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

[RaohNS]

Vote remain and follow laws we have a fair (proportional) say in. Vote leave and follow laws we don't have a say in. Great.

U wot m8?

Regulations are not laws as you are presenting them as.

If we went alone the EU would have to sell abiding by our regulations as much as we would or ANY other country would theirs.

The point is that we don't have a fair say, it is fundamentally undemocratic. I read somewhere from a while back that 5,000 people in the EU get paid more than the Prime Minister. That is just very unfair.

The UK can easily go it alone. We will come up with our own plans and ideas that currently we need the nod and wink and approval of hundreds of other people who want their cut

 

[Tefal]

Vote remain and follow laws we have a fair (proportional) say in. Vote leave and follow laws we don't have a say in. Great.

Wait how do you have a fair say in the laws od the EU

But you have no say in the laws of the uk

 

[Roar87]

Proportional to population?

Proportional to contribution?

Proportional to participation?

Proportional to... what?

Population, and you knew I meant that.

 

[datalol-jack]

I mean we'll then join the single market and have to accept laws we have no say in. I know eg. Gove said we wouldn't, but it's my understanding the Brexit consensus is we'd want to remain part of the single market, unless that's wrong?

It has never been made crystal clear, but it went something like this: Norway -> Switzerland -> WTO -> no EEA is our best best -> no want more 'sovereignty' so back to WTO and then decide -> Canada-style FTA -> too risky --> well either that or a special "European FTA".

Expect it to flip and flop until the vote.

 

[Mulder]

Moses how many times do you want to ignore the point about WTO trading rules? Their trading rules supersede EU law, and we've lost our influence at the WTO as the EU speaks on our behalf. The "influence" point from remainers is just rubbish, as is still trying to claim the EU is democratic/accountable, it really isn't.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Population, and you knew I meant that.

So how is proportion to population fair if you dont take into account participation, contribution and what we receive back?

If you think we should get representation proportionate to population compared to other members, then surely it is only applicable if we have the same level of eu participation as the country you compare it to.

 

[Amp34]

Are you linking the MEPs to a lack of accountability? Obviously they're elected, then they can dismiss the Commission. Also, they can help draft and amend proposals put forward by the Commission, then can block anything they don't want. They can't initiate legislation, but that doesn't mean they're powerless.



Wrong. The Commission is selected by the member states. The President is selected from people proposed by the Council, but they can reject all of them and ask the Council to try again.



Well, no, we get a fair say in what happens in the Parliament. But yes, in a union we have to find common ground. Shock horror.



Wrong.



Wrong. What makes you think we're screwed if our MEPs don't vote for the winner?! And they can change the proposed laws... the commission then has to agree, but the commission can only propose stuff the MEPs agree to, as well.

Before I read the rest of your post, with respect, do you know what you're talking about?

The way the presidential election occurs sounds like the way our prime minister is elected here.

People vote for MPs, MPs the. Group together as parties (eg conservative/lib dems) and the largest grouping elects the person they want as president. If the away president is not "democratically" elected then the British prime minister isn't either.

 

[Roar87]

So how is proportion to population fair if you dont take into account participation, contribution and what we receive back?

I'm not sure those things should be relevant, should London get more MP's because it has a greater contribution to the budget? How do you think the rest of the country would feel about that? Countries should have MEP's based on their population, that's how a representational Democracy works

 

[Mulder]

What have I ignored? Brexit bores me and I haven't engaged with this thread much.

Pretty much what I said, but I'll link to it when I'm not on the road.

Bored of Brexit? It almost sounds like you've got a predisposition towards remain and aren't looking at all the facts objectively!

Edit - here:

Similarly, we recall that a recent EFTA report revealed that ~90% of these Single Market rules (the EEA Acquis) are now actually covered by International bodies. Courtesy of Article 2.4 of the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (agreed in 1994), the EU is subordinate to the WTO and is obliged to adopt international standards where they exist. So nowadays, having a say over the Single Market rules means having an independent voice and veto on the international bodies making these rules - something Norway has but which the UK has surrendered to the EU.

 

[Judgeneo]

Are you linking the MEPs to a lack of accountability? Obviously they're elected, then they can dismiss the Commission. Also, they can help draft and amend proposals put forward by the Commission, then can block anything they don't want. They can't initiate legislation, but that doesn't mean they're powerless.

Practically powerless, they can't propose laws. This is the only parliament in the world which operates in such a way.

Wrong. The Commission is selected by the member states. The President is selected from people proposed by the Council, but they can reject all of them and ask the Council to try again.

You seem to be agreeing that the commission or its president isn't elected by the public.
You agreed that the president is selected by the council, and the MEPs vote on that. As you say, the President and the council then work together to choose the rest of the commission. The president does have most of the power in this decision.
So I'm not really wrong. Choice of commission is so far removed from the will of the public that it may was well be hereditary.

Well, no, we get a fair say in what happens in the Parliament. But yes, in a union we have to find common ground. Shock horror.

I was merely illustrating how much compromise needs to be made. A "fair say" is a highly subjective term, care to elaborate?

Wrong.

I covered this earlier, you actually agreed with the majority of what I said.

Wrong. What makes you think we're screwed if our MEPs don't vote for the winner?! And they can change the proposed laws... the commission then has to agree, but the commission can only propose stuff the MEPs agree to, as well.

The key point is that MEPs cannot propose laws, and have extreme difficulty in proposing any changes. They can only ratify, or not ratify. The commission holds all the real power. The President of the commission has a very large say in determining members of the commission. So yes, it the UK does not get the commission president that it votes for, then it faces an even greater difficulty than usual in getting its voice heard.

Before I read the rest of your post, with respect, do you know what you're talking about?

I'd say I've got a reasonable grasp on the matter, yes.

 

[Tunney]

Thanks you confirmed my statement about the majority of Brits sticking in the UK from cradle to grave

2.2 million is a big number but 3.5% is a very small proportion.

2.2 million is a significant number of people. The only city in the UK with a population greater than that is London and it's greater than the entire population of Northern Ireland.

And, as I said, it only represents the number of people currently living abroad. I've personally benefited from freedom of movement even though I don't currently live abroad.

 

[Nitefly]

I'm attending a seminar tomorrow for professionals (banks / lawyers / agents etc) on the likely changes and risks - should be interesting!

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Because irrespective of the questionable validity of the test results and the crap testing process it's difficult to argue that the continued restrictions in EU emissions standards have not forced the manufacturers to dedicate far more effort into reducing emissions than they ever would have done off their own back.

Reduce emissions like BMW/VW/Audi do by fudging the numbers and cheating the system

 

[[TW]Fox]

Reduce emissions like BMW/VW/Audi do by fudging the numbers and cheating the system

There is no evidence to suggest BMW did that and the VW situation in the EU is not yet clear.

Emissions are generally proportional to fuel burnt and you can't deny that most cars are more efficient now than they've ever been.

 

[Mr Jack]

Practically powerless, they can't propose laws. This is the only parliament in the world which operates in such a way.

It's also the only parliament of its kind in the world. The reason it's powers are limited is to preserve the sovereignty of its member states; and it is far from powerless.

You seem to be agreeing that the commission or its president isn't elected by the public.

We have the President we have because he was the chosen representative of the largest group in the EU Parliament.

So I'm not really wrong. Choice of commission is so far removed from the will of the public that it may was well be hereditary.

Except for the President being chosen on the basis of the EPP having the largest mandate in the EU Parliament*, and the the Commission being selected by the democratically elected governments.

The key point is that MEPs cannot propose laws, and have extreme difficulty in proposing any changes. They can only ratify, or not ratify. The commission holds all the real power.

The Council, and the national Governments, hold the real power. The Commission and the Parliament have a variety of interlocking powers which make it difficult to say which really has more influence.

The President of the commission has a very large say in determining members of the commission. So yes, it the UK does not get the commission president that it votes for, then it faces an even greater difficulty than usual in getting its voice heard.

The President has less influence than the Council does in forming the Commission and the UK's ability to get it's voice heard does not much depend on the whims of the President.

* - I'm aware that de jure the EU Parliament does not have this power; but it very much does de facto. This is the reason that Cameron could not block Juncker - because as far as the rest of Europe was concerned they had voted for him.

 

[RaohNS]

No, I mean how basically Brexiters claim we'll be part of the single market if we leave, and so if we are well have to accept the applicable EU regulations and directives.

Alternatively that shows our PM is horribly underpaid for what he does (he is).

How is this a problem? We do this already.

UK says to EU country to trade this product with us you need to abide by regulation UK 13423
EU turns to us and says to trade this product with us you must abide by regulation EU 573

No different to how all countries operate currently.

Can I ask if you have a hundred quid as I'd like to give you fifty quid for it

 

[Mulder]

It's unbelievable some people still genuinely think of the EU as democratic/accountable:

• None of the EU commissioners bar Juncker have been "approved" by the Parliament.
• The Parliament cannot initiate, nor repeal EU law.
• MEP's are paid handsomely to do not a lot and get even more money to sit around Brussels (i.e. not being amongst their voting public in their constituencies)
• Euro Corporatism is rife. Millions are spent and discussions are nearly always behind closed doors.
• Turnout for MEP elections has gone down every single year since it was started. Why? Because people know it doesn't have any power.
• The EU has consistently ignored the will of the people in various referenda.
• Barroso has said "Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong."Juncker has been quoted saying "if the answer is No, the vote will have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be a yes". There are various other quotes from EU leaders similar to the above.
• Another great line from Juncker - "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties."
• The declaration signed by Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg stating deeper integration ‘should not be limited to the field of economic and fiscal matters.’ and ‘We are convinced that new impetus must be given to European integration’
• Even supporters of the EU "project" often acknowledge it has a problem with Democracy and call it the EU's "democratic defect".

The EU is primarily a "project" to create a federalist Europe. It doesn't care about the people/democracy. Every crisis is responded to by "we need further, deeper and faster integration" despite Nationalism increasing sharply as a counter balance to this. To call it democratic/accountable is laughable.

 

[Jokester]

How is this a problem? We do this already.

UK says to EU country to trade this product with us you need to abide by regulation UK 13423
EU turns to us and says to trade this product with us you must abide by regulation EU 573

No different to how all countries operate currently.

As it is, UK 13423 = EU 573 at the moment.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I'm not sure those things should be relevant, should London get more MP's because it has a greater contribution to the budget? How do you think the rest of the country would feel about that? Countries should have MEP's based on their population, that's how a representational Democracy works

I think you mean proportional representation rather than representational democracy, which is number elected officials proportional to the population they represent.

Ofc they are relevant. contribution relative to GDP shows a level of monetary investment relative to the worth of the investment to the country. As for participation, why should countries who dont want to adhere to all the policies of the eu as well as the euro currency have as much say as the rest?

A democracy involves compromise to work and for all to benefit. People crying sovereignty dont see the benefits and are deluded in thinking they will have more power in things like immigration if we leave. We may leave the EU but we will compromise on free movement to keep free trade. In the end we will have the odd restriction lifted that wont effect the average person but everything driving brexit will remain the same and the UK will have less say on the policies we had to compromise to retain.

 

[Aldav]

It is simply not true that we joined a group "supposedly only about trade", as Ted Heath's letter to the nation makes clear:

Also, Heath ran on a manifesto that included joining the EEC so it's not like he didn't have a mandate to take us in.

A manifesto is about 5 years of running a country, not giving away the right to run it. Other countries that considered themselves so economically tied to the UK that they applied or the '73 enlargement when we did were all offered a referendum by their governments, but we weren't. The Norwegian people rejected membership. Twice. A referendum is how a government should get a mandate for changing the constitutional basis of government, not taking us in without asking.

That Heath letter was after all the negotiations had taken place, and does not reflect the vast bulk of the political presentation of joining to the people, which was almost entirely about trade. It touched on things like cheap French wine, but the notion of it being about political union was emphatically and repeatedly denied by Heath, at the time. Of course, later on, most notably in a speech in Switzerland (Geneva, if I remember correctly, about 1990) he admitted that it had been about political union all the time.

Heath lied to us about it, over and again. I don't know about you, but I remember it clearly, having been there at the time.