EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[I1L2T3]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm not arguing that any powers have been repatriated so why should I provide a list?

 

As it stands I can't think of any powers that should come back but that said I would be uncomfortable about losing control over certain areas like currency, armed forces etc...

 

Let's see how the negotiations pan out.

[tzijlstra]

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.

 

Let us define something here: Issues pertaining to the single shared market belong to the EU, issues pertaining to the memberstates do not. All that you have listed above ONLY applies where it concerns legislation pertaining to issues exceeding member states. You make it sound like the UK can not legislate itself on any of these issues, which is entirely and utterly wrong.

 

Therefore:

 

It's a transfer of power to the EU!

 

Is a complete misnomer. It is an acknowledgement that anything exceeding national level is the responsibility of the EU.

 

You denied that any such power transfers were taking place.

 

where? Please show me.

 

You're surely going to get bored of being proven consistently wrong on this matter at some point.

 

You don't know me very well, do you? I love proving people wrong when it comes to the EU and you are a very capable opponent, all the more reason to carry on.

 

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.

 

 

This is where you ignore, again, the two-tier EU that is developing and is currently being negotiated by Cameron. I have a pretty good idea where that is going to go and I think what Cameron wants is feasible (let's say I have some ears on the floor in Brussels) and achievable. And you will actually have to come of your hobby horse of continued integration and acknowledge that I am right. All the more reason to carry on discussing this

[unbeliever]

No amount of your scaremongering is going to convince anyone.

 

You keep repeating this and I just have to call you on it.

 

Scaremongering my a£#e.

I'm telling it how it is.

You're participating (knowingly or not, I won't speculate) in a con to dupe the UK into voting to stay in the EU by either pretending or hoping it's something it's obviously not.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 19:27 ----------

 

Let us define something here: Issues pertaining to the single shared market belong to the EU, issues pertaining to the memberstates do not. All that you have listed above ONLY applies where it concerns legislation pertaining to issues exceeding member states. You make it sound like the UK can not legislate itself on any of these issues, which is entirely and utterly wrong.

 

Therefore:

 

 

 

Is a complete misnomer. It is an acknowledgement that anything exceeding national level is the responsibility of the EU.

 

 

 

where? Please show me.

 

 

 

You don't know me very well, do you? I love proving people wrong when it comes to the EU and you are a very capable opponent, all the more reason to carry on.

 

 

 

 

This is where you ignore, again, the two-tier EU that is developing and is currently being negotiated by Cameron. I have a pretty good idea where that is going to go and I think what Cameron wants is feasible (let's say I have some ears on the floor in Brussels) and achievable. And you will actually have to come of your hobby horse of continued integration and acknowledge that I am right. All the more reason to carry on discussing this

 

I'm kind of enjoying it myself.

I don't like being called names like "naive", nor do I appreciate being accused of scare-mongering when I express my honest, deeply held personal view.

But I can take it.

 

The 2-tier EU is an idea. It doesn't really exist yet.

An opt out is not a decision not to do something. It's a delay in doing it. It might never happen, but it only has to happen once.

Whether or not you think a particular power transfer is a good idea is, in my view, off topic. Every power transfer makes the EU stronger and the national governments weaker and they're never reversed.

If the flow of power is only in one direction, the final result of a super-state is inevitable. Surely you can see that.

 

The treaties clearly give the EU the legal authority to act on these matters.

What is the legal basis for your assertion that they can only do so when it exceeds national borders.

 

When I alluded earlier too the EU having power over Energy, you suggested that I was confusing the EU with the Kyoto agreement. I hope that it is now clear that I am not.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive

Does this meet your definition of exceeding national borders?

 

How about the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment directive?

 

Perhaps you could give me an example of something which would not "exceed national borders" within the areas of shared competencies where the EU has primacy.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 19:29 ----------

 

I'm not arguing that any powers have been repatriated so why should I provide a list?

 

As it stands I can't think of any powers that should come back but that said I would be uncomfortable about losing control over certain areas like currency, armed forces etc...

 

Let's see how the negotiations pan out.

 

You just said that the relationship with the EU is subject to continuous change.

If that change is only in the form of power transfers to the EU, then how can you still disagree with me?

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 19:37 ----------

 

This is perhaps more salient than the energy efficient directive:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive

 

This is the EU exercising its "competence" on Energy.

 

It effectively dictates to all member states how they're going to generate their electricity in future.

Not a small thing.

 

CO2 could cut far more effectively by switching from coal to gas. Or to nuclear. Or by carbon capture and storage. Or by some combination of these. But the EU has directed us to use highly expensive renewables.

This has made it unaffordable to run energy intensive industry in the EU.

All the energy intensive industry has moved or is moving outside the EU (producing if anything more CO2 than when it was inside) and we now have to buy in those products.

Maybe you disagree and you think this was a good idea. That's not really the point. Why was the matter of how to meet the CO2 reduction targets not left to the national governments?

[Kdv1]

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.

 

The crux of it is that all the powers the EU has have been approved by UK governments, they signed up. Is that not how democracy works?- you vote for a MP, a government, and then that government governs in your name. If you don't like what they do, you vote for another... You can't have a referendum on every issue, government would be paralysed.

As for the transfer of power, as you indicate most powers are shared, so open to interpretation and individual member states can interpret in different ways. So the UK could do that as well. It's the EU, everything is a negotiation, everything is open for interpretation - maybe the lack of coalition politics in the UK is why consecutive UK governments don't seem to be able to play the EU 'game'

[I1L2T3]

The

You keep repeating this and I just have to call you on it.

 

Scaremongering my a£#e.

I'm telling it how it is.

You're participating (knowingly or not, I won't speculate) in a con to dupe the UK into voting to stay in the EU by either pretending or hoping it's something it's obviously not.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 19:27 ----------

 

 

I'm kind of enjoying it myself.

I don't like being called names like "naive", nor do I appreciate being accused of scare-mongering when I express my honest, deeply held personal view.

But I can take it.

 

The 2-tier EU is an idea. It doesn't really exist yet.

An opt out is not a decision not to do something. It's a delay in doing it. It might never happen, but it only has to happen once.

Whether or not you think a particular power transfer is a good idea is, in my view, off topic. Every power transfer makes the EU stronger and the national governments weaker and they're never reversed.

If the flow of power is only in one direction, the final result of a super-state is inevitable. Surely you can see that.

 

The treaties clearly give the EU the legal authority to act on these matters.

What is the legal basis for your assertion that they can only do so when it exceeds national borders.

 

When I alluded earlier too the EU having power over Energy, you suggested that I was confusing the EU with the Kyoto agreement. I hope that it is now clear that I am not.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive

Does this meet your definition of exceeding national borders?

 

How about the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment directive?

 

Perhaps you could give me an example of something which would not "exceed national borders" within the areas of shared competencies where the EU has primacy.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 19:29 ----------

 

 

You just said that the relationship with the EU is subject to continuous change.

If that change is only in the form of power transfers to the EU, then how can you still disagree with me?

 

Not participating in any con. Just pointing out what will become increasingly obvious in the coming year

 

I disagree that something becoming subject to a EU-wide agreement or standard would always be a bad thing. Things will change in our relationship with the EU for sure but you seem to have ignored that the EU Act 2011 means that we are now locked into referendums for any treaty changes.

 

Remember, that unless we leave the single market entirely we will still be subject to almost all of the economic and social EU laws anyway. What is your preferred trading model and how does it protect the 50% of trade we currently do with the EU?

[unbeliever]

The

 

I disagree that something becoming subject to a EU-wide agreement or standard would always be a bad thing. Things will change in our relationship with the EU for sure but you seem to have ignored that the EU Act 2011 means that we are now locked into referendums for any treaty changes.

 

Remember, that unless we leave the single market entirely we will still be subject to almost all of the economic and social EU laws anyway. What is your preferred trading model and how does it protect the 50% of trade we currently do with the EU?

 

Whether or now transferring power to the EU is or is not a good thing is beside the point. The power is flowing continuously in one direction. That can only end with a superstate.

Power can be and has been transferred without new treaties.

 

The referendum lock can be repealed by a future parliament. The transfer of power to the EU by treaty, opt-in, or other means cannot. Have you forgotten the previous promises of referenda which have been broken. Let me remind you of a couple.

1. The previous Labour government promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. No referendum took place. The treaty was signed and ratified.

2. The conservatives promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in the run up to the 2010 election. They went into government. No referendum took place. The get out there was that the treaty had already been ratified and so it was too late.

3. The coalition government promised a referendum on all future transfer of "power" to the EU. They then proceeded to transfer power without a referendum when they opted into the criminal justice measures in the Lisbon treaty. This was after the referendum lock was passed into law. We're now told that in fact what we have is a promise to have a referendum on future transfers of competencies to the EU. So we only get a referendum on a new treaty and only if that treaty includes the transfer of competencies. That's not quite what we were originally promised. The UK government has yet to be tested on whether they'll keep this amended version of the referendum promise.

 

Plenty of other countries trade with the EU without being members. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the EU is extraordinarily unlikely to put up significant trade barriers as it would cost them more than it would cost us. We run a persistent trade deficit with the EU.

The Germans are, I think you would agree, the most powerful nation within the EU. Their government has already stated openly that they would want to keep the doors for trade with the UK firmly open in the case of Brexit. They have gone as far as to state that they would "need" a free trade agreement with an independent UK.

 

The EU would be in a position, like anybody else we trade with, to set standards for the goods and services we trade with them. That's not a problem for the >50% of our trade outside the EU. Why would it be a problem for trading with the EU?

They would cease having the power to intervene in our domestic affairs, and in our trade with others.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 20:34 ----------

 

The crux of it is that all the powers the EU has have been approved by UK governments, they signed up. Is that not how democracy works?- you vote for a MP, a government, and then that government governs in your name. If you don't like what they do, you vote for another... You can't have a referendum on every issue, government would be paralysed.

 

Not quite.

When a law is passed in a UK parliament, the electors can take a dislike to it and replace the current crop of MPs with an alternative bunch who will repeal or amend it.

Once one parliament has transferred power to the EU, a future parliament can't transfer it back. It's gone for ever. Surely that's a case for a referendum.

[I1L2T3]

Whether or now transferring power to the EU is or is not a good thing is beside the point. The power is flowing continuously in one direction. That can only end with a superstate.

Power can be and has been transferred without new treaties.

 

The referendum lock can be repealed by a future parliament. The transfer of power to the EU by treaty, opt-in, or other means cannot. Have you forgotten the previous promises of referenda which have been broken. Let me remind you of a couple.

1. The previous Labour government promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. No referendum took place. The treaty was signed and ratified.

2. The conservatives promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in the run up to the 2010 election. They went into government. No referendum took place. The get out there was that the treaty had already been ratified and so it was too late.

3. The coalition government promised a referendum on all future transfer of "power" to the EU. They then proceeded to transfer power without a referendum when they opted into the criminal justice measures in the Lisbon treaty. This was after the referendum lock was passed into law. We're now told that in fact what we have is a promise to have a referendum on future transfers of competencies to the EU. So we only get a referendum on a new treaty and only if that treaty includes the transfer of competencies. That's not quite what we were originally promised. The UK government has yet to be tested on whether they'll keep this amended version of the referendum promise.

 

Plenty of other countries trade with the EU without being members. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the EU is extraordinarily unlikely to put up significant trade barriers as it would cost them more than it would cost us. We run a persistent trade deficit with the EU.

The Germans are, I think you would agree, the most powerful nation within the EU. Their government has already stated openly that they would want to keep the doors for trade with the UK firmly open in the case of Brexit. They have gone as far as to state that they would "need" a free trade agreement with an independent UK.

 

The EU would be in a position, like anybody else we trade with, to set standards for the goods and services we trade with them. That's not a problem for the >50% of our trade outside the EU. Why would it be a problem for trading with the EU?

They would cease having the power to intervene in our domestic affairs, and in our trade with others.

 

---------- Post added 14-06-2015 at 20:34 ----------

 

 

Not quite.

When a law is passed in a UK parliament, the electors can take a dislike to it and replace the current crop of MPs with an alternative bunch who will repeal or amend it.

Once one parliament has transferred power to the EU, a future parliament can't transfer it back. It's gone for ever. Surely that's a case for a referendum.

 

Put very bluntly, you seem to want to swap a situation where 50% of our trade is carried out freely to one where none of our trade can be guaranteed to be carried out freely.

 

Why? What do we gain from that?

 

I know you won't have any decent answers because virtually every economic assessment of the consequences of leaving puts us in the mire.

 

Business knows it. The government knows it. Some of the latest assessments point to apocalyptic losses to GDP of up to 14% a year by 2030

[unbeliever]

Put very bluntly, you seem to want to swap a situation where 50% of our trade is carried out freely to one where none of our trade can be guaranteed to be carried out freely.

 

Why? What do we gain from that?

 

I know you won't have any decent answers because virtually every economic assessment of the consequences of leaving puts us in the mire.

 

Business knows it. The government knows it. Some of the latest assessments point to apocalyptic losses to GDP of up to 14% a year by 2030

 

I'd be interested in a reference for that last point if you have it.

 

To answer your question, we'd regain the power to run our own affairs.

Trade restrictions, if they were to appear, don't seem to prevent us doing over 50% of our trade outside the EU.

We already have assurances from key European leaders that at least free trade arrangements would be made.

Tariffs and other trade barriers are not the only ways business can be inhibited. The EU's energy policy is a serious brake on our productivity.

Regulatory compliance costs are very high in the EU in general.

I'm confident that the gains from Brexit would exceed the costs, but that's hard to prove.

 

It seems we've moved again off the topic of the destiny of the EU and the destiny of the UK if it stays in. Does that mean you concede on that point?

[I1L2T3]

I'd be interested in a reference for that last point if you have it.

 

To answer your question, we'd regain the power to run our own affairs.

Trade restrictions, if they were to appear, don't seem to prevent us doing over 50% of our trade outside the EU.

We already have assurances from key European leaders that at least free trade arrangements would be made.

Tariffs and other trade barriers are not the only ways business can be inhibited. The EU's energy policy is a serious brake on our productivity.

Regulatory compliance costs are very high in the EU in general.

I'm confident that the gains from Brexit would exceed the costs, but that's hard to prove.

 

It seems we've moved again off the topic of the destiny of the EU and the destiny of the UK if it stays in. Does that mean you concede on that point?

 

In a single market, apart from agriculture & fisheries, the regulatory framework would be the same. The contribution from the UK to the EU budget would be more or less the same. Vast swathes of our laws would still be dictated by the EU and we'd have no say in them.

 

14% loss to GDP

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/27/uk-britain-eu-brexit-germany-idUKKBN0NI0Z620150427

 

No, I don't for one minute concede that the destiny of the UK is to be part of the tightly coupled superstate. The notion is ridiculous because the precursors for it will never happen.

[retep]

In a single market, apart from agriculture & fisheries, the regulatory framework would be the same. The contribution from the UK to the EU budget would be more or less the same. Vast swathes of our laws would still be dictated by the EU and we'd have no say in them.

 

14% loss to GDP

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/27/uk-britain-eu-brexit-germany-idUKKBN0NI0Z620150427

 

No, I don't for one minute concede that the destiny of the UK is to be part of the tightly coupled superstate. The notion is ridiculous because the precursors for it will never happen.

Perhaps you can name a few.