EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[unbeliever]

You say; but more authoritative, named, sources disprove it.

Try Prof. Tim Congden of the Financial Times for a start!

 

Oh goodie. Somebody on my side. I was beginning to feel rather outnumbered. Thanks.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Here's more about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Congdon

[unbeliever]

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.

 

Surely I've already shown you that at least most the areas you listed in which the UK government was supposedly sovereign have been at least partially transferred to the EU.

You can't just look at the directives already issued. This is a long term thing. You also ought to consider the directives they have the power to issue.

[JFKvsNixon]

Try Prof. Tim Congdon of the Financial Times for a start!

 

Do you think that he's a bit politically biased on the subject? He's stood as an MP for UKIP and also stood for the leadership of the party.

[unbeliever]

Here's more about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Congdon

 

We haven't talked much yet about the economic case and I think we've done the constitutional issues to death.

 

I'm far less well read in the economic case myself, but I have put forward the point the the regulatory compliance costs are high and that the very high energy costs created by the renewable energy directive are clearly damaging to our productivity.

 

There's also the matter of free trade agreements. The EU has been trying to organise a free trade agreement with the US since 1990 and has yet to get one. In the mean time, the US has signed free trade agreements with any number of other countries. What on earth are they up to?

Does anybody seriously contend that an independent UK could not have organised a free trade agreement with the US in that time.

Edited June 16, 2015 by unbeliever

[L00b]

Surely I've already shown you that at least most the areas you listed in which the UK government was supposedly sovereign have been at least partially transferred to the EU.

Surely I have shown you in reply that what little transfer of 'sovereignty' there has actually been in respect of budgetary control, defence, social welfare and infrastructure to the EU is less than negligible -and inconsequential- insofar as the UK is concerned.

 

My answer for any country in the € club would have been totally different, of course.

You can't just look at the directives already issued. This is a long term thing. You also ought to consider the directives they have the power to issue.

When you yourself start considering the UK's numerous opt-outs, I'll start considering the EU directives which the EU has the power to issue (what might those be, by the way? my crystal ball is borked, so some context might be useful) and the EU directives which the UK has the power to kickstart within the democratic framework of the EU legislative system and the EU directives which the UK already has the power to opt out of. Fair enough?

P.S. The phrase "variable speed" was yours.

I know. Did you think somehow that I'm incapable of self-criticism?

You say; but more authoritative, named, sources disprove it.

And a non-trivial number of at least equally authoritative, named, sources prove it. Named academic sources that have not stood for any election, never mind under UKIP colours. That debate has been had to death already in the UKIP threads. Feel free to link to them. Edited June 16, 2015 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

Oh dear. I thought I'd explained this. I'll try again.

 

Under normal circumstances, anything one UK parliament does can be undone by a later parliament. A transfer of power to the EU cannot.

 

The UK people are about to vote in a referendum on the idea that they're choosing whether or not to be in a trading block, not a superstate. I think they're actually signing up for the latter and they really ought to be told.

 

Half the pro-EU people are telling us to vote in because they think it's a trading block and therefore not a constitutional threat and half are telling us to vote in because a superstate is a good thing.

 

What do you still not understand?

 

I don't understand where you get the idea that it would be necessary to climb down from directives previously agreed to from.

 

How many laws instituted by the UK parliament are backed down from over time? Why would the UK want to repeal acts it agreed to when they were designed?

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:23 ----------

 

Oh goodie. Somebody on my side. I was beginning to feel rather outnumbered. Thanks.

 

Yay! You found a UKIP candidate for Sheffield Council!

 

No need to feel isolated, your opinion is not rare. It is just that some on this forum who like to argue against the EU are rather stunted in their vocabulary and are probably trying to come up with clever one-liners whilst the debate rages on.

[chalga]

We haven't talked much yet about the economic case and I think we've done the constitutional issues to death.

 

I'm far less well read in the economic case myself, but I have put forward the point the the regulatory compliance costs are high and that the very high energy costs created by the renewable energy directive are clearly damaging to our productivity.

 

There's also the matter of free trade agreements. The EU has been trying to organise a free trade agreement with the US since 1990 and has yet to get one. In the mean time, the US has signed free trade agreements with any number of other countries. What on earth are they up to?

Does anybody seriously contend that an independent UK could not have organised a free trade agreement with the US in that time.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/freedom-from-the-eu-why-britain-and-the-us-should-pursue-a-usuk-free-trade-area

 

 

The fundamental obstacles to a U.S.–U.K. free trade area are political. On the U.S. side, the obstacle is simple: The Obama Administration, like most other post-war U.S. administrations, wants Britain to remain a member of the European Union. Showing any willingness to negotiate a free trade area with the U.K. would be tantamount to approving of Britain’s exit from the union. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the current administration will make a move in that direction. Indeed, the Administration’s approach so far has been to use the threat of denying Britain the trade advantages that will supposedly flow from a TTIP to encourage it to remain in the EU.[2]

Edited June 16, 2015 by chalga

[unbeliever]

I don't understand where you get the idea that it would be necessary to climb down from directives previously agreed to from.

 

How many laws instituted by the UK parliament are backed down from over time? Why would the UK want to repeal acts it agreed to when they were designed?

 

Lots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Repealed_United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament

 

P.S. The UK doesn't have to agree to an EU directive if the competence has been transferred. We're bound by it automatically.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:42 ----------

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/freedom-from-the-eu-why-britain-and-the-us-should-pursue-a-usuk-free-trade-area

 

 

The fundamental obstacles to a U.S.–U.K. free trade area are political. On the U.S. side, the obstacle is simple: The Obama Administration, like most other post-war U.S. administrations, wants Britain to remain a member of the European Union. Showing any willingness to negotiate a free trade area with the U.K. would be tantamount to approving of Britain’s exit from the union. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the current administration will make a move in that direction. Indeed, the Administration’s approach so far has been to use the threat of denying Britain the trade advantages that will supposedly flow from a TTIP to encourage it to remain in the EU.[2]

 

Obama will be president for about another 10 minutes.

This has been dragging on since 1990.

[I1L2T3]

We haven't talked much yet about the economic case and I think we've done the constitutional issues to death.

 

I'm far less well read in the economic case myself, but I have put forward the point the the regulatory compliance costs are high and that the very high energy costs created by the renewable energy directive are clearly damaging to our productivity.

 

There's also the matter of free trade agreements. The EU has been trying to organise a free trade agreement with the US since 1990 and has yet to get one. In the mean time, the US has signed free trade agreements with any number of other countries. What on earth are they up to?

Does anybody seriously contend that an independent UK could not have organised a free trade agreement with the US in that time.

 

It's the economic case that will swing it either way. At the end of the day people care more about that than anything else.

 

We're still waiting for any positive assessment of how exit would affect us economically. Ukip don't even mention the possible impact on economic growth. Ever. They know!

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:51 ----------

 

Lots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Repealed_United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament

 

P.S. The UK doesn't have to agree to an EU directive if the competence has been transferred. We're bound by it automatically.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:42 ----------

 

 

Obama will be president for about another 10 minutes.

This has been dragging on since 1990.

 

US foreign policy won't change. It wants and needs a strong Europe. Letting it fragment is against its interests, especially as we enter a new phase of cold war.

Edited June 16, 2015 by I1L2T3