chalga Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 There's no precedent for the return of powers. It's not impossible, but I believe it requires the consent of the other 26 states. Then it can be undone,by negotiation with the other states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Then it can be undone,by negotiation with the other states. It's never happened before and we can't do it unilaterally. It would be very dangerous to assume that we can have these powers back whenever we want if we ask nicely. There'll be some trading involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) It's never happened before and we can't do it unilaterally. It would be very dangerous to assume that we can have these powers back whenever we want if we ask nicely. There'll be some trading involved. Yes,but the point is that you said that it can't be undone,we know that it can,or Cameron would by now be the laughing stock of the EU Edited June 16, 2015 by chalga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Yes,but the point is that you said that it can't be undone,we know that it can,or Cameron would by now be the laughing stock of the EU........and here's how: We've yet to see if it can in reality be done. Negotiating in the context of a close referendum to exit will probably help. Let's see how the PM gets on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 file:///C:/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/SN06153.pdf That file explains how it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) file:///C:/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/SN06153.pdf That file explains how it can be done. That link only works on your computer. It's a local file link. By the way, you really should upgrade from windows xp. It's not secure since microsoft have stopped maintaining it. Edited June 16, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 That's what "variable speed" means in English. If I drive to London at 30 miles an hour, I end up in London. If I drive to London at 60 miles an hour, I end up in London. Then "variable speed" is incorrect terminology. The point is that most EU Member States might be going to London, but a few of us are going elsewhere. We just share the M1 for most of the way How am I being paranoid?By constantly reverting to this image that the EU is "out to get us" Borg-style. It isn't. But even if it was...Brits wouldn't ever let it. Your opinion is valid. You're just wrong in my view.Fine, happy to disagree. In one post, you concede that there is interference by the EU in various areas which you suggested in your previous post were reserved to the UK.Which one You then go on to say that where they've interfered they've done good things. I don't understand how you can deny this.Because you posit it as a logical fallacy. My stance is crystal clear (I'd like to think ): there is no interference by the EU in many core aspects of the UK's governance, there is some interference by the EU in other aspects of the UK's governance, and where some of that interference has taken place, it's been good, and in others, it's not been so good. The sum total, on balance, is that it's significantly better for the UK to be in than out, but it would be still better if we could formalise this constant love-hate thing with Brussels - and eke the most of our economic topdog slot at the negotiating table while we can. As you posted a short while before - let's see what bacon Cameron manages to bring back. Then we'll have a more informed view for discussing the in/out issue further. Where we differ is that I have a reasonable amount of faith that Cameron will pull most of it off. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 That link only works on your computer. It's a local file link. By the way, you really should upgrade from windows xp. It's not secure since microsoft have stopped maintaining it. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06153.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Then "variable speed" is incorrect terminology. The point is that most EU Member States might be going to London, but a few of us are going elsewhere. We just share the M1 for most of the way By constantly reverting to this image that the EU is "out to get us" Borg-style. It isn't. But even if it was...Brits wouldn't ever let it. Fine, happy to disagree. Which one Because you posit it as a logical fallacy. My stance is crystal clear (I'd like to think ): there is no interference by the EU is many core aspects of the UK's governance, there is some interference by the EU in other aspects of the UK's governance, and where some of that interference has taken place, it's been good, and in others, it's not been so good. The sum total, on balance, is that it's significantly better for the UK to be in than out, but it would be still better if we could formalise this constant love-hate thing with Brussels - and eke the most of our economic topdog slot at the negotiating table while we can. We are the EU. You will be assimilated. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. That's a great idea for the "Out" ad campaign. Thanks. I'm thinking Juncker as the Borg Queen. P.S. The phrase "variable speed" was yours. Edited June 16, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) The sum total, on balance, is that it's significantly better for the UK to be in than out. You say; but more authoritative, named, sources disprove it. Try Prof. Tim Congdon of the Financial Times for a start! Edited June 16, 2015 by Jeffrey Shaw Correcting spelling of his surname Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts