The European Union.....In or Out?

[buckthorn]

Maybe its because you have an odd notion of what the EU 'tells' us to do.

Why should they tell us what do I did not vote for them, they are all unelected.

 

Do you know who makes laws in the EU?

Yes the commission.

 

Maybe the Scots have some sense and see the benefits of being a member outstrip any of the disadvantages.

The same disadvantages they saw in remaining a member of the UK, out of the pot into the fire.

 

Any sovereignty we ceded to Europe is what our elected representatives signed up for

They did not ask the British people, before signing up.

 

 

I was talking to a couple of Maltese people the other day,

we were talking about when Malta became independent

of the UK, so I asked them what they thought when their

country joined the EU, after the British left.

 

There answer, if we could go back we would sooner have

what we had with the UK than what we have now, I asked

is that the general feeling of most people in Malta and

they said emphatically yes, that’s another country who got

their independence and gave it away, only to regret it.

 

They wished they had never heard of the EU.

[buckthorn]

There is something not right in the head with the idea of giving money to an unelected body, then in turn receive less back, to spend on an increased population..

 

I thought that would make sense to most people. But it seems not.

Edited June 6, 2016 by buckthorn
add

[obiter dictum]

The Commission only proposes legislation. It is the MEPs who pass legislation who are all democratically elected every five years from the member states

 

They did ask the UK population with the 1975 Referendum where the UK population gave the EU an endorsement. It was John Majors Government who signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty as our Prime Minister and elected representative, Goldsmith brought a challenge in the courts for Treason which was rejected. The Maastricht Treaty was constitutional.

 

The EU parliament is only Precendent on matters of EU Law because the UK Parliament as the Supreme Legislature temporarily allows it. Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council

Edited June 6, 2016 by obiter dictum

[Consumer dude]

I guess some people have personal agendas..

[Conniff]

I never liked John Major because he was a Tory but why are we so uptight about the fact he had an affair. Half the population seem to, do we berate Tiger Woods, Hugh Grant , what about a French Politician, they are almost thought abnormal if they don't have an affair.

 

Four years an adulterer, four years of lying to his wife, he can't be trusted to tell the truth over anything.

[fletch70]

Actually the council of minister propose legislation or ask the commission to work it out before signing off. The parliament can scrutinise . The commission can make law if and only if the treaties that were agreed by our democratically elected ministers have signed.

[fletch70]

http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm

[Consumer dude]

Its one big plutocracy..

[fletch70]

And that's different to our government?

[Consumer dude]

And that's different to our government?

 

No, but at least it feels more democratic as I can vote em out, the EU is not accountable to no one..

[cjcregg]

There is something not right in the head with the idea of giving money to an unelected body, then in turn receive less back, to spend on an increased population..

 

 

What cash we pay in EU membership fees and what cash we receive back is a rather blinkered way of looking at it.

 

 

The EU single market imposes no tariffs on imports and exports between member states and the EU has trade deals with other non EU states. That means that the UK can sell most of what it exports (and a lot of what it imports) at competitive prices which benefits consumers and in turn attracts inward investment that creates employment and generates tax revenue.

[tobyjugg2]

http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm

 

 

How true.

 

Now what is all this codswallop about unelected EU officials?

 

THe EU is run by elected officials, or the representative of nations elected officials sent to act on those nationally elected officials behalf and instructions.

We vote for MEP's (like Farage). We vote for our national elected officials

These elected officials choose who represents 'us' in the EU, not the EU.

 

EU laws change after input and vote by all parties, with majority vote commonly being the rule, although states, including Britain have vetos on certain areas - like new members.

 

NOW whether our elected officials (or the representatives of OUR elected officials) do what we want them to do their is another matter

- but that is OUR issue with OUR elected officials.

 

 

For example, Cameron OUR elected PM, but not out elected MEP negotiated with the EU to, despite the EU's wishes:

 

 

• Protect the city of London financiers for curbs and limits that the EU wanted to impose to reduce the possibility of another financial collapse
  
• Prevent the EU from imposing safeguards against the known dangers and risks of fracking
  
• Give the UK the option to NOT integrate further politically and financially with the EU as most of the rest moves to further integration
  

 

Now you may or may not agree with those, but there has been no referendum in the UK on these issues, and Cameron is not an elected MEP, but he is the 'head' of the our elected party.

 

So where is the EU undemocratic?

As far as I can see, the only areas in which the EU really acts in an 'unconstitutional' manner is at UK elected officials (mainly Cameron in recent years) behest.

Migration from new states

The real issue is why has the UK not used its veto to stop any of these new states until there is a proper mechanism to manage migration from poor to 'more beneficial' states.

 

More new states like Turkey

Britain, like any EU state/nation can veto new members.

 

 

 

Farages Syrian/Libyan/Nigerian/etc rapist gangs on the streets of Britain

None of these are EU member states and we are not a part of shengen.

[Old Cogger]

When his term as London Mayor ended, Boris Johnson warned his successor that he will have to take action to cut traffic volumes by increasing the congestion charge. However, this solution has resulted from the decisions he took during his eight years in office. He exacerbated the problem by removing the western extension of the congestion zone and by reducing road capacity in central London by 25% on key routes through the introduction of cycle superhighways without taking action to curtail traffic in central London. Both decisions were taken against the advice of TfL

 

 

And this twit increased congestion charges, and sided with his mates (business men) and messed up a very good traffic system --- God help us if the goon ever gets more power, his many failures including so called personal life, then "are doomed we are Doomed!!!"

 

Remember his ignorance in Beijing = hands in pockets at the hand over of the Olympics to the UK , Chinese were not impressed with the "Silly Billy" another wimp of the 1st Degree boys net!

[tobyjugg2]

Too true OC

Johnson and Trump make the Corbyn/Clinton option look like a potential Golden Age of Mankind in comparison.

[tobyjugg2]

typo corrected/Updated

 

Now what is all this codswallop about unelected EU officials?

 

THe EU is run by elected officials, or the representative of nations elected officials sent to act on those nationally elected officials behalf and instructions.

We vote for MEP's (like Farage). We vote for our national elected officials

These elected officials choose who represents 'us' in the EU, not the EU.

 

EU laws change after input and vote by all parties, with majority vote commonly being the rule, although states, including Britain has a veto on certain areas - like new members.

 

NOW whether our elected officials (or the representatives of OUR elected officials) do what we want them to do their is another matter

- but that is OUR issue with OUR elected officials.

 

 

For example, Cameron OUR elected PM, but not our elected MEP negotiated with the EU to (despite the EU's wishes):

 

 

 

• Protect the city of London financiers from curbs and limits that the EU wanted to impose to reduce the possibility of another financial collapse
  
• Prevent the EU from imposing needed safeguards against (NOT ban) the known dangers and risks of fracking
  
• Give the UK the option to NOT integrate further politically and financially with the EU as most of the rest moves to further integration as the treaty states
  

 

 

Now you may or may not agree with those, there has been no referendum in the UK on these issues, and Cameron is not an elected MEP, but he is the 'head' of the our elected party.

 

So where is the EU undemocratic?

As far as I can see, the only areas in which the EU really acts in an 'unconstitutional' manner is at UK senior elected officials (mainly PM/Cameron in recent years) behest.

 

 

 

Migration from new states

The real issue is why has the UK not used its veto to stop any of these new states until there is a proper mechanism to manage migration from poor to 'more beneficial' states.

 

More new states like Turkey

Britain, like any EU state/nation can veto new members.

 

 

 

Farages Syrian/Libyan/Nigerian/etc rapist gangs on the streets of Britain

None of these are EU member states and we are not a part of shengen.

 

The only real issue seems to me to be whether we

address the migration and border issues with our EU neighbors (like France)

or

our neighbors like France save their money and resources and let Britain deal with the boats of illegal migrants crossing the English channel, just as the EU has to with boatloads of illegal migrant from Turkey, Libya etc etc.

(and Merkel just stupidly exacerbated the problem - she didn't cause it, and Britain didn't address it at the EU in any realistic way (other than by whinging and pointing the finger))

 

 

Which would you prefer.

Legitimate EU movement and the options to address any issues with the EU that occur,

or

what seems a very very likely vastly increased illegal migration (far more likely to be the none EU (rapist gang type??) - that would be our problem, with no one else interested?

Who would we deport them to with no papers and uncertain route?

 

Neither of the above really doesn't seem to be a realistic option open to us. So which?

[fletch70]

I subscribe to a blog by a guy called [edited]. I am afraid I can not put a link to the blog as it is seen as advertising the law firm he works for.

 

he has commented on some of the crazy ideas that are doing the rounds in the no camp

 

I will post an extract or two from the blog

To be honest, such arguments show a lack of understanding of the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights, and most importantly history following WW2. Human Rights aren't a creature of the EU!!. They weren't brought about by the EU, in fact Human Rights were brought into UK law by Labour with the Human Rights Act 1998.

I was also told that the UK government cant make its own laws governing Employment and employment rights. Frankly, if that were right then thank god, because id hate to think how poorly workers would be protected if it was left to the Tories. I mean can you imagine letting that fool Boris loose with our workers rights?

Yep, a point that was raised in debate, was the EU wanting us to straighten bananas. Of course when pressed for some authoritative evidence of this point there was a fast retreat and an admission there was none.

I seem to remember that was a daily Wail headline some years ago- baseless

 

This point was quite interesting. So i was told that we couldn't control our borders.I was told this was because we were part of the EU Schengen area which allows people to come to the UK without any checks and that terrorists were able to walk into the UK without checks.

This came from a guy who has flown to europe , does he walk through airports with his eyes shut. If nothing else, anyone can see that we are not part of the Schengen area Edited June 7, 2016 by honeybee13
Lawyer name removed.

[tobyjugg2]

When you think about it, all those rules and regulations, including EU wide MINIMUM workers rights and standards of quality

also apply to Poland etc. to ensure a MINIMUM standard quality of product and recompense.

 

There is nothing stopping any EU state from implementing BETTER workers rights and standards over and above the minimum required by the EU.

 

 

The introduction of the British kite mark (1903), and the Lion on eggs?

- No different.

They seem to me to be solid British ideas incorporated by the EU, NOT EU ideas imposed on Britain. (although Boris would have you think differently)

[fletch70]

I do wonder if , as it seems , the older people are more prone to vote out and the younger to remain is because older people still perceive the UK to be THE superpower who defeated germany twice, defeated and saved France , liberated Europe from the tyranny of those nasty Germans and are feeling hard done to when they realise that we are no longer a global superpower let alone THE superpower. If that is the case, I suppose some education is in order

 

I wonder how Americans will feel in 50 years time when the realise they are no longer the hegemonic global power and just another state?

[unclebulgaria67]

Think you make a good point. Older people do tend to think about the past and of Great Britain. UK punches above its weight mostly due to the City of London and the history of being central hub in the world, because of once being an empire. In the future US and China will fight it out for global dominance which is why the US are looking to do trade deals with the EU and Asia//Pacific countries excluding China. If the UK leaves the EU, it will weaken the position of the UK.

[citizenB]

From what I see, the Human Rights Act pretty much only secures protection for criminals and terrorists ?

[tobyjugg2]

I do wonder if , as it seems , the older people are more prone to vote out and the younger to remain is because older people still perceive the UK to be THE superpower who defeated germany twice, defeated and saved France , liberated Europe from the tyranny of those nasty Germans and

 

... Dont realise we need to do it again.

 

[citizenB]

I do wonder if , as it seems , the older people are more prone to vote out and the younger to remain is because older people still perceive the UK to be THE superpower who defeated germany twice, defeated and saved France , liberated Europe from the tyranny of those nasty Germans and are feeling hard done to when they realise that we are no longer a global superpower let alone THE superpower. If that is the case, I suppose some education is in order

 

 

 

Just as well that it is the older people who will make the effort to vote - either by registering in the first place - going to the polling stations or using their postal votes.

 

 

Whereas the younger voters are to lazy to even register or if the reports are to be believed backing out of the registration process when they get to the bit that asks for their NI number - because... they either cant remember it or don't want to give the government this information !!

 

 

Cant be bothered to vote unless it is via an app on their phone or lap top !

[tobyjugg2]

I do wonder if , as it seems , the older people are more prone to vote out and the younger to remain is because older people still perceive the UK to be THE superpower who defeated germany twice, defeated and saved France , liberated Europe from the tyranny of those nasty Germans and

 

... Dont realise we need to do it again and bring a truly united peace to Europe, without the Yanks interfering

 

 

 

and like before we need the help of the French, the Poles, the Norwegians and all the others to do it - together,

 

and before finally getting around to defeating the ottoman Empire.

 

 

We couldn't then and still cant now - do it alone.

[Conniff]

Just as well that it is the older people who will make the effort to vote - either by registering in the first place - going to the polling stations or using their postal votes.

 

 

Whereas the younger voters are to lazy to even register or if the reports are to be believed backing out of the registration process when they get to the bit that asks for their NI number - because... they either cant remember it or don't want to give the government this information !!

 

 

Cant be bothered to vote unless it is via an app on their phone or lap top !

 

 

This has to be the best post on the whole of this stupid thread.

[tobyjugg2]

Ok so whos abusing their position by renaming the thread?