Discussion
Moominho said:
People who want to exit the EU seem a lot more passionate and emotive about the issue than people who want to stay in my experience.
I would tend to disagree with that notion - from what I have seen the extremes on both sides are as On balance I'm also for a Brexit. I believe that EFTA is great and should be something we need to be part of however this whole "look at the advantages no borders has. You can drive from England to (potentially) the Turkish/Georgian border on you holidays" argument that the pro-EU people put forward is actually insulting to our intelligence.
On the trading side of things if we could re-connect trading-wise with the Commonwealth (not guaranteed given how we shafted them in '74) that would provide a far larger trading block than the EU bound together by a common trading language and (in most cases) a similar legal framework and shared values.
One of the "pro" people on here mentioned we have control over our borders..... well yes and no. There have been a few tragic cases of crimes committed by EU nationals who had every right to be here (something out of our control) so the whole control over our borders does seem to be somewhat unclear.
On the plus side of things I am sure that the EU does offer benefits as well....
Bluebarge said:
I understand exactly how it works, but you are being disingenuous at best if you are claiming that a lack of democracy is what justifies Brexit. The European Parliament lacks real teeth because national parliaments (with the UK at the forefront) don't want to give it more teeth. If you want more direct democracy in the EU at central EU level then you can certainly have it, but only at the expense of further integration and less power for Westminster. Which I suspect is what you don't want. So why complain about a situation which you actually want? Baffling.
That isn't entirely true, at least to my understanding. The European parliament doesn't even have much power over the areas that are entirely EU competences, such as external trade. You couldn't vote for party or group that would simply cancale TTIP if they won a majority, because all the power to initiate lies with the commission. You could vote in a parliament who would vote against it but then if the commission really want it they will just get revised versions until they pass it.This is very different to voting for MPs who support a government with a specific legislative programme.
An elected President would be more 'democratic' but that is a nonsense IMO because there is no European demos, and no way of truly building one with dozens of different languages and vastly diverse countries and interests competing against each other.
Scuffers said:
ATG said:
Pure fantasy. Talk to anyone who had actually been involved in a trade negotiation if the UK's position would be strengthened by leaving the EU. They will laugh in your face and possibly then burst into tears.
That's tosh.We are a consumer nation
Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 1st December 08:11
AJS- said:
That isn't entirely true, at least to my understanding. The European parliament doesn't even have much power over the areas that are entirely EU competences, such as external trade. You couldn't vote for party or group that would simply cancale TTIP if they won a majority, because all the power to initiate lies with the commission. You could vote in a parliament who would vote against it but then if the commission really want it they will just get revised versions until they pass it.
This is very different to voting for MPs who support a government with a specific legislative programme.
An elected President would be more 'democratic' but that is a nonsense IMO because there is no European demos, and no way of truly building one with dozens of different languages and vastly diverse countries and interests competing against each other.
The European Parliament has been given the power national parliaments and electorates are happy to give it. It could become a fully-functioning legislature like the House of Commons but then we would have a United States of Europe and no need for Westminster or national governments. That is the precise opposite of what Eurosceptics want (and there are very few Eurofederalists who are actually in favour of going that far) so it seems bizarre to cite a "lack of democracy" as being an argument for more Brexit. Eurosceptics really don't want more democracy in Brussels.This is very different to voting for MPs who support a government with a specific legislative programme.
An elected President would be more 'democratic' but that is a nonsense IMO because there is no European demos, and no way of truly building one with dozens of different languages and vastly diverse countries and interests competing against each other.
Bluebarge said:
No. He's right. We are a much smaller trade bloc than the EU. The US have already said they have no interest in negotiating a separate deal with the UK and would prefer we remain in the EU. Why would any of our trading partners express joy at having to spend years negotiating a new deal with a small country that is outside the Single Market? Why would they give us preferential treatment? In the real world, they wouldn't.
Do you actually have any those facts you are so keen of behind your bluster, or are you going to keep speculating?Why would we need to ask for preferential treatment, initially we could maintain the EU terms.
Bluebarge said:
No. He's right. We are a much smaller trade bloc than the EU. The US have already said they have no interest in negotiating a separate deal with the UK and would prefer we remain in the EU. Why would any of our trading partners express joy at having to spend years negotiating a new deal with a small country that is outside the Single Market? Why would they give us preferential treatment? In the real world, they wouldn't.
no, he's wrong, and so was the EU paid shrill from the US that said that.the UK is the 5th largest economy on the planet, we are a consumer nation, you think that any country would not want to trade with the UK as a separate nation? let alone the US.
I find it simply staggering that people like you seem to not understand basic concepts like this, may I remind you that politicians do not make trade happen, they usually just get in the way.
We currently do some $54Bn in imports and just shy of that in exports with the US (2014 numbers), this is growing rapidly, unlike our trade with the rest of the EU.
this trade is without any trade deal, just imagine what it could be with a bi-lateral deal or even something as simple as us joining NAFTA, however, even if we get no trade deal, our current rising level of trade with all the tariffs is very encouraging.
Bluebarge said:
Scuffers said:
ATG said:
Pure fantasy. Talk to anyone who had actually been involved in a trade negotiation if the UK's position would be strengthened by leaving the EU. They will laugh in your face and possibly then burst into tears.
That's tosh.We are a consumer nation
Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 1st December 08:11
It might have also escaped your notice but as scuffers said we are an importing nation (with seemingly an insatiable appetite for German goods in particular) and you can bet your last little € that DaimlerBenz, Siemens etc would not be happy at losing one of their largest markets....
Bluebarge said:
The European Parliament has been given the power national parliaments and electorates are happy to give it. It could become a fully-functioning legislature like the House of Commons but then we would have a United States of Europe and no need for Westminster or national governments. That is the precise opposite of what Eurosceptics want (and there are very few Eurofederalists who are actually in favour of going that far) so it seems bizarre to cite a "lack of democracy" as being an argument for more Brexit. Eurosceptics really don't want more democracy in Brussels.
It's not really the balance between the Euro parliament and national governments that's the undemocratic part though, it's the balance between the parliament and the commission.Giving the parliament power to initiate legislation would require a huge treaty renegotiation and essentially the abolition of the Commission, or at least a massive, fundamental change in it's remit. It would take a hell of a lot more than a bit of pro-EU spirit from Britain.
It would also make European elections meaningful, which opens up the reason that I and I would guess many other people who are against the EU are indeed against democracy in Brussels. There is simply no European demos. How can you possibly have a debate about the legislative programme of the government of the whole continent with Romania, Sweden, Portugal and all the rest? Or trying to unpick the web of which interest groups are backing which parties?
The simple reality is that this would end up as national election campaigns which would bear no relationship to the eventual legislative programme agreed in the post election coalition building negotiations.
The better alternative would be an elected President, which was floated a few years ago and no-one wanted except the aspiring Presidents. This might just about have worked with the EU 15, but even then it's a stretch. Just language alone would exclude millions from any sort of debate.
gareth_r said:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN1.php
The Commission is the driving force of the EU and has many different responsibilities. It is the only institution that has the power to propose EU laws and is also responsible for enforcing them. It operates at a supranational level and manages much of the day-to-day running of the EU. It has the financial powers to draft the EU budget and distribute EU money to member states. It also has a role representing all the members collectively in the negotiation of treaties and the enlargement of the EU. It sits in on all decisions made about common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs policy and when members don't implement EU law, it can take legal action against them. It has often been a focus for public attention because of its far reaching powers and the fact that it is not directly accountable to the electorate, leading to claims of a democratic deficit.
The economic arguments can be spun to suit whichever side is making their claims. One thing's for sure, Britain would be "OK outside of Europe" as Cameron admitted recently. We may or may not be as well off initially, but it's the above which puts me in favour of Brexit.The Commission is the driving force of the EU and has many different responsibilities. It is the only institution that has the power to propose EU laws and is also responsible for enforcing them. It operates at a supranational level and manages much of the day-to-day running of the EU. It has the financial powers to draft the EU budget and distribute EU money to member states. It also has a role representing all the members collectively in the negotiation of treaties and the enlargement of the EU. It sits in on all decisions made about common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs policy and when members don't implement EU law, it can take legal action against them. It has often been a focus for public attention because of its far reaching powers and the fact that it is not directly accountable to the electorate, leading to claims of a democratic deficit.
An unelected, unaccountable body that is responsible for negotiating trade, foreign policy, security and that comes up with laws it then graciously allows member states to vote on. Then enforces those laws, whether or not the state voted for it, or if it's in that state's interest. That is not democracy, which is a cornerstone of British society, starting with Magna Carta and slowly declining with each new treaty from the EU.
To quote Tony Benn; "How do we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system, only democracy gives us that right. That is why no one with power likes democracy. And that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it—including you and me, here and now"
Bluebarge said:
No. He's right. We are a much smaller trade bloc than the EU. The US have already said they have no interest in negotiating a separate deal with the UK and would prefer we remain in the EU. Why would any of our trading partners express joy at having to spend years negotiating a new deal with a small country that is outside the Single Market? Why would they give us preferential treatment? In the real world, they wouldn't.
This is pure scaremongering.The US has not said that it would not negotiate a trade deal with us.
The UK is the fifth largest enonomy on Earth. We are currently unable to negotiate our own trade deals. Instead, we have to rely on Brussels, and hope that they will put our interests above those of Germany or France.
Europe is the only major trading bloc that is in decline. Our trade with the rest of the world is increasing. We would be far better off doing deals with the rapidly expanding economies of the Commonwealth than staying in the stagnating EU.
CaptainSlow said:
Why would we need to ask for preferential treatment, initially we could maintain the EU terms.
We couldn't maintain anything unless the other side agrees. All the trade benefits we have now come as a result of being part of the EU bloc. We are the 5th biggest economy in the World but we may find it difficult to remain so if we are outside the Single Market and in a state of flux whilst we either have to cope with arbitrary tariffs or spend time trying to negotiate multiple trade agreements from a position of weakness. Don't forget we do 45% of our trade with the EU, the EU does 10% of its trade with us. The same imbalance exists with other trade blocs - we rely on goods from many other countries but no-one relies on goods/services from us.That's rather the point that the Sceptics miss - they trumpet our position of strength as an economy but rather forget what it is built on.
Bluebarge said:
I understand exactly how it works, but you are being disingenuous at best if you are claiming that a lack of democracy is what justifies Brexit. The European Parliament lacks real teeth because national parliaments (with the UK at the forefront) don't want to give it more teeth. If you want more direct democracy in the EU at central EU level then you can certainly have it, but only at the expense of further integration and less power for Westminster. Which I suspect is what you don't want. So why complain about a situation which you actually want? Baffling.
Quite.The real power in the EU is certainly not its Parliament (which is why it is a bit of a waste of time), nor the Commission (who are glorified civil servants). The real power sits squarely with the Council of Ministers ... i.e. direct representatives of each member state's government. So when there's a serious economic issue to discuss all the EU's finance ministers get together with the UK represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or one of his ministers. It's a democratic process in which each member state's interest are represented by a member of their own government.
Given most people in the UK seem to want the EU to be a collection of sovereign states, you might think they'd be pretty happy with that.
I have never understood why people claim there is a democratic deficit in the EU or that membership entails a loss of power. Like joining any club you are bound by its rules, but in turn you can help determine those rules and they are applied to all members. So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.
irocfan said:
Bluebarge said:
Scuffers said:
ATG said:
Pure fantasy. Talk to anyone who had actually been involved in a trade negotiation if the UK's position would be strengthened by leaving the EU. They will laugh in your face and possibly then burst into tears.
That's tosh.We are a consumer nation
Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 1st December 08:11
It might have also escaped your notice but as scuffers said we are an importing nation (with seemingly an insatiable appetite for German goods in particular) and you can bet your last little € that DaimlerBenz, Siemens etc would not be happy at losing one of their largest markets....
SHURELY SHOME MISTHAKE?
Bluebarge said:
We couldn't maintain anything unless the other side agrees. All the trade benefits we have now come as a result of being part of the EU bloc. We are the 5th biggest economy in the World but we may find it difficult to remain so if we are outside the Single Market and in a state of flux whilst we either have to cope with arbitrary tariffs or spend time trying to negotiate multiple trade agreements from a position of weakness.
Total speculation. You think that the UK and US would implement trading barriers? I don't think so.If the US can agree trading agreements with an EU that includes historically protectionist countries an agreement with the UK would be relatively straight forward.
Bluebarge said:
Don't forget we do 45% of our trade with the EU, the EU does 10% of its trade with us. The same imbalance exists with other trade blocs - we rely on goods from many other countries but no-one relies on goods/services from us.
Lies, lies and damn statistics. Covert those %s into real £s and see if there is an imbalance. Maybe even compare the trading relationships of the UK and Germany or the UK and France as they will be dictating the UK/EU trading agreements to the rest of the EU.The Europhiles seem to think the UK only starting trading globally after joining the EEC!!
otolith said:
ATG said:
So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.
Can you explain the mechanism by which, say, imposing our will on the French makes us more free?otolith said:
ATG said:
So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.
Can you explain the mechanism by which, say, imposing our will on the French makes us more free?otolith said:
ATG said:
So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.
Can you explain the mechanism by which, say, imposing our will on the French makes us more free?Christ on a bike I've seen some twisted and mendacious arguments for staying in the EU but some of the stuff on this thread takes the biscuits. To argue that any Euro-sceptic is actually arguing for more democracy "in Brussels is just so risible as to destroy anything else posted by that individual as worthy of consideration. Then for another to say they don't see or understand why constututional experts say there's a democratic deficit shows another lack of something.
Flexcit, all the way. The public never voted for this originally, nor in any General Election have voted into power for any party with a clear electoral manifesto to take us down this route. Indeed look at the history back in the immediate post war scenario when the roots of the EU were being formulated, Churchill and Britain repeatedly made clear that whilst we would be supportive we would never be a part of a United States of Europe.
If one also looks at the history of the world where disparate nations with different cultures, languages, religions, and all the other things which cause people to band together and call themselves a nation, have been banded and often bullied into one common conglomeration, that ultimately when times get difficult it all turns awkward and people look after their own. Time and again it's happened and it will happen with the EU. The leaders have time and again demonstrated a remarkable lack of competence in so many ways over the years.
As above Flexcit all the way. Done with the EU, unless of course a referendum decision is to stay in, at which point the democratic decision has to be accepted.
Flexcit, all the way. The public never voted for this originally, nor in any General Election have voted into power for any party with a clear electoral manifesto to take us down this route. Indeed look at the history back in the immediate post war scenario when the roots of the EU were being formulated, Churchill and Britain repeatedly made clear that whilst we would be supportive we would never be a part of a United States of Europe.
If one also looks at the history of the world where disparate nations with different cultures, languages, religions, and all the other things which cause people to band together and call themselves a nation, have been banded and often bullied into one common conglomeration, that ultimately when times get difficult it all turns awkward and people look after their own. Time and again it's happened and it will happen with the EU. The leaders have time and again demonstrated a remarkable lack of competence in so many ways over the years.
As above Flexcit all the way. Done with the EU, unless of course a referendum decision is to stay in, at which point the democratic decision has to be accepted.
CaptainSlow said:
otolith said:
ATG said:
So the freedom you give up is offset by the influence you gain over the other members. There is no net loss of democratic power.
Can you explain the mechanism by which, say, imposing our will on the French makes us more free?The UK helps keep the EU member states on a path towards open, free markets. There are plenty of people in the EU who think the UK is successfully pushing the EU towards some neo con Anglo Saxon free market hell. A clear sign we've got influence and are pushing in the right direction ;-)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff