The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Webbo]

More centralisation isn't a certainty over the long term. Less democracy is true as far as the "making our own laws" argument is concerned. Declining share or world trade? Not sure that can be predicted with any certainty.

More centralisation and declining share of world trade is the trend and has been for a while. Unless there is a change in direction, which there doesn't seem to be any inclination towards I don't see why that would change.

 

As for democracy, laws made by people who are accountable to the voters would be a start.

[Strokes]

Nothing is a guarantee for prosperity... but the chance to get what you need into your country without tariffs AND export your own countries products to your nearest neighbours without addictional costs to those consumers - that's not a bad start to getting there.

As a tool available for this country to take advantage of - it's pretty ****ing useful.

We might not pay for the trade on shipment but our membership fee suggests that the trade isn't as tariff free as you seem to suggest. Aren't these big business that EU is helping trade, the same businesses that are underpaying unskilled workers and overpaying execs. How come their prosperity matters so much right now?

[Dodgy Bob]

More centralisation and declining share of world trade is the trend and has been for a while. Unless there is a change in direction, which there doesn't seem to be any inclination towards I don't see why that would change.

As for democracy, laws made by people who are accountable to the voters would be a start.

The declining share of world trade is due to other countries like China increasing their share. That would have happened whether we were in the EU or not. It might carry on, it might not. It probably will for a while, just because of the dynamics at play in an unequal world where developing countries can beat developed countries on price and then also benefit from exponential growth in their domestic market, providing overall rates of growth that aren't available to a developed country. That's what China has done and we wouldn't have been able to stop it, even if we wanted to. Ultimately our share of world trade isn't that important because it's not a zero sum game. The EU economy is larger than it was and that's the important measure.

Centralisation, like your democracy argument, is something that feels too intangible for me to worry about at the moment. I may well be wrong about that. It's no doubt true that the current trend is towards centralisation, but I'm not aware of any specific problems that has caused us so far. I'd want and expect us to push against further integration, and if we failed at that then it could make me want to leave, but it doesn't yet. Didn't Cameron already get us an exemption from the 'ever increasing' union anyway?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The EU as a proportion of our exports is falling. We sell to the rest of the world and seem to manage.

But EU exports and imports are still a major factor to the UK (44% out / 55% in) - so why would the UK as a business simply want to remove its advantage in this area - without anything concrete in the other direction?

Would you suddenly change course with your business with no research, no planning, no understanding, no guarantees beforehand?

[theessexfox]

More centralisation and declining share of world trade is the trend and has been for a while. Unless there is a change in direction, which there doesn't seem to be any inclination towards I don't see why that would change.

 

As for democracy, laws made by people who are accountable to the voters would be a start.

If we're gonna use that as an argument then we need to press on with reforming our own democracy, the people who make laws in the UK are entirely unaccountable to me living in a safe seat.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

And one thing on the immigration debate that every Leicester fan should consider - if Kante had required a work permit in order to play/sign for us, there is no way he would have qualified.

He came here, took a job one of our UK kids could have filled and no doubt came in on a 'undercutting wage' initially.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

As for democracy, laws made by people who are accountable to the voters would be a start.

The downside with this approach would be that making EU law is so complex, given it requires knowledge of all existing member states law for a start, having this approach would drastically reduce the number of people that could run as candidates.

Is it not better to have a specialist team that deals with the putting together of the law that has to apply across 28 states, a team that is not subject to,election so that it can stay together so it retains its knowledge and expertise - but have the direction and passing of these laws triggered by elected MEP's / heads of state?

I don't believe for one second that our own MP's draft all the laws in this country - I imagine the vast majority of work is done within the department by specialised, unelected civil servants.

[Rincewind]

Agreed. Just watch Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister. The episode where Hacker is told he does not make the decisions.

[Webbo]

If we're gonna use that as an argument then we need to press on with reforming our own democracy, the people who make laws in the UK are entirely unaccountable to me living in a safe seat.

Do you remember the 1997 election ? 100s of age seats changed hands. You're comparing a system where lawmakers are appointed and can't be removed versus a system where MPs face 're election every 5 years. There's no comparison.

[Finnaldo]

The downside with this approach would be that making EU law is so complex, given it requires knowledge of all existing member states law for a start, having this approach would drastically reduce the number of people that could run as candidates.

Is it not better to have a specialist team that deals with the putting together of the law that has to apply across 28 states, a team that is not subject to,election so that it can stay together so it retains its knowledge and expertise - but have the direction and passing of these laws triggered by elected MEP's / heads of state?

I don't believe for one second that our own MP's draft all the laws in this country - I imagine the vast majority of work is done within the department by specialised, unelected civil servants.

Even if that is the case, the MPs elected by the public get to vote on that law in the House of Commons, but if that documentary is anything to go off (and I'm sure it wouldn't make up something so blatant) MEPs have no say in the passing of law, just discuss it.

[Jon the Hat]

And one thing on the immigration debate that every Leicester fan should consider - if Kante had required a work permit in order to play/sign for us, there is no way he would have qualified.

He came here, took a job one of our UK kids could have filled and no doubt came in on a 'undercutting wage' initially.

 

No reason to think a highly talented sportsman wouldn't be accommodated under Visa rules.  The Premier League is worth a lot of money to the UK.

[Rincewind]

True but what about an unknown French 2nd Div player? I am sure though that different rules might be worked out for certain professions.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

No reason to think a highly talented sportsman wouldn't be accommodated under Visa rules.  The Premier League is worth a lot of money to the UK.

He was a largely unknown quantity, uncapped, hadn't won any major honours and played for a minor French club - how would that have equated to 'a highly talented sportsman?'

But I use this to show how selective people can be with this side of the argument - and how narrow minded the idea is that we can simply determin the use of a person by what qualifications or money they may have upon entering the country, rather than what they chose to do with an opportunity when given.

It's also a little strange to want more 'high skilled immigration' because personally I'd have hoped the skilled positions in this country could be largely filled by 'natives' given they would have had the benefit of our education system. If our countries own systems and structures worked sufficiently it would be low skilled migrant workers that were in more demand.

[theessexfox]

Do you remember the 1997 election ? 100s of age seats changed hands. You're comparing a system where lawmakers are appointed and can't be removed versus a system where MPs face 're election every 5 years. There's no comparison.

Well my seat hasn't changed hands since 1950 personally so I don't see how I can get my voice heard in the political system. At least my vote will count proportionally in the election of MEPs who may not have the most power, but at least are necessary for the co-ratification of legislation - meaning personally I am better able to hold MEPs to account than MPs. Technically our PM, accountable to the electorate as you say, is the one who appointments the key EU lawmaker on behalf of the UK, Jonathan Hill at the moment, but I accept that elections aren't won or lost based on who the PM appoints as Commissioner.

I am by no means a fan of the EU, I just think the democracy argument can be flawed when I have more of a say in what happens in the EU than I do in a UK General Election. 

[Webbo]

Well my seat hasn't changed hands since 1950 personally so I don't see how I can get my voice heard in the political system. At least my vote will count proportionally in the election of MEPs who may not have the most power, but at least are necessary for the co-ratification of legislation - meaning personally I am better able to hold MEPs to account than MPs. Technically our PM, accountable to the electorate as you say, is the one who appointments the key EU lawmaker on behalf of the UK, Jonathan Hill at the moment, but I accept that elections aren't won or lost based on who the PM appoints as Commissioner.

I am by no means a fan of the EU, I just think the democracy argument can be flawed when I have more of a say in what happens in the EU than I do in a UK General Election. 

PR is a totally separate argument.You don't have any say in what happens in the EU as your MEP can't propose or repeal any EU laws.

 

Our PM doesn't appoint the other 27 commisioners.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Our PM doesn't appoint the other 27 commisioners.

Why would you expect him to?

[Webbo]

Why would you expect him to?

The point was our PM appoints our commissioner therefore if you don't get what you want it's his fault.

[theessexfox]

PR is a totally separate argument.You don't have any say in what happens in the EU as your MEP can't propose or repeal any EU laws.

 

Our PM doesn't appoint the other 27 commisioners.

You're acting like the MEP doesn't have a say - the European Parliament can reject laws.

 

And my constituency doesn't elect the other 649 MPs - that's how an electoral system works. My point is that those arguing that EU representatives are unaccountable should be strong campaigners for electoral reform in the UK, surely? 

[Webbo]

You're acting like the MEP doesn't have a say - the European Parliament can reject laws.

 

And my constituency doesn't elect the other 649 MPs - that's how an electoral system works. My point is that those arguing that EU representatives are unaccountable should be strong campaigners for electoral reform in the UK, surely? 

We have a system where we can remove the people who make our laws, whether you like that system or not is just a distraction. We can't remove the EU commissioners, or any of the others who make our laws.If you can't change the people who govern you you don't live in a democracy.

 

You might say but they give us all these wonderful things like workers rights, well maybe but there's nothing stopping us pass those laws for ourselves, and if we don't like those laws we change the govt come the next election. If the EU suddenly decide to scrap all these wonderful things they've given us there's nothing we can do about it.

[Alf Bentley]

Even if that is the case, the MPs elected by the public get to vote on that law in the House of Commons, but if that documentary is anything to go off (and I'm sure it wouldn't make up something so blatant) MEPs have no say in the passing of law, just discuss it.

PR is a totally separate argument.You don't have any say in what happens in the EU as your MEP can't propose or repeal any EU laws.

 

Our PM doesn't appoint the other 27 commisioners.

 

 

TheEssexFox has just covered a lot of this, but here's Wiki on legislation & the European Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure

 

It's true that the Parliament doesn't initiate legislation, but it can and does reject or amend it or make alternative proposals. The Council (national government ministers) also does this. The Parliament can also effectively sack the Commission with a 2/3 vote (and forced the Santer Commission to resign like this). Not enough democratic powers, I'd agree, but it certainly doesn't "have no say" or just "discuss" policy...and its powers are growing, not shrinking (it used to be more of a talking-shop).

 

Anyway, Webbo, would you like to have a more democratic EU legislating for the UK? If not, your arguments are disingenuous; surely you should be arguing against the EU from a right-wing nationalist perspective, not carping about the democratic failings of an organisation that you wouldn't want to be a member of, anyway? Or have I misunderstood your position? Would you vote Remain if a more powerful, democratic European Parliament was able to legislate for the UK?

 

Under FPTP, I can only vote for/against the MP for Leicester South (Charnwood for you, I presume); I have no other power to influence the election of our national parliament or the appointment of our national government. Similarly, we can only vote for/against MEPs for the English East Midlands; we have no power to influence the election of MEPs in Cornwall or France - or the appointment of the EU Commission. Very similar processes, just on different levels....of course, if you don't accept the pooling of sovereignty at EU level and want all power to be at national level, that's a different argument.

[Alf Bentley]

We have a system where we can remove the people who make our laws, whether you like that system or not is just a distraction. We can't remove the EU commissioners, or any of the others who make our laws.If you can't change the people who govern you you don't live in a democracy.

 

 

 

Most of our laws are initiated by our government, which we can only get rid of indirectly (via our MPs). Similarly, EU legislation is generally initiated by the Commission, which we CAN get rid of, but only indirectly (via our MEPs).

 

We can get rid of our MPs and MEPs directly at the ballot box. I don't think we can get rid of MEPs between elections, but the same applies to MPs, doesn't it?

[theessexfox]

We have a system where we can remove the people who make our laws, whether you like that system or not is just a distraction. We can't remove the EU commissioners, or any of the others who make our laws.If you can't change the people who govern you you don't live in a democracy.

 

You might say but they give us all these wonderful things like workers rights, well maybe but there's nothing stopping us pass those laws for ourselves, and if we don't like those laws we change the govt come the next election. If the EU suddenly decide to scrap all these wonderful things they've given us there's nothing we can do about it.

Depends who 'we' is really - if 'we' is the UK electorate then sure, but if 'we' is my family in my constituency then 'we' have no say on the people who make your laws. If you disagree with the system of democracy because of the scale of the EU then that's fine but it's not fundamentally undemocratic. The EU commissioners may be directly unaccountable but they are chosen by the head of government for each member, who is elected. The Commission can do nothing without the consent of the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, both of which are accountable to the UK electorate. You may dislike that the other 27 nations have a say on these bodies too but there is little difference to me disliking that the other 649 constituencies have a say on who makes up the House of Commons - it is democracy on a larger scale. 

[Webbo]

TheEssexFox has just covered a lot of this, but here's Wiki on legislation & the European Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure

 

It's true that the Parliament doesn't initiate legislation, but it can and does reject or amend it or make alternative proposals. The Council (national government ministers) also does this. The Parliament can also effectively sack the Commission with a 2/3 vote (and forced the Santer Commission to resign like this). Not enough democratic powers, I'd agree, but it certainly doesn't "have no say" or just "discuss" policy...and its powers are growing, not shrinking (it used to be more of a talking-shop).

 

Anyway, Webbo, would you like to have a more democratic EU legislating for the UK? If not, your arguments are disingenuous; surely you should be arguing against the EU from a right-wing nationalist perspective, not carping about the democratic failings of an organisation that you wouldn't want to be a member of, anyway? Or have I misunderstood your position? Would you vote Remain if a more powerful, democratic European Parliament was able to legislate for the UK?

 

Under FPTP, I can only vote for/against the MP for Leicester South (Charnwood for you, I presume); I have no other power to influence the election of our national parliament or the appointment of our national government. Similarly, we can only vote for/against MEPs for the English East Midlands; we have no power to influence the election of MEPs in Cornwall or France - or the appointment of the EU Commission. Very similar processes, just on different levels....of course, if you don't accept the pooling of sovereignty at EU level and want all power to be at national level, that's a different argument.

It's one of the many reasons why I want us to leave. Without democracy we have corruption, cronyism, arrogance and incompetence, which doesn't help either.

 

Tbh , this "democracy, is that all you're worried about?" attitude seems bizarre to me. 

[Webbo]

Depends who 'we' is really - if 'we' is the UK electorate then sure, but if 'we' is my family in my constituency then 'we' have no say on the people who make your laws. If you disagree with the system of democracy because of the scale of the EU then that's fine but it's not fundamentally undemocratic. The EU commissioners may be directly unaccountable but they are chosen by the head of government for each member, who is elected. The Commission can do nothing without the consent of the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, both of which are accountable to the UK electorate. You may dislike that the other 27 nations have a say on these bodies too but there is little difference to me disliking that the other 649 constituencies have a say on who makes up the House of Commons - it is democracy on a larger scale. 

I suggest you start a thread on PR.

[Webbo]

Most of our laws are initiated by our government, which we can only get rid of indirectly (via our MPs). Similarly, EU legislation is generally initiated by the Commission, which we CAN get rid of, but only indirectly (via our MEPs).

 

We can get rid of our MPs and MEPs directly at the ballot box. I don't think we can get rid of MEPs between elections, but the same applies to MPs, doesn't it?

Obviously we can only get rid of govts/MPs at election time.