Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (March Poll)

[kindai]

I value my privacy so anyone who steps in to prevent the government from impacting it is worth their weight in gold to me.

My data, my privacy... or... not, it may seem.

That isn't the point though. The whole point is people are trying to say that the EU isn't over-ruling laws in the UK.... well by your own link, yes they are, or more precisely, yes they might.

 

[GarethSouthgate]

That isn't the point though. The whole point is people are trying to say that the EU isn't over-ruling laws in the UK.... well by your own link, yes they are, or more precisely, yes they might.

It might not be their/your point but it is my point I'm all for another pair of eyes. I don't trust any politician!

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know the finer details, what exactly can they do? Do we have any more examples?

 

[datalol-jack]

It's perhaps also worthwhile to point out to the sovereign club on here that, as a nuclear option, our parliament can just repeal everything to do with the EU, or in part, unilaterally, should there be a need to. There will be consequences, of course, but the power and the option is there to use by whatever government is in place, and has a majority here.

In fact, this arrangement for EU states, is what brought about the exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty, making certain informal conventions formal, for the clarity and peace of mind of all those concerned. And it is this sovereign arrangement that makes the current referendum and our exit legally possible, to begin with. Just so you know.

And we can also shoot down and reject unfavourable legislation and trade deals as it stands, anyway, so that whole 'overruled and dictated to' angle collapses badly; specifics or no specifics. Though actual examples are always welcome, chaps.

So what does the Big Bad actually do? Well, it turns out it can only take initiative on the EU-wide laws and directives everyone has signed up to and passed nationally. That's it. And even then, as per above, it is not: 'hey, you, UK, do this'; hence our many exceptions, negotiations and accommodations over the years, plus involvement in the EUP, Council, Commission, etc.

Moreover, even under the WTO rules (rules being the emphasis here), we would still have to legislate for and agree to treaties which take more than one party (us) into account, and would require transnational legal assurances, institutions and compromises to establish, manage and make them workable.

-------------------

Re Tata, headline grab via BBC:

Steel giant Tata is holding a board meeting in India which could decide the fate of thousands of UK workers.

So a global, private, non-EU agent decides it cannot compete with another global, private but state-backed, non-EU agent, and considers job cuts; how's that EU's fault again?

Should we Brexit, how would the situation change? Tata isn't nor will be under our direct control; the Chinese will do what they do; the climate change legislation is now at a global level and shall remain; there's nothing stopping us from pumping or offering favourable measures to keep the factory afloat now, really; the high energy costs are always a factor for island nations without sufficient natural resources.

 

[estebanrey]

And we can also shoot down and reject unfavourable legislation and trade deals as it stands, anyway, so that whole 'overruled and dictated to' angle collapses badly; specifics or no specifics. Though actual examples are always welcome, chaps.

How about the EU Ports Services Regulation which only harms Britain. Why haven't we shot that down?

 

[Tunney]

The fact that we have the power to hold this vote and leave if we wish makes the sovereignty argument moot for me.

We choose to get together with the rest of the EU to make. No-one is putting a gun to our collective heads. We can leave whenever we want.

 

[datalol-jack]

Sigh, charging at windmills again? But at least it is something. Right-o.

How about the EU Ports Services Regulation which only harms Britain. Why haven't we shot that down?

How can it harm us if it isn't even a law that needs to be transposed at Westminster yet? In fact, it's still a draft proposal.

But, here's what Jenkin got as a reply to his official question in Parliament:
Jenkin:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether it is the Government's policy that the EU Ports Services Regulation should be subject to the 12-month review procedure to assess its conformity with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality agreed between the Prime Minister and the EU and that no further action should be taken to progress that regulation until that review has taken place.

Goodwill:

As part of the settlement secured by the Prime Minister, the European Commission has committed to establish in the future a mechanism to review existing EU legislation for its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. This is an important shift in how the EU operates. Negotiations on the EU Port Services Regulation (PSR) are ongoing and I am committed to defending the UK’s successful ports and to opposing any amendments that would damage the efficiency and competitiveness of our ports sector.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...=AllQuestions&house=commons,lords&member=1562

From what I can tell, it was agreed with us in the room however, Dave's happy enough (though Goodwill and a few Nords will wrangle over the details further), and the proposal is proceeding with opposition from the usual suspects. Our great and the good met on Wednesday, last week, to discuss it, and it's still a work in progress, as per Goodwill's reply and the government's stance. The end.

 

[Mr Jack]

How about the EU Ports Services Regulation which only harms Britain. Why haven't we shot that down?

Let's suppose that we accept your assertion that it only harms Britain. Can you think of no reason why we might accept it anyway?

It's called diplomacy. It's a game of give-and-take: we don't shoot down everything we don't like because then we never get the (much larger) proportion of things we do like.

Leaving the EU won't change this; it'll just change what we're arguing about.

 

[datalol-jack]

Let's suppose that we accept your assertion that it only harms Britain. Can you think of no reason why we might accept it anyway?

It's called diplomacy. It's a game of give-and-take: we don't shoot down everything we don't like because then we never get the (much larger) proportion of things we do like.

Leaving the EU won't change this; it'll just change what we're arguing about.

It's amusing how every country the Brexiteers hold up as a shining beacon of 'almighty sovereignty' (TM) has compromised on the global stage to get the deals and alliances that they wanted, ceding fractions of absolute power for beneficial arrangements in the process. Not even our cousins across the Atlantic can boast of being in control, unilaterally and completely, over the political and economic realities abroad and at home.

It's a global world; global rules; shared powers and responsibilities; Brexit won't alter that, as much as some regressive actors would like it to.

 

[estebanrey]

Let's suppose that we accept your assertion that it only harms Britain. Can you think of no reason why we might accept it anyway?

It's called diplomacy. It's a game of give-and-take: we don't shoot down everything we don't like because then we never get the (much larger) proportion of things we do like.

Leaving the EU won't change this; it'll just change what we're arguing about.

There is a huge difference between 2 sovereign nations agreeing a give-and-take deal and 1 country having to accept the will of 26 others as part of being a club they can't easily get out of though.

 

[estebanrey]

It's amusing how every country the Brexiteers hold up as a shining beacon of 'almighty sovereignty' (TM) has compromised on the global stage to get the deals and alliances that they wanted, ceding fractions of absolute power for beneficial arrangements in the process. Not even our cousins across the Atlantic can boast of being in control, unilaterally and completely, over the political and economic realities abroad and at home.

It's a global world; global rules; shared powers and responsibilities; Brexit won't alter that, as much as some regressive actors would like it to.

Isn't that a bit of a Strawman? Who thinks any independent UK trade deals will work 100% in our favour with no concessions? Who is claiming an independent UK will get everything they want from the rest of the world without any concessions?

The difference is this, we will be setting our own trade deals and each one would (or should) be a 50/50 benefit for both parties and every agreement can be changed/renegotiated at our behest.

Not this is mish-mash of thousands and thousand of rules and regulations that mean we get some things in our favour and some against which remainers just seem to be equating to a 50/50 deal between us and the rest of Europe.

You can't just act like all compromises ultimately equal the same outcome.

 

[estebanrey]

Lolwut? Why would every deal be 50/50?

Why would you accept something that wasn't (in a nation on nation negotiation outside the EU)?

 

[datalol-jack]

Isn't that a bit of a Strawman? Who thinks any independent UK trade deals will work 100% in our favour with no concessions? Who is claiming an independent UK will get everything they want from the rest of the world without any concessions?

The difference is this, we will be setting our own trade deals and each one would (or should) be a 50/50 benefit for both parties and every agreement can be changed/renegotiated at our behest.

Not this is mish-mash of thousands and thousand of rules and regulations that mean we get some things in our favour and some against which remainers just seem to be equating to a 50/50 deal between us and the rest of Europe.

You can't just act like all compromises ultimately equal the same outcome.

No, it's a fair point.

The inference from the Brexit camp is for greater [sense of?] control and at least parity of outcome outside the EU, after some pain, which you only tend to amplify without any specifics; they haven't negotiated any deals yet, don't know what they even want out of them and most importantly are rather silent on how we will bypass large trade blocs to go directly country-to-country, should we end up outside the EEA, say.

The exit camp also likes to ignore the fact that the Americans, their darling, do not tend to sign comprehensive free trade deals with smaller countries directly. Like yourself, Brexiteers just offer 'we'll hold all the cards'/'a fairer shake at the whole do' quip and move on, without any real understanding of our relationship with the EU, but here's hoping.

Further, they like not to think about the near future where basically you're dealing with large free trade zones only, with each negotiation very much being 1 vs many for independent countries. Heck, if even Africa is trying to set up their own, why are we so desperate to bail out of ours, or get some second-tier arrangement? You'll have to manage a demonstration of how the freedoms we might gain outside the EU are patently better than the freedoms we have now, really. Ending up in a virtually identical situation outside the EU, whilst losing any say in the whole project, is pointless and risks too much.

Care to compare our free trade in the EU and what preceded it? Care to actually count the rules and regulations (hardly thousands and thousands)? Study their impact? At least look at the OBR's statement of their conclusions and Boris' shambolic performance against Tyrie's panel on the specifics of Brexit? No? I'll allow one rugby scrum analogy, if it helps.

 

[datalol-jack]

Why would you accept something that wasn't (in a nation on nation negotiation outside the EU)?

You have little choice left, there's uncertainty, markets are panicking, your counterparts know all this, and you need the trade to start up in volume urgently, with as few barriers as possible to even the keel?

 

[datalol-jack]

Because it's unlikely the parties will have 50/50 strength in the negotiation. If we did a deal with the Federated States of Micronesia we wouldn't have to make it a 50/50 deal. If we did a deal with China they wouldn't have to make it a 50/50 deal.

Exactly. Ironically the only place where it even remotely says we are all equals as member state horse traders in deals vs an external interest, is the EU! It's actually a pet peeve of some Leavers here (why should we -- Great Britain -- lower ourselves to listen to say Poland, Ireland, Germany, France, etc, and be in the same basket as them? Diplomacy, bro!). I think they won't be happy until they get 99/1 home advantage, sacrificing all and sundry to get it, for no obvious benefit lol (such ultimatum deals won't work on anyone larger than Latvia, I'd imagine, which conveniently for it is already in the EU anyway). Whatever, off to bed.

 

[delta0]

It's not muddying the waters, it's an important question. Because if eg. we continue to be involved in the free movement of goods, we'd still be bound by those laws passed down from the EU... but would have zero input in their drafting, so on those issues we'd have even less sovereign control than now. It is also quite surprising that sovereignty is SUCH a big issue for you, but you're unable to give examples of it being impinged which has been a negative for us. It's almost as though you don't really know what you're talking about... I'm sure it just appears to be the case...

So what would our relationship with the EU be? We wouldn't be part of the EEA? What effect would that have on our economy?

Did the US have to sign up to EU laws when they got a free trade agreement? Didn't think so.

 

[delta0]

No, it's a fair point.
The exit camp also likes to ignore the fact that the Americans, their darling, do not tend to sign comprehensive free trade deals with smaller countries directly. Like yourself, Brexiteers just offer 'we'll hold all the cards'/'a fairer shake at the whole do' quip and move on, without any real understanding of our relationship with the EU, but here's hoping.

USA has free trade agreements with many small countries as well as large economic areas. They have demonstrated very well how this can be achieved. A small country in relative terms is Korea and they have a thorough free trade deal with USA.

 

[estebanrey]

No, it's a fair point.

The inference from the Brexit camp is for greater [sense of?] control and at least parity of outcome outside the EU, after some pain, which you only tend to amplify without any specifics; they haven't negotiated any deals yet, don't know what they even want out of them and most importantly are rather silent on how we will bypass large trade blocs to go directly country-to-country, should we end up outside the EEA, say.

The exit camp also likes to ignore the fact that the Americans, their darling, do not tend to sign comprehensive free trade deals with smaller countries directly. Like yourself, Brexiteers just offer 'we'll hold all the cards'/'a fairer shake at the whole do' quip and move on, without any real understanding of our relationship with the EU, but here's hoping.

You are making sweeping statements about the many people, groups and broad-ranging political standpoints in the "Brexit Camp" as if their entire argument is the equivalent of two white van men discussing it in a pub.

It's a little more nuanced and thought through that boiling down to "Bring Back The Empire!" and "Why Can't We Be Like America".

In fact I would never use the US as an example because as I've said before it's more of a Pro-EU argument in my eyes. The United States is closer organisationally and functionally to the EU in that it's pretty much 50 countries working together in a Union. You're not really a one country when you can be put in an electric chair in part of it for murder and get a life sentence in another.

Further, they like not to think about the near future where basically you're dealing with large free trade zones only, with each negotiation very much being 1 vs many for independent countries.

So Brexiters shouldn't make claims about the deals we could do outside of Europe because they have no idea, not even an educated one of what they may get; yet you can confidently predict, with a high probability, than in a few decades time the EU project would have been replicated across the globe (despite there being no real evidence of this)?

Maybe the Brexiters can borrow your crystal ball.

Heck, if even Africa is trying to set up their own

Are talking about the African Union which has existed since 2001 and in 15 years still have a free trade area as a 'goal'?

So where's the clamor from Colombians to be part of an American Union so Obama can tell their vacuum cleaner manufacturers what wattage they can use? I don't know if you've seen the news lately but there's seems to be more chance of a wall being built across the US border than them opening it and welcoming free movement.

When will the East Asian Union be set up so that China can finally let all those Tibetans that want to work there come freely?

Maybe they'll be a Middle Eastern Union soon, we all know how well they all get a long right?

Sarcasm aside, the idea that the rest of the world are on the brink of all holding hands with their nearest neighbours and setting up massive trading blocs is fantasy at best.

, why are we so desperate to bail out of ours, or get some second-tier arrangement? You'll have to manage a demonstration of how the freedoms we might gain outside the EU are patently better than the freedoms we have now, really.

Parliament being sovereign and the people having the ultimate say over who makes the rules every 5 years is an advantage in my book. I understand you may prefer a neo liberal partially dictator system though.

Ending up in a virtually identical situation outside the EU, whilst losing any say in the whole project, is pointless and risks too much.

The fact people regard the EU as a "project" is just another reason for me to vote 'Out'.

Care to compare our free trade in the EU and what preceded it?

No because I couldn't really give a monkeys about free trade. I'm more concerned with the relative wealth we have a country (unchanged, slipping between 3rd and 5th both inside and outside the EU) and the living standards of our citizens.

Care to actually count the rules and regulations (hardly thousands and thousands)? Study their impact? At least look at the OBR's statement of their conclusions and Boris' shambolic performance against Tyrie's panel on the specifics of Brexit? No? I'll allow one rugby scrum analogy, if it helps.

When I said 'thousands and thousands' I was talking the difference between 1 country having to accept the terms of 26 others versus a direct deal between two countries that would feature far less conditions.

 

[Tefal]

Why would you accept something that wasn't (in a nation on nation negotiation outside the EU)?

Cause i want a better than 50/50 deal.

 

[estebanrey]

Cause i want a better than 50/50 deal.

Then why would the representative of the other nation sign it?

 

[Tefal]

Then why would the representative of the other nation sign it?

Cause they need it?

We prey on the weaker nations all the time.

You cant afford to feed or provide water to your people well we can give you the money to do that by building a big bunch of mines but we expect to be exempted from certain taxes or fees.

We get our goods way below market rate, you get money you desperately need (but less than you could get if you could set up the investment yourself ).


There is always a strong and a weak side in a negotiation one always needs something more than tbe other