Fed up with the hyperbole of the referendum?

[Phil Pascoe]

I bet a few small people aren't. I bet a few tall people aren't. I bet a few fat people aren't ...

Actually, it would seem more likely that people who are happy for unelected people in another Country to make their laws for them aren't registered. Why would they need to be?

 

[Jacob]

I bet a few small people aren't. I bet a few tall people aren't. I bet a few fat people aren't ...

Actually, it would seem more likely that people who are happy for unelected people in another Country to make their laws for them aren't registered. Why would they need to be?

The EU does not involve having unelected people in another Country making our laws for us. There is a whole set of democratic processes in place, including the election of our own MEPs.
The worst thing we could do would be to elect MEPs who don't support the principles of the EU - then we really are handing over power.
It's appalling that these people talk the talk, take the large salary, the expenses , but do absolutely F.A. - thereby handing over power to other countries.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=farage+attendance
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 60595.html

 

[Benchwayze]

It seems to me we ALL have reasons to stay in Europe (Not all personal reasons) and we'd all have advantages if we were to leave. The problem is too many people are worried about personal issues, rather than what is best for the country as a whole. So it's time to ask yourself what matters most to you. That's how I see it, and I have made up my mind. As for Boris and Dave; Boris has a certain charisma, but he can come across as a buffoon; Dave is a smart lad, but he always looks as if he needs to wipe his nose!

 

[Jacob]

I..Boris has a certain charisma, but he can come across as a buffoon; Dave is a smart lad, but he always looks as if he needs to wipe his nose!

Agree - except Boris really is a buffoon, it's not an act!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I bet a few small people aren't. I bet a few tall people aren't. I bet a few fat people aren't ...

Actually, it would seem more likely that people who are happy for unelected people in another Country to make their laws for them aren't registered. Why would they need to be?

The EU does not involve having unelected people in another Country making our laws for us. There is a whole set of democratic processes in place, including the election of our own MEPs.

Jacob - if you genuinely believe that (and I'm not sure whether you do or not, because I think you often post a load of cobblers just to wind people up) then you've been conned.

The decisions are made by Commissioners (appointed, not elected, and in no way accountable to the electorate), and most of the legislation is in the form of various regulations emanating from unelected bureaucrats. The European Parliament is just a veneer - it almost never holds the Commission to account in the way that Parliament holds governments to account in the UK. The entire edifice has one major aim, namely a United States of Europe (or whatever it ends up being called) and all major decisions are with that aim in mind. No European has ever been asked whether they would prefer to be a citizen of their country, or a citizen of the United States of Europe - thus, the whole thing is an undemocratic sham.

It was conceived with noble intent - maintaining peace in Europe - but the undemocratic means of achieving it mean that sooner or later, it will fail. The sooner it falls apart, the less damage will be caused.

A far better way to ensure peace in Europe is close co-operation between independent nation states, each controlling their own laws, currency and economy, but co-operating on matters of free trade (EFTA), defence (NATO), and any other matter thought mutually beneficial. Free, democratic, prosperous nations co-operating with one another have little incentive to start wars.

 

[Eric The Viking]

The EU does not involve having unelected people in another Country making our laws for us. There is a whole set of democratic processes in place, including the election of our own MEPs.
The worst thing we could do would be to elect MEPs who don't support the principles of the EU - then we really are handing over power.
It's appalling that these people talk the talk, take the large salary, the expenses , but do absolutely F.A. - thereby handing over power to other countries.

The E.P. does not propose legislation, the Commission does that, and they are CHOSEN, not elected. In any case there is a revolving door between the EP and the Commission - look at the list of EU presidents for example. And the EP uses proportional representation, here by party list, meaning you CANNOT in effect vote for an individual, only their party*.

As someone I respect puts it, "Proportional representation puts in power people you can't get rid of."

The EP is just a fig leaf over something quite ugly.

E.

*yes I know independents can stand here, but the deposit is £6000 (last time I looked), and you have to campaign over an entire region - effectively beyond the resources of an individual, even with good support. We had constituencies until the late 1990s, but the EU forced a change.

 

[Jacob]

Read all about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... pean_Union

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Read all about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... pean_Union

Sometimes, it's better to judge by actions and experience than by propaganda.

When Greece faced bankruptcy, there were two basic options - default on the loans made and start again (which would have meant dropping out of the Euro), or having severe austerity thrust upon them. The Greeks voted for a government advocating the former, but the EU imposed the latter on them - mainly to bail out German banks (the main lenders) and to save the Euro. The bailout money paid to the Greek government (so that they could promptly pay it to German banks as interest on their loans - the Greek people saw none of it) was created by the European Central Bank in direct contravention of European law.

When Italy voted in a broadly Eurosceptic government, the EU used its financial muscle (again) to install a technocratic government instead (an unelected one). It could do this because Italy's financial position was little better than that of Greece.

The EU has demonstrated plainly that it will use all means, legal or otherwise, to defend the Euro. If that means 50% youth unemployment in Spain, or the beggaring of ordinary Greek people, or the over-riding of elected government in Italy, then so be it. It is defending the Euro because it is an essential building block of a single European state.

All that is very plainly undemocratic.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Greece would undoubtedly be better off had it never gone into the Euro - which it wouldn't have, had the EU not accepted figures it knew perfectly well to be false.

 

[Jacob]

In spite of all that: "Former Greek finance minister says those who are most critical of Europe have a moral duty to stay in Europe, fight for it, and democratise it"
I agree!! Also I don't deny that it has been (and will be) problematic. There's no magic wand - it takes time to make some things work well.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... y-in-union

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It takes time to make some things work well? They've been trying for fifty nine years. Depends what you mean by "work well" I suppose.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Interesting item in The Times this morning -

Steps towards creating a European army are being kept secret from British voters until the day after next month’s referendum.

The plans, drawn up by the EU’s foreign policy chief, foresee the development of new European military and operational structures, including a headquarters. They are supported by Germany and other countries as the first step towards an EU army.

Similar proposals were vetoed by Britain in 2011, although there are concerns that a loophole could allow nine states to group together and bypass opponents.

To prevent the policy paper leaking and derailing David Cameron’s campaign to keep Britain in the EU, the plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britons vote.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Par for the course.

The initial "discussion paper" on Corpus Juris described it as a "method of suppression" on the title page. Few here know about it - deliberately so, as it cuts across our common law rights such as Habeas Corpus. Some of it is in place now: the EU arrest warrant is a fundamental part of it, requiring extradition without airing of any parts of the prosecution case, or even hearing them. UK judges are required to uphold an EU warrant, as long as the paperwork is correct. The accused doesn't even find out the charges against them!

I've lost count of the debates, TV interviews, etc. where pro-EU British politicians denied CJ existed, and then when faced with the evidence, denied that it had any effect on British legal processes. Kenneth Clarke was a serial offender in this, and yet he became lord Chancellor!

Here's what the original proposal called for. To the best of my knowledge these objectives haven't been modified in any significant way. Here's the headline list from the San Sebbastian 1997 seminar, updated and confirmed in Tampere Finland in 1999:

Corpus Juris will:

• Introduce a single legal area with the European union
• Introduce a European Public Prosecutor ("EPP") with national public prosecutors being "under a duty to assist" him or her (Article 18.5)
• There will be a "Judge of Freedoms" whose function is ostensibly to protect the citizen’s rights, which however do not include the right to demand that evidence be produced. This means, of course, that an enforceable arrest warrants can be granted without there actually being any evidence at all, since there is no right to verify it at that stage.
• A European Warrant of arrest shall be issued by a national judge on "instructions" of the EPP, and any police force in any member State can be required to enforce it.
• A suspect can be imprisoned without charge for 6 months, renewable for a further 3 months without any limit to the number of renewals
• The ‘trial’ shall be heard by professional judges, specifically without "simple jurors" or "even lay magistrates" (a clear and specific reference to the British trial system where the crucial decisions are taken by ordinary people)
• An accused can be retried on the same charge if found innocent (i.e. the prosecution can appeal against an acquittal)

Europol was created to be the strong-arm part of this. Today, Europol officers have:

• Diplomatic immunity in the UK
• The right to routinely carry guns here and throughout the EU
• The right to demand assistance from local constabularies
• The right to arrest and deport without British due process (see EU arrest warrant above).

It's not just a superstate being created, but a police state. The fact that it's being introduced piecemeal has distracted the press, who should be holding people to account over it: "What plan? You're being ridiculous!" is the way most questions have been met. couple that with the way yhe EU treats whistleblowers (discussion passim) and you can see where this is going very clearly.

And yes I know it's nominally about addressing fraud in the EU. But I also know how the game is played. You boil a frog by heating the water slowly, so it doesn't suspect anything until finally it's cooked.

E.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Strewth.

That's far worse than I suspected.

Who governs? In who's interest? Accountable to whom?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
Jean Monnet

I think he got it right.

 

[Jacob]

Paranoia big time.
We are part of the process of developing the EU and our MPs and MEPs are in there making decisions and voting on them (except the UKIP slackers getting a free ride and doing nothing) and if the worst comes to the worst we can drop out altogether.
There may well have been many unacceptable proposals brought to the table, and weird agendas - but thats how democracy works. They get rejected - in the end we decide via the democratic process, or pull out.

 

[Eric The Viking]

That's a vital quote. I note how the "remain" camp have kept the Brexit lot on the back foot by forcing the discussion to stay on economic issues, real or imaginary.

I blame the Brexiteers - some of the leading players are narcissistic idiots. They could have run a proper campaign, but thatr would have required cooperation and coordination, and a bit of anticipation. Two days in a room with post-its and a whiteboard would have done it. One does wonder if some have been arm-twisted into making a lot of noise and fuss, whilst actually being deliberately ineffective.

For me it was never about economics, although those arguments on the remain side just don't stack up* either.

You only realise how valuable free speech, democracy and accountability are when they're gone. Ask anyone from the former Soviet bloc, or China. We're very close to having all the apparatus in place, now.

E.

*Prof. Tim Congdon's article on the subject. Congon was formerly UKIP's economics spokesman, but I'm not sure what academic post he now holds (if any).

 

[Eric The Viking]

Oh and Jacob, Corpus Juris has NOT been rejected. It is in the process of being implemented.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"There may well have been many unacceptable proposals brought to the table, and weird agendas - but thats how democracy works. They get rejected ...
Nowhere near often enough.

 

[Jacob]

.... I note how the "remain" camp have kept the Brexit lot on the back foot by forcing the discussion to stay on economic issues, real or imaginary.

Not so - most of the remain argument tends to be ideological and looking to the future

...

For me it was never about economics,

Nor me. In any case economic arguments coming from Osborne and co are totally unconvincing

You only realise how valuable free speech, democracy and accountability are when they're gone. ....

They haven't gone and they aren't going anywhere. The only real prob with free speech is the domination of the media by the right - many of them super rich non dom tax dodgers etc. Luckily most of us can see it.