EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[JFKvsNixon]

No country had many overseas players in the 70s. There were a few but not many so this comparison is not valid.

 

Spain is doing better now because apart from a few teams they are not that attractive to world class footballers. Therefore the national team is doing better, young Spaniards are getting more of a chance.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2016 at 20:50 ----------

 

 

A couple of points here. The PL is not a national football tournament its a domestic league.

 

The FA cup has been degraded greatly since money took over the game. The big clubs don't take it as seriously as the PL or CL. Many play reserve teams in the early rounds. Man Utd didn't even take part in 1999.

 

I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish, for example in the last 20 years the FA Cup has been won 18 times by one of the big clubs. Arsenal x6, Chelsea x6, Man Utd x3, Man City x1, Liverpool x2.

 

Isn't it interesting how the facts contradict commonly held assumptions?

[tzijlstra]

No country had many overseas players in the 70s. There were a few but not many so this comparison is not valid.

 

Spain is doing better now because apart from a few teams they are not that attractive to world class footballers. Therefore the national team is doing better, young Spaniards are getting more of a chance.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2016 at 20:50 ----------

 

 

A couple of points here. The PL is not a national football tournament its a domestic league.

 

The FA cup has been degraded greatly since money took over the game. The big clubs don't take it as seriously as the PL or CL. Many play reserve teams in the early rounds. Man Utd didn't even take part in 1999.

 

You have your head so far up your backside it is hilarious. When did I say the PL is a tournament? You might not realise, but the FA Cup Final is broadcast in over a hundred countries with an anticipated audience over half a billion.

 

But no, I need some 'points' on the topic.

[MikeFrank]

I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish, for example in the last 20 years the FA Cup has been won 18 times by one of the big clubs. Arsenal x6, Chelsea x6, Man Utd x3, Man City x1, Liverpool x2.

 

Isn't it interesting how the facts contradict commonly held assumptions?

 

Well I've never disputed this. What I said was they don't see it as a major prize anymore. They all field weaker teams in the early rounds. The fact that they have that much money and can afford more players, thanks to the money structure in the PL makes it unfair.

 

You have your head so far up your backside it is hilarious. When did I say the PL is a tournament? You might not realise, but the FA Cup Final is broadcast in over a hundred countries with an anticipated audience over half a billion.

 

But no, I need some 'points' on the topic.

 

Oh dear. I said you claimed it was a national event. Its not. Its domestic. The fact that its show overseas is irrelevant I said clubs do not take it as seriously these days.

[tzijlstra]

Oh dear. I said you claimed it was a national event. Its not. Its domestic. The fact that its show overseas is irrelevant I said clubs do not take it as seriously these days.

 

really? I said that huh? Tell me, what is the difference between a national event and a domestic event? They play PL football in your living room now? You go from telling me I said it is a tournament, which I didn't say, to telling me I said it was a national event, which I didn't say, to claiming it is domestic. Which I didn't say.

 

Carry on Mike, your argument is as solid as your reasoning.

[JFKvsNixon]

Well I've never disputed this. What I said was they don't see it as a major prize anymore. They all field weaker teams in the early rounds. The fact that they have that much money and can afford more players, thanks to the money structure in the PL makes it unfair.

 

Again, this is one of those common assumptions that the facts do not back up. The Premier League is one of the most fairest leagues for sharing it's income out equally.

[MikeFrank]

You guys are hilarious. The PL is by far the biggest national football competition on the planet

 

You go from telling me I said it is a tournament, which I didn't say, to telling me I said it was a national event, which I didn't say, to claiming it is domestic. Which I didn't say.

 

Carry on Mike, your argument is as solid as your reasoning.

 

Blimey you do struggle with English.

 

I said it was a domestic event you said it was a national event.

 

All football leagues and cups are considered domestic if they just involve English teams. National means of a Nation.

 

I don't think you've ever kicked a ball in your life.

 

Google it, If you want more evidence I can't be bothered,

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2016 at 23:37 ----------

 

Again, this is one of those common assumptions that the facts do not back up. The Premier League is one of the most fairest leagues for sharing it's income out equally.

 

They do, a bit anyway. But they all got at least 81m this season from TV companies alone.

 

Some crumbs fall off the table.

[L00b]

Did you mean to leave in both 7a and 7b?

For reference:

7a. It's really stable and protects us.

7b. It's really fragile and if we leave the resulting collapse will be bad for us.

Yes, because both are equally true.

 

The first 7a is historical and still current, the second 7b and the 'really fragile' therein is conditional on the UK (and maybe 1 or 2 more EU member states) Brexiting: if the UK was to Brexit, this would definitely fragilise the EU, because of the importance of the UK in and to the EU's strength and stability.

