EU Referendum Poll - Final Call
Poll: EU Referendum Poll - Final Call
Total Members Polled: 803
Discussion
TroubledSoul said:
don4l said:
The opposite is more likely.
Take the German manufacturers, for example.
They export twice as many cars to the UK as we export to them. If we Brexit without a trade deal, then cars made in Germany will attract an import duty of 10%.
BMW would have to either accept the 10% levy, or they could increase production here. Which do you think is more likely?
Valid point, but what about the Japanese manufacturers? Take the German manufacturers, for example.
They export twice as many cars to the UK as we export to them. If we Brexit without a trade deal, then cars made in Germany will attract an import duty of 10%.
BMW would have to either accept the 10% levy, or they could increase production here. Which do you think is more likely?
John145 said:
lostkiwi said:
He serves a term of office which expires in 2019 at that point we lobby our representatives not to re-elect him. Please advise of a way we can sack David Cameron before his term is up?
Popular mandate.So, we cannot sack Junker.
And you think that is democracy. Fool.
The fingers-in-ears must be the most frustrating part of the EU debate for me, and BOTH sides are guilty of it.
John145 said:
lostkiwi said:
John145 said:
lostkiwi said:
He serves a term of office which expires in 2019 at that point we lobby our representatives not to re-elect him. Please advise of a way we can sack David Cameron before his term is up?
Popular mandate.So, we cannot sack Junker.
And you think that is democracy. Fool.
And how is it different from any of our homegrown politicians?
The UK's government is so damn simple in comparison.
We have the head of state, the Queen. She employs a government to enact the will of the people.
The Government is elected in a first past the post system. These MPs propose, edit and retract less than 50% of our laws (I'd prefer 100%). Before they become law the House of Lords can block them.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/legisl...
Note laws can be proposed by the European Parliament, Citizens or other bodies.
They then go down the houses for approval and can be rejected at any point.
The Council is made up of elected MPs from each member state and to pass it either needs unanimous agreement or if deemed to be a majority vote 18 countries agreeing with those 18 comprising at least 65% of the EU population.
Voting at all levels is strictly proportional representation (the most democratic method possible).
By comparison Westminister with its first past the post system can create the situation where a government is formed with less votes than the opposition. But apparently that's democratic.
John145 said:
The HoL is no democratically elected - but they cannot make, edit or retract laws. They can only block laws coming in (which they do rarely).
So an unelected body can block laws we want and that's democratic? And the Royal family? They weren't elected and they can block laws and have. But apparently that's democratic too?John145 said:
Can you please summarise how the EU works in 6 sentences?
Go look in the link in the post I made in reply to you at 14:13. Its all explained there. I'm not going to summarise it for you. You're old enough to read for yourself.
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
Note laws can be proposed by the European Parliament, Citizens or other bodies..
Not directly they can't. They are proposed to the Commission who then decide if they go to Parliament. lostkiwi said:
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
Note laws can be proposed by the European Parliament, Citizens or other bodies..
Not directly they can't. They are proposed to the Commission who then decide if they go to Parliament. So to bring it to the UK comparison. The House of Lords vets any new legislation and decides if the elected House of Commons gets to discuss it let alone having any change of actually being enacted.
People wake up VoteLeave
Timmy40 said:
For me it didn't start out as immigration but has become so. The forecast of 6m new migrants from within the EU over the next 15-20 years if we reamin.
Those 6m people who because they are mobile and of working age ( generally those who migrate ) will compete directly with my children for jobs, houses, healthcare and other resources. And I'm sorry but we were here first.
Remainers will say that of course having control of our own borders and not being subject to automatic right to free movement of those 6m won't help us stop them coming. Frankly I don't believe that for a minute.
We need migration, but not the current uncontrolled migration that we have.
You guys are aware that like Switzerland, Iceland and Norway we'll almost certainly continue with freedom of movement for EU residents in order to remain able to trade freely. All of this mucking around so we can have our special snowflake badge that says we're not part of the EU.Those 6m people who because they are mobile and of working age ( generally those who migrate ) will compete directly with my children for jobs, houses, healthcare and other resources. And I'm sorry but we were here first.
