This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
OK yes, I am on the other side of the world but I am completely bemused by the comments regarding an EU exit and "we'll just negotiate trade agreements with US, China etc." this is delusional.
1) Which countries/trading blocks are going to be in a rush to negotiate with the UK?
The EU won't (to punish the UK, signal to other countries not to go down this route)
The US not exactly a priority for them (note steel tariffs imposed on the UK yesterday) + imagine if they are dealing with the election of Trump.
China, where is the incentive, UK is just too small to matter
India - possible
ROW - sure, but why would we bother?
2) Who is going to do this on behalf of the UK? At a practical level, does the UK have a surplus of trade negotiators that have been kept in reserve "just in case"?
Are people campaigning for an exit so blind to the economic consequences that they will push this through regardless?
LD
Post edited at 00:44
13
3
In reply to Lurking Dave:
Ones which currently import UK goods. Why do you think their doing this depends on our EU membership?
Really? The EU is that childish? (projecting there mate.) The EU is heading for an economic storm of its own. I don't think it can afford to play silly buggers just out of spite, do you?
The UK already exports to the US, why should that change? Exports from the United Kingdom amounted to US$460.1 billion in 2015.
China now represents the UK’s sixth-biggest export market, taking 3.6% of its goods and services.
You don;'t seem to have much faith in the UK there, is that why you left? Do you not think trade negotiations happen each and every day for the UK within, and outside of the EU?
Are people campaigning for an "IN" so blind to the economic consequences that they will push this through regardless?
> 1) Which countries/trading blocks are going to be in a rush to negotiate with the UK?
Ones which currently import UK goods. Why do you think their doing this depends on our EU membership?
> The EU won't (to punish the UK, signal to other countries not to go down this route)
Really? The EU is that childish? (projecting there mate.) The EU is heading for an economic storm of its own. I don't think it can afford to play silly buggers just out of spite, do you?
> The US not exactly a priority for them (note steel tariffs imposed on the UK yesterday) + imagine if they are dealing with the election of Trump.
The UK already exports to the US, why should that change? Exports from the United Kingdom amounted to US$460.1 billion in 2015.
> China, where is the incentive, UK is just too small to matter
China now represents the UK’s sixth-biggest export market, taking 3.6% of its goods and services.
> 2) Who is going to do this on behalf of the UK? At a practical level, does the UK have a surplus of trade negotiators that have been kept in reserve "just in case"?
You don;'t seem to have much faith in the UK there, is that why you left? Do you not think trade negotiations happen each and every day for the UK within, and outside of the EU?
> Are people campaigning for an exit so blind to the economic consequences that they will push this through regardless?
Are people campaigning for an "IN" so blind to the economic consequences that they will push this through regardless?
13
8
In reply to Big Ger:
You seem to miss the point that the UK trades with these parties under the umbrella of the EU, which has previously negotiated trade deals on behalf of member states, including the UK
The UK does not have trade deals in place. If it leaves the EU to would need to negotiate them.
The EU is not going to be childish - they are going to be realistic. They have two years to decide how to treat the UK, remember that is not a negotiation, the remaining EU member states set the terms.
Th US - see my first point.
China - try looking at it from China's perspective, why bother.
No, for the UK trade negotiations do not happen everyday, they have been managed by the EU.
LD
You seem to miss the point that the UK trades with these parties under the umbrella of the EU, which has previously negotiated trade deals on behalf of member states, including the UK
The UK does not have trade deals in place. If it leaves the EU to would need to negotiate them.
The EU is not going to be childish - they are going to be realistic. They have two years to decide how to treat the UK, remember that is not a negotiation, the remaining EU member states set the terms.
Th US - see my first point.
China - try looking at it from China's perspective, why bother.
No, for the UK trade negotiations do not happen everyday, they have been managed by the EU.
LD
9
5
In reply to Lurking Dave:
Staying in the EU will leave the UK exposed to the TTIP, this would be very detrimental to the UK.
Also, the EU has several financial problems brewing, it may collapse under the weight of its obligations.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-italy-may-need-to-leave-the-...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/europe-braces-major-humanitari...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/02/recession-will-lead-to-euroz...
I still say the UK, as the worlds 11th biggest economy, would be able to self manage outside of the EU "umbrella" (whatever that is.)
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide.
Staying in the EU will leave the UK exposed to the TTIP, this would be very detrimental to the UK.
Also, the EU has several financial problems brewing, it may collapse under the weight of its obligations.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-italy-may-need-to-leave-the-...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/europe-braces-major-humanitari...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/02/recession-will-lead-to-euroz...
I still say the UK, as the worlds 11th biggest economy, would be able to self manage outside of the EU "umbrella" (whatever that is.)
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide.
Post edited at 04:35
6
1
In reply to Stroppy:
You are being deliberately obtuse? You have not answered anything I have asked. but OK lets let others tackle that.
The umbrella is the range of trade deals that the UK is party to as a member of the EU. You say that the UK will be able to self manage - what do you mean? what, exactly is the UK going to do?
LD
You are being deliberately obtuse? You have not answered anything I have asked. but OK lets let others tackle that.
> I still say the UK, as the worlds 11th biggest economy, would be able to self manage outside of the EU "umbrella" (whatever that is.)
The umbrella is the range of trade deals that the UK is party to as a member of the EU. You say that the UK will be able to self manage - what do you mean? what, exactly is the UK going to do?
LD
2
2
In reply to Lurking Dave:
Exactly what other nations from outside this "umbrella" do. How do Japan/Australia/Russia/New Zealand/Brazil/Mexico/Malaysia/Sweden/Iceland/ survive with this amazing umbrella?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-could-be-part-privatised-...
http://capx.co/can-britain-seal-decent-trade-deals-if-it-left-the-eu/
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_trade
Exactly what other nations from outside this "umbrella" do. How do Japan/Australia/Russia/New Zealand/Brazil/Mexico/Malaysia/Sweden/Iceland/ survive with this amazing umbrella?
> Parts of the NHS might have to be privatised if the controversial TTIP trade deal between the European Union and the United States is signed, according to a legal expert.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-could-be-part-privatised-...
> Switzerland in particular has excelled at closing agreements with the world£s largest economies, including Canada, Hong Kong, Japan and China. How does that compare with the EU£s 50 trade agreements? Well, most of those are with minor players. Mexico and South Africa are the highlights, but Andorra, the Faeroe Islands and Lebanon are more typical EU deals.
http://capx.co/can-britain-seal-decent-trade-deals-if-it-left-the-eu/
> While non-EU countries are becoming increasingly important to the UK, Britain lacks the power to strike free trade deals with its trading partners outside Europe. Being in the EU means that Brussels has full control of our trade policy. We don£t even have an independent voice in the World Trade Organization - Brussels negotiates everything on our behalf and does a bad job. EU trade representatives have to deal with an unresponsive 1950s bureaucracy and 28 sets of competing special interests. This undermines the EU£s ability to strike trade deals.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_trade
Post edited at 05:43
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Sweden joined the EU in 1995. Well before that, it was a founding member of EFTA (as was the UK).
Iceland is in EFTA and the EEA.
The others aren't located in Europe.
You've made your feelings pretty clear regarding the UK's membership of the EU, but would you prefer for the UK to remain in EFTA and the EEA, or to tear up those agreements and go it alone? (And, as a side question, out of genuine curiosity - why does it matter so much to you, given that you've chosen to live on the other side of the world?)
> Exactly what other nations from outside this "umbrella" do. How do Japan/Australia/Russia/New Zealand/Brazil/Mexico/Malaysia/Sweden/Iceland/ survive with this amazing umbrella?
Sweden joined the EU in 1995. Well before that, it was a founding member of EFTA (as was the UK).
Iceland is in EFTA and the EEA.
The others aren't located in Europe.
You've made your feelings pretty clear regarding the UK's membership of the EU, but would you prefer for the UK to remain in EFTA and the EEA, or to tear up those agreements and go it alone? (And, as a side question, out of genuine curiosity - why does it matter so much to you, given that you've chosen to live on the other side of the world?)
Post edited at 10:17
2
In reply to Lurking Dave:
I think it's a mistake to say it's all going to be a disaster if we leave the EU in terms of trade deals, but I also think it's a mistake to assume it's all going to go swimmingly and that it will be business as usual if we do leave. The UK will obviously continue to be able to trade, but there are no guarantees that trading will be on the same terms as before. Given that any change is going to lead to negotiations, which past evidence suggests can drag on for a very long time, it's not clear to me what happens in the interim period between Brexit and new trade deals being put in place.
I think it's a mistake to say it's all going to be a disaster if we leave the EU in terms of trade deals, but I also think it's a mistake to assume it's all going to go swimmingly and that it will be business as usual if we do leave. The UK will obviously continue to be able to trade, but there are no guarantees that trading will be on the same terms as before. Given that any change is going to lead to negotiations, which past evidence suggests can drag on for a very long time, it's not clear to me what happens in the interim period between Brexit and new trade deals being put in place.
Post edited at 10:38
1
In reply to Lurking Dave:
If the UK tried to negotiate different or better terms than the EU then there would be a major issue. As long as all it asks for is that the status-quo arrangements with the EU are carried over into bilateral agreements with the UK it should be easy to get agreements with the biggest trading nations. Why would countries disrupt their own export businesses and have people lose their jobs for no advantage?
This doesn't mean I'm in favour of leaving the EU. I think in the short term the trade issues would get patched over by preserving the status-quo but five or ten years down the line when trade deals are renegotiated we might find that we are getting worse deals because we have less leverage than a large block like the EU.
If the UK tried to negotiate different or better terms than the EU then there would be a major issue. As long as all it asks for is that the status-quo arrangements with the EU are carried over into bilateral agreements with the UK it should be easy to get agreements with the biggest trading nations. Why would countries disrupt their own export businesses and have people lose their jobs for no advantage?
This doesn't mean I'm in favour of leaving the EU. I think in the short term the trade issues would get patched over by preserving the status-quo but five or ten years down the line when trade deals are renegotiated we might find that we are getting worse deals because we have less leverage than a large block like the EU.
Post edited at 10:51
1
In reply to Big Ger:
As long as we are on the EU we can veto TTIP if we don't like it.
When we're out, we won't have a say on TTIP. But it will still affect us indirectly.
> Staying in the EU will leave the UK exposed to the TTIP, this would be very detrimental to the UK.
As long as we are on the EU we can veto TTIP if we don't like it.
When we're out, we won't have a say on TTIP. But it will still affect us indirectly.
Post edited at 11:16
2
In reply to tony:
It will be hard work to begin with, but it will give our politicians something to do instead of continuing to be asses in the time-honoured way. When I were a lad and busy inventing and implementing the mobile internet, I worked with a Swiss 'mobile broker' called Comfone who were pioneers in international roaming agreements made between mobile phone operators. 'Roaming' is a very similar though much narrower version of 'trading' and each mobile phone company used to have to negotiate its own roaming agreements with each each individual other mobile operator world-wide in any country where they wanted to offer roaming, requiring negotiating roaming agreements with at least one operator per country for anywhere where their customers might want to use their phones. 'Roaming brokers' changed all that - instead of mobile phone operators negotiating with each company, the roaming broker had standard agreements with hundreds of companies worldwide and so a company that wanted its customers to be able to roam only needed to sign up to just one roaming broker in order to gain access to hundreds of roaming agreements.
If you applied the same principle to international trade agreements, using mobile telecoms as a model, you could have all the benefits of the easy trade arrangements without all the political cr@p, with no overpaid international civil servants to measure the angle of bend in supermarket bananas and none of the other similar expensive and irritating nonsense that goes with entities like the EU.
> I think it's a mistake to say it's all going to be a disaster if we leave the EU in terms of trade deals, but I also think it's a mistake to assume it's all going to go swimmingly and that it will be business as usual if we do leave.
It will be hard work to begin with, but it will give our politicians something to do instead of continuing to be asses in the time-honoured way. When I were a lad and busy inventing and implementing the mobile internet, I worked with a Swiss 'mobile broker' called Comfone who were pioneers in international roaming agreements made between mobile phone operators. 'Roaming' is a very similar though much narrower version of 'trading' and each mobile phone company used to have to negotiate its own roaming agreements with each each individual other mobile operator world-wide in any country where they wanted to offer roaming, requiring negotiating roaming agreements with at least one operator per country for anywhere where their customers might want to use their phones. 'Roaming brokers' changed all that - instead of mobile phone operators negotiating with each company, the roaming broker had standard agreements with hundreds of companies worldwide and so a company that wanted its customers to be able to roam only needed to sign up to just one roaming broker in order to gain access to hundreds of roaming agreements.
If you applied the same principle to international trade agreements, using mobile telecoms as a model, you could have all the benefits of the easy trade arrangements without all the political cr@p, with no overpaid international civil servants to measure the angle of bend in supermarket bananas and none of the other similar expensive and irritating nonsense that goes with entities like the EU.
In reply to tony:
The Lisbon Treaty, I think, specifies that in the case of a country leaving the EU existing trade arrangements can carry on for a period of two years. I'm pretty sure that there is provision for this period to be extended if necessary.
The Lisbon Treaty, I think, specifies that in the case of a country leaving the EU existing trade arrangements can carry on for a period of two years. I'm pretty sure that there is provision for this period to be extended if necessary.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
TTIP is a Tory wet dream, so as long as they are in power there will be no veto. I believe Syriza in Greece said they will veto it. But as we have seen, Greece can be forced to play ball. Be interesting to see how it plays out, they would help themselves if they were more transparent on negotiations. Hard to see how a UK citizen who was worried about the NHS for example can vote against it (if they wanted to) except to vote Brexit (or play the longer game and vote labour)
TTIP is a Tory wet dream, so as long as they are in power there will be no veto. I believe Syriza in Greece said they will veto it. But as we have seen, Greece can be forced to play ball. Be interesting to see how it plays out, they would help themselves if they were more transparent on negotiations. Hard to see how a UK citizen who was worried about the NHS for example can vote against it (if they wanted to) except to vote Brexit (or play the longer game and vote labour)
1
1
In reply to Lurking Dave:
I personally wonder if doing this mid term and having Cameron 'support' staying in the EU is just some kind of moderately clever ploy when they (the conservatives) all want to leave really so they can erode our rights to level pegging with the US.
I personally wonder if doing this mid term and having Cameron 'support' staying in the EU is just some kind of moderately clever ploy when they (the conservatives) all want to leave really so they can erode our rights to level pegging with the US.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
5th biggest by GDP and 10th by PPP so we're even better than you thought
> I still say the UK, as the worlds 11th biggest economy, would be able to self manage outside of the EU "umbrella" (whatever that is.)
5th biggest by GDP and 10th by PPP so we're even better than you thought
In reply to graeme jackson:
Indeed. We seem to have been doing fairly well inside the EU so far.
Now the question is whether we would still keep doing as well or better by giving up EU membership.
> 5th biggest by GDP and 10th by PPP so we're even better than you thought
Indeed. We seem to have been doing fairly well inside the EU so far.
Now the question is whether we would still keep doing as well or better by giving up EU membership.
Post edited at 12:57
3
1
2
In reply to Lurking Dave:
I've decided to ignore all the arguments for and against with regard to all the emotive issues that are currently in circulation like economy, trade and immigration. How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision. As things stand I would vote out for the simple reason that the EU is increasingly undemocratic and expensive for us richer nations. I had hoped that DC would have negotiated some fundamental changes but he has failed.
Al
I've decided to ignore all the arguments for and against with regard to all the emotive issues that are currently in circulation like economy, trade and immigration. How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision. As things stand I would vote out for the simple reason that the EU is increasingly undemocratic and expensive for us richer nations. I had hoped that DC would have negotiated some fundamental changes but he has failed.
Al
3
In reply to GridNorth:
Genuine question (probably with no clear answer): is it less democratic than the UK?
> the EU is increasingly undemocratic
Genuine question (probably with no clear answer): is it less democratic than the UK?
In reply to Lurking Dave:
The UK might trade partially under the eu umbrella, but there was a time not too long ago when the trade with everyone was direct and as well as current eu trade agreement, there are still dozens of independent UK trade agreements right. We are currently in effect paying the eu to duplicate much of the work done on trade.
The UK might trade partially under the eu umbrella, but there was a time not too long ago when the trade with everyone was direct and as well as current eu trade agreement, there are still dozens of independent UK trade agreements right. We are currently in effect paying the eu to duplicate much of the work done on trade.
In reply to skog:
It feels it. Laws and rules seem to get changed without being mandated and I feel "removed" from being able to influence anything. For all it's failings, and there are many, the UK does at least offer me the opportunity, every 4 to 5 years, to get rid of whoever is in power and the incoming lot have to tell me what they believe in.
Al
It feels it. Laws and rules seem to get changed without being mandated and I feel "removed" from being able to influence anything. For all it's failings, and there are many, the UK does at least offer me the opportunity, every 4 to 5 years, to get rid of whoever is in power and the incoming lot have to tell me what they believe in.
Al
2
In reply to neilh:
I'm puzzled by your reaction. TTIP is an issue for the UK whilst we remain in the EU. If, for whatever reason you are not happy with TTIP (fears about the NHS for example) you have little choice to vote against it. Brexit is your best choice as it will remove us from the EU and should offer better protection to the potential fast tracking of NHS privatisation.
If , on the other hand you believe remaining in the EU and "having a say" is the best way forward, then I would suggest removing the Tories from number 10 if you have TTIP reservations. If you don't have TTIP reservations, then the status quo is your best bet.
Does that make sense?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/25/mps-denounce-government-tti...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-wh...
> TTIP is a European /USA deal , please get your facts right.
I'm puzzled by your reaction. TTIP is an issue for the UK whilst we remain in the EU. If, for whatever reason you are not happy with TTIP (fears about the NHS for example) you have little choice to vote against it. Brexit is your best choice as it will remove us from the EU and should offer better protection to the potential fast tracking of NHS privatisation.
If , on the other hand you believe remaining in the EU and "having a say" is the best way forward, then I would suggest removing the Tories from number 10 if you have TTIP reservations. If you don't have TTIP reservations, then the status quo is your best bet.
Does that make sense?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/25/mps-denounce-government-tti...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-wh...
1
In reply to GridNorth:
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about the UK!
The country is being run by a government who took just over a third of the votes cast. They get to appoint whoever they want to the second house, for life; it's already full of the people appoined, for life, by previous governments, plus those who inherited it from a parent, plus those chosen by a particular church. As a bonus, we have an unelected head of state.
At least our MEPs are elected by proportional representation - even those voting for small parties such as the greens can get a little influence!
> Laws and rules seem to get changed without being mandated and I feel "removed" from being able to influence anything.
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about the UK!
The country is being run by a government who took just over a third of the votes cast. They get to appoint whoever they want to the second house, for life; it's already full of the people appoined, for life, by previous governments, plus those who inherited it from a parent, plus those chosen by a particular church. As a bonus, we have an unelected head of state.
At least our MEPs are elected by proportional representation - even those voting for small parties such as the greens can get a little influence!
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Brexit will not protect anybody against any privatisations. In or outside of the EU or TTIP the Tories would still be able to privatise whatever they want as long as people vote for them and put them in charge.
Currently we have a veto against TTIP if we don't want it. People happen to have voted for a Tory government that support TTIP. If they don't want it they are free to get the Tories out and get a government that will oppose it.
It's kind of always the same story, we vote for governments that end up pushing European policies that people don't necessarily like, and then we go on blaming the EU for taking away our sovereignty.
> I'm puzzled by your reaction. TTIP is an issue for the UK whilst we remain in the EU. If, for whatever reason you are not happy with TTIP (fears about the NHS for example) you have little choice to vote against it. Brexit is your best choice as it will remove us from the EU and should offer better protection to the potential fast tracking of NHS privatisation.
Brexit will not protect anybody against any privatisations. In or outside of the EU or TTIP the Tories would still be able to privatise whatever they want as long as people vote for them and put them in charge.
Currently we have a veto against TTIP if we don't want it. People happen to have voted for a Tory government that support TTIP. If they don't want it they are free to get the Tories out and get a government that will oppose it.
It's kind of always the same story, we vote for governments that end up pushing European policies that people don't necessarily like, and then we go on blaming the EU for taking away our sovereignty.
Post edited at 14:21
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I am more than happy with TTIP. I think its one of the most sensible trade moves between the USA and Europe considering the flow of trade between the two economic powerhouses when confronted with Chinese economic muscle.
I am more than happy with TTIP. I think its one of the most sensible trade moves between the USA and Europe considering the flow of trade between the two economic powerhouses when confronted with Chinese economic muscle.
In reply to skog:
Yes, but they are "our" undemocratic commoners and lords and if we had proportional representation in UK, SNP would have 25 seats and UKIP 83!!
Out of interest, do you think many Scots who voted for independence in the Scottish ref will vote for Brexit as a proxy to hopefully bringing forward another Scottish referendum?
Yes, but they are "our" undemocratic commoners and lords and if we had proportional representation in UK, SNP would have 25 seats and UKIP 83!!
Out of interest, do you think many Scots who voted for independence in the Scottish ref will vote for Brexit as a proxy to hopefully bringing forward another Scottish referendum?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Polls seem to suggest not many.
There is no guarantee that Westminster would give the Scots another referendum if there was a Brexit, and I think most know that.
> Yes, but they are "our" undemocratic commoners and lords and if we had proportional representation in UK, SNP would have 25 seats and UKIP 83!!
> Out of interest, do you think many Scots who voted for independence in the Scottish ref will vote for Brexit as a proxy to hopefully bringing forward another Scottish referendum?
Polls seem to suggest not many.
There is no guarantee that Westminster would give the Scots another referendum if there was a Brexit, and I think most know that.
In reply to neilh:
Good for you, I can't say I lose too much sleep over it myself. But plenty are was my point, and what are their options? Waiting 4 years and hoping the country trusts Corbyn? okaaaaaay. There is lot of noise about the potential inclusion of ISDS which has led to situations where large companies can sue governments for f*cking them up with things like new laws (bastards lol). Veolia are suing the french govt for bringing in a minimum wage for example. No doubt VW will be next suing for bringing in tough co2 emmissions laws
Good for you, I can't say I lose too much sleep over it myself. But plenty are was my point, and what are their options? Waiting 4 years and hoping the country trusts Corbyn? okaaaaaay. There is lot of noise about the potential inclusion of ISDS which has led to situations where large companies can sue governments for f*cking them up with things like new laws (bastards lol). Veolia are suing the french govt for bringing in a minimum wage for example. No doubt VW will be next suing for bringing in tough co2 emmissions laws
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I have no idea what you're referring to.
> So we can mark it down as scaremongering then?
I have no idea what you're referring to.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
And whilst I wouldn't really like that, it would clearly be more democratic!
Some will, no doubt. It seems a risky strategy, though - the Scottish vote is only a very small fraction of the UK vote and is unlikely to tip the result either way. And if Scotland and the rest of the UK voted Out, well, there goes that argument!
What about the unlikely, but possible, scenario where the Scottish (or Northern Irish, or Welsh) vote keeps the UK in the EU despite England narrowly voting Out? Will we see English nationalists pushing for England to leave the UK?
> and if we had proportional representation in UK, SNP would have 25 seats and UKIP 83!!
And whilst I wouldn't really like that, it would clearly be more democratic!
> Out of interest, do you think many Scots who voted for independence in the Scottish ref will vote for Brexit as a proxy to hopefully bringing forward another Scottish referendum?
Some will, no doubt. It seems a risky strategy, though - the Scottish vote is only a very small fraction of the UK vote and is unlikely to tip the result either way. And if Scotland and the rest of the UK voted Out, well, there goes that argument!
What about the unlikely, but possible, scenario where the Scottish (or Northern Irish, or Welsh) vote keeps the UK in the EU despite England narrowly voting Out? Will we see English nationalists pushing for England to leave the UK?
Post edited at 14:41
1
In reply to skog:
According to the current polling this is actually a very likely scenario.
> What about the unlikely, but possible, scenario where the Scottish (or Northern Irish, or Welsh) vote keeps the UK in the EU depsite England narrowly voting Out?
According to the current polling this is actually a very likely scenario.
