Quantcast
EU referendum -UK users

Forums - Politics Discussion - EU referendum -UK users

Leave or remain

Leave 412 53.72%
 
Remain 355 46.28%
 
Total:767
Scoobes said:

But we're already one of the least regulated countries in the EU. And that doesn't cover his point on the fact we'd still be subject to numerous EU regulations if we wanted to trade with them anyway. 

I also don't get why we supposedly have such a tough time with trade outside the EU yet Germany is more than capable of getting trade with China and the US. 

But those regulations would only apply to your trade with the EU, rather than to all of your business.

The advantage there is that it gives you the power to actually weigh differences between trading partners and see if one version works out cheaper than the other, in a way that you otherwise can't.

So you'll have the cost of meeting those regulations VS the price saved by better negotiation power. That balance will likely change from country to country and also business to business. 



Around the Network
the_dark_lewd said:
Scoobes said:

I don't understand the democracy argument when our own system is no better. The House of Lords is filled with hundreds of unelected people that can dump any legislation they don't like. And it's not like we get to vote for which politicians end up in the most influential cabinet positions (I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hunt or Gove to run anything).

With the EU we vote for our MEPs who represent about 10% of MEPs so we have good overall representation. The EU commission that propose laws are made up of 28 representatives and each one is determined by the leader of each country. It's not different to any other civil servant. They can't actually pass any laws without the agreement of the MEPs (who, as I said, we vote for). 

That's a complete non-sequitur. 80% democracy is better that 60%. It's not binary. After we ditch the EU, we can consider ditching the house of lords if we want.

Yes, the commission proposes the laws. That's where the power lies. The MEPs input into that is incredibly weak, because you slant everything by only ever proposing laws that go in a single direction on a particular issue. Imagine if there's an issue where the population is divided between positions A and B. Half of the MEPs are therefore representing people who want position A and half for people who want position B. Well the commission can then propose 10 different laws that work towards position A and none than works toward position B. They'll then say "well you had the chance to reject our 10 laws, so it was still ultimately up to you".  That just doesn't work. Sooner or later, that leads to you going with position A. It's just rigging the system. Like weighting a coin flip.

That's the thing, I see it as 60% vs 60%. Our commissioner is picked by the Prime Minister so is effectively there to help make laws that benefit the UK (or whatever legislation the Tories would like to bring in). This is no different to the cabinet positions as I see it. Sure, we get to vote for the MPs before they make it to the cabinet but it's still Cameron picking the people who come up with the legislation. I can't vote for which MP will become Health Secretary and I can't vote for our member of the EU commission.

On the flip side we vote for MEPs and we vote for our Government who is represented in the Council when needed. If either the Council or Parliament can't agree on a proposal it never gets put through so its not like we don't have a say. The House of Lords on the other hand can completely scrap any bit of legislation they don't like the look of, even if our elected officials have passed it through.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the EU system is any better than our own, but I don't see how it's any worse. It's just different and has to take into account 28 countries. Like I said earlier, two systems, both shit.

Honestly, it feels to me like we're using the EU as a scape-goat instead of blaming our own politicians and MEPs incompetence for not representing our interests properly.



the_dark_lewd said:
Scoobes said:

But we're already one of the least regulated countries in the EU. And that doesn't cover his point on the fact we'd still be subject to numerous EU regulations if we wanted to trade with them anyway. 

I also don't get why we supposedly have such a tough time with trade outside the EU yet Germany is more than capable of getting trade with China and the US. 

But those regulations would only apply to your trade with the EU, rather than to all of your business.

The advantage there is that it gives you the power to actually weigh differences between trading partners and see if one version works out cheaper than the other, in a way that you otherwise can't.

So you'll have the cost of meeting those regulations VS the price saved by better negotiation power. That balance will likely change from country to country and also business to business. 

That's still a rather large chunk of business, especially for people who predominantly do business in the EU and without any say in future regulations. Your second point is the one big advantage I see, but I also don't see us having much negotiation power outside the EU.

We're a nation of 65 million versus a trading block of 500 million in the EU. We can make more targeted negotiations based on the UK economy, but when we enter negotiations, the power will lie with larger trading blocks/countries. I also don't fancy waiting around for a few years whilst our politicians sort out trade deals that may or may not be better than the deals we already have in place.



Scoobes said:

MEPs incompetence for not representing our interests properly.

There was an article I read once that UKIP MEPs were actually not turning up to votes on new laws and rules out of protest of the EU. Which is a contridiction of what they should be doing, voting and having their say represents us, not being there and not voting just means EU passes silly rules easier meaning more people complain and vote in more UKIP.



Hmm, pie.

The Fury said:
Scoobes said:

MEPs incompetence for not representing our interests properly.