Remainers will say that of course having control of our own borders and not being subject to automatic right to free movement of those 6m won't help us stop them coming. Frankly I don't believe that for a minute.
We need migration, but not the current uncontrolled migration that we have.
don4l said:
TroubledSoul said:
What happens when all of the big industry i.e. car manufacturers etc. relocate to mainland Europe, thus decimating the North East and other areas reliant on the local factories? This WILL happen if we leave.
The opposite is more likely.Take the German manufacturers, for example.
They export twice as many cars to the UK as we export to them. If we Brexit without a trade deal, then cars made in Germany will attract an import duty of 10%.
BMW would have to either accept the 10% levy, or they could increase production here. Which do you think is more likely?
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
Note laws can be proposed by the European Parliament, Citizens or other bodies..
Not directly they can't. They are proposed to the Commission who then decide if they go to Parliament. So to bring it to the UK comparison. The House of Lords vets any new legislation and decides if the elected House of Commons gets to discuss it let alone having any change of actually being enacted.
People wake up VoteLeave
What was the problem there?
lostkiwi said:
And by not doing as the Council/Parliament wants they get themselves canned for any reappointment. Same as any democracy.
What was the problem there?
Lack of transparency and accountability. A UK PM could reappoint a Commissioner who routinely ignores opposition party MEPs. What was the problem there?
MEPs need to be able to directly propose legislation in a form similar to the UK's private members Bills, anything less is unacceptable.
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
And by not doing as the Council/Parliament wants they get themselves canned for any reappointment. Same as any democracy.
What was the problem there?
Lack of transparency and accountability. A UK PM could reappoint a Commissioner who routinely ignores opposition party MEPs. What was the problem there?
MEPs need to be able to directly propose legislation in a form similar to the UK's private members Bills, anything less is unacceptable.
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
And by not doing as the Council/Parliament wants they get themselves canned for any reappointment. Same as any democracy.
What was the problem there?
Lack of transparency and accountability. A UK PM could reappoint a Commissioner who routinely ignores opposition party MEPs. What was the problem there?
MEPs need to be able to directly propose legislation in a form similar to the UK's private members Bills, anything less is unacceptable.
As for your other point surely that's not significantly different to how people are appointed to the HoL at the moment.
Finding the debate quite enjoyable, surprisingly!
Again though, there appears to be lots of good and bad points on both sides. I think it really is going to be a case of just deciding what you want on a personal basis and which result you think will deliver that.
I'm just worried about making the wrong decision to be honest. My gut feeling is that the only reason to vote Brexit is to get back control of the immigration situation. I'm as yet unconvinced that this is enough on its own.
The argument about laws etc. is a good one but as stated by other posters, it isn't as black and white as some foreigners in the EU telling us what's what.
Again though, there appears to be lots of good and bad points on both sides. I think it really is going to be a case of just deciding what you want on a personal basis and which result you think will deliver that.
I'm just worried about making the wrong decision to be honest. My gut feeling is that the only reason to vote Brexit is to get back control of the immigration situation. I'm as yet unconvinced that this is enough on its own.
The argument about laws etc. is a good one but as stated by other posters, it isn't as black and white as some foreigners in the EU telling us what's what.
Awful lot of guff being talked about trade tariffs.
They are designed to equalise production costs and there will be no reason or incentive to punish/penalise either Britain or Germany. At the moment I pay 16.6% import duty on goods I import into Rotterdam from South America for distribution all over the EU. If we leave I am quite sure I will continue to pay 16.6% import duty on imports into the UK but I will have to consider whether it is easier to bring separate consignments direct to the UK from Brazil. But it won't be a problem.
For cars we either have a situation where we charge 10% on imported BMWs and the Germans charge 10% on imported Jaguars or, far more likely, they will just agree on a 0% tariff both ways.
