EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[unbeliever]

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.

 

 

 

1. This Treaty organises the functioning of the Union and determines the areas of, delimitation of, and arrangements for exercising its competences.

 

2. This Treaty and the Treaty on European Union constitute the Treaties on which the Union is founded. These two Treaties, which have the same legal value, shall be referred to as "the Treaties".

 

TITLE I: CATEGORIES AND AREAS OF UNION COMPETENCE

Article 2

1. When the Treaties confer on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts.

 

2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall again exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.

 

3. The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by this Treaty, which the Union shall have competence to provide.

 

4. The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.

 

5. In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Treaties, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas.

 

Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions of the Treaties relating to these areas shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations.

 

6. The scope of and arrangements for exercising the Union's competences shall be determined by the provisions of the Treaties relating to each area.

 

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

 

(a) customs union;

 

(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;

 

© monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;

 

(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;

 

(e) common commercial policy.

 

2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.

 

Article 4

1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.

 

2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:

 

(a) internal market;

 

(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;

 

© economic, social and territorial cohesion;

 

(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;

 

(e) environment;

 

(f) consumer protection;

 

(g) transport;

 

(h) trans-European networks;

 

(i) energy;

 

(j) area of freedom, security and justice;

 

(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

 

3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

 

4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

 

Article 5

1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.

 

Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro.

 

2. The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies.

 

3. The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies.

 

Article 6

The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:

 

(a) protection and improvement of human health;

 

(b) industry;

 

© culture;

 

(d) tourism;

 

(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;

 

(f) civil protection;

 

(g) administrative cooperation.

[Havanaclub]

JCB boss says EU exit could lift burden of bureaucracy on UK businesses

 

“What is needed is a lot less red tape and bureaucracy. Some of it is costly for us and quite frankly ridiculous. Whether that means renegotiating or exiting, I don’t think it can carry on as it is. It’s a burden on our business and it’s easier selling to North America than to Europe sometimes.” He said reducing red tape for business was Cameron’s most important task when seeking concessions from other EU leaders.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/17/jcb-boss-says-eu-exit-could-lift-burden-of-bureaucracy-on-uk-businesses

 

What does it have to do with importing?

 

 

You sent a load of links about selling to EU other countries. If we leave the EU and want to trade with the EU that we just left do you think there will be more or less red tape?

 

I was asking you what the "red tape" you are referring to has to do with imports and the cost of food and products?

 

Please outline this red tape on imports please.

[tzijlstra]

You sent a load of links about selling to EU other countries. If we leave the EU and want to trade with the EU that we just left do you think there will be more or less red tape?

 

I was asking you what the "red tape" you are referring to has to do with imports and the cost of food and products?

 

Please outline this red tape on imports please.

 

Also worth noting that JCB is a small player in Europe and does far more trade with the US and Asia as it is.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 07:32 ----------

 

We are going to do a game of spot the inconsistencies, after I've had breakfast. You won't like it much.

 

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 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.

 

1. This Treaty organises the functioning of the Union and determines the areas of, delimitation of, and arrangements for exercising its competences.

 

2. This Treaty and the Treaty on European Union constitute the Treaties on which the Union is founded. These two Treaties, which have the same legal value, shall be referred to as "the Treaties".

 

TITLE I: CATEGORIES AND AREAS OF UNION COMPETENCE

Article 2

1. When the Treaties confer on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts.

 

2. When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. The Member States shall again exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.

 

3. The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by this Treaty, which the Union shall have competence to provide.

 

4. The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.

 

5. In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Treaties, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas.

 

Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions of the Treaties relating to these areas shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations.

 

6. The scope of and arrangements for exercising the Union's competences shall be determined by the provisions of the Treaties relating to each area.

 

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

 

(a) customs union;

 

(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;

 

© monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;

 

(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;

 

(e) common commercial policy.

 

2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.

 

Article 4

1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.

 

2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:

 

(a) internal market;

 

(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;

 

© economic, social and territorial cohesion;

 

(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;

 

(e) environment;

 

(f) consumer protection;

 

(g) transport;

 

(h) trans-European networks;

 

(i) energy;

 

(j) area of freedom, security and justice;

 

(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

 

3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

 

4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.

 

Article 5

1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.

 

Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro.

 

2. The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies.

 

3. The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies.

 

Article 6

The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:

 

(a) protection and improvement of human health;

 

(b) industry;

 

© culture;

 

(d) tourism;

 

(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;

 

(f) civil protection;

 

(g) administrative cooperation.

[unbeliever]

Also worth noting that JCB is a small player in Europe and does far more trade with the US and Asia as it is.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 07:32 ----------

 

We are going to do a game of spot the inconsistencies, after I've had breakfast. You won't like it much.

 

I've had my breakfast and I'm busy most of today.

 

I'll lay down what I see as the crux of the matter. Then get back to this debate when I can.

 

The Lisbon treaty has been ratified and gone into law.

It was revised before ratification, but the revised version is what I'm referring to.

 

The Lisbon treaty transferred more competencies to the EU from the member states. Not everything I listed as EU powers was newly transferred to the EU with this treaty, but some of it was and the rest was just reinforced. The UK had a partial opt out from bits of it, which has been partly used but can be reversed at any time without a new treaty or a referendum.

 

The process of transfer of power continues between treaties with the EU deriving the authority for such transfer of powers from the transferred competencies in the treaties.

 

Nobody has answered my key question. If I don't get a direct answer this time, I'm going to take it as an admission that I'm right:

 

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.

[I1L2T3]

I've had my breakfast and I'm busy most of today.

 

I'll lay down what I see as the crux of the matter. Then get back to this debate when I can.

 

The Lisbon treaty has been ratified and gone into law.

It was revised before ratification, but the revised version is what I'm referring to.

 

The Lisbon treaty transferred more competencies to the EU from the member states. Not everything I listed as EU powers was newly transferred to the EU with this treaty, but some of it was and the rest was just reinforced. The UK had a partial opt out from bits of it, which has been partly used but can be reversed at any time without a new treaty or a referendum.

 

The process of transfer of power continues between treaties with the EU deriving the authority for such transfer of powers from the transferred competencies in the treaties.

 

Nobody has answered my key question. If I don't get a direct answer this time, I'm going to take it as an admission that I'm right:

 

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.

 

To help with your argument just post a list of powers that have been transferred, year by year, for the last 3 years.

[retep]

I've had my breakfast and I'm busy most of today.

 

I'll lay down what I see as the crux of the matter. Then get back to this debate when I can.

 

The Lisbon treaty has been ratified and gone into law.

It was revised before ratification, but the revised version is what I'm referring to.

 

The Lisbon treaty transferred more competencies to the EU from the member states. Not everything I listed as EU powers was newly transferred to the EU with this treaty, but some of it was and the rest was just reinforced. The UK had a partial opt out from bits of it, which has been partly used but can be reversed at any time without a new treaty or a referendum.

 

The process of transfer of power continues between treaties with the EU deriving the authority for such transfer of powers from the transferred competencies in the treaties.

 

Nobody has answered my key question. If I don't get a direct answer this time, I'm going to take it as an admission that I'm right:

 

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.

 

As I understand it, after 1 April 2017, the UK has to ask permission of the other states if it can leave, and if it doesn't get enough support UK has to remain, with no right to a referendum.

[I1L2T3]

As I understand it, after 1 April 2017, the UK has to ask permission of the other states if it can leave, and if it doesn't get enough support UK has to remain, with no right to a referendum.

 

We can invoke article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and give 2 years notice to quit any time. Problem is once it is invoked there is no going back unless the other member states vote to allow reversal of it, and the ball is firmly in the EU's court regarding the terms of exit. We could get a rotten deal (for example some kind of treaty change amongst the remaining members that cripples the capacity of UK financial services to export into Europe) and be powerless to do anything about it.

[tzijlstra]

I've had my breakfast and I'm busy most of today.

 

I'll lay down what I see as the crux of the matter. Then get back to this debate when I can.

 

The Lisbon treaty has been ratified and gone into law.

It was revised before ratification, but the revised version is what I'm referring to.

 

The Lisbon treaty transferred more competencies to the EU from the member states. Not everything I listed as EU powers was newly transferred to the EU with this treaty, but some of it was and the rest was just reinforced. The UK had a partial opt out from bits of it, which has been partly used but can be reversed at any time without a new treaty or a referendum.

 

The process of transfer of power continues between treaties with the EU deriving the authority for such transfer of powers from the transferred competencies in the treaties.

 

Nobody has answered my key question. If I don't get a direct answer this time, I'm going to take it as an admission that I'm right:

 

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.

 

You are wrong, there are very clear provisions to stop a superstate from forming A: it is not a given, there are plenty of members and political fractions within the member-states against the idea of further integration. B: The allowance of states to opt-out of further integration (Particularly the UK and Denmark as non-Euro members) and C: The right to veto - as demonstrated by Cameron in 2011, still exists (particularly for the UK as non-euro members).

 

With regards to why you were wrong about pretty much all you said in an earlier post (that I would get back to). Read the Categories and areas of union competence again, taking into account what competence means in this particular instance: The right to act.

 

In that perspective the following article is particularly damaging to your idea that the EU has exclusive competence over the numerous areas you mentioned:

 

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

 

(a) customs union;

 

(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;

 

© monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;

 

(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;

 

(e) common commercial policy.

 

I've bolded the important bits.

 

The customs union is an obvious area for the EU to have exclusive competence, it dictates that the EU is responsible for running the show when it comes to trade negotiations with other parties and setting custom levies and so on. It is a logical consequence of the shared single market I am sure you will agree. This also applies to the b) part of this section. What it DOES NOT mean is that the EU runs each nation's borders. Easily illustrated by Calais and the recent debate on how to deal with Med-Migrants.

 

c) is a beauty, because it is a direct indication that there is a two-tier EU, one of states with the Euro (Or the intention to get the Euro) and one for those without. What it DOES NOT mean is that countries are not able to set their own financial policies, taxation etc.

 

d) Marine biological resources - in other words: The EU has control over fish stocks and other marine resources such as sea-floors and so on. This is probably one of the oldest principles in the EU and definitely not a new one. It also has only to do with flora and fauna and the effort to A: Stop overfishing and B: Stop countries from wrecking each others sea flora (By dragnetting etc.)

 

e) Common commercial policy. COMMON commercial policy, in other words, all the policy that has been agreed upon between member states. Thus it says nothing about member-states' ability to set their own commercial policies (for example the UK and the Commonwealth).

 

I can carry on for quite a long time here, but it is pretty obvious that you don't quite understand what you are reading and how to interpret it. Not an uncommon trait in those fanatically against the EU, apparently that fanaticism does not require being informed.

[francypants]

Looking at the poll here it seems more people want out than in...................

[I1L2T3]

Looking at the poll here it seems more people want out than in...................

 

SF is the land of multiple identities so don't read too much into it.

 

In real life the split is more 50/50 and people only get to vote once