EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

They're interfering. And making a mess of things.

That's typical in my experience.

 

They're applying a one size fits all regionalisation policy which is not appropriate for every region (if any).

Ah, so we have now progressed from a 'melting pot model' to 'regionalisation policy'...Are these expressions synonymous?

 

Are you going to answer the earlier questions, or can we expect some more inelegant fudging?

Hang on a minute. You never responded to my question as to why <...>

Pot. Kettle. Very dark shade of dark grey.

If the EU is to have a national language, I'd like to place my vote now for Latin.

On the evidence of the decades-old European Patent Convention which has resolved and implemented this very same question, the EU would never have one 'national' official language, but three (FR, DE, EN - to facilitate high-level stuff and communications/relationships with the outside world), with provisions for maintaining and incentivising the use of the remaining national languages for intra-system matters. Edited June 15, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Ah, so we have now progressed from a 'melting pot model' to 'regionalisation policy'...Are these expressions synonymous?

 

Are you going to answer the earlier questions, or can we expect some more inelegant fudging?

 

Not at all.

 

What's happened here if that tzijlstra suggested as part of a broader discussion that supra-national government was a beautiful thing as we're all just people.

I on the other hand think that the diversity of the peoples of the world would suffer under such a model. I was kind of looking forward to that discussion. Maybe we should have started a new thread.

 

Somehow we've managed to get these 2 discussions mixed up.

 

In general I'm dubious when a new tier of government (new compared to the national governments) shows up and goes wondering around saying things like:

Hey look at that over there. That's simple. That works. Let's see how we complicate it. There's a off-chance it'll come out better.

 

This has been a very long and complicated discussion. I've been debating with at least 3 opponents simultaneously. We can all play the "you didn't answer my question" game I suppose.

Perhaps you could remind me of the specific questions I've not responded to directly. I'll answer them all if I get the same in return to my question on the renewable energy directive.

Edited June 15, 2015 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

You've spent the last 3 days telling me that the EU is not a full federal system like the US and isn't going to be.

 

 

Hang on a minute. You never responded to my question as to why the EU felt it necessary to dictate to the nations that they had to meet their CO2 reduction targets using renewables rather than any of the more sensible alternatives.

 

What is a federal system? And who decides how it should be defined? Of course the EU is a federal system. You keep getting hung up on old definitions, try and be a bit more progressive with your understanding of political issues, the world is not in the 20th century anymore.

 

Also: Point me to where I have said the EU is not a federal system? All I have said is that the EU is not necessarily looking to full integration AND that there is the two-tier approach that Cameron is aiming for.

 

With regards to the EU and CO2 reduction targets - In 2002 the EU member-states agreed to tackle the issue jointly. It was felt that chances of success were far greater that way as some states had a far greater potential to drop CO2 levels than other countries.

 

This is actually one of those magnificent examples where the sheer scale of the EU provides massive benefits to its member-states. It also really helps in convincing the two biggest culprits, China and the US to do more when it is the EU leading the way. Just the UK or Germany seeking to resolve the problem is hardly going to show the other nations how to get anywhere. Add to that the fact that the EU is able to direct significant research money and investment in green energy that far surpasses what any nation-state would be able to achieve and you have quite an excellent example of the benefit of the EU.

[unbeliever]

What is a federal system? And who decides how it should be defined? Of course the EU is a federal system. You keep getting hung up on old definitions, try and be a bit more progressive with your understanding of political issues, the world is not in the 20th century anymore.

 

Also: Point me to where I have said the EU is not a federal system? All I have said is that the EU is not necessarily looking to full integration AND that there is the two-tier approach that Cameron is aiming for.

 

With regards to the EU and CO2 reduction targets - In 2002 the EU member-states agreed to tackle the issue jointly. It was felt that chances of success were far greater that way as some states had a far greater potential to drop CO2 levels than other countries.

 

This is actually one of those magnificent examples where the sheer scale of the EU provides massive benefits to its member-states. It also really helps in convincing the two biggest culprits, China and the US to do more when it is the EU leading the way. Just the UK or Germany seeking to resolve the problem is hardly going to show the other nations how to get anywhere. Add to that the fact that the EU is able to direct significant research money and investment in green energy that far surpasses what any nation-state would be able to achieve and you have quite an excellent example of the benefit of the EU.

 

Yes indeed. It is indeed reasonable for EU with the consent of the member states to collectively promise to cut our total CO2 output. And some countries would find this harder than others. France in particular has less scope to cut CO2 that most. Guess why? Nuclear.

Still no reason to dictate to the member states that they have to use renewables to achieve it.

I need to verify this which I don't have time for right this minute, but I'm pretty sure that the US has actually been more effective than the EU in the last 20 years in terms of cutting CO2. They've been switching from Coal to Methane.

[tzijlstra]

Yes indeed. It is indeed reasonable for EU with the consent of the member states to collectively promise to cut our total CO2 output. And some countries would find this harder than others. France in particular has less scope to cut CO2 that most. Guess why? Nuclear.

Still no reason to dictate to the member states that they have to use renewables to achieve it.

I need to verify this which I don't have time for right this minute, but I'm pretty sure that the US has actually been more effective than the EU in the last 20 years in terms of cutting CO2. They've been switching from Coal to Methane.

 

You mean they have taken to fracking.

 

Just to clarify what you are talking about: In 2009 directive 28 instituted that the EU would seek to increase energy from renewable sources so as to become less dependent on carbon based resources. This is aligned to the initiative to reduce CO2 emissions, but is a separate issue. It does not tell member-states they can not invest in fracking or nuclear to lower CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto treaty and the associated EU directives for that. All it does is state that the EU in 2020 should reach a 20% target for renewable energy.

 

Because the EU did this as a collective, the price for renewable energy is dropping enormously, again, economy of scale. Where wind-energy used to cost far more than simply burning coal or oil, it is now pretty much similar in expense.

 

In the southern states huge investment has been made in solar energy, Spain in particular has benefited from enormous investment by the EU in this area. Not only that, 80% of this solar energy is being sold to Germany, again, due to the EU - the energy is actually able to get to the right place at the right cost.

 

I am entirely unsure why you would use this particular issue as a stick to beat the EU with, could you explain?

[unbeliever]

You mean they have taken to fracking.

 

Just to clarify what you are talking about: In 2009 directive 28 instituted that the EU would seek to increase energy from renewable sources so as to become less dependent on carbon based resources. This is aligned to the initiative to reduce CO2 emissions, but is a separate issue. It does not tell member-states they can not invest in fracking or nuclear to lower CO2 emissions in line with the Kyoto treaty and the associated EU directives for that. All it does is state that the EU in 2020 should reach a 20% target for renewable energy.

 

Because the EU did this as a collective, the price for renewable energy is dropping enormously, again, economy of scale. Where wind-energy used to cost far more than simply burning coal or oil, it is now pretty much similar in expense.

 

In the southern states huge investment has been made in solar energy, Spain in particular has benefited from enormous investment by the EU in this area. Not only that, 80% of this solar energy is being sold to Germany, again, due to the EU - the energy is actually able to get to the right place at the right cost.

 

I am entirely unsure why you would use this particular issue as a stick to beat the EU with, could you explain?

 

The energy competence was one of those transferred by the states to the EU.

You said that the EU only acts on these competences when there is a matter which clearly exceeds national boundaries. The matter of how to meet the CO2 reduction targets does not fall into that category so why are the EU meddling in it?

 

Wind is way, way more expensive than fossil fuels. Only by ridiculous manipulation of the figures can it be made to appear otherwise.

The main problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent, and we have no large scale energy storage technology to buffer it with.

In the US and China, electricity costs typically 10 cents/kWh. In the UK, it's 20. Germany's at 36.

 

That's not even the point. Whether you approve or not, they're interfering and it's costing us money and damaging our productivity. If we were just left with the targets and allowed to decide for ourselves how to meet them we could find better ways.

They're not just telling us to cut CO2, they're dictating how we do it.

 

The renewables directive is a regressive tax on the people of the EU. We'll all be burning our furniture soon.

Edited June 15, 2015 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

The energy competence was one of those transferred by the states to the EU.

You said that the EU only acts on these competences when there is a matter which clearly exceeds national boundaries. The matter of how to meet the CO2 reduction targets does not fall into that category so why are the EU meddling in it?

The matter of how to meet the CO2 targets was made an EU wide issue by all member states, for good reason. It was agreed that tackling the issue made more sense on a European level than on a national level. That does not mean, however (and this is what you seem to interpret it as) that the UK can not decide itself how it meets the targets set by the EU.

 

Wind is way, way more expensive than fossil fuels. Only by ridiculous manipulation of the figures can it be made to appear otherwise.

The main problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent, and we have no large scale energy storage technology to buffer it with.

In the US and China, electricity costs typically 10 cents/kWh. In the UK, it's 20. Germany's at 36.

 

Won't go into this too deeply as it is not at the core of this thread, but you are working on old figures. Wind-energy in Northsea bordering nations is quickly becoming more than economically competitive. We happen to have a lot of wind here.

 

That's not even the point. Whether you approve or not, they're interfering and it's costing us money and damaging our productivity. If we were just left with the targets and allowed to decide for ourselves how to meet them we could find better ways.

They're not just telling us to cut CO2, they're dictating how we do it.

 

The renewables directive is a regressive tax on the people of the EU. We'll all be burning our furniture soon.

 

This is such an old-fashioned world view, quite typical of the anti-EU lobby. What you are effectively are saying is: Screw the world, we will do it our own way. Tell me how you think the UK on its own could meet the Kyoto targets? Don't forget here that the independent nations were signatories of the original treaty, it isn't like the EU forced Major (at the time I believe, or was it just about the first thing Blair did?) to sign that treaty.

 

What keeps coming across is this belief that the UK can sort its own stuff out. Well, the newsflash here is: It can't. We are facing global issues, not national issues. Scaling up is the only way to effectively tackle those issues.

[L00b]

Not at all.

 

What's happened here if that tzijlstra suggested as part of a broader discussion that supra-national government was a beautiful thing as we're all just people.

 

I on the other hand think that the diversity of the peoples of the world would suffer under such a model.

You made the EU-led cultural erosion claim. tzijlstra did not engage on this sub-topic of yours.

 

The issue is that you claimed that the EU is favouring a melting pot model which gradually wipes out local or regional cultural identities.

 

The fact of the matter is that you couldn't be further from the truth: whatever you believe or think or are dubious of, the facts are (i) that the EU has been supporting local or regional cultural identities for decades, (ii) that national governments throughout the EU (not just 'multiculturalist Lefty types') have only been too happy to let the EU foot their cultural bill and (iii) that local and regional cultures so-supported have at least endured and, for some, experienced a resurgence.

 

Rest assured I don't expect you to acknowledge the incorrect basis and premise of your claim. I simply expect you too keep dodging and wriggling having to do it. As you have done with the above and the rest of your post. SOP for anti's on here and pretty much everywhere

Edited June 15, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

The matter of how to meet the CO2 targets was made an EU wide issue by all member states, for good reason. It was agreed that tackling the issue made more sense on a European level than on a national level. That does not mean, however (and this is what you seem to interpret it as) that the UK can not decide itself how it meets the targets set by the EU.

 

 

 

Won't go into this too deeply as it is not at the core of this thread, but you are working on old figures. Wind-energy in Northsea bordering nations is quickly becoming more than economically competitive. We happen to have a lot of wind here.

 

 

 

This is such an old-fashioned world view, quite typical of the anti-EU lobby. What you are effectively are saying is: Screw the world, we will do it our own way. Tell me how you think the UK on its own could meet the Kyoto targets? Don't forget here that the independent nations were signatories of the original treaty, it isn't like the EU forced Major (at the time I believe, or was it just about the first thing Blair did?) to sign that treaty.

 

What keeps coming across is this belief that the UK can sort its own stuff out. Well, the newsflash here is: It can't. We are facing global issues, not national issues. Scaling up is the only way to effectively tackle those issues.

 

 

No.

When you include the subsidies for construction, the feed-in tariffs, the carbon taxes and the fossil fuel back-up systems for when the wind doesn't blow, wind is 5-10 times more expensive than fossil fuels. Solar's not much better. Like we don't need electricity at night or when it's cloudy. What are we supposed to do for electricity on a still night, or a still winter's day for that matter.

For heavens sake, we have fossil fuel power stations for all our wind installations constantly running and dropping all the energy they generate on the floor just so that we can pretend to be using renewables. It's ridiculous.

How are we supposed to compete in a global market when our energy costs 2-4 times as much as our competitors and is only set to rise?

The French generate almost all of their electricity from nuclear. We could have done the same. More expensive than fossil, but at least it works. But no. We have to use renewables. The EU in its infinite wisdom has issued an order.

[JFKvsNixon]

No.

When you include the subsidies for construction, the feed-in tariffs, the carbon taxes and the fossil fuel back-up systems for when the wind doesn't blow, wind is 5-10 times more expensive than fossil fuels. Solar's not much better. Like we don't need electricity at night or when it's cloudy. What are we supposed to do for electricity on a still night, or a still winter's day for that matter.

For heavens sake, we have fossil fuel power stations for all our wind installations constantly running and dropping all the energy they generate on the floor just so that we can pretend to be using renewables. It's ridiculous.

How are we supposed to compete in a global market when our energy costs 2-4 times as much as our competitors and is only set to rise?

The French generate almost all of their electricity from nuclear. We could have done the same. More expensive than fossil, but at least it works. But no. We have to use renewables. The EU in its infinite wisdom has issued an order.

 

Can solar power store electricity via batteries, for use when it's dark?