EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[JFKvsNixon]

Right because that's what happened before the CFP.

Throwing dead fish back into the sea sorted it I suppose.

 

So you believe that we should have waited until we had used up all our fish stocks until we acted?

 

---------- Post added 09-06-2016 at 17:58 ----------

 

And that's something that needs changing urgently. Surely we should stay in the EU and change it from within? Whats going to happen if we leave? Our dozen or so fishing boats stop doing it and we watch the Spanish et keep doing it outside our waters?

 

How else can we manage our fish stocks without strict quotas?

[tinfoilhat]

So you believe that we should have waited until we had used up all our fish stocks until we acted?

 

---------- Post added 09-06-2016 at 17:58 ----------

 

 

How else can we manage our fish stocks without strict quotas?

 

Fish less.

 

Tipping fish away is an awful waste, but we're in the position of daft laws like this because we've already emptied the north sea. We need better laws than the ones we have.

[sutty27]

If your employment is dependent on his company. Then yes, he would obviously know what is important compared to so other average person.

 

So his opinion should only sway those he employs assuming they think their employment is more important than other issues.

[unbeliever]

In a situation where sovereignty is pooled we get an equal say as every other country. Generally as a big country most things will be in our favour. Some won't but hey ho on balance we benefit

 

Sovereignty is only pooled for some policy areas, not all. We retain a veto on many policy areas.

 

This explains it well:

http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100336931

 

We lost a lot of vetoes with Lisbon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas

A veto is something. It means we can see that a thing is not done. Doesn't restore the facility to do things.

 

I'm well aware of the definition of pooled sovereignty. As far as I can tell it's an exercise in spin invented for or by the EU to make transfer of sovereignty more palatable. All I am saying is that once you have "pooled sovereignty", you no longer have it. It resides with the organisation into which it has been pooled. It is therefore lost.

[I1L2T3]

We lost a lot of vetoes with Lisbon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Policy_areas

A veto is something. It means we can see that a thing is not done. Doesn't restore the facility to do things.

 

I'm well aware of the definition of pooled sovereignty. All I am saying is that once you have pooled sovereignty, you no longer have it. It resides with the organisation into which it has been pooled. It is therefore lost.

 

Of course you still have it but have chosen to use it in a certain way. We haven't given away sovereignty to the EU. It isn't the EU's to keep. It isn't 'lost'.

 

We can bring decision making in house again any time we want, without any interference from the EU. There we have lost nothing.

 

I'm glad you are taking a softer, more sensible line now and have dropped the 'surrender to the yoke of the EU superstate' angle

 

More on how pooling works here:

https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

[tinfoilhat]

Why do we only have a dozen or so fishing boats?

 

Why do you think?

 

THERE ISNT ENOUGH FISH.

[JFKvsNixon]

Fish less.

 

Tipping fish away is an awful waste, but we're in the position of daft laws like this because we've already emptied the north sea. We need better laws than the ones we have.

 

I understand your concerns, but how else can we manage fishing boats who have met their quotas?

[tinfoilhat]

I understand your concerns, but how else can we manage fishing boats who have met their quotas?

 

I don't know. Im not an expert sadly, I wish I was. But it is total lunacy to catch fish and throw dead ones over the side, that can't be helping anyone or anything. A dead fish is a dead fish whether its over the side or on a plate. Reduce the EU fleet a bit more, offer some of the subsidies farmers get - I don't know, as I said I'm not an expert.

[unbeliever]

Of course you still have it but have chosen to use it in a certain way. We haven't given away sovereignty to the EU. It isn't the EU's to keep. It isn't 'lost'.

 

We can bring decision making in house again any time we want, without any interference from the EU. There we have lost nothing.

 

I'm glad you are taking a softer, more sensible line now and have dropped the 'surrender to the yoke of the EU superstate' angle

 

More on how pooling works here:

https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

 

I may be feeling moe diplomatic, but I haven't changed my mind. I don't think I ever said anything along the lines of 'surrender to the yoke of the EU superstate'.

I do think that the EU is heading toward a super-state. In fact it must. This single currency, multiple treasury approach is fundamentally unworkable and can only be a stepping stone toward full fiscal union.

We can take our sovereignty back, yes. That's what this referendum is about. We don't have it now.

Edited June 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[ez8004]

So his opinion should only sway those he employs assuming they think their employment is more important than other issues.

 

So what you are saying is, we should vote to leave even if it costs our jobs and livelihoods.