JFKvsNixon Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 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 You're right, the SF general election poll suggested that UKIP were going to win the election! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Just about everyone I know wants us to leave the hated EU. I do not think the vote will be as close as it is on here. Probably about 70/30 in favour of us becoming an independent country once more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havanaclub Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 Just about everyone I know wants us to leave the hated EU. I do not think the vote will be as close as it is on here. Probably about 70/30 in favour of us becoming an independent country once more. The opinion polls put it at about 45% to stay and 35% to exit. with the rest undecided. So your 70 30 is doubtful but possible I suppose. It's strange though, non of my friends and only 1 family member wants to leave. A question to those who want to leave the EU. If there was a NO vote and the UK left the EU, it's almost certain Scotland would leave the UK. How do the NO voters feel about the hypothetically, but highly likely scenario of losing Scotland and outside chance of possibly Wales and N.Ireland too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Just about everyone I know wants us to leave the hated EU. I do not think the vote will be as close as it is on here. Probably about 70/30 in favour of us becoming an independent country once more. This reminds me of a forum member who once stated that most people he knew had been to prison. I don't know anyone who's been to prison plus nearly all the people I know want to remain in the EU. Folk live in different worlds, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 So your argument is based on something that is unlikely to happen while advocating a leap into the unknown where you don't know what will happen. Of course we have to thing of the implications of staying in, and the impacts of leaving too. ---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 19:20 ---------- JCB boss says what is best for his business. Hardly a surprise. What exactly is the red tape though? They never, ever say. Are they frustrated at building plant to European standards? Do they want to just build gas guzzling polluting plant that would pass standards in China or the developing world? Is that progress? What exactly are JCB moaning about because we all know that selling a digger to a German company is no more difficult than loading it on a truck and transporting it over there. So what is JCB's beef? Probably the 39.6 million euro fine they got from the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 To help with your argument just post a list of powers that have been transferred, year by year, for the last 3 years. 3 years is a very short time in the field of constitutional law, but nonetheless. Since we've had a moderately euro sceptic government since 2010 and the euro crisis has been in full swing, there has been less transfer of power in the last few years than is typical. One cannot count on that trend continuing unless you expect the Conservative euro sceptics to gain a great deal more influence in the party and the lib dems, labour and snp to vanish somehow. That said, the most significant transfer in recent years started in 2012 when the UK government chose to opt in to various criminal justice measures in the Lisbon treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 3 years is a very short time in the field of constitutional law, but nonetheless. Since we've had a moderately euro sceptic government since 2010 and the euro crisis has been in full swing, there has been less transfer of power in the last few years than is typical. One cannot count on that trend continuing unless you expect the Conservative euro sceptics to gain a great deal more influence in the party and the lib dems, labour and snp to vanish somehow. That said, the most significant transfer in recent years started in 2012 when the UK government chose to opt in to various criminal justice measures in the Lisbon treaty. And what was wrong with these criminal justice measures? It is typical of eurosceptics to discuss every bit of legislation coming from the EU in a negative light, this being a perfect example. The measures put through make perfect sense to all who understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 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: 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. I don't see how you can downplay "the right to act" as if it's not a big deal. How can the right to act be interpreted as anything other than the power. I notice that you've silently acknowledged that the Lisbon treaty was in fact ratified. I also notice that you've commented only on the exclusive competencies listed and completely skipped over the competencies in which the EU has primacy (shared competencies where the state cannot act if the EU chooses to): the internal market social policy economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy the area of freedom, security and justice common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty i.e. exactly the list I gave you yesterday. Really what have you said on this matter that I have not invalidated? And you have the temerity to call me naive. What a joke. ---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 17:55 ---------- And what was wrong with these criminal justice measures? It is typical of eurosceptics to discuss every bit of legislation coming from the EU in a negative light, this being a perfect example. The measures put through make perfect sense to all who understand them. It's a transfer of power to the EU! You denied that any such power transfers were taking place. You're surely going to get bored of being proven consistently wrong on this matter at some point. ---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 18:04 ---------- I think this is the appropriate time to repeat a key point I made earlier. Half the pro-EU crowd think the EU has ceased gaining more power so it's okay to stay in and half think that EU power gains are a good thing and should be encouraged. You can't both be right. These 2 halves really need to talk to each other. Typically, the left hand doesn't know what the far left hand is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 3 years is a very short time in the field of constitutional law, but nonetheless. Since we've had a moderately euro sceptic government since 2010 and the euro crisis has been in full swing, there has been less transfer of power in the last few years than is typical. One cannot count on that trend continuing unless you expect the Conservative euro sceptics to gain a great deal more influence in the party and the lib dems, labour and snp to vanish somehow. That said, the most significant transfer in recent years started in 2012 when the UK government chose to opt in to various criminal justice measures in the Lisbon treaty. So basically there is no list. And you've made no reference to this yet: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/europeanunion.html ---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 18:24 ---------- I don't see how you can downplay "the right to act" as if it's not a big deal. How can the right to act be interpreted as anything other than the power. I notice that you've silently acknowledged that the Lisbon treaty was in fact ratified. I also notice that you've commented only on the exclusive competencies listed and completely skipped over the competencies in which the EU has primacy (shared competencies where the state cannot act if the EU chooses to): the internal market social policy economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy the area of freedom, security and justice common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty i.e. exactly the list I gave you yesterday. Really what have you said on this matter that I have not invalidated? And you have the temerity to call me naive. What a joke. ---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 17:55 ---------- It's a transfer of power to the EU! You denied that any such power transfers were taking place. You're surely going to get bored of being proven consistently wrong on this matter at some point. ---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 18:04 ---------- I think this is the appropriate time to repeat a key point I made earlier. Half the pro-EU crowd think the EU has ceased gaining more power so it's okay to stay in and half think that EU power gains are a good thing and should be encouraged. You can't both be right. These 2 halves really need to talk to each other. Typically, the left hand doesn't know what the far left hand is doing. We know the level of integration is not set in stone. The world changes. Thing will change in our relationship with the EU too. We also know that the reality is that the UK will never tightly integrate to the core of the EU in the same way as Germany and France. No amount of your scaremongering is going to convince anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 So basically there is no list. And you've made no reference to this yet: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/europeanunion.html Didn't stop the last parliament transferring power by opting into the criminal justice measures of the Lisbon treaty. No list? The criminal justice measures are a significant transfer of power (not just a power but several) transferred with no referendum and a rather brief debate in parliament. What's more they were transferred by a supposedly euro-sceptic government. We know the level of integration is not set in stone. The world changes. Thing will change in our relationship with the EU too. We also know that the reality is that the UK will never tightly integrate to the core of the EU in the same way as Germany and France. No amount of your scaremongering is going to convince anyone. Once a power is transferred, it never comes back. EU power transfers go in only one direction. There is only one possible end point and that's full integration into a super-state. It's not a matter of if, but only when. I'm going to take a page out of your book and challenge you to find a single power which has been transferred from Europe back to the member states in the entire history of European integration. No bogus limit of 3 years. No request for a "list" when one would prove the point. Just find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts