holystove

Some might remember from my earlier (more active) days as a member of Toffeetalk that I'm a lawyer who specialized in EU law (not anymore) so I'm somewhat opinionated on this issue. The following is just my point of view though (don't shoot me).
 
If I were a UK citizen (which I'm not) I'd vote IN; being from the continent, I hope the "Leave" camp wins.
 
The deal Cameron got is a slap in the face of every other EU country. If every individual EU member state got to (re-)negotiate its own terms, EU constitutional law would become meaningless and the idea of an 'ever closer union' would be dead. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if the UK votes to stay in, the rest of the EU should hold a referendum on whether or not the UK should be allowed to stay in with their new deal. Either you fully accept all EU law, or you're out.
 
Rubecula: on the age issue: I read that it's mostly (mostly; not all) older, white working class voters who have few or no educational qualifications who vote for UKIP. Also it's mostly older people who care most about national sovereignty and are "proud" of their country.
One of the most important principles in EU law is the principle of subsidiarity. Which mean that the EU does not take action, unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. This principle very much strengthens national sovereignty and ensures it is always in the best (common) interest for the EU to take action.
 
Rubecula: regarding the EU president: it's not a president per se; only someone who head the European Council for a couple of years (this position used to rotate between European leaders of each country every six months)
I would agree that there are a lot of problems with the democratic deficit in the EU, but only a closer union can solve those, which is exactly the opposite of what Cameron negotiated.

Actually the thing with Greece was two-fold. First there definitely was a will in the eurozone to get them in, but the Greek government cooked the books to fill the criteria. If they hadn't they would never have been allowed in.
 
The problem with the euro is, as you say, that a common currency would require much tighter fiscal policies. Still, there has been definite advantages. They just tend not to be as tangible and only can be seen on the long run.

Well this is a new low. Greece wanted very much to be in the eurozone but wasn't allowed to ("by the EU elite..") because they didn't meet the Maastricht criteria (neither did Belgium at the time). However, because it was the (democratic) wish of the Greek people to join the euro, they were allowed to. Even in the midst of the euro-crisis in Greece a vast majority of Greeks wanted to stay in the euro. So the undemocratic thing would have been not to allow them to join in the first place or to throw them out now.
 
It is also a complete fallacy that only Germany benefited from the euro. It is however indeed a currency for strong economies, that's why the Maastrichts criteria are there; a country can only join the eurozone if it meets those criteria. Belgium, the Netherlands, .. all small countries who have benefited greatly from joining the eurozone.
--
 
(seperate point: what happened in Greece is actually an argument for more involvement of the EU. they got a lot of EU money but mismanaged it and got into a lot of trouble. If there had been more EU oversight over how they spent the money, this might not have happened.. )

Well this is a new low. Greece wanted very much to be in the eurozone but wasn't allowed to ("by the EU elite..") because they didn't meet the Maastricht criteria (neither did Belgium at the time). However, because it was the (democratic) wish of the Greek people to join the euro, they were allowed to. Even in the midst of the euro-crisis in Greece a vast majority of Greeks wanted to stay in the euro. So the undemocratic thing would have been not to allow them to join in the first place or to throw them out now.
 
It is also a complete fallacy that only Germany benefited from the euro. It is however indeed a currency for strong economies, that's why the Maastrichts criteria are there; a country can only join the eurozone if it meets those criteria. Belgium, the Netherlands, .. all small countries who have benefited greatly from joining the eurozone.
--
 
(seperate point: what happened in Greece is actually an argument for more involvement of the EU. they got a lot of EU money but mismanaged it and got into a lot of trouble. If there had been more EU oversight over how they spent the money, this might not have happened.. )

It doesn't sound like it's been written with a bitter edge, at all. (sarcasm)

Initially the European Coal and Steel Community, °1951, was created to have economic alliances between the countries of Europe so there would never be war amongst them again.
 
The EU, °1992, was never only intended to be an economic bloc because it was established after the complete integration of the internal market. One of the fundamental principles of the EU is the evolution towards an ever closer union in every aspect (political, cultural, ...).
 
So in essence, yes the EU should tell member states what to do.
-
If you view the EU as a group of member states who each want to get the best possible deal for themselves, then by all means you should vote leave, both for yourself and for the betterment of the Union.
 
The way I see the EU:
- brings peace throughout Europe
- allows me to have a voice in a globalized world (EU is at the forfront of the fight against global warming, EU fights for human rights, ...)
- is the best opportunity for less wealthy European nations to get a better standard of living
- it protects me from unlawful actions from my own government

Initially the European Coal and Steel Community, °1951, was created to have economic alliances between the countries of Europe so there would never be war amongst them again.
 
The EU, °1992, was never only intended to be an economic bloc because it was established after the complete integration of the internal market. One of the fundamental principles of the EU is the evolution towards an ever closer union in every aspect (political, cultural, ...).
 
So in essence, yes the EU should tell member states what to do.
-
If you view the EU as a group of member states who each want to get the best possible deal for themselves, then by all means you should vote leave, both for yourself and for the betterment of the Union.
 
The way I see the EU:
- brings peace throughout Europe
- allows me to have a voice in a globalized world (EU is at the forfront of the fight against global warming, EU fights for human rights, ...)
- is the best opportunity for less wealthy European nations to get a better standard of living
- it protects me from unlawful actions from my own government

Brexiters are a funny bunch, I have to say. I guess many of you have to make up (poor) excuses so that you don't have to admit it's just about xenophobia as that would associate you with the UKIP? I mean it's not news that Brits are xenophobic even without voting for UKIP so why bother with the other excuses? As an outsider I have tried to find a single fact that supports Britain leaving EU but it's all either emotional or basically complete hogwash (plus not a small amount of lies).
 
I think you lot have the right to make your own mistakes so I'm not interested in changing someone's mind (and I can see that most have already made up their mind anyways). If you vote to leave then you leave. But please don't fool yourself into thinking you somehow get more leverage over the rest of Europe that way. Which is more important, rest of EU to British trade or Britain to the trade of the rest of the EU? There's very little leverage for Brits, you WILL have to make more concession than you do now. In fact the concessions EU have given to Britain to keep you in annoy a lot of high-ranking people in France and Germany already, there is absolutely no way the trade agreements with a Britain outside of EU would be better for you lot. Plus if you wanted to export something to the remaining EU your products and services would have to comply with laws you had 0% input in.
 
The thing about WWIII is OTT but the basic idea is that EU is weaker without Britain. Russia will have even less opposition to their expansion so the risk they step over some boundary grows greater. Putin specifically would love for EU to break down as after that there would be no real opposition in Europe with USA turning its attention to Far East. Remember, Russia took a large patch of land in Europe and is keeping a war in Central Europe going already. What would an EU-less Europe do if it started pressing other neighbours?

With a fifth of the quality.
 
Martial is a complete different level from any other young striker in the premier league.

Matt, Fellaini created 1 less goal scoring opportunities (7) than Payet did in his MOTM performance for France (8). Second most in the tournament so far. Hugely underrated.

Respect your opinion John but we'll just have to agree to disagree .

Thanks for following up John.
 
First of all, the general direction of the EU and the major issues are decided by the European Council in which every president/prime minister/bundeskanselier/.. is represented.
Secondly you have the Council, which groups ministers/secretaries according to the policy area to be discussed; for example envirmonmental, judicial, interior, ...
 
Who sits in both these Councils is decided by national elections. If you want Corbyn to be in the European Council instead of Cameron, you can vote for Corbyn and hope he becomes prime minister. If the UK government is exclusively Labour, then all the Councils will only have policitians from Labour.
 
Who sits in the EU Parliament, which, together with the Council, is the main decision-making body of the EU, is decided by elections every five years. You can vote directly for your candidate of choice. If the party you vote for wins the election (EU wide), it will be a member of that party who is elected Commission President. The Tories are part of the "European Conservatives and Reformists", Labour is part of the "Socialists and Democrats".
 
As you see, in principle it is quite the same as the situation you described regarding national elections.
Main differences:
- in the EU you are 1 of 500 million, while in the UK you are 1 of 60 million.
- the EU is a supra-national organisation (not a country) therefor you have institutions like the Council whose members are decided by national elections per member state instead of EU wide elections. Hopefully in the not so distant future, members of the Council will be chosen from the European Parliament.

Thanks for following up John.
 
First of all, the general direction of the EU and the major issues are decided by the European Council in which every president/prime minister/bundeskanselier/.. is represented.
Secondly you have the Council, which groups ministers/secretaries according to the policy area to be discussed; for example envirmonmental, judicial, interior, ...
 
Who sits in both these Councils is decided by national elections. If you want Corbyn to be in the European Council instead of Cameron, you can vote for Corbyn and hope he becomes prime minister. If the UK government is exclusively Labour, then all the Councils will only have policitians from Labour.
 
Who sits in the EU Parliament, which, together with the Council, is the main decision-making body of the EU, is decided by elections every five years. You can vote directly for your candidate of choice. If the party you vote for wins the election (EU wide), it will be a member of that party who is elected Commission President. The Tories are part of the "European Conservatives and Reformists", Labour is part of the "Socialists and Democrats".
 
As you see, in principle it is quite the same as the situation you described regarding national elections.
Main differences:
- in the EU you are 1 of 500 million, while in the UK you are 1 of 60 million.
- the EU is a supra-national organisation (not a country) therefor you have institutions like the Council whose members are decided by national elections per member state instead of EU wide elections. Hopefully in the not so distant future, members of the Council will be chosen from the European Parliament.

which presumably don't count

Just wanted to point out that by your logic, Janssen has scored 0 goals in his carreer. Why would you spend 28m on that?

I walk up and down stairs as often as I can. Usually because when I get to the top I'm not sure what I came up for.

Thanks Haf ??

Just wanted to point out that by your logic, Janssen has scored 0 goals in his carreer. Why would you spend 28m on that?

Arsenal finished tenth that season so those don't count.

I would have done till he did his achilles tendon in.
 
Anyone name me a footballer that never visibly deteriorated after rupturing one? Yet Liverpool spend 30m on him.
 
He will be a Joe average striker now. In the right set up where he is allowed to be a charlie austin, John hartson "cross it in" player he will still get goals. Very very good in the air and a very good finisher. But yes he will not be the player we seen at villa pre injury.

The dream would be simeone. If not him emery

To make America Britain great again!

A common market has been achieved for over 25 years. Ever since the goal has been integration in every domain where action taken by the EU would be more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level, resulting in an "ever closer union". A super-state isn't possible under EU constitutional law and isn't, nor was it ever, the end goal.
 
Some countries try to block this process towards an ever closer union (I singled out the UK, but there are others - Poland, Czech Republic, ..). Therefor the EU would prosper without these countries. I don't see how you can state "the pace will quicken though if we vote to remain"; quite to the contrary.
 
About this "EU elite"; do you mean the Commission? Or something more obscure, conspiracy-theorist-thing?
 
If you mean the Commission, I would agree that it's necessary to give legislative initiative to the European Parliament, instead of just the Commission but the Commission can't decide anything without the OK from the Parliament (direct democracy) and/or the member states (indirect democracy).
 
If you don't mean the Commission; who are these elite? Are they only in Europe or also in the UK? Can they be shifted in the UK? How will the Brexit affect these elite?
 
The democratic deficit in the EU doesn't exist in the sense that there is no direct or indirect link with people taking the decisions and people who voted for them.
The democratic deficit in relation to the EU means there is no European identity; noone identifies with the EU institutions because they don't know what they do and even though they take decisions that have an impact on every-day-life. One reason, the main reason even, for this is that everything that goes wrong in Britain is blamed on the EU, and everything that is a positive influence on peoples lives coming from the EU is claimed by national politicians.

My head hurts reading this thread.
 
Just to clarify: there is no EU president. There is a president of the European Council. The European Council is a group of heads of state who decide the general direction of the EU. These heads of state were ellected by their the citizens of their country.
 
There is one country at the forefront of keeping the EU undemocratic and that is the UK, by blocking further political integration. (again, this is why I hope Leave wins though I'm very much convinced it would be bad for the people in the UK; in an ideal world the UK would leave now, the EU would integrate further, and then the UK can re-apply in ten years or so).
 
-
 
 
It's most definitely fine to be against the EU, but none of the arguments that I've read here make any sense.
 
Reading this thread there is such a lack of understanding, people just don't know what the EU is; what it does; and how a strong EU can serve us (all Europeans) in the coming years.
 
With the lack of knowledge, and the misinformation through British media perhaps Mike said it best: can you vote for something being campaigned for by Johnson, Gove, Duncan-Smith and Farage?

That's like saying, "I married my wife thirty years ago and lots of brilliant things have happened to me since; got great kids and grand kids, sure we've had our ups and downs and the in-laws are a pain at times but overall life's been good. But what would have happened if I'd married someone else ? Would life be equally as good? Or even better maybe! I think I'll get a divorce to see what my other options are, sure that Asian lass in accounts has the hots for me!"