The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[steveatesh]

Sam All said:

Axionknight said:

steveatesh said:

Much has been made of the lack of a detailed plan describing how the UK will leave the EU and then continue into the future, but I have not seen similar detailed plans of how the EU will look and change as it moves forward.

(quote snipped).

They don't want you to think about that, it's why they don't make a big deal about Camerons "guarantees" of no further integration without a referendum - they know that a lot of people won't believe it and it's an argument they don't want to have, why the Outers aren't making more noise over it is a mystery, especially after a key EU figure said the "guarantee" isn't legally binding.

He has been sold a lemon, now he doesn't want to talk about it. He is also, in my opinion, selling a lemon to the public, he talks about leaving being the big bad unknown, and to some extent it is, no doubt about it. But I'd say the future isn't much more certain if we remain, oh we'll still be a member that's a certainty - but what kind of member? Where will the EU be in twenty, thirty years? Will the nations within it still exist and if so, to what extent? Will the EU even exist? It's a shoddy outfit and is badly run, Angela Merkel once said that the key to solving the EUs problems is "more Europe" and she's right, a true federal European state is the end goal and would go a long way towards alleviating a lot of the problems that are hamstringing the EU, do you want your country to be a part of that?

Doesn't matter, as long as the GDP figures remain healthy, after all those are the only true measure of a countries success, we can't upset the status quo right?

Edited by Axionknight on Monday 30th May 08:30

With our leaders, bankers,economists telling us it will be Armageddon if we leave, by staying in will we have more influence or will Merkel tell us to just stfu.

I suspect there are some clues in here, the basis for the next treaty change:

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/article/fundamental-la...


Headline Proposals

1.‘Ever closer union' defined as federal union of states and citizens deriving legitimacy from popular sovereignty

2.Constitutions of EU states must respect EU values

3.Commission becomes the EU government, appointed by and answerable to the legislature of Council and Parliament

4.Limited right of legislative initiative to Council and Parliament

5.European Council redefined as the lead formation of the Council of Ministers

6.Rotating Council presidency abolished: each formation elects its own chair

7.Commission becomes smaller, nominated by its President

8.Certain number of MEPs elected in pan-EU constituency on transnational lists

9.Wide extension of ordinary legislative procedure

10.Widen jurisdiction of Court of Justice

11.Easier access for citizens to Court of Justice

12.Ending rigid unanimity for future treaty change and entry into force

13.Ending opt-outs in justice and home affairs

14.Creation of an associate membership

15.EU tax revenue to finance EU spending

16.Additional budget for the eurozone

17.Common economic policy focussed on sustainable growth

18.Fiscal solidarity to complement fiscal discipline

19.New powers for European Parliament in economic and employment policy

20.National parliaments get a say in excessive deficit procedure

21.Wider powers for European Central Bank

22.Permit sharing of sovereign debt under strict conditionality

23.Lifting prohibition on approximation of national laws

24.Modernisation of common policies

25.Right of assent for Parliament on all international agreements

If we remain (most likely!) then we will become associate members, not part of the main Euro Zone and very much on the periphery. I can't see the UK being taken much notice of given the EU demonstrably has not taken much notice of us even when we are threatening to leave!

[steveatesh]

Mrr T said:

It not that the EU may change its that the EU should change. The euro crisis shows the euro zone muzt move towards closer cooperation on economic matters. The problem is while it was difficult to get 14 countries to agree a treaty it's proving almost impossible to get 28.

The fact is for all the ideas of the commission and it's various working groups there is no agreement at governmental level as to what should be in the next treaty.

As for removing the veto that would involve a treaty over which the UK would have a veto.

Absolutely but I'm still curious as to why one set of uncertainties as to what will happen from 24th June need a detailed plan when another doesn't?
As per the next treat, agree no firm agreements but there are plenty clues out there. And I ask again how do you KNOW (not believe) that the veto position will not change? The EU has a habit of getting its own way, its just another obstacle to them that could be lost in negotiations about other things.

[FiF]

steveatesh said:

Mrr T said:

It not that the EU may change its that the EU should change. The euro crisis shows the euro zone muzt move towards closer cooperation on economic matters. The problem is while it was difficult to get 14 countries to agree a treaty it's proving almost impossible to get 28.

The fact is for all the ideas of the commission and it's various working groups there is no agreement at governmental level as to what should be in the next treaty.

As for removing the veto that would involve a treaty over which the UK would have a veto.

Absolutely but I'm still curious as to why one set of uncertainties as to what will happen from 24th June need a detailed plan when another doesn't?
As per the next treat, agree no firm agreements but there are plenty clues out there. And I ask again how do you KNOW (not believe) that the veto position will not change? The EU has a habit of getting its own way, its just another obstacle to them that could be lost in negotiations about other things.

Exactly and already discussions about using clause in Lisbon treaty to get around the veto over the putative EU military, talk of only needing 9 nations which strongly suggests enhanced cooperation method, no veto on that.

[zbc]

steveatesh said:

I suspect there are some clues in here, the basis for the next treaty change:

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/article/fundamental-la...

Not really. Talking shop signed up to by not even 15% of MEPs. Is this supposed to suggest that we should be scared of where EU will go in next couple of years. Equally comical as those that claim Turkey will be a member within a couple of years.

[Sam All]

steveT350C said:

We deserve some answers from the Remain camp...

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/we-deser...

Juncker, that secret weapon has infiltrated the G7. A G4in future?

The G7 Summit is a forum where leaders from Japan, United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and the European Union, which share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, have frank discussions on solutions that address global

Edited by Sam All on Monday 30th May 11:11

[JagLover]

steveatesh said:

I suspect there are some clues in here, the basis for the next treaty change:

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/article/fundamental-la...


Headline Proposals

1.‘Ever closer union' defined as federal union of states and citizens deriving legitimacy from popular sovereignty

2.Constitutions of EU states must respect EU values

3.Commission becomes the EU government, appointed by and answerable to the legislature of Council and Parliament

4.Limited right of legislative initiative to Council and Parliament

5.European Council redefined as the lead formation of the Council of Ministers

6.Rotating Council presidency abolished: each formation elects its own chair

7.Commission becomes smaller, nominated by its President

8.Certain number of MEPs elected in pan-EU constituency on transnational lists

9.Wide extension of ordinary legislative procedure

10.Widen jurisdiction of Court of Justice

11.Easier access for citizens to Court of Justice

12.Ending rigid unanimity for future treaty change and entry into force

13.Ending opt-outs in justice and home affairs

14.Creation of an associate membership

15.EU tax revenue to finance EU spending

16.Additional budget for the eurozone

17.Common economic policy focussed on sustainable growth

18.Fiscal solidarity to complement fiscal discipline

19.New powers for European Parliament in economic and employment policy

20.National parliaments get a say in excessive deficit procedure

21.Wider powers for European Central Bank

22.Permit sharing of sovereign debt under strict conditionality

23.Lifting prohibition on approximation of national laws

24.Modernisation of common policies

25.Right of assent for Parliament on all international agreements

If we remain (most likely!) then we will become associate members, not part of the main Euro Zone and very much on the periphery. I can't see the UK being taken much notice of given the EU demonstrably has not taken much notice of us even when we are threatening to leave!

The honest way would have been for these proposals to be shared with all voters in advance of the referendum. Vote remain and vote for this or vote leave.

Or alternatively negotiate for the associate member status, define what that means, and then put it to the people.

If we vote remain with such significant future changes due in the next couple of years then I think Cameron will be reviled for decades to come.

[steveatesh]

FiF said:

steveatesh said:

Mrr T said:

It not that the EU may change its that the EU should change. The euro crisis shows the euro zone muzt move towards closer cooperation on economic matters. The problem is while it was difficult to get 14 countries to agree a treaty it's proving almost impossible to get 28.

The fact is for all the ideas of the commission and it's various working groups there is no agreement at governmental level as to what should be in the next treaty.

As for removing the veto that would involve a treaty over which the UK would have a veto.

Absolutely but I'm still curious as to why one set of uncertainties as to what will happen from 24th June need a detailed plan when another doesn't?
As per the next treat, agree no firm agreements but there are plenty clues out there. And I ask again how do you KNOW (not believe) that the veto position will not change? The EU has a habit of getting its own way, its just another obstacle to them that could be lost in negotiations about other things.

Exactly and already discussions about using clause in Lisbon treaty to get around the veto over the putative EU military, talk of only needing 9 nations which strongly suggests enhanced cooperation method, no veto on that.

Indeed, I have seen this phrase used more and more recently and what I can't understand is how those arguing for remain on here are so certain about our veto and the ability to use it. Hence my question about how do they KNOW that other than merely believe it (not answered yet).

The truth is of course that there is uncertainty in everything, not just Brexit, but that doesn't suit the remain narrative so it is deleted or distorted by them to suit their own particular bias.

Sadly Vote Leave has been appallingly bad at communication, and like you I believe they have lost us this referendum.

[Axionknight]

Sam All said:

Juncker, that secret weapon has infiltrated the G7. A G4in future?

The G7 Summit is a forum where leaders from Japan, United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and the European Union, which share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, have frank discussions on solutions that address global

Edited by Sam All on Monday 30th May 11:11

[steveatesh]

zbc said:

steveatesh said:

I suspect there are some clues in here, the basis for the next treaty change:

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/article/fundamental-la...

Not really. Talking shop signed up to by not even 15% of MEPs. Is this supposed to suggest that we should be scared of where EU will go in next couple of years. Equally comical as those that claim Turkey will be a member within a couple of years.

No suggestion you should be scared it's an example of uncertainty in the future and possible direction of travel. Associate membership has been under discussion for a long time (two tier Europe) but there are no details about this and is probably the way the UK will go should `Remain prevail. But what will that mean for the UK, devil is in the detail of course and there isn't any. In other words it's uncertain and therefore risky.

Some remain commentators are arguing about the need to address uncertainty on the Brexit side but take the position that uncertainty on the remain side doesn't matter. Fact is there is uncertainty on both sides and it's down to your own particular bias which side you take.

Interstingly on the Turkey thing I note that one of the proposed points is the removal of unaninimty for new members, the (current) existence of which has been argued in this thread by Remainers when discussing the issue and saying Turkey joining won't happen because of the need for unaninimty. Another obstacle to Turkey joining at some point being removed by the EU?

Edited by steveatesh on Monday 30th May 11:23

[FiF]

steveatesh said:

FiF said:

steveatesh said:

Mrr T said:

It not that the EU may change its that the EU should change. The euro crisis shows the euro zone muzt move towards closer cooperation on economic matters. The problem is while it was difficult to get 14 countries to agree a treaty it's proving almost impossible to get 28.

The fact is for all the ideas of the commission and it's various working groups there is no agreement at governmental level as to what should be in the next treaty.

As for removing the veto that would involve a treaty over which the UK would have a veto.

Absolutely but I'm still curious as to why one set of uncertainties as to what will happen from 24th June need a detailed plan when another doesn't?
As per the next treat, agree no firm agreements but there are plenty clues out there. And I ask again how do you KNOW (not believe) that the veto position will not change? The EU has a habit of getting its own way, its just another obstacle to them that could be lost in negotiations about other things.

Exactly and already discussions about using clause in Lisbon treaty to get around the veto over the putative EU military, talk of only needing 9 nations which strongly suggests enhanced cooperation method, no veto on that.

Indeed, I have seen this phrase used more and more recently and what I can't understand is how those arguing for remain on here are so certain about our veto and the ability to use it. Hence my question about how do they KNOW that other than merely believe it (not answered yet).

The truth is of course that there is uncertainty in everything, not just Brexit, but that doesn't suit the remain narrative so it is deleted or distorted by them to suit their own particular bias.

Sadly Vote Leave has been appallingly bad at communication, and like you I believe they have lost us this referendum.

Just look at the history of the veto. It was there as a stop in case the EU were to propose anything which would act directly and solely against the interests of a single member state. That was why the veto was put in place. Except it became an inconvenience to the grand plan, hence introduction of qualified majority voting.

The extent of application of QMV has widened and widened such that there are now very few situations where the veto applies.

That's still not enough as there are things that won't even get through on QMV, thus enhanced cooperation introduced. Limited extent so far, but wedges have thin ends, and already enhanced cooperation is threatened in areas that are to the direct detriment of various nations of which UK would be one significantly disadvantaged.

[FiF]

Sam All said:

steveT350C said:

We deserve some answers from the Remain camp...

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/we-deser...

Juncker, that secret weapon has infiltrated the G7. A G4in future?

The G7 Summit is a forum where leaders from Japan, United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and the European Union, which share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, have frank discussions on solutions that address global

Edited by Sam All on Monday 30th May 11:11

So all those leaders of the named nations can be identified, why is Tusk there in addition to Juncker?

[JagLover]

Looking at the polls it is within the realms of possibility, in a close result, that England votes to leave but the UK as a whole does not. Which would certainly be an interesting outcome.

[Hugh Jarse]

Mr_B said:

///ajd said:

I understand that, it doesn't change my view its a pointless protest vote that actually damages the UK within the EU by just being a malcontent.

When this referendum is won by remain, all those 20 years and millions of pounds wasted on hannan and farage just whinging as MEPs will have been for NIL - when better more constructive MEPs could have done more for the UK.

Utter, utter waste. Ironic that they complain about the £350m (which has been shown we get back via trade/economic benefits) when their costs are truely wasted, with no benefit to UK whatsoever.

Haha. Yeah, the EU really needed more useless yes men who don't rock the boat or bring any attention to it. If only there was no opposition huh ?

ajd post sounds like something from Orwell's 1984.
Arguing only causing disruption. It is wrong to argue.
The party knows best.
Scary shyte.

[wc98]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Certainly an interesting viewpoint and it does open up the fisheries debate some what.

Out of interest, how do you know that the Spanish boats ignore all of the regulations? What are the sanctions for ignoring the rules and who polices them?

i understand that just one scottish port has more fisheries inspectors than every spanish port put together. there is a completely different mindset toward fishermen on the continent and they receive full support from their communities and regarded as essential providers of food. understandable when you look at fresh fish consumption in spain or france vs that of the uk. this is also the mindset of those in the eu, in recent years the very first measures brought in when stocks are deemed to be dropping are bans on anglers retaining even a single fish, med mackerel and tuna are good examples of this on the continent, eels and bass in the case of uk anglers.

from what i can gather every time any spanish vessel is subject to inspection in uk waters a breach of the rules is discovered. a reasonably recent case was the spanish hake fleet that operates off the west coast of the uk. they operate in areas subject to emergency measures enacted to protect cod and as such were under strict bycatch limits for cod of around 1.3 tonnes per year.

the very first time inspectors made a physical trip to observe the fishing one boat caught over the 1.3 tonne annual limit in one single tow. you can bet your bottom dollar the skipper fished an area he thought the least amount of cod would be caught. i think there were 18 to 20 boats prosecuting this fishery at the time, so it looks like the limit was being exceeded by several orders of magnitude.

enforcement is generally down to individual member states though i understand there are teams made up of observers from different countries working under the auspices of the cfp itself. penalties for infringements ,particularly repeated offences can appear high but they are usually dwarfed by the profits from the illegal activities . as the biggest net recipient of eu fishery targeted funds , spain is in effect receiving eu taxpayer money to perpetuate this.

i managed to find some more recent info from the "fishing for leave" campaign led by shetland islanders.

"Last week we, in the Defiant, dumped approximately 320 boxes of good grade saithe, as we had no quota left – this was at a market value of £18 per box and totals to £5,760.

I wonder how many shore-based businesses put that amount of money through their shredding machines last week?

The saithe we were catching were an unavoidable bycatch as we were getting good catches of cod and monk mixed in with the saithe and, as there were five vessels working in the same area, you can safely assume that about 1,500 boxes valued at around £27,000 were dumped by Shetland boats with ten miles of the Shetland shoreline.

Believe it or not, this enforced destruction, as I have mentioned before, is all done in the name of fish stock conservation."
http://ffl.org.uk/20-years-on-and-nothing-has-chan...

[wc98]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I'm afraid it was a smear attempt.

You and I don't know how many of the individual 639 economists who responded receive public funding for their work.

So to scout around to try to find a blog post which you use to imply they have all been bought off as they wouldn't want to bite the hands that feeds them is completely lame.

Also, if you taken the time to read the original article you would see the economists views were actually quite varied.

Yes the large proportion agree there would be a financial hit in the short term (by the way, are you really challenging that?) but their views on the longer terms effects including employment were more mixed.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/re...

all opinions appear to be based on us leaving the single market . is that known for certain ? it may look like a smear attempt, i prefer looking at it from a realistic point of view.

[Gogoplata]

JagLover said:

Looking at the polls it is within the realms of possibility, in a close result, that England votes to leave but the UK as a whole does not. Which would certainly be an interesting outcome.

Would that mean that England could hold a referendum to leave the UK, like the SNP are threatening to do if the result doesn't suit them?

[Esseesse]

Received a ConservativesIn leaflet through my door this morning. All the more reason to never consider voting Conservative again in the future.

[Mrr T]

steveatesh said:

Mrr T said:

It not that the EU may change its that the EU should change. The euro crisis shows the euro zone muzt move towards closer cooperation on economic matters. The problem is while it was difficult to get 14 countries to agree a treaty it's proving almost impossible to get 28.

The fact is for all the ideas of the commission and it's various working groups there is no agreement at governmental level as to what should be in the next treaty.

As for removing the veto that would involve a treaty over which the UK would have a veto.

Absolutely but I'm still curious as to why one set of uncertainties as to what will happen from 24th June need a detailed plan when another doesn't?
As per the next treat, agree no firm agreements but there are plenty clues out there. And I ask again how do you KNOW (not believe) that the veto position will not change? The EU has a habit of getting its own way, its just another obstacle to them that could be lost in negotiations about other things.

As I said before Leave should have a plan because it must involve change. So it should explain what it plans are for the future. This is essential to consider the economic costs/benefits.

The veto position will only change if our government agrees.

[Esseesse]

Leading postal vote forms telling you how to vote...



https://twitter.com/henry4alw/status/7368778815828...

[Mrr T]

steveatesh said:

I suspect there are some clues in here, the basis for the next treaty change:

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/article/fundamental-la...


Headline Proposals

1.‘Ever closer union' defined as federal union of states and citizens deriving legitimacy from popular sovereignty

2.Constitutions of EU states must respect EU values

3.Commission becomes the EU government, appointed by and answerable to the legislature of Council and Parliament

4.Limited right of legislative initiative to Council and Parliament

5.European Council redefined as the lead formation of the Council of Ministers

6.Rotating Council presidency abolished: each formation elects its own chair

7.Commission becomes smaller, nominated by its President

8.Certain number of MEPs elected in pan-EU constituency on transnational lists

9.Wide extension of ordinary legislative procedure

10.Widen jurisdiction of Court of Justice

11.Easier access for citizens to Court of Justice

12.Ending rigid unanimity for future treaty change and entry into force

13.Ending opt-outs in justice and home affairs

14.Creation of an associate membership

15.EU tax revenue to finance EU spending

16.Additional budget for the eurozone

17.Common economic policy focussed on sustainable growth

18.Fiscal solidarity to complement fiscal discipline

19.New powers for European Parliament in economic and employment policy

20.National parliaments get a say in excessive deficit procedure

21.Wider powers for European Central Bank

22.Permit sharing of sovereign debt under strict conditionality

23.Lifting prohibition on approximation of national laws

24.Modernisation of common policies

25.Right of assent for Parliament on all international agreements

If we remain (most likely!) then we will become associate members, not part of the main Euro Zone and very much on the periphery. I can't see the UK being taken much notice of given the EU demonstrably has not taken much notice of us even when we are threatening to leave!

This is a report by a EU working group. So of cause it proposes more EU. The problem for the working group is many of its proposals are not just unacceptable to many member states but for many would require constitutional changes.