EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[tzijlstra]

So, no, you're not going to address the point.

 

I addressed the point pretty clearly, all I can do is vote on who I want to be in. That is how democracy works. Your point is superfluous to the extreme though, which is why I asked what YOU were going to do if Corbyn gets voted in? Throw pebbles? Start a civil war?

 

What? You aren't making sense and it's a bit early to have been drinking so I expect that you can explain yourself better. Try again, but this time don't insult your hosts who you personally have much to be grateful to.

 

The point I made was pretty clear - The UK has been a major player in starting a war against a sovereign leader (in Iraq), in aiding rebels in what is now a completely anarchist company (in Lybia), in invading a country that had a democracy of sorts in place, but not to the liking of the UK (Afghanistan).

 

The fact that this upsets you shows how little you understand about democracy and freedom of speech. Quite odd for someone who likes to stir the pot on here, but nice of you to show your softer side.

 

Your definition is sovereignty is not at variance with mine, and you've skirted around my central point.

 

It is, your definition is wrong (it is a question of who has the final say on our laws), whereas I state it as the right to rule. It is actually pretty obvious what the difference is. Britain has the right to rule itself, its democratically elected representatives are part of the European Union by choice of those democratically elected representatives, isn't it? So how is that not sovereign?

 

By your definition Britain should leave all supranational organisations, from the UN to the NATO to the Commonwealth, all of which have resulted in law being introduced within the UK.

 

It doesn't matter why EU democracy doesn't function well for the UK people. That's our own fault I expect. It's roughly the same reason local democracy doesn't work well in the UK.

That doesn't matter. The final decisions (sovereignty) need to be with the most accountably body. That's the UK parliament.

 

Again, it is. If the UK wants to leave the EU it can, as a result of its sovereign status. If it couldn't than the EU would be a tyrannical organisation, which it clearly isn't. So I reiterate my point, this shouting 'sovereignty' is nonsense, it is done by people who do not understand the British relation with the EU, nor the EU itself, nor what sovereign rule actually means.

 

I'm not remotely convinced this was clear. But now it is so never mind.

It's abundantly clear that we're going to be selfish on this one. Maybe that's a flaw. Whatever. We're trying to make the decision which is in the best long term interests of the majority of the UK people. We don't know for certain what decision that is. For the purposes of this referendum, I'm sorry but we don't care what's in the best interests of the Dutch or anybody else.

 

And that attitude defines exactly what is wrong with your argument. Not caring about the relation with one of your most strong trade-partners is as harmful to Britain as it is to that trade-partner.

 

If you aren't aware that the world revolves around trade and international relations (which it appears you are forgoing on the grounds of 'sovereignty') than we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this topic, which we already decided. Turns out the ball is round after all.

[unbeliever]

Not necessarily. If it was say 51%:49% on a very low turnout then it would not be as clear cut as you imagine.

 

Every politician would think twice about exit on that basis.

 

This referendum should have, if it doesn't already, a minimum turnout clause of the types being imposed on union ballots.

 

I profoundly disagree.

 

What do you think would have happened if the Scottish referendum had gone against the government and they'd then refused to grant independence.

 

Or if a PM refused to go to the Queen following a general election on the grounds that he'd not lost the election by enough votes.

 

A single vote one way or the other is all that is required.

 

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2016 at 16:21 ----------

 

 

It is, your definition is wrong (it is a question of who has the final say on our laws), whereas I state it as the right to rule. It is actually pretty obvious what the difference is. Britain has the right to rule itself, its democratically elected representatives are part of the European Union by choice of those democratically elected representatives, isn't it? So how is that not sovereign?

 

 

I'm presuming that we're discussing a society which operates on the rule of law. Rather than a despotism.

I also think that your new definition of sovereignty is silly. As it would make North Derby sovereign because they have an MP in parliament.

 

 

Again, it is. If the UK wants to leave the EU it can, as a result of its sovereign status. If it couldn't than the EU would be a tyrannical organisation, which it clearly isn't. So I reiterate my point, this shouting 'sovereignty' is nonsense, it is done by people who do not understand the British relation with the EU, nor the EU itself, nor what sovereign rule actually means.

 

And that attitude defines exactly what is wrong with your argument. Not caring about the relation with one of your most strong trade-partners is as harmful to Britain as it is to that trade-partner.

 

If you aren't aware that the world revolves around trade and international relations (which it appears you are forgoing on the grounds of 'sovereignty') than we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this topic, which we already decided. Turns out the ball is round after all.

 

Our sovereignty is suspended. Much like our seat at the WTO. We cannot exercise it on a case by case basis.

We retain the right to reclaim it, for now, as you correctly say. I advise that we do so before it's too late.

 

I want us to be friends with all of Europe, and all good people throughout the world. The matter of who governs us is so crucial and so personal, that I consider only the UK people in this decision.

I don't see why we have to lose friends on this matter. And I would submit that anybody who won't be our friend because we don't want to share a bank account with them (and various other things) is quite clearly in the wrong.

Edited February 27, 2016 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

I'm presuming that we're discussing a society which operates on the rule of law. Rather than a despotism.

I also think that your new definition of sovereignty is silly. As it would make North Derby sovereign because they have an MP in parliament.

 

Knock yourself out and tell me I am wrong.

 

Our sovereignty is suspended.

 

Seriously, do you have a copyrighter for these statements? That is a great joke.

 

Much like our seat at the WTO. We cannot exercise it on a case by case basis.

We retain the right to reclaim it. I advise that we do so.

 

I want us to be friends with all of Europe, and all good people throughout the world. The matter of who governs us is so crucial and so personal, that I consider only the UK people in this decision.

I don't see why we have to lose friends on this matter. And I would submit that anybody who won't be our friend because we don't want to share a bank account with them (and various other things) is quite clearly in the wrong.

 

We share a bank account with the EU? You mean we are a paying member of the club? Nations don't operate on a friend-to-friend basis, it is naive to think they do. Nations cooperate with each other to further their own agenda as successfully as possible, that is diplomacy. Unfortunately by leaving the EU the UK is giving away influence to further its own agenda. In fact it is rather similar to the dissolution of the Empire, I am sure you will agree with me that rationally speaking, that did the citizens in the UK more harm than good.

[unbeliever]

Knock yourself out and tell me I am wrong.

 

 

You're wrong.

Even your own definition does not agree with your statements.

 

The ECJ can overrule UK courts.

The UK parliament can only make laws if they are are in line with EU directives.

 

The only thing that preserves our technical sovereignty is the fact that we have the right to withdraw from the EU. For now. That's no good if we're not prepared to exercise it.

Perhaps it is more correct to say that our sovereignty is delegated rather than suspended.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2016 at 17:14 ----------

 

We share a bank account with the EU? You mean we are a paying member of the club? Nations don't operate on a friend-to-friend basis, it is naive to think they do. Nations cooperate with each other to further their own agenda as successfully as possible, that is diplomacy. Unfortunately by leaving the EU the UK is giving away influence to further its own agenda. In fact it is rather similar to the dissolution of the Empire, I am sure you will agree with me that rationally speaking, that did the citizens in the UK more harm than good.

 

We also share liabilities.

The bank account analogy is quite accurate really.

 

The empire cost money. It was dissolved because we could no longer afford it.

So, at least in the short term, it kept us from being in rather a lot of financial bother.

In the long term I have no idea. But empire seems rather a destructive thing to seek in modern times, so I'm not sure what point you're making.

It's an interesting analogy to choose. Most europhiles shy away from talking about the EU as an empire.

 

Cooperation is fine. In fact I warmly welcome it.

That's quite a different thing from a political union.

You're conflating the two.

 

If we were offered a pan-European cooperation and free trade agreement (which I suppose is what we were supposedly offered in the '70s) without endless mission creep; then I'd be all for it.

 

When the EU collapses under the weight of its own incompetence, perhaps we can build such a system out of the rubble. As long as we're not buried under said rubble.

 

 

I'm not prepared to wait another 41 years for another opportunity to exit the pigs breakfast that is the EU. I wasn't born at the time of the last one let alone eligible to vote. I may well be dead by the next one.

 

 

Consider also what happened to the 7 states of the US when they attempted to leave the Union in 1861, only 85 years after the US declaration of independence.

Whatever their motives (which I most certainly do not endorse), they must have thought that they had the right to reassert their sovereignty over the objections of their federation.

They could not have been more wrong.

Don't assume that we will always have the de-facto right to exit the EU.

Edited February 27, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

I profoundly disagree.

 

What do you think would have happened if the Scottish referendum had gone against the government and they'd then refused to grant independence.

 

Or if a PM refused to go to the Queen following a general election on the grounds that he'd not lost the election by enough votes.

 

A single vote one way or the other is all that is required.

 

 

I totally understand the basis of your argument but if say only 51% had voted on a 50% turnout that is only 25 point something %.

 

The point I am making is that is not an emphatic vote to leave. Given that the vote is not legally binding and that the four main parties, including the Tories it is now clear, have EU membership as a core policy then the political will to drive the process forward does not exist. And those politicians are going to question their mandate to do it.

[unbeliever]

I totally understand the basis of your argument but if say only 51% had voted on a 50% turnout that is only 25 point something %.

 

The point I am making is that is not an emphatic vote to leave. Given that the vote is not legally binding and that the four main parties, including the Tories it is now clear, have EU membership as a core policy then the political will to drive the process forward does not exist. And those politicians are going to question their mandate to do it.

 

Isn't that broadly what happened with the referendum to establish the Welsh devolved government?

Edited February 27, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

Isn't that brought what happened with the referendum to establish the Welsh devolved government?

 

Don't know anything about that but the issues with a 'leave' vote look pretty clear.

 

Seriously, are we going to trigger article 50 with maybe only 25.x% of the electorate voting to leave? What politician is going to be brave enough to do that? Would the EU even accept that as the will of the electorate?

 

IMO there is a serious flaw in the terms of the referendum and that is the missing minimum turnout clause.

[unbeliever]

Don't know anything about that but the issues with a 'leave' vote look pretty clear.

 

Seriously, are we going to trigger article 50 with maybe only 25.x% of the electorate voting to leave? What politician is going to be brave enough to do that? Would the EU even accept that as the will of the electorate?

 

IMO there is a serious flaw in the terms of the referendum and that is the missing minimum turnout clause.

 

I don't think that a minimum turnout clause solves anything.

There's plenty of publicity and nobody can be unaware of the question, date, or voting process.

Anybody who doesn't vote can be considered to have abstained.

 

Why are the issues with a leave vote any different to those with a remain vote?

 

The EU has nothing to say on the matter. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, the government can withdraw under it's own authority. It has a mandate to do so from the manifesto on which it was elected if that is the referendum result.

This is therefore a matter between the UK people and their government.

Hopefully that will become the new norm after we vote to leave.

[26b-6]

Unless you're a fascist I have never understood why anyone would want to be part of the EU.

 

eu-facts.org/en/background/dark_roots_europe_lecture.html

[unbeliever]

Unless you're a fascist I have never understood why anyone would want to be part of the EU.

 

eu-facts.org/en/background/dark_roots_europe_lecture.html

 

Stay off my side.