EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[Kdv1]

 

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.

 

not really, you can change anything you like, you just need to convince the other member states to agree - negotiations again. Doesn't help if a lot of the UK representatives are ukip and per definition not participate in anything constructive (but still take home their pay)

[I1L2T3]

Perhaps you can name a few.

 

Number 1: adoption of Euro

Number 2: Schengen Rules

Number 3: banking union (impossible without 1.)

[retep]

Number 1: adoption of Euro

Number 2: Schengen Rules

Number 3: banking union (impossible without 1.)

 

 

Best of luck with those.

[unbeliever]

Number 1: adoption of Euro

Number 2: Schengen Rules

Number 3: banking union (impossible without 1.)

 

We haven't not joined the EURO. We just haven't joined it yet.

When all the major political parties offer a permanent commitment never to join the EURO, you might have a point. Even then their minds change like the weather.

[L00b]

Here's 4 for starters,

 

"DAVID Cameron suffered his worst day so far in his attempt to win a new EU deal Britain today when four European leaders rejected his plans."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/583867/Migrants-David-Cameron-EU

Given the paucity of details about what was actually discussed, I wouldn't call these knockbacks, just opinions (you're not expecting Cameron to just be given anything and everything he asks, and to call any dissenting opinion a knockback, are you? This is a negotiation after all). These opinions are no different to what has long been the consensus position of Merkel, who does support Cameron. No Treaty change about free movement. And none of these 4 are in any positions to give lessons about national preference on welfare access.

 

Be all that as it may, assuming for a moment that they are knockbacks indeed: these are the same EU leaders who will take an active part in the mooted agreement under Article 50 TEU that the UK will negotiate in case of a Brexit. Now, the article relates pretty negative opinions from these while the UK is in the EU and at least 2 of them (ES and RO) have a clear vested interest in the UK staying in : how do you think the Brexit negotiations will go with these 4 on the other side of the table?

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.

That makes it sound like Article 50 TEU has a best-by-date?

 

Do you mind posting or quoting a source for that claim?

 

EDIT - the only info I have found in relation to that date is the Council Decision of 13 December 2007 relating to the implementation of Article 9C(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 205(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (go to Article 238, supersedes 205). That relates to the blocking majority on legislative and budgetary functions of the Council jointly with the European Parliament. Nothing to do with the right to exit the EU whatsoever

Edited June 15, 2015 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

Had a think about this whole discussion this morning (I do every now and then think, it is in my DNA and now my title!) and it comes down to this:

 

Who is "we".

 

I keep reading: "We will lose the right to..." "We need to control our borders" "We will not lose if we..."

 

 

It is an interesting discursive problem and certainly explains why I am pro EU - I don't believe in the concept of nations and people who think that for some reason the UK is magically more democratic if it is out of the EU are against it.

 

But the complexity of the debate is the crux here and it cna be cut back to the simple question: Who is "we".

 

Well, in my view, we are humans.

[unbeliever]

Had a think about this whole discussion this morning (I do every now and then think, it is in my DNA and now my title!) and it comes down to this:

 

Who is "we".

 

I keep reading: "We will lose the right to..." "We need to control our borders" "We will not lose if we..."

 

 

It is an interesting discursive problem and certainly explains why I am pro EU - I don't believe in the concept of nations and people who think that for some reason the UK is magically more democratic if it is out of the EU are against it.

 

But the complexity of the debate is the crux here and it cna be cut back to the simple question: Who is "we".

 

Well, in my view, we are humans.

 

That's very nice.

So ideally there would be a single world government?

Good luck getting the UK population to vote for that.

[sgtkate]

This is an interesting thread. I am inherently pro-EU, however, I must admit I can see some of the points unbeliever is making.

 

The EU should and could be a tremendous force for good but it either doesn't go far enough or it goes too far. It is neither simply a trading block, nor a federal state and I think it should be completely one or the other.

 

I would actually support a federal state in a similar manner to the US where each country can set it's own local laws but the majority of major ones are set federally. Shared currency, shared main tax laws (again local taxes could be put in place), share military etc.

 

Equally, I would support a pure trading block again.

 

What I don't like is that the EU has grown well beyond it's original mandate and it is well overdue for review and reform, either to increase it's powers to a full federal state or to reduce them heavily so it fits back into it's original purpose. If we go this option, future powers can only be granted by an EU wide referendum from all party nations.

[tzijlstra]

That's very nice.

So ideally there would be a single world government?

Good luck getting the UK population to vote for that.

 

Let's drag this into the completely philosophical realm: What makes us different citizens from, let's say, a rice farmer in Burma?

 

There is a perfectly functioning model for federal control in the United States, is that something that can be applied to the whole world? What would the results be?

 

We could manage finite resources far better, we could control defence spending to ensure stability, we could work together to improve everybody's life.

 

Terrible prospects really, I agree, can't see why the UK population would be in favour of that.

[unbeliever]

Let's drag this into the completely philosophical realm: What makes us different citizens from, let's say, a rice farmer in Burma?

 

There is a perfectly functioning model for federal control in the United States, is that something that can be applied to the whole world? What would the results be?

 

We could manage finite resources far better, we could control defence spending to ensure stability, we could work together to improve everybody's life.

 

Terrible prospects really, I agree, can't see why the UK population would be in favour of that.

 

Cool. Somebody's has their John Lennon playing this morning.

 

There is constant tension in the US between states' rights and federal control just as in the EU.

The problem with this idea is the assumption that the best way of doing something can be determined analytically. What tends to work best in practise is for different people to try different things and the best ideas get copied.

Any concerns about loss of cultural distinctiveness from the "melting pot" model?

 

Also, the US went through a massive civil war to solidify their system. Perhaps not the best model to copy?

Interesting though if that's the model we're following. European integration will therefore presumably reach a point, as the US did, where an attempt to secede from the union will be met with force.

Edited June 15, 2015 by unbeliever