Again, you'd have to ask the Dutch government. You're living up to every stereotype that people have about the Brexit camp by continuing to ignore reality and trying to tenuously link member state government actions with some sort of invisible hand of EU rule.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (April Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Who knows? Who even cares? It has no place in this thread because it doesn't mean what you think it means.
If you read the IMF report it actually says the EU becomes unstable and effects the world economies and not it specifically causes the UK to have an economic issue.
It did. That doesn't make it not a non-binding vote. You seem to not understand what these words mean: it means that the vote does not determine the Dutch government's policy. Instead the Dutch government can decide whether or not to pay attention. They chose not to. The EU had no part in this.
Who's "they"? The voters can't because of it being, you know, a non-binding vote. The Dutch government could have chosen to block the treaty but they chose not to. I imagine the other EU nations would have been pretty unimpressed if the Dutch has forced every one of the other EU nations to break their word but they would have had the legal right and force to do so.
By nature of the UK being part of the world, instability in the global economy would adversely affect the UK.
Not in a preferential manner. The PWC report even predicts short term effects to the UK in the worst case.
Actually the last I heard from the news the Dutch government were not going to sign the treaty. Some people need to get their facts straight on this thread.
Last edited:
If that's the case I really have to wonder what possible point you have? In the last report I read the Dutch government had decided to ratify the treaty, either way: it's the Dutch government deciding not the EU.
If you wanted a realistic criticism of the EU, you'd point out that the policy of 500 million was potentially being decided by 2.5 million Dutch people in the face of the well of 27 democratically elected governments.
Inidividual countries should have 100% sovereignty. Otherwise what is the point of having a government. They are relegated to nothing more than meps with no control over their own country. The EU have been through this before with other treaties such as Lisbon when it was rejected and then just forced through regardless. It should be for individual countries to decide what they apply and no foreign country should be able to impose such rulings.
Like Scotland and Wales?
As part of the United Kingdom they are not sovereign nation states. The UK is a sovereign nation state and the EU impedes this. In fact England and N.Ireland are not sovereign nation states. Only the UK.
What do you define sovereignty as, and would compromises made to secure a deal with a trading partners count as that country having less than 100% sovereignty now?
The Vote Leave campaign didn't buy their domain name in time. This is what happened next...
www.voteleave.co.uk
www.voteleave.co.uk
This is just incoherent. You can't have 28 nations in a club having "100% sovereignty" because their decisions conflict with each other and then whose "100% sovereignty" do we go with?
That is not what happened. The member states got together and addressed what were seen as the issues before another vote was held. Clearly the Irish people thought the changes were sufficient as they changed to supporting the new treaty by a considerable margin.
How do you possibly expect international treaties to be worked out if they simple abandon everything each time there's a hitch?
No foreign country is imposing anything. The members of the EU have agreed with each other that on certain issues they'll co-operate and accept qualified majority voting. The idea of 100% sovereignty is simply unrealistic, nations have always compromised with one another in order to create outcomes that are in all their best interests. The EU is just a particularly well organised and advanced example of this.
Gah! Got me.
OK, so let's look at some grievances from states that are in the EU and where the people have been ignored or told very quickly that they gave the wrong answer:
Denmark 1992 - Maastricht Treaty - People voted No - Made to vote again
Ireland 2001 - Nice Treaty - People voted No - Made to vote again
France 2005 - EU Constitution - People voted no - EU ignored it
Netherlands 2005 - EU Constitution - People voted no - EU ignored it
Ireland 2008 - Lisbon Treaty - People voted No - Made to vote again
Greece 2015 - Euro bailout - People voted no - EU ignored it
And here's a nice quote from our beloved EU Commissioner on how the EU values "the will of the people":
"If it's a Yes we will say "on we go", and if it's a No we will say "we continue". - Jean-Clause Juncker on the French referendum on the European Constitution
The EU does not care about the will of the people, it will seek to continue to further its political aims no matter what resistance.
Give us the facts:
1. "What did the EU ever do for us?
2. Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
3. structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
4. clean beaches and rivers;
5. cleaner air;
6. lead free petrol;
7. restrictions on landfill dumping;
8. a recycling culture;
9. cheaper mobile charges;
10. cheaper air travel;
11. improved consumer protection and food labelling;
12. a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
13. better product safety;
14. single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
15. break up of monopolies;
16. Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
17. no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
18. price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
19. freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
20. funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
21. access to European health services;
22. labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
23. smoke-free workplaces;
24. equal pay legislation;
25. holiday entitlement;
26. the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
27. strongest wildlife protection in the world;
28. improved animal welfare in food production;
29. EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
30. EU representation in international forums;
31. bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
32. EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
33. European arrest warrant;
34. cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
35. European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
36. support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
37. investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
38. All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
39. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
40. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.
And then the decision to stay is irrefutable.
1. "What did the EU ever do for us?
2. Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
3. structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
4. clean beaches and rivers;
5. cleaner air;
6. lead free petrol;
7. restrictions on landfill dumping;
8. a recycling culture;
9. cheaper mobile charges;
10. cheaper air travel;
11. improved consumer protection and food labelling;
12. a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
13. better product safety;
14. single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
15. break up of monopolies;
16. Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
17. no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
18. price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
19. freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
20. funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
21. access to European health services;
22. labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
23. smoke-free workplaces;
24. equal pay legislation;
25. holiday entitlement;
26. the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
27. strongest wildlife protection in the world;
28. improved animal welfare in food production;
29. EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
30. EU representation in international forums;
31. bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
32. EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
33. European arrest warrant;
34. cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
35. European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
36. support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
37. investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
38. All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
39. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
40. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.
And then the decision to stay is irrefutable.
Firstly, nobody was 'made to vote again.' That's nonsense. Secondly, let's take a look at what they voted for on both occasions.
False. The Danes said 'Yes' at the second referendum because after refusing it the first time, Denmark was granted four critical exceptions that made the Maastricht Treaty worth signing. This was achieved under the Edinburgh Agreement.
So they voted for something different the second time, and that's why they said 'Yes.'
False. As with Denmark, the Irish voted 'Yes' the second time after changes were made. One of these changes exempted Ireland from joining a common EU defence policy. With that hurdle out of the way, Irish voters were happy to say 'Yes.'
False. The EU accepted the French and Dutch 'No' votes. As a direct consequence, the ratification process was dumped. Two years later, the EU Constitution concept was completely abandoned.
False. Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 and forced the EU to amend it. When the Treaty was resubmitted in its amended form, Ireland ratified it at a second referendum.
False. Greeks voted against the bailout, and the EU accepted this decision. However, Prime Minister Tspiras immediately went back to the EU and demanded a bailout, which was granted. This damaged his party at the next election.
(Source).
False. The Danes said 'Yes' at the second referendum because after refusing it the first time, Denmark was granted four critical exceptions that made the Maastricht Treaty worth signing. This was achieved under the Edinburgh Agreement.
So they voted for something different the second time, and that's why they said 'Yes.'
False. As with Denmark, the Irish voted 'Yes' the second time after changes were made. One of these changes exempted Ireland from joining a common EU defence policy. With that hurdle out of the way, Irish voters were happy to say 'Yes.'
False. The EU accepted the French and Dutch 'No' votes. As a direct consequence, the ratification process was dumped. Two years later, the EU Constitution concept was completely abandoned.
False. Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 and forced the EU to amend it. When the Treaty was resubmitted in its amended form, Ireland ratified it at a second referendum.
False. Greeks voted against the bailout, and the EU accepted this decision. However, Prime Minister Tspiras immediately went back to the EU and demanded a bailout, which was granted. This damaged his party at the next election.
(Source).
I started out as a complacent big business in voter but over the course of the campaign I've become a firm out voter, the democratic deficit will never be rectified, the corrupt banking will never be rectified and the desperate enlargement process will continue to bring in countries that are basically gangster states.
They obviously did a good job of ignoring it given there is no EU constitution and it didn't go ahead.
This is what terrifies me about this referendum - so many strong opinions from people who simply cannot be bothered to educate themselves before forming them. It doesn't take very long to find out things like 'Did the EU Constitution actually happen in the end', you know.
Others are easily swayed by often compelling arguments from people who simply cannot be bothered to understand what they are forming an opinion on. People will read the lists like that you've posted, believe you know what you are talking about and it allow it to influence them. Even though most of it is rubbish and easily debunked with about 5 minutes and Google.
It's why referendums generally suck. It's far better when we elect people to make decisions on our behalf - people who we can pay a salary to and make it their job to understand. If you want out of the EU the answer should be to elect a representative who shares your view.
Last edited:
- Status