So who wants to remain in the EU?
Discussion
don4l said:
///ajd said:
don4l said:
///ajd said:
Don said "We refused to sign a treaty that would have given them the power to regulate us."
Good, next.
Let's deal with your errors one at a time.Good, next.
You said:-
///ajd said:
Not sure you are following Don.
1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.
Do you now admit that this statement was incorrect, perhaps a lie? The UK did not, as you asserted, use a veto in relation to banking regulation.1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.
Once we have cleared this up we can deal with the other points that you raised.
It is best that we deal with them one by one.
Now we get get pedantic over details - as it seems you intend to - or look at the big picture.
PS You did vote for a UKIP MEP didn't you?
You were wrong on this subject, in the same way that you are wrong on so many other subjects.
You said:-
///ajd said:
Not sure you are following Don.
1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.
The last time that the UK exercised a veto was 19 years ago.1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.
I'd like us to be accurate and honest. You may label this as pedantry, but we really cannot have a straight discussion if you constantly reinterpret what I have written.
So, if you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that the UK used a veto to scupper EU banking regulations, then we can move on to deal with the other b
ks that you wrote.I've already moved on, try your best with the other points.
You did vote for a UKIP MEP didn't you.
tangerine_sedge said:
Mario149 said:
Note that I never said that MEPs can create law, I said they have to vote on it and they can vote it down continually until the commissioners come up with something that MEPs approve. To my knowledge there is no time when commissioners can enact a law that MEPs have voted down.
Shame that we have some of the laziest MEPs in Europe then : Shocking ukip recordRobertj21a said:
That's a good point. Has it ever been suggested that the Commissioner's should be *elected* to those positions ? Would it have been worthwhile for Dave to also pursue that route ? The whole structure sounds like it needs a total rethink.
This is a good point^^. Do we know why the commissioners aren't elected and why it was set up like that? TEKNOPUG said:
Mario149 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Mario149 said:
8) I think the anti democracy argument is not very strong. People seem to confuse not being democratic with not getting the result we want. Firstly, we can remove our commissioner by voting, you just have to vote for a gov here who would replace him if they were in power. Secondly, commissioners only come up with laws, the EU parliament MEPs have to vote them through, and we can all vote for our MEPs. Finally, given that about 1/3 of people can't be added to vote in our GEs, it's a little rich for any of them to complain about lack of democratic accountability.
This is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Democratically elected MEPs can only vote on laws proposed by unelected Commissioners. They cannot propose new laws. MEPs can propose changes to current or new legislation but those proposals only become law if the Commissioners agree. Many of the technical decisions of new legislation are decided by unelected civil servants.It's about as democratic as Dad asking the kids whether they want to go to Butlins on holiday, having already booked it...
And while it's great that you and I can have this discussion and debate the finer nuances of it, what proportion of "leavers" do you think actually know how the EU parliament works? I may be pessimistic, but I suspect it's not a large percentage.
I get that people would ideally want a more transparent process, and more directly accountable. I am one of them. But you'd think the way people talk about it that there was some lifetime junta in place who could do exactly what they wanted and no-one had any say whatsoever.
And anyway, from my quick research, it looks like Eurozone finance ministers approved the bailout, not the commissioners.
ClaphamGT3 said:
I'm going to make the pollsters heads fall off. Committed federalist who would like to see full European integration with joint competencies on defence, justice & foreign policy and converged regional policies of finance and social affairs.
I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
Brilliant I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
ClaphamGT3 said:
I'm going to make the pollsters heads fall off. Committed federalist who would like to see full European integration with joint competencies on defence, justice & foreign policy and converged regional policies of finance and social affairs.
I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
I'm definitely no federalist, but then I don't live in Clapham. I do believe we are better off in than out, even though the EU needs radical reform. My profile is otherwise similar to yours.I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
Mario149 said:
Robertj21a said:
That's a good point. Has it ever been suggested that the Commissioner's should be *elected* to those positions ? Would it have been worthwhile for Dave to also pursue that route ? The whole structure sounds like it needs a total rethink.
This is a good point^^. Do we know why the commissioners aren't elected and why it was set up like that? You could have a Presidential election and then the President appointing the commissioners but that wouldn't satisfy anyone who wants less European Union.
The big problem I have with it is trying to imagine what a farce it would be to have an EU wide Presidential election, while catering to the various different language groups and trying to move beyond narrow national interests and loyalties.
Which is the whole problem with the European political project ultimately - it can't be democratic because there is no European demos.
Mario149 said:
Robertj21a said:
That's a good point. Has it ever been suggested that the Commissioner's should be *elected* to those positions ? Would it have been worthwhile for Dave to also pursue that route ? The whole structure sounds like it needs a total rethink.
This is a good point^^. Do we know why the commissioners aren't elected and why it was set up like that? There is a fundamental conflict inherent in the appointment of Commissioners. They are appointed by Member States, but they are not allowed to reflect their respective Home Member State's interests. That Member States feel the need to appoint their own Commissioners, but collectively don't trust other Member States' appointees not to represent their Home Member States' interests is telling.
Zod said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I'm going to make the pollsters heads fall off. Committed federalist who would like to see full European integration with joint competencies on defence, justice & foreign policy and converged regional policies of finance and social affairs.
I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
I'm definitely no federalist, but then I don't live in Clapham. I do believe we are better off in than out, even though the EU needs radtical reform. My profile is otherwise similar to yours.I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
So how do you view the negotiation? Give you the reform you say the EU needs? If not then what? Still for remain?
AJS- said:
Which is the whole problem with the European political project ultimately - it can't be democratic because there is no European demos.
Exactly. Which is why when the EU collectively decides to do something, it is perceived as something done to use rather than something done by us.AJS- said:
Mario149 said:
Robertj21a said:
That's a good point. Has it ever been suggested that the Commissioner's should be *elected* to those positions ? Would it have been worthwhile for Dave to also pursue that route ? The whole structure sounds like it needs a total rethink.
This is a good point^^. Do we know why the commissioners aren't elected and why it was set up like that? FiF said:
So Zod, on the UKIP thread you and I had a similar stance, basically one of allowing CMD to have a negotiation and make a judgement on that.
So how do you view the negotiation? Give you the reform you say the EU needs? If not then what? Still for remain?
It's really not very much, but he's up against the likes of Martin Schulz who want to take back even what he's been offered. I think the EU needs radical reform, but I also think the risks to us from not being part of it are massive. Nobody knows quite what would happen if we left, but the first five years or so would almost certainly be very tough.So how do you view the negotiation? Give you the reform you say the EU needs? If not then what? Still for remain?
Pragmatism trumps utopianism for me. I think that, if we remain after this, we need to take a much tougher stance from within. There is nothing they can do if we ignore a Directive that doesn't work for us. The French do it all the time. We are just too honest and straight-talking. We tell them why their ideas are stupid. They don't like it and go ahead anyway and we just feel that we have to comply. If we took a more French attitude, the EU would have to change.
Zod said:
It's really not very much, but he's up against the likes of Martin Schulz who want to take back even what he's been offered. I think the EU needs radical reform, but I also think the risks to us from not being part of it are massive. Nobody knows quite what would happen if we left, but the first five years or so would almost certainly be very tough.
Pragmatism trumps utopianism for me. I think that, if we remain after this, we need to take a much tougher stance from within. There is nothing they can do if we ignore a Directive that doesn't work for us. The French do it all the time. We are just too honest and straight-talking. We tell them why their ideas are stupid. They don't like it and go ahead anyway and we just feel that we have to comply. If we took a more French attitude, the EU would have to change.
Not so sure on the first five years being so tough. It's taken 40 years to get this level of entanglement, it's going to take more than ten years before we see much of a difference imo and that of the people who wrote the Flexcit plan.Pragmatism trumps utopianism for me. I think that, if we remain after this, we need to take a much tougher stance from within. There is nothing they can do if we ignore a Directive that doesn't work for us. The French do it all the time. We are just too honest and straight-talking. We tell them why their ideas are stupid. They don't like it and go ahead anyway and we just feel that we have to comply. If we took a more French attitude, the EU would have to change.
For two years we're still members anyway. On exit, probably to a Norway type option, we're still going to have the same regulations, we need that continuity to provide a sound basis for business confidence.
The shouts from the likes of Redwood just repeal this act and we can do what we like is madness apart from the illegality of it.
Personally I reckon ten or twelve years down the line people would be saying what was all the fuss and cries of OMG Armageddon meltdown about.
Mario149 said:
Zod said:
There is nothing they can do if we ignore a Directive that doesn't work for us. The French do it all the time.
Wasn't aware of this, which directives has France ignored in the past?AJS- said:
Electing all 28 members of the Commission would be logistically impossible and as far as I know no country elects its entire executive branch individually like that.
You could have a Presidential election and then the President appointing the commissioners but that wouldn't satisfy anyone who wants less European Union.
The big problem I have with it is trying to imagine what a farce it would be to have an EU wide Presidential election, while catering to the various different language groups and trying to move beyond narrow national interests and loyalties.
Which is the whole problem with the European political project ultimately - it can't be democratic because there is no European demos.
It's my belief that people (language aside which really is a trifling matter) are the same across the globe in their aspirations and ideals. That's not to say we're all the same but the same ideals are represented in fairly equal measure across the population as a whole. I see no reason why a wider federal or a properly considered confederal democracy couldn't work on a global level, other than the complexities of power brokering with those who have vested controlling interests.You could have a Presidential election and then the President appointing the commissioners but that wouldn't satisfy anyone who wants less European Union.
The big problem I have with it is trying to imagine what a farce it would be to have an EU wide Presidential election, while catering to the various different language groups and trying to move beyond narrow national interests and loyalties.
Which is the whole problem with the European political project ultimately - it can't be democratic because there is no European demos.
The suggestion that the EU isn't democratic because the Commissionaires aren't elected by the electorate is daft, you might as well say the UK isn't democratic because the cabinet members,or civil service heads aren't elected or the judiciary aren't elected or the house of lords isn't elected. All democracies have idiosyncratic imperfections and anachronisms, the EU parliament has far fewer than most.
FiF said:
Zod said:
It's really not very much, but he's up against the likes of Martin Schulz who want to take back even what he's been offered. I think the EU needs radical reform, but I also think the risks to us from not being part of it are massive. Nobody knows quite what would happen if we left, but the first five years or so would almost certainly be very tough.
Pragmatism trumps utopianism for me. I think that, if we remain after this, we need to take a much tougher stance from within. There is nothing they can do if we ignore a Directive that doesn't work for us. The French do it all the time. We are just too honest and straight-talking. We tell them why their ideas are stupid. They don't like it and go ahead anyway and we just feel that we have to comply. If we took a more French attitude, the EU would have to change.
Not so sure on the first five years being so tough. It's taken 40 years to get this level of entanglement, it's going to take more than ten years before we see much of a difference imo and that of the people who wrote the Flexcit plan.Pragmatism trumps utopianism for me. I think that, if we remain after this, we need to take a much tougher stance from within. There is nothing they can do if we ignore a Directive that doesn't work for us. The French do it all the time. We are just too honest and straight-talking. We tell them why their ideas are stupid. They don't like it and go ahead anyway and we just feel that we have to comply. If we took a more French attitude, the EU would have to change.
For two years we're still members anyway. On exit, probably to a Norway type option, we're still going to have the same regulations, we need that continuity to provide a sound basis for business confidence.
The shouts from the likes of Redwood just repeal this act and we can do what we like is madness apart from the illegality of it.
Personally I reckon ten or twelve years down the line people would be saying what was all the fuss and cries of OMG Armageddon meltdown about.
I am on one of the City groups working on the new financial services directives and regulations. We met on Friday to discuss the proposed new Prospectus Regulation. I am very vocal about the problems with this legislation and the way it operates to distort and encumber the market. Our biggest problem, however, is dealing with EU officials and Parliamentarians who have no comprehension of financial markets at best and who at worst believe that it is all an Anglo-Saxon plot. One of the most important aspects of our submissions is trying to explain in clear, non-patronising terms, how securities markets work. If we didn't have the platform to do this, the prospect of what the EU might produce next time (that would bind us in the EEA) around is mind-boggling.
Camoradi said:
Mario149 said:
Wasn't aware of this, which directives has France ignored in the past?
EU washing directive 1246-817 para 2French farmers were burning shipments of UK sheep products (they even burned shipments of French sheep meat being delivered to the UK, thinking mistakenly it was taking UK meat into France whilst the French police stood by and did nothing to stop it)
The French seem to sign up to, and even decide EU laws, which they then ignore in favour of their own position/s when a law does not suit them. In general the Germans, Scandinavian countries, and the UK tend to conform to EU laws pretty much to the letter.
FredClogs said:
It's my belief that people (language aside which really is a trifling matter) are the same across the globe in their aspirations and ideals. That's not to say we're all the same but the same ideals are represented in fairly equal measure across the population as a whole. I see no reason why a wider federal or a properly considered confederal democracy couldn't work on a global level, other than the complexities of power brokering with those who have vested controlling interests.
The suggestion that the EU isn't democratic because the Commissionaires aren't elected by the electorate is daft, you might as well say the UK isn't democratic because the cabinet members,or civil service heads aren't elected or the judiciary aren't elected or the house of lords isn't elected. All democracies have idiosyncratic imperfections and anachronisms, the EU parliament has far fewer than most.
Commissioners:The suggestion that the EU isn't democratic because the Commissionaires aren't elected by the electorate is daft, you might as well say the UK isn't democratic because the cabinet members,or civil service heads aren't elected or the judiciary aren't elected or the house of lords isn't elected. All democracies have idiosyncratic imperfections and anachronisms, the EU parliament has far fewer than most.
Commissionaires:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff