BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
But the commission is not a government, the commission does not make and pass laws. Do you know how many civil servants help make up the British parliament? All unelected bureaucrats.Mr Goo wrote:Never gonna talk me around to voting for an unelected government (EU Commission).0 -
Our economy is better off as a result off immigration, we'd be in an even worse state without it.Coopster the 1st wrote:
...immigration ...mamba80 wrote:as a UKIP supporter said on Radio this morning, voting OUT wont solve the immigrant issue.0 -
The MEPs do not propose the laws though, that's done by the un-elected commissioners, as far as I know.
Either way, the process is not well known, which makes it (at best) seem to lack transparency. At worst it makes it appear utterly undemocratic.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:mamba80 wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:
The remainers just do not get it and are still not getting it. You are not going to win or positively influence an argument if you taking the approach that your view is superior to those who view opposite to yours.
this is the problem with the leave's its all about immigration, this transitory, do you think Poland can prosper if all its best youngsters are working in the UK ? the real issue to make our own unemployed do unskilled work and raise their work ethic, this and having a contributory benefits system, these two alone would slash migrants coming to UK.
as a UKIP supporter said on Radio this morning, voting OUT wont solve the immigrant issue.
as for control of our borders? a suspected murderer from Latvia just got on a ferry to france the other day, we ve cut back on border force staff and equipment, how is that the EUs fault?
This issue is a binary one of where control of our immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests and will be accountable to the UK electorate on this issue?
Having control of immigration within a UK elected body looking out for the UK interests that is accountable to the UK electorate can only improve the chances of improving the immigrant issue. The 'status quo' is not going to address the issue.
Having the EU as part of our political process allows UK politicians to move the blame elsewhere and dilute their responsibility on the issues. Removing the EU from this process makes the Westminster politicians more accountable for their actions as there is no outside influence to blame.
I can't see how you can argue against this. Your view comes across as by diluting the UK parliament it is better for us
oh i can see it, its obvious that a Gov that has austerity at its heart will do anything and blame anyone for its own failings BUT i want a longer term solution and no one from leave is saying they ll do the 2 solutions or even discuss any form of alternative.
For me, its about the economy above all else, being unemployed means you wont be in the restaurant that uses eu workers and you ll have no money to buy the fruit they pick.
and with so many from across business and economists predicting varying problem if we leave, then only a fool doesnt take any notice.
i also dont get the anti democratic argument, jeez we ve a whole house full of unelected lords that can, at a whim over turn Government legislation!
compared to this, the amount of stuff the EU commission puts our way is tiny, esp as so much is of benefit to us, aside from Fishing, no one has actually answered my question earlier, of eu laws that we ve had to adopt that are of detriment to us.
the leave option is certainly for a very long time and has huge risks to our economy, where as we can always leave in the future, a vote IN means we can be at the table and with so many states demanding reform, the EU will have to act, if not, no need for another vote, just a commons majority and leave - all we need is a PM who is worthy of the name.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Our economy is better off as a result off immigration, we'd be in an even worse state without it.Coopster the 1st wrote:
...immigration ...mamba80 wrote:as a UKIP supporter said on Radio this morning, voting OUT wont solve the immigrant issue.
I do not disagree with the economic side of immigration although I can see a point when the numbers involved mean it has a negative impact on UK residents life.
So to the question I actually asked:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?0 -
Laws are proposed by the commission, then debated amended and voted for by the parliament as far as I know. The commission doesn't just make laws up for sh!t and giggles which is the impression some seem to give. People lobby and petition the EC to start something down the road of becoming law.Jez mon wrote:The MEPs do not propose the laws though, that's done by the un-elected commissioners, as far as I know.
Either way, the process is not well known, which makes it (at best) seem to lack transparency. At worst it makes it appear utterly undemocratic.
On the subject of unelected bodies; House of Lords anyone?
eta: sorry, got distracted by customers and see Mamba mentioned the Lords.0 -
-
Veronese68 wrote:
It wasn't my list, that's why I quoted it and I did say it was selective. But it has less bias and more basis in fact than the front page of the Sun.KingstonGraham wrote:As Martin Lewis says "I’m generally risk-averse, and that pushes me just towards an IN vote for safety, maybe 55% to 45%." - is that "strongly believe"?
And you missed Ian Botham from the out list.
Whilst it isn't intended entirely seriously, what it does show is a huge mix of people who generally completely disagree on everything coming together in agreement for remain. Some of those individuals and groups being in agreement must be virtually unprecedented.
On the other side we have a bunch of newspapers who are using fears their own papers have been instrumental in causing and perpetuating as reasons why we should leave. They're playing a dangerous game though, who are they going to blame for the ills of the country if we vote to leave?0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Laws are proposed by the commission, then debated amended and voted for by the parliament as far as I know. The commission doesn't just make laws up for sh!t and giggles which is the impression some seem to give. People lobby and petition the EC to start something down the road of becoming law.Jez mon wrote:The MEPs do not propose the laws though, that's done by the un-elected commissioners, as far as I know.
Either way, the process is not well known, which makes it (at best) seem to lack transparency. At worst it makes it appear utterly undemocratic.
On the subject of unelected bodies; House of Lords anyone?
eta: sorry, got distracted by customers and see Mamba mentioned the Lords.
The procedure for law making and lots else is on the Europa website, it's not like it's hidden away. The fact we don't know about it or the personalities involved is because we have always thought it's distant and irrelevant. Finally we realise it isn't.0 -
Pross wrote:On the other side we have a bunch of newspapers who are using fears their own papers have been instrumental in causing and perpetuating as reasons why we should leave. They're playing a dangerous game though, who are they going to blame for the ills of the country if we vote to leave?
Muslims, local council workers, the PC brigade, the unemployed, the disabled, cyclists, the BBC, Z-list celebs, environmentalists, teachers, gypsies...
Don't worry about the newspapers Pross, there are plenty more scapegoats in the sea.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Bloody immigrants, moderating our forums :roll:
More unelected bureaucrats with no power. 0 -
Whilst Pross is entirely correct in his first statement, this is also depressingly true.finchy wrote:Don't worry about the newspapers Pross, there are plenty more scapegoats in the sea.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Laws are proposed by the commission, then debated amended and voted for by the parliament as far as I know. The commission doesn't just make laws up for sh!t and giggles which is the impression some seem to give. People lobby and petition the EC to start something down the road of becoming law.Jez mon wrote:The MEPs do not propose the laws though, that's done by the un-elected commissioners, as far as I know.
Either way, the process is not well known, which makes it (at best) seem to lack transparency. At worst it makes it appear utterly undemocratic.
On the subject of unelected bodies; House of Lords anyone?
eta: sorry, got distracted by customers and see Mamba mentioned the Lords.
So the people who we elect in the European system are the ones who play the House of Lords role in European politics, whereas the un-elected ones are the ones who play the role of the House of Commons?
(Very broadly speaking)You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
The House of Lords has it's ability to stop parlaiment limited by the Parliament Act so that the elected parliament (and the government drawn form the elected Parlaiment) has the power to both originate and complete the law making process. The Queen has a ceremonial role in announcing legislation (the Queen's Speech) and passing laws -(Royal Assent). The set up ensures the democratically elected body is the dominant body. (USA have the President for the Queen and Senate for the Lords, so are democratic at every level of national government- discuss!)
We had a poorly publicised and washed out attempt to reform the Lords in the last Parliament. Many of the people pointing to the Lords as undemocratic in this process bemoaned the "waste" of parliamentary time on trying to reform it five years ago.
The Commission has the power to originate law and to overrule the parliament if it doesn't like it's actions. It act's like the cabinet in UK law, but doesn't have a parliament that can effectively rebel against it. As I have said before on this thread, most MEPS would like to end the monthly trip to Strasburg that wastes so much time and money, but France always vetos this at Commission level, MEPs would like more openness about EU accounting, but it is blocked at Commission level.
A more democratic process might be for a similar MPs/Cabinet arrangement where one of elected MEP is chosen by the UK gov't as commissioner with more power given to the parliament (we tend to send failed MPs at the moment). At least we would know who the leader of say, the Tory candidates for MEPs was and vote accordingly. However this arrangement may end up with Nige as our Commissioner if UKIP take most (or all) seats!0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Our economy is better off as a result off immigration, we'd be in an even worse state without it.Coopster the 1st wrote:
...immigration ...mamba80 wrote:as a UKIP supporter said on Radio this morning, voting OUT wont solve the immigrant issue.
I do not disagree with the economic side of immigration although I can see a point when the numbers involved mean it has a negative impact on UK residents life.
So to the question I actually asked:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?
hey, i ll ans it! this tory gov has been in power for 6 years, do you think they ve Governed in our interests? was the junior dr's dispute good? or cutting real terms spending on education and health or HS2 or allowing the selling of key industries to foreign owned companies? or cutting border force investment or cutting EA spending on flood defence? and then having to do an expensive U turn on this....
i ll be perfectly honest, many of the policies this Gov has, have been very much against the good of our society and many (not all) laws Brussels has introduced have been good for us.
Where has the EU over ruled our Parliamentary process? i ve never heard of such a thing.0 -
So the people who we elect in the European system are the ones who play the House of Lords role in European politics, whereas the un-elected ones are the ones who play the role of the House of Commons?
(Very broadly speaking)
We overlapped, and you managed to put it more succinctly than me. Cheers.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Our economy is better off as a result off immigration, we'd be in an even worse state without it.Coopster the 1st wrote:
...immigration ...mamba80 wrote:as a UKIP supporter said on Radio this morning, voting OUT wont solve the immigrant issue.
I do not disagree with the economic side of immigration although I can see a point when the numbers involved mean it has a negative impact on UK residents life.
So to the question I actually asked:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?
hey, i ll ans it! this tory gov has been in power for 6 years, do you think they ve Governed in our interests? was the junior dr's dispute good? or cutting real terms spending on education and health or HS2 or allowing the selling of key industries to foreign owned companies? or cutting border force investment or cutting EA spending on flood defence? and then having to do an expensive U turn on this....
i ll be perfectly honest, many of the policies this Gov has, have been very much against the good of our society and many (not all) laws Brussels has introduced have been good for us.
Where has the EU over ruled our Parliamentary process? i ve never heard of such a thing.
If you are going to put your hand up to answer the question, it would be good to answer the actual question posed. I've put the question in bold^ so you cannot miss it this time. I've even made it easy by making it a binary question which is what this referendum is about* and listed the two answers for you to choose from.
*This is not a referendum on how the Conservative government is running this country which is where your answer is trying to deflect the issue to. :roll:0 -
Yes, I probably over-simplified due to being overly simple.mrfpb wrote:So the people who we elect in the European system are the ones who play the House of Lords role in European politics, whereas the un-elected ones are the ones who play the role of the House of Commons?
(Very broadly speaking)
We overlapped, and you managed to put it more succinctly than me. Cheers.0 -
But it isn't just about immigration is it? The economy has a far larger effect on our wellbeing than immigration and as has been said immigration is a benefit to the economy. You are the only one saying it's a binary decision of where immigration is controlled. Have you been through Calais recently? There are quite a few people that want in but can't because we have some control. If we want favourable trading with the EU as Norway does we will probably have to sign up to a similar deal which is free movement of EU citizens. It's about so much more than immigration and as has been said most of the problems in this country originate in this country.Coopster the 1st wrote:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?
I truly don't know.
Can I say neither?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?
I truly don't know.
Can I say neither?
No, you can't. Get off the fence, you bedwetting nancyboy.0 -
Might as well let those in Brussels run the gaff, 'cos we can't. I don't trust Cameron and I trust the Gove's, the Farage's and the Boris's that would set the agenda in the event of an exit, even less.
I wonder if we are sitting on the fence because... well, we have never really embraced the EU ethic and we have... sat on the fence?
The concessions that we would have to concede in the event of an exit will be similar to Switzerland and Austria who have had to for example, accept the free movement of people. Or is it the Island mentality that thinks we can control our own borders because... we are an island?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
finchy wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?
I truly don't know.
Can I say neither?
No, you can't. Get off the fence, you bedwetting nancyboy.
OK, I'll say Brussels then.
Maybe not according to the wishes of the population, but that wasn't the question.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:mamba80 wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:mamba80 wrote:
So to the question I actually asked:This issue is a binary one of where control of immigration is decided, Westminster or Brussels. Which political body is going to be making this decision in the UK's interests?
hey, i ll ans it! this tory gov has been in power for 6 years, do you think they ve Governed in our interests? was the junior dr's dispute good? or cutting real terms spending on education and health or HS2 or allowing the selling of key industries to foreign owned companies? or cutting border force investment or cutting EA spending on flood defence? and then having to do an expensive U turn on this....
i ll be perfectly honest, many of the policies this Gov has, have been very much against the good of our society and many (not all) laws Brussels has introduced have been good for us.
Where has the EU over ruled our Parliamentary process? i ve never heard of such a thing.
If you are going to put your hand up to answer the question, it would be good to answer the actual question posed. I've put the question in bold^ so you cannot miss it this time. I've even made it easy by making it a binary question which is what this referendum is about* and listed the two answers for you to choose from.
*This is not a referendum on how the Conservative government is running this country which is where your answer is trying to deflect the issue to. :roll:
ah a condescending OUT voter then, nothing is going turn off a floating voter than this.
i answered your Q with examples (or you d have asked for them) its fairly obvious that (i think) our present Gov doesnt always act in our best interests and that Brussels with its extremely limited powers is more likely too.
i also dont agree that this ref is a binary decision, its a very complex decision, with far reaching consequences and imho should never have been given to us to decide, as the majority will vote on immigration only, we do not know what is in the UK's best long term interests, i dont and neither do you, we dont for example get votes on NATO or UN membership do we?
i would ask you what is the Leaves plan B, if the economy tanks, the £ falls through the floor and companies start to relocate? or any combination.0 -
We joined NATO as a co-operative defence organisation, and got a co-operative defence organisation.
We joined the EEC as a trading community and got a club of Commissioners determined to pursue a dream of ever closer integration into a single European state with a single currency. The two things are very different. Remain don't want the superstate or Euro anymore than Leave do. We want a co-op of trade and possibly environmental/climate controls, but want to retain our distinct identity in partnership with our European neighbours.
We want to be a good neighbour in Europe, We don't want to live in an open plan house with everyone in the European avenue.0 -
mrfpb wrote:We joined NATO as a co-operative defence organisation, and got a co-operative defence organisation.
We joined the EEC as a trading community and got a club of Commissioners determined to pursue a dream of ever closer integration into a single European state with a single currency. The two things are very different. Remain don't want the superstate or Euro anymore than Leave do. We want a co-op of trade and possibly environmental/climate controls, but want to retain our distinct identity in partnership with our European neighbours.
.
I think those are really good statements that cover where we are. I guess the problem is what staying in will achieve, as in, can we stay in something where we want something so very different to (seemingly) everyone else? As Europe appears to edge towards the superstate ideal (whether we like it or not) at which point do we put the brake on...and will the brake be just on us or on the diesel that is the EU? Is now a good time to say "Do you know what, we don't actually want to end up where everyone else is going, can you stop the EU bus as we want to get off"?0 -
Given the 42 yr gap between referendums (referenda?) I think I'm going to take this opportunity to say quits. There are other people looking for reform in the EU (including Donald Tusk) but there was no real movement when we negotiated on the basis of "if the EU doesn't reform we may leave" back in Feb.0
-
mrfpb wrote:We joined NATO as a co-operative defence organisation, and got a co-operative defence organisation.
We joined the EEC as a trading community and got a club of Commissioners determined to pursue a dream of ever closer integration into a single European state with a single currency. The two things are very different. Remain don't want the superstate or Euro anymore than Leave do. We want a co-op of trade and possibly environmental/climate controls, but want to retain our distinct identity in partnership with our European neighbours.
We want to be a good neighbour in Europe, We don't want to live in an open plan house with everyone in the European avenue.
not wishing to side track but how many people in the UK would be happy going to War, if russia stepped in and "protected" its Russian speaking minority in the Baltic states?
Or maybe going in with much aligned Turkey if it were to shoot down a few more MIG/Sukios and Russia retaliated?
Our membership of NATO has consequences far beyond a euro super state.
Euro commissioners can want what they like but the electorate of Europe do not want a federal super state, so it wont happen.0 -
This pretty much covers where I am. Undecided.Bobbinogs wrote:mrfpb wrote:We joined NATO as a co-operative defence organisation, and got a co-operative defence organisation.
We joined the EEC as a trading community and got a club of Commissioners determined to pursue a dream of ever closer integration into a single European state with a single currency. The two things are very different. Remain don't want the superstate or Euro anymore than Leave do. We want a co-op of trade and possibly environmental/climate controls, but want to retain our distinct identity in partnership with our European neighbours.
.
I think those are really good statements that cover where we are. I guess the problem is what staying in will achieve, as in, can we stay in something where we want something so very different to (seemingly) everyone else? As Europe appears to edge towards the superstate ideal (whether we like it or not) at which point do we put the brake on...and will the brake be just on us or on the diesel that is the EU? Is now a good time to say "Do you know what, we don't actually want to end up where everyone else is going, can you stop the EU bus as we want to get off"?
Coming out scares the hell out of me, but staying in doesn't look like a bed of roses either.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The point is that Nato membership is more straightforward in it's function that EU membership. We look at the threat, we agree a response. It's a military co-op and doesn't pretend to be anything else.Mambo80:
not wishing to side track but how many people in the UK would be happy going to War, if russia stepped in and "protected" its Russian speaking minority in the Baltic states?
Or maybe going in with much aligned Turkey if it were to shoot down a few more MIG/Sukios and Russia retaliated?
Our membership of NATO has consequences far beyond a euro super state.
Euro commissioners can want what they like but the electorate of Europe do not want a federal super state, so it wont happen.
EC membership came with strings attached that the UK public did not understand at the time of we joined. These have led to crises such as the ERM fiasco for us and the Euro crisis for Greece. We know now that we don't want any part of the European dream, so why stay, why not withdraw and negotiate purely on a trade basis without having to argue about commitments to an outdated ideology.0
