EU referendum deal (title edited)

[CityStu]

This is the point - there is this point that it is wrong EU laws overrule UK Laws it really isn't a problem. What matters is whether the law is good or bad and a good EU law will always beat a bad UK let and vice versa. Democracy again irellevant whether it is democracy for A council ward, a city, a country, a nation or a continent what matters is what that democracy brings. Huge democracies can easily make better decisions than small ones and vice versa.

a) The EU isn't a democracy. I didn't vote for Juncker.
b) I believe most people's argument on law making is the shear amount of laws and red tape that the EU comes out with. Some of their laws are undoubtedly good, but there is no reason our national government couldn't replicate them should we vote out.
c) Huge democracies make better decisions for the huge democracy as a whole. The countries of Europe are far too dissimilar for blanket decisions to work well IMO. We've already seen that with the Euro difficulties in Greece being prolonged by Germany because the currency suits them.

The scaremongering is suggesting that per se EU laws are worse than British ones or that democracy is weaker in a small area than a big one.
Would Mississippi vote for a better President than the USA, would Alaska set better Laws than the US etc.
The discussion should be about what laws are actually harming things, why and what should be done. The question should be about what a large democracy costs a smaller democracy and where that is better and where it doesn't work .
All are arbitrary areas and determining that something is good or bad based on size or what was determined 500 years ago is daft, judging based on specific laws and specific votes and their consequences is sensible.

Mississippi would vote for a better leader of Mississippi than the rest of the USA would and the USA national government would only pass the most important legislature down to Mississippi, trusting Mississippi to do the rest. The argument is that the EU passes down far too much legislature down to the UK, particularly since it is legislature created by unelected people that we have had no say in.

 

[EalingBlue2]

a) The EU isn't a democracy. I didn't vote for Juncker.
b) I believe most people's argument on law making is the shear amount of laws and red tape that the EU comes out with. Some of their laws are undoubtedly good, but there is no reason our national government couldn't replicate them should we vote out.
c) Huge democracies make better decisions for the huge democracy as a whole. The countries of Europe are far too dissimilar for blanket decisions to work well IMO. We've already seen that with the Euro difficulties in Greece being prolonged by Germany because the currency suits them.



Mississippi would vote for a better leader of Mississippi than the rest of the USA would and the USA national government would only pass the most important legislature down to Mississippi, trusting Mississippi to do the rest. The argument is that the EU passes down far too much legislature down to the UK, particularly since it is legislature created by unelected people that we have had no say in.

If the latter is true then the UK is as much a problem as the EU - Manchester would vote for better laws for Manchester than the Uk would , Didsbury better laws for Didsbury, as for voting for people only one in six British residents voted for Cameron so democracy is flawed at best.

As for the EUs unelected people they are selected by elected people usually with far more votes than for example the leader of the U.K. Parties are picked.

There is no right and wrong they are all as arbitrary as each other and making decisions on this basis rather than on having a plan and a goal and working towards it is folly.

 

[EalingBlue2]

But there is no democracy in the EU. Who voted for Angela Merkel to dictate on foreign policy? Who voted for Donald Tusk to lecture us on benefit reforms?

Again what matters is whether the decisions they make are right as that is what effects lives.

134000 people about 1 in 500 of the U.K. Population voted for Cameron to be story leader and about 11 million 1/6 of the U.K. Population voted his party into government . Not a massive ringing endorsement.

Again Merkel making the right call is better than Cameron making the wrong one and vice versa

 

[BlueHammer85]

what are the benefits staying in ?

 

[CityStu]

what are the benefits staying in ?

The 'in' campaign is yet to tell anyone.

 

[EalingBlue2]

what are the benefits staying in ?

Until the UK has a plan and answers al the big questions about what it wants I am not sure there are benefits to either, other than wasting all the money and time and energy on the vote.
There are benefits to everyone who wants to live and work in Europe, benefits for any business benefited by being the gateway into the EU for the US, benefits to any company trading in and out of Europe, benefits of negotiating with a position of more power etc etc
But there are benefits too from exit, I don't think either is the point though.
What does the UK want to be? What is its future economically? What legal system does the Uk want etc etc, does the U.K. Want immigration an NHS etc. Once a real goal is established then worry about how to get there.

Also if you are going to exit, determine why, make a plan to address it, understand what the implications will be , don't just jump out of a plane without a parachute because someone told you you could fly.

 

[EalingBlue2]

The 'in' campaign is yet to tell anyone.

True neither campaign has addressed any serious issues, addressed the future of come out with any common sense.

 

[grunge]

Stay in = Continued free trade, continued free movement in Europe to work or travel, being part of one of the biggest trading blocks on the planet. Have a seat at the European table
Leave = Lots of unknowns. Lots of trade negotiations to try to work that out, will probably pay as much as we do already to be part of the trade group.

Personally, at the moment, I think we would be mental to leave. but I'll make the final decision closer to the time. the main thing is, we wont know any repercussions of leaving until we do

 

[CityStu]

True neither campaign has addressed any serious issues, addressed the future of come out with any common sense.

The future if we do vote out is an unknown though. Both campaigns can postulate on it and argue about it but neither can have any firm basis for their arguments. 'In' can say it will cost billions to organise trade agreements and 'Out' will say it will cost a fraction of that and neither will have any evidence to support their points.

All 'Out' can do is point out the numerous, large problems that the EU has, and I believe it is doing that. The issue I have with their campaigning is a lack of unity and no strong central leader that people across the party spectrum wouldn't feel uncomfortable listening to (Farage can grate).

'In' should be doing the opposite - shouting about all the good that the EU has to offer and why those benefits might be difficult to achieve outside the EU. However, their main tactic has been to point out the risk of leaving and the unknown that awaits, which is bollocks really. The 'Out' campaign accept that leaving would be a risk, but they speculate that it is a risk worth going for. 'In' haven't placed a value on the risk at all, just saying it's potentially bad so we shouldn't do it.

 

[kashmir]

Get out any deal will be bad news
Any deal will favour the Germans who over time with the French taken most of the British laws rules etc and changed them to there advantage
If the eu is that good how come that we managed to survive and prosper and be lead the world in inventions etc for 100s of years without it? Look at things that we lead the world in,and since joining in the 70s have nearly all disappeared fishing, coalmimng,shipbuilding,steel manufacturer the list is endless

The euro is just another name for the Deutsche Mark