I was trading goods around Europe before the single market and everything worked fine. It is easier being in the single market but we would soon get used to being out of it. However once UK goods have been shipped to say Holland and imported there they will still be able to be distributed to the remaining part of the EU. The talk that we will lose access to the single market is more guff. We won't - if it's good for Holland it becomes good for the whole EU.
I'm in though.
They are designed to equalise production costs and there will be no reason or incentive to punish/penalise either Britain or Germany. At the moment I pay 16.6% import duty on goods I import into Rotterdam from South America for distribution all over the EU. If we leave I am quite sure I will continue to pay 16.6% import duty on imports into the UK but I will have to consider whether it is easier to bring separate consignments direct to the UK from Brazil. But it won't be a problem.
For cars we either have a situation where we charge 10% on imported BMWs and the Germans charge 10% on imported Jaguars or, far more likely, they will just agree on a 0% tariff both ways.
I was trading goods around Europe before the single market and everything worked fine. It is easier being in the single market but we would soon get used to being out of it. However once UK goods have been shipped to say Holland and imported there they will still be able to be distributed to the remaining part of the EU. The talk that we will lose access to the single market is more guff. We won't - if it's good for Holland it becomes good for the whole EU.
I'm in though.
TroubledSoul said:
Finding the debate quite enjoyable, surprisingly!
Again though, there appears to be lots of good and bad points on both sides. I think it really is going to be a case of just deciding what you want on a personal basis and which result you think will deliver that.
I'm just worried about making the wrong decision to be honest. My gut feeling is that the only reason to vote Brexit is to get back control of the immigration situation. I'm as yet unconvinced that this is enough on its own.
The argument about laws etc. is a good one but as stated by other posters, it isn't as black and white as some foreigners in the EU telling us what's what.
There is a lot of good unbiased information on fullfact.org. This is a charity and by law it cannot take sides so is about as unbiased as I've found. Again though, there appears to be lots of good and bad points on both sides. I think it really is going to be a case of just deciding what you want on a personal basis and which result you think will deliver that.
I'm just worried about making the wrong decision to be honest. My gut feeling is that the only reason to vote Brexit is to get back control of the immigration situation. I'm as yet unconvinced that this is enough on its own.
The argument about laws etc. is a good one but as stated by other posters, it isn't as black and white as some foreigners in the EU telling us what's what.
Well worth a read to help you decide what the best course is in your mind and how it affects your priorities.
zbc said:
CaptainSlow said:
lostkiwi said:
And by not doing as the Council/Parliament wants they get themselves canned for any reappointment. Same as any democracy.
What was the problem there?
Lack of transparency and accountability. A UK PM could reappoint a Commissioner who routinely ignores opposition party MEPs. What was the problem there?
MEPs need to be able to directly propose legislation in a form similar to the UK's private members Bills, anything less is unacceptable.
As for your other point surely that's not significantly different to how people are appointed to the HoL at the moment.
eta..new Lords of all parties obviously, otherwise if we had a long period with either Tory or Labour in power the make up of the Lords would change which would be stupid.
Edited by CaptainSlow on Monday 20th June 16:20
TroubledSoul said:
I'm just worried about making the wrong decision to be honest. My gut feeling is that the only reason to vote Brexit is to get back control of the immigration situation. I'm as yet unconvinced that this is enough on its own.
I worry that the government still wouldn't do this though. It would certainly have strengthened DCs hand in the debate if he had been keeping non EU immigration under more control now but he's failed to do even this. I'm sure none of the other parties would be any stronger.One of the reasons I'm a remainer is that I've taken the opportunity to live and work in the EU although I'm about to head back so it's hard for me to criticise the immigration policy. I think the solution is doing more about managing the benefits that immigrants can claim, making the UK less attractive as a destination.
lostkiwi said:
Norfolkit said:
lostkiwi said:
Please advise of a way we can sack David Cameron before his term is up?
Vote Leave on Thursday
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff