Ultimatum EU Blueprint - The Final Solution

[Dr Jekyll]

Derek Smith said:

There is an irony in the suggestion that a no vote would restore the sovereignty of parliament when a referendum conveniently sidesteps it. Parliament had a majority for remain. So, in effect, the biggest hit parliament has taken is from the referendum.

In our form of democracy, MPs do not represent the views of the constituents. They vote according to their own beliefs. You vote in a person you trust to make decisions for you. In opting for a referendum, Cameron has abrogated his responsibilities.

He was elected on a platform of holding a referendum remember. Or does that election not count either?

[Gandahar]

Derek Smith said:

mattmurdock said:

skahigh said:

I didn't suggest it was.

Your fallback position seems to be that since our elected representatives signed treaty after treaty that brought us from a trade union with Europe into a political union that that must be what the British people want.

The referendum demonstrates that not to be the case, our MPs are not representing the views of their constituents in an even-handed manner.

No, my fallback position is claiming voting us out is a 'vote for democracy' seems to woefully misunderstand that the democracy they are voting for is for the UK government to decide what is best for us, and be accountable for those decisions.

Not for a democracy where everyone gets a say in every decision.

If they aren't representing us, then we should vote them out. If we can't vote them out, how is that any different to the 'unelected' EU commissioners?

If we voted them in and they sign treaties on our behalf, surely that is the point of our democratic system?

There is an irony in the suggestion that a no vote would restore the sovereignty of parliament when a referendum conveniently sidesteps it. Parliament had a majority for remain. So, in effect, the biggest hit parliament has taken is from the referendum.

In our form of democracy, MPs do not represent the views of the constituents. They vote according to their own beliefs. You vote in a person you trust to make decisions for you. In opting for a referendum, Cameron has abrogated his responsibilities.

Is a referendum a democratic process and was this the first time it has ever been called ? yes and No is the answer.

One person one vote is surely the ultimate democratic process. Rather than first past the post where UKIP and the Green party got millions of votes and very few MP's in the last election.

Green party got 1,157,613 votes in the last election, for one seat.

UKIP got 3,881,099 votes for one seat.

The Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party had 184,260 votes for 8 seats.......


Seems rather than complaining about the referendum you should complain about the current MP electoral system failing peoples wishes.

[GoodOlBoy]

mattmurdock said:

Again though, that doesn't answer the question.

Given the UK not in the Euro and has an opt-out for pretty much all of the 'Federalist' stuff, how exactly were the EU going to force them into 'ever closer union'?

Given the Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the democratically elected heads of the member states, how was that 'bypassing the views of the electorate'?

Given democratically elected heads of member states can apparently do whatever they like without being held to account (according to the leavers on here) what was the point of the referendum? If the heads of the member states can sign away our sovereignty, why are they not just going to do that in the future?

I was addressing the subject on more general terms not the specifics of the UK's membership. As another poster has recently stated the EU plays the long game. They can afford to take their time as they hold most of the cards.

For example you could argue that European countries outside the EU have democratically accepted the EU dictating their Immigration policy and accepted a whole raft of EU laws and directives as part of a trade agreement. In reality they have little choice. By this means the UK would also eventually be brought into line with EU ambitions.


Now we come to the Treaty of Lisbon. The treaty that effectively defines the EU constitution. The treaty that changed the EU from an International Agreement into a European State. That created the post of European President and Foreign minister. That transferred law-making power from sovereign states to the European Court of Justice. That gave the EU control over Immigration policy. That removed the right of Veto in more than 40 areas, including policy that directly affects a member state and much, much more.

This treaty, that changed our sovereign state forever, was put into place behind the backs of the electorate. It was a shameful chapter in UK and EU history and more like something to be found in a banana republic.

Given that it took away sovereignty it was agreed that referendums would be required in all member states. Unfortunately it didn't quite work out as planned.

After being rejected by the electorate in France and Holland, Merkel and Sarkozy decided that the electorate didn’t need to be involved after all and so they were removed from the equation. The promised referendum in the UK was cancelled by the Labour government.

Aside from Ireland, which challenged the legality of a Treaty that changed its constitutional powers without the electorate’s involvement, no other EU country was offered a referendum.

So, a new constitution, for the governance of the UK by a European State, was put in place without the involvement of the electorate. Once again proving that in the EU, the political elite can achieve what they never could in a democratically elected national government.

[Mrr T]

wc98 said:

Mrr T said:

While I would never defend what happened with the Lisbon treaty. The whole idea the EU can force through full integration shows a complete lack of any understanding of the EU or its member countries. To do this the EU would have to have a way of:
1. Changing the German constitutions - it doen't.
2. Convicting Germans to hand money to Greece etc - it doen't.

if it is german and french politicians driving this,and it appears to be so ,i do not think a few technicalities will give them much cause for concern. lets face it, abiding by their own rules in recent years hasn't been a strong point of those running the eu.

I will admit when I first replied I had only read the Bloomberg report, the link in the report goes to the underlying letter in I think Polish.

That intrigued me. So I took the time to find the original.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192564.html

If you read it you will see the Bloomberg report is a pile of st.

The letter covers a wide range of other topics but when it comes to further integration its a push for further euro integration not an EU super state..

It difficult to disagree with anything in the report. The euro has proved the in countries need much greater integration.

The fact that a senior German politician suggests this does not mean he knows it will never happen.

[Piersman2]

mattmurdock said:

Again, if you truly, honestly believe that then the whole referendum has been a complete sham, surely? At some point in the future the head of a democratically elected UK government will just sign away our armies and our economy to an EU superstate?

If so, there is little point in leaving now.

If not, why on earth would they do it if we had remained in the EU? How is leaving now going to mean they suddenly change their mind? If they offered a referendum now, why would they not offer one in the future?

They may well try it, nothing is more uncertain than the future . Blair and Brown gave some incredible concessions to the EU for little or nothing in return, much to the disgust of many people. And they got removed for it. Cameron tried to nullify UKIP and mollify the increasing public calls for immigration controls by saying he would promise a referendum. He then said he would 'renegotiate the relationship with the EU' and proceeded to effectively re-enact Neville Chamberlain's return from Germany in the 30's; only with a smaller piece of paper and with no green ticks actually visible.

But the mistake he made was that already he'd backed himself into a corner with having promised a referendum. Cancel the referendum, revolting citizens and UKIP storming ahead with Tories cast to the winds in 2020, or stick with it and hope the vote goes for 'IN'.

So the referendum was an anomaly, something that should never have been allowed, and we took the one opportunity in a lifetime to break free. The EU powermasters must have been furious that the option had ever been given to the UK. Although it is worth noting that the UK is seen by many in the EU as a PITA to the 'project' so many may acually be quite relieved to see us go.

So looking forward now, first there would have to be a party voted in with a 'EU re-entry' manifesto, they would then have to negotiate a new EU deal, then they'd have to call a referendum, then the people would have to vote IN, then they'd have to start handing power over to Brussels again.

I wouldn't say it can't happen, but it would have to be one huge Hobson's Choice for a UK party and the Brits to go through all that again just to hand over more sovereignty to the EU!

[jjlynn27]

Gandahar said:

Is a referendum a democratic process and was this the first time it has ever been called ? yes and No is the answer.

One person one vote is surely the ultimate democratic process. Rather than first past the post where UKIP and the Green party got millions of votes and very few MP's in the last election.

Green party got 1,157,613 votes in the last election, for one seat.

UKIP got 3,881,099 votes for one seat.

The Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party had 184,260 votes for 8 seats.......


Seems rather than complaining about the referendum you should complain about the current MP electoral system failing peoples wishes.

Can we please keep this in UKIP or GE or whatever else thread, and not here.

[mattmurdock]

GoodOlBoy said:

So, a new constitution, for the governance of the UK by a European State, was put in place without the involvement of the electorate. Once again proving that in the EU, the political elite can achieve what they never could in a democratically elected national government.

Again, you completely sidestep the question.

Do you believe the EU is going to 'take over' control of the sovereignty of the UK in the future? If not, what is stopping them?

[barryrs]

Dr Jekyll said:

Derek Smith said:

There is an irony in the suggestion that a no vote would restore the sovereignty of parliament when a referendum conveniently sidesteps it. Parliament had a majority for remain. So, in effect, the biggest hit parliament has taken is from the referendum.

In our form of democracy, MPs do not represent the views of the constituents. They vote according to their own beliefs. You vote in a person you trust to make decisions for you. In opting for a referendum, Cameron has abrogated his responsibilities.

He was elected on a platform of holding a referendum remember. Or does that election not count either?

It was also enshrined in law under the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

[mattmurdock]

Piersman2 said:

I wouldn't say it can't happen, but it would have to be one huge Hobson's Choice for a UK party and the Brits to go through all that again just to hand over more sovereignty to the EU!

OK, so can you explain how that would have been any different if we had remained in the EU? As we had opt-out on pretty much everything, surely we just would have avoided the 'closer union', or left if faced with an ultimatum from the EU?

If we couldn't do that, then surely we can't stop them taking over in the future even if we aren't in the EU. There is no legal requirement for a referendum to re-join.

[Mrr T]

Northern Munkee said:

I've read them both Bloomberg and the leaked document obtained earlier by the Polish TV station, someone above asked what does (the very dry official speak) document mean, and also people ask why is the BBC not reporting it, "interpret it" for the ordinary man in the street. Now the tabloids are picking it up, boiling it down into plain man on the Clapham Omnibus language, people can understand and the BBC will be pushed into reporting it. Was the point i was making.

Leaked document?

It seems to be available on the web for all to read.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192564.html

I would suggest you read it and then you will see the reporting does not actually reflect what in the document.

[tarnished]

mattmurdock said:

Given the Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the democratically elected heads of the member states, how was that 'bypassing the views of the electorate'?

You only have to look at the referendum to see that politicians and the electorate can have wildly differing views. Politicians know that and if you're lucky they might spare it a thought on significant, contentious issues.

mattmurdock said:

Given democratically elected heads of member states can apparently do whatever they like without being held to account (according to the leavers on here) what was the point of the referendum?

I'd imagine Cameron's wondering the same.

[Piersman2]

mattmurdock said:

Piersman2 said:

I wouldn't say it can't happen, but it would have to be one huge Hobson's Choice for a UK party and the Brits to go through all that again just to hand over more sovereignty to the EU!

OK, so can you explain how that would have been any different if we had remained in the EU? As we had opt-out on pretty much everything, surely we just would have avoided the 'closer union', or left if faced with an ultimatum from the EU?

If we couldn't do that, then surely we can't stop them taking over in the future even if we aren't in the EU. There is no legal requirement for a referendum to re-join.

Ok, as it's lunchtime, and I'm actually supposed to be doing some work I'll keep it brief.

Because outside the EU we have more control over our own decisions and the people have more direct control over the people who make those decisions.

Inside the EU the pressures to align are insidious, never overt or direct, more of a dripping tap until you crack and sign up because the choices laid out for you are not real choices. Or, they simply wait it out and pounce when the time is right. Those 'opt outs' are only any use if you're in a position to actually exercise them. Wait and see how many of the 'little' countries are strongarmed into ratifying this strategy in the future despite the howls of protest now, see if any of them dare try using their opt outs.

And your point about not needing a referendum to get back into Europe, on what do you base that assertion?

[mattmurdock]

Piersman2 said:

Ok, as it's lunchtime, and I'm actually supposed to be doing some work I'll keep it brief.

Because outside the EU we have more control over our own decisions and the people have more direct control over the people who make those decisions.

Inside the EU the pressures to align are insidious, never overt or direct, more of a dripping tap until you crack and sign up because the choices laid out for you are not real choices. Or, they simply wait it out and pounce when the time is right. Those 'opt outs' are only any use if you're in a position to actually exercise them. Wait and see how many of the 'little' countries are strongarmed into ratifying this strategy in the future despite the howls of protest now, see if any of them dare try using their opt outs.

And your point about not needing a referendum to get back into Europe, on what do you base that assertion?

Outside the EU we will have the same control over our decisions we had in the EU i.e. they will be made for us by a representative democracy. The same representative democracy you think would just agree to everything the EU said if we were still a member. The same representative democracy that could re-join the EU at any time in the future if it chose to.

The assertion on the referendum is based on the fact it has no constitutional power, and we had to pass a law to allow it to happen in the first place. It was in no way binding, and we could have triggered Article 50 with or without it. Ergo, initiating entry back into the EU could also be triggered with or without a referendum.

[GoodOlBoy]

mattmurdock said:

Again, you completely sidestep the question.

Do you believe the EU is going to 'take over' control of the sovereignty of the UK in the future? If not, what is stopping them?

I'm not sidestepping the question at all. I was trying to explain how the EU, or more accurately the Federalists, usually get what they want.

In the near future I doubt the EU will be able to make many, if any gains in formally taking over more sovereignty from any of the EU member states, especially the UK. Informally they already have control over some of the poorer Eurozone countries.

If the UK remains in the EU but outside the Euro I believe the EU will step by step make it very difficult for the UK to maintain it's status. They will certainly attempt to take over our sovereignty, whether they'll succeed I'm not sure.

[mattmurdock]

GoodOlBoy said:

I'm not sidestepping the question at all. I was trying to explain how the EU, or more accurately the Federalists, usually get what they want.

In the near future I doubt the EU will be able to make many, if any gains in formally taking over more sovereignty from any of the EU member states, especially the UK. Informally they already have control over some of the poorer Eurozone countries.

If the UK remains in the EU but outside the Euro I believe the EU will step by step make it very difficult for the UK to maintain it's status. They will certainly attempt to take over our sovereignty, whether they'll succeed I'm not sure.

'Usually get what they want'
'I'm not sure'

These seem to be concrete reasons for voting leave, no?

Yes, the EU may have tried to make it very difficult for the UK to maintain its status, but surely if it came down to an ultimatum between us and them, then we would simply trigger Article 50 and leave.

Given their desire for Federal Europe, surely their ambitions will extend to taking us over in the future anyway?

All people seem to be able to offer is vague assertions that the EU will eventually rule the world, and that somehow voting to leave is going to make us immune from that because 'we have got our sovereignty back'.

[Piersman2]

mattmurdock said:

GoodOlBoy said:

I'm not sidestepping the question at all. I was trying to explain how the EU, or more accurately the Federalists, usually get what they want.

In the near future I doubt the EU will be able to make many, if any gains in formally taking over more sovereignty from any of the EU member states, especially the UK. Informally they already have control over some of the poorer Eurozone countries.

If the UK remains in the EU but outside the Euro I believe the EU will step by step make it very difficult for the UK to maintain it's status. They will certainly attempt to take over our sovereignty, whether they'll succeed I'm not sure.

'Usually get what they want'
'I'm not sure'

These seem to be concrete reasons for voting leave, no?

Yes, the EU may have tried to make it very difficult for the UK to maintain its status, but surely if it came down to an ultimatum between us and them, then we would simply trigger Article 50 and leave.

Given their desire for Federal Europe, surely their ambitions will extend to taking us over in the future anyway?

All people seem to be able to offer is vague assertions that the EU will eventually rule the world, and that somehow voting to leave is going to make us immune from that because 'we have got our sovereignty back'.

Nobody has said "the EU will eventually rule the world", but the EU is trying to rule the european member states of it's organisation.

The people of the UK have been given a once in a lifetime oppotunity to leave the club, and took it.

Unfortunately, you seem to continue to assert that we could do that any time even if we were in the club, possibly we could have. But it so happened that we took the first and only chance in 40 years and already did it.

So your whole discussion, argument, point is moot. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continuing to bang on about what we coulda, shoulda , woulda done. Are you just trying to persuade us leavers that we shouldn't have?

[mattmurdock]

Piersman2 said:

Nobody has said "the EU will eventually rule the world", but the EU is trying to rule the european member states of it's organisation.

The people of the UK have been given a once in a lifetime oppotunity to leave the club, and took it.

Unfortunately, you seem to continue to assert that we could do that any time even if we were in the club, possibly we could have. But it so happened that we took the first and only chance in 40 years and already did it.

So your whole discussion, argument, point is moot. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continuing to bang on about what we coulda, shoulda , woulda done. Are you just trying to persuade us leavers that we shouldn't have?

I'm trying to highlight that the pats on the back about 'dodging the bullet' are unwarranted, because they are based on emotional, false assumptions.

I'm trying to point out that both sides seem to have had a massive failure of critical thinking skills.

I'm trying to establish why the leavers seem to believe they have 'reclaimed their sovereignty' and that this is worth any potential economic consequences, when the arguments that we have 'reclaimed our sovereignty' appear to be so paper thin.

[RizzoTheRat]

Piersman2 said:

but the EU is trying to rule the european member states of it's organisation.

The EU *is* the member states of its organisation, lots of people seem to be viewing the EU as *them* when, up to now, it's been *us*. What the EU does is decided by representatives of those member states. Yes some of those representatives are unelected (like UK civil servants), but their powers are given to them by the elected bodies, and major decisions need to voted on by the elected European Parliament.

[ATG]

Mrr T said:

Leaked document?

It seems to be available on the web for all to read.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192564.html

I would suggest you read it and then you will see the reporting does not actually reflect what in the document.

Surely you're not suggesting the gutter press are writing the kind of drivel they think their readership will lap up rather than trying to inform them?

[Piersman2]

mattmurdock said:

I'm trying to highlight that the pats on the back about 'dodging the bullet' are unwarranted, because they are based on emotional, false assumptions.

I'm trying to point out that both sides seem to have had a massive failure of critical thinking skills.

I'm trying to establish why the leavers seem to believe they have 'reclaimed their sovereignty' and that this is worth any potential economic consequences, when the arguments that we have 'reclaimed our sovereignty' appear to be so paper thin.

You're also trying to look into a crystal ball, like all of us are to be fair.

Since I was old enough to actually understand politics and have watched the EU evolve over 30 years, I've always disliked and mistrusted it's influences, goals and methods. It's always been clear that the UK is not of the same mentality as the rest of the peoples of Europe. My personal belief is because we never got invaded by another nation during the world wars, we don't share our neighbours fears of it happening again.

I had my one and only chance to directly vote on the EU last week, and took it. As did 17M others. We managed to gain a majority and we should be out in due course.

If we had stayed in I would have accepted that, I wouldn't have expected another referendum in my lifetime. I would have hoped for the whole edifice to collapse under it's own weight in the fullness of time.

But the collapse of the EU will not end well for any of the countries within, the EU powers brokers will not relinqush control easily, it will be messy, utterly disastrous and quite likley in my view to lead to civil unrest and war across Europe.

That little bit of sea may stop the physicality of war coming to us yet again, but the political break was needed to give us our own chance to sail away from the impending economic implosion and ever increasing, creeping, insidious ruling over us by an unelected foreign quango.

It's not my fault the last few governments have been sucked into the EU, but I was going to take my frist chance to get out when it came along.