There was an article I read once that UKIP MEPs were actually not turning up to votes on new laws and rules out of protect of the EU. Which is a contridiction of what they should be doing, voting and having their say represents us, not being there and not voting just means EU passes silly rules easier meaning more people complain and vote in more UKIP.

They don't turn up because they want the whole EU to fail. Voting for UKIP to represent us as our MEPs is totally counter productive as our views don't get taken into consideration at all. The worst part is they still get paid for not representing us. 



Around the Network
Scoobes said:

That's the thing, I see it as 60% vs 60%. Our commissioner is picked by the Prime Minister so is effectively there to help make laws that benefit the UK (or whatever legislation the Tories would like to bring in). This is no different to the cabinet positions as I see it. Sure, we get to vote for the MPs before they make it to the cabinet but it's still Cameron picking the people who come up with the legislation. I can't vote for which MP will become Health Secretary and I can't vote for our member of the EU commission.

On the flip side we vote for MEPs and we vote for our Government who is represented in the Council when needed. If either the Council or Parliament can't agree on a proposal it never gets put through so its not like we don't have a say. The House of Lords on the other hand can completely scrap any bit of legislation they don't like the look of, even if our elected officials have passed it through.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the EU system is any better than our own, but I don't see how it's any worse. It's just different and has to take into account 28 countries. Like I said earlier, two systems, both shit.

Honestly, it feels to me like we're using the EU as a scape-goat instead of blaming our own politicians and MEPs incompetence for not representing our interests properly.

Well I don't disagree with much of that. But how does that end up as 60% vs 60% to you? It's a slightly undemocratic system combined with another slightly democratic system. It's just basic maths. If you were to say each of them is 80% democratic, the combined effect would be 0.8*0.8=0.64



the_dark_lewd said:
Scoobes said:

That's the thing, I see it as 60% vs 60%. Our commissioner is picked by the Prime Minister so is effectively there to help make laws that benefit the UK (or whatever legislation the Tories would like to bring in). This is no different to the cabinet positions as I see it. Sure, we get to vote for the MPs before they make it to the cabinet but it's still Cameron picking the people who come up with the legislation. I can't vote for which MP will become Health Secretary and I can't vote for our member of the EU commission.

On the flip side we vote for MEPs and we vote for our Government who is represented in the Council when needed. If either the Council or Parliament can't agree on a proposal it never gets put through so its not like we don't have a say. The House of Lords on the other hand can completely scrap any bit of legislation they don't like the look of, even if our elected officials have passed it through.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the EU system is any better than our own, but I don't see how it's any worse. It's just different and has to take into account 28 countries. Like I said earlier, two systems, both shit.

Honestly, it feels to me like we're using the EU as a scape-goat instead of blaming our own politicians and MEPs incompetence for not representing our interests properly.

Well I don't disagree with much of that. But how does that end up as 60% vs 60% to you? It's a slightly undemocratic system combined with another slightly democratic system. It's just basic maths. If you were to say each of them is 80% democratic, the combined effect would be 0.8*0.8=0.64

Ah, I get what you're saying now. I was comparing the two systems but you're taking it collectively. Fair enough, but it's not a simple case of applying arbitary percentages to how democratic the systems are and then using basic Maths to multiply out. 

To me they can be used in tandem to keep each other in check. If you don't think a ruling or piece of legislation in the UK is correct you at least have an extra method of escalation. And the protests over the TTIP deal show we can influence EU decision making. 



Looking very close right now. I work in banking- you should see the implied volatility of GBP!



I'd watch Martin Wolf's 5 minute video on the FT to get some good facts on the debate. Doesn't touch on immigration though.



Scoobes said:
MikeRox said:

The SNP were a single party able to place a manifesto for their view.

The leave campaign includes incredibly right wing, centrists, left wing, socialists, trade unions etc. It's hardly a shock that they would all have conflicting ideas as to the best way to proceed after a brexit.

 

Why does such an obvious thing need pointing out to people?

 

Socialists who don't like the EU don't like that it doesn't allow state aid for industry.

 

The more right wing don't like the universal protections.

 

Nationalists just don't like Brussels overriding our own parliaments.

 

Some businessmen think their businesses are held back and they would be able to make better decisions without the EU rules.

 

It would be down to an elected government to shape our direction after the population vote based on their manifestos.

 

This is what makes this such a different decision to any I know I've ever had to make in my lifetime.

 

Every brexit argument is merely sometging that we CAN do outside the EU. It's not what we will do.

Except only one of these parties actually has a majority in the house of commons and as such they should be the ones to put together a detailed plan. Having a wide group of people with different reasons for Brexit is no excuse for not having something more concrete in place.

All the other groups can't actually do anything without some pretty major alliances across different parties with very different ideologies. 

A bit difficult when half of the cabinet are in favour of remain.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.