EU referendum

[aguero93:20]

It's a good job they don't make the laws then, isn't it. Unlike the unelected European Commission (whom we do not vote, they are appointed.

Here, i'll let Tony Benn explain.

Tony Benn isn't that well informed. The UK has a two house system, one elected by the public, one unelected. Sound familiar?

26 COE Bishops get unelected seats in the house of lords.

The EC can only debate and delay legislation, they act as a minder to the European parliament.

The house of lords can only debate and delay legislation, they act as a minder to the house of commons.

However the house of lords, unlike the European commission, can introduce legislation independently.

96 members of the house of lords have position solely down to bloodline. The remainder are appointed

Anyone can become a member of the EC.

Unlike the European Union, Germany, Ireland, The USA etc, the UK don't have a third check mechanism in a first elected citizen (President) able to delay Cabal situations where two sitting houses act together to introduce catalytic laws without mandate. The UK also have no constitutional right to referendum on these laws, unlike the USA, the EU and Ireland.

Democracy awaits.

 

[CityStu]

I haven't seen any serious debate on this, any serious honesty with the public any attempt to make any serious policy. I am firmly for focusing on what's important and when a plan and strategy is in place the evaluate what the best way to acheive it is and make decisions on important issues like Europe when you do it for the right reasons IE pursuing a long term goal and having evaluated it.

I think many of the Out arguments put forwards argue well that the EU hinders the direction that some people would like the country to take, regardless of exactly what direction that may be. Is that not a fair basis on which to make a decision?

 

[aguero93:20]

If a political party comes forward with a method or policy to devolve powers from Westminster back to local parliaments, i'd be all for it. I am for example in favour of English Votes for English Laws, just as I approve of more devolved powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Westminster should NOT be the central powerhouse of the United Kingdom. But what would be the point if an EU Commission still held supremacy over any local parliament and Westminster?

If anything you've more or less advocated what the 'out' campaign is calling for.

I'll advocate direct democracy anytime but leaving the EU will give you less if it.

 

[Metal Biker]

I haven't seen any serious debate on this, any serious honesty with the public any attempt to make any serious policy. I am firmly for focusing on what's important and when a plan and strategy is in place the evaluate what the best way to acheive it is and make decisions on important issues like Europe when you do it for the right reasons IE pursuing a long term goal and having evaluated it.

You've not seen any serious debate because neither the BBC, Sky Broadcasting or tabloids are treating it as such, coughing up scaremongering terms without presenting facts or evidence for what is claimed, and I accuse BOTH sides of the debate on this. Even the outers state things without showing facts that people can look up for themselves and state "by golly, they're right!"

Is that enough of a convincing argument? For some it might be all they need, others might need more convincing, but for both sides to be wildly throwing headlines, statements and tidbits without any real information, i'm not surprised many people are viewing the 'debate' on the EU with shifty eyes. Especially when you consider the evident bias on show from certain outlets who have something to gain depending on the result going their way.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think many of the Out arguments put forwards argue well that the EU hinders the direction that some people would like the country to take, regardless of exactly what direction that may be. Is that not a fair basis on which to make a decision?

It is. What's the direction?

 

[aguero93:20]

You've not seen any serious debate because neither the BBC, Sky Broadcasting or tabloids are treating it as such, coughing up scaremongering terms without presenting facts or evidence for what is claimed

On both sides depending on the organisation. Let's not ask them to act out of character.

 

[Metal Biker]

I'll advocate direct democracy anytime but leaving the EU will give you less if it.

How?

Explain how, don't just say a sentiment and leave it there. I've already explained that we, the British public, have very little to no sway on the politics and agendas within the EU. The Commission makes the laws but the Commission isn't elected, not by us or anyone for that matter, just appointed by other appointed commissioners.

So please explain to me why Britain leaving the EU would mean we'd have less democratic method in this country. (refrain from mentioning the Tories; just because some people don't like a party, a majority vote in accordance to our election rules did enough to get them elected)

 

[CityStu]

It is. What's the direction?

As an example, I believe house availability and ergo house prices are a huge issue in the UK currently. I don't believe that that issue can be managed when we have no idea how many people the country may have to accommodate due to our membership of the EU. If we leave the EU, we can control the numbers (and occupations/abilities) of people coming in so that they fill gaps and we can plan the number of houses needed accordingly and house prices can stop being so unattainable for so many. A similar argument applies to education and health. We will never have enough teachers or doctors if the numbers of students and patients we are importing is above the level the level they can cope with.

There are many other arguments, but I that's one of my main ones.

 

[Metal Biker]

On both sides depending on the organisation. Let's not ask them to act out of character.

Yeeah... you see you'd redacted that sentence as the end of it I state I oppose BOTH sides of the debate for doing this.
If you're going to quote, do it honestly and accurately, please.

 

[aguero93:20]

How?

Explain how, don't just say a sentiment and leave it there. I've already explained that we, the British public, have very little to no sway on the politics and agendas within the EU. The Commission makes the laws but the Commission isn't elected, not by us or anyone for that matter, just appointed by other appointed commissioners.

So please explain to me why Britain leaving the EU would mean we'd have less democratic method in this country. (refrain from mentioning the Tories; just because some people don't like a party, a majority vote in accordance to our election rules did enough to get them elected)

Firstly, an ideological swing in one country doesn't change policy. Secondly, more vetoes. Thirdly, the countries within the EU with referendum powers brings the EU subject to direct democracy on major issues. Fourth, leaving the EU doesn't give you any of the preceding 3. Fifth, the first past the post system in the UK denies any political group with less than a majority view in their constituency a voice in politics - mob rule.

 

[EalingBlue2]

You've not seen any serious debate because neither the BBC, Sky Broadcasting or tabloids are treating it as such, coughing up scaremongering terms without presenting facts or evidence for what is claimed, and I accuse BOTH sides of the debate on this. Even the outers state things without showing facts that people can look up for themselves and state "by golly, they're right!"

Is that enough of a convincing argument? For some it might be all they need, others might need more convincing, but for both sides to be wildly throwing headlines, statements and tidbits without any real information, i'm not surprised many people are viewing the 'debate' on the EU with shifty eyes. Especially when you consider the evident bias on show from certain outlets who have something to gain depending on the result going their way.

Think we are talking at cross purposes, I have never seen serious debate about the long term future of the UK. I have never seen a serious long term plan about what we should be investing in today for the long term etc. There has been discussion and debate on the EU etc as long as I remember , much of low quality but that is not what I was talking about.

 

[aguero93:20]

As an example, I believe house availability and ergo house prices are a huge issue in the UK currently. I don't believe that that issue can be managed when we have no idea how many people the country may have to accommodate due to our membership of the EU. If we leave the EU, we can control the numbers (and occupations/abilities) of people coming in so that they fill gaps and we can plan the number of houses needed accordingly and house prices can stop being so unattainable for so many. A similar argument applies to education and health. We will never have enough teachers or doctors if the numbers of students and patients we are importing is above the level the level they can cope with.

There are many other arguments, but I that's one of my main ones.

Most of your immigrants are from outside the EU. The majority of your accommodation is built by private companies. You spend more on nukes than public housing. The EU probably spend more on public housing than your domestic government (gut feeling this one and if I'm right the funding will drop, Labour or Tories).

 

[aguero93:20]

Yeeah... you see you'd redacted that sentence as the end of it I state I oppose BOTH sides of the debate for doing this.
If you're going to quote, do it honestly and accurately, please.

Honestly, I apologise, I missed that part. Embarrassed now I've seen the capitalisation.

 

[Metal Biker]

Think we are talking at cross purposes, I have never seen serious debate about the long term future of the UK. I have never seen a serious long term plan about what we should be investing in today for the long term etc. There has been discussion and debate on the EU etc as long as I remember , much of low quality but that is not what I was talking about.

No there hasn't been any deabte about Britain's future either outside or even within the EU.
There has been a deathly silence from the Inners about the impending increased integration with the EU. Cameron promised that there wouldn't be any, but if a British Parliament called to overule that and presented it to the EU to have Britain become MORE integrated, and all members voted in favour, it would be enacted, rendering his "promise" as hollow.

The Inners refuse to talk about Britain giving more powers to the EU, which is what it wants, not just from Britain, but from more member states. Why? Because they know it's a vote loser. If more people were aware of this they'd lose support to stay in and their campaign would be in tatters. And before you come out with "the reason they don't mention it is because it's not going to happen" you really, REALLY need to educate yourself on the overall aims of the EU project. Total integration is the goal, the establishment of a full European Parliament is their aim, the devolution of nation states is the incentive. Barroso admitted it, Juncker admitted it, Merkel and Hollande have both alluded to it.

 

[EalingBlue2]

As an example, I believe house availability and ergo house prices are a huge issue in the UK currently. I don't believe that that issue can be managed when we have no idea how many people the country may have to accommodate due to our membership of the EU. If we leave the EU, we can control the numbers (and occupations/abilities) of people coming in so that they fill gaps and we can plan the number of houses needed accordingly and house prices can stop being so unattainable for so many. A similar argument applies to education and health. We will never have enough teachers or doctors if the numbers of students and patients we are importing is above the level the level they can cope with.

There are many other arguments, but I that's one of my main ones.

The issue with house prices is far more driven by where people want to live rather than the overall population and far more driven by large capital injections much from outside the EU into London. Are you hinting at bringing in legislation to stop people moving within the UK IE following the work? or are you advocating to stop foreign investment in the UK as both would have a far greater impact than EU immigration. I suspect not....

 

[CityStu]

Most of your immigrants are from outside the EU. The majority of your accommodation is built by private companies. You spend more on nukes than public housing. The EU probably spend more on public housing than your domestic government (gut feeling this one and if I'm right the funding will drop, Labour or Tories).

If people are here from outside the EU then they have to get a VISA so you would imagine that they fulfil a need that the UK has. The EU migrants need not fulfil that criteria and there is also a huge discrepancy between the official immigration figures and the number of NI numbers handed out (officially 257k migrants from the EU to the UK in the year to September 2015 but 655k NI numbers given to EU nationals in the same period). I accept that NI numbers are given for temporary workers, but I don't buy that over half of working EU migrants are here temporarily and the collection system for the official stats sounds very dodgy (a survey at ports and airports).

Nukes are very expensive.

The domestic government could spend more money on public housing than the EU does, simply by not having to hand it to the EU in the first place to have them skim a bit off the top. I'd also like to see you back up what you say or it is completely unsubstantiated. Nor does spending on public housing equate directly with total government investment in housing. The private housing sector needs more houses built as well and the government can offer incentives here.

 

[EalingBlue2]

No there hasn't been any deabte about Britain's future either outside or even within the EU.
There has been a deathly silence from the Inners about the impending increased integration with the EU. Cameron promised that there wouldn't be any, but if a British Parliament called to overule that and presented it to the EU to have Britain become MORE integrated, and all members voted in favour, it would be enacted, rendering his "promise" as hollow.

The Inners refuse to talk about Britain giving more powers to the EU, which is what it wants, not just from Britain, but from more member states. Why? Because they know it's a vote loser. If more people were aware of this they'd lose support to stay in and their campaign would be in tatters. And before you come out with "the reason they don't mention it is because it's not going to happen" you really, REALLY need to educate yourself on the overall aims of the EU project. Total integration is the goal, the establishment of a full European Parliament is their aim, the devolution of nation states is the incentive. Barroso admitted it, Juncker admitted it, Merkel and Hollande have both alluded to it.

I don't think countries will exist in a century so I see the above as a fairly inevitable outcome of the world becoming one large corporate so I don't fear the inevitable

 

[Metal Biker]

Firstly, an ideological swing in one country doesn't change policy. Secondly, more vetoes. Thirdly, the countries within the EU with referendum powers brings the EU subject to direct democracy on major issues. Fourth, leaving the EU doesn't give you any of the preceding 3. Fifth, the first past the post system in the UK denies any political group with less than a majority view in their constituency a voice in politics - mob rule.

First point: I'd have to disagree there. A Government with a strong enough majority (Like Labour 97-01) was able to implement many new policies as the opposition (rejected by the electorate) wasn;t strong enough to oppose them. And they were clearly popular policies as they were voted in again.
Second point: The House of Lords can veto, but the House of Commons has the power to abolish the House of Lords, especially if the public was behind one of the motions put forward to them. It's a case of scrub my back, i'll scrub yours. In either case, the EU has had no influence here; unless it goes to one of the many European Courts, again highlighting their totalitarian aspect.
Third point: Can't see how any of that would affect Britain in the case of a exit.
Fourth point: It gives us no right to vote on future EU matters, no. But by then i'd be more concerned with getting our own house in order, which is kind of the point. Trade negotiations however have to be agreed upon as per Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Fifth point: The FPTP is indeed flawed. We tried to change it with the 'Alternative Vote' back in...2011? It failed, but again, as highlighted, this isn't about getting the choices we PERSONALLY want, it is the collective vote of the British voters and the path we choose for ourselves and ANY vote we undertake is a result of one side of the debate being more convincing that the other, instead of..."We're the EU....you do what WE say, you don't have a voice."

You call it mob rule, I call it direct democratic method. If something is being implemented you don't like, call for a referendum on it, propose a convincing argument, but don't cry foul if others fail to be convinced.

 

[CityStu]

The issue with house prices is far more driven by where people want to live rather than the overall population and far more driven by large capital injections much from outside the EU into London. Are you hinting at bringing in legislation to stop people moving within the UK IE following the work? or are you advocating to stop foreign investment in the UK as both would have a far greater impact than EU immigration. I suspect not....

There may be left field ways around it but currently people need to follow the work and house prices are astronomical around employment centres. Ergo we need more houses around employment centres or more employment centres well away from the current employment centres.

What I am sure of is that adding an unknown amount of people every year makes it impossible for the government to know how many houses are required.

 

[Metal Biker]

I don't think countries will exist in a century so I see the above as a fairly inevitable outcome of the world becoming one large corporate so I don't fear the inevitable

I fail to see how your personal feelings affect the discussion about Britain being in the EU. For example, what if you're wrong, and countries exist far into the next millennium? They have done for the past 2000 years. The "Kingdom of England" itself is over 1100 years old.

The "One World, One people" pipe dream. They were talking about such things back in the 1900's.