This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The question is
which way shall I vote?
which way shall I vote?
39
20
9
2
In reply to Trangia:
Let's decide Trangia's referendum vote by referendum.
Click "Like" on OP for remain and "Dislike" for Brexit.
Let's decide Trangia's referendum vote by referendum.
Click "Like" on OP for remain and "Dislike" for Brexit.
7
8
In reply to Trangia:
Last week we got 2 leaflets through the door - one from each campaign, both with their own slant on the "facts". My 2 year old son wanted to know what they were, and told him one was for staying in something called the EU, and the other one was for leaving. I asked him whether we should stay or go, and after a long, thoughtful "ummmm" from him, he said with some conviction "stay". Seems good enough for me. I figure he's armed with as many facts as we are (i.e. next to none)...
Last week we got 2 leaflets through the door - one from each campaign, both with their own slant on the "facts". My 2 year old son wanted to know what they were, and told him one was for staying in something called the EU, and the other one was for leaving. I asked him whether we should stay or go, and after a long, thoughtful "ummmm" from him, he said with some conviction "stay". Seems good enough for me. I figure he's armed with as many facts as we are (i.e. next to none)...
23
3
In reply to elsewhere:
I agree.
Click "Like" on OP for Brexit and "Dislike" for remain.
> Let's decide Trangia's referendum vote by referendum.
> Click "Like" on OP for remain and "Dislike" for Brexit.
I agree.
Click "Like" on OP for Brexit and "Dislike" for remain.
6
9
In reply to Trangia:
If we exit bad things will happen and politicians will blame them on us leaving the EU.
If we stay bad things will happen and politicians will blame them on us staying in the EU.
If there had been no referendum bad things would still have happened and politicians would have had nothing to blame but we could have saved the cost of the referendum and all the negative advertising.
If we exit bad things will happen and politicians will blame them on us leaving the EU.
If we stay bad things will happen and politicians will blame them on us staying in the EU.
If there had been no referendum bad things would still have happened and politicians would have had nothing to blame but we could have saved the cost of the referendum and all the negative advertising.
20
1
In reply to cas smerdon:
but Cameron might not have got a majority.
> If there had been no referendum bad things would still have happened and politicians would have had nothing to blame but we could have saved the cost of the referendum and all the negative advertising.
but Cameron might not have got a majority.
In reply to Trangia:
I'm going to vote for brexit, then campaign for us to team up with Norway and Switzerland and form a Union of Europe.
I'm going to vote for brexit, then campaign for us to team up with Norway and Switzerland and form a Union of Europe.
3
In reply to Trangia:
Got mine yesterday, in or out, tough choice!
Our basic right is our right to make laws. I don’t believe you can trust people in power if they can’t be removed by elections. No one can deny that the EU’s government, the Commission, is unelected and cannot be removed by any of us through elections. That fact alone is enough to reject the EU. It’s not socialist or democratic – the EU is anti-democratic. Its principals are those of a free market, but not of a political system. The EU’s purpose is to rule in the smooth running of a corporist economy.
Kate Hoey
Got mine yesterday, in or out, tough choice!
Our basic right is our right to make laws. I don’t believe you can trust people in power if they can’t be removed by elections. No one can deny that the EU’s government, the Commission, is unelected and cannot be removed by any of us through elections. That fact alone is enough to reject the EU. It’s not socialist or democratic – the EU is anti-democratic. Its principals are those of a free market, but not of a political system. The EU’s purpose is to rule in the smooth running of a corporist economy.
Kate Hoey
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
she clearly doesn't understand how the EU functions, its as least as democratic as the UK where no one votes for the lords, the head of state or the civil service.
she clearly doesn't understand how the EU functions, its as least as democratic as the UK where no one votes for the lords, the head of state or the civil service.
5
3
4
2
In reply to Doug:
I think she may be better informed than you credit her with.
The European Commission (EC) is the executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. Commissioners swear an oath at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, pledging to respect the treaties and to be completely independent in carrying out their duties during their mandate.
The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners"). There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.
I think she may be better informed than you credit her with.
> Catharine Letitia "Kate" Hoey (born 21 June 1946) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Vauxhall since the by-election in 1989. She served in the Blair Government as Minister for Sport from 1999 to 2001.
The European Commission (EC) is the executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. Commissioners swear an oath at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, pledging to respect the treaties and to be completely independent in carrying out their duties during their mandate.
The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners"). There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.
Post edited at 06:56
5
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
The EC is not directly elected but has to be approved by EU parliament, and its members are nominated by the EU council. Not sure why this is "anti-democratic".
> Got mine yesterday, in or out, tough choice!
> Our basic right is our right to make laws. I don£t believe you can trust people in power if they can£t be removed by elections. No one can deny that the EU£s government, the Commission, is unelected and cannot be removed by any of us through elections. That fact alone is enough to reject the EU. It£s not socialist or democratic £ the EU is anti-democratic. Its principals are those of a free market, but not of a political system. The EU£s purpose is to rule in the smooth running of a corporist economy.
> Kate Hoey
The EC is not directly elected but has to be approved by EU parliament, and its members are nominated by the EU council. Not sure why this is "anti-democratic".
Post edited at 07:06
1
3
In reply to L'Eeyore:
Now that you've confused the voting process I think we need another vote to clarify things. Like this post to stick with the original method suggested by elsewhere, dislike it to follow the Eeyore' s convention.
> I agree.
> Click "Like" on OP for Brexit and "Dislike" for remain.
Now that you've confused the voting process I think we need another vote to clarify things. Like this post to stick with the original method suggested by elsewhere, dislike it to follow the Eeyore' s convention.
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
J. Corbyn esq.
> “I am sure that [Labour MPs] will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”
> “[W]e are moving towards a common European defence and foreign policy. That being so, one must ask who proposes it, who controls it and what it is for? … Title V states that the objective of such a policy shall be “to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union”. What exactly does that mean?”
J. Corbyn esq.
2
In reply to MG:
Allegiance to the EU over and above that to the country which you represent is an abandonment of loyalty too far.
> Why the bold? Surely you would expect that of an EU official?
Allegiance to the EU over and above that to the country which you represent is an abandonment of loyalty too far.
4
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It makes perfect sense and provides balance in a wider context where the main decision making body is the Council of the EU, which represents directly the member countries.
> Allegiance to the EU over and above that to the country which you represent is an abandonment of loyalty too far.
It makes perfect sense and provides balance in a wider context where the main decision making body is the Council of the EU, which represents directly the member countries.
1
4
In reply to Big Ger:
Eh?The whole point is that it is an EU body. Countries are represented elsewhere (EU parliament, council of ministers). You wouldn't expect UK civil servants to favour their locality, why would you with EU ones?
Eh?The whole point is that it is an EU body. Countries are represented elsewhere (EU parliament, council of ministers). You wouldn't expect UK civil servants to favour their locality, why would you with EU ones?
2
2
In reply to MG:
Isn't the point that some find that the EU becoming a superstate, and taking precedence over the member countries something that worries you? If not, then fine. But some of us find the whole idea of a EU superstate more than worrying.
> Eh?The whole point is that it is an EU body. Countries are represented elsewhere (EU parliament, council of ministers). You wouldn't expect UK civil servants to favour their locality, why would you with EU ones?
Isn't the point that some find that the EU becoming a superstate, and taking precedence over the member countries something that worries you? If not, then fine. But some of us find the whole idea of a EU superstate more than worrying.
5
In reply to Big Ger:
I thought the complaint here was lack democracy? If it is actually an objection to pooling some sovereignty then, no, I don't find that troubling. In fact I think losing total power is inevitable one way or the other and much better in a way where we have some control, like the EU, than where we have to dance to others tunes. "Superstate" claims are just rhetoric - the powers we have transferred are clear and won't be extended unless we want them to be.
I thought the complaint here was lack democracy? If it is actually an objection to pooling some sovereignty then, no, I don't find that troubling. In fact I think losing total power is inevitable one way or the other and much better in a way where we have some control, like the EU, than where we have to dance to others tunes. "Superstate" claims are just rhetoric - the powers we have transferred are clear and won't be extended unless we want them to be.
3
2
In reply to MG:
That's a reasonable reply mate. However some of us, myself included, do not want to see any further loss of power, quite the opposite.
That's a reasonable reply mate. However some of us, myself included, do not want to see any further loss of power, quite the opposite.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It's OK because they are all politicians, and have their fingers crossed while swearing the oath.
> Allegiance to the EU over and above that to the country which you represent is an abandonment of loyalty too far.
It's OK because they are all politicians, and have their fingers crossed while swearing the oath.
In reply to Big Ger:
With the newly acquired power, in the event of brexit, what's the first thing that the eu is stopping us doing you think should be done?
With the newly acquired power, in the event of brexit, what's the first thing that the eu is stopping us doing you think should be done?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Interesting question, for which I have no instant answer.
However, if the question were; "what should we do, which the EU now regulates?", I'd say look at our farming and fishing industries, and how they could be better supported and regulated.
Interesting question, for which I have no instant answer.
However, if the question were; "what should we do, which the EU now regulates?", I'd say look at our farming and fishing industries, and how they could be better supported and regulated.
In reply to Doug:
But the Lords, the head of state and the civil service don't *originate* legislation. Only the Commissioners do. Legislation can *only* be proposed by the Commissioners. It can be debated and amended by MEPs but originates with an unelected and un-removable body.
You can argue that legislation in the UK is proposed by members of a Cabinet who are appointed rather than elected, but the members of that Cabinet are drawn (mainly) from elected MPs who were elected on a manifesto of promised legislation (whether that manifesto is carried through once in power is another question!). And when another government is elected, the proposers of legislation (Cabinet) change according to the manifesto of the new government.
I don't see how legislation emanating from a totally unelected and un-removable body such as the Commissioners can be remotely described as "at least as democratic" as legislation brought forward under manifestos that were put forward for the public to vote on.
> she clearly doesn't understand how the EU functions, its as least as democratic as the UK where no one votes for the lords, the head of state or the civil service.
But the Lords, the head of state and the civil service don't *originate* legislation. Only the Commissioners do. Legislation can *only* be proposed by the Commissioners. It can be debated and amended by MEPs but originates with an unelected and un-removable body.
You can argue that legislation in the UK is proposed by members of a Cabinet who are appointed rather than elected, but the members of that Cabinet are drawn (mainly) from elected MPs who were elected on a manifesto of promised legislation (whether that manifesto is carried through once in power is another question!). And when another government is elected, the proposers of legislation (Cabinet) change according to the manifesto of the new government.
I don't see how legislation emanating from a totally unelected and un-removable body such as the Commissioners can be remotely described as "at least as democratic" as legislation brought forward under manifestos that were put forward for the public to vote on.
4
In reply to Big Ger:
You're voting to leave the eu so we can look at things? It's good you've given this some serious consideration. How the weather in Australia?
You're voting to leave the eu so we can look at things? It's good you've given this some serious consideration. How the weather in Australia?
2
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No I'm voting to leave for us to regain local accountability and sovereignty.
My indication that we need to "look at", (a term you have some problem with apparently, ) things like our fishing industry, is informed by articles from "hard-right-wing magazines" (©RomTheBear,) like this one.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/31/salt-in-their-veins-and-...
No I'm voting to leave for us to regain local accountability and sovereignty.
My indication that we need to "look at", (a term you have some problem with apparently, ) things like our fishing industry, is informed by articles from "hard-right-wing magazines" (©RomTheBear,) like this one.
> The same sentiments can be heard 720 miles south on the southern tip of Britain in Newlyn, a bustling white fish and shellfish port beside Penzance in Cornwall. And among the fish merchants gathered for the 6am daily market, the idea of remaining in Europe provokes grimaces and unamused laughs.
> One or two expressed their stance with phlegmy spits. “You’ll struggle to find anyone around here who’s for remaining,” said Julian Bick, a buyer. “The EU has been terrible for this industry. It’s got too big and it’s corrupt.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/31/salt-in-their-veins-and-...
Post edited at 03:47
In reply to Big Ger:
Although the Common Fishery Policy has problems, the decline in fisheries pre-dates the UK joining the EEC by decades and the recent reforms have improved it. See the fishery section in http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2000/IEEP_Brexit_2016.pdf
Although the Common Fishery Policy has problems, the decline in fisheries pre-dates the UK joining the EEC by decades and the recent reforms have improved it. See the fishery section in http://www.ieep.eu/assets/2000/IEEP_Brexit_2016.pdf
In reply to Doug:
They weren't complaining about the "decline in fisheries" though, but about what the EU has mismanaged in terms of quotas, throwing back dead fish, and foreign vessel access to UK waters.
They weren't complaining about the "decline in fisheries" though, but about what the EU has mismanaged in terms of quotas, throwing back dead fish, and foreign vessel access to UK waters.
Post edited at 07:44
In reply to Big Ger:
the 'throwing back' has been stopped and there has been foreign access to British waters for centuries, as well as British access to foreign waters - its not all one way
the 'throwing back' has been stopped and there has been foreign access to British waters for centuries, as well as British access to foreign waters - its not all one way
1
In reply to Doug:
It has not been stopped, it's been reduced, large amounts of "by-catch" are still wasted.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-eu-fishing-methods-reduce-by...
But, as I was saying;
Read more: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/guess-fishermen-want-leave-EU/story-2938652...
It has not been stopped, it's been reduced, large amounts of "by-catch" are still wasted.
> Fishery biologists estimate fish that end up being thrown back -- referred to as "discards" -- on average amount to around 60 percent of commercial fisheries' total catch.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-eu-fishing-methods-reduce-by...
But, as I was saying;
> More than 90% of fishermen are in favour of Brexit according to a new study, as the industry looks to a future of bigger quotas and less regulation. The results have been described as "surprising" by researchers who say the level of Euroscepticism goes beyond "previous evidence". But local experts are less astounded by the scale of anti-EU sentiment, citing "historic" disputes between British fishermen and the EU.
Read more: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/guess-fishermen-want-leave-EU/story-2938652...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...