EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[ANGELFIRE1]

No it means that the vast majority are not net contributors and that includes the vast majority of immigrants, every immigrant that is doing a job that a British person could do, means someone is claiming benefits that otherwise wouldn't be claiming benefits. So the immigrant is a drain on the economy unless the tax paid by them is enough to cover all the services they use and also cover the benefits paid to the person they displace from the workplace.

 

 

Just about on the money, but don't expect the immigrant lovers on here to agree with you in any way.

 

As for the referendum, I am a little Englander - and proud of it. I do not need some unelected gravy train chasing foreign wazok making up laws that I must obey.

 

Our long dead loved ones gave their all in two world wars for us to remain unfettered by Europe. Now we will have a vote (eventually), to remain unfettered and self governing, or succumb to the whims of our European masters. I foresee much grave spinning if we allow Europe to be our Governors.

 

Angel1.

[tzijlstra]

You're kidding right.

 

It was Labour party policy right up until they got kicked out.

It's still Lib Dem policy.

It's also SNP policy.

It's also been Conservative policy on and off. Why else did they take us into the ERM.

 

It would be great if tzijlstra could weigh in again.

I think you two have a lot to talk about.

 

We are singing from the same page, but seemingly you don't understand the page, even after we have spent considerable time explaining it. Wait for the renegotiations, see what will be agreed.

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 20:47 ----------

 

So you agree that there remains at least some chance that the UK will join the EURO? That's progress.

I think you understand that I firmly believe that staying in the EU without joining the EURO will eventually be untenable. Unless we leave, it's a matter of when we join, not if.

 

We know what will happen if we leave the EU. There are plenty of other states in the world not involved in supranational government.

There is plenty of reason to think that UK productivity will rise once we shed the regulatory burden from Brussels.

As far as I'm aware, none of the first world countries outside the EU had to burn their furniture last winter to stay warm.

 

I take it though that you think it unlikely either that the super-state will emerge or that the UK will be part of it. Or perhaps both?

 

If you don't think the superstate will emerge, where is the EU heading. More powers are transferred from the states to the EU government each year. Is that just going to stop one day?

The UK keeps transferring powers and competencies to the EU. Surely that puts us on track to be part of the super-state. Or is that just going to stop one day?

If I'm wrong about where this is all heading, it's hard to see where else it could be going.

 

The bolded parts are factually wrong. Don't believe me? Prove it. You can't, the amount of 'power' that the EU has is pretty much stable and has been for a very long time.

[unbeliever]

We are singing from the same page, but seemingly you don't understand the page, even after we have spent considerable time explaining it. Wait for the renegotiations, see what will be agreed.

 

Not really.

You've been arguing that further integration is okay as the EU is a well run organisation, where as I1L2T3 has been arguing that there will be no further integration so we needn't worry.

 

I agree though that we can better complete this debate once we know what the UK arrangements will be with the EU in the event of an In vote.

 

I don't think it's wise to rely on there being future referenda for us to choose to leave. The evidence of history is against this. It's also important to remember that whilst a UK government can bind its successors by signing a treaty transferring power, a UK government can't bind its successors by not signing one.

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 21:12 ----------

 

The bolded parts are factually wrong. Don't believe me? Prove it. You can't, the amount of 'power' that the EU has is pretty much stable and has been for a very long time.

 

The Maastrict treaty transferred significant power over Foreign and Home affairs.

 

Amsterdam transferred power over immigration, more on Foreign affairs and defence.

 

Nice granted the EU the power to impose sanctions on member countries if they didn't do as they were told.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, justice, crime and policing laws fall under the ultimate jurisdiction of EU judges in all cases.

 

So they've got Foreign affairs, Home affairs and Defense. Probably easier to list the things they haven't got.

 

Surely these constitute transfer of power to the EU. Or is this some strange usage of the word power that I wasn't previously aware of.

 

Using these treaties the EU routinely gains extra power by directives and judicial rulings which take their authority from the treaties.

 

There are the broad strokes, and there have been many smaller transfers in between.

 

I'm sure there will be plenty that I've missed.

 

Are we talking about the same EU here?

Is it perhaps your strategy to delay your opponents by challenging them to prove things which you already know are true?

 

P.S. The EU is also legally the ultimate authority over:

Agriculture

Fishing

Transport

Energy

The Environment.

 

Perhaps you should change strategy and point out that we don't have to worry about the formation of an EU super-state as it's already happened.

 

 

Since I didn't get an answer the first time:

If you don't think the superstate will emerge, where is the EU heading. More powers are transferred from the states to the EU government each year. Is that just going to stop one day?

The UK keeps transferring powers and competencies to the EU. Surely that puts us on track to be part of the super-state. Or is that just going to stop one day?

If I'm wrong about where this is all heading, it's hard to see where else it could be going.

Edited June 13, 2015 by unbeliever
question added

[Harrystottle]

As for the 'ever closer union' concept I've been reading up about that. It has nothing to do with creating a super state, nothing at all. It is not a legal requirement either. The Lisbon treaty simply states this:

 

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

 

Thank you for this. Because I've been wondering about "regionalisation" in England. Like - where is it coming from? In 2004 John Prescott's plan for "Regional Assemblies" was voted down by the public. In 2012 David Cameron's plan for elected Mayors in nine English cities was also rejected by voters.

 

To listen to the media and politicians, England is in a lather about the much longed for devolution of powers to the "regions". Regions created in 1994 after the Maastricht Treaty.

 

Only... that's crap. Regionalism was rejected by the voters. Elected mayors were rejected by the voters.

 

So now we see where regionalism is coming from. The EU.

 

To repeat:-

 

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

 

The largest political grouping in the EU is the European People's Party. What do they believe in? The principle of "subsidiarity". Which stripped of all bs, means that the central authority exists to support regional authorities.

 

The Lisbon Treaty advocates Regionalism. The EPP advocates regionalism.

 

Please, just Google "EU of the Regions", and see how much stuff is out there.

 

OK, so it's a theory. Let's have the debate.

 

Only in the UK, we won't have that debate. Because the politicians and the media are colluding in a massively dishonest pretence that English regionalism is entirely an English matter. Nothing to do with the EU. When has anyone on this site or anywhere else heard the initials EU mentioned on TV in connection with regionalism?

 

Like somehow all true Yorkshiremen swear an oath on a guaranteed genuine Fred Trueman jockstrap that we are burning for independence. Rubbish and lies.

 

Let me say - this isn't the fault of the EU. The EU is quite clear. They want integration. They advocate regionalism.

 

The fault lies with British politicians and with the British media who are merrily going along as they always have on this subject. With deliberate omissions, selective reporting and outright lies.

 

OK, if we are going to have a debate on the EU let's have it. But let us have an open and honest and informed debate.

 

But we won't, because the politicians and media have no intention of allowing that to happen.

 

How can we make any meaningful decision on the back of forty years of lies?

[I1L2T3]

Not really.

You've been arguing that further integration is okay as the EU is a well run organisation, where as I1L2T3 has been arguing that there will be no further integration so we needn't worry.

 

Nope, what I'm saying is we don't need to worry about the UK being tightly integrated into a superstate in the same way as France and Germany.

 

I have plenty of concerns about the EU but I want us to stay in for trading purposes primarily and accept that comes with quite a few rules and regulations. Not all of it is good but it enables us to do 50%+ of our trade in an incredibly favourable environment.

 

If Cameron can win an agreement for us to decouple from the very tight core integration then it's a no-brainer staying in. In practical terms we have already decoupled from it, just a case of formalising that.

[tzijlstra]

Firstly, I am arguing that further integration is useful for the EUROZONE. I have repeatedly told you that there is a good option for a two-tier EU with the UK outside of that Eurozone but with appropriate influence.

 

Now let me set your ignorance straight:

 

The Maastrict treaty transferred significant power over Foreign and Home affairs.

 

The Maastricht treaty was signed in 1992, hardly a recent thing. It included the agreement to create the Euro, the UK was unsure but as the opt-out demonstrated, the treaty offered a simple way out.

 

Amsterdam transferred power over immigration, more on Foreign affairs and defence.

 

The Amsterdam treaty formed the foundation for the European Parliament, it was where the EU became a truly democratic institution. It also introduced the idea of a Common Foreign and Security Policy. The results of which have been less than convincing. Europol is basically the only viable outcome, it was this policy that was renegotiated recently due to Med Migrants. It was renegotiated during the Lisbon treaty, in an effort to make it a more democratic process. In neither of these renegotiations was there a transfer of power.

 

Nice granted the EU the power to impose sanctions on member countries if they didn't do as they were told.

 

Nice was a revision of the flawed Amsterdam Treaty and the foundation for inclusion of Eastern European states. It introduced the idea that there could be a two-tier EU after it became clear that the UK and Denmark didn't want the Euro. Sanctions on member states were already enforcable, Nice just changed the way the democratic process operated.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, justice, crime and policing laws fall under the ultimate jurisdiction of EU judges in all cases.

 

The Lisbon Treaty was rejected and never came fully into force. The justice, crime and policing laws under jurisdiction of the EU are ONLY those that have been introduced by the EU and even then they have to be measured against a joint charter. You are either consciously or ignorantly twisting the truth.

 

So they've got Foreign affairs, Home affairs and Defense. Probably easier to list the things they haven't got.

 

So from your misunderstanding of the treatises you jump to this conclusion. Again, you are either consciously or ignorantly twisting the truth.

 

[snip because not relevant]

 

P.S. The EU is also legally the ultimate authority over:

Agriculture

Fishing

Transport

Energy

The Environment.

 

Wrong on all accounts. The EU is responsible for the money that farmers and fishermen get from the EU and for facilitating arrangements between member-states on distribution of property (ie. fishing grounds). I haven't got a clue why you mention transport, I'd like to hear your reasoning. On Energy and environment I assume you are, again, pointing to the Kyoto treaty (and following agreements) and, as with transport, I'd like to hear from you how the EU is the "ultimate authority".

 

Perhaps you should change strategy and point out that we don't have to worry about the formation of an EU super-state as it's already happened.

 

Perhaps you ought to get your facts straight, as you are clearly completely and utterly misguided on all things EU. I thought you were a Conservative with a capital C, but it is beginning to look more and more like you are indeed Naive instead.

Edited June 13, 2015 by tzijlstra

[chalga]

Just about on the money, but don't expect the immigrant lovers on here to agree with you in any way.

 

As for the referendum, I am a little Englander - and proud of it. I do not need some unelected gravy train chasing foreign wazok making up laws that I must obey.

 

Our long dead loved ones gave their all in two world wars for us to remain unfettered by Europe. Now we will have a vote (eventually), to remain unfettered and self governing, or succumb to the whims of our European masters. I foresee much grave spinning if we allow Europe to be our Governors.

 

Angel1.

 

http://www.welfareweekly.com/unemployed-britons-blame-high-levels-immigration-says-ids/

 

The UK is attracting high levels of immigration because the benefit system in allowing too many British born people to escape work, says Iain Duncan Smith.

 

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith MP, will further demonise benefit claimants in a speech on Monday. He will say that immigrants are coming to the UK because unemployed Brits are preferring to live on benefits, rather than accepting the jobs on offer.

 

In a speech to be delivered to an audience in London, Iain Duncan Smith will say:

 

“Immigration into the UK is a supply and demand issue. Businesses needed the labour and because of the way our benefit system was constructed, too few of the economically inactive took the jobs on offer.”

 

He will add: “This economy can never be where it should, holding its own in this tough world marketplace, unless British families play a full productive part in that plan.”

[unbeliever]

Firstly, I am arguing that further integration is useful for the EUROZONE. I have repeatedly told you that there is a good option for a two-tier EU with the UK outside of that Eurozone but with appropriate influence.

 

Now let me set your ignorance straight:

 

 

 

The Maastricht treaty was signed in 1992, hardly a recent thing. It included the agreement to create the Euro, the UK was unsure but as the opt-out demonstrated, the treaty offered a simple way out.

 

 

 

The Amsterdam treaty formed the foundation for the European Parliament, it was where the EU became a truly democratic institution. It also introduced the idea of a Common Foreign and Security Policy. The results of which have been less than convincing. Europol is basically the only viable outcome, it was this policy that was renegotiated recently due to Med Migrants. It was renegotiated during the Lisbon treaty, in an effort to make it a more democratic process. In neither of these renegotiations was there a transfer of power.

 

 

 

Nice was a revision of the flawed Amsterdam Treaty and the foundation for inclusion of Eastern European states. It introduced the idea that there could be a two-tier EU after it became clear that the UK and Denmark didn't want the Euro. Sanctions on member states were already enforcable, Nice just changed the way the democratic process operated.

 

 

 

The Lisbon Treaty was rejected and never came fully into force. The justice, crime and policing laws under jurisdiction of the EU are ONLY those that have been introduced by the EU and even then they have to be measured against a joint charter. You are either consciously or ignorantly twisting the truth.

 

 

 

So from your misunderstanding of the treatises you jump to this conclusion. Again, you are either consciously or ignorantly twisting the truth.

 

[snip because not relevant]

 

 

 

Wrong on all accounts. The EU is responsible for the money that farmers and fishermen get from the EU and for facilitating arrangements between member-states on distribution of property (ie. fishing grounds). I haven't got a clue why you mention transport, I'd like to hear your reasoning. On Energy and environment I assume you are, again, pointing to the Kyoto treaty (and following agreements) and, as with transport, I'd like to hear from you how the EU is the "ultimate authority".

 

 

 

Perhaps you ought to get your facts straight, as you are clearly completely and utterly misguided on all things EU. I thought you were a Conservative with a capital C, but it is beginning to look more and more like you are indeed Naive instead.

 

 

Yes. Clearly we're talking about a different EU.

 

The Lisbon treaty was fully ratified and entered into force on 1st December 2009.

 

Title I of Part I of the treaty lays out the powers granted to the EU by member states. I draw your attention to the list of exclusive competencies and the list of shared competencies where the states may not exercise a competence if the EU has already done so.

 

You enjoy calling others ignorant and talking down to them. Don't think you can make me angry and get me to storm off. I'm not that easy.

[Bigthumb]

 

I don't think it's wise to rely on there being future referenda for us to choose to leave. The evidence of history is against this. It's also important to remember that whilst a UK government can bind its successors by signing a treaty transferring power, a UK government can't bind its successors by not signing one.

 

The Maastrict treaty transferred significant power over Foreign and Home affairs.

 

Amsterdam transferred power over immigration, more on Foreign affairs and defence.

 

Nice granted the EU the power to impose sanctions on member countries if they didn't do as they were told.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, justice, crime and policing laws fall under the ultimate jurisdiction of EU judges in all cases.

 

So they've got Foreign affairs, Home affairs and Defense. Probably easier to list the things they haven't got.

 

Surely these constitute transfer of power to the EU. Or is this some strange usage of the word power that I wasn't previously aware of.

 

Using these treaties the EU routinely gains extra power by directives and judicial rulings which take their authority from the treaties.

 

There are the broad strokes, and there have been many smaller transfers in between.

 

I'm sure there will be plenty that I've missed.

 

Are we talking about the same EU here?

Is it perhaps your strategy to delay your opponents by challenging them to prove things which you already know are true?

 

P.S. The EU is also legally the ultimate authority over:

Agriculture

Fishing

Transport

Energy

The Environment.

 

Perhaps you should change strategy and point out that we don't have to worry about the formation of an EU super-state as it's already happened.

 

 

Since I didn't get an answer the first time:

If you don't think the superstate will emerge, where is the EU heading. More powers are transferred from the states to the EU government each year. Is that just going to stop one day?

The UK keeps transferring powers and competencies to the EU. Surely that puts us on track to be part of the super-state. Or is that just going to stop one day?

If I'm wrong about where this is all heading, it's hard to see where else it could be going.

 

Sage words my friend. I might hesitate if I thought we would get another hot at this, but without VERY LARGE consessions on the treaties I' for getting out of there.t

[tzijlstra]

Yes. Clearly we're talking about a different EU.

 

The Lisbon treaty was fully ratified and entered into force on 1st December 2009.

 

Title I of Part I of the treaty lays out the powers granted to the EU by member states. I draw your attention to the list of exclusive competencies and the list of shared competencies where the states may not exercise a competence if the EU has already done so.

 

You enjoy calling others ignorant and talking down to them. Don't think you can make me angry and get me to storm off. I'm not that easy.

 

1.1 of the Lisboa Treaty:

Article 1

 

The Treaty on European Union shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

PREAMBLE

 

1)

The preamble shall be amended as follows:

(a)

the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:

‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;

(b)

In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;

©

In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.

=======

 

A) You haven't got a clue.

B) Amendment, because the original document was turned down and did not come into force.