The European Union: We're out...!!!

[Dave]

Agree with you Phil.

The 2 paragraph's that I quoted to BOB are from a speech made by Cameron, it to me clearly proves how, the EU is an undemocratic monster, it proves how the powers of national governments are being, and are going to be further eroded.

And Phil in answer to your above question, there is a huge difference between the unelected house of Lords, and the unelected EU commission;

The house of Lords, can only scrutinise a bill, and send it back to the house of parliament with recommendations for amendments to made to the bill, the house of Lords can NOT prevent any bill from passing into law.

And we saw what happened, when the house Lords tried to stop the governments changes to tax credits and disabled benefits, the government brought forward measures to further dilute the pwers of the house Lords.

The unelected EU commsion has the powers to;

propose legislation
enforce European law
set a objectives and priorities for action
manage and implement EU policies and the budget
represent the Union outside Europe

And lets make no mistake here, just because British MEP'S can vote for an EU commioner, it does not mean to say, and are appointed, the majority wins, if German, French and say Begium MEPS vote for some else, they win, Britain losses.

[BobBobBob]

How is what I said nonsense? Your own link proves me right! David Cameron got a vote on who should be the president of the European Commission. He didn't get what he wanted, but he still got to vote. That's how democracy works. I didn't for a Conservative MP but I'm not going to claim that David Cameron or the Conservatives were unelected.

Jean-Claude Juncker is President of the European Commission
He was nominated by 26 heads of state out of 28 votes cast in European Council (92.9%)
He was elected by 422 members of the 729 votes cast in European Parliament (57.9%)

I can tell you 6 British MEPs voted for him:
Richard Ashworth
Julie Girling
Saj Karim
Timothy Kirkhope
Anthea McIntyre
Kay Swinburne

There you go!

And lets make no mistake here, just because British MEP'S can vote for an EU commioner, it does not mean to say, and are appointed, the majority wins, if German, French and say Begium MEPS vote for some else, they win, Britain losses.

This comment is just gold. Yes, sometimes you might not get what you want. That's called democracy!

[Dave]

That's not the point though, clearly not the point.

Great, British MEPS have vote, the British prime minister has a vote, well whoopee do, it's worthless if you can never, ever get anything you want or ask for, if your constantly voted down by others, what the point of being there.

The point is, and it's about the erosion of our national sovereignty, it's the erosion of the British government, our national parliament to make British laws for British people, heck the British supreme court, does not reign supreme in Britain.

Our vote in the general election is becoming more and more worthless, our government does not make all British laws, it has to ask permission form the relevant unelected EU commissioner on certain aspects of governing our country.

I want to live in a country, where we the people vote for our government, who has 100% control of governing our country, and if we the people don't agree with them, if we people don't like what the sitting government have done, we the people can change it.

Of course we can do that now, but again it's worthless, as we are being more and more governed from Brussels.

Instead of being part of 28 country bloc, where the will of the British government is, the will of elected British MEP'S are voted down time and time again, that's not British democracy, that's a dictatorship.

[Dave]

Sir James Dyson, joins JCB chairman and other big business leaders in calling for Britain to leave the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36505735


Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Sir James, who is best known for designing a bagless vacuum cleaner, said the UK "will create more wealth and more jobs by being outside the EU than we will within it".

"When the Remain campaign tells us no-one will trade with us if we leave the EU, sorry, it's absolute cobblers. Our trade imbalance with Europe is running at £9bn a month and rising. If this trend continues, that is £100bn a year."

[BobBobBob]

The point was that the EU is elected. It is elected. Keep moving the goalposts. I'm like Dimitri Payet, I can shoot from anywhere.

[Dave]

The point was that the EU is elected. It is elected. Keep moving the goalposts. I'm like Dimitri Payet, I can shoot from anywhere.

Not disputing each member state has the right to elect it's own MEP's, never disputed that. EU commissioners and it's 5 presidents are not elected, end of, but hey we're never going to agree on that are we. In fact on this subject we clearly sit on two very different sides of the fence, so are we going ever agree on it, I don't think so.

Also, you could go into any town, village or City, and take a poll, I can say with some certainty that the overwhelming majority will NOT know who their elected M.E.P is, so who do these M.E.P's really represent ?

[BobBobBob]

I could go to the same places and take a poll and would probably find a majority who do not know the name of their own elected MP. In my experience, people generally don't care about the politicians themselves. We care about the politics they stand for. A broad point about our own democracy is although we technically vote for an MP, we really vote for a Party. And that can be disfranchising. Take a Conservative voter who lives in Torbay and wants to come out of the EU. Perhaps they wouldn't want to vote for Kevin Foster because he is in the Remain camp. But if they don't vote for him, they might not get a Conservative government and that's what they want. So if Kevin Foster gets elected but the Conservatives do not win a majority, does he represent that voter?

I'm sympathetic to your view that EU politics is disenfranchising but I think all democracy can be to some extent. We've got a fully democratic opportunity on June 23rd to once and for all decide if we want to stay in the EU. I do, you don't. I will accept the result whatever it may be and I'm sure you will too. But one of us will be disappointed. And it's possible that both of us could be disappointed depending on the direction taken after the vote which we don't get a say in.

[Dave]

I will accept the result whatever it may be and I'm sure you will too. But one of us will be disappointed. And it's possible that both of us could be disappointed depending on the direction taken after the vote which we don't get a say in.

Now that's something I do agree with you on.

[madgull]

Prepare for angry, tear-streaked keyboard bashing...

[Gullscorer]

Madgull, I'm not angry, nor in tears.

I'm simply amazed at your gullibility and naivety (or is it knavery) in putting forward, in response to cherry-picked points made by Brexiters*, arguments which are either patently and self-evidently absurd or which have already been thoroughly debunked and destroyed either in previous posts on this thread or elsewhere by the Leave campaign.

Independent readers and undecided voters are already seeing this for themselves and are choosing Brexit in massive numbers.

Perhaps it's also time you questioned the wisdom of your own position..

*Except perhaps for the first one: 'we can be like Switzerland and Norway'. This is an argument I've actually heard from only one (ostensible) Brexit supporter. The vast majority of Switzerland/Norway arguments in fact came from pro-Remain people who warned that we 'would be like Switzerland and Norway'. Nonsense. As the world's fifth largest economy we can be like the UK. In trade negotiations with the EU we will be in the driving seat, since we buy far more from EU countries than they do from us, so they have more to lose. But the questions of free trade, free markets, free movement of peoples, and political union, have all been more than adequately dealt with on this thread and elsewhere.

[BobBobBob]

What's with all the synonyms?

Regardless of whether the picture is accurate or not (I think at least most of it is) the fact remains that we are heading into a binary decision to which there is anything but binary outcomes. It is important for everyone to acknowledge that we do not know what will happen after the vote. So the point isn't so much that the Leave campaign WANTS to be like Switzerland or Norway. It's simply that those are the only models we know of that show a positive outcome for the British economy in the event of an EU exit. As a result, many articles trying to show how a leave vote wouldn't sink the British economy have used Switzerland or Norway as examples. You've posted them yourself. I think it's disingenuous to use them as examples at the same time as arguing that a leave vote will allow us to take control of our borders, because that would not apply in those examples. It's one or the other.

So in summary, some leave campaigners (especially you in this thread) are having their cake and eating it on these issues.

[Gullscorer]

Synonyms? What synonyms? But perhaps you should use them more; they provide accurate and appropriate words..

What will happen in the future will depend upon which government controls UK affairs: a freely elected British government or an ever more autocratic and anti-democratic EU. But it's important for everyone to acknowledge that the referendum vote is not about precisely what will happen after the vote, but about more important matters of principle:

The choice is between an increasingly undemocratic EU, compliance, and conformity on the one hand, and independence, freedom, and self-determination on the other. The questions to be considered are those of independence, sovereignty, control of our own borders, our own laws, our own destiny. Because the EU was always intended to be a political union, a superstate whose nature and aims, police and judicial systems, are completely alien to UK governance and the British way of life.

You think Switzerland and Norway are the only models we know of that show a positive outcome for the British economy in the event of an EU exit? Have you been deaf and blind to the Leave campaigns other clearly stated plans for a Brexit economy?

As for the Swiss and Norwegian EU trade agreements, you are in error; at no time have I advocated these in any previous post. The UK will have its own route to follow, and it is disingenuous to suggest that any future trade deal we have with the EU would necessitate open borders and a continuation of unfettered migration.

After all, the rest of the world, in their EU trade deals, are not required to open their borders to free movement of EU citizens. Such free migration doesn't happen in NAFTA, nor in SAFTA, APTA, and the TPP free trade agreements. Neither are these partnerships and agreements in any way moving towards political unions.

And it will be no different for an independent UK.

[Gullscorer]

By the way, Bob, I remember in an earlier post you mentioned that the EU spends money on collaborative science research that benefits the UK.

But you (conveniently?) forgot the disastrous regulations in the EU’s Clinical Trials Directive forced on Britain in 2004, which has seen the UK global share of research plummet from 12 per cent to just one per cent.

These are delaying vital testing of drugs for years, and then delaying their marketing. Smaller research facilities have been forced to close down because of the regulatory burden imposed by the EU, in rules lobbied for by large corporations.

And this is the future: the EU Commission working in league with large global corporations whose requirements will take precedence over the needs of the European people.

[BobBobBob]

Synonyms are great but you don't use them appropriately at all. It's redundant to write, "patently and self-evidently". Or as you might put it, "superfluous and redundant"!

The choice is far more complicated than you frame it. If you'll indulge me, I personally believe Britain could find their own path outside of the EU, but just like anything it would be a path of compromises. And people like you seem totally unwilling to compromise. To have such rigid views about difficult issues like immigration and the economy is folly in my opinion.

The point is not necessarily that we must "endure" freedom of movement no matter what, there is an argument that says freedom of movement is very beneficial to our economy and other aspects of our lives. That maybe it would be a useful thing to retain even in the event of an exit. Of course that would be upset people who voting purely on the issue of immigration.

And I didn't forget anything. I've never said the EU is perfect, but I am saying that it does some good. There are things that will be missed should we leave and collaborative science is one those things. It's also one of things that doesn't get counted in the £176 million figure that the leave campaign is so keen to embrace. So who is the one conveniently forgetting things?

[Dave]

Synonyms are great but you don't use them appropriately at all. It's redundant to write, "patently and self-evidently". Or as you might put it, "superfluous and redundant"!

The choice is far more complicated than you frame it. If you'll indulge me, I personally believe Britain could find their own path outside of the EU, but just like anything it would be a path of compromises. And people like you seem totally unwilling to compromise. To have such rigid views about difficult issues like immigration and the economy is folly in my opinion.

The point is not necessarily that we must "endure" freedom of movement no matter what, there is an argument that says freedom of movement is very beneficial to our economy and other aspects of our lives. That maybe it would be a useful thing to retain even in the event of an exit. Of course that would be upset people who voting purely on the issue of immigration.

And I didn't forget anything. I've never said the EU is perfect, but I am saying that it does some good. There are things that will be missed should we leave and collaborative science is one those things. It's also one of things that doesn't get counted in the £176 million figure that the leave campaign is so keen to embrace. So who is the one conveniently forgetting things?

I do agree with a lot of your sentiment there, I'm clearly going to vote leave, but do realize the path ahead for the country regardless of whether we choose to remain or leave is not going to be perfect, and in the event of vote leave winning there will need to be compromise, I just believe that's no reason vote remain and maintain the status quo because, perhaps we're a little scared of what may, or may not happen afterwards.

I believe the eventual deal post Brexit, with it's compromises will be more beneficial to our country than staying in an EU bloc that's failing both politically and financially.

Can I just also point out, that £176 million a week is the UK's net contribution to the EU, our country does put in £350 million a week, of course what vote leave conveniently left out is, is we get back £74 million in rebates, £100 million goes into EU projects so such as collaborative science which is clearly dear to your heart , which leaves a net contribution of £176 million in my belief.