EU referendum: Leave Vote

[AskWazzup]

Well if globalization is not working, then UK is in a lot of trouble regardless if it leaves EU, because it is still a member of these International Organizations:

International organization participation: ADB (nonregional member), AfDB (nonregional member), Arctic Council (observer), Australia Group, BIS, C, CBSS (observer), CD, CDB, CE, CERN, EAPC, EBRD, EIB, EITI (implementing country), ESA, FAO, FATF, G-20, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC (national committees), ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IGAD (partners), IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC (NGOs), MIGA, MINUSMA, MONUSCO, NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS (observer), OECD, OPCW, OSCE, Pacific Alliance (observer), Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SELEC (observer), UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNISFA, UNMISS, UNRWA, UNSC (permanent), UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC.

Among which are World Trade and United Nations organizations. This means complying to fuck load of rules and regulations and investing a bunch of money too.

 

[peadar87]

EU parliament - Directly elected by the people of Europe
Council of ministers - Composed of elected representatives of the people of Europe
European commission- Composed of nominated representatives of the democratically elected governments of Europe
Council of Europe - Composed of ministers of democratically elected governments of Europe, relevant to the policy area currently under discussion.

How is this so "anti-democratic", compared to, say, the UK, with its completely unelected House of Lords, first-past-the-post voting system, and hereditary head of state?

 

[Throatpunch]

EU parliament - Directly elected by the people of Europe
Council of ministers - Composed of elected representatives of the people of Europe
European commission- Composed of nominated representatives of the democratically elected governments of Europe
Council of Europe - Composed of ministers of democratically elected governments of Europe, relevant to the policy area currently under discussion.

All of whom do absolutely nothing.
The EU President is more or less a figurehead, considering the shortness of terms and the rotation of the office among member states, the Parliament does almost nothing; and the unelected bureaucrats do all the heavy lifting in terms of setting policy, drafting and enforcement of regulations, etc.

International organization participation: ADB (nonregional member), AfDB (nonregional member), Arctic Council (observer), Australia Group, BIS, C, CBSS (observer), CD, CDB, CE, CERN, EAPC, EBRD, EIB, EITI (implementing country), ESA, FAO, FATF, G-20, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC (national committees), ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IGAD (partners), IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC (NGOs), MIGA, MINUSMA, MONUSCO, NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS (observer), OECD, OPCW, OSCE, Pacific Alliance (observer), Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SELEC (observer), UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNISFA, UNMISS, UNRWA, UNSC (permanent), UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC.

Dammit how many times must I reiterate that I am not anti global cooperation, just anti political and federal unions.
Its fine to be involved in international organisations, but the EU just had no advantages. We were paying over 100 million pounds sterling a week to be in an German dominated organisation that imposes unnecessary regulations and red tape and willingly lets in terrorists.

 

[peadar87]

All of whom do absolutely nothing.
The EU President is more or less a figurehead, considering the shortness of terms and the rotation of the office among member states, the Parliament does almost nothing; and the unelected bureaucrats do all the heavy lifting in terms of setting policy, drafting and enforcement of regulations, etc.

This is untrue. For one thing, every single EU directive has to pass through the parliament before it is ratified. How do you think the UK, or any other government, works? Do you think that all laws in the UK are written and implemented by the 650 members of parliament? Not at all. They are by and large written by civil servants working for government departments, and run through parliament for ratification.

 

[Crni Vuk]

There is not need for democracy in an intergovernmental military alliance. They dont need to vote on anything, its about defence of the member states and military collaboration. NATO Does not impose red tape and regulations, NATO does not defy referendums, NATO does not leech away people power gradually.
Also NATO is run by the Secretary General not the Pentagon.

If you think the US isn't the biggest player in the NATO, than you're pretty naive. With a defensive budged that is like what? Several times of the EU?

The reason why I favour the UN over the NATO is simply the fact that while it's not perfect, at least it's a lot more open and transparent compared to the NATO.

Its not a democracy at all. Holy shit I am fed up of you posting this kind of crap.
Also, dont go on about the fucking EU parliment. Its a gravy train and they vote on some really important issues. Like the size of tractor seats. Its the undemocratic presidents that are in charge. The EU-PARL is merely a facade.

Just like any other parliament. Explain to me how the democracy in the UK with it's system is so much better. I personaly find your two-party system encourages adversarial politics, and your political system as convoluted and complicated. Is the election of your prime minster so much better?


I do even agree that the EU needs reforms. But how do you posses more influence, on a personal level, over the UK government compared to the EU parliament? And where has the EU DIRECTLY infringed on your personal rights as a citizen of the UK and the EU?

But some consantly love it to call the EU a dictatorship, like as that would really mean anything ... crying for sovereignty, freedom and liberty. Yet. Have absolutely zero problems how little influence they have on their own government and politics and the flaws in their own political systems. But as long it's their own government or what ever, apapthy is alright I guess ... This is so bizarre. And I have a problem to follow this kind of thinking. Let us ignore the fact that many of the EU laws have also their ogrigin in the UK.

Here is a newsflash for you. Even if the EU would dissapear tomorrow you're not getting rid of ANY of those politics, dictatorship and sleezy politicians you hate so much. Nothing will change for you in the long run. With the exception that Nigel returns home ...

That was because Blair was Bush's bitch. We didn't need to go in Iraq at all, nor were we dragged along.

Right. Would you have gone to Iraq without the US? Seriously now ...

Dammit how many times must I reiterate that I am not anti global cooperation, just anti political and federal unions.
Its fine to be involved in international organisations, but the EU just had no advantages. We were paying over 100 million pounds sterling a week to be in an German dominated organisation that imposes unnecessary regulations and red tape and willingly lets in terrorists.

Right. You know it is funny that Anti-Eu people sing the exact same tune here. The EU is impossing laws on Germany! We are just paying for the rest of Europe! It's undemocratic! Germany is the walefare state of the poor nations and so on ... the same shit everywhere. It has become simply modern to blame the shitty decisions of your own governments on others. And a lot of politicans have done this for DECADES(!) ... But I guess it makes it easy. If something works well, it's the achievement of your nation. If it works bad? It's the EU. Easy peasy!

 

[AskWazzup]

Dammit how many times must I reiterate that I am not anti global cooperation, just anti political and federal unions. Its fine to be involved in international organisations, but the EU just had no advantages. We were paying over 100 million pounds sterling a week to be in an German dominated organisation that imposes unnecessary regulations and red tape and willingly lets in terrorists.

What do you mean by anti-political and federal?
Which regulations do you deem unnecessary?

 

[Throatpunch]

This is untrue. For one thing, every single EU directive has to pass through the parliament before it is ratified

The majority of whom enjoy the benefits of the EU gravy train. Skip to 1:17

If you think the US isn't the biggest player in the NATO, than you're pretty naive. With a defensive budged that is like what? Several times of the EU?

Never said it wasn't the biggest player, just that NATO isnt led by the Pentagon.

Just like any other parliament. Explain to me how the democracy in the UK with it's system is so much better. I personaly find your two-party system encourages adversarial politics, and your political system as convoluted and complicated. Is the election of your prime minster so much better?

The massive advantage of FPTP is majority governments. And whats wrong with adversarial politics?
I wont watch Thunderf00t.

What do you mean by anti-political and federal?

Sorry, meant antidemocratic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Europe

Would you have gone to Iraq without the US?

I wouldn't have gone at all.

Which regulations do you deem unnecessary?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/438191/Pointless-EU-laws-cost-each-British-household-1-000-per-year
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/100-most-expensive-eu-regulations/

 

[AskWazzup]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/438191/Pointless-EU-laws-cost-each-British-household-1-000-per-year
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/100-most-expensive-eu-regulations/

The last article says:

EU regulation can come with benefits, particularly if it helps facilitate trade across the single market. It would also be wrong to assume that, if the UK were to leave the EU, the costs described above would disappear overnight. The reality is that the UK would be likely to keep a good number of these laws in part or in full, such as rules on anti-discrimination, some health and safety rules, food safety standards, and so forth. At the same time, the UK would no longer benefit from many of the EU rules that give British business access to European markets – such as ‘passporting rules’ for financial firms.

The upper article also mentions slashing the "working time regulation". Well, those regulations are:

The Working Time Directive, 2003/88/EC, is a Directive of the European Union. It gives EU workers the right to a minimum number of holidays each year, rest breaks, and rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours; restricts excessive night work; a day off after a week's work; and provides for a right to work no more than 48 hours per week. It was issued as an update on earlier versions from 22 June 2000 and 23 November 1993.[1]Since excessive working time is cited as a major cause of stress, depression and illness, the stated purpose of the Directive is to protect people's health and safety.

Like all European Union directives, this is an instrument which requires member states to enact its provisions in national legislation. The directive applies to all member states however, it is possible to opt out of the '48-hour working week' and work longer hours, [2] but not the other requirements.

So this law protects common folk from being abused by their employers. Seems like a reasonable thing to nuke .

 

[Throatpunch]

The top five costliest EU-derived regulations in force in the UK:

1) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy – Recurring cost: £4.7bn a year
2) The CRD IV package – Recurring cost: £4.6bn a year
3) The Working Time Directive – Recurring cost: £4.2bn a year
4) The EU Climate and Energy Package – Recurring cost: £3.4bn a year
5) The Temporary Agency Workers Directive – Recurring cost: £2.1bn a year

reality is that the UK would be likely to keep a good number of these laws in part or in full,

We dont know how many EU rules and regs Britain will keep. Its up to the government. Its just my personal opinion that we should scrap most of them.
Also: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...cating-uk-economy-and-brexit-can-set-us-free/

The Working Time Directive, 2003/88/EC, is a Directive of the European Union. It gives EU workers the right to a minimum number of holidays each year, rest breaks, and rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours; restricts excessive night work; a day off after a week's work; and provides for a right to work no more than 48 hours per week. It was issued as an update on earlier versions from 22 June 2000 and 23 November 1993.[1]Since excessive working time is cited as a major cause of stress, depression and illness, the stated purpose of the Directive is to protect people's health and safety.

Like all European Union directives, this is an instrument which requires member states to enact its provisions in national legislation. The directive applies to all member states however, it is possible to opt out of the '48-hour working week' and work longer hours, [2] but not the other requirements.

So this law protects common folk from being abused by their employers. Seems like a reasonable thing to nuke .

Its not as if we cannot do this ourselves.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Its not as if we cannot do this ourselves.

Then why havn't you? What is stoping your government from doing all of those sovereign things ... how is the EU forcing you, for example, to keep your borders open?

 

[Throatpunch]

Then why havn't you?

Because we still have the EU work regulation, so there is no point yet. When Article 50 is activated and we formally leave, that will be when we make new laws.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Lots of ifs, isn't it? What if it turns out worse? Do you have a Plan B?

 

[Throatpunch]

Lots of ifs, isn't it? What if it turns out worse? Do you have a Plan B?

For what scenario?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Uh, for the case the Uk will do worse without the EU? Or is your magic ball working better than mine?

 

[Throatpunch]

Uh, for the case the Uk will do worse without the EU? Or is your magic ball working better than mine?

Worse how specifically? What could get worse?

 

[Crni Vuk]

No clue, ending up paying more beacuse the subsidizes are away, or because you end up with worse trading deals, less income due to closed borders or what do I know? I am not an economist or expert in those things. For example, a lot of british Scientists are already pretty worried, because they at least gained a lot from Europan support. And they are pretty certain, that the british government won't subsidize them.

All I am saying is, there is no garantue that things HAVE to become better. I don't own a fail proof cystal ball. Things could get better. Or they could get worse.
No one knows!

 

[AskWazzup]

We dont know how many EU rules and regs Britain will keep. Its up to the government. Its just my personal opinion that we should scrap most of them.

That was a quote from the article you posted.

Its not as if we cannot do this ourselves.

Well then it's pretty strange that you put this into the loss bracket, because if you propose the same laws, you will get the same "loss" of income, because not enough workers will get overworked. I'm starting to get a feeling that all these supposed loses are similar to the 350 million claim.

Now i don't really care if UK leaves (they practically did already and it's their choice), but it worries me that this populism where false claims and half truths are starting to spread all over Europe.

 

[Izak]

I honestly dont give a shit about some diseases in the third world. Those are minor issues.

That's the smallest-minded thing I have ever heard anyone say. Smallpox killed 300-500 million people before eradication, did you see the picture of it on the wikipedia article to? It doesn't look like a very nice way to go. I can tell you right now that Smallpox has killed more people than your imagined 2nd Cold War, but hey, you weren't ever at risk, so what does it matter to you?

No clue, ending up paying more because the subsidies are away, or because you end up with worse trading deals, less income due to closed borders or what do I know? I am not an economist or expert in those things. For example, a lot of british Scientists are already pretty worried, because they at least gained a lot from European support. And they are pretty certain, that the british government won't subsidize them.

To lump onto that, deportation of European workers and loss of EU dependent businesses.

 

[peadar87]

The majority of whom enjoy the benefits of the EU gravy train. Skip to 1:17

Otherwise known as "being paid to do your job". Is the UK parliament any different? It's only a few short years since the expenses scandal.

The massive advantage of FPTP is majority governments. And whats wrong with adversarial politics?

Majority governments with pretty much no accountability to the people, since all they have to do to get elected is be "less bad than the other guy".

Good explanation here:

If I was in the US, for example, the Democrats would have my vote, pretty much no matter what, because the alternative would be the Republicans. That's not representative. That's not how a country should be run.

 

[Throatpunch]

Otherwise known as "being paid to do your job". Is the UK parliament any different? It's only a few short years since the expenses scandal.

I mean, its just ridiculous; a godammed shopping mall and free viagra!
The thing is we actually sorted the MP's out after the expenses scandal.

Majority governments with pretty much no accountability to the people, since all they have to do to get elected is be "less bad than the other guy".

Good explanation here:

If I was in the US, for example, the Democrats would have my vote, pretty much no matter what, because the alternative would be the Republicans. That's not representative. That's not how a country should be run.

We are just gonna have to disagree on this one. Majority governments get shit done.

To lump onto that, deportation of European workers and loss of EU dependent businesses.

Probably not. Whether we deport EU workers depends on how we renegotiate, and as its been said before nothing is guaranteed.