 

A subsequent EU 'collapse' (if it happened, and I'm not convinced at all that it would) would be bad for all its members, current and ex-, since as a collective they would lose influence on the global stage to the US, China, Russia, the other BRICs <etc.>, with direct consequences on their national economies, and ricochet consequences on their socio-economic circumstances.

 

Not that the EU would ever fully collapse anyway, since you would always have a strong 'Westmost' core (Benelux, Germany, France, Spain and Italy, prob Ireland as well).

The EU dictates immigration, free movement and asylum policy to member states.

The EU dictates free movement to each of its members, but it doesn't "dictate" immigration any more than what free movement entails, complete with opt-outs and speed bumps applicable to new members (as last exercised in respect of e.g. Romanians and Bulgarians).

 

Immigration for non-EU immigrants is "dictated" by national law only, and there's more of them coming into the UK than EU immigrants, and contributing less to the pot (which I'm 100% sure you know well, since 'migrants contribution' has been on of your pillars of argumentation for months, if not years, on here).

 

So as usual, whenever you make that daft argument, I refer you to No.10, HM Borders & Customs, the UK's very own Immigration service and the House of Parliament: F*** all to do with Brussels or Strasbourg

 

The EU does not "dictate" asylum law either: for witness, the UK's continually giving Brussels the rods about Syrian <and other> asylum seekers for months and years now, and doing its own thing. Also, for witness still, the Dublin Regs were merrily trampled on by Merkel last year, and it's been a free-for-all ever since, so there's still less cohesion centrally at the EU about European asylum law and its application than there ever was.

It tells them who it can and can't deport by forcing them (as a condition of membership) to sign up to the ECHR.

Can I have a source for this claim? In the meantime, since the ECHR is 100% independent of the EU, I have to call bull.

And it will dictate migrant quotas to member states too.

What was it, 500,000+ migrants in Germany and Sweden to redistribute according to quotas since last summer? Number actually distributed to date: about 700. Fear the EU's power

 

For the rest of the issue, I refer you back to Hungary and my earlier link. It's as potent an actual real-life example of how misplaced your fears are, and how wrong you are about the supposed loss of sovereignty of EU member states, as one can find. Only the disingenuous would argue or claim otherwise.

If the EU announced tomorrow that in the event of the UK voting to leave, it will allow the UK continued access to the single market provided it paid a reasonable contribution towards administration costs and it continued to adhere to their trade regulations, then how would people vote? Would the decision still hang in the balance? Of course not.

I daresay people with more than one brain cell, which is most people, would realise that what you propose is basically same as now, minus a say and the votes in the EU Parliament, Council and Commission to pull the blanket the UK's way,

 

Guess who would decide what is a "reasonable contribution"? The EU.

 

Guess who wouldn't have a say about it anymore, because it's not in the EU anymore? The UK.

 

So the commonsensical decision to your nonsensical proposal would of course be to 'stay in'.

As a matter of principle, the British people are overwhelmingly against the federalisation of Europe and the ceding of non-trade related powers to the EU.

As a matter of observation, the British people don't care one bit if France, Germany, Spain, Italy and all the others on the Continent were to federalise tomorrow, so long as they're not a part of it.

 

As regards the ceding of non-trade related powers to the EU, the flag has now been planted in the sand by the UK: no further integration.

 

But if further integration there nevertheless was, then there's nothing (legally) to stop Parliament and No.10 declaring a new Brexit/no Brexit Referendum next year, or the year after that, or <...>. As last seen in Hungary.

 

Because each EU member state remains sovereign (even when it gets a succession of governments dumb enough to get itself in hock to the ECB up to its eyeballs, like Greece), notwithstanding your disingenuous claims to the contrary.

Edited May 4, 2016 by L00b

[Zamo]

The EU dictates free movement to each of its members, but it doesn't "dictate" immigration any more than what free movement entails, complete with opt-outs and speed bumps applicable to new members (as last exercised in respect of e.g. Romanians and Bulgarians).

 

Immigration for non-EU immigrants is "dictated" by national law only, and there's more of them coming into the UK than EU immigrants, and contributing less to the pot (which I'm 100% sure you know well, since 'migrants contribution' has been on of your pillars of argumentation for months, if not years, on here).

 

So as usual, whenever you make that daft argument, I refer you to No.10, HM Borders & Customs, the UK's very own Immigration service and the House of Parliament: F*** all to do with Brussels or Strasbourg

 

I have never said the EU dictates all immigration policy but it shouldn't dictate any, which you clearly acknowledge it does. It even dictates what benefits we can and cannot give to newly arrived immigrants. These are not requirements of free trade an it is interference people don't want.

 

The EU does not "dictate" asylum law either: for witness, the UK's continually giving Brussels the rods about Syrian <and other> asylum seekers for months and years now, and doing its own thing. Also, for witness still, the Dublin Regs were merrily trampled on by Merkel last year, and it's been a free-for-all ever since, so there's still less cohesion centrally at the EU about European asylum law and its application than there ever was.

 

The EU has been working to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which will build on existing rules, programmes and directives e.g. the European Refugee Fund, the Temporary Protection Directive and the Family Reunification Directive. It is unquestionably dictating asylum policy to members.

 

The current weakness of the EU does not mean it will never regain its' strength and start throwing its' weight around again. And that is just what it is trying to do as they look to review policies so they can force member states to start taking their share of asylum seekers.

 

Can I have a source for this claim? In the meantime, since the ECHR is 100% independent of the EU, I have to call bull.

 

All member states are expected (in other words required) to ratify the European Convention on Human rights as a condition of membership. The European Court of Human Rights is the supreme body that rules on matters relating to the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no real choice... being a member means our courts are subordinate to the European Court.

 

The ECJ, which is clearly part of the EU, also rules on matters of deportation and our courts bow to their decisions.

 

What was it, 500,000+ migrants in Germany and Sweden to redistribute according to quotas since last summer? Number actually distributed to date: about 700. Fear the EU's power

 

For the rest of the issue, I refer you back to Hungary and my earlier link. It's as potent an actual real-life example of how misplaced your fears are, and how wrong you are about the supposed loss of sovereignty of EU member states, as one can find. Only the disingenuous would argue or claim otherwise.

 

I have already made the point that just because the uber bureaucratic EU has thus far failed to act against the disobedient memers doesn't mean it will not. If it can't control the club members then ultimately it serves little purpose.

 

I daresay people with more than one brain cell, which is most people, would realise that what you propose is basically same as now, minus a say and the votes in the EU Parliament, Council and Commission to pull the blanket the UK's way,

 

Guess who would decide what is a "reasonable contribution"? The EU.

 

Guess who wouldn't have a say about it anymore, because it's not in the EU anymore? The UK.

 

So the commonsensical decision to your nonsensical proposal would of course be to 'stay in'.

As a matter of observation, the British people don't care one bit if France, Germany, Spain, Italy and all the others on the Continent were to federalise tomorrow, so long as they're not a part of it.

 

You are pretending that no sovereign powers have been lost to the EU so there is no point arguing about it further. My main point, which you totally ignored, is that most people would vote to leave the EU if it was not for the fear that has been generated by those wanting to remain. It's like holding a knife to someone, asking if it's OK to shag them and then claiming consent if they say yes.

 

As regards the ceding of non-trade related powers to the EU, the flag has now been planted in the sand by the UK: no further integration.

 

Yes, everyone was well impressed with Cameron's impression of King Canute as he planted his flag in the sand and the EU tide rolled straight over him. You've missed the point... most people think there is already too much integration and Cameron won nothing back that anyone with that opinion gives a toss about.

[L00b]

I have never said the EU dictates all immigration policy

Could have fooled me, there, Zamo:

The EU dictates immigration, free movement and asylum policy to member states.

but it shouldn't dictate any, which you clearly acknowledge it does.

Of course I acknowledge that the EU dictates free movement of EU citixens: it's a sine qua none condition of membership. It was so before 1973, still is so, and will be so long as there is an EU regardless of size.

It even dictates what benefits we can and cannot give to newly arrived immigrants.

It doesn't "dictate" these, it sets a common set of rules so member countries cannot practice socio-economical dumping through benefits to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other member countries. In that context, you forgot the important distinction between arrived EU immigrants and arrived non-EU immigrants, and the forthcoming restrictions on benefits we can give to newly arrived EU immigrants. Don't bother telling us why, the agenda is plain as a nose on a face.

These are not requirements of free trade an it is interference people don't want.

You'll have to qualify that further I'm afraid. 4.something millions Brits residing across the EU and 4.something millions EU types residing in the UK say you're wrong.

The EU has been working to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which will build on existing rules, programmes and directives e.g. the European Refugee Fund, the Temporary Protection Directive and the Family Reunification Directive. It is unquestionably dictating asylum policy to members.

It is well documented that the UK has been steadfastly exercising its opt-out about the CEAS since 1999.

Aside from Citizenship and the internal market, the UK participates selectively in EU policy on asylum and immigration. Tony Blair famously characterised the UK’s selective participation as giving it 'the best of both worlds' as the UK was not obliged to take on EU commitments in the asylum and immigration context but could opt in to measures in order to "make sure that there are proper restrictions on some of the European borders that end up affecting our country." (Tony Blair 25 October 2004, quoted in Geddes 2005). It has been contended that the UK’s "selective use of the EU as an alternative, cooperative venue for migration policy management actually reinforces rather than overturns established patterns [in domestic policy]" (Geddes 2005: 723).

 

A common observation is that "Britain has tended to participate in coercive measures that curtail the ability of migrants to enter the EU while opting out of protective measures [such as] on family reunion and the rights of long-term residents that to some extent give rights to migrants and third-country nationals." (Fletcher 2009: 81). This trend continues as the UK chose not to opt in to several CEAS recasts enhancing the position of asylum seekers. In contrast, the UK has now opted in to the Anti-Trafficking Directive. This measure fits the UK approach to regard trafficking as predominantly a criminal law matter, rather than a labour rights issue (Costello 2014).

(source, and I suggest you read the specific paragraph about the CEAS).

All member states are expected (in other words required) to ratify the European Convention on Human rights as a condition of membership.

Ah, no source then?

The European Court of Human Rights is the supreme body that rules on matters relating to the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no real choice... being a member means our courts are subordinate to the European Court.

 

The ECJ, which is clearly part of the EU, also rules on matters of deportation and our courts bow to their decisions.

Not this old chestnut again

 

The ECJ does not decide cases for national courts, its decides the interpretation of EU statutes involved in national litigation, on the basis of which national Courts then decide the cases before them independently. The ECJ's job is to interpret legal texts in view of the circumstances of a case, not to decide the outcome of the case for a national (e.g. UK) Court.

 

The ECHR (Court) is an international Court that exists solely out of the implementing regulations of the international treaty (the ECHR (Charter)), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU: if the UK Brexits, the UK will still be a signatory of the ECHR (Charter) and still be subject to findings of the ECHR (Court) regardless. It's just like e.g. the International Criminal Court in The Hague (which is in the Netherlands, for those geographically-challenged), and the European Patent Convention and the associated European Patent Office in Munich (which is in Germany, for those geographically-challenged): the fact that an office or court is in the EU and/or includes the word 'European' in its name does not automatically mean that there is any association, link or other inter-relationship with the EU what-so-ever.

 

If you want the UK off the ECHR, you'd better start campaigning for an ECHRxiting referendum, because the ECHR has sod all to do with the EU. And if I haven't posted and clarified that 50 times in here already...

My main point, which you totally ignored, is that most people would vote to leave the EU if it was not for the fear that has been generated by those wanting to remain.<...>

You've missed the point... most people think there is already too much integration and Cameron won nothing back that anyone with that opinion gives a toss about.

I seem to be missing a lot of points, according to you, Zamo. Makes me wonder why you feel the need to answer them in such length.

 

The crucial point you're missing, Zamo, is that all these 'points' which supposedly I'm missing are nothing but your wishful thinking, and redundant by reason of same

 

EDIT: just because I'm mostly taking post-shots at some Brexiting arguments right this moment, doesn't mean I haven't and don't still also take pot shots at Remaining arguments (check the thread if you wish, and I have steadfastly condemned the rethoric and fearmongering on both sides). One thing I won't ever condone though, is to disingenuously dismiss factual truth and objectivity through intellectual laziness. By all means find some decent Brexiting arguments to argue about. Immigration control is absolutely not one of them, neither is comparing Brexiting fearmongering against Remaining fearmongering.

Edited May 4, 2016 by L00b

[Zamo]

Ah, no source then?

 

There is a paper you can look at here. Legal opinion is split about whether being signed up to the ECHR is a condition of membership. I'm sure once they're aware of your ruling it will settle the matter.

 

As things stand every member is signed up and every new member is expected to ratify it on joining. No exceptions... seems pretty much like a condition of membership to me.

 

Not this old chestnut again

 

The ECJ does not decide cases for national courts, its decides the interpretation of EU statutes involved in national litigation, on the basis of which national Courts then decide the cases before them independently. The ECJ's job is to interpret legal texts in view of the circumstances of a case, not to decide the outcome of the case for a national (e.g. UK) Court.

 

Yes, we've dance to this tune before. You are splitting hairs. The ECJ decides interpretation and the British courts accept it... always. Our courts are subordinate in practice and nothing else matters.

 

The ECHR (Court) is an international Court that exists solely out of the implementing regulations of the international treaty (the ECHR (Charter)), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU: if the UK Brexits, the UK will still be a signatory of the ECHR (Charter) and still be subject to findings of the ECHR (Court) regardless. It's just like e.g. the International Criminal Court in The Hague (which is in the Netherlands, for those geographically-challenged), and the European Patent Convention and the associated European Patent Office in Munich (which is in Germany, for those geographically-challenged): the fact that an office or court is in the EU and/or includes the word 'European' in its name does not automatically mean that there is any association, link or other inter-relationship with the EU what-so-ever.

 

My argument is that we are signed up to it because it is a condition of EU membership. If we weren't a member then there would be no consequence for withdrawing ie. they can't throw us out of the EU!

 

I seem to be missing a lot of points, according to you, Zamo. Makes me wonder why you feel the need to answer them in such length.

 

I was thinking how many points you manage to find to answer... I'm finding it a little embarrassing being part of the most boring double act when it comes to the EU debate. I think we could both do with taking a leaf out Halibut's book.