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Companies having legal fights with a govt are nothing new , nor are they confiend to Europe.
Companies having legal fights with a govt are nothing new , nor are they confiend to Europe.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Genuinely, I have no idea as to which bit of the conversation you are referring to.
> lol
Genuinely, I have no idea as to which bit of the conversation you are referring to.
Post edited at 14:48
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Every time I see this, I think it looks like a little tie-fighter. Is it just me?
Edit: Now it looks like it's turning a corner quickly.
> lol
Every time I see this, I think it looks like a little tie-fighter. Is it just me?
Edit: Now it looks like it's turning a corner quickly.
Post edited at 14:52
3
In reply to GridNorth:
Which ones? I'm curious which changes are troubling you.
Hold on a moment... Here is the referendum, which is most definitely giving you a chance to influence British politics for years to come and you basically said in the post above "can't be bothered to trawl through the evidence, it's all a bit much for a fella like me". So, do you really want influence - and the effort that accompanies it - or don't you?
> Laws and rules seem to get changed without being mandated
Which ones? I'm curious which changes are troubling you.
> I feel "removed" from being able to influence anything.
Hold on a moment... Here is the referendum, which is most definitely giving you a chance to influence British politics for years to come and you basically said in the post above "can't be bothered to trawl through the evidence, it's all a bit much for a fella like me". So, do you really want influence - and the effort that accompanies it - or don't you?
1
3
In reply to seankenny:
I will thank you not to mis-quote me. What I said was "How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision"
Al
I will thank you not to mis-quote me. What I said was "How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision"
Al
2
In reply to GridNorth:
"How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision"
I think the problem there is "evidence", there doesn't seem to be any on either side, you just have find some sources that you trust read as many opinions as you can from both sides. Then form your opinion from there.
"How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision"
I think the problem there is "evidence", there doesn't seem to be any on either side, you just have find some sources that you trust read as many opinions as you can from both sides. Then form your opinion from there.
In reply to GridNorth:
I made it clear I was paraphrasing you, anyhow keep your panties untwisted, my question still holds - do you want influence or not? And if you do, should it come with any responsibility - such as Mike's sensible suggestion above?
> I will thank you not to mis-quote me. What I said was "How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision"
> Al
I made it clear I was paraphrasing you, anyhow keep your panties untwisted, my question still holds - do you want influence or not? And if you do, should it come with any responsibility - such as Mike's sensible suggestion above?
3
In reply to GridNorth:
Don't lose heart, there is a lot of conflicting evidence. There was a good thread that No More Scotch Eggs started a few days ago. He asked for info, got a lot and read through it and I think he settled on "in" after a bit of soul searching. You can go with your gut, I suspect a lot will, or try and go through all the various view points.
I'm conflicted, believe it or not I am still not 100% out, but I do find the unquestioning positivity of all things EU irresistible to respond to A lot of interesting and challenging stuff is posted here. Don't give up!!
Don't lose heart, there is a lot of conflicting evidence. There was a good thread that No More Scotch Eggs started a few days ago. He asked for info, got a lot and read through it and I think he settled on "in" after a bit of soul searching. You can go with your gut, I suspect a lot will, or try and go through all the various view points.
I'm conflicted, believe it or not I am still not 100% out, but I do find the unquestioning positivity of all things EU irresistible to respond to A lot of interesting and challenging stuff is posted here. Don't give up!!
2
2
In reply to GridNorth:
Well, whatever, the point still stands: if you want to be involved in the political proccess, at however inconsequential a level, is it incumbent upon you to do some reading and some thinking? If you don't want to do those things, is it fair to complain that politics is too removed from your life?
And those rules that are always being changed undemocratically, which are they?
These are genuine questions, btw!
Well, whatever, the point still stands: if you want to be involved in the political proccess, at however inconsequential a level, is it incumbent upon you to do some reading and some thinking? If you don't want to do those things, is it fair to complain that politics is too removed from your life?
And those rules that are always being changed undemocratically, which are they?
These are genuine questions, btw!
2
In reply to Lurking Dave:
Relevant to the thread title:
http://betamonkeys.co.uk/the-laws-of-bouldering-1/
Relevant to the thread title:
http://betamonkeys.co.uk/the-laws-of-bouldering-1/
2
In reply to seankenny:
Politics is not too removed from my life but I do feel that the EU is. I voted in the first referendum. We were led to believe that we were voting for an economic partnership and I voted yes on that basis and still believe in that. Since then there have been treaties that have fundamentally changed that relationship but at no point was I asked, despite promises to the contrary. That's about as undemocratic as it gets and both Labour and Conservative have been guilty of misleading us. In fairness I was probably naive at that time but I do feel as though we were suckered in. Since then we have allowed countries with incompatible economies to join which has further influenced my opinion.
By the way, when it comes to the crunch, I am undecided. I'm waiting to be convinced either way. I would have liked Cameron to come back with some serious changes but I don't believe he has. As things stand I would vote out.
Al
Politics is not too removed from my life but I do feel that the EU is. I voted in the first referendum. We were led to believe that we were voting for an economic partnership and I voted yes on that basis and still believe in that. Since then there have been treaties that have fundamentally changed that relationship but at no point was I asked, despite promises to the contrary. That's about as undemocratic as it gets and both Labour and Conservative have been guilty of misleading us. In fairness I was probably naive at that time but I do feel as though we were suckered in. Since then we have allowed countries with incompatible economies to join which has further influenced my opinion.
By the way, when it comes to the crunch, I am undecided. I'm waiting to be convinced either way. I would have liked Cameron to come back with some serious changes but I don't believe he has. As things stand I would vote out.
Al
3
In reply to Lurking Dave:
The case for BREXIT..... no more than the slightly scary and paranoid Little Englander nationalism of people like Chris Grayling, Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage. And of course lots of people that read the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. An exit would be socially, economically and politically regressive on just about every level.
The case for BREXIT..... no more than the slightly scary and paranoid Little Englander nationalism of people like Chris Grayling, Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage. And of course lots of people that read the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. An exit would be socially, economically and politically regressive on just about every level.
Post edited at 17:09
3
3
In reply to GridNorth:
But we're not really "asked" about a whole raft of decisions the government has to make because, as you pointed out in your original post, we lack much of the knowledge needed to evaluate them. Was I ever asked about pension reform, for example? Well, no, and I suspect that will have an equally big bearing on my life as the EU. If you want to investigate this line of thinking further, there was a very good special report in the Economist a few years ago on California and direct democracy. It made depressing reading.
What changes do you want?
> Politics is not too removed from my life but I do feel that the EU is. I voted in the first referendum. We were led to believe that we were voting for an economic partnership and I voted yes on that basis and still believe in that. Since then there have been treaties that have fundamentally changed that relationship but at no point was I asked, despite promises to the contrary. That's about as undemocratic as it gets.
But we're not really "asked" about a whole raft of decisions the government has to make because, as you pointed out in your original post, we lack much of the knowledge needed to evaluate them. Was I ever asked about pension reform, for example? Well, no, and I suspect that will have an equally big bearing on my life as the EU. If you want to investigate this line of thinking further, there was a very good special report in the Economist a few years ago on California and direct democracy. It made depressing reading.
> By the way, when it comes to the crunch, I am undecided. I'm waiting to be convinced either way. I would have liked Cameron to come back with some serious changes but I don't believe he has. As things stand I would vote out.
What changes do you want?
In reply to alastairmac:
so 34% of Scots are little Englanders?
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/poll-shows-60-of-scots-want-to-re...
Some of the quite attractive democracy based arguments for Scotland leaving the UK, can also be made for the UK leaving the EU. I happen to disagree with both ideas but I'd not dismiss either out of hand - some of the pro-Brexit folk are quite serious.
so 34% of Scots are little Englanders?
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/poll-shows-60-of-scots-want-to-re...
Some of the quite attractive democracy based arguments for Scotland leaving the UK, can also be made for the UK leaving the EU. I happen to disagree with both ideas but I'd not dismiss either out of hand - some of the pro-Brexit folk are quite serious.
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Well, so they'd have you believe.
> some of the pro-Brexit folk are quite serious.
Well, so they'd have you believe.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
From Scotland's point of view there is no need for both the UK and the EU. We benefit economically from being part of a larger group and it is worth trading sovereignty over some issues to achieve that. But we don't need a multi-level hierarchy of larger groups and the EU offers a better deal than the UK. It is a larger market and it is a looser confederation which demands less sovereignty is handed over. It is also less dominated by cliques in one city since its administrative capital is in a relatively minor state.
> Some of the quite attractive democracy based arguments for Scotland leaving the UK, can also be made for the UK leaving the EU. I happen to disagree with both ideas but I'd not dismiss either out of hand - some of the pro-Brexit folk are quite serious.
From Scotland's point of view there is no need for both the UK and the EU. We benefit economically from being part of a larger group and it is worth trading sovereignty over some issues to achieve that. But we don't need a multi-level hierarchy of larger groups and the EU offers a better deal than the UK. It is a larger market and it is a looser confederation which demands less sovereignty is handed over. It is also less dominated by cliques in one city since its administrative capital is in a relatively minor state.
3
2
In reply to Dr.S at work:
This is quite true, but it's of a different order of magnitude - the degree of control ceded from Scotland to the UK is much greater than that ceded by the UK to the EU.
I favour a looser union than the current UK, but I certainly hope the rest of the UK (in whatever form) will be in it with us.
Hey, maybe we could get some of our other neighbours to join in, too..?
> Some of the quite attractive democracy based arguments for Scotland leaving the UK, can also be made for the UK leaving the EU
This is quite true, but it's of a different order of magnitude - the degree of control ceded from Scotland to the UK is much greater than that ceded by the UK to the EU.
I favour a looser union than the current UK, but I certainly hope the rest of the UK (in whatever form) will be in it with us.
Hey, maybe we could get some of our other neighbours to join in, too..?
In reply to seankenny:
Many aspects of government policy will have larger impacts on some groups than changes in our relationship with Europe. Nevertheless it's accepted that significant and essentially permanent changes to the constitutional settlement are ones that are entitled to be put to referenda- as happened in Scotland, and over PR. I think it's a valid criticism of all recent governments that the current relationship with Europe is not something the electorate has ever explicity given consent to.
And this sense of dislocation, valid or not, has a corrosive effect on relations with parliament and Europe. A referendum is important, even if just to legitimise the current arrangements
More of a reflection that population movement on the scale we have seen in such a short space of time puts real strain on infrastructure and planning, and on more nebulous but important dimensions such as identity and community cohesion. The measures agreed seem cosmetic, to give the illusion of action. Change is inevitable, welcome even. It is the rate of change that is the problem.
> But we're not really "asked" about a whole raft of decisions the government has to make because, as you pointed out in your original post, we lack much of the knowledge needed to evaluate them. Was I ever asked about pension reform, for example?
Many aspects of government policy will have larger impacts on some groups than changes in our relationship with Europe. Nevertheless it's accepted that significant and essentially permanent changes to the constitutional settlement are ones that are entitled to be put to referenda- as happened in Scotland, and over PR. I think it's a valid criticism of all recent governments that the current relationship with Europe is not something the electorate has ever explicity given consent to.
And this sense of dislocation, valid or not, has a corrosive effect on relations with parliament and Europe. A referendum is important, even if just to legitimise the current arrangements
> What changes do you want?
More of a reflection that population movement on the scale we have seen in such a short space of time puts real strain on infrastructure and planning, and on more nebulous but important dimensions such as identity and community cohesion. The measures agreed seem cosmetic, to give the illusion of action. Change is inevitable, welcome even. It is the rate of change that is the problem.
3
In reply to alastairmac:
I always find insulting the opposition wins the undecided to my cause too.
Oh, no- actually, it doesn't.
> The case for BREXIT..... no more than the slightly scary and paranoid Little Englander nationalism of people like Chris Grayling, Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage. And of course lots of people that read the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. An exit would be socially, economically and politically regressive on just about every level.
I always find insulting the opposition wins the undecided to my cause too.
Oh, no- actually, it doesn't.
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Stereotyping is always a b-a-a-a-d thing if you are of a left wing persuasion, unless you apply it to someone who has different views to you of course!
> I always find insulting the opposition wins the undecided to my cause too.
Stereotyping is always a b-a-a-a-d thing if you are of a left wing persuasion, unless you apply it to someone who has different views to you of course!
1
In reply to alastairmac:
I'm with you mate, everyone that does not agree with me is, obviously , an idiot .
I'm with you mate, everyone that does not agree with me is, obviously , an idiot .
2
In reply to Jim C:
Now come Jim, thats far to generous, they are bigoted idiots, not just idiots.
> I'm with you mate, everyone that does not agree with me is, obviously , an idiot .
Now come Jim, thats far to generous, they are bigoted idiots, not just idiots.
3
In reply to GridNorth:
Do you have that opportunity? I live in a save seat, my vote makes f all difference, and as long as FPTP exists it'll stay that way. And the way how they're looking to redraw boundaries the disenfranchisement will only get worse. The number of laws the government pushes through as statutory instruments (i.e. without any parliamentary scrutiny) is too big already and is only getting worse. Anyone banging on about sovereignty of parliament doesn't understand how our government works at the moment. Brussels is the least of our problems and probably protects us at least a little bit from the worst excesses.
> It feels it. Laws and rules seem to get changed without being mandated and I feel "removed" from being able to influence anything. For all it's failings, and there are many, the UK does at least offer me the opportunity, every 4 to 5 years, to get rid of whoever is in power and the incoming lot have to tell me what they believe in.
> Al
Do you have that opportunity? I live in a save seat, my vote makes f all difference, and as long as FPTP exists it'll stay that way. And the way how they're looking to redraw boundaries the disenfranchisement will only get worse. The number of laws the government pushes through as statutory instruments (i.e. without any parliamentary scrutiny) is too big already and is only getting worse. Anyone banging on about sovereignty of parliament doesn't understand how our government works at the moment. Brussels is the least of our problems and probably protects us at least a little bit from the worst excesses.
3
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I'm remembering back to 2012 that not everyone in Europe thinks we are a basket case that can't survive without them.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2330/up_delors_yours_the_uk
I'm remembering back to 2012 that not everyone in Europe thinks we are a basket case that can't survive without them.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2330/up_delors_yours_the_uk
In reply to Dr.S at work:
and too blind to see the obvious consequences of their ideas.
> Now come Jim, thats far to generous, they are bigoted idiots, not just idiots.
and too blind to see the obvious consequences of their ideas.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I'm remembering back to 2012 that not everyone in Europe thinks we are a basket case that can't survive without them.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2330/up_delors_yours_the_uk
The Remain camp are at risk of getting people's backs up with threats on deals on borders that are nothing to do with membership of Europe.
That is something that the French would do on their own with no encouragement from the wider EU. And we remember the Up yours Delors headlines, as a reaction.
I'm remembering back to 2012 that not everyone in Europe thinks we are a basket case that can't survive without them.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2330/up_delors_yours_the_uk
The Remain camp are at risk of getting people's backs up with threats on deals on borders that are nothing to do with membership of Europe.
That is something that the French would do on their own with no encouragement from the wider EU. And we remember the Up yours Delors headlines, as a reaction.
Post edited at 22:50
In reply to Jim C:
I wonder why?
https://econsnapshot.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/gdp-us-eu17-japan-uk2015-0...
> I'm remembering back to 2012 that not everyone in Europe thinks we are a basket case that can't survive without them.
I wonder why?
https://econsnapshot.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/gdp-us-eu17-japan-uk2015-0...
In reply to violentViolet:
I live in a safe seat too, my vote currently makes no difference, and as long as everyone here votes labour as they've done for 50 years or so it'll stay that way. My vote, and your vote, have exactly the weight they ought to have, it's just that we disagree with our neighbours. But when the country changes it's view enough seats move and governments change. Democracy in the UK has radically changed the country, for the better, just since the second world war - NHS, decent housing, improved living standards, etc, etc. We voted for people that did this stuff.
Statutory instruments are created by our government based on law passed by our elected Parliament. If our Parliament don't want to give so much power to the executive they'd be wise to not vote for the law in the first place, or they could repeal the law.
In the EU we elect our governments under our differing systems and they make up the Council, which has some say. We elect MEPs, large countries like us being under represented and tiny ones way way overrepresented, and they have some say. We have the independent Commission, who have some say. The EU seem to think they're the executive, which makes them seem pretty important, and they act as if they're important, but their importance is downplayed all the time by europhiles. Then there's the treaties, which limit the decision making power of any EU government, so any major change goes back to the member states.
Who's responsible for decisions, who is at fault? How do we, even acting as european citizens, which we don't, vote for people who actually have the power to change things in the way we want? All in unison vote for governments we both agree with at local level and agree with at european level and that will agree to change the treaties in the way we want? How do we make the Commission do what we want? It's legally obliged to be independent, under law put in place only a few years ago. How is democracy in the EU supposed to function?
In the UK we elect people, they run the country. It's nice and clear, easy to see who's at fault and (relatively) hard for politicians to hide their actions . The only major problem we have with this is the EU.
I live in a safe seat too, my vote currently makes no difference, and as long as everyone here votes labour as they've done for 50 years or so it'll stay that way. My vote, and your vote, have exactly the weight they ought to have, it's just that we disagree with our neighbours. But when the country changes it's view enough seats move and governments change. Democracy in the UK has radically changed the country, for the better, just since the second world war - NHS, decent housing, improved living standards, etc, etc. We voted for people that did this stuff.
Statutory instruments are created by our government based on law passed by our elected Parliament. If our Parliament don't want to give so much power to the executive they'd be wise to not vote for the law in the first place, or they could repeal the law.
In the EU we elect our governments under our differing systems and they make up the Council, which has some say. We elect MEPs, large countries like us being under represented and tiny ones way way overrepresented, and they have some say. We have the independent Commission, who have some say. The EU seem to think they're the executive, which makes them seem pretty important, and they act as if they're important, but their importance is downplayed all the time by europhiles. Then there's the treaties, which limit the decision making power of any EU government, so any major change goes back to the member states.
Who's responsible for decisions, who is at fault? How do we, even acting as european citizens, which we don't, vote for people who actually have the power to change things in the way we want? All in unison vote for governments we both agree with at local level and agree with at european level and that will agree to change the treaties in the way we want? How do we make the Commission do what we want? It's legally obliged to be independent, under law put in place only a few years ago. How is democracy in the EU supposed to function?
In the UK we elect people, they run the country. It's nice and clear, easy to see who's at fault and (relatively) hard for politicians to hide their actions . The only major problem we have with this is the EU.
In reply to summo:
Is this correct? My understanding was that the UK retracted unilateral trade agreements as part of EU membership.
Cheers
LD
> there are still dozens of independent UK trade agreements right.
Is this correct? My understanding was that the UK retracted unilateral trade agreements as part of EU membership.
Cheers
LD
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Point taken. But the fact is there is an overwhelming majority in favour of EU membership in Scotland.
If you live in Scotland you'll know that we do of course have our own British Nationalists and Unionists. A visit to Ibrox at the weekend will confirm that, where you can experience a nice blend of Unionism, support for the Windsor family and religious bigotry. But thankfully they are a minority.
It's clear that this move to leave the EU is driven by the unreconstructed wing of the Conservative party and their supporters in England. I am sure that if they lived in the USA they would vote for Trump.
Scottish voters will vote strongly for Scotland to stay in the EU. I think in many ways Scotland has always thought of itself as a small country in Europe.
But it is interesting to see those in favour of an exit experiencing a version of Project Fear which is very familiar if you lived in Scotland in the run up to the Scottish referendum. But this time the main stream media , the BBC and civil servants are less united in their bias.
Point taken. But the fact is there is an overwhelming majority in favour of EU membership in Scotland.
If you live in Scotland you'll know that we do of course have our own British Nationalists and Unionists. A visit to Ibrox at the weekend will confirm that, where you can experience a nice blend of Unionism, support for the Windsor family and religious bigotry. But thankfully they are a minority.
It's clear that this move to leave the EU is driven by the unreconstructed wing of the Conservative party and their supporters in England. I am sure that if they lived in the USA they would vote for Trump.
Scottish voters will vote strongly for Scotland to stay in the EU. I think in many ways Scotland has always thought of itself as a small country in Europe.
But it is interesting to see those in favour of an exit experiencing a version of Project Fear which is very familiar if you lived in Scotland in the run up to the Scottish referendum. But this time the main stream media , the BBC and civil servants are less united in their bias.
1
In reply to alastairmac:
I am not sure of the Labour party's view on the EU.JC's former mentor - Tony Benn - was no big fan and though of it as undemocratic.
JC has barely been in the press about it.
Compare this with the SNP - Nicola Sturgeon was quite clear about her party's commitment.
So to draw in just the right wing of the Conservative party is probably not right.
I am not sure of the Labour party's view on the EU.JC's former mentor - Tony Benn - was no big fan and though of it as undemocratic.
JC has barely been in the press about it.
Compare this with the SNP - Nicola Sturgeon was quite clear about her party's commitment.
So to draw in just the right wing of the Conservative party is probably not right.
1
In reply to Lurking Dave:
I wouldn't trust the current lot to organise a school tombola, let alone negotiate decent bilateral trade agreements with every country in the EU.
Peter
--
I wouldn't trust the current lot to organise a school tombola, let alone negotiate decent bilateral trade agreements with every country in the EU.
Peter
--
Post edited at 12:19
In reply to GridNorth:
I'm not sure why you say that the EU is "increasingly" undemocratic. The institutions have been similar for a while. It's true, of course, that as the EU has become larger the influence of one individual voter has numerically declined, but I don't feel I have greatly more influence over the EU as one citizen in 500m than I have over the UK as one citizen in 60m. My individual influence is still very marginal. But the influence of people who think "like me" in Europe is probably greater than in the UK because much European Democracy is based on proportional voting. If was a Green supporter I'd feel much more strongly represented right now in Brussels than in Westminster.
One reason why the EU can seem undemocratic is because the member states have declined to pass sovereignty substantially to the European parliament (which EU citizens directly elect) and have kept power in the EU Council (which we only elect second hand through our national governments). But I'm not seeing many on the Brexit side arguing for greater transfer of power to the European Parliament.
It's argued elsewhere on this thread that "we" can get rid of our UK government if we want to but not the EU institutions. But who is this "we"? As others have said the majority of UK citizens who don't live in marginal seats have virtually no means at all of getting rid of a UK government. There's an assumption running through much of the Brexit argument that "we" in the UK somehow all think the same and "they" in the rest of Europe all think differently. Because "we" can be out-voted any time, the EU cannot be democratic. I don't buy that at all.
Martin
> I've decided to ignore all the arguments for and against with regard to all the emotive issues that are currently in circulation like economy, trade and immigration. How can I, a mere UK citizen, plough my way through all the conflicting evidence and make a sensible decision. As things stand I would vote out for the simple reason that the EU is increasingly undemocratic and expensive for us richer nations. I had hoped that DC would have negotiated some fundamental changes but he has failed.
> Al
I'm not sure why you say that the EU is "increasingly" undemocratic. The institutions have been similar for a while. It's true, of course, that as the EU has become larger the influence of one individual voter has numerically declined, but I don't feel I have greatly more influence over the EU as one citizen in 500m than I have over the UK as one citizen in 60m. My individual influence is still very marginal. But the influence of people who think "like me" in Europe is probably greater than in the UK because much European Democracy is based on proportional voting. If was a Green supporter I'd feel much more strongly represented right now in Brussels than in Westminster.
One reason why the EU can seem undemocratic is because the member states have declined to pass sovereignty substantially to the European parliament (which EU citizens directly elect) and have kept power in the EU Council (which we only elect second hand through our national governments). But I'm not seeing many on the Brexit side arguing for greater transfer of power to the European Parliament.
It's argued elsewhere on this thread that "we" can get rid of our UK government if we want to but not the EU institutions. But who is this "we"? As others have said the majority of UK citizens who don't live in marginal seats have virtually no means at all of getting rid of a UK government. There's an assumption running through much of the Brexit argument that "we" in the UK somehow all think the same and "they" in the rest of Europe all think differently. Because "we" can be out-voted any time, the EU cannot be democratic. I don't buy that at all.
Martin
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...