Brexit 23rd June..?

[HaydnH]

<stuff>

 

http://www.theguardi...come-in-britain

 

The main argument there seems to be "foreign students will be put off", but we have plenty of foreign students from outside the EU as it is, I don't see why they would suddenly think Cambridge and Oxford are useless! And the following argument:

 

If the UK votes to leave, it will become less attractive not only for EU nationals, but for the brightest and best across the world. Several US-born colleagues, for example, have told me that one of the reasons they settled in the UK was because indefinite leave to remain here gave them access to the EU.

 

The people from the US who have settled here are already from outside the EU... and can settle in the UK... and we're not planning on building a great big wall!

[coldel]

You are also putting off people with poor eyesight...or even good eyesight mate

[Adrian@TORQEN]

See the University teachers letter I've posted earlier today.

[rtbiscuit]

 

 

Just on a point of order, the owners had such belief in the Titanic that they took the major leap of faith by providing just a small number of lifeboats, relative to the number of passengers on board.

 

Not technically true, the owners classed it as unsinkable because they were that confident on its engineering but they put style over substance and style over safety.

 

They removed bulkheads to allow for large grand open spaces and stairways, but when it flooded it allowed the water to move quicker as they couldn't keep it in sections. the lack of life boats was because the company thought they spoilt the view for the upper class so put less on.

 

I think the EU are similiar in the fact they are so confident in their creation they don't see the glaring issues with it or are un willing to address them until its too late and its sinking and everyone on board will end going down with the ship.

 

I can hear the European anthem playing now on the top deck

[Kieran O'Quick]

Anyone think it's likely that there will be a second referendum if the result is Leave? Would the EU not offer a few concessions before it (say, on immigration) given the democratic mandate of a large group of it's people?

 

Wouldn't that make everybody happy?

[Juggalo]

You get to vote for MEPs

 

Not the same, and you know it. the EU Commission hold the power and makes the rules. You get no votes, no say. They're unaccountable, and unelectable.

 

 

That's not really accurate though is it. The Commission is APPOINTED by the Council, in the exact same way our Lords are appointed by our Commons. They have a term (just like our Lords) after which they have to be re-appointed or ditched by whatever elected Council (or Commons) are in place at that time.

It's a time-honoured and well-established shape for a democratic 2-house system, used the world over.

 

How does that make what I said not accurate?

You've just agreed that the decision making system is APPOINTED, not voted. That the system of decision making...the place where the real power is, is APPOINTED, not democratically elected.

 

Because, it's not true to say you "no say", as you put it... it's a gross over-simplification.

 

No democracy is perfect, its always a compromise... people have been trying to find the best compromise since the ancient Greeks.

 

The EU democratic system is every bit as democratic (or un-democratic, depending on your viewpoint) as the UK system.

 

How?

You tell me how a Politburo style committe of decision makers, that you do not elect, you cannot dismiss, have no influence over, that meet in secret is the same as a Parliamentary democracy with elected representatives of the people, that all meet in one place, discuss the bills publically and openly and vote on whether an bill is a good one or a bad one, before they're allowed to make it law

 

You tell me how the hell those two systems are the same

[Sargara]

Anyone think it's likely that there will be a second referendum if the result is Leave? Would the EU not offer a few concessions before it (say, on immigration) given the democratic mandate of a large group of it's people?

 

Wouldn't that make everybody happy?

 

No cant see that happening personally. What I can see however is Remaining winning by a slight margin and the EU taking this a sign to take the absolute **** because this will have legitimized alot of their plans; fast-track Turkey, EU army, fee hike maybe? push the Euro currency perhaps? Who knows! Time will tell I guess, I hope I'm wrong!

[Juggalo]

I'm really not apathetic, I have incredibly passionate views when it comes to UK politics. However, in this case I can't see HOW anything would change!

 

We need immigration levels where they are, if not higher.

We'd need to follow EU rules to trade anyway.

We'll still end up with the TTIP.

We'll end up in the exact same place, just with no seat at the table and billions of pounds in lawyer fees down.

 

 

Remind me again why we should leave?

 

You seem so laid back and...whatever about the whole thing.

1: I disagree with your point one. But it's been done to death so we'll leave it.

2: I disagree. The USA, Mexico, Peru, India don't need to be in the EU to trade, neither do we.

3: Disagree. The people of the country are opposse to TTIP. If we're in the EU, the EU won't give two shits what you think. If we're out, the governments position at the next election is on the line.

4: I disagree. We'll be sterring our own ship in the direction we want, not the way people in Europe who have no real stake in the UK want.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Juggalo

[coldel]

Anyone think it's likely that there will be a second referendum if the result is Leave? Would the EU not offer a few concessions before it (say, on immigration) given the democratic mandate of a large group of it's people?

 

Wouldn't that make everybody happy?

 

No cant see that happening personally. What I can see however is Remaining winning by a slight margin and the EU taking this a sign to take the absolute **** because this will have legitimized alot of their plans; fast-track Turkey, EU army, fee hike maybe? push the Euro currency perhaps? Who knows! Time will tell I guess, I hope I'm wrong!

 

It will test the EU if we remain on their 'commitments' we negotiated earlier in the year.

 

Unfortunately this is going to end badly in any case. Its looking so close that the losing side is going to say that the difference isn't significant enough to say the people have really spoken and gone significantly one way or the other.

 

I can however see a new Scottish referendum on the UK and an easy win for Out if we do vote to leave the EU though.

[GappySmeg]

You get to vote for MEPs

 

Not the same, and you know it. the EU Commission hold the power and makes the rules. You get no votes, no say. They're unaccountable, and unelectable.

 

 

That's not really accurate though is it. The Commission is APPOINTED by the Council, in the exact same way our Lords are appointed by our Commons. They have a term (just like our Lords) after which they have to be re-appointed or ditched by whatever elected Council (or Commons) are in place at that time.

It's a time-honoured and well-established shape for a democratic 2-house system, used the world over.

 

How does that make what I said not accurate?

You've just agreed that the decision making system is APPOINTED, not voted. That the system of decision making...the place where the real power is, is APPOINTED, not democratically elected.

 

Because, it's not true to say you "no say", as you put it... it's a gross over-simplification.

 

No democracy is perfect, its always a compromise... people have been trying to find the best compromise since the ancient Greeks.

 

The EU democratic system is every bit as democratic (or un-democratic, depending on your viewpoint) as the UK system.

 

How?

You tell me how a Politburo style committe of decision makers, that you do not elect, you cannot dismiss, have no influence over, that meet in secret is the same as a Parliamentary democracy with elected representatives of the people, that all meet in one place, discuss the bills publically and openly and vote on whether an bill is a good one or a bad one, before they're allowed to make it law

 

You tell me how the hell those two systems are the same

 

Think you're confused... I'm likening our Lords to the EU Commission, and our Commons to the EU Council (in terms of electability at least, if thats a word). We do not elect our Lords, they are appointed, by those that we've elected, in the same way as EU Commissioners are appointed by the Councillors we've elected. Both sets of appointed houses (UK Lords and EU Commissioners) have a lifespan, after which they are re-appointed by the elected houses... it's really not that difficult to understand.

As for "meeting in secret", not sure where that one comes from at all! Are you just referring to not being able to see them on Parliamentary Channel?!?!?!

[HaydnH]

The EU democratic system is every bit as democratic (or un-democratic, depending on your viewpoint) as the UK system.

 

The link I posted above gives a good example of how democratic the EU is:

 

The ‘Lisbon Treaty’ turned the EU ‘from a loose confederation of independent states into a unitary state with its own legal personality and the right to act as a single state’ argues Alan Sked. ‘All this was done without any popular mandate—indeed, had to be done in this fashion after the voters of France and the Netherlands had rejected virtually the same document. So the new treaty was rammed through national parliaments by party whips.’

 

Except in Ireland, which held a referendum – the only referendum to place on the Treaty in the EU’s 27 member states, itself a fact of huge shaming significance for Remainers if they cared about democracy – in which the people said no to the Lisbon treaty. What happened next was instructive. Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French Europe Minister, said, ‘The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found’ Nikola Sarkozy, said it the Irish would simply be ignored. The Irish were told to vote again. A journalist reported: John and Annette Drum, shopping on Dublin’s Grafton Street, were unhappy with Mr. Sarkozy’s attempts to force Ireland into a second vote. ‘How dare he tell us what to do,’ said Mrs. Drum. Still, Mrs. Drum was made to vote again, until she got it right. The John and Annette Drum’s of Europe simply do not count to the EU, have never counted and will not count in the future.

[GappySmeg]

The EU democratic system is every bit as democratic (or un-democratic, depending on your viewpoint) as the UK system.

 

The link I posted above gives a good example of how democratic the EU is:

 

The ‘Lisbon Treaty’ turned the EU ‘from a loose confederation of independent states into a unitary state with its own legal personality and the right to act as a single state’ argues Alan Sked. ‘All this was done without any popular mandate—indeed, had to be done in this fashion after the voters of France and the Netherlands had rejected virtually the same document. So the new treaty was rammed through national parliaments by party whips.’

 

Except in Ireland, which held a referendum – the only referendum to place on the Treaty in the EU’s 27 member states, itself a fact of huge shaming significance for Remainers if they cared about democracy – in which the people said no to the Lisbon treaty. What happened next was instructive. Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French Europe Minister, said, ‘The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found’ Nikola Sarkozy, said it the Irish would simply be ignored. The Irish were told to vote again. A journalist reported: John and Annette Drum, shopping on Dublin’s Grafton Street, were unhappy with Mr. Sarkozy’s attempts to force Ireland into a second vote. ‘How dare he tell us what to do,’ said Mrs. Drum. Still, Mrs. Drum was made to vote again, until she got it right. The John and Annette Drum’s of Europe simply do not count to the EU, have never counted and will not count in the future.

 

Aside from the fact that "quote" is non-attributed, and is the most poorly written thing I have ever read, it actually doesn't touch on the points being argued between myself and Juggalo about the electability of the EU. (I've used that word again, must check a dictionary).

 

My argument with Juggalo (and i mean that in the "discussion of opposing views" sense, rather than the "fisticuffs at dawn" sense) is that he writes repeatedly that "we cannot vote them out"... and that's what I've shown to be wrong, and that's what I mean by democracy.

 

The article you've posted shows nothing more than the elected representatives getting on with their job. Are you saying there should have been a UK referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

If so, I can't disagree (without knowing the massive cost that might have incurred), but nonetheless, you can't expect a bunch of elected representatives to call a referendum every time they're asked to make a decision.

Did we get a referendum on the continuation of Trident?

[coldel]

Checking the latest odds have swung slightly back towards Leave but still edging it to Remain.

 

Also checking with Nat Cen on their polling, has Remain at 53% Reason I look there is that they are experimenting with a revised approach to polling, where the research industry had to have a review of political polling after the general election fail, they have improved their approach, so likely to be more accurate...you would think.

[HaydnH]

The article you've posted shows nothing more than the elected representatives getting on with their job. Are you saying there should have been a UK referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

 

No, I'm saying that if the only country that did have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty said no, then it shouldn't be forced on that electorate anyway. If the vote tomorrow goes either way and we do the opposite thing, are you going to feel like our democracy is working?

 

 

Aside from the fact that "quote" is non-attributed

 

 

Errrm...

 

The link I posted above gives a good example of how democratic the EU is:

 

I guess you didn't click the link? It was written by professor Alan Johnson. Considering the title of the article is called "Why I am voting Leave, by Professor Alan Johnson" I thought that would be fairly obvious. Maybe you got to the word "Leave" and stopped reading? Oh, unless you mean all the quotes inside the bit I quoted? They all have names next to them also.

[Juggalo]

Anyone think it's likely that there will be a second referendum if the result is Leave? Would the EU not offer a few concessions before it (say, on immigration) given the democratic mandate of a large group of it's people?

 

Wouldn't that make everybody happy?

 

No cant see that happening personally. What I can see however is Remaining winning by a slight margin and the EU taking this a sign to take the absolute **** because this will have legitimized alot of their plans; fast-track Turkey, EU army, fee hike maybe? push the Euro currency perhaps? Who knows! Time will tell I guess, I hope I'm wrong!

 

Don't forget that Camerons nogotiations to reform the EU for the referendum gave away Britains right to veto treaties. We were already bent over a barrel. Now Cameron took our pants down.

Cameron is the type of guy that pays £20k for a 2003 DE, then comes home and insists he got a good deal. Cocktard.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/670220/Cameron-gave-away-Britain-valuable-EU-bargaining-Iain-Duncan-Smith

[Ekona]

 

You seem so laid back and...whatever about the whole thing.

1: I disagree with your point one. But it's been done to death so we'll leave it.

2: I disagree. The USA, Mexico, Peru, India don't need to be in the EU to trade, neither do we.

3: Disagree. The people of the country are opposse to TTIP. If we're in the EU, the EU won't give two shits what you think. If we're out, the governments position at the next election is on the line.

4: I disagree. We'll be sterring our own ship in the direction we want, not the way people in Europe who have no real stake in the UK want.

Laid back? Perhaps. I'm certainly tired of the same circular arguments.

 

If we leave, we'll do the easiest thing to get things rolling and back on track to help preserve whatever state our financial markets are in. What's the best way of doing that? By copying exactly what we had before, with a few token tweaks. That's why I started out on the Leave side about 3 years ago, moved to Remain in the last 12 months, and now I don't think it'll matter either way as there's no political will to *really* change anything. The EU are quite happy as things stand, our government system is broken because Corbyn is the worst Labour leader in my lifetime, and no-one really wants to drag things out any longer than they have to.

 

That's not apathy, that's the real world. People are proclaiming these great changes, on both sides of the argument, when in reality great changes are not only politically impossible but also do not really benefit anyone.

 

 

The people of this country cannot get their head around the fact that we need to massively cut spending to reduce our debt. You really think they're capable of deciphering, much less arguing the pros and cons, of the TTIP? I don't. The public as a rule are stupid, hence them believing half the spin on both sides of the EU argument.

[Jetpilot]

57 pages of, my linked article is better than your linked article we might have well as discussed, whats better, black or white

[HaydnH]

Don't forget that Camerons nogotiations to reform the EU for the referendum gave away Britains right to veto treaties. We were already bent over a barrel. Now Cameron took our pants down.

Cameron is the type of guy that pays £20k for a 2003 DE, then comes home and insists he got a good deal. Cocktard.

 

http://www.express.c...in-Duncan-Smith

 

http://infacts.org/uk-has-not-lost-euro-veto/

[Ekona]

57 pages of, my linked article is better than your linked article we might have well as discussed, whats better, black or white

Black, obviously.

[Ekona]

But yes, a very true point JP.

[Juggalo]

You get to vote for MEPs

 

Not the same, and you know it. the EU Commission hold the power and makes the rules. You get no votes, no say. They're unaccountable, and unelectable.

 

 

That's not really accurate though is it. The Commission is APPOINTED by the Council, in the exact same way our Lords are appointed by our Commons. They have a term (just like our Lords) after which they have to be re-appointed or ditched by whatever elected Council (or Commons) are in place at that time.

It's a time-honoured and well-established shape for a democratic 2-house system, used the world over.

 

How does that make what I said not accurate?

You've just agreed that the decision making system is APPOINTED, not voted. That the system of decision making...the place where the real power is, is APPOINTED, not democratically elected.

 

Because, it's not true to say you "no say", as you put it... it's a gross over-simplification.

 

No democracy is perfect, its always a compromise... people have been trying to find the best compromise since the ancient Greeks.

 

The EU democratic system is every bit as democratic (or un-democratic, depending on your viewpoint) as the UK system.

 

How?

You tell me how a Politburo style committe of decision makers, that you do not elect, you cannot dismiss, have no influence over, that meet in secret is the same as a Parliamentary democracy with elected representatives of the people, that all meet in one place, discuss the bills publically and openly and vote on whether an bill is a good one or a bad one, before they're allowed to make it law

 

You tell me how the hell those two systems are the same

 

Think you're confused... I'm likening our Lords to the EU Commission, and our Commons to the EU Council (in terms of electability at least, if thats a word). We do not elect our Lords, they are appointed, by those that we've elected, in the same way as EU Commissioners are appointed by the Councillors we've elected. Both sets of appointed houses (UK Lords and EU Commissioners) have a lifespan, after which they are re-appointed by the elected houses... it's really not that difficult to understand.

As for "meeting in secret", not sure where that one comes from at all! Are you just referring to not being able to see them on Parliamentary Channel?!?!?!

 

That's not the same by any measure.

For it to be accurate, the House of Lords would have to be the House that makes all the laws and decisons. It's not, Parliament is.

All the HoL does is read bills and rejects or amends them, they then get sent back to parliament to be revised/debated on.

Both Houses are safety measures, and compliment each other. That's why so many countries around the world adopted the very same system.

 

The EU commission, on the other hand, operates exactly like the USSR Politburo. Exactly. They're both unelected. They're both appointed. They both make laws and decisions as they see fit, and there is absolutely no recourse to oppose them, remove them, or elect them by the people.

 

That is what you are voting for tomorrow, and I think 95% of the population, maybe more, don't realise that. They're voting blind.

[HaydnH]

57 pages of, my linked article is better than your linked article we might have well as discussed, whats better, black or white

Black, obviously.

 

Kuro to be precise.

 

EDIT: Possibly Ebisu on reflection...

Edited June 22, 2016 by HaydnH

[GappySmeg]

The article you've posted shows nothing more than the elected representatives getting on with their job. Are you saying there should have been a UK referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

 

No, I'm saying that if the only country that did have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty said no, then it shouldn't be forced on that electorate anyway. If the vote tomorrow goes either way and we do the opposite thing, are you going to feel like our democracy is working?

 

 

Aside from the fact that "quote" is non-attributed

 

 

Errrm...

 

The link I posted above gives a good example of how democratic the EU is:

 

I guess you didn't click the link? It was written by professor Alan Johnson. Considering the title of the article is called "Why I am voting Leave, by Professor Alan Johnson" I thought that would be fairly obvious. Maybe you got to the word "Leave" and stopped reading? Oh, unless you mean all the quotes inside the bit I quoted? They all have names next to them also.

 

Failed to spot a hyperlink in your posts (there are 57 pages of this drivel now!!!!)... I apologise... I shall happily read it through (although I fail to see what relevance an Irish referendum on an EU policy has to do with the "electability" debate).

As for the "Leave" comment, I honestly am as open-minded as anyone else... there genuinely are plenty of VALID reasons to want to leave the EU, but the "the EU is not elected" tripe is not one! (and it's a particular bugbear of mine).

[Jetpilot]

57 pages of, my linked article is better than your linked article we might have well as discussed, whats better, black or white

Black, obviously.

 

And there was me thinking your response would have been, blue

[coldel]

IDS is a good politician, and he pulls from the deal what he wants to justify his decision. He jumped based on one issue, but he is entitled to. However he isn't stating the exact truth, which is why I don't find newspaper articles like this much use as they will always be looking to justify his decision.

 

Looking at the actual document, we haven't agreed to anything in writing in terms of veto, the only reference is paragraph three here on page 14

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1-2016-INIT/en/pdf#page=14 where we agreed to limit integration for those outside the Euro. There is nothing written in this document that states we have rescinded our right to veto.

 

Interestingly there are some great wins for Cameron in the document such as here http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1-2016-INIT/en/pdf#page=15 where we are not responsible in future for EU Euro member bail outs for instance.

 

I am not a Cameron fan, I think he could be tougher, but what do people feel about him, Boris or Corbyn being capable of negotiating all our future trade deals if you feel right now they are not capable of negotiating anything?