is EU drivel at its finest - half baked and so vague it could potentially mean anything to anyone (which I am sure is the whole point so every politician can spin away as their internal audience requires).

Given I have as yet no idea what the EU in/out is a deal on I continue to wait for the final parameters are. I currently think joining NAFTA remains the best option and having free trade with Europe via the TPP and NATO for protection.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Let me see if I have understood the deal:
we still have to pay up when the Euro states need bailing out;
we still have to fund the CAP;
we still have to bow to the CFP;
we still have to let Brussels set the agenda on immigration;
we still have to kowtow when Brussels decides to steal a bit more of our independence;
we still have to accept all the horse-traded and lobby-led legislation that is hamstringing our economy and burying us in nitpicking red tape;
but we might be able to tweak a few details of our social policies, but only of our fellow members agree.

Which way to vote is going to be a really tough decision.

[Snowhobbit]

It is very, very weak stuff - mainly aimed at headlines "red card", "emergency break" whilst in the detail it is practically impossible to get these things actioned.

It is EU drivel at its finest - half baked and so vague it could potentially mean anything to anyone (which I am sure is the whole point so every politician can spin away as their internal audience requires).

Given I have as yet no idea what the EU in/out is a deal on I continue to wait for the final parameters are. I currently think joining NAFTA remains the best option and having free trade with Europe via the TPP and NATO for protection.

~:smoking:
The red card is actually a real and effective measure, a stronger version of the current yellow card. Mainly the deal is revolving around what Cameron has demanded, and leaves room for the concessions he has asked for.
I'm not at all sure what the situation would be if UK leaves, maybe like Norway? You have to obey all EU laws (in order to be part of the free trade zone) but you don't get to vote on any of them. I don't really see how that is an advantage though, you still have to pay the membership fees.



Let me see if I have understood the deal:
we still have to pay up when the Euro states need bailing out;
we still have to fund the CAP;
we still have to bow to the CFP;
we still have to let Brussels set the agenda on immigration;
we still have to kowtow when Brussels decides to steal a bit more of our independence;
we still have to accept all the horse-traded and lobby-led legislation that is hamstringing our economy and burying us in nitpicking red tape;
but we might be able to tweak a few details of our social policies, but only of our fellow members agree.

Which way to vote is going to be a really tough decision.

Were you in favour of joining the predecessor to the EU when UK joined? If you are fundamentally opposed to all that the union involves obviously there is only one choice when it comes to voting.

[Idaho]

And you accuse ME of talking cobblers.

UKIP is the party for traditionalists in the most part, that leads to a certain level of Anti-EU sentiment and isolationism. That's not the same as racism and xenophobia.

Expecting the general population to accept change or see it as positive is naive, people only want change when their live really suck. Like for example, one of my housemates tried to break down the toilet door, so now I'm moving house.

Why does UKIP - the party that talks about immigration and foreigners more than any other - have it's strongholds in places with the least immigrants? What does that tell us?

[InsaneApache]

Were you in favour of joining the predecessor to the EU when UK joined? If you are fundamentally opposed to all that the union involves obviously there is only one choice when it comes to voting.

Yes very much so. A trading bloc seemed like a good idea. However that's what we were told that we were getting. Not laws handed down to us by people we didn't get the chance to elect or have the ability to remove.

It's called democracy 101.


The red card is actually a real and effective measure, a stronger version of the current yellow card.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XGF8MRccUI

[Snowhobbit]

Yes very much so. A trading bloc seemed like a good idea. However that's what we were told that we were getting. Not laws handed down to us by people we didn't get the chance to elect or have the ability to remove.

It's called democracy 101.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XGF8MRccUI
Yes, that is of course an issue if people join something which is then changed without their consent. I'm personally not opposed to a referendum, it is healthy in a democracy to do so if it is a major and contentious issue from time to time. You do get to elect the people who pass the laws however.

The yellow card has been used, there is no reason why the red card would not, if other measures to stop an unpopular law have failed.

[Idaho]

I would love to see them try the no-in-work-benefits-for-migrants* as it's utterly unworkable and would hit the Tory small business heartland more than anything else. The agricultural industry in the UK is sustained by low wages topped up by tax credits.

*well actually I wouldn't. It will cause a lot of misery.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, that is of course an issue if people join something which is then changed without their consent. I'm personally not opposed to a referendum, it is healthy in a democracy to do so if it is a major and contentious issue from time to time. You do get to elect the people who pass the laws however.

The yellow card has been used, there is no reason why the red card would not, if other measures to stop an unpopular law have failed.

We do elect people. However they are elected from a choice of 2 main parties and 2 minor parties and they do not have to say what they will do on any given issue - and even if they do they can change their minds or be whipped to do something else.

They yellow card has been used twice and requires a lot of other countries to agree else it is worthless.


I would love to see them try the no-in-work-benefits-for-migrants* as it's utterly unworkable and would hit the Tory small business heartland more than anything else. The agricultural industry in the UK is sustained by low wages topped up by tax credits.

I'm not sure if it is that unworkable - we all do have National Insurance numbers and it should be relatively easy to work out when people got them. Although I am confident the Civil Service could mess it up - Facebook and Google provide complex services the world over whereas department after department shows themselves to be more adept at spending money than getting results.

Perhaps agricultural work should be taken by those without other forms of work, rather than paying one lot not to work then others coming in to do it.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12166097/david-cameron-cabinet-leave-brexit-EU-referendum-june-23-live.html

23rd of June then. Game on! :boxing:


We must be clear about this,” he said. “It does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say 'Let it end’ but, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.”

[Fragony]

What are your expectations personally? We are going to stir up some trouble the 6th of april here as well

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I'm no fan of UKIP,and I'm not sure that my reasons for wanting to remove the UK from the EU is based on the same principles. At the heart of the EU is an unelected commission, which is actually (as in de facto) it's decision making organ. I believe in sovereignty, not just national sovereignty but personal sovereignty. What is required is further devolution of sovereignty, not removing citizens further and further from the decision making process...which is what the EU represents.

There is also the small matter of the TTIP (a trade agreement being manufactured and negotiated in secret by that unelected commission), and that the cost of membership outstrips the benefits.

Why would anybody of sound mind want to centralise power further and further away from themselves, from their own sovereignty?

[Brenus]

I am shared on this one. I, as French, voted against the European treaty as it was the way to what Tories want, a Economical Zone only, playing poor against poorest, making each community/nation in competition against each other to the great profit of the City (and others).
So, I am not in de-favour of UK leaving the EU, as it might retch the all construction, and then perhaps, rebuilt one, political, economical and social where only rules of democracy will be implemented, without any specific economical programmes.
As a French leaving in UK, I am quite sure bi-agreement will be reach, as there is as many French leaving in UK than English leaving in France.
France will be able to get rid of Calais emigrants, bon voyage and others things, did you paid your ticket etc.. If UK can renegotiate treaties, why not all others countries?

"There is also the small matter of the TTIP" Err, UK will negotiate with USA alone?:sweatdrop: Good luck.
This leads of course to what will happen after UK leaving EU.
Nothing can assure the UK:
First that Scotland will not go for a new independence referendum, and the "we are stronger together" will a bit more difficult to sell
Second, that the others Europeans countries will not decide within EU some rules that UK will have yo follow in order to trade with EU, and with UK not able to say a thing about it. All countries dealing with EU have to follow EU legislation in matters of safety, products etc, except China, Russia and USA and these are big players...
Third, the big banks will probably emigrate to Frankfurt or Paris, as if EU decides to do it, EU can re-install all the monitoring on financial exchange coming from the City.

In short, a lonely UK independence might lead in fact to much bigger dependence to big powers. Not mentioning that the USA will not really see the reason to deal with the UK, as it use within Europe will be over.

[Pannonian]

I am shared on this one. I, as French, voted against the European treaty as it was the way to what Tories want, a Economical Zone only, playing poor against poorest, making each community/nation in competition against each other to the great profit of the City (and others).
So, I am not in de-favour of UK leaving the EU, as it might retch the all construction, and then perhaps, rebuilt one, political, economical and social where only rules of democracy will be implemented, without any specific economical programmes.
As a French leaving in UK, I am quite sure bi-agreement will be reach, as there is as many French leaving in UK than English leaving in France.
France will be able to get rid of Calais emigrants, bon voyage and others things, did you paid your ticket etc.. If UK can renegotiate treaties, why not all others countries?

"There is also the small matter of the TTIP" Err, UK will negotiate with USA alone?:sweatdrop: Good luck.
This leads of course to what will happen after UK leaving EU.
Nothing can assure the UK:
First that Scotland will not go for a new independence referendum, and the "we are stronger together" will a bit more difficult to sell
Second, that the others Europeans countries will not decide within EU some rules that UK will have yo follow in order to trade with EU, and with UK not able to say a thing about it. All countries dealing with EU have to follow EU legislation in matters of safety, products etc, except China, Russia and USA and these are big players...
Third, the big banks will probably emigrate to Frankfurt or Paris, as if EU decides to do it, EU can re-install all the monitoring on financial exchange coming from the City.

In short, a lonely UK independence might lead in fact to much bigger dependence to big powers. Not mentioning that the USA will not really see the reason to deal with the UK, as it use within Europe will be over.

Why do you continue to live in the UK, when it's obviously such a canker for you? Why don't you up sticks and move to somewhere which is closer to what you'd like a country to be? It's just a short journey via the Chunnel.

[Greyblades]

The scots wont leave for the simple fact that they used up their generation's vote. They made their decision and they must stick to it or their word is worthless.

The way I see it the EU, as it is, is run by the suicidally incompetent. They have screwed up everything they have touched in the last few years, without change they will continue to screw up and the union will fall apart with or without us. Our choice is to escape now in an attempt to avoid the fallout or stay and hope that it gets better with the knowledge that we might just end up leaving anyway.

The UK is not luxembourg, it wont be easy and it wont all go our way but we can survive without the EU. I'm hoping that the fear of losing us will provoke the EU into cleaning up their act, and if they do I will vote to stay, but if they continue as they have any consequence will be worth removing the Albatross of Brussels from our necks and the resulting downgrade in the EU's authority will most certainly be deserved.

[Pannonian]

The scots wont leave for the simple fact that they used up their generation's vote. They made their decision and they must stick to it or their word is worthless.

The way I see it the EU, as it is, is run by the suicidally incompetent. They have screwed up everything they have touched in the last few years, without change they will continue to screw up and the union will fall apart with or without us. Our choice is to escape now in an attempt to avoid the fallout or stay and hope that it gets better with the knowledge that we might just end up leaving anyway.

The UK is not luxembourg, it wont be easy and it wont all go our way but we can survive without the EU. I'm hoping that the fear of losing us will provoke the EU into cleaning up their act, and if they do I will vote to stay, but if they continue as they have any consequence will be worth removing the Albatross of Brussels from our necks and the resulting downgrade in the EU's authority will most certainly be deserved.

Most of our infrastructure, physical and otherwise, was built with the EU in mind. We can survive without the EU, but it will be one heck of an upheaval, and expensive to boot. I don't see why we can't do what the French do, which is to take what we want of the EU, and ignore what we don't want. If there are regulations that we don't agree with, we can still go by our own, and let the European market decide whether they want our products or not. Exiting the EU is just unnecessary grandstanding, posturing to say this is what we're not. It'll give the rump every excuse to exclude the UK from all that's useful and positive about the EU, and they'd be right to do so. Just as Scotland exiting the UK would give the rUK every excuse to do the same to Scotland.

[Greyblades]

Can france really do that with no repercussions?

The rub as I see it is that we could have a good thing in the EU if it gets it's act together, if it cant it is better to cut our losses, take the hit now and renegociate with each EU nation individually.

As we cant see the future it will depend on what Brussles does between now and july and if they are beligerent as they have been then we will leave.

[Pannonian]

Can france really do that with no repercussions?

The rub as I see it is that we could have a good thing in the EU if it gets it's act together, if it cant it is better to cut our losses, take the hit now and renegociate with each EU nation individually.

As we cant see the future it will depend on what Brussles does between now and july and if they are beligerent as they have been then we will leave.

We've managed to negotiate exceptions from the worst of Brussels' excesses anyway, so we're unaffected (directly anyway) by the weaknesses of Schengen, the Eurozone, and other lunacies that other EU countries are afflicted with. Most of the negative issues affecting the UK are UK-based ones, such as the demographics, the economy, balance of spending, etc. Leaving the EU solves few of those, and adds a heap more. It doesn't solve much that actually affects us in practice, but is gesture politics with massive repercussions. A bit like our interventions in the middle east and Libya, it's a statement of what we are and aren't, but doesn't actually do much good, whilst costing us a heck of a lot. And unlike those earlier pieces of stupidity, it'll cost us a lot, long term.

It's never the glamorous side to take, but the status quo serves us best and harms us least. Just adjust here and there, and the mood within Europe seems to be that adjustments will come sooner or later anyway.

[Greyblades]

Any recommended reading? I am starting to realize how little I know for certain.

[Pannonian]

Any recommended reading? I am starting to realize how little I know for certain.

Look up the various opt outs that British governments have managed to negotiate in the various EU treaties, starting with Major and Maastricht. With these in place, the EU from the UK's perspective is practically an EEC anyway.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Most of our infrastructure, physical and otherwise, was built with the EU in mind. We can survive without the EU, but it will be one heck of an upheaval, and expensive to boot. I don't see why we can't do what the French do, which is to take what we want of the EU, and ignore what we don't want. If there are regulations that we don't agree with, we can still go by our own, and let the European market decide whether they want our products or not. Exiting the EU is just unnecessary grandstanding, posturing to say this is what we're not. It'll give the rump every excuse to exclude the UK from all that's useful and positive about the EU, and they'd be right to do so. Just as Scotland exiting the UK would give the rUK every excuse to do the same to Scotland.

You'll have to point out what those major costs are, because I know of none. And...if you are clinging onto the EU in order to counteract the Tories....the Tories we can overturn, what ability do we have to affect the EU commission's decisions?

[Greyblades]

Er... actually that's kinda funny (extra if true) because the tories are split on the issue and it is that split that is making me question. I mean the phenomena of Cameron, Corbin and Sturgeon all agreeing on something is so rare that it must be worth at least a second glance.

[Pannonian]

You'll have to point out what those major costs are, because I know of none. And...if you are clinging onto the EU in order to counteract the Tories....the Tories we can overturn, what ability do we have to affect the EU commission's decisions?

If you're talking about TTIP, I have no idea what any democratic organ of ours can do to overturn it. AFAIK it's the product of corporate bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. You have to recognise that at least one group of these, on the western side of the Atlantic, already has a single government backing them. And as hard as it is to swallow, at least the second group, on the eastern side of the Atlantic, is closer to our way of thinking than that on the west. Unless you want to quit both groups entirely (and in practice moving away from the EU only means wanting to move closer to the US), at least we'll be a more significant voice within the second, more fragmented group. Corporations will look to screw us no matter what, but at least European ones speak a closer political language to that we're used to.

On political discourse, would you prefer to guard against a government looking to privatise parts of the NHS, or would you prefer a political discourse that sees no need at all for an NHS, and dispense with it entirely in favour of building from private foundations? The former is what we have in the UK, which is reasonably close to other social programmes in Europe. The latter is the US, and is alien to me. Other than the shared English language, the political discourse in the US is far more alien to me than that in Europe.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

If you're talking about TTIP, I have no idea what any democratic organ of ours can do to overturn it. AFAIK it's the product of corporate bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. You have to recognise that at least one group of these, on the western side of the Atlantic, already has a single government backing them. And as hard as it is to swallow, at least the second group, on the eastern side of the Atlantic, is closer to our way of thinking than that on the west. Unless you want to quit both groups entirely (and in practice moving away from the EU only means wanting to move closer to the US), at least we'll be a more significant voice within the second, more fragmented group. Corporations will look to screw us no matter what, but at least European ones speak a closer political language to that we're used to.

On political discourse, would you prefer to guard against a government looking to privatise parts of the NHS, or would you prefer a political discourse that sees no need at all for an NHS, and dispense with it entirely in favour of building from private foundations? The former is what we have in the UK, which is reasonably close to other social programmes in Europe. The latter is the US, and is alien to me. Other than the shared English language, the political discourse in the US is far more alien to me than that in Europe.

You keep making these claims that if we leave the EU then we MUST join the US in some economic/political pact. This strikes me as just fundamentally ill-founded nonsense. As I say...why should I trust an EU commission that I have absolutely no way of representing myself to, that I have no way of making answerable to me or any other electorate, to look after my interests in negotiations regarding TTIP? Why are those negotiations taking part in secret away even from the EU parliament? Why tf does anyone think there is a requirement for any body to enter TTIP negotiations?

This idea that the EU has always had a strong socialist block is the reason the Labour party are keen on it. To my mind that is a huge error, based upon a belief that the EU parliament, rather than the commission, is the decision making body.

[Fragony]

Drunks tend to be honest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168/Jean-Claude-Junckers-most-outrageous-political-quotations.html

[InsaneApache]

It's never the glamorous side to take, but the status quo serves us best and harms us least. Just adjust here and there, and the mood within Europe seems to be that adjustments will come sooner or later anyway.

It's as simple as this. Forget all the scaremongering of economic/global/nuclear meltdown that been chucked about.

Do you want the ability to remove the lawmakers/politicians at the ballot box, or do you desire to be governed by potentates that you cannot remove?

Also ponder on this, if the UK votes to stay in then expect the Euro to be implemented soon after.......

[Greyblades]

...And how will they do that? Or did Cameron's deal include a "we'll give up our nukes and armies" clause that I missed.

[Gilrandir]

Why do you continue to live in the UK, when it's obviously such a canker for you? Why don't you up sticks and move to somewhere which is closer to what you'd like a country to be? It's just a short journey via the Chunnel.

He doesn't like what the French government does either. So it is a nowhere-to-run situation for him.

[Brenus]

“Why do you continue to live in the UK, when it's obviously such a canker for you? Why don't you up sticks and move to somewhere which is closer to what you'd like a country to be? It's just a short journey via the Chunnel.” Well, to annoy people like you is a great motivation, I would say, but the main real motive is I am married with an English/Irish woman and I have family in UK, so I am a little stuck.
Then England is not so bad, as country, but like all countries no without flaws.
The third observation is how from this sentence (speaking of politic) you draw your conclusion is beyond me. Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction because a foreigner speaks what you perceive as an attack?
Channel, not chunnel.

“The way I see it the EU, as it is, is run by the suicidally incompetent” Agree.

“I'm hoping that the fear of losing us will provoke the EU into cleaning up their act” I wish, but I don’t think it will.
Then I am not sure that you and I share the same view on what the EU should be, but it is other debate. I certainly didn’t signed for a free-market zone with no regulations and exploitation of the weakest (reason why I voted against the European Treaty, as a majority of French, fact that was pushed away against democratic rules. Imagine Putin doing this, the comments of the EU commission…).

“I don't see why we can't do what the French do, which is to take what we want of the EU, and ignore what we don't want” The fact is UK does. When Poland came in EU, France opted a 2 years ban before having them as workers. UK decided to have the migration…

“Can france really do that with no repercussions?” Do what?

“This idea that the EU has always had a strong socialist block is the reason” :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:. I can’t unfortunately give you a link as what they show is not the reality (or my vision of reality, should I say).

“He doesn't like what the French government does either” :laugh4: A bit of truth in it. However, I saw no one leaving a country after elections. I know the super-rich and bankers say they would if a “lefty” government would take power (or basically any form of government saying they will take a bit of the money they earn/take thanks to the protection of the same governments), but they in fact never do.
Ooops, except G Depardieux who became a Russian, proof that Putin is a real Red with a knife between the teeth..

17603

[Pannonian]

You keep making these claims that if we leave the EU then we MUST join the US in some economic/political pact. This strikes me as just fundamentally ill-founded nonsense. As I say...why should I trust an EU commission that I have absolutely no way of representing myself to, that I have no way of making answerable to me or any other electorate, to look after my interests in negotiations regarding TTIP? Why are those negotiations taking part in secret away even from the EU parliament? Why tf does anyone think there is a requirement for any body to enter TTIP negotiations?

This idea that the EU has always had a strong socialist block is the reason the Labour party are keen on it. To my mind that is a huge error, based upon a belief that the EU parliament, rather than the commission, is the decision making body.

Do you reckon the UK can stand alone in splendid isolation against competing economic blocs the size of the US and the EU? If not, and if you agree that we have to be part of a bloc of some kind, what role do you see us in the process of collective bargaining? On what basis does the bargaining start from? Does the bargaining start from the expectation that all activity starts from near-untrammelled individual freedom, with individual lawsuits and insurance holding abuses in check (the US position)? Or does the bargaining start from the expectation that government-enforced regulations are an integral part of individual activity (the European position)?

As for the unelected EU commission, that's part of collective bargaining. Executives making commercial decisions won't be elected. Neither on either side of the Atlantic will be answerable to the electorate. But does it hurt less to be screwed by the corporates on the west side of the Atlantic, or by those on the east side of the Atlantic? Or would you prefer to stand aside, and be screwed by both?

[Pannonian]

He doesn't like what the French government does either. So it is a nowhere-to-run situation for him.

I've not seen him look forward to things happening just for the pleasure of screwing the French people over though, as he frequently does with the British. It's one thing to disagree, but another thing to take pleasure in the misfortune of the people among whom he lives.

[Fragony]

Brits should join the ranks of everybody who is tired of all this meddling of alchoholists and lobbyists. England, Denmark, Netherlands, nobody else.

[Pannonian]

Brits should join the ranks of everybody who is tired of all this meddling of alchoholists and lobbyists. England, Denmark, Netherlands, nobody else.

There are lobbyists in the UK as well, as Scotland and the regions frequently blame Westminster for. Wherever there is government, there will be lobbyists. Scotland blames London. London blames Brussels. Brussels probably blames Washington.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Do you reckon the UK can stand alone in splendid isolation against competing economic blocs the size of the US and the EU? If not, and if you agree that we have to be part of a bloc of some kind, what role do you see us in the process of collective bargaining? On what basis does the bargaining start from? Does the bargaining start from the expectation that all activity starts from near-untrammelled individual freedom, with individual lawsuits and insurance holding abuses in check (the US position)? Or does the bargaining start from the expectation that government-enforced regulations are an integral part of individual activity (the European position)?

As for the unelected EU commission, that's part of collective bargaining. Executives making commercial decisions won't be elected. Neither on either side of the Atlantic will be answerable to the electorate. But does it hurt less to be screwed by the corporates on the west side of the Atlantic, or by those on the east side of the Atlantic? Or would you prefer to stand aside, and be screwed by both?

Really? You think we have to tie ourselves to a bloc? You really swallow all this nonsense? Why do you think the EU don't want us to leave? For our benefit? If we left the EU countries would still want to do business with us, they would still want economic involvement. As for TTIP...you speak as if everybody HAS to agree to some form of it. It is essentially the loss of sovereignty to corporate bodies, being negotiated by an unelected commission. That unelected commission is not de facto answerable to the European parliament, in the same way that, for example, the government is answerable to the UK parliament.

Tell me, what major blocs are Iceland, Switzerland or Denmark tied to for their economic safety? How assured must the Greek people be that their elected representatives are able to make economic decisions about their country?

This whole idea that we have to be part of a bloc, or that we have to accept TTIP is scaremongering nonsense, not backed by any evidence at all.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

There are lobbyists in the UK as well, as Scotland and the regions frequently blame Westminster for. Wherever there is government, there will be lobbyists. Scotland blames London. London blames Brussels. Brussels probably blames Washington.

Well...I tend to agree, that is the problem of centralisation....especially when the key electorate are in particular areas. As I said, I believe there should be greater devolution, not more centralisation.

[Fragony]

There are lobbyists in the UK as well, as Scotland and the regions frequently blame Westminster for. Wherever there is government, there will be lobbyists. Scotland blames London. London blames Brussels. Brussels probably blames Washington.

Of course there are, but it only takes denouncing a word if you are smart

edit, it guess I should say more. The word I mean is populism. To who exactly is that a bad word really? I know who. Let's take a look at history. It was when the elite just took land. First populist was Grachus, how dared he protesting to thievery. Populist! Didn't end well for him.

[Pannonian]

Really? You think we have to tie ourselves to a bloc? You really swallow all this nonsense? Why do you think the EU don't want us to leave? For our benefit? If we left the EU countries would still want to do business with us, they would still want economic involvement. As for TTIP...you speak as if everybody HAS to agree to some form of it. It is essentially the loss of sovereignty to corporate bodies, being negotiated by an unelected commission. That unelected commission is not de facto answerable to the European parliament, in the same way that, for example, the government is answerable to the UK parliament.

Tell me, what major blocs are Iceland, Switzerland or Denmark tied to for their economic safety? How assured must the Greek people be that their elected representatives are able to make economic decisions about their country?

This whole idea that we have to be part of a bloc, or that we have to accept TTIP is scaremongering nonsense, not backed by any evidence at all.

The difference between Iceland and other extra-EU countries is that they're outside the EU, and they will remain outside the EU, whereas you're advocating that we should actively remove ourselves from the EU. See the case of Scotland, and the issues involved. There are many, many institutions in Scotland that are integrated with the UK. Independence wouldn't mean a Scotland separate from the UK, but a Scotland separated from the UK. The rUK could easily survive without Scotland, whereas Scotland would be in a poor position without the UK, but both would be better off as we've always been. Similarly with the UK and the EU. BrExit doesn't mean a UK separate from the EU, but a UK separated from the EU. And as in the case of Scotland, the larger body that is the rEU could well survive better than the UK in the event of separation, but both would be better off with the status quo.

In the event of BrExit, I can see the kind of vindictiveness towards the UK, as was mooted from the rUK towards an independent Scotland. That's what separation means. Renegotiate economic treaties? Why would anyone look to give the UK good terms, when there's a far bigger market on their doorstep who will be looking to stop any further defectors?

[Pannonian]

Of course there are, but it only takes denouncing a word if you are smart

edit, it guess I should say more. The word I mean is populism. To who exactly is that a bad word really? I know who. Let's take a look at history. It was when the elite just took land. First populist was Grachus, how dared he protesting to thievery. Populist! Didn't end well for him.

s this meant to relate to anything EU, or is this a general historical musing?

[Brenus]

"It's one thing to disagree, but another thing to take pleasure in the misfortune of the people among whom he lives." And when did I did that? As I live the same misfortune...:laugh4:

[Gilrandir]

Channel, not chunnel.



People, how could you have failed to notice this one? Brenus correcting the spelling of a Brit. :hail:

[Pannonian]

People, how could you have failed to notice this one? Brenus correcting the spelling of a Brit. :hail:

Chunnel (http://www.chunnel.org.uk/) = Channel Tunnel.

Eurostar, St Pancras to Gare du Nord.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The difference between Iceland and other extra-EU countries is that they're outside the EU, and they will remain outside the EU, whereas you're advocating that we should actively remove ourselves from the EU.

?? Yes I'm advocating that your suggestion that we just HAVE to be tied to one bloc or another or risk economic annihilation is without any foundation. You are now arguing a different point, it seems. So...before we move on, there is no evidence (and in fact is counter-evidence to the claim) that to avoid economic apocalypse the UK MUST choose a bloc.



See the case of Scotland, and the issues involved. There are many, many institutions in Scotland that are integrated with the UK. Independence wouldn't mean a Scotland separate from the UK, but a Scotland separated from the UK. The rUK could easily survive without Scotland, whereas Scotland would be in a poor position without the UK, but both would be better off as we've always been. Similarly with the UK and the EU. BrExit doesn't mean a UK separate from the EU, but a UK separated from the EU. And as in the case of Scotland, the larger body that is the rEU could well survive better than the UK in the event of separation, but both would be better off with the status quo.

In the event of BrExit, I can see the kind of vindictiveness towards the UK, as was mooted from the rUK towards an independent Scotland. That's what separation means. Renegotiate economic treaties? Why would anyone look to give the UK good terms, when there's a far bigger market on their doorstep who will be looking to stop any further defectors?

There are fundamental differences with Scotland/the UK and UK/EU. Firstly, Scotland and the UK share a currency. Secondly our armed forces form one singular entity. Thirdly...regarding government ownership (particularly off-shore). None of these apply to the UK/EU. I have asked what these implications are, that you have claimed there will be a cost to separate ourselves from...you haven't managed to outline one yet.

As for the idea that there might be ramifications due to vindictiveness....there would be no good economic sense in that. Scaremongering is all that is.

Can you actually give a reason why the UK would be worse off, rather than just vague hint at some things....

[Fragony]

s this meant to relate to anything EU, or is this a general historical musing?

Can be both. It's an intellectual sin to even assume that there can be anything learned from history butwhy narrow it down to hat, there is more than enough in mentality.

[InsaneApache]

Just seen an hilarious interview on the Daily Politics between Jo Coburn and George Galloway. I'll post a video when I can find one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0725hps/daily-politics-22022016

31:40.

[Gilrandir]

There are fundamental differences with Scotland/the UK and UK/EU. Firstly, Scotland and the UK share a currency. Secondly our armed forces form one singular entity. Thirdly...regarding government ownership (particularly off-shore). None of these apply to the UK/EU.
And guys in the EU don't wear skirts. Definitely little in common.
Disclaimer: not all guys, though:
17614

[Gilrandir]

And now Boris chips in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167851/eu-referendum-david-cameron-faces-mps-after-boris-johnson-backs-brexit-live.html

[Slyspy]

The very idea of holding a referendum on something so important is laughable.

[Gilrandir]

The very idea of holding a referendum on something so important is laughable.

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.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omvoTeYHCng#t=286

:creep:

[Kralizec]

?? Yes I'm advocating that your suggestion that we just HAVE to be tied to one bloc or another or risk economic annihilation is without any foundation. You are now arguing a different point, it seems. So...before we move on, there is no evidence (and in fact is counter-evidence to the claim) that to avoid economic apocalypse the UK MUST choose a bloc.

[....]

As for the idea that there might be ramifications due to vindictiveness....there would be no good economic sense in that. Scaremongering is all that is.

Can you actually give a reason why the UK would be worse off, rather than just vague hint at some things....

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 :shrug:

[Snowhobbit]

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 :shrug:

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. 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.

[Strike For The South]

Leave and align closer with the Anglo world.

[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 :shrug: 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!

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/805/340/3d9.jpg

[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_social/empl_portal/facebook/20131014%20GHK%20study%20web_EU%20migration.pdf
http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/pb_imm_uk_27sept13.pdf
http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/true-cost-welfare-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 :shrug:

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/en/news-room/20120703IPR48247/European-Parliament-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-initiative/public/initiatives/non-registered/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-initiative/public/initiatives/non-registered/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 (https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/euratom) 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-initiative/public/initiatives/non-registered/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:l14532&from=EN) 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 (https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/euratom) 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:l14532&from=EN) 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_Minister_of_the_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_Minister_of_the_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?

[Husar]

it is that I am against the centralising of power further away from electorates.

That's inevitable due to globalization in general. I'd be more likely to agree with having only local government if that also meant we'd only have local businesses.


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?

It can remove the commission and appoint a new president of the commission if the current one proposes all the wrong legislation.
In that way it can indirectly steer the legislation process.

[Gilrandir]

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

You over-generalize again. Western Europeans aren't that homogeneous, neither the governments of different western European countries adopt a universal attitude towards referenda. Why doesn't Spain poll the people on Catalonia's independence, for example, while the UK did that about Scotland?

[Snowhobbit]

You over-generalize again. Western Europeans aren't that homogeneous, neither the governments of different western European countries adopt a universal attitude towards referenda. Why doesn't Spain poll the people on Catalonia's independence, for example, while the UK did that about Scotland?

In Spain they have a finicky thing known as a Constitution. It is a great invention and you should look into having one of your own ;)

[Snowhobbit]

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?

A treaty being signed matters not at all if it has not been ratified by the signatory body. A crash-course in international law might be needed if you can't comprehend that statement, I have tried to keep it simple though. Have you looked up "ratify" yet? The member states would have to independently sign and ratify the treaty, and it would leave no question to the fact that this would not bind the countries who have not signed and ratified it. No question marks at all.

Are you sure Schengen is not the result of legislation from the EU? Will you tell me the sun sets in the north next? I suggest you take a university course on EU and possibly a separate one on fact finding, unless you want to continue to show flaunt your ignorance. I'm sorry that you are unable to understand what is written in the PDF, but I don't see why you have to keep flaunting this fact. But I'm sure that 18 nations using the same country is also only the result of these countries signing independent deals with each other and has no connection to any EU institution. Could you please show us on the doll where the EU touched you?

I never asked you to care, you asked what has come out of the EU. Tough cookies if your country opted or you feel it is not important to you, the question asked not was "what has the EU done that Gaius likes and approves of". Given that free movement only applies to citizens or family of citizens your question makes little sense. Which I suppose scores you points for consistency.

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....

The more important and more frequently used power is the power to veto legislation. But I can see why you would want to ignore that, it makes your argument very weak.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

A treaty being signed matters not at all if it has not been ratified by the signatory body. A crash-course in international law might be needed if you can't comprehend that statement, I have tried to keep it simple though. Have you looked up "ratify" yet? The member states would have to independently sign and ratify the treaty, and it would leave no question to the fact that this would not bind the countries who have not signed and ratified it. No question marks at all.

I have already said that ratification is required. Here's the thing. 22 member nations, following the commission, became signatories (on the basis that it was a done deal) . Those governments can seek to ratify that agreement without , necessarily, due diligence through their own parliaments. The EU enables the enfeeblement of sovereign democratic oversight. You didn't respond to that, which was the main issue.

But, it leads to another. The commission, being signatories, can always re-visit that particular treaty. If enough of those signatory nations have ratified then....when it comes to a new vote, the representatives from those nations may find that it is not in their interests to oppose, as the treaty is already operational in their nation...so that when next the idea is 'tested' it may indeed pass through, regardless of the individual states' positions, or indeed the parliament's ideal view.

That is the major problem with the set-up of the EU. The Executive is the Commission, the Parliament is essentially a rubber stamp.

When ACTA and CETA are forced upon the people and sovereign states of the EU, don't come crying to me




Are you sure Schengen is not the result of legislation from the EU? Will you tell me the sun sets in the north next? I suggest you take a university course on EU and possibly a separate one on fact finding, unless you want to continue to show flaunt your ignorance. I'm sorry that you are unable to understand what is written in the PDF, but I don't see why you have to keep flaunting this fact. But I'm sure that 18 nations using the same country is also only the result of these countries signing independent deals with each other and has no connection to any EU institution. Could you please show us on the doll where the EU touched you?

Well....let me see. Is Schengen a part of EU legislation? Well, I'm in the UK and....I am not party to Schengen. Schengen is a treaty signed between member states - ie between nation states who also happen to be members of the EU. No it is not EU legislation. There would be nothing stopping those nations from making the exact same treaty with each other if the EU didn't exist. That is really so simple now isn't it?



I never asked you to care, you asked what has come out of the EU. Tough cookies if your country opted or you feel it is not important to you, the question asked not was "what has the EU done that Gaius likes and approves of". Given that free movement only applies to citizens or family of citizens your question makes little sense. Which I suppose scores you points for consistency.

My apologies, I thought you were asking me about the "free movement" as a question in itself, which seemed odd given that I statede outright that I'm not arguing this on the basis of that "free movement" as others. So, yes, this IS something that the EU has given us. How many people does that affect? What the EU does not do is; give workers rights; offer protection against avaricious governments or corporations...or any of the other myriad notions that people seem to have about what the EU has done and can do for them. Given the downsides.....is "free travel" really worth the dissolution of democratic representation and sovereignty (individual as well as national, btw)? I don't believe so.



The more important and more frequently used power is the power to veto legislation. But I can see why you would want to ignore that, it makes your argument very weak.

And that is it. It can veto legislation. Full stop. It can't legislate on it's own, it is simply a rubber stamp.

But....that potential veto is open to manipulation (see above). If you don't understand how this works against the democratic process, how the levels of bureaucracy are layered to enable that then you must, frankly, be blind.

[Gilrandir]

In Spain they have a finicky thing known as a Constitution. It is a great invention and you should look into having one of your own ;)

Abscence or presence of a Constitution doesn't make a country democratic or totalitarian. The USSR had its constitution as well as North Korea does, yet there is no sense calling both countries democratic. The UK, on the other hand, doesn't have one which doesn't make it undemocratic. So your excuse is lame.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

That's inevitable due to globalization in general. I'd be more likely to agree with having only local government if that also meant we'd only have local businesses.

It's precisely because of the globalisation of business that I argue for devolution of power. That globalisation has happened partly because of greater centralisation, it has been enabled by being able to make wide-ranging arrangements.




It can remove the commission and appoint a new president of the commission if the current one proposes all the wrong legislation.
In that way it can indirectly steer the legislation process.

Can it? I don't believe that it can dissolve an existing commission, it has the power to not elect the President or not accept the Commission, a-priori, but that is all (in the same way that we can elect a parliament, but we cannot un-elect it until the ext election is called.)

[Snowhobbit]

It's precisely because of the globalisation of business that I argue for devolution of power. That globalisation has happened partly because of greater centralisation, it has been enabled by being able to make wide-ranging arrangements.





Can it? I don't believe that it can dissolve an existing commission, it has the power to not elect the President or not accept the Commission, a-priori, but that is all (in the same way that we can elect a parliament, but we cannot un-elect it until the ext election is called.)

Are you a religious man? Because your beliefs are in no way connected with reality of how the world works. I would really urge you to educate yourself on topics that you want to discuss where you are truly ignorant.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Are you a religious man? Because your beliefs are in no way connected with reality of how the world works. I would really urge you to educate yourself on topics that you want to discuss where you are truly ignorant.

Please do tell me then how the ability to make geographically and politically wide-ranging agreements has not increased the ability of global businesses to operate to their best interests in those arenas.

And, please show me how the EU Parliament can dissolve an existing EU Commission (rather than simply having an a-priori opportunity to reject it).

[Snowhobbit]

Please do tell me then how the ability to make geographically and politically wide-ranging agreements has not increased the ability of global businesses to operate to their best interests in those arenas.

And, please show me how the EU Parliament can dissolve an existing EU Commission (rather than simply having an a-priori opportunity to reject it).

I'm afraid I will have to insist on you taking a course on EU laws and constitutional practice, this is growing more and more like discussing physics with a toddler.

[Husar]

It's precisely because of the globalisation of business that I argue for devolution of power. That globalisation has happened partly because of greater centralisation, it has been enabled by being able to make wide-ranging arrangements.

The thing is that globalization is largely driven by businesses as they're the ones who profit from it the most. The whole political process seems more like an attempt to either obey the business masters, keep up with them or a little bit of both. This means you have to reign in the businesses first. Personally I don't see the loss in the few personal benefits though, in fact I'd rather expand on those to set persons and businesses on a more equal footing. I'm not the kind of person who'd like to be locked in the country of birth due to other places not letting me in anymore. If you localize businesses in the way I mean, say goodbye to coffee, tea, banana, electronics and many other luxuries you can afford today.


Can it? I don't believe that it can dissolve an existing commission, it has the power to not elect the President or not accept the Commission, a-priori, but that is all (in the same way that we can elect a parliament, but we cannot un-elect it until the ext election is called.)

It seems so, yes:

Finally, the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is accountable to Parliament. In particular, Parliament elects the President of the Commission, and approves (or rejects) the appointment of the Commission as a whole. It can subsequently force the Commission as a body to resign by adopting a motion of censure.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament


I'm afraid I will have to insist on you taking a course on EU laws and constitutional practice, this is growing more and more like discussing physics with a toddler.

Two things:
1) You could also source some of your claims, wikipedia is probably fine, I don't believe in a huge wiki conspiracy to falsify pages about the EU. This may help your argument unlike your claim that people should just spend 4 hours a week and potentially lots of money for half a year just to join an internet discussion with you.
2) It would be nice if you did not just refrain from insulting me but also everybody else. Especially if you complain about the level of discussion being below you, you should not lower it yourself by calling others toddlers and similar things all the time.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I'm afraid I will have to insist on you taking a course on EU laws and constitutional practice, this is growing more and more like discussing physics with a toddler.

Which is simply short-hand for...'I don't have an answer'. By what process can the EU Parliament dissolve an existing EU Commission? If all you can respond with are weak insults then there is simply no point discussing anything with you, you end up looking like you have nothing to say. I don't know, maybe that is actually the case.

Let me answer the question for you. The EU Parliament has a right under Article 234 to table a motion of censure on the activities of the Commission. It may not vote on that motion for 3 days (why?...). It can only be passed with a two-thirds majority, providing that those voting represent the majority of the component members.

If they do pass the motion then, the Commission members will resign. However....they will remain in their office, and continue to operate in office until a new President and Commission is agreed. So....what real power do they hold over the actions of the Commission? They can dissolve it in theory, but in practice it can have no discernible influence upon policy.

But, if you want to pretend that the EU is a paradigm of democratic oversight then...so be it. Ignore that, of the complaints made about the EU 66% are against the Commission and it's actions (and the lack of practicable oversight of it's actions). By all means carry on with arguing that the EU Commission is a genuinely competent body, with genuine democratic oversight, that serves the people of the EU member states. Or that the EU parliament is the real power in the EU because it get's asked to say "yes". And, while you're at it why not throw some pathetic snide and ad-hominem in there as well, to make sure everyone knows how worthwhile it is entering into discussion with you.

[Snowhobbit]

Two things:
1) You could also source some of your claims, wikipedia is probably fine, I don't believe in a huge wiki conspiracy to falsify pages about the EU. This may help your argument unlike your claim that people should just spend 4 hours a week and potentially lots of money for half a year just to join an internet discussion with you.
2) It would be nice if you did not just refrain from insulting me but also everybody else. Especially if you complain about the level of discussion being below you, you should not lower it yourself by calling others toddlers and similar things all the time.

Well, given that Gaius is unable to process or accept when he is shown proof of how things work by other people and having legislation quoted to him, I'm not sure how me trying to educate him would make a difference. As to the tone of debate you have a point, though I will maintain that someone who refuses to accept facts when they are presented to him and keeps insisting that the sun rises in the north is behaving like a toddler. You cannot substitute reality for your own version.

[Sarmatian]

Well, given that Gaius is unable to process or accept when he is shown proof of how things work by other people and having legislation quoted to him, I'm not sure how me trying to educate him would make a difference. As to the tone of debate you have a point, though I will maintain that someone who refuses to accept facts when they are presented to him and keeps insisting that the sun rises in the north is behaving like a toddler. You cannot substitute reality for your own version.

Just because you're right on this one case, your knowledge of how law works is pretty much non existent, so I wouldn't climb on that high horse so easily if I were you.

[Snowhobbit]

Just because you're right on this one case, your knowledge of how law works is pretty much non existent, so I wouldn't climb on that high horse so easily if I were you.

Have you broken free of your illegal imprisonment in your bathroom?

[Sarmatian]

Have you broken free of your illegal imprisonment in your bathroom?

~:rolleyes:

Just... don't. It's sad looking at you try.

[Snowhobbit]

~:rolleyes:

Just... don't. It's sad looking at you try.

Do we need to call the secretary-general?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Well, given that Gaius is unable to process or accept when he is shown proof of how things work by other people and having legislation quoted to him, I'm not sure how me trying to educate him would make a difference. As to the tone of debate you have a point, though I will maintain that someone who refuses to accept facts when they are presented to him and keeps insisting that the sun rises in the north is behaving like a toddler. You cannot substitute reality for your own version.

I see you haven't responded to my post. So....in case you haven't really got the full gist of what I am pointing out.

Let's say that the Council suggest a different President, the Parliament accept, and then he proposes pretty much exactly the same members for the Commission.....what can the Parliament do? If they are still unhappy with the make-up of that Commission then, rejecting it simply leaves the one they have already "dissolved" in place.

In fact...I have looked for the appropriate articles, but I can't find them; there doesn't seem to be anything to stop the Council from proposing exactly the same President, nor to deter that President from proposing exactly the same Commission. I am sure that you, being an expert on International Law, will be able to highlight the relevant articles.

So...can the Parliament actually dissolve the Commission, as a working body? It's seeming authority disappears...*Puff* like smoke once you get under the skin a little.

The whole system works remarkably like the old Republican Roman Senatorial system, whereby the Tribunate could only propose legislation to the Senate. The Senate would discuss it and would then allow a yay or nay vote. Except this is written into the constitution, there can be no Gracchus to test the mores (and we know how that ended, yes?). The only way to have the Commission have less power is for them to accept a proposal for such and decide to implement it. How likely do you think that is? How is this notion of 'reform' (you know, that we should stay in the EU and fight for) supposed to take place?

[Snowhobbit]

I see you haven't responded to my post. So....in case you haven't really got the full gist of what I am pointing out.

Let's say that the Council suggest a different President, the Parliament accept, and then he proposes pretty much exactly the same members for the Commission.....what can the Parliament do? If they are still unhappy with the make-up of that Commission then, rejecting it simply leaves the one they have already "dissolved" in place.

In fact...I have looked for the appropriate articles, but I can't find them; there doesn't seem to be anything to stop the Council from proposing exactly the same President, nor to deter that President from proposing exactly the same Commission. I am sure that you, being an expert on International Law, will be able to highlight the relevant articles.

So...can the Parliament actually dissolve the Commission, as a working body? It's seeming authority disappears...*Puff* like smoke once you get under the skin a little.

The whole system works remarkably like the old Republican Roman Senatorial system, whereby the Tribunate could only propose legislation to the Senate. The Senate would discuss it and would then allow a yay or nay vote. Except this is written into the constitution, there can be no Gracchus to test the mores (and we know how that ended, yes?). The only way to have the Commission have less power is for them to accept a proposal for such and decide to implement it. How likely do you think that is? How is this notion of 'reform' (you know, that we should stay in the EU and fight for) supposed to take place?

Given that they have the full authority to decide who gets to lead the Commission, the question itself is silly. I would suggest that you look into what the outgoing Commission has the authority to do, given that most countries with an executive still has that executive staying in the interim while a new one is selected. Because there tends to be a whole bunch of things which are tied to the executive, and these can't be left unattended unless you want to be Belgium. The Commission while powerful is not the all-powerful entity that you seem to think it is. The EU might not be as balanced in terms of power as say the US, but all the same there are many institutions which can limit the Commission and make sure that they adhere both to the will of the people and the rule of law.

[Gilrandir]

If the UK leaves the EU, Sweden is likely to follow suit, some people maintain:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6163855

[Snowhobbit]

If the UK leaves the EU, Sweden is likely to follow suit, some people maintain:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6163855

It would certainly be against Swedish interests in UK leaves, as in general the UK voice in the EU has been appreciated by Sweden. But the absolute majority of our political parties are pro-EU, though the electorate is more split than the parties, it is not a major issue. Unless EU tries to force us to adopt the Euro there is not much of a risk of Sweden leaving. Who are these people claiming Sweden is likely to leave?

[Gilrandir]

Who are these people claiming Sweden is likely to leave?

It was my interpretation of the following statement:

"The further out the UK goes, the further in Sweden is pushed. So that means it needs to tie itself more to the euro-zone, more to Germany, in a way that Poland and the Eastern member states are having to do as well. So that is going to hurt," said Roderick Parkes.

Perhaps too loose an interpretation. Yet with the immigrant deluge it doesn't seem so improper.

[Snowhobbit]

It was my interpretation of the following statement:

"The further out the UK goes, the further in Sweden is pushed. So that means it needs to tie itself more to the euro-zone, more to Germany, in a way that Poland and the Eastern member states are having to do as well. So that is going to hurt," said Roderick Parkes.

Perhaps too loose an interpretation. Yet with the immigrant deluge it doesn't seem so improper.

Well, that is saying that Brexit might force a deeper faster integration into EU systems than Sweden wants. There isn't really any party which has influence on the issue that is trying to get Sweden out of the EU. The immigration crisis has little to do with the EU compared to the connection with our policies. Our politicians are in fact calling for a European approach to the issue.

[Gilrandir]

Well, that is saying that Brexit might force a deeper faster integration into EU systems than Sweden wants. There isn't really any party which has influence on the issue that is trying to get Sweden out of the EU. The immigration crisis has little to do with the EU compared to the connection with our policies. Our politicians are in fact calling for a European approach to the issue.

Yet there is no denying the EU tries to impose on its members the obligation to host a certain amount of immigrants, which causes dissatisfaction of some newer members, namely Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia.

[Snowhobbit]

Yet there is no denying the EU tries to impose on its members the obligation to host a certain amount of immigrants, which causes dissatisfaction of some newer members, namely Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia.

At the behest of Sweden among others such a system has been put in place (but not followed through) and might be one of the solutions for the crisis. That issue is highly supported by both our politicians and the general population, as it would relieve the massive burden that we have essentially put on ourselves by spreading the load.

[Strike For The South]

Ghostklan out of the closet!

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

I'm not entirely sure what this means.

It's not even a good insult, I jerk off on to more stuff than just my figurines.

[InsaneApache]

Blimey we're doomed.

The Spanish will invade Gib. if we leave. The French will move all the Calais gimmigrants to Dover.

Germany will invade France. (again :creep:)

The Italians are worried that if we leave others will do the same.

The Chinese will stop trading with us.

If this is the best the Remainers can do, then it's pathetic.

Don't they realise that the Brits can be a bloody minded lot and don't take too kindly to threats.

[Brenus]

"The Spanish will invade Gib. if we leave. The French will move all the Calais gimmigrants to Dover.
Germany will invade France. (again )
The Italians are worried that if we leave others will do the same.
The Chinese will stop trading with us.
If this is the best the Remainers can do, then it's pathetic.
Don't they realise that the Brits can be a bloody minded lot and don't take too kindly to threats."
And that is what the outers can do. No real things, imaginary threats that they are the only one to mention, just chatting away... UK leaving Europe, it will have consequences, of course. And all the outers look puzzled by this simple fact, as it is unexpected...
Tell us why the French should keep your borders then? Your politicians asked the French to sent the French army, perhaps it will be time to send the British army then.. And France will not have to move migrants, France will have just to check they paid the fares for the ferry or the train, then it will up to the Borders control in UK to check for UK visa... Mayor of Calais is dreaming of the brexit...
The outers are just parroting about red tapes and others things, benefit frauds, ignoring that, for France, the second country not paying for their citizens health care in England (first one being Saudis, apparently)...
Make me laugh somehow, the only real thing the outers are actually saying is repeating "we will better of trading with Communist Dictatorship China than to trade with Europe that imposed Human Rights".
And of course, telling Europe what to do after the exit. The problem is no one knows what will happened. What will be the consequences, UK having to go to renegotiate quite every thing (country by county?).
And I think outers don't really understand how the French (at least the ones I communicate with) are quite upset by the UK blackmail and, if UK choose to say good-bye, it will be "bon voyage et bonne chance" on the other side.
French can be "bloody minded lot and don't take too kindly to threats" as well. Which I find funny because the majority of the French voted against the European Union treaty, as I did...

But of course, someone should say that if I am not happy in UK, I can always go back to France: So no, I can't, as I married an English woman who doesn't speak French, and my family (English) lives in UK.

[Fragony]

Blimey we're doomed.

The Spanish will invade Gib. if we leave. The French will move all the Calais gimmigrants to Dover.

Germany will invade France. (again :creep:)

The Italians are worried that if we leave others will do the same.

The Chinese will stop trading with us.

If this is the best the Remainers can do, then it's pathetic.

Don't they realise that the Brits can be a bloody minded lot and don't take too kindly to threats.

But but but... that sounds absolutily terrifying.

What a joke. You hear the most outragious things here as well. Juncker even went as far that it could cause a continental crisis if we vote against an association-treaty with the Ukraine. I am going to vote no against the association treaty with the Ukraine. That makes me pro-putin apparently. It will also be 1939 all over again. Oh noes, time to start prepping

[Gilrandir]

Mayor of Calais is dreaming of the brexit...



This is what happens when one relinquishes claim to the formerly owned lands. The English should have kept it as they did even after the defeat in the Hundred years war. Or, perhaps, it is time for them to make a move to recover a historically English territory?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

"The Spanish will invade Gib. if we leave. The French will move all the Calais gimmigrants to Dover.
Germany will invade France. (again )
The Italians are worried that if we leave others will do the same.
The Chinese will stop trading with us.
If this is the best the Remainers can do, then it's pathetic.
Don't they realise that the Brits can be a bloody minded lot and don't take too kindly to threats."
And that is what the outers can do. No real things, imaginary threats that they are the only one to mention, just chatting away... UK leaving Europe, it will have consequences, of course. And all the outers look puzzled by this simple fact, as it is unexpected...
Tell us why the French should keep your borders then? Your politicians asked the French to sent the French army, perhaps it will be time to send the British army then.. And France will not have to move migrants, France will have just to check they paid the fares for the ferry or the train, then it will up to the Borders control in UK to check for UK visa... Mayor of Calais is dreaming of the brexit...
The outers are just parroting about red tapes and others things, benefit frauds, ignoring that, for France, the second country not paying for their citizens health care in England (first one being Saudis, apparently)...
Make me laugh somehow, the only real thing the outers are actually saying is repeating "we will better of trading with Communist Dictatorship China than to trade with Europe that imposed Human Rights".
And of course, telling Europe what to do after the exit. The problem is no one knows what will happened. What will be the consequences, UK having to go to renegotiate quite every thing (country by county?).
And I think outers don't really understand how the French (at least the ones I communicate with) are quite upset by the UK blackmail and, if UK choose to say good-bye, it will be "bon voyage et bonne chance" on the other side.
French can be "bloody minded lot and don't take too kindly to threats" as well. Which I find funny because the majority of the French voted against the European Union treaty, as I did...

But of course, someone should say that if I am not happy in UK, I can always go back to France: So no, I can't, as I married an English woman who doesn't speak French, and my family (English) lives in UK.

...which is all very strange... Leaving the EU isn't about 'getting one over' the French or Germans or...whoever, it's about what is best (in our eyes) for us. And all we hear in return is the 'revenge' that the EU might bring down upon us. I mean, these very arguments are actually a very good reason, as far as I see it, that we ought to leave. Let's stop the pretence that the EU is one big happy family and accept that decisions are based as much on national agendas as on some false claim of unity.

And...is it that China will or won't trade with us if we leave the EU? There seems to be some confusion... Empty, hollow, far from sweet nothings is all the 'remainers' have to offer. Threats and dire warnings...a plague upon thy house, and all that nonsense. Any sign of a substantive answer to what we will be losing? So far, I see none.

[Snowhobbit]

...which is all very strange... Leaving the EU isn't about 'getting one over' the French or Germans or...whoever, it's about what is best (in our eyes) for us. And all we hear in return is the 'revenge' that the EU might bring down upon us. I mean, these very arguments are actually a very good reason, as far as I see it, that we ought to leave. Let's stop the pretence that the EU is one big happy family and accept that decisions are based as much on national agendas as on some false claim of unity.

And...is it that China will or won't trade with us if we leave the EU? There seems to be some confusion... Empty, hollow, far from sweet nothings is all the 'remainers' have to offer. Threats and dire warnings...a plague upon thy house, and all that nonsense. Any sign of a substantive answer to what we will be losing? So far, I see none.

Yep, you won't lose a thing. Except access to the common market and no restrictions on capital moving across the border, no tolls, a common framework to solve issues. And a whole slew of human rights and labour rights that for some reason the UK has always been hesitant to apply. You will of course regain national sovereignty on a slew of issues, so you can quickly repeal the EU specific human and worker rights. Don't worry too much though, even if you leave the EU you will still have to adhere to the convention on human rights :)

[Husar]

...which is all very strange... Leaving the EU isn't about 'getting one over' the French or Germans or...whoever, it's about what is best (in our eyes) for us. And all we hear in return is the 'revenge' that the EU might bring down upon us.

It's not revenge, dumping our problems on the UK is just us doing what's best for us.

[Fragony]

England is in a much stronger position than you think. The UK doesn't need the EU, and everybody knows that. Only three countries are vital for the EU, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Here in the Netherland we don't like the EU either and that's going to show next elections.

[Snowhobbit]

England is in a much stronger position than you think. The UK doesn't need the EU, and everybody knows that. Only three countries are vital for the EU, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Here in the Netherland we don't like the EU either and that's going to show next elections.

Could you elaborate on that? The UK does not need the free movement of goods or capital? And why is the Netherlands more important than say France?

[Fragony]

Could you elaborate on that? The UK does not need the free movement of goods or capital? And why is the Netherlands more important than say France?

Idealogical reasons, but also because Germany's major industrial area's just can't function without us, all the raw materials come through here, nobody has the capacity to do that. Good luck asking for fees. The Netherlands is also the third biggest food producer in the world, good luck asking fees for that is well. France is bankrupt, the UK and the Netherlands aren't, neither is Germany but they need us.

[Husar]

The Netherlands is also the third biggest food producer in the world

LIES!

https://top5ofanything.com/list/6fd77eae/Countries-that-Produce-the-most-Food-

[Greyblades]

Threats of spite arent going to keep us in it will drive us out.

What the EU needs to do is promise that british sovereignty is not going to be infringed on, lay out how much money EU membership earns the UK.

Surviving outside the Eu is not impossible by a long shot however the transition will take time and cause a dip in our economy. The question is if that dip is worth being free of EU meddling and the more the EU insults threatens and patronises us the more worthwhile leaving becomes.

[Fragony]

LIES!

https://top5ofanything.com/list/6fd77eae/Countries-that-Produce-the-most-Food-

Suddenly like blogs Hussie now that it suits you. Yes we are third. USA is the biggest but we are the third-biggest investor there as well, not just in food but everything. Good luck doing without us.

pick any you like http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en-NL&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=netherlands+third+biggest+food&gbv=2&oq=netherlands+third+biggest+food&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...4411.25777.0.28088.34.11.2.21.23.0.368.2037.3j4j3j1.11.0....0...1ac.1j4.34.heirloom-hp..16.18.2128.TYqP61Gfh_w

[Husar]

Suddenly like blogs Hussie now that it suits you.

Not no false like not but also and really just no.

What are you saying anyway?


Yes we are third.

No, I proved that a lie.


USA is the biggest but we are the third-biggest investor there as well, not just in food but everything. Good luck doing without us.

What? Third biggest investor in everything?

Lies! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position

[Fragony]

Yep.

How else are you going to get it in the Ruhr area, stuff it in your backpack? Good luck to German industrie if fees are required, 20% more costly or so

[Husar]

How else are you going to get it in the Ruhr area, stuff it in your backpack?

How about grow it on fields? Someone who claims to come from the third largest food-producing country in the world should know how that works.

[Fragony]

How about grow it on fields? Someone who claims to come from the third largest food-producing country in the world should know how that works.

Not my claim. But I can say that if you introduce fees you are going to pay a whole lot more for groceries.

[Husar]

Not my claim

Then maybe express your claim so normal people can understand it?

Because this...

The Netherlands is also the third biggest food producer in the world
...reads exactly like that claim...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Yep, you won't lose a thing. Except access to the common market and no restrictions on capital moving across the border, no tolls, a common framework to solve issues. And a whole slew of human rights and labour rights that for some reason the UK has always been hesitant to apply. You will of course regain national sovereignty on a slew of issues, so you can quickly repeal the EU specific human and worker rights. Don't worry too much though, even if you leave the EU you will still have to adhere to the convention on human rights :)

Well...given that the "..UK has always been hesitant to apply.." those particular rights, and that being in the EU has allowed our governments to be so hesitant...then we don't really have them to lose. What rights we have are those rights we can be bothered to fight for (and sometimes, you know, we can get pretty nasty when we want to). Relying on a centralised, undemocratic cabal for my rights? No ta, I'll take my chances within a system I have more chance of influencing, thankyou very much.

As I have said, we are (and have been for some time) a net importer from the EU...so the EU are going to start imposing tolls on UK trade? Hmmm.. yes, I can see how that makes good economic and political sense....:rolleyes:

A common framework to solve issues? You mean like the splendid job that has been sorted re the refugees? Or perhaps the asset-stripping of Greece? Perhaps the economic miracle that is Ireland? Or Spain? Or Italy? Or do you mean TTIP...there's a common framework...we've got no say on it, but that is at least common to us all... Again, no thanks, I'll take my chances...

[Fragony]

Then maybe express your claim so normal people can understand it?

Because this...

...reads exactly like that claim...

It's so what can I say

USA is first because they are big
France is big because they get free money
Netherlands is big because we are smart.

[Husar]

It's so what can I say

USA is first because they are big
France is big because they get free money
Netherlands is big because we are smart.

You could show where you got that from and what it applies to because I can't find it anywhere. I would still like to see some kind of proof for it, even if it is from a blog or a myspace page.
You sounded like the Netherlands produce more tons of food than China, Russia and so on, which is clearly not the case. If you mean dutch-owned companies all around the world, show me where those numbers are from and maybe say it like that next time as well.

[Sarmatian]

Threats of spite arent going to keep us in it will drive us out.


Funny how Brits were quite happy to use threats of spite when it was about Scotland, and now they are collectively outraged.

Double standards FTW!


P.S. It's silly in both cases

[Snowhobbit]

Well...given that the "..UK has always been hesitant to apply.." those particular rights, and that being in the EU has allowed our governments to be so hesitant...then we don't really have them to lose. What rights we have are those rights we can be bothered to fight for (and sometimes, you know, we can get pretty nasty when we want to). Relying on a centralised, undemocratic cabal for my rights? No ta, I'll take my chances within a system I have more chance of influencing, thankyou very much.

As I have said, we are (and have been for some time) a net importer from the EU...so the EU are going to start imposing tolls on UK trade? Hmmm.. yes, I can see how that makes good economic and political sense....:rolleyes:

A common framework to solve issues? You mean like the splendid job that has been sorted re the refugees? Or perhaps the asset-stripping of Greece? Perhaps the economic miracle that is Ireland? Or Spain? Or Italy? Or do you mean TTIP...there's a common framework...we've got no say on it, but that is at least common to us all... Again, no thanks, I'll take my chances...

Of course, I forgot that you are entirely ignorant of anything loosely related to regulations, never mind, it's not like you'll ever listen.

The US might be a net importer as well, they still do not enjoy free movement of goods or capital. But by all means keep living in delusional la-la land as multinational corporations move their regional headquarters to Europe and Paris or Frankfurt will happily become the new financial capital.

I take it you do not indulge in reading news with regards to the refugee crisis. Equally I can only assume that you have personally donated all that you own and will ever earn to the fund to keep the Mediterranean party going? No? How about actually reading up on those issues instead of blaming everything in your imagined boogie man.

[Greyblades]

Funny how Brits were quite happy to use threats of spite when it was about Scotland, and now they are collectively outraged.
I didnt and I am not.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Of course, I forgot that you are entirely ignorant of anything loosely related to regulations, never mind, it's not like you'll ever listen.

The US might be a net importer as well, they still do not enjoy free movement of goods or capital. But by all means keep living in delusional la-la land as multinational corporations move their regional headquarters to Europe and Paris or Frankfurt will happily become the new financial capital.

I take it you do not indulge in reading news with regards to the refugee crisis. Equally I can only assume that you have personally donated all that you own and will ever earn to the fund to keep the Mediterranean party going? No? How about actually reading up on those issues instead of blaming everything in your imagined boogie man.

First sentence - makes no point just simply ad-hominem. You took the time to write 23 words for no other benefit. Is this what discussion looks like in Sweden?

So...the USA don't enjoy free movement blah blah blah... Would that be the USA that is on it's knees because of the financial and bureaucratic nightmare of EU regulations? Or would that be the USA that the EU are in constant negotiation with to ensure trade and investment continues? I don't recognise the former, but do see the latter.

As to your third paragraph....I was responding to the suggestion that the EU was able to respond to issues through a common framework. The point being, it doesn't appear to be doing a very good job....so that everything you wrote on the subject is entirely facetious and irrelevant.

And again, all we have are insinuations and threats of our impending financial doom....

[Fragony]

You could show where you got that from and what it applies to because I can't find it anywhere. I would still like to see some kind of proof for it, even if it is from a blog or a myspace page.
You sounded like the Netherlands produce more tons of food than China, Russia and so on, which is clearly not the case. If you mean dutch-owned companies all around the world, show me where those numbers are from and maybe say it like that next time as well.

You musn't have been looking if you can't find it. Yes we produce more than China and Russia just here.

[Husar]

You musn't have been looking if you can't find it. Yes we produce more than China and Russia just here.

How about you come back with actual facts? I'm not going on a wild goose chase because you make **** up.

[Beskar]

You musn't have been looking if you can't find it. Yes we produce more than China and Russia just here.

I think you might be mixing up exporting and production, Frags.

[Fragony]

I think you might be mixing up exporting and production, Frags.

both, we are an export-nation at first but also third in production

point is, England will become a new Switzerland if they leave. The Netherlands won't get export fees if we do, and it's a very realistic scenario that we could just do that. Disgust of the EU is hate by now. EU has two choices if the Netherlands leave, invade us or deal with it. I won't be surprised if it's the first.

[Sarmatian]

but also third in production


You aren't actually in the top 5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_countries_of_agricultural_commodities) in any single food type.

Sorry, that's a mistake. Netherlands is fifth in the world in blueberries.

[Brenus]

"point is, England will become a new Switzerland if they leave." :laugh4: If UK does this, it will have the same treatment... Do what EU told you, or die... And UK is more ambitious than Swiss...
Funny when the outers say it will be no consequences. Was it last summer, when after few little things near Gibraltar, the Spanish authority started to check all vehicles coming from Gibraltar, to whom UK did ask (and obtain) support? EU, because UK is part of it. Now now, with UK out, Spain will be completely right to do so...
And no, the French and others will not stop to export to UK, they will stop (or make it more expensive) to import from UK. Then UK might try to change market with Brazil and China, however the populations with money are in EU...
And then UK will have to increase Prince Charles's allowances, as his farms are financed by EU, as the orchards (reason why UK still have some) and ask the milk producers what they thing when thanks to politicians like Cameron, the EU cuts the subsidies...
And then of course, you will have the problem of visa. You do know, I hope, than not being part of Schengen hampered the US citizens wanted to go in Disney/Paris, do you? They can't as their visa is valid only for UK. So, US tourists wishing to visit Europe will have to choose between UK only or entire Europe... Hmmm, hard choice...
But these are all details. The big elephant in the room that the outers don't want to see is: UK won't have a say on what EU will decide if UK leave. As simple as that. As UK as no choice on Chinese politic, about Chinese import/export rules or laws. Done and dusted it will. Then UK (if UK resist as UK to this) will have to wait and see, and comply, to what EU will decide. EU might decide to be nice and play gently, might not.
And here, I think of Poland, whose citizens have been scorned by UK politicians. Do you think Poland will be nice to UK? So, no more EU's workers? So start the campaign to recruit doctors and nurses in India...
The fact is, I am against the actual EU because it is becoming what Cameron and the like him want, just a free market, with no regulations, with no social protection, where workers are stripped of all protections by unelected EU bodies. So somehow, I hope UK will get out, all system collapses, and France and Germany start all over again, on better basis, a real political and social project that Italy, Spain, and others can join, where the chief crook doesn't become head of the ECB... I know, some can dream.

But, the Coal and Iron agreement was not built for economical reason, Before 1939, Germany and France were economical partners. It was a political agreement to stop a fourth war between these 2 countries. And then others thought they could join. And then, because the title, populations and governments/politicians forgot what it was about: Peace.
So, for the moment, no, EU didn't failed. I am now 57, I am the first generation of French citizens who didn't have to pack to go to fight Germans, or some else for that matter for a period more than 100 years.
Of course, all countries can survive without EU, and I am one who thing that if Brussels goes too far in imposing political& economical agenda, perhaps we will have to. Yes, the lack of democracy is worrying, but this is not what the outers underline. They want less human rights (ahhh, Boris Johnson praising Chinese Communist Dictatorship workers' work "ethic" was something to hear, no union, do what you're told etc), less protection for UK workers, and of course, the right to exploit them, but, but, as well, to keep what they got from EU in term of markets, access to money etc.
And in fact, none of the outers, too busy to produce scary stories, actually come with what will be the benefit of leave the EU. For France, I can come with some, but UK outers seem in great difficulties about this. The famous Red Tape, of course, but actually, they are unable to express what they mean by this. The famous money UK give to EU is something, but the opening of EU borders largely compensate for it, as just the mobile phone EU harmonisation showed recently (as UK providers were over-charging consumers).
Right... have to go to work...
Cya...:oops:

[Fragony]

You aren't actually in the top 5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_countries_of_agricultural_commodities) in any single food type.

Sorry, that's a mistake. Netherlands is fifth in the world in blueberries.

Only overall matters. But food isn't the only thing that's important, although food prices will rise everywhere if we have to pay fees, consumer will pay. But how exactly are the major industries in Germany going to get the raw materials they need? Not a problem at all for us if we leave the EU, it only costs and meddles. Parties who want less meddling or outright out are already twice as big in polls as the entire parlement combined. Polls are just polls I know, but if it isn't now it's later, the Netherlands is not going to stay. The only answer eurocrats have for self-caused problems is even more EU. The Dutch are a bit like the English, never tell us what to do.

Brenus, the famous red carpet is a carpet to a country that is broke. Nobody is going to settle in France, the red carpet is in the Netherlands as we demand much less tax from big companies.

Leaving the EU is the smartest thing the UK ever has done. The Netherlands will follow eventualy and inevitably

[Gilrandir]

Netherlands is big because we are smart.

The third smartest nation in the world?



Sorry, that's a mistake. Netherlands is fifth in the world in blueberries.

And red herring?

[Fragony]

The third smartest nation in the world?

Noooo, the asians beat us. Especially with Starcraft. It's just a mentallity, if you tell a Dutchman what to do he/she will do the exact opposite. Anyone who has been here will comfirm.

[Husar]

Then don't provide a link for your lies.

[Fragony]

I don't have to lie.

edit, could as well elaborate out of courtisy, I have worked in slaughterhouses during all years I was on school/unniversity. It isn't Italian or Spanish ham you are eating, neither are your own schinken. This comes without numbers but almost eveything is for export. They are nice enough to send end-product back for employees, really tasty, nice food really courtious to do. It's no different with vegetables, all export. Don't believe me if you insist but I have been doing this for years, as both a worker and a manager. I know exactly how things work and I know exactly to whom it goes, I can know because I signed for transport myself.

[Snowhobbit]

First sentence - makes no point just simply ad-hominem. You took the time to write 23 words for no other benefit. Is this what discussion looks like in Sweden?

So...the USA don't enjoy free movement blah blah blah... Would that be the USA that is on it's knees because of the financial and bureaucratic nightmare of EU regulations? Or would that be the USA that the EU are in constant negotiation with to ensure trade and investment continues? I don't recognise the former, but do see the latter.

As to your third paragraph....I was responding to the suggestion that the EU was able to respond to issues through a common framework. The point being, it doesn't appear to be doing a very good job....so that everything you wrote on the subject is entirely facetious and irrelevant.

And again, all we have are insinuations and threats of our impending financial doom....

The point is that previous interaction with you and you interacting with other posters make it clear that the EU represents some kind of boogie man for you, and that your understanding does not comply with reality.

It is cute that you think the UK is as important as the US. If you want all the perks of free trade you can do like Norway, obey all EU regulation, pay a bunch of money but don't affect the process that makes the regulation. That looks like a shitty deal to me, but whatever floats your boat.

The EU does respond to common issues together. See Ukraine, recent developments with Turkey regarding refugees, the new planned coast guest I etc. But maybe you don't understand that ultimately the Greek crisis is a Greek issue, Italian debt is an Italian issue etc? That the solutions to those issues are implemented nationally and the problems were caused nationally.

If you think things will be business as usual in case of UK leaving I can only hope that is a minority of one view. Clearly things will change, some for better others for worse. For example France might no longer want to foot the bill for a UK issue. And you will get more independence to infringe on worker rights and civil liberties. I don't see that as a positive, but we clearly don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

[Snowhobbit]

Double post, delete

[Husar]

I don't have to lie.

edit, could as well elaborate out of courtisy, I have worked in slaughterhouses during all years I was on school/unniversity. It isn't Italian or Spanish ham you are eating, neither are your own schinken. This comes without numbers but almost eveything is for export. They are nice enough to send end-product back for employees, really tasty, nice food really courtious to do. It's no different with vegetables, all export. Don't believe me if you insist but I have been doing this for years, as both a worker and a manager. I know exactly how things work and I know exactly to whom it goes.

It's getting laughable:

http://www.momagri.org/UK/agriculture-s-key-figures/The-European-Union-is-the-world-s-2nd-largest-agricultural-producer_1062.html


Rankings of the world’s major agricultural producers:
1st : China
2nd : EU-27
3rd : United States
4th : India
5th : Brazil …
8th : Russia
9th : France
12th : Germany
32nd : Netherlands

2009 data, but still, the idea that such a small country could produce more than far larger ones is just silly. You have very good technology and export a whole lot compared to other countries but that does not mean you also produce a lot.

If you're still not convinced go here:

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx


Here, again, it is important to note the difference between volume production and high-value production. The Netherlands is a tiny country; its presence on the list is to the high value of flowers and live plants (the Netherlands supply two-thirds of the global total) and vegetables (the Netherlands is a leading supplier of tomatoes and chilies).

When it comes to the staples that feed the world (rice, corn, wheat, beans, lentils and animal proteins), countries like the United States, Germany, Canada, Brazil and Thailand feature more prominently.

It's pretty laughable to say the world needs you, unless you think we all require tulips and watery tomatoes to survive. Let's also not forget that with such a reliance on exports, your agricultural industry would be hurting quite a bit if you just stopped exporting to your customers or demanded such high fees that the volume went down a lot.

I guess what we can also learn is that when you refuse to provide a link it's usually because you're wrong.

[Fragony]

Laugh all you want. I'll make it simple for you, we are the third exporter in the world because we produce too much. Of course we can't beat China in production in total but we are a wholelot more efficient netto, we don't build grain and rice here, only flowers vegitabels and meat. And I know you can't eat flowers.

just a question, even if my numbers are wrong (hey aren't), how exactly are you going to shut off Europe's biggest destributer of goods? Yep you need us.

[Husar]

Laugh all you want. I'll make it simple for you, we are the third exporter in the world because we produce too much.

You don't even seem to read what I provide or think for a minute about what you are saying and what I am saying (hint: you are not making much sense), I think we are done here.

[Fragony]

You don't even seem to read what I provide or think for a minute about what you are saying and what I am saying (hint: you are not making much sense), I think we are done here.

Start doing when you have a good reason why we should stay in the EU (we won't)

[Snowhobbit]

Start doing when you have a good reason why we should stay in the EU (we won't)

So never?

[Husar]

Start doing when you have a good reason why we should stay in the EU (we won't)

Because I love you?

[Fragony]

So never?

And ever and ever, no the Netherlands isn't going to stay, it's just a matter of time. The EU takes for a fool and keeps making scaremoning statements and godwins, immunity is growing. They are such idiots, nobody believes that the fall of the EU will be more than a problem other than free drinks for eurocrats. Nobody trusts them. Trust comes by foot and leaves by horse as we say here. It won't be now as our europhile parlement is still grabbing at straws, but it will. How can a culture so individual-minded ever reconcile with the top-down pressure of the EU? Can't.

edit

#huggshus

[Snowhobbit]

And ever and ever, no the Netherlands isn't going to stay, it's just a matter of time. The EU takes for a fool and keeps making scaremoning statements and godwins, immunity is growing. They are such idiots, nobody believes that the fall of the EU will be more than a problem other than free drinks for eurocrats. Nobody trusts them. Trust comes by foot and leaves by horse as we say here. It won't be now as our europhile parlement is still grabbing at straws, but it will.

edit

#huggshus

What exactly are the reasons for Netherlands leaving? Which political parties support this? How much of the electorate want to leave, and how many rank it as a major issue? That is a saying pretty much everywhere, and is a very apt one.

[Sarmatian]

Only overall matters.

Not even overall. You're not even in the top 10.


But food isn't the only thing that's important, although food prices will rise everywhere if we have to pay fees, consumer will pay. But how exactly are the major industries in Germany going to get the raw materials they need? Not a problem at all for us if we leave the EU, it only costs and meddles.

They managed just fine before EU. Netherlands should be more worried about losing the port fees, if Germany chooses another option.

[Fragony]

What exactly are the reasons for Netherlands leaving? Which political parties support this? How much of the electorate want to leave, and how many rank it as a major issue? That is a saying pretty much everywhere, and is a very apt one.

PVV (Geert Wilders) wants completily out, he is by far the biggest party in polls, bigger than the current government combined, but it are just polls.. SP (socialist party) is at least very sceptical of the EU, also very high in polls. PVV isn't all that different from the SP in the end except that the SP-crowd is addicted to throwing fireworks and allergic to getting up in the morning. I don't know how much of the electorate is represented, polls are notoriously unriable.

[Snowhobbit]

PVV (Geert Wilders) wants completily out, he is by far the biggest party in polls, bigger than the current government combined, but it are just polls.. SP (socialist party) is at least very sceptical of the EU, also very high in polls. PVV isn't all that different from the SP in the end except that the SP-crowd is addicted to throwing fireworks and allergic to getting up in the morning. I don't know how much of the electorate is represented, polls are notoriously unriable.

And what exactly are the reasons for Netherlands leaving? PVV is mainly anti-immigrants/muslim no? Though a fair share of their votes might feel strong about the EU I'm not so sure that the SP voters share the same sentiment. Are polls in Netherlands not also conducted to find out what issues matter to people and how much? Do you not have reliable polling institutes?

[Fragony]

And what exactly are the reasons for Netherlands leaving? PVV is mainly anti-immigrants/muslim no? Though a fair share of their votes might feel strong about the EU I'm not so sure that the SP voters share the same sentiment. Are polls in Netherlands not also conducted to find out what issues matter to people and how much? Do you not have reliable polling institutes?

PVV isn't all that hardcore, most vote PVV because of the EU policy and care for the elder. SP is a mixed bag, extreme left, extreme right, but mostly normal people. What both parties have incommen is that they want the established parties gone.

[Snowhobbit]

PVV isn't all that hardcore, most vote PVV because of the EU policy and care for the elder. SP is a mixed bag, extreme left, extreme right, but mostly normal people. What both parties have incommen is that they want the established parties gone.

What is the PVV policy on EU?

And for the third time, what are the reasons that Netherlands would want to leave the EU? Have they demanded the sacrifice of every first born son? Or is it just Fragony gut-feeling as always?

[Fragony]

What is the PVV policy on EU?

And for the third time, what are the reasons that Netherlands would want to leave the EU? Have they demanded the sacrifice of every first born son? Or is it just Fragony gut-feeling as always?

PVV is pretty straightforward, they want out.

Reason is pretty simple, there are many reasons, but the biggest reason is that the Netherlands belongs to us, not the EU.

Trade only, no hand under the skirt

[Snowhobbit]

PVV is pretty straightforward, they want out.

Reason is pretty simple, there are many reasons, but the biggest reason is that the Netherlands belongs to us, not the EU.

Trade only, no hand under the skirt

Thank you for not elaborating your point in any way whatsoever. Netherlands does indeed belong to the Netherlands. And blue is blue, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. What are the specific issues which have been EU implemented but are so unpopular that the only recourse is to leave?

[Fragony]

Thank you for not elaborating your point in any way whatsoever. Netherlands does indeed belong to the Netherlands. And blue is blue, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. What are the specific issues which have been EU implemented but are so unpopular that the only recourse is to leave?

Only costs, no benefits. It's also deeply undemocratic and does as it pleases. Google Juncker's quotes for me please and ask again, drunks always speak freely

[Snowhobbit]

Only costs, no benefits. It's also deeply undemocratic and does as it pleases. Google Juncker's quotes for me please and ask again, drunks always speak freely

Again, thanks for not elaborating when asked to. In what sense is it deeply undemocratic? How does it do as it pleases? And if you want to bring up certain quotes it behooves you to quote them.

[Fragony]

You could have found them yourself. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168/Jean-Claude-Junckers-most-outrageous-political-quotations.html

Why should we want to be part of this? It's a good thing that Juncker is always drunk, drunks boast

[Snowhobbit]

You could have found them yourself. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168/Jean-Claude-Junckers-most-outrageous-political-quotations.html

Why should we want to be part of this? It's a good thing that Juncker is always drunk, drunks boast

Looks like a politician who is to honest for his own good, which is always good for the electorate.

Again thank you for not answering my very clear questions, talking with you is an education in interpretation of jibberish. You shouldn't throw rocks in glass houses with regards to speaking drunk though.

[Fragony]

If I need more I really don't understand you, oh we are giving direct control to an ultra-undemocratic institution, so whatlol. They are already sneaking in abolishment of cash so the ECB can pull a negative interest if buying up state-obligations doesn't works out, want an association-treaty with a country that's in a brutal civil-war, and makes deals with a psychopath who jails everybody who is remotily critical but gets more talk about joining. And pay billions to Turkey to manage refugees that don't even exist. What's not to like. Everybody knows what's next. Deal is that Turks can travel freely in Europe. So Turkey is going to demand more money or they will give migrants Turkish nationality. Greece made the same threat.

out.

[Snowhobbit]

If I need more I really don't understand you, oh we are giving direct control to an ultra-undemocratic institution, so whatlol. They are already sneaking in abolishment of cash so the ECB can pull a negative interest if buying up state-obligations doesn't works out, want an association-treaty with a country that's in a brutal civil-war, and makes deals with a psychopath who jails everybody who is remotily critical but gets more talk about joining. And pay billions to Turkey to manage refugees that don't even exist. What's not to like. Everybody knows what's next. Deal is that Turks can travel freely in Europe. So Turkey is going to demand more money or they will give migrants Turkish nationality. Greece made the same threat.

out.

Oh the lack of understanding is mutual.
In which areas are you giving direct control? When is the abolition of cash coming? ECB already has negative interest rates.

And the refugees in Turkey don't exist? And the country that does not give them work or education permits will give them citizenship so they can go tourist in Europe? Did you eat some bad mushrooms again?

[Fragony]

No they don't exist. EU is paying for non-existing migrants. And the catch to negative interests is that ALL your money can by taken at will to secure the the risks to cover the ECB buying up state-obligations from risky countries like Italy and Greece. Feel free to look it up.

[Husar]

And the catch to negative interests is that ALL your money can by taken at will to secure the the risks to cover the ECB buying up state-obligations from risky countries like Italy and Greece.

Yes, that sounds like a practical solution, just take all of everyone's money to save the economy.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

"point is, England will become a new Switzerland if they leave." :laugh4: If UK does this, it will have the same treatment... Do what EU told you, or die... And UK is more ambitious than Swiss...
Funny when the outers say it will be no consequences. Was it last summer, when after few little things near Gibraltar, the Spanish authority started to check all vehicles coming from Gibraltar, to whom UK did ask (and obtain) support? EU, because UK is part of it. Now now, with UK out, Spain will be completely right to do so...
And no, the French and others will not stop to export to UK, they will stop (or make it more expensive) to import from UK. Then UK might try to change market with Brazil and China, however the populations with money are in EU...
And then UK will have to increase Prince Charles's allowances, as his farms are financed by EU, as the orchards (reason why UK still have some) and ask the milk producers what they thing when thanks to politicians like Cameron, the EU cuts the subsidies...
And then of course, you will have the problem of visa. You do know, I hope, than not being part of Schengen hampered the US citizens wanted to go in Disney/Paris, do you? They can't as their visa is valid only for UK. So, US tourists wishing to visit Europe will have to choose between UK only or entire Europe... Hmmm, hard choice...
But these are all details. The big elephant in the room that the outers don't want to see is: UK won't have a say on what EU will decide if UK leave. As simple as that. As UK as no choice on Chinese politic, about Chinese import/export rules or laws. Done and dusted it will. Then UK (if UK resist as UK to this) will have to wait and see, and comply, to what EU will decide. EU might decide to be nice and play gently, might not.
And here, I think of Poland, whose citizens have been scorned by UK politicians. Do you think Poland will be nice to UK? So, no more EU's workers? So start the campaign to recruit doctors and nurses in India...
The fact is, I am against the actual EU because it is becoming what Cameron and the like him want, just a free market, with no regulations, with no social protection, where workers are stripped of all protections by unelected EU bodies. So somehow, I hope UK will get out, all system collapses, and France and Germany start all over again, on better basis, a real political and social project that Italy, Spain, and others can join, where the chief crook doesn't become head of the ECB... I know, some can dream.

But, the Coal and Iron agreement was not built for economical reason, Before 1939, Germany and France were economical partners. It was a political agreement to stop a fourth war between these 2 countries. And then others thought they could join. And then, because the title, populations and governments/politicians forgot what it was about: Peace.
So, for the moment, no, EU didn't failed. I am now 57, I am the first generation of French citizens who didn't have to pack to go to fight Germans, or some else for that matter for a period more than 100 years.
Of course, all countries can survive without EU, and I am one who thing that if Brussels goes too far in imposing political& economical agenda, perhaps we will have to. Yes, the lack of democracy is worrying, but this is not what the outers underline. They want less human rights (ahhh, Boris Johnson praising Chinese Communist Dictatorship workers' work "ethic" was something to hear, no union, do what you're told etc), less protection for UK workers, and of course, the right to exploit them, but, but, as well, to keep what they got from EU in term of markets, access to money etc.
And in fact, none of the outers, too busy to produce scary stories, actually come with what will be the benefit of leave the EU. For France, I can come with some, but UK outers seem in great difficulties about this. The famous Red Tape, of course, but actually, they are unable to express what they mean by this. The famous money UK give to EU is something, but the opening of EU borders largely compensate for it, as just the mobile phone EU harmonisation showed recently (as UK providers were over-charging consumers).
Right... have to go to work...
Cya...:oops:

Oh...I don't believe we are having anything like the debate we ought to in the UK. A great deal of it seems to circulate around who is supporting what, rather than any real discussion of why.

It's not even as if I would necessarily be against an EU as a common market, as a vehicle for Europe's nations to ease such as trade agreements, and relatively free movement, but the EU as it exists at the moment is fundamentally broken. A single currency that works for no-one except, realistically, Germany. An unelected cabal which is actually the executive, essentially leaving the EU with no practicable possibility of reform: It's not even as if I think it is only the UK that should leave, the idea of a European community requires a whole reboot. How long, realistically can, not only Schengen, but freer movement within the EU more generally, stand up to the increasing calls for 'anti-terror' controls? How long will those 'rights' you are given by the EU remain in place in the face of an onslaught by means of an agreement like TTIP? Any rights you are given are not really yours, you have simply allowed your rights to be subject to an authority which can give or take away. That is what I mean by sovereignty. If you allow an authority over which you can have no influence or control the means to determine what rights you have, or don't, you have given up your sovereignty. I don't mean sovereignty simply on a national basis, I mean on an individual basis. I'm surprised so few people understand this most basic notion. The only rights you truly have are those you yourself can impose (read Thucydides, The Melian Dialogue, as pertinent now as it was then).

'Oh look at what our great masters have given us' is no argument for me. If those masters are beyond being answerable to me then....I will do without those masters, thank you very much. For what they give, they can also take away.

That is what is truly at stake, but that is not the discussion we are having.

[Fragony]

Yes, that sounds like a practical solution, just take all of everyone's money to save the economy.

Making it possible yes. Italy and France are (illegaly) printing euro's like crazy, someone has to take the hit.

out.

[Husar]

How long, realistically can, not only Schengen, but freer movement within the EU more generally, stand up to the increasing calls for 'anti-terror' controls?

Yeah, well, how can we stop our national "sovereign" governments from turning our countries into surveillance states of post-Orwellian dimensions? And how are these national issues related to the EU? Are you implying the EU could save us from these abominations?


How long will those 'rights' you are given by the EU remain in place in the face of an onslaught by means of an agreement like TTIP?

Why is given in cursive here? It comes across as sarcastic, as though it were a bad thing that the EU has to give one those rights.
And why would TTIP lead to them being revoked? Not that I were in favor of TTIP...

[InsaneApache]

How long will those 'rights' you are given by the EU

The fundamental difference between common law and the civil code.

That's why trying to 'fit' the UK into a EU superstate is like hammering a square peg into a round hole.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Yeah, well, how can we stop our national "sovereign" governments from turning our countries into surveillance states of post-Orwellian dimensions? And how are these national issues related to the EU? Are you implying the EU could save us from these abominations?

No, the EU can't save us from them. The EU is even further distant from the electorate than our national governments. Nobody is going to save us from these things except ourselves, through our own action and resistance. The EU is, in the nature of it's power, undemocratic - unanswerable to the electorate.



Why is given in cursive here? It comes across as sarcastic, as though it were a bad thing that the EU has to give one those rights.
And why would TTIP lead to them being revoked? Not that I were in favor of TTIP...

Whatever rights we have in the UK were not given by the EU. Workers rights have not increased during our tenure within the EU - quite the opposite, in fact. The deeper issue here is that if you believe you have rights because they are given then you can't truly understand rights. The workers rights we have, have been the result of union/Labour action; they were not given. If you believe in rights as a thing to be given, then you give authority to others to allow those rights....and they then have the authority to remove those rights and impose upon you whatever they will. And you, essentially, have given them that authority, by your belief in their authority over your rights. (or see InsaneApache's much shorter post)

[Snowhobbit]

No, the EU can't save us from them. The EU is even further distant from the electorate than our national governments. Nobody is going to save us from these things except ourselves, through our own action and resistance. The EU is, in the nature of it's power, undemocratic - unanswerable to the electorate.




Whatever rights we have in the UK were not given by the EU. Workers rights have not increased during our tenure within the EU - quite the opposite, in fact. The deeper issue here is that if you believe you have rights because they are given then you can't truly understand rights. The workers rights we have, have been the result of union/Labour action; they were not given. If you believe in rights as a thing to be given, then you give authority to others to allow those rights....and they then have the authority to remove those rights and impose upon you whatever they will. And you, essentially, have given them that authority, by your belief in their authority over your rights.

Have you heard of the European court system? They have at multiple times struck down laws designed to be anti-terror for going too far and being in violation of rights given by certain EU and European legislation. The EU is in its nature not at all what you think it is.

I take it that you do not accept the rule of law? Because in accordance with rule of law, the rights which we enjoy are given by the government. They might have come to be because of the struggle of Unions or people. Labour as I understand is a British political party which has at times used the legislature to implement new rights through an act of law. Otherwise known as the government having granted those rights. There have been multiple cases of civic and worker rights having been expanded because of the EU and in most of those cases the UK has been dragged kicking and screaming. But by all means keep living in a fantasy.

[Pannonian]

No, the EU can't save us from them. The EU is even further distant from the electorate than our national governments. Nobody is going to save us from these things except ourselves, through our own action and resistance. The EU is, in the nature of it's power, undemocratic - unanswerable to the electorate.

Whatever rights we have in the UK were not given by the EU. Workers rights have not increased during our tenure within the EU - quite the opposite, in fact. The deeper issue here is that if you believe you have rights because they are given then you can't truly understand rights. The workers rights we have, have been the result of union/Labour action; they were not given. If you believe in rights as a thing to be given, then you give authority to others to allow those rights....and they then have the authority to remove those rights and impose upon you whatever they will. And you, essentially, have given them that authority, by your belief in their authority over your rights. (or see InsaneApache's much shorter post)

Rights are a regulation against the ruling class. This has been the case going back to the Magna Carta, and the barons and freemen holding the King to ransom. Whether it's common law or civil code makes little difference. Civil code actually makes these rights harder to remove, at the cost of stagnation in a changing world (cf. the US constitution). Common law is what we're used to. It's not incompatible with civil code countries, otherwise we'd be distancing ourselves from the Americans as well.

[Gilrandir]

They are already sneaking in abolishment of cash so the ECB can pull a negative interest if buying up state-obligations doesn't works out, want an association-treaty with a country that's in a brutal civil-war, and makes deals with a psychopath who jails everybody who is remotily critical but gets more talk about joining. And pay billions to Turkey to manage refugees that don't even exist. What's not to like. Everybody knows what's next. Deal is that Turks can travel freely in Europe. So Turkey is going to demand more money or they will give migrants Turkish nationality. Greece made the same threat.


I have a different option for the Netherlands. Let them stay in the EU on condition Fragony takes charge of it. He knows what should be done. He will set things to rights. Oh, wait, is he childless? I'm sure they wouldn't like a childless Vati after a childless Mutti.


EU is paying for non-existing migrants.
It is paying for not seeing them in Europe. To me it sounds a sensible exchange.

[Husar]

The fundamental difference between common law and the civil code.

That's why trying to 'fit' the UK into a EU superstate is like hammering a square peg into a round hole.

Or a surveillance state into one that respects people more. You can say what you want about the theory but in practice the UK government keeps UK citizens less free than most other governments in the EU and is certainly bigger on violating privacy and rights. Not to forget that it has been part of more wars that unintenionally led to the current refugee streams than any other nation in the EU and yet is the most outspoken against taking any of these people. Having the cake and eating it, too?


No, the EU can't save us from them. The EU is even further distant from the electorate than our national governments. Nobody is going to save us from these things except ourselves, through our own action and resistance. The EU is, in the nature of it's power, undemocratic - unanswerable to the electorate.

Again, you conflate some strange theoiry with actual practice. EU institutions have upheld more private and human rights than the UK in recent years regardless of what your theory of distance from the electorate says. A theory is only worth something if it reflects reality in some way. Unanswerable to the electorate is a gross oversimplification and exaggeration as we established earlier. Wasn't ACTA discarded because there was a huge public uproar? Refer to the following two links:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2141661/uk-signs-acta-rest-europe


THE UNITED KINGDOM along with 21 other European Union (EU) member states has signed the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in Japan.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20120703IPR48247/European-Parliament-rejects-ACTA


The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), was rejected by the European Parliament on Wednesday, and hence cannot become law in the EU.

So who did a greater service to citizens' liberties here? The UK government or the unaccountable pro-corporate EU oligarch-dictators?


Whatever rights we have in the UK were not given by the EU.

You mean your right to just go and live and work in France or Spain without any major hassle or fear of rejection was not given by the EU? By who else then?



Workers rights have not increased during our tenure within the EU - quite the opposite, in fact.

Show at least one example, please.


The deeper issue here is that if you believe you have rights because they are given then you can't truly understand rights. The workers rights we have, have been the result of union/Labour action; they were not given. If you believe in rights as a thing to be given, then you give authority to others to allow those rights....and they then have the authority to remove those rights and impose upon you whatever they will. And you, essentially, have given them that authority, by your belief in their authority over your rights. (or see InsaneApache's much shorter post)

That's your British superiority theory again which has little if any basis in practice. In Germany something is usually legal (a right) until the government says it is not, that sounds like the same principle you apply in Britain except that in practice your government seems to control its citizens tighter than ours does. And your government saving my private communication on its servers is a gross violation of my privacy that is completely undemocratic as the only recourse I have is to petition my own government to conquer England and shut down your secret service. Of course you would then cry us a river because you never got to vote on whether we should come and slaughter you all or not. :dizzy2:

So if you want to talk about the practice of violating peoples' rights and not some rosy theoretical fantasies then you should take a hard and honest look into a mirror first.

By the way, if you think rights should be taken and not given, I assume you applaud illegal immigrants because they're basically taking their right to live and work where they want. More power to Afghans storming the border at Idomeini and to the people waiting to get into the UK?

[Fragony]

It is paying for not seeing them in Europe. To me it sounds a sensible exchange.

If paying 300.000 per immigrant to Turkey is sensible to you. Sensible is what eastern-europe and Austria do, closing the routes and giving the childless mutti the finger

[Gilrandir]

If paying 300.000 per immigrant to Turkey is sensible to you. Sensible is what eastern-europe and Austria do, closing the routes and giving the childless mutti the finger

Those who were not permitted into Austria and elsewhere will find a detour if the influx is not nipped in the bud. Plus there is always the wide open sea route through Italy and Balkan states.

As for the money paid, I believe the EU will pay more (in terms of finance, security, reputation and what not) unless the immigrants are taken care of nearest to where they are coming from, i.e. in Turkey.

[Snowhobbit]

The fundamental difference between common law and the civil code.

That's why trying to 'fit' the UK into a EU superstate is like hammering a square peg into a round hole.

How do rights work in the UK? How are they implemented, who upholds them? What difference does a civil versus common law structure have on rights?

[Fragony]

Those who were not permitted into Austria and elsewhere will find a detour if the influx is not nipped in the bud. Plus there is always the wide open sea route through Italy and Balkan states.

As for the money paid, I believe the EU will pay more (in terms of finance, security, reputation and what not) unless the immigrants are taken care of nearest to where they are coming from, i.e. in Turkey.

Of the six billion 5.9 billion the EU gave goes directly to the Turkish weapon-industry. Not to refugees. So the EU is doing nothing more than arming Erdogan, who hassss a few flaws

Glad our own Lefteyenine is out of there soon

[Snowhobbit]

Of the six billion 5.9 billion the EU gave goes directly to the Turkish weapon-industry. Not to refugees. So the EU is doing nothing more than arming Erdogan, who hassss a few flaws

Glad our own Lefteyenine is out of there soon
Do you have some evidence to back up that claim? Obviously 5.9 billion euros arming Erdogan is far from optimal.

[Fragony]

Wouldn't say it if I didn't but I am waiting for others to catch up

[Snowhobbit]

Wouldn't say it if I didn't but I am waiting for others to catch up

Righto, let us know when the drugs have worn off.

[Fragony]

Righto, let us know when the drugs have worn off.

Willd do, I know better than posting blogs, (almost) always right so that means not always. I'll let you know if they are wrong. What's that thing about drugs by the way, people can get insane for all sorts of reasons, maybe I was sexually abused by a tango-dancing giraffe and never recovered. It was hell. Older women who are childles doing reckless things is at least a known phenomenom in psycholigy.

[Husar]

Glad our own Lefteyenine is out of there soon

As an economic migrant. ~;)

[Fragony]

As an economic migrant. ~;)

Ha, ah usefull one

[Snowhobbit]

Willd do, I know better than posting blogs, (almost) always right so that means not always. I'll let you know if they are wrong. What's that thing about drugs by the way, people can get insane for all sorts of reasons, maybe I was sexually abused by a tango-dancing giraffe and never recovered. It was hell. Older women who are childles doing reckless things is at least a known phenomenom in psycholigy.

Keep in mind I did say evidence and not drug-induced fever dreams.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Or a surveillance state into one that respects people more. You can say what you want about the theory but in practice the UK government keeps UK citizens less free than most other governments in the EU and is certainly bigger on violating privacy and rights. Not to forget that it has been part of more wars that unintenionally led to the current refugee streams than any other nation in the EU and yet is the most outspoken against taking any of these people. Having the cake and eating it, too?

Again you make this bizarre connection with being against the further centralisation and distance of power with some notion of faith in my government. But you say it right here....the UK is in the EU and it has not stopped our government from taking away our rights. It seems somewhat foolish, then, to argue that not being in the EU willmean our government will take away our rights...they already are. My argument isn't, our government would be better without EU interference, it is about the chances of bringing that government to heel.

I don't think that a centralised cabal, unanswerable to any electorate is going to be a better bet than a government that is actually under parliamentary scrutiny. But there's more...




Again, you conflate some strange theoiry with actual practice. EU institutions have upheld more private and human rights than the UK in recent years regardless of what your theory of distance from the electorate says. A theory is only worth something if it reflects reality in some way. Unanswerable to the electorate is a gross oversimplification and exaggeration as we established earlier. Wasn't ACTA discarded because there was a huge public uproar? Refer to the following two links:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2141661/uk-signs-acta-rest-europe



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20120703IPR48247/European-Parliament-rejects-ACTA



So who did a greater service to citizens' liberties here? The UK government or the unaccountable pro-corporate EU oligarch-dictators?

ACTA isn't discarded. The EU remains a signatory, as do 22 member nations. If those member nations ratify it....what chance do you think the rest of parliament have of overturning a new EU vote for ratification (in those 22 nations it will already be law so, turning it down for the EU as a whole for the representatives of those nations would be perhaps contrary to their own (national) self-interest. If you don't get this then you simply have no concept of how open to manipulation the whole system is)




You mean your right to just go and live and work in France or Spain without any major hassle or fear of rejection was not given by the EU? By who else then?

As I have asked before...how many UK citizens are expats in the EU and how many outside? You think that irrelevant? If at least as many people are expats outside the EU then....those "major hassles" and "fears of rejection" would seem to be rather less problematic hurdles than this argument suggests, no? From the top ten destinations for UK expats non -EU countries accounts for 3.28m. EU nations account for 977,000

source

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11287523/Where-are-the-British-expats-in-Europe-This-map-will-tell-you.html

So...more than 3 times as many have overcome those untenable obstacles than have been 'enabled' by EU de-restriction.





Show at least one example, please.

The requirement to be employed for two years before one can bring a case of unfair dismissal

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/6-april-2012-employment-law-changes-increase-in-unfair-dismissal-qualifying-period/

...when is a contract not a contract? Under UK employment law.




That's your British superiority theory again which has little if any basis in practice.

Except....I don't have a British superiority theory...only in your imagination. At what point did I say 'here in Britain we do things differently'? Will I have to explain this to you every time I make an argument against a centralisation of power to an unelected cabal? This applies as much to Germany, or France, or Greece etc as to the UK. It is, however, a vote the UK is having....


In Germany something is usually legal (a right) until the government says it is not, that sounds like the same principle you apply in Britain except that in practice your government seems to control its citizens tighter than ours does.

That sounds like a weak version of what I am suggesting. Your rights are only actually those rights you are able to enforce. If your government decides to take away a right you consider to be yours...you think you must just accept that? If you simply hand over authority to a power to give you those rights, then you, equally, hand authority to them to take away your rights.


And your government saving my private communication on its servers is a gross violation of my privacy that is completely undemocratic as the only recourse I have is to petition my own government to conquer England and shut down your secret service. Of course you would then cry us a river because you never got to vote on whether we should come and slaughter you all or not. :dizzy2:

Yeah...that worked out well for you the last couple of times, right? (Sorry...thought I'd join in with the ridiculous notions of nationalism I am accused of here...only to have this nonsense thrown at me...:rolleyes:)



So if you want to talk about the practice of violating peoples' rights and not some rosy theoretical fantasies then you should take a hard and honest look into a mirror first.

I'm talking about the practicalities of bringing whatever and wherever power resides to heel, and that handing that power to a centralised, unelected cabal far removed from and unanswerable to the electorate is no protection at all. You are fools if you think it is.



By the way, if you think rights should be taken and not given, I assume you applaud illegal immigrants because they're basically taking their right to live and work where they want. More power to Afghans storming the border at Idomeini and to the people waiting to get into the UK?

Facetious much? How about we stop bombing the poor buggers out of their homes? And...once we have, yeah, how about we treat them like human beings instead of cattle. What...you think I'm some 'little Englander' who hates foreigners? Do I have to explain that I am not every time you (mis) read a comment of mine?

[Fragony]

Keep in mind I did say evidence and not drug-induced fever dreams.

You love that word don't you drugs drugs dugs, got a nice ring to it. You'll see, with or without it

[Husar]

Again you make this bizarre connection with being against the further centralisation and distance of power with some notion of faith in my government. But you say it right here....the UK is in the EU and it has not stopped our government from taking away our rights. It seems somewhat foolish, then, to argue that not being in the EU willmean our government will take away our rights...they already are. My argument isn't, our government would be better without EU interference, it is about the chances of bringing that government to heel.

The other question is how many more rights some governments would take away if the EU didn't interfere now and then.


I don't think that a centralised cabal, unanswerable to any electorate is going to be a better bet than a government that is actually under parliamentary scrutiny. But there's more...

There's the EU parliament, but we already discussed that and I'm still not fully convinced that it is as weak as you say.




ACTA isn't discarded. The EU remains a signatory, as do 22 member nations. If those member nations ratify it....what chance do you think the rest of parliament have of overturning a new EU vote for ratification (in those 22 nations it will already be law so, turning it down for the EU as a whole for the representatives of those nations would be perhaps contrary to their own (national) self-interest. If you don't get this then you simply have no concept of how open to manipulation the whole system is)

Bad choice of words on my part, yes. It was most likely delayed though, what if the EU parliament had ratified it right away?
The other question is how open are single nation states to manipulation? Big corporations often have no problems bringing the smaller ones to their knees. Sometimes also the bigger ones. The EU seems a bit more resilient simply because it has more power, more resources and so on. I'm not even saying the way it is currently set up is perfect, just that reforming it from the inside seems like a better idea than scrapping it and beginning a new process.


As I have asked before...how many UK citizens are expats in the EU and how many outside? You think that irrelevant? If at least as many people are expats outside the EU then....those "major hassles" and "fears of rejection" would seem to be rather less problematic hurdles than this argument suggests, no? From the top ten destinations for UK expats non -EU countries accounts for 3.28m. EU nations account for 977,000

I didn't say the obstacles cannot be overcome, but the top destinations that are not in the EU are all Commonwealth or ex colonies. Probably mostly connected with lower restrictions as well, or at least no double taxation. And almost a million people living in other EU countries is hardly nothing in a nation of 60 million.



The requirement to be employed for two years before one can bring a case of unfair dismissal

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/6-april-2012-employment-law-changes-increase-in-unfair-dismissal-qualifying-period/

...when is a contract not a contract? Under UK employment law.

Everything I find seems to say this is a change in UK law, but nothing on how this is related to the EU. It also comes with an increase in the amount of money the winner of a case can be awarded and some other changes: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/editors-choice/6-april-changes-to-tribunal-procedure-coming-into-force/112610/

I'm not saying it is not related to the EU, I just can't seem to find an article on it.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/unfair-dismissal-under-attack-nick-clegg
This one makes it look like a purely British debate, see e.g. this part:


The Lib Dems are already claiming credit for Nick Clegg and Vince Cable "vetoing" the Beecroft proposal. But they appear to have caved in on other significant changes, such as raising the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from one year's service to two, announced at Tory party conference, coming into effect from next April.

Nowhere does it say the EU forced Britain to do that in any way, it only talks about some British parties letting it happen and others wanting it. :inquisitive:


That sounds like a weak version of what I am suggesting. Your rights are only actually those rights you are able to enforce. If your government decides to take away a right you consider to be yours...you think you must just accept that? If you simply hand over authority to a power to give you those rights, then you, equally, hand authority to them to take away your rights.

The rights I was talking about are rights across several nation states, no single nation state can give anyone these rights and neither can you just take them unless you literally invade another nation state. Again, see the people in Idomeini demanding the right to move through another nation state. Syria can not really give it to them and taking the right has turned out to be not so easy. For me as an EU citizen it would be simpler, no?
The EU provides a framework to give such rights and given the previous situation I do not think it is a bad thing to have at all, regardless of how it could be better in theory.


Yeah...that worked out well for you the last couple of times, right? (Sorry...thought I'd join in with the ridiculous notions of nationalism I am accused of here...only to have this nonsense thrown at me...:rolleyes:)

If it's nonsense then tell me where I can vote not to have British or US secret services save and analyze my private conversations?
In Germany it is technically illegal to intercept long-distance communication unless a judge gives his okay, how does that help me when British intelligence spies on me? The EU does not prevent it so far, but it seems like one of those things that would be regulated with further integration.


I'm talking about the practicalities of bringing whatever and wherever power resides to heel, and that handing that power to a centralised, unelected cabal far removed from and unanswerable to the electorate is no protection at all. You are fools if you think it is.

In a network of nation states this power is always limited to your own nation state, but in a more and more interconnected world, a nation state becomes less and less able to actually protect its citizens if others can circumvent that protection from outside. That is primarily why I see the formation of larger national or supra-national entities as inevitable because otherwise the largest supranational entities will be corporations and they will gain more and more power over those national governments that cannot compete with them anymore financially or in terms of sheer negotiation power. You can find corruption and exploitable systems on all levels of governance, even the very, very local one.


Except....I don't have a British superiority theory...only in your imagination. At what point did I say 'here in Britain we do things differently'? Will I have to explain this to you every time I make an argument against a centralisation of power to an unelected cabal? This applies as much to Germany, or France, or Greece etc as to the UK. It is, however, a vote the UK is having....
[...]
Facetious much? How about we stop bombing the poor buggers out of their homes? And...once we have, yeah, how about we treat them like human beings instead of cattle. What...you think I'm some 'little Englander' who hates foreigners? Do I have to explain that I am not every time you (mis) read a comment of mine?

I'm sorry, you are right and I did misread you there.

[Furunculus]

I take it that you do not accept the rule of law? Because in accordance with rule of law, the rights which we enjoy are given by the government.

A non sequitur.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

[Brenus]

"Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." Absolute B*****.
From French Constitution:
Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order. Translation: "I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law":laugh4:. You can do what you want if not forbidden.
Always wonder why English (well some) think they are different from others...

[Furunculus]

"Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." Absolute B*****.
From French Constitution:
Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order. Translation: "I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law":laugh4:. You can do what you want if not forbidden.
Always wonder why English (well some) think they are different from others...

inspiring words, the deeds less so. whatever they say, it doesn't appear to be turning out that way:

http://www.aalep.eu/burden-government-regulation-eu

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2204&context=ulj

[Husar]

inspiring words, the deeds less so. whatever they say, it doesn't appear to be turning out that way:

http://www.aalep.eu/burden-government-regulation-eu

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2204&context=ulj

In the best case, your links have nothing to do with what you described, in the worst case, they prove you wrong. Your choice how you want to look at it. They're both about restrictions imposed by the governments, not about governments allowing things that would otherwise be illegal per default.

Your examples from your earlier post such as freedom of religion etc. are usually constitutional guarantees or restrictions of the ability of law makers to restrict things. The idea that everything is illegal that is not expressly allowed is quite strange and I'm not aware of any modern system of law that would fit this description.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

"Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly." Absolute B*****.
From French Constitution:
Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order. Translation: "I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law":laugh4:. You can do what you want if not forbidden.
Always wonder why English (well some) think they are different from others...

Well, the French revolutionary constitution is heavily influenced by the US constitution....which is derived from notions of English common law (particularly as interpreted by the likes of Coke, Blackstone, Hobbes and Locke).

I think the more pertinent point that was being made was against the notion that "...in accordance with rule of law, the rights which we enjoy are given by the government."

which was the point I was making; that once you begin to believe and accept your rights as given to you (by which ever authority), rather than being innate, then you accept, equally, that your rights are able to be removed by that authority...that they have the authority to do so.

That so many non Brits seem incapable of comprehending a deeper truth to this....maybe explains why some might start wondering if there is a fundamental difference in understanding, or accepting, this concept.

[Pannonian]

Well, the French revolutionary constitution is heavily influenced by the US constitution....which is derived from notions of English common law (particularly as interpreted by the likes of Coke, Blackstone, Hobbes and Locke).

I think the more pertinent point that was being made was against the notion that "...in accordance with rule of law, the rights which we enjoy are given by the government."

which was the point I was making; that once you begin to believe and accept your rights as given to you (by which ever authority), rather than being innate, then you accept, equally, that your rights are able to be removed by that authority...that they have the authority to do so.

That so many non Brits seem incapable of comprehending a deeper truth to this....maybe explains why some might start wondering if there is a fundamental difference in understanding, or accepting, this concept.

Nonetheless the US constitution is, by definition, a civil code. In some of its details, they are further from how we think than European civil codes (eg. their view on guns). Yet most anti-European Brits have no problem with cosying up to the US whilst excoriating the Europeans on exactly these grounds.

[Husar]

which was the point I was making; that once you begin to believe and accept your rights as given to you (by which ever authority), rather than being innate, then you accept, equally, that your rights are able to be removed by that authority...that they have the authority to do so.

Who actually believes that this is how it should be?

The problem is not that we do not understand the concept, the problem is that we do not see the difference between Britain and other countries that you claim exists.

[Furunculus]

In the best case, your links have nothing to do with what you described, in the worst case, they prove you wrong. Your choice how you want to look at it. They're both about restrictions imposed by the governments, not about governments allowing things that would otherwise be illegal per default.

Your examples from your earlier post such as freedom of religion etc. are usually constitutional guarantees or restrictions of the ability of law makers to restrict things. The idea that everything is illegal that is not expressly allowed is quite strange and I'm not aware of any modern system of law that would fit this description.

i disagree. i offer the quantity and repressiveness of regulation as an emergent consequence of the 'culture' of a legal code. as it is difficult to obtain useful statistics on the comparative size and comprehensiveness of different legal codes, this seems a useful indicator.

i did in no way state that it was illegal to do things that had not been set out in continental law, they are your words. What I suggest above is not an absolute decsription of either system - english law has a growing body of statute law, and scandinavian civil law expresses quite differently from its southern neighbours. and yet, I remain intensely relaxed with my OP above as a useful ELI5 of difference in legal effect that the two systems have produced.

[Furunculus]

I think the more pertinent point that was being made was against the notion that "...in accordance with rule of law, the rights which we enjoy are given by the government."

which was the point I was making; that once you begin to believe and accept your rights as given to you (by which ever authority), rather than being innate, then you accept, equally, that your rights are able to be removed by that authority...that they have the authority to do so.

give this man a prize!

[Snowhobbit]

A non sequitur.

English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law. Rights are defined as being against interference by the sovereign in the liberty of individual on matters of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Continental Civil Law with its closer association with Legal Positivism has led to a presumption of positive liberty. It is my right, as codified in the system of laws, to be able to act in this manner. Rights are defined as things you are allowed to do by the sovereign such as freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. You are enabled to do these things.

While these notions are true on a philosophical plane, you will note that even in horrible Continental Europe we do not arrest people for behaving in a way which is not explicitly permitted by law. Rape law for instance details the circumstances under which sexual acts are illegal, it will not list all possible legal ways of having sex. So again, rights are granted and protected by law.

[InsaneApache]

Give up lads. I've tried explaining before to our continental cousins the difference between an authority 'giving' them rights and the notion that rights are inherent.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,


"We claim nothing but the liberty and privileges of Englishmen in the same degree, as if we had continued among our brethren in Great Britain."

[Snowhobbit]

Give up lads. I've tried explaining before to our continental cousins the difference between an authority 'giving' them rights and the notion that rights are inherent.

Those inherent rights sure worked well for those brown people. On the other side of the channel we will keep on refraining from believing that a higher power grants us things, thanks.

Speaking of rights being inherent, what about the right of accused and convicts to contact their lawyers and for the government to respect attorney-client privilege?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Nonetheless the US constitution is, by definition, a civil code. In some of its details, they are further from how we think than European civil codes (eg. their view on guns). Yet most anti-European Brits have no problem with cosying up to the US whilst excoriating the Europeans on exactly these grounds.

Most anti-European Brits? Do you have statistics for this? Does a no vote for remaining in the EU now make one anti-European? I am, in any case, unsure what you are arguing. I was responding to the point made that the French constitution reveals elements of common law influence, and explaining why that is so.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Who actually believes that this is how it should be?

The problem is not that we do not understand the concept, the problem is that we do not see the difference between Britain and other countries that you claim exists.

It becomes difficult not to see our comprehension of rights as being distinct from those of our continental friends when such a statement is made (that we are given our rights by our government), or when such notions as we hold are scoffed at as 'fantasy' (that there is a reality above that notion) - then it can appear that you accept that latter notion as primary.

Tony Blair tried arguing for a written constitution, to set it, as it were, in stone. A rock is easier to smash or deface than an idea, one of the reasons Blair got nowhere with his plans.

I, actually, think that most continental Europeans have some belief in the same ideas (as you appear to) but, where the distinction lies is that you also appear to consider the civil code as holding, actually, primacy over those rights. This appearance may be incorrect...however, we can only gain our understanding of what we think you understand from what you write.

[Greyblades]

Allied Europe is a friend to be cherished. The EU is a tool to be used.

We are loyal (mostly) to the former but the latter we endure only while it benefits us.

Perhaps instead of arguing the issue of rights our pro EU friends should remind us how the EU benefits us.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Those inherent rights sure worked well for those brown people. On the other side of the channel we will keep on refraining from believing that a higher power grants us things, thanks.

So....you don't believe all men are created equal? Where is there the notion of a 'higher power' within what you are responding to, except perhaps of the 'higher power' of statistical genetic correspondence?

[Pannonian]

Allied Europe is a friend to be cherished. The EU is a tool to be used.

We are loyal (mostly) to the former but the latter we endure only while it benefits us.

Perhaps instead of arguing the issue of rights our pro EU friends should remind us how the EU benefits us.

The same can be said of the UK. Perhaps when that union breaks up as well, people who argued for the breakup of the European union will reflect on the arguments they've made.

[Greyblades]

The same can be said of the UK. Perhaps when that union breaks up as well, people who argued for the breakup of the European union will reflect on the arguments they've made.

In thirty years, maybe we will, assuming anyone remembers any of it.

I'm trying to help you, you idiot. You must ingratiate, not antagonize! Veiled threats and insinuations of "you'll regret this one day" isn't going to change anyone's minds except against what you advocate.

[Pannonian]

In thirty years, maybe we will, assuming anyone remembers any of it.

I'm trying to help you, you idiot. You must ingratiate, not antagonize! Veiled threats and insinuations of "you'll regret this one day" isn't going to change anyone's minds except against what you advocate.

I've accepted that we're withdrawing from the EU, which I think is a stupid idea, just as I thought our various foreign policy ideas in the middle east were stupid, yet were also beyond my comprehension why anyone would do so. As the years go by, I accept that things are going to happen "which seemed like a good idea at the time", which in hindsight (though not to mine) were not. As for myself, I'd like to wake up the next day to find that things are pretty much similar to the previous, so that I can plan ahead without worrying that there is going to be some fundamental change in situation. Hence, rather than needing to be convinced to stay, I'd like the status quo to remain unless there is a convincing case otherwise. However, that's not going to happen, and like in all the other cases, I'll just have to suck it up and shake my head.

[Snowhobbit]

So....you don't believe all men are created equal? Where is there the notion of a 'higher power' within what you are responding to, except perhaps of the 'higher power' of statistical genetic correspondence?

I do, those people who wrote that all men are created equal did not believe this of white women nor black men. Check your history please.
Those who claim a belief in "Natural law" necessarily base this belief on the notion of a higher power which has granted this. Us sensible Europeans simply cut out one step of